Gay Patriot Header Image

On economic liberty & social liberals’ anti-Republican narrative

Last week, our reader Chris H offered a comment which goes to the heart of the Republican dilemma among gays — and social liberals, particularly those who live in what current Breitbart blogger John Nolte dubbed the “blue islands” which dot our nation’s increasingly “red” landscape:

I had an interesting experience this weekend. I was at a BBQ this and one of my friends was complaining about how he is having to pay rent on a place where he’s trying to start a new business. However, he’s stuck in red tape hell because the city of West Hollywood, the Health Department and Alcoholic Beverage Control can’t agree on what to classify his business as. So.. he waits and waits. He said he could be out 45k before he even opens his doors.

This is the same friend that outwardly expresses disgust at Republicans and Conservatives.

I reminded him it’s not Republicans and Conservatives that support these kinds of crazy regulations.

He sheepishly had to concede.

My gay friends sure hate those Republicans“, Chris offered in the thread following another post, “but when I discuss Liberterian/Republican concepts with out identifying them as ‘Republican’ I generally get agreement.”

Last year, I endorsed Mito Aviles for West Hollywood City Council even though that Democrat (who had hanged Sarah Palin in effigy) because he was aghast at the burdens local regulation placed on small business.

If these folks could get over their animus against Republicans, voting based on the parties’ relative stands on economic liberty rather than on the politically correct notions of partisan ideology, we’d see a surge in support that could make the 2012 election for the GOP what 1932 was for the Democrats.

More on this anon.

Share

40 Comments

  1. Hating Republicans is something that is engrained in leftist Democrat culture and is almost always a knee-jerk reaction. It’s not necessarily because of what Republicans believe – it’s because of what they THINK Republicans believe.

    However, I’m seeing some opportunity to make in roads in the gay community – especially the younger ones.

    The draconian West Hollywood smoking ban was a perfect example. One of my “recoil in horror when he hears Republican” friends became a HUGE Scott Schmidt (R) supporter based on that issue. It was a really good teaching moment to educate my 23 year old friend about:

    1. Freedom – both of the smoker to smoke and the business owner to decide whether or not to allow it

    2. Unreasonable regulation – The reasonable compromise of limiting smoking to outdoors was overtaken by a blanket ban.

    3. Taxation – Most of cost of a pack of cigarettes is in taxes – and what do you get out of it? Then, when smoking goes down, they’ll keep jacking up the tax to get more money out of you.

    4. Nanny statism – You’re an adult, but the government thinks you’re too stupid, so you’re still being treated like a child in what is supposed to be an adult environment.

    My entrepreneur friend that inspired this post is also getting a good education in a lot of these same topics with his business venture.

    The best technique is to get them to agree on the concepts and then once that happens – then you can point out the differences between Democrats and Republicans.

    This brings to mind my thoughts on election night 2008. I had crashed a Democrat party (my buddy was a DJ at the restaraunt / nightclub where it was hosted.) Sitting in the booth, I watched these 20 and 30 somethings get so excited and jubilant and thought to myself, “They’re happy but they don’t realize they just elected Jimmy Carter 2… they’ll learn their lesson soon enough.”

    Comment by Chris H — May 31, 2012 @ 9:24 pm - May 31, 2012

  2. What is the appeal of living in West Hollywood?

    Comment by Rattlesnake — May 31, 2012 @ 11:09 pm - May 31, 2012

  3. It’s taking “us” (GLB people in general) a long time to overcome the heritage of the 1970s, the post-Stonewall era.

    At that time, the movement for gay equality (which pre-dated Stonewall) was taken over by the left wing. They organized “Gay Liberation” along the same left-wing lines as Women’s Lib, national liberation fronts (e.g. for Vietnam, meaning communist North Vietnam), etc.

    What had been a movement for formal equality before the law – e.g., an end to sodomy laws so that gays could live in privacy as peaceful citizens – they recast as a movement for sexual liberation; a movement which would weave promiscuity into the Gay Identity, putting a promiscuous type of homosexuality into the public square as the cultural equal (if not the superior) of traditional mores.

    In the 80s and 90s, AIDS put a dent in that culture (in part by tragically killing off many of its leading practitioners), but much of it is still with us.

    My point is that this indulge-yourself, Gay Left culture is a big part of how many GLB people think and feel about being GLB, even today. And its captives feel threatened by any philosophy, candidate, political party, or religion which smacks of self-discipline and self-restraint.

