What’s with the Mew at the end of every post? Your trademark?

Monica on July 23, 2009 at 12:08 AM
——–
Monica,

What do you consider a miracle to be?

As for my signature, Mew, that’s because I’m a cat. Or did you not read my name?

Sharke,

Where do you get like or dislike out of that?

Mew

What’s with the Mew at the end of every post? Your trademark?

I dislike “rational” because, simply, miracles are, by definition, violations of the laws of the universe, and therefore irrational.

Hmmm. Irrational self-interest. Maybe. (grin)

Mew

acat on July 22, 2009 at 9:44 PM

So you don’t like anything that’s not a violation of the laws of the universe? How very strange. Is there a medical definition for that condition yet?

Monica on July 22, 2009 at 3:55 PM
——
Monica,

I dislike “rational” because, simply, miracles are, by definition, violations of the laws of the universe, and therefore irrational.

Hmmm. Irrational self-interest. Maybe. (grin)

Mew

Liberals believe that mankind is degenerate, flawed, and needs the good offices of the state to free him from his bonds.

Conservatives believe that mankind is essentially good, that a man is for the most part the product of his industry, and the state serves only to protect the nation.

coldwarrior on July 22, 2009 at 12:56 AM

Actually it’s sort of the other way around. Leftists believe that man is perfectible and that any imperfect human need correcting by the state.

The Right believes that humans are flawed and motivated by self-interest.

What would the federal budget need to be, if it were primarily concerned with defense, law enforcement, and the welfare of the most seriously disadvantaged Americans – and that welfare was administered with 85% efficiency?

Who else kinda hopes we find out starting on January 20, 2013?!?

Ah, semantics.

I believe you’re using the word “greed” to cover “desire” as well as “lust” and “covet”.

While the three are related, and while there are others that also have similar definitions, they aren’t precisely the same, and the connotations matter.

Mew

acat on July 22, 2009 at 3:01 PM

I do see your point about connotations. I guess I’m looking at it in the bigger picture. My point is taking a word that’s used against free-marketers to shut them up and shame/guilt them and embracing it without guilt or shame. After all, everyone is greedy. Greed is such a buzzword for the left these days and they forget what wrought the wonderful lifestyle we enjoy, even as they demonize it.

Conceptually, I think I prefer rational self interest to enlightened self interest. I just don’t care for forced altruism which is where enlightened self-interest seems to lead. (This comes from a meditating, Buddhist leaning, vegetarian, capitalist pig who volunteers one day a week and donates to charity.)

So to anchor it to a benchmark I guess you have to define anything above and beyond primitivism as “greed.”

The link should be posted on as many forums as possible, especially those where brainwashed young socialists hang out. Most will close their eyes and sing ‘la-la-la’ before launching into their carefully rehearsed tirade of shopworn anticapitalist slogans, but a small few will learn something. Never underestimate the power of engaging writing like this – books like Ayn Rand’s “Capitalism” have dissuaded many a young collectivist from spending their whole lives in the dark.

Monica on July 22, 2009 at 2:16 PM
—–
Ah, semantics.

I believe you’re using the word “greed” to cover “desire” as well as “lust” and “covet”.

While the three are related, and while there are others that also have similar definitions, they aren’t precisely the same, and the connotations matter.

Mew

I don’t and won’t see greed as a bad thing. It’s a powerful motivator. All humans are greedy, some of us are just more efficient than others at making it work for us. My greed allows me to make a living and generously support causes near and dear to my heart. Oh wait, I’m greedy, therefore heartless. Silly me.

Monica on July 22, 2009 at 2:16 PM

I respect and appreciate your greed (provided you keep it on the level).
I don’t hold my relative lack there of as any sort of virtue.
Though I am a miser.

The left would claim that you should take only what you need – and they get to decide what you need. The right would claim that you take what you’re capable of taking within the confines of the law.

How very Wesley Mouch-esque of them.

