"ALL CAPS IN DEFENSE OF LIBERTY IS NO VICE."

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

THE GIST OF LEFTIST IRRATIONALITY

SPENGLER, of the Asian Times, has penned a MUST READ ESSAY ON HOLLYWOOD.

In it, there's a MONEY QUOTE by TONY KUSHNER (homosexual, and Marxist, and playwright, and screenwriter of Spielberg's "morally relative/morally bankrupt" movie MUNICH) - which reveals the idiocy at the very core of Leftist illogic:
"The collapse of the Soviet system does not mean that capitalism has succeeded ... Socialism is simply the idea that people are better off if we work collectively and that the economic system we live in is made by people and therefore can be controlled intelligently rather than let loose."
Kushner - (like all good Marxist-Leninist-Trotskyist-Maoist-Castroist-PolPotist Arafatist-Mugabe-ist socialists/collectivists) - doesn't FEEL that free individuals "LET LOOSE" and freely making free choices in a free market can possibly be as efficient or produce as high a standard of living or as good a general welfare than an economy/market which is CENTRALLY CONTROLLED BY INTELLIGENT UTOPIANIST/BENEVOLENT INTELLECTUALS. As by "Politburos."

Too bad for Kushner - and his gang of well-intentioned, utopianist/socialist mass murderers - that Hayek and history have proven them all UTTERLY WRONG. No one proved it "mo' better" than Hayek and Deng Xiaoping.

Hayek DEMOLISHED the concept of collectivism and proved how and why socialism -- no matter how well-meaning - is THE ROAD TO SERFDOM, the road to impoverished servitude to the state.

Deng Xiaoping - by introducing FREE MARKETS to China in 1979 -- and TRANSFORMING CHINA FROM AN IMPOVERISHED AND STARVING NATION INTO AN ECONOMIC POWERHOUSE WHICH CAN EXPORT FOOD! - proved that collectivism and centrally directed marketplaces SUCK at production and distribution of goods and services. (More on Deng HERE.)

SIMPLY PUT: prosperity is a by-product of liberty! Free individuals --- free to read, write, make. buy, sell, and trade what they want --- CREATE AND PRODUCE MORE STUFF AT BETTER PRICES, creating more value and more propserity, than a society which is fettered by the state and less free. LITERALLY AND FIGURATIVELY: Socialism fails to deliver the goods (and services! YUP: socialism even sucks at delivering medical services! More HERE and HERE and HERE).

James Surowiecki wrote a book which ALSO explains why free markets are better then ones run by a relatively few benevolent experts. One example he gives (if I remember correctly) is the "GUESS THE WEIGHT" game at a carnival. The average of all guesses - by the crowd on no-nothings who just HAPPEN to walk by - is almost always closer to the actual weight than any single guess or guesses from any expert. THAT'S WHY SUROWIECKI CALLED HIS BOOK - LAUDING FREE MARKETS - THE WISDOM OF CROWDS!

Or look at it this way: if you put all the PC's and LAPTOPS in the world together in a ginormous parallel computer system it would be more powerful and "smarter" than any single super-computer. That's how and why FREE MARKETS in free, competitive economies - or economic systems which are "LET LOOSE" to borrow Kushner's phrase - are BETTER than centrally coordinated markets run by cliques of well-intentioned know-it-alls. And it's why socialism has ALWAYS failed to perform as well a free markets.

For otherwise smart folks, like Kushner, to persist in defending socialism reveals that they are in deep DEEP denial. (Maintaining this denial requires a huge amount of emotional energy and leads to many of the hatefully INSANE over-reactions the Left has recently displayed, especially over the last few years, LIKE: screaming "BusHitler" and "AshKKKroft," and openly admitting they're more afraid of Christian fundamentalists (like George W. Bush) than of jihadoterrorists; (MORE HERE).

[ASIDE: A few Christian fundamentalists - like Jimmy Carter and the late great Dr. M.L. King Jr. - don't worry the Left one bit. I WONDER WHY?! It's because King was Black an the Left accepts the "Christianess" of Blacks; in fact, Leftist politicians often give speeches in Black churches. (This a a bit racist and patronizing, I think. Especially when you see politicians like Gore changing their speech cadences to sound more like Black preachers! SHEESH!) Carter gets a break because he's a fellow multiculturalist moonbat!]

BUT... no matter how loudly Leftists holler, or how many nasty placards they carry or anti-American/anti-Christian/anti-tarditional movies they make, it will not change reality: socialism simply sucks. YUP: Socialism is so LAST CENTURY.

I know how difficult it is for Leftists to accept that their worldview is based on a fraudualent ideology. I know because I was raised by hardcore/card-carrying Leftists, and for nearly half of my adult life I was a Leftist, too. And most of my NY friends are still Left-of-center. That's why I know that it's VERY difficult for Leftists to accept that they've bee so so so SO wrong all these years; that a CROWD/a free market - can be more efficient than a group of benevolent geniuses.