    That’s what we’re up against. Lots of GLB people know, or can be forced to admit, that individual responsibility is a better and more workable philosophy than Big Government, nanny statism, etc. But they feel emotionally threatened, since a philosophy of individual responsibility imples right wing-ish sounding discipline, restraint of self through that icky “morality” thing, etc.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 31, 2012 @ 11:27 pm - May 31, 2012

  4. And today we got to witness how No Labels Moderate Icon Mike Bloomberg feels about economic freedom.

    Comment by V the K — May 31, 2012 @ 11:48 pm - May 31, 2012

  5. Evil can be defeated by naming it accurately. That’s why it hates to be named accurately.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 1, 2012 @ 12:03 am - June 1, 2012

  6. What is the appeal of living in West Hollywood?

    In addition to it having a large gay population and having the major gay village in Southern California, it is one of the nicer parts of the metro Los Angeles area and is centrally located for people in the entertainment business – close to Santa Monica, West LA, Beverly Hills and the SF Valley.

    It’s a small city (1.9 sq miles) that is an island in the middle city of Los Angeles, but not part of it. Pretty much everything is within walking distance and it’s generally a well kept and safe city.

    It used to be a railroad town but became more of an entertainment mecca in the 1920s when several nightclubs and casinos opened up to escape the far more stringent Los Angeles police. The gays came in the 60s and 70s, also to escape the infamous LAPD.

    The funny thing is that it was West Hollywood’s original libertarian approach is what made it so successful. The city is home to high end hotels, restaraunts, shopping and nightclubs that bring in BIG tax revenue.

    As the area gentrified and became more popular, elderly residents started complaining they were bring priced out of their apartments. So, the leftward march began.

    West Hollywood became a city in 1984 in order to enact rent control. Throughout the last few decades, it’s become increasingly more authoritarian and controlling of citizens under the guise of doing good. Adding to the problem is that the city council is full of people that have been there for 20+ years that love their power and bureaucracies.

    The story that inspired this post is a pretty good example of what this mentality is doing to the city. Up and down Sunset, Santa Monica and Melrose there is plenty of empty commercial real estate – like the space my friend is TRYING to occupy.

    How many people want to open businesses but are giving up or not even bothering in the city? I can tell you I would NEVER attempt to open a business here.

    For now it’s a nice place to live if you can ignore some of the nuttiness that goes on. How long will that last with a declining tax base and bad business climate is hard to say.

    Comment by Chris H — June 1, 2012 @ 12:22 am - June 1, 2012

  7. “My point is that this indulge-yourself, Gay Left culture is a big part of how many GLB people think and feel about being GLB, even today. And its captives feel threatened by any philosophy, candidate, political party, or religion which smacks of self-discipline and self-restraint.

    That’s what we’re up against. Lots of GLB people know, or can be forced to admit, that individual responsibility is a better and more workable philosophy than Big Government, nanny statism, etc. But they feel emotionally threatened, since a philosophy of individual responsibility imples right wing-ish sounding discipline, restraint of self through that icky “morality” thing, etc.”

    The funny thing is your absolute right.

    In general, I do believe that taxes on Small and Medium business are too high. Even more so in California.

    With the exception of most environmental protection regulations, I think most should be slashed, as they are harming business creation.

    S.S. Medicaid need to be reformed, drastically. A starting point would be to raise the retirement age those of us under 25 shouldn’t be able to retire and collect SS until were 75.

    I am in almost full agreement with Bill Kristol in regards to F.P.
    (If you don’t think I really hold these views I really don’t care)

    But…

    I will never vote for a Republican, as long as the attitudes in your post remain prevalent. I will NEVER submit to what you call morality! Never! NEVER! If given the option between two hells, I would rather choose the hell in which I am taxed at 100%, have no property rights, with open borders, then live in the hell in which I was forced to submit to your morality.

    I know you and NDT and livewire, would like noting more then to give this to me, so save the sarcastic replies, but I would rather be executed in your Christian Conservative Taliban fashion then submit to your morality.

    What I do in the public arena is and should be restricted by norms that encourage transitions of trade, ideals, education, and property. The government should enforce these norms as encouraging trade, knowledge, and property rights are necessary for a function society.

    What I do in my private life, with consenting adults is none of your or the gov’t business. You and the gov’t should have no right to tell me how I need to restrain myself, that I shouldn’t indulge myself, or that I should be self-disciplined. Government should have no right to tell me what set or morality I should live by.

    Your comment, smacks of the same totalitarian ideals found in the far left and of Islamic Fundamentalist. I can’t stress this enough, but I would rather lose everything I own, everythingI have worked for be taken away, then be forced to live by someone else’s morality.

    So yes I do feel emotionally threatened. Because my liberty is threatened, when you suggest I should or need to live by your or anyone else’s set of standards for morality, discipline, and restraint of self.

