Tuesday, April 15, 2014

The Unrelenting Ego of Leftists

Permit me to cite four stories/examples.

First, R22.

If you didn't know what R22 is, it's a refrigerant that is used in airconditioning units.  It's been banned by the EPA and the EU because it "harms the ozone layer."  Its replacement is much more costly and has resulted in some entities (smaller sports arenas namely) having to shut down or go without airconditioning.

Second, azodicarbonamide.

You may remember this more as the "yoga mat chemical" that was used to make Subway bread chewier.  It wasn't until a "food blogger" Vani Hari went on her little crusade and "exposed" Subway for using this chemical did most of anybody care.

Third, earplugs.

Not that there's anything interesting or newsworthy of earplugs unto themselves, but when a city councilman like Jacob Frey wants to force music establishments in Minneapolis to provide their patrons with earplugs and considers such an idea "good government" you can see why such an idiotic idea and man might make the news.

Finally, the cancer-ridden woman in Rapid City.

Some of you may know the story, but the short version was this 60 something woman who obviously had gone through chemo (she had no hair) was talking with her friends about how they stopped the Keystone pipeline at a cigar lounge I like to attend.  They were patting themselves on the back and then said, "ONTO STOP THE BAKKEN!"  When I got up to leave she thought I was her friend and asked for a hug "goodbye."  I then ripped into her about how she was scum, the reason the country and my generation had no hope, and that her little crusade was just to feed her ego and she didn't give a damn about the environment.  I may have said something about her not living long enough to see the Bakken shut down. 

So what do all four of these anecdotes/stories have in common?

They all highlight what is arguably the most dangerous aspect of leftists and socialists:

They won't stop.

Understand that there is a theoretical "optimal" amount of legislation.  Too little legislation and there's bound to be a lot of crime.  Too much legislation and you cripple and choke off your private sector.  But leftists don't care about this because to them MORE legislation is ALWAYS better.  It makes up for the fact they really don't have good ideas of governance, they have no game plan, and they make for miserable statesmen.  I termed this "disease" or phenomenon "Chronic Regulation Addiction" or CRA.

The problem for leftists and politicians in general suffering from CRA is that they fail to realize that there's nothing wrong with doing NOTHING.  That maybe over the past 250 years an adequate amount of laws and regulations were already passed and this body of legislation needs only mere and occasional tweaking.  No they "must do something" and so they're always on the hunt, always on a crusade to right and imaginary or made-up wrong. 

The problem this presents for society, however, is that as the laws become progressively petty they also become progressively invasive.  Admitted Nazi, Hater of Humanity, and All-Around Douchebag Extra-Ordinaire, Michael Bloomberg is the perfect example of this.  So complete was the legal system of NYC he had nothing better to do than to tell people how much soda they were going to drink.  And Jacob Frey, though not in the same league as Bloomberg, is doing his best to make people's hearing health the responsibility of the city government.  You take these two and multiply them by the tens of thousands of bureaucrats, politicians, and other participants that populate and lead our legal and regulatory agencies and you can see the threat to personal freedoms CRA infected leftists presents.

Perhaps, however, if we find out what drives leftists and socialists to constantly push for more as opposed to less regulation we can stop the perpetual encroachment upon our personal freedoms? And while that may sound great, unfortunately it's impossible, for what is truly driving leftists and socialist is ultimately their lack of any worth as a human being.

Though not a 100% correlation, if you look at the majority of leftist (and rightist) politicians, crusaders, "activists" and other people suffering from CRA their lives usually have no purpose, no core, and no meaning. 

They rarely work real jobs.
They rarely tried hard in life choosing the path of least resistance.
They produce nothing of genuine economic value.
And usually hail from academia, law, government, non-profit and 9 out of 10 times have a worthless liberal arts degree.

Because of this they need something to fill the void and give them some kind of "faux" point or purpose in life, but nothing that would require rigor or hard work.  And thus they not only champion leftist causes (because "other people's money" is a popular and easy platform to run on), but constantly hunt down those progressively smaller morsels of "societal ills" that "demand action be taken to solve!"  But worse, it's nearly impossible for them to ever stop feeding their egos with never-ending "do-gooderism" because in order for them to stop at the "optimal level of law" they would be forced to look in the mirror and accept two things:

1.  They are in fact worthless people and their lives not only meaningless, but damaging to society
2.  They would have to get real jobs

And that the ego of a leftist cannot abide.

