Posts Tagged aristocracy

Expert Fools

Michael Applebaum at American Thinker takes on the myth that Democrats are pushing that Americans are better off in the hands of “experts,” whom we should allow to run the country, as they can do it better than us. While we are told that we just don’t know what’s best for us, and that these experts do, and therefore should be put in the position of telling us what to do, Applebaum finds evidence that many of them aren’t as smart as they pretend to be: Read the rest of this entry »

, ,

Leave a comment

Aristocratic Dietary Restrictions

Nicole Russell at the American Spectator makes a great point about the Obamas’  constant admonitions that Americans need the Federal Government to help them eat better, while nonchalantly breaking their own rules.

When President Obama indulges in fast food while traveling he exhorts interested onlookers: “Don’t tell Michelle.” The fit First Lady is, of course, an advocate of healthy foods and outspoken about childhood obesity. She had her own “Don’t tell Barack” moment recently, when she stopped at a diner in Milwaukee and had classic greasy fare: a burger and fries. Mrs. Obama’s meal really wouldn’t be anyone else’s business were it not for her own aspiration to rewrite the nation’s menus. Read the rest of this entry »

, , ,

Leave a comment

Leftist Academics Analyze the Tea Party

So a bunch of Leftist elitists academics held a “conference” in order to analyze the Tea Party movement in order to confirm their accusations of racism better understand the movement as a social phenomenon. Dave Weigel at Slate presented the happenings at this elitist echo chamber conference, and John Hawkings at Right Wing News promptly fisked it to death.

Of course, the “experts” deduced that the Tea Party is popular because it appeals to right-wing anger and racism. Read the rest of this entry »

, , ,

Leave a comment

Obama’s Fear of the Creator

Brian Garst at Right Wing News comments on Obama’s repeated ommission of the phrase “endowed by their Creator” when quoting the Declaration of Independence:

Obama believes that the state is the originator of all “rights.”  He believes that it’s perfectly valid for him to get together with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and declare that free health care is a “right.” But rights don’t work that way. The danger of this statist view is that, what the state giveth, it can taketh away.  A state that can create “rights” out of thin air can erase them just as easily. Think you have a right to self defense? Not if Obama and the gun haters get their way. Think you have a right to your property? Not when the redistributionists decide that it’s unfair for you to have more while others have less. This is why Obama refuses to acknowledge the origins of our rights, and why his deliberate ignorance is so dangerous. Read the rest of this entry »

, ,

Leave a comment

Business Regulation Disproportionately Impact Poor and Minorities

Timothy Sandefur at the Volokh Conspiracy raises a point that should be obvious — especially to Leftists who decry “white privilege” — that regulations on business place a greater burden upon minority and poor business owners that do not have the influential political ties and greater wealth that allow large companies to navigate these obstacles.

Intrusive business regulations have a disproportionately negative impact on the poor and members of minority groups, who lack the political influence that whereby wealthy corporations and politically well-connected people are able to obtain special government favors. Nobody has done better scholarship on this point than Volokh Conspiracy blogger David Bernstein. The historical examples of the abuse of licensing laws and other regulations to oppress racial minorities are legion, and depressing. But they aren’t surprising. The lesson of public choice theory is that when government can redistribute wealth or opportunities, that power will fall into the hands of politically well-connected groups, who use it to their own advantage at the expense of less favored groups.

Sandefur provides some historical and legal examples of how these policies hamper minorities, often intentionally.

Read the whole thing.

, ,

Leave a comment

Free Love and Hollywood Smut Culture

One thing that astonished me most about the Roman Polanski rape case is how many Hollywood stars rushed to his defense. But Hollywood is a bastion of liberalism, embracing the free love and zero-consequence attitudes that were pioneered by ’60 radicals. Gwenneth Paltrow’s recent admission that even she has been propositioned by a casting-couch director only highlights the matter of how degenerate (and blatantly sexist) Hollywood culture is. Read the rest of this entry »

, , , ,

1 Comment

Progressive Feudalism

Since I read the Communist Manifesto, I have been trying to decide just what differentiates Socialism from feudalism. Aside from justifying rule based on Divine Right, I haven’t been able to come up with much of significance. Socialism supports an elite aristocracy and relegates the masses to submit to and support that aristocracy, and aside from the rhetoric of freeing the masses from wage slavery and the imposition of absurdly and obviously flawed economic models, erroneous assumptions about human nature, and the need to lie constantly about what is actually being implemented, I cannot see any real difference between a socialism society and a feudal one.

Finally, I’m not alone, and Thomas Lifson at American Thinker supports this idea much more thoroughly than I ever have:

The changes wrought on the American political economy by progressives have taken us in the unmistakable direction of feudalism. The morphological resemblance between the progressive version of America and the historic feudal regimes of Western Europe and Japan is obvious if one takes a few moments to consider the changes in the proper context.

Read the whole thing.

, , ,

1 Comment

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.