    Comment by JPerry2006 — June 1, 2012 @ 2:24 am - June 1, 2012

  8. JPerry2006:

    What I do in my private life, with consenting adults is none of your or the gov’t business. You and the gov’t should have no right to tell me how I need to restrain myself, that I shouldn’t indulge myself, or that I should be self-disciplined. Government should have no right to tell me what set or morality I should live by.

    You’re right, the government shouldn’t. However, you shouldn’t expect the government to come in and take care of you and save you from your decisions. So when women want to go out and have unprotected sex and end up pregnant, they need to either pay for their own abortion or support their own kids.

    See how this works? You can live the way you want as long as you also suffer the consequences. If people were forced to suffer the consequences of their actions, they would naturally restrain themselves from risky behavior.

    It seems the left thinks that the only “liberty” people should have is to be able to engage in whatever sexual activity they want and it’s OK for government to come and save the person and pay for their care.

    However, the left DOESN’T think that way about anything else. Ban smoking, ban sugary sodas, send out the food police – after all it’s costing us healthcare money. Ban light bulbs and plastic bags because it’s destroying the environment. In the leftist world, those are all morally wrong.

    Why should the government pay for HIV medication for someone who had dangerous bareback sex and not pay for diabetes treatment for someone who drank too much soda?

    See, it’s not morality that bothers you. It’s just morality that you don’t believe in that bothers you.

    The government should have no say in either of those people’s behavior and at the same time should not pay for the results of either of those people’s behavior.

    Comment by Chris H — June 1, 2012 @ 2:56 am - June 1, 2012

  9. I would rather lose everything I own, everythingI have worked for be taken away, then be forced to live by someone else’s morality.

    In other words, Perry is another lib who doesn’t care how totalitarian the Government is outside the bedroom so long as he can do whatever he wants inside of it without judgment or consequences; and ideally, the Government should punish anyone who expresses any disapproval with what goes on in there.

    This is the Faustian bargain of the left.

    Comment by V the K — June 1, 2012 @ 6:10 am - June 1, 2012

  10. Also, the notion that the right is going to create anything akin to the Saudi Morality Police is just a bogeyman designed to keep dumb, paranoid lefties on the reservation, anyway. Sure, there are a few at the extreme fringe of the social right who might favor something like this, but most social conservatives don’t want the Government to police anyone’s bedroom activity. They do want the free speech right to express disapproval of it. They don’t want the Government to promote it or subsidize it (e.g. by proselytizing a pro-sex message in the public schools) They don’t marriage redefined to include it.

    The number of people on the right who want to regulate what goes on in the bedroom is much, much smaller than the number of people on the left who want to abolish private property, redistribute wealth, and impose Draconian laws to limit speech and consumer behavior they disapprove of.

    Comment by V the K — June 1, 2012 @ 6:28 am - June 1, 2012

  11. <blockquoteI will never vote for a Republican, as long as the attitudes in your post remain prevalent. I will NEVER submit to what you call morality! Never! NEVER!JPerry you have **NO IDEA** “what I call morality. NONE.

    Your comment illustrates my point: all I had to do was MENTION the words “morality” and “self-restraint”, and you flew into conniptions. Allow me to enlighten you.

    0) I am not a so-con.
    1) I am not a Republican.
    2) With freedom, goes responsibility.
    3) I would agree with you that responsibility and morality are NOT to be imposed by government, except in the form of criminal law which protects individuals’ rights to life, liberty and property.
    4) What I want is the smallest government possible. A government that does nothing except impartially enforce criminal law for the protection of individual rights to life, liberty and property. A government that STAYS OUT OF THE BEDROOM, if you will.

    See? My point. A philosophy of freedom, is logically one of personal responsibility; which in turn implies (or is going to smack of) personal morality and personal self-restraint at some point, rather than hedonism. Because hedonism, or the abuse of freedom, is ultimately anti-freedom. But I ain’t talking about government imposing morality, AT ALL. You are so easily threatened, that all I have to do is mention the words and you treat us to Le Grand Freaque. Nuts.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 1, 2012 @ 10:28 am - June 1, 2012

  12. Sorry for formatting mistake… try again:

    I will never vote for a Republican, as long as the attitudes in your post remain prevalent. I will NEVER submit to what you call morality! Never! NEVER!

    JPerry you have **NO IDEA** “what I call morality.” NONE.

    Your comment illustrates my point: all I had to do was MENTION the words “morality” and “self-restraint”, and you flew into conniptions. Allow me to enlighten you.

    0) I am not a so-con.
    1) I am not a Republican.
    2) With freedom, goes responsibility.
    3) I would agree with you that responsibility and morality are NOT to be imposed by government, except in the form of criminal law which protects individuals’ rights to life, liberty and property.
    4) What I want is the smallest government possible. A government that does nothing except impartially enforce criminal law for the protection of individual rights to life, liberty and property. A government that STAYS OUT OF THE BEDROOM, if you will.

