Home > Conservative, Elitist, Intellectuals, Liberal > Neo-Cons vs Liberals

Neo-Cons vs Liberals


The kind of man who demands that government enforce his ideas is always the kind whose ideas are idiotic.
-H.L. Mencken

Truer words were never printed.

Two things I admire about Mencken are;

  1. He spoke his mind all the time, and never pulled any punches.
  2. He pissed everyone off because of it, especially Democrats and Republicans

There are many reasons to dislike modern Neo-Conservatives and Liberals. My main reason, and I think the underlying reasons for just about everything they do, is because they both are always trying to force everyone to do what they think is a good idea.

Dr. Walter Williams, in a speech that I can’t remember where I heard it from, said that he thinks riding a bike to work everyday is a good idea but he’d be horrified if the government forced everyone to ride their bikes to work. I agree with Dr. Williams 100%.

Some things I don’t like;

  1. I don’t like being forced by religious groups to live by their ideals.
  2. I don’t like being forced by environmental groups to live by their green ideals
  3. I don’t like the Right using Government to spy on it’s own citizens.
  4. I don’t like the Left using Government to force me to pay to support or pay someone elses’ bills because they refuse to get a job.
  5. I don’t like the Both Parties using Government to silence my free speech when it doesn’t confirm to the their orthodoxy.
  6. I don’t like the Both Parties using Government to have me pay, with taxpayers money, funding asinine political pet projects that have absolutely no value other than paying for votes.

There are plenty more things about both parties I hate, and all of them involve how they try to use Government for force their ideals on everyone else.

I’m sure we might disagree on what is deemed a “good idea.” Yet, I hope we all agree that we don’t like it when others try to force their ideas on us.

Advertisements
  1. Woodhull
    March 3, 2010 at 18:36

    You’ve hit on something here that is probably THE most grating aspect of the mind set of those who wish to use the public dime to enforce their own peculiar special interests. Liberals who want to be protected (and it must be mostly) from themselves and Neo-cons (or any con) who wants to legislate their own particular form of morality. Let’s just say they all fall under the same heading–using gov’t to create some ideological utopia that exists in their heads but has a near zero chance of existing in the hurly burly of reality (unless they just don’t mind that 50% of us will eventually be in jail or broke from paying fines and the other half will be busy filling out the paperwork or keeping watch over those of us in jail for breaking yet another new morality law).

    Every time I hear that the gov’t is getting involved in this, that or the other thing I get this sinking, nauseous feeling inside. SNAFU is not just a funny acronym when it comes to gov’t’s petty bureaucrats. Stealing someone’s purse should be considered a crime, but making a purse out of leather from a cow should not be. Smoking a cigarette should not be a crime or a “sin”, but starting a forest fire with one should be.

    You’ve tapped the spine with this topic, ZH. It makes me wail: “If they can put a man on the moon, you’d think they could send all those folks who want a gov’t-run utopia up there with them.”

    Dear God! I just wished I were living in 1910 Tennessee, Kentucky or Arkansas; living back in the woods, sitting on my front porch with my trusty shotgun and just waiting for the revenue-ers.

  2. Woodhull
    March 3, 2010 at 18:46

    And another thing!

    There was a time when I didn’t give all this creepy legislation much thought because I figured that the laws that prevent something (fill in the blank) were the same laws that protect me and that there was equal justic under them. Not any more. Now not only does “Mr. Green” have to be in the court room, but we’ve got uber-PC public opinion. The scales of justice have been recalibrated to take into consideration how the vote will go. I cannot get donna brazille out of my head when she said there would be riots and blood in the streets if bo didn’t get the nomination. How many liberal, guilty, white voters said “Hell yes!” to that? And how is their religious zealousness over that any different than the extreme right?

    I know I’m blurting and babbling all over the place on this. It really makes me ill.

    • March 4, 2010 at 06:20

      “The scales of justice have been recalibrated to take into consideration how the vote will go.”

      It’s more like they took of the blindfold to lady justice and forced her to be PC. When people are not equal under the law, with everyone beholden to the same laws, justice is not achieved.

      This comes back to me argument about judicial activism and the concept of a “Living Constitution.” Walter Williams has a great quote about that as well. He likens the Constitution as a poker rule book, when you can change the rules in the middle of the game to suit your hand, then in essence there are no rules. I’ll see if I can’t find the clip or the actual quote, he says it better than I just did.

      The point being, I don’t favor hate crimes laws, because under a blind justice system (which we don’t have) everyone gets equally punished no matter what they did. Meaning, if a person kills a gay man, he should get the same amount of time as if he killed a straight man or woman or whomever, because it’s the crime that is punished not the race/religion/sex/sexual orientation of the victim. Of course the Left wants to liken that kind of thinking as hate crime unto itself, because it doesn’t fit their victimhood ideology.

      I want more Justices like Oliver Wendell Holmes.
      “The law is the witness and external deposit of our moral life. Its history is the history of the moral development of the race. The practice of it, in spite of popular jests, tends to make good citizens and good men. When I emphasize the difference between law and morals I do so with reference to a single end, that of learning and understanding the law.”

  3. yttik
    March 3, 2010 at 19:50

    Good post, zombie. Great quote by H.L. Mencken. Good ideas stand on their own, they don’t have to be forced on people.

    I’m an American, we’re a rebellious bunch. Most of us don’t like to be told what to do, to be treated like children by our government. We like choices and freedom and the opportunity to think for ourselves. Something else we all have in common is our innate distrust and dislike of government. Some liberals at the moment will argue with you about that, but it was only a year ago they were screaming bloody murder about the patriot acts, spying on Americans, Guantanamo. “Keep your laws off my body” was a rallying cry for prochoicers for years. Bill Clinton, too, rallied everyone around the idea of the evils of big government. Reagan snarked, “I’m from the Gov and I’m here to help.” Those kinds of messages resonate with the people of this country because that’s who we are, it’s woven into the spirit of America.