Ergo, the ego of leftists is never ending.  It will not stop.  It will not relent.  And it will run-ramshod over your personal freedoms as long as it feeds its host.  Because after all, it's more important that politicians and bureaucrats make up new laws and regulations to feel good about their worthless-selves than you have the right to drive the car you want, eat what you want, and do what you want in this country.

Enjoy the decline!


FashionMouse said...

When asked Pope Francis simply says he is a sinner; the proof of your observations,dear Captain,lies in the fact that a true leftist would never say this.

Kristophr said...

There is an alternative to doing nothing for politicians.

The Whig Party, in Britain, gave themselves an unshakable lock on Parliament simply by undoing one freedom-limiting medieval law at a time.

By the time they were done, and the socialist retards started to take over, Victorian England was one of the most free societies on the face of the earth.

Merlin said...

If 9 out of 10 times they have a worthless liberal arts degree, then we need to outlaw liberal arts degrees, and we'll eliminate 90% of them, right? /sarcasm

Ofay Cat said...

Wow, that was an excellent piece. Captain, your writing skills have become top shelf.

Always loved what you had to say ... the writing is a bonus.

Well done.

But what can be done about these 'won't ever stop' leftists? Are we to let then destroy us with minutia and stupidity? They appear to be on a roll at a time when can afford it the least and when people are the most polarized angry and afraid.

Get a bigger TV ... That's all I got.

Kristophr said...


Outlaw indenture-making Guaranteed Student Loans for liberal arts degrees.

In fact, if you cannot float a private loan for ANY degree, then maybe you shouldn't borrow to do that?

If you want a degree in something that won't pay for itself, you should do it on your own dime.

Faithless Cynic said...

Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.

Robert Heinlein

Mark Mitchell said...

On the azodicarbonamide, I like my bread made with flour, yeast, butter, salt, and nothing else. Unless its schiachiatta, obviously. Like I like my beer brewed under Rheinheitsgebot. Unless it's Guinness. But then I wouldn't buy Subway anyway as I don't patronise franchise establishments.
Damn. Now I'm hungry.

Glen Filthie said...

Wbat really fucks me off about these people is that there ARE causes where they could help and actually do some real good. Do volunteer work at the local food bank, volunteer to do work with the boys and girls clubs or cub scouts, coach a hockey or soccer team, help out with charity work...but these morons would rather pick up placards and signs and sing and chant at 'protests'.

Kate at SDA says it best: Not showing up to riot is a failed conservative policy.

And - may I second Ofay? Your writing quality is going up. You need to polish your public speaking skills a bit and you will be able to start hassling Rush and Beck! That hit piece on Frank Lloyd Wright or whoever that architect was - was awesome. After watching that I had to go to the hospital for laughing cramps and toxic snark poisoning. Keep it up!

heresolong said...

Actually if one were to eliminate all laws one would have zero crime. You might have immoral behavior, but it wouldn't be crime. if you haven't yet, read about "hidden law". This was the informal moral code by which societies put pressure on their members to not "overtly" engage in behavior considered immoral. No legislature needed for the most part. It's why your pornography was kept under your mattress (you know your mom knew it was there, right?) and the openly adulterous were shunned because they weren't looking after their families.

Pat Riarchy said...

The current student loan system needs to remain firmly in place, so that more leftists can become enslaved for life with student loan debt by the very masters they love to worship.

Ollie said...

I don't know if you've come across this yet Cappy, but it is fan-tas-tic news:


Don T Read said...

Go Galt, and let them reap what they've sown. That's the only way they will stop, when the full weight of consequences for their own actions is brought upon them.

Dreamer said...

Captain, I have to ask from 2 of the 4 examples. It's rather hard to use them as examples for liberals going too far when the rebuttal is "do you want to eat azodicarbonamide and see the ozone layer depleted?" If it is "no", it tends to justify for some kind of intervention stop its usage in at least some form - legislatively or popular demand.

The Keystone can be debated in the same form, but at least I can see direct rebuttals or counter-argue by listing pros. Not so much for arguing R2 making a hole in the ozone. Same goes to azodicarbonamide (though I see possible argument it just sounds scary but really just harmless - though then it become an argument of proof).

What do you counter-argue ozone/azodicarbonamide danger? IE just say its fake/nothing-to-fear/something? Or view it is a danger, but market forces have to fix it? Or something else?

JimboSlice said...

Dreamer, regarding R12/R132a, there was not compelling evidence that R12 caused holes in the ozone layer and that R132a didn't. I huge cost was imposed on all of us to retool for "safer" refrigeration/cooling and there was no evidence to suggest that the huge cost would lead to any environmental benefit.