    See? My point. A philosophy of freedom, is logically one of personal responsibility; which in turn implies (or is going to smack of) personal morality and personal self-restraint at some point, rather than hedonism. Because hedonism, or the abuse of freedom, is ultimately anti-freedom. But I ain’t talking about government imposing morality, AT ALL. You are so easily threatened, that all I have to do is mention the words and you treat us to Le Grand Freaque. Nuts.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 1, 2012 @ 10:29 am - June 1, 2012

  13. JPerry2006, what on earth are you talking about? Excellent response to JPerry2006’s comment, Chris H.

    Chris H @ #6, I still don’t see the appeal… but I guess it’s just a matter of personal preference.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — June 1, 2012 @ 10:40 am - June 1, 2012

  14. Is it really fair to compare conservatives’ positions on policies like gay marriage and abortion to liberals’ positions on policies about the environment and the economy? Who is more unjustly trodden upon; the gay couple that can’t get married or the random conservative bellyacher who can’t buy a certain kind of light bulb anymore?

    The motivation for liberal policies at least has an eye toward improving things for people. Say what you want about soda and light bulb bans, at least these are ideas put forward in response to the health and energy problems that are crippling our economy. Conservatives are anti-intellectuals above all else, and they don’t like being told that certain features of the American way of life are unsustainable, so we have to endure all this pedantic whining about freedom and these stupid speeches about personal responsibility. Conservatives hate government because they want to live in a fantasy world where resources are unlimited and we can all be as wasteful and decadent as we please, and every once in awhile some smartypants government worker wants to dump water on that delusion and it makes them feel stupid.

    But boy, let a conservative find out about some dude on the other side of the country they’ll never know or interact with that wants to marry some other dude, and who do they scream for to get involved? Why, the government of course. And what’s the justification? Do conservatives oppose gay marriage because it helps society or solves problems? Of course not. They just want their backwards religious tenets enforced, and by God, that’s what this government is for, isn’t it? The role of government is to protect our liberty by telling gay people that they can’t get married! Conservatives also call upon the government to force women to have babies they don’t want.

    In summation – conservatives are more suspicious of climate change scientists than they are theocrats who want to impose their religion on the wider population. Conservatives are obsessed with strangers’ private sex lives and want the government to be intimately involved in this area, but they draw the line at the government mandating certain kinds of light bulbs. This is a brilliant, coherent ideology you people subscribe to.

    Comment by Levi — June 1, 2012 @ 11:31 am - June 1, 2012

  15. Ah look, our resident woman hater is back.

    So Levi think’s it find to tell you what to eat, to tell you to buy toxic lightbulbs to fight a non-existant threat, to intrude in every aspect of your life.

    Now hush Levi, the adults are talking.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 1, 2012 @ 12:06 pm - June 1, 2012

  16. Actually, Livewire, it’s easy to refute Levi with facts and show what a lying hypocrite he is.

    Levi screams and cries and whines that the government needs to regulate and ban activities that increase healthcare costs.

    So let’s look at the facts about gay sex.

    The rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), presented at the 2010 National STD Prevention Conference in Atlanta.

    In addition, the rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women.

    The effect is particularly bad for children and teens.

    HIV prevalence stood at 10.5% among 1889 young men who have sex with men (MSM) studied by the CDC in 21 US cities — a rate twice higher than that among adults across sub-Saharan Africa.

    And this creates an enormous annual cost.

    Averaging over all CD4 strata, the mean annual total expenditures per person for HIV care in 2006 in three sites was US $19 912, with an interquartile range from US $11 045 to 22 626.

    And the burden disproportionately falls on minorities, especially black Americans.

    Note that every single one of those citations comes from a scientific source/study.

    So when you look at this, Levi’s unscientific and ideology-based promotion of promiscuity and bareback sex as pushed by the Obama Party sickens, disables, and kills children and teens, particularly hurts ethnic minorities, and costs billions upon billions of dollars annually in increased health care costs.

    In short, Levi is a lying hypocrite who projects onto others his own theocratic desires to rule the lives of others.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 1, 2012 @ 1:47 pm - June 1, 2012

  17. Levi’s unscientific and ideology-based promotion of promiscuity and bareback sex

    Let me get this straight; by supporting gay marriage, I am the one promoting promiscuity? How does that work?