  4. PJ
    March 3, 2010 at 23:42

    Great post ZH, and comments Woodhull and yttik. Once again, we’re talking about different groups wanting to control other people – which can come from any group – be it religious, political, environmental, etc. It’s what it always boils down to. None of us likes being controlled by groups we don’t agree with, but most of us want “our group” to be in control. Because if OUR group was in control, we’d have a utopia (even though the half that disagrees with us would be in hell).

    It really is a strange dilemma.

  5. Woodhull
    March 4, 2010 at 08:13

    I agree w/Justice Holmes. I’ve been giving this topic a lot of thought lately. A lot of thought. And I didn’t do justice to my thought process and conclusions in my posts, above.

    What is happening in our laws and in our courts is nothing less than trying to legislate morality and it’s coming from both ends of the political spectrum. The Left cries out for “separation of church and state” and it makes them look foolish. The Right wants to govern under their version of God and it makes them look scary. At least the Right’s agenda is easier to follow — it’s all out there for everyone to see. The Left, on the other hand, is much craftier, sneakier about it. The Right recognizes the inherent flaws in human nature and seeks to govern from a perfect arbiter. The Left believes in the ultimate goodness of humanity and that if we can only peel enough layers of the human experience we will arrive at our true self-expression of perfection. The main problem with the Left’s theology is that no matter how many expert social scientists you throw at a problem, you still cannot make a silk purse out of sow’s ear. The extreme Left fancy themselves alchemists and their answer to social problems, any problem, is to govern from the hubris that comes from believing that the human animal is in a state of perfection simply waiting for its perfection to be manifest—with the help of every sort of conceivable law to protect us in the meantime from our imperfections. Their “god” is science and their “religion” is belief in their ability to (eventually) control all external events (like global warming). (How else does one explain a far-Left-run city which decides to dig the biggest tunnel ever right over tide flats and fill that sit atop a major earthquake fault? After the next “big one” they’ll have all the bicycle lanes they could hope for!)

    I’m still not articulating this as well as I could. I think in the end it does come down to whether or not you believe there is something bigger than yourself over which you have no control. Call it “fate” or “god” or whatever you like. In my opinion, the far Left believes they are their own god and for now, anyway, it seems they are calling it “Mr. President” and “Madam Speaker”. “We are the ones we have been waiting for.”

    • March 4, 2010 at 08:27

      Sounds like you’ve been reading Conflict of Visions by Sowell. If not, then you need to. He talks about everything your talking about. I have it but haven’t had a change to really get into it. I have school work that takes priority, this summer I have like 6 books I want to read. =)

      • Woodhull
        March 4, 2010 at 11:11

        I haven’t seen this book, but I did a quick search and read some of it from Amazon. It sounds fascinating. The scariest part seems to me that the Progressive’s plan to change (indoctrinate) our kids to their way of thinking over time. Churches may be powerful things, but schools are in a league of their own — and attendance is required.

    • March 4, 2010 at 17:24

      Here’s two more from Holmes that no doubt, no modern Liberal would accept.

      “Men should know the rules by which the game is played. Doubt as to the value of some of those rules is no sufficient reason why they should not be followed by the courts.”
      That a Justice job was “to see that the game is played according to the rules whether I like them or not.”

      And when told to “Do justice, sir. Do justice.” Holmes responded, “That is not my job. My job is to apply the law.”

  6. yttik
    March 4, 2010 at 10:12

    Oh yes, Woodhall, it’s gotten insane. Where I live we’re now trying to pass a law making it illegal to feed raccoons, bears, and cougars in residential areas. Nobody deliberately feeds critters around here, especially not the big carnivores for goodness sakes! Of course in the process of passing this law we also need a few million dollars to hire police officers who will monitor our neighborhoods so they can watch out for people feeding the wildlife.

    • Woodhull
      March 4, 2010 at 10:39

      yttik: Do you by any chance live in Woodinville or Issaquah? Maybe Maple Valley?

      • yttik
        March 4, 2010 at 11:47

        LOL, so you’re familiar with this silliness? No, I live out by the coast, but I do pass through the state on occasion.

  7. Woodhull
    March 4, 2010 at 15:04

    yttik :LOL, so you’re familiar with this silliness? No, I live out by the coast, but I do pass through the state on occasion.

    I so wish some of those bears would come to the city and eat all these prissy, over-bred dogs that poop on my lawn. I actually had a stupid woman try to convince me that it “takes a village” to raise her dog!

    The only wildlife I’ve seen in my urban oasis are: racoons, possums (my cat brought one in one night and it really did look like it was dead–but wasn’t), and big fat squirrels (one we’ve named Larry, who we feed unsalted peanuts). I saw a red fox once while standing outide at a party late one night. That was pretty neat. Thought it was a dog. I grew up on a large farm/ranch near a large forest, so I think I have a healthy respect for wild things (even domestic animals, actually). But do we really need more laws to protect us from our own stupidity or kumbaya, let’s-commune-with-the-animal-energy silliness? I’m reminded of the West Wing episode “Big Block of Cheese Day”, in which some marginalized group of biologists petition the WH for 9MM to build a wolf migration hiway. What’s chilling is that I heard of a recent interview of 8-9 year-olds who answered “the earth” when asked which was more important, people or the planet. Now I’m rambling.

  8. Woodhull
    March 4, 2010 at 15:08

    ZH: Here’s a quote for you: “It’s better to wear slippers than to carpet the world.”

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: