The Democrat-led House of Representatives impeached again a President who in fewer than four years had created one of the best economies in history and increased his support by over 10 million voters. For this reason, and others too, no matter his leaving office in a week, Democrats rightly fear that he remains a direct threat to what they love and a supporter for what they hate. Apparently, by piling on, they hope to cripple his future influence. For them, “The end justifies the means.” Principles such as legal due process and objective truths would have gotten in their way. Given an absence of serious objection by their supporters, they can do it.
Most importantly, what evidence supports the opinions I have just expressed? Lots, but as a vehicle for clarification I will use a Democrat accusation currently in vogue. Leftists are using it to justify themselves and to influence others. They claim that they are fighting against “unfair privilege”.
Here is the line of logic used by today’s Democrats (who with few exceptions have morphed into lock-step Leftists): “Privilege” is proof of inequality. To be unequal is not fair. fairness is important. Thus, to do important things and be a good person, you must fight to correct this injustice. By transforming the original equal-individual-rights-government into a new group-rights-government they will have created a system with sufficient power to take from those groups deemed privileged and give to those groups deemed lacking. By these “moral” redistributions we can correct the evil inequities.
This Marxist logic is incredibly simple (minded), but for this reason it attracts many followers. Young college minds grasping for emotional meaning and stability are particularly susceptible.
Also, if not sophisticated in weighing options, an exaggerated certainty about this “morality” is a way to heighten the attractive feeling of being superior. It is a mind-expanding thrill to share one’s virtuous mindset while marching forth on a crusade! Destroy the evil past! Destroy capitalism’s inequities! Fight for the redistributions that fellow travelers believe are virtuous, noble, and good!
Contrary to the Left’s “feeling motives”, objective-thinking minds (those measuring what actually happens in the real world) will understand some important distinctions. Nature is responsible for privileging some over others with the luck of better geography, better health, and inquisitive, capable minds. Those whom nature has privileged are likely to be outstanding, thus unequally successful precisely because they create the massive volume of resources that provide access to better lives. The exceptionally productive and life-saving free market government that was favored (and expanded) by Donald Trump, intended that the concept of “equality” would mean an equal application of law. Each citizen in this way then has equal possession to this right no matter all nature-caused disparities. For the original idea of America, “equality” did not refer to what today’s Democrats want it to mean; that is, a government so powerful it can attempt to forcefully equalize the distribution of goods.
In this light, any “privilege” given by nature is understood to be a valuable gift for which the receiver is not responsible. Therefore, they are not to feel shame or be considered guilty. A capitalist system with profit incentives attracts the attention of those with special abilities. It motivates them to be immensely productive of the resources that are needed to enrich all lives – including lives less gifted. Minds wanting the best for their fellow humans can now understand that changes desired by Leftists in order to make amends for the inequities of nature are all of the following: shortsighted, wasteful, unfair, foolish, and because of their extreme righteousness, with “cancel” power they are as dangerous as hell.
Objective minds will understand that laws penalizing to those who are productive, and benefitting to those who receive, are the opposite of “equal treatment”.
We can now understand why Trump hates the life-destroying socialism that Democrats love, and Democrats hate the free markets that Donald Trump supports. By understanding better this different view of “privilege” we clarify today’s “Conflict of Visions”.
Recommended reading: Thomas Sowell wrote a book with that name, “Conflict of Visions” (Published 1987 revised 2007). It provides additional forms of evidence with which we may better understand today’s political dynamics.
DS’ identity and lame reference to Thomas Sowell are behaviors well documented in Authoritarian Nightmare available in Kindle and Audible.It is clear that SSO followers are uneducable.At least DS makes no claim to moving to seats of Democrats power with firearms and combustibles.
Daedal2207 is taking the easy way out. Few readers of this blog are going to search out and read the book “Authoritarian Nightmare”. What I had provided was a set of logical ideas that could find additional support in Sowell’s writings. The ideas I have written for this blog stand alone, and if Daedal2207 truly wants to engage in a logical criticism of those ideas he does not have to shift that duty to others. I see no effort on his part to directly engage. Why? Which attitude is most likely descriptive of “uneducable”?
The Octogenarians 
The Democrat-led House of Representatives impeached again a President who in fewer than four years had created one of the best economies in history and increased his support by over 10 million voters. For this reason, and others too, no matter his leaving office in a week, Democrats rightly fear that he remains a direct threat to what they love and a supporter for what they hate. Apparently, by piling on, they hope to cripple his future influence. For them, “The end justifies the means.” Principles such as legal due process and objective truths would have gotten in their way. Given an absence of serious objection by their supporters, they can do it.
Most importantly, what evidence supports the opinions I have just expressed? Lots, but as a vehicle for clarification I will use a Democrat accusation currently in vogue. Leftists are using it to justify themselves and to influence others. They claim that they are fighting against “unfair privilege”.
Here is the line of logic used by today’s Democrats (who with few exceptions have morphed into lock-step Leftists): “Privilege” is proof of inequality. To be unequal is not fair. fairness is important. Thus, to do important things and be a good person, you must fight to correct this injustice. By transforming the original equal-individual-rights-government into a new group-rights-government they will have created a system with sufficient power to take from those groups deemed privileged and give to those groups deemed lacking. By these “moral” redistributions we can correct the evil inequities.
This Marxist logic is incredibly simple (minded), but for this reason it attracts many followers. Young college minds grasping for emotional meaning and stability are particularly susceptible.
Also, if not sophisticated in weighing options, an exaggerated certainty about this “morality” is a way to heighten the attractive feeling of being superior. It is a mind-expanding thrill to share one’s virtuous mindset while marching forth on a crusade! Destroy the evil past! Destroy capitalism’s inequities! Fight for the redistributions that fellow travelers believe are virtuous, noble, and good!
Contrary to the Left’s “feeling motives”, objective-thinking minds (those measuring what actually happens in the real world) will understand some important distinctions. Nature is responsible for privileging some over others with the luck of better geography, better health, and inquisitive, capable minds. Those whom nature has privileged are likely to be outstanding, thus unequally successful precisely because they create the massive volume of resources that provide access to better lives. The exceptionally productive and life-saving free market government that was favored (and expanded) by Donald Trump, intended that the concept of “equality” would mean an equal application of law. Each citizen in this way then has equal possession to this right no matter all nature-caused disparities. For the original idea of America, “equality” did not refer to what today’s Democrats want it to mean; that is, a government so powerful it can attempt to forcefully equalize the distribution of goods.
In this light, any “privilege” given by nature is understood to be a valuable gift for which the receiver is not responsible. Therefore, they are not to feel shame or be considered guilty. A capitalist system with profit incentives attracts the attention of those with special abilities. It motivates them to be immensely productive of the resources that are needed to enrich all lives – including lives less gifted. Minds wanting the best for their fellow humans can now understand that changes desired by Leftists in order to make amends for the inequities of nature are all of the following: shortsighted, wasteful, unfair, foolish, and because of their extreme righteousness, with “cancel” power they are as dangerous as hell.
Objective minds will understand that laws penalizing to those who are productive, and benefitting to those who receive, are the opposite of “equal treatment”.
We can now understand why Trump hates the life-destroying socialism that Democrats love, and Democrats hate the free markets that Donald Trump supports. By understanding better this different view of “privilege” we clarify today’s “Conflict of Visions”.
Recommended reading: Thomas Sowell wrote a book with that name, “Conflict of Visions” (Published 1987 revised 2007). It provides additional forms of evidence with which we may better understand today’s political dynamics.
DS’ identity and lame reference to Thomas Sowell are behaviors well documented in Authoritarian Nightmare available in Kindle and Audible.It is clear that SSO followers are uneducable.At least DS makes no claim to moving to seats of Democrats power with firearms and combustibles.
Daedal2207 is taking the easy way out. Few readers of this blog are going to search out and read the book “Authoritarian Nightmare”. What I had provided was a set of logical ideas that could find additional support in Sowell’s writings. The ideas I have written for this blog stand alone, and if Daedal2207 truly wants to engage in a logical criticism of those ideas he does not have to shift that duty to others. I see no effort on his part to directly engage. Why? Which attitude is most likely descriptive of “uneducable”?
Reblogged this on daedal2207's Blog.