    Comment by Levi — June 1, 2012 @ 2:25 pm - June 1, 2012

  18. Since when are gay marriage and promiscuity mutually exclusive.

    Comment by V the K — June 1, 2012 @ 4:56 pm - June 1, 2012

  19. Conservatives are anti-intellectuals above all else, and they don’t like being told that certain features of the American way of life are unsustainable

    Apparently the irony of that statement is lost on Levi. Or is he going to claim that entitlements are not going to bankrupt and that the feature of the “American way of life” that involves people not working, not paying taxes, and living off government welfare is not unsustainable? How’s that for anti-intellectualism?

    Conservatives hate government because they want to live in a fantasy world

    Apparently the irony of that statement is also lost on Levi. Liberals and progressives live in a fantasy world where the only incentive people need to work is to serve society, and where the government can fund all kinds of things without there being any problems (like creating a culture of dependency, or keeping such a system efficient without any competition, or by creating a negative feedback cycle in which the government has an interest in micromanaging people’s lives to cut costs in healthcare (among other things), so they create more inefficient bureaucracies to do the micromanaging, which causes the cost to balloon). Liberals must not understand math.

    Conservatives also call upon the government to force women to have babies they don’t want.

    Yes, because the woman’s right to not have a baby that was created by her irresponsible behaviour is more important than that baby’s right to live. My god.

    Conservatives are obsessed with strangers’ private sex lives

    Maybe a tiny, fringe minority of “conservatives” are. Most don’t give a crap.

    This is a brilliant, coherent ideology you people subscribe to

    Yes, it is. And you might realize that if you actually understood it as exists in reality and not how it exists in Rachel Maddow’s mind.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — June 1, 2012 @ 5:37 pm - June 1, 2012

  20. Or is he going to claim that entitlements are not going to bankrupt

    That should be not going bankrupt.

    nd you might realize that if you actually understood it as exists

    And that should be understood it as it exists.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — June 1, 2012 @ 5:42 pm - June 1, 2012

  21. Silly Levi. Aren’t you the one screaming about how heterosexual married couples are all promiscuous and cheat on their spouses as an excuse for why there should be gay-sex marriage?

    And aren’t you the one who endorses Dan Savage, who says that monogamy is “hurtful” and that married heterosexuals should be more promiscuous like he and his sex partners are?

    And aren’t you the one screaming that children should be taught and encouraged to have promiscuous sex in school?

    Now, why won’t you explain why you push and promote an activity that annually sickens, disables and kills thousands of people, creates billions in unnecessary health costs, and disproportionately harms teens, children, and minorities?

    You’re hilarious, Levi. You want to ban soda while pushing bareback sex to children. What a sick little fascist freak you are, that you think children having bareback sex is less dangerous than a Happy Meal.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 1, 2012 @ 5:49 pm - June 1, 2012

  22. Leftists are pro-freedom only for themselves. Their tolerance of freedom ends where other people might make choices they disagree with.

    Comment by V the K — June 1, 2012 @ 6:01 pm - June 1, 2012

  23. I totally agree with Levi. He is usually a major voice of reason here. But, just like Martin Luther, today’s so-called conservatives seem to hate reason.

    Luther wrote: “Reason is the Devil’s greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil’s appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom… Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism… She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets.”

    Now, I know what you’re thinking, but no, ND30 did not write that. Martin Luther did.

    Comment by Richard R — June 1, 2012 @ 10:47 pm - June 1, 2012

  24. I totally agree with Levi. He is usually a major voice of reason here. But, just like Martin Luther, today’s so-called conservatives seem to hate reason.

    Exactly what did Levi say that constitutes “reason”?

    Comment by Rattlesnake — June 1, 2012 @ 11:41 pm - June 1, 2012

  25. Actually, Richard Rush, you should have the leadoff statement for that quote.

    But since the devil’s bride, Reason, that pretty whore, comes in and thinks she’s wise, and what she says, what she thinks, is from the Holy Spirit, who can help us, then? Not judges, not doctors, no king or emperor, because [reason] is the Devil’s greatest whore.

    If one actually reads the sermon, which would be beyond you of course, what you see is that Luther is openly mocking those who attempt to use “reason” to avoid common sense.

    For example, your “voice of reason” Levi insists that abortion must not only be legal, but be paid for by Federal funds to “save” women from the scourge of spontaneous pregnancy over which they have no control.

    Common-sense Rattlesnake points out that there are several steps involved in producing a baby, any break in which will result in no baby being produced.

    THAT is an example of the harlot Reason. And Luther was openly scornful of those who used the harlot Reason, especially in the employ of the Church — aka the Obama Party of its day — to argue why peoples’ lives needed to be controlled and dominated by their betters.