As recently as 1993, socialism/collectivism/nationalization was STILL at the very center of Democrat White House; socialism is what defined HillaryCare effort: all smart-benevolent Hillary had to do was to get together with a few other smart-benevolent folks (who were experts in healthcare) and they could design a better heathcare system. And imposing something good is okay.

Well, if you believe that, then you probably believe that the USSR made a better car, and a better air conditoner, and a better washing machine, and had a better health system, and a better ecology, and a better system for financing new ventures, and a better publishing/media industry than The West. Which simply wasn't the case! Nothing they produced came close to the quality and value of similar things in the capitalist West. Nothing.

You'd think that Leftists would have learned that by now - but DENIAL is a very powerful psychological force, and it has enabled Leftists to deny reality, to deny that socialism sucks.

HERE'S A RECENT EXAMPLE: Many Leftists learned a faulty lesson from the HilaryCare debacle. They think that all that she did wrong was try to get it all passed through Congress at once. So now, they want INCREMENTAL socialism, as if that were really better. Sheesh - these folks are still deluding themselves!

They delude themselves and deny that the ONLY reason the West is so good at producing wealth and creating prosperity is because we are free. And they deny that Deng Hsiaoping proved that even HUGE states - STATES COMPLETELY ALIEN TO THE CAPITALIST WEST - states based on Confucianary Asian culture, LIKE CHINA, can increase their prosperity AS SOON AS THEY BECOME FREE. (Too bad for the Chinese people that their tyrants don't extend this ECONOMIC freedom to the social and cultural realm. THEIR LOSS!) India is equally instructive. As is Ireland and Eastern Europe. (The Rhodesia/Zimbawe devolution - from free markets to socialism - proves it, too.)

So, you Leftists out there - like Kushner: quit with the ol' denial routine, and GET WITH IT! Let go of your visceral connection to this vestigial ideology and join the 21st century! We'll be even mo' better at spreading liberty, creativity and prosperity when you do!

[ASIDE: the HYPERLINK for Kushner (above) takes you to an interview he did with SALON a while back; here's the money quote from that interview:
"A Republican president with a Republican Congress will destroy this country. These people are insane."
OH NO, TONY, you're EXACTLY wrong. People who still admire socialism and feel that Republicans will destroy America are INSANE! Besides, if you don't want the GOP to have control of all 3 branches of the federal government, then why not JUST WIN AN ELECTION NOW AND THEN!? That's how these things are determined in a democracy.

HMMM: Could the Left's disenchantment with democracy (here
and in Iraq) be related to their failure to win elections!? Hmmm... I think it is...]

6 comments:

Pastorius said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Pastorius said...

Prosperit is a result of liberty. Yes, I agree. However, Hayek, in The Road To Serfdom, does say that we haven't learned all their is of how to run an efficient Capitalist economy. He said that not only do we have to avoid those who would endlessly socialize the economy, but we have to understand that changes will be needed along the road.

What do you think he had in mind?

Reliapundit said...

things change; ya gotta adapt; try to make sure that liberty is not constrained.

also: hayek knew that much of the so-called free economies - even in the usa - were already nationalized/socialist. and that we have a lot to do to reduce that.

electing collectivists (the Dem/Left) won't accomplish this; it will reverse the trend.

Pastorius said...

Agreed. But, I believe he was also indicating an opposition to monopoly, and other unforseen natural occurrences of the free market. Don't you think? It's been awhile since I have read Hayek, and you seem to know him well, so I thought I'd ask.

I read Hayek on my own. They didn't teach him in the Philosophy dept. when I got my degree. They only taught Wittgenstein and Chomsky.

Surprised?

Reliapundit said...

to be hayekian and for "fere markets" is NOT to be against all regulation.


some regulation is necessary.laws and rukles for everyone are necessary.
being a hayekian and supporting free markets is not to be confused with anarchism.

also, keep in mind that nearly all monpolies NEED the state in order to survive.

remember: the phone monoploy? it was protected by the state. it was brought dwon in the name of compettiton which would benefit consumers.

what the left seesm to ignore/deny is that people are consumers, not just workers.

and therefore, when you enact polcies which help consumers you are helping "the prole'".

take textile/apparel trade with china: it hurt 1 million Americans in that industry here. and helped 300 million concumers of apparel.

in that context, it's a good deal, and that illustrates why expanding trade imporves the standards of living for more people tha protectionism.

mompolies must all be "protected."

hayek didn;t want the state to do those things, but having rules and oversight to make sure markets are fair and transparent is a PERFECT rtole for government.

Anonymous said...

I would go a step further, and posit that a real monopoly CANNOT EXIST in truly laissez-faire, free market economy. The coercion of the state is absolutely essential to maintaining a monopoly.