    For those of us who are familiar with Luther, Richard Rush, you and Levi and your Obama Party are the equivalent of the Renaissance popes — people who screamed and cried and demanded absolute adherence by everyone else to the rules that they themselves broke with abandon.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 2, 2012 @ 11:07 am - June 2, 2012

  26. North Dallas Thirty, I would argue that “reason” must actually make sense. Levi might rationalize, but his rationalizations don’t appear to make sense. Therefore, I would call that which is supposedly “reason” in his comments “pseudo-reason” or something. His “reason” might look like “reason” to some people, but it doens’t make any sense upon closer inspection.

    Levi insists that abortion must not only be legal, but be paid for by Federal funds to “save” women from the scourge of spontaneous pregnancy over which they have no control.

    Heh

    Comment by Rattlesnake — June 2, 2012 @ 3:34 pm - June 2, 2012

  27. If one actually reads the sermon, which would be beyond you of course, what you see is that Luther is openly mocking those who attempt to use “reason” to avoid common sense.” – North Dallas Thirty

    Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.” – Albert Einstein

    Comment by Richard R — June 2, 2012 @ 8:31 pm - June 2, 2012

  28. “Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.” – Albert Einstein

    Comment by Richard R — June 2, 2012 @ 8:31 pm – June 2, 2012

    That’s rich coming from you; a lowly Private in the Idiot Marxist Troll Brigade.
    And it fits perfectly with being on the left – proclaim your ignorance, and do it proudly.
    Here’s a hint, Richard Rube: some prejudices are GOOD.
    See if you can figure that out without having your head explode.

    Comment by Jman1961 — June 2, 2012 @ 9:01 pm - June 2, 2012

  29. @ Levi #14

    Actually, your government regulations gave us millions of households with a mercury hazard in those compact flourescent bulbs. It also created an environmental concern having to worry about their disposal.

    On the other hand, the free market gave us LED bulbs. Early adopters, and those with unique needs (saltwater reef tanks) have advanced the technology, and brought down costs.

    This is like people claiming NASA’s investments gave us all our great technology, but NASA didn’t build anything in my home. Some of the underlying tech may have been developed by NASA, but they didn’t popularize it, and they sure as heck didn’t make it affordable.

    And don’t give me the limited resource argument. There are plenty of resources, not only on Earth, but off. It is the enviromentalists, who are trying to keep us from using them. And as for the off world resources, they aren’t usable because of the government interfering, and keeping space access extremely expensive.

    Comment by Jason — June 3, 2012 @ 8:12 am - June 3, 2012

  30. Apparently the irony of that statement is lost on Levi. Or is he going to claim that entitlements are not going to bankrupt and that the feature of the “American way of life” that involves people not working, not paying taxes, and living off government welfare is not unsustainable? How’s that for anti-intellectualism?

    Apparently the irony of that statement is also lost on Levi. Liberals and progressives live in a fantasy world where the only incentive people need to work is to serve society, and where the government can fund all kinds of things without there being any problems (like creating a culture of dependency, or keeping such a system efficient without any competition, or by creating a negative feedback cycle in which the government has an interest in micromanaging people’s lives to cut costs in healthcare (among other things), so they create more inefficient bureaucracies to do the micromanaging, which causes the cost to balloon). Liberals must not understand math.

    Yes, I understand that conservatives think they are responsible for all of the productivity in this country and that there are vast legions of welfare queens everywhere you look that are buying cigarettes with food stamps and tricking social workers into paying for flatscreen televisions. You know what? There is abuse, which sucks, and we need to do what we can to minimize abuse, but it’s going to happen in a country with 300 million people. If you think that eviscerating the social safety net and just telling people that they need to be responsible is a preferable option, you’re out of your mind. There are lots of people born into some very desperate situations in America and we’re all much better off because there are government programs to help them.

    The amount of money that people cheat out of the welfare system is a drop in the bucket compared to the legalized, in-plain-sight, outright theft that takes place every day in the corridors of power. I’m sure that the people who own this country and everything in it appreciate your advocacy of free markets, but you need to wake up and realize that they are asking for and receiving government handouts that dwarf the costs of social programs. Believe me, you have much bigger fish to fry than the wildly exaggerated claims of welfare abuse if you’re talking about government waste.

    Yes, because the woman’s right to not have a baby that was created by her irresponsible behaviour is more important than that baby’s right to live. My god.

    Do you know how human reproduction works? Not everyone who gets pregnant is being irresponsible, sometimes it just happens. And do you really mean to say that a person who acts on a sexual impulse should be punished by being forced to have a baby that they don’t want? In the conservative utopia of limited government and free markets, you’d still be forcing people to have unwanted children? Government-enforced sexual repression; brought to you by the conservative movement that just loves freedom so much!

    I wish you guys would belly up and offer to subsidize every child in exchange for an abortion ban. Doesn’t that follow? I mean, on the one hand you’re recommending we eliminate all of our social programs, and on the other hand you’re demanding we outlaw abortion and force people that didn’t want kids in the first place to raise them with less assistance and fewer resources.

    Maybe a tiny, fringe minority of “conservatives” are. Most don’t give a crap.

    No, I’m sorry, it’s true. Gay marriage and abortion are issues of gender and sex that are completely private and have nothing to do with the broader population, and conservatives insist that they be able to tell people what they can and can’t do in these situations. I don’t know how they force themselves to care about the intimate details of other people’s private lives, but they do. These issues are some of the most important ones to conservatives and are known to drive voter turnout – conservatives are obsessed with strangers’ sex lives.

    Yes, it is. And you might realize that if you actually understood it as exists in reality and not how it exists in Rachel Maddow’s mind.

    Oh please, I don’t have a hard time understanding conservatism.

    Comment by Levi — June 3, 2012 @ 10:04 am - June 3, 2012

  31. And don’t give me the limited resource argument. There are plenty of resources, not only on Earth, but off. It is the enviromentalists, who are trying to keep us from using them. And as for the off world resources, they aren’t usable because of the government interfering, and keeping space access extremely expensive.

    Did you hear that everyone? Unlimited resources! Jason discovered unlimited resources! I guess we can throw out everything we thought we knew about markets and base the world economy on Jason’s Principle of Unlimited Resources!

    Comment by Levi — June 3, 2012 @ 10:06 am - June 3, 2012

  32. The amount of money that people cheat out of the welfare system is a drop in the bucket compared to the legalized, in-plain-sight, outright theft that takes place every day in the corridors of power. I’m sure that the people who own this country and everything in it appreciate your advocacy of free markets, but you need to wake up and realize that they are asking for and receiving government handouts that dwarf the costs of social programs.

    And what does this MORON prescribe for dealing with these problems?
    Uh huh, MORE government.
    Lefty Levi: another loyal member of the Idiot Marxist Troll Brigade.
    Take another stab at it, twerp.

    Comment by Jman1961 — June 3, 2012 @ 10:54 am - June 3, 2012

  33. Hey Levi, does your employer approve of your using the company computer for personal reasons, or are you ‘on the dole’ and using a computer paid for by your local welfare department with those ‘government handouts’ that you deplore?

    Comment by Jman1961 — June 3, 2012 @ 11:01 am - June 3, 2012

  34. Did you hear that everyone? Unlimited resources! Jason discovered unlimited resources! I guess we can throw out everything we thought we knew about markets and base the world economy on Jason’s Principle of Unlimited Resources!
    Comment by Levi — June 3, 2012 @ 10:06 am – June 3, 2012

    There is one ‘resource’ that seems likely never to run out, and that’s the bull**t that you spread around the comment sections every time you show up.
    In short: worthless.

    Comment by Jman1961 — June 3, 2012 @ 11:06 am - June 3, 2012

  35. Jason, great points!

    And don’t give me the limited resource argument. There are plenty of resources, not only on Earth, but off. It is the enviromentalists, who are trying to keep us from using them. And as for the off world resources, they aren’t usable because of the government interfering, and keeping space access extremely expensive.

    So true. The world, and the universe, are literally made of resources.

    People (meaning lefties) don’t understand what resources are. A resource is not a resource, until human ingenuity makes it so. That oil oozing out of the ground in Pennsylvania was worthless, a hazard to farming, until someone figured out it could be a fuel. The converse is true: as long as human ingenuity is permitted to flourish, we will always, inherently have enough resources as we discover new resources. Only entropy, i.e. the total heat death of the universe (which is trillions of years off), can end that process.

    “As long as human ingenuity is permitted to flourish” – that’s the rub. People like Levi want to shut down human ingenuity. Oh, they might deny it – they might even pay occasional lip service to the glories of human ingenuity – but the substance of their politics is to shut down human freedom, which is the basis and the requirement for human ingenuity to flourish.

    The world they desire is a world where government controls everything** – no one can change or move forward, without bureaucratic permission and consensus – which inherently makes new ingenuity and resources impossible – therefore, their Malthusian propaganda is made true at last, and we do run out of resources, and billions of us die, as population crashes to what they call a “natural” level. That’s what they want. I think they call it “environmentalism”.

    (**Levi himself has said as much, on this blog.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 3, 2012 @ 12:36 pm - June 3, 2012

  36. Believe me, you have much bigger fish to fry than the wildly exaggerated claims of welfare abuse if you’re talking about government waste.

    I don’t disagree.

    Not everyone who gets pregnant is being irresponsible, sometimes it just happens. And do you really mean to say that a person who acts on a sexual impulse should be punished by being forced to have a baby that they don’t want?

    So, you recommended taking the life of that baby, who has done nothing wrong other than existing? If a woman doesn’t want her baby, she can give it up for adoption or something.

    In the conservative utopia of limited government and free markets, you’d still be forcing people to have unwanted children?

    Let me state exactly how I view this issue: children, even unborn children, are entitled to same rights as everyone else. That includes the right to life. The purpose of the government is to ensure the rights of all of the citizens of its jurisdiction are upheld. That includes unborn babies. It really isn’t that complicated.

    I wish you guys would belly up and offer to subsidize every child in exchange for an abortion ban. Doesn’t that follow? I mean, on the one hand you’re recommending we eliminate all of our social programs

    Uh, who is recommending eliminating all social programs?

    and on the other hand you’re demanding we outlaw abortion and force people that didn’t want kids in the first place to raise them with less assistance and fewer resources.

    Again, they can give their unwanted children up for adoption. And not all social programs come from the government, you know.

    Oh please, I don’t have a hard time understanding conservatism.

    The content of your comments suggests you have no idea what conservatives believe.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — June 3, 2012 @ 1:42 pm - June 3, 2012

  37. @ Rattlesnake #36,

    If a fetus, and newborn have the same rights as adults, how does that affect parental rights? Wouldn’t circumcision then have to be illegal? You would have to protect the newborn’s flesh, as well as his/her religious freedom, wouldn’t you? If not, why not? What if a twelve year old decided he wanted to be Hindu, or Muslim? Could the parents force their child to eat beef, or pork?

    I just don’t know if I see it as uncomplicated as you do.

    Comment by Jason — June 3, 2012 @ 2:27 pm - June 3, 2012

  38. Okay, maybe children aren’t entitled to the same rights as everyone else, but they are entitled to the same basic rights.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — June 3, 2012 @ 4:03 pm - June 3, 2012

  39. I wish you guys would belly up and offer to subsidize every child in exchange for an abortion ban. Doesn’t that follow?

    Comment by Levi — June 3, 2012 @ 10:06 am – June 3, 2012

    No, it doesn’t.

    Why should I have to pay YOUR bills for being stupid?

    Be a man for once, you irresponsible sniveling child. If you want to be a big boy and have sex, well, guess what — it makes babies.

    You don’t want a baby, you don’t want to care for a baby, and you certainly don’t want to take a dime of your allowance to pay for it.

    So act accordingly.

    Millions of other people have. Why can’t you? Are you too much of an infant and an imbecile for that, Levi? Is that why you and your girlfriend Sandra Fluke need other people to pay your bills for you?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 3, 2012 @ 5:31 pm - June 3, 2012

  40. So true. The world, and the universe, are literally made of resources.

    People (meaning lefties) don’t understand what resources are. A resource is not a resource, until human ingenuity makes it so. That oil oozing out of the ground in Pennsylvania was worthless, a hazard to farming, until someone figured out it could be a fuel. The converse is true: as long as human ingenuity is permitted to flourish, we will always, inherently have enough resources as we discover new resources. Only entropy, i.e. the total heat death of the universe (which is trillions of years off), can end that process.

    “As long as human ingenuity is permitted to flourish” – that’s the rub. People like Levi want to shut down human ingenuity. Oh, they might deny it – they might even pay occasional lip service to the glories of human ingenuity – but the substance of their politics is to shut down human freedom, which is the basis and the requirement for human ingenuity to flourish.

    The world they desire is a world where government controls everything** – no one can change or move forward, without bureaucratic permission and consensus – which inherently makes new ingenuity and resources impossible – therefore, their Malthusian propaganda is made true at last, and we do run out of resources, and billions of us die, as population crashes to what they call a “natural” level. That’s what they want. I think they call it “environmentalism”.

    (**Levi himself has said as much, on this blog.)

    There is more than one way to block ingenuity, and large swaths of the free market are dedicated to doing this exclusively. Meanwhile, you and I are conversing on something called ‘the internet,’ using some type of computer, that wouldn’t exist in its current form unless the governments around the world invested heavily in its development.

    As for this unlimited resources bullshit that I guess is more widespread among you weirdos than I thought… you’re being small. If you just want to assume that we’ll develop some kind of magical technology that allows human beings to exploit off-world resources, than by all means, you’re asking for trouble. I think it’s a little too early to determine how easily it’s going to be to mine asteroids and settle other planets, so why don’t we hold off on slashing and burning this planet before we figure things out, huh?

    Comment by Levi — June 5, 2012 @ 8:07 pm - June 5, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.