I don’t and won’t see greed as a bad thing. It’s a powerful motivator. All humans are greedy, some of us are just more efficient than others at making it work for us. My greed allows me to make a living and generously support causes near and dear to my heart. Oh wait, I’m greedy, therefore heartless. Silly me.

Sugar coat it however you want but it’s the same thing. Bastardizing the the concept so the left won’t say you’re a bad person just gives them more power and concedes that they are right.

Monica on July 22, 2009 at 1:49 PM

I suppose it depends on how you define greed eh? Greed has a decidedly negative connotation in the dictionary. Here’s Webster:

greed

Function:
noun
Etymology:
back-formation from greedy
Date:
1609

: a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed

If we’re going to accept Webster’s definition of greed, desire would be the more neutral term. In this definition, Greed denotes desire taken beyond acceptable limits. Those limits are one of the primary matters of the debate between left and right.

Bit of a thought for discussion:

The left would claim that you should take only what you need – and they get to decide what you need. The right would claim that you take what you’re capable of taking within the confines of the law.

How’s that? Are we getting at something here?

GREED is not a bad word. Don’t buy into the Statist hype. Greed has given you a job, nice things, innovation in every industry, etc…

Monica on July 22, 2009 at 1:12 PM

Ah yes, Gordon Gecko. (grin)

I really prefer the idea of “enlightened self-interest”.

A rose, by any other name, eh?

Mew

acat on July 22, 2009 at 1:30 PM

Sugar coat it however you want but it’s the same thing. Bastardizing the the concept so the left won’t say you’re a bad person just gives them more power and concedes that they are right.

Seems to me that Liberals, especially among the younger generation, are often simply not able to distinguish between the fetters of culture (the altruism they’ve been spoon-fed, i.e. nurture) and human nature.

Mew

acat on July 22, 2009 at 1:29 PM

You’ve got a real point there. Many of them are unwilling to acknowledge human nature (and sometimes reality itself) for what it is.

New Age/Secular Humanist brain rot may well be the death of us all.

Well, there should be a logical set of motivations behind it all, even if there are contradictions in their self description. It is important not to take their word for it what their motivations are, and to take note that different leftists will have different subsets of the motivation set.

Count to 10 on July 22, 2009 at 12:40 PM

I think the motivations are simple and rational – after all, I don’t think most people’s fundamental motivations are all that complex. What gets tangled are the immense gantries of often contradictory logic we assemble to explain, justify, or otherwise interpret those motivations and the often bizarre actions that result from the aforementioned.

After all, people aren’t all that rational most of the time. We’re 10 parts instinct for every 1 part reason. You can’t really blame us though. Relatively speaking, consciousness is kinda new and we haven’t really gotten the hang of it yet.

A thousand years from now, the collectivists will still be looking for the right person to run communism.

jukin on July 22, 2009 at 1:20 PM

And they will still not understand that this is the very center of the flaw of the concept.

Dr. Zero, you are one of the reasons I frequent Hot Air.

Keep it up, brother [or sister? :]. And keep your head clear.

Ragspierre on July 22, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Ditto!

Monica on July 22, 2009 at 1:12 PM
—–
Ah yes, Gordon Gecko. (grin)

I really prefer the idea of “enlightened self-interest”.

A rose, by any other name, eh?

Mew

I suspect the key is to distinguish between, at simplest terms, nurture and nature.

Seems to me that Liberals, especially among the younger generation, are often simply not able to distinguish between the fetters of culture (the altruism they’ve been spoon-fed, i.e. nurture) and human nature.

Mew

All thanks to them cutting their corporate tax rates by fifty percent!!

Lower taxes is the mother of investment

Another great piece – and I must admit – I think you are a better writer than 99% of authors, professors, business leaders and teachers out there. Quite a rare gift.

As to comparing country’s that allow “free markets” over gov controlled – Ireland is a great case study over the past 20 years. Though caught in the global downturn – the Celtic Tiger immediatley drove unemployment from 15% to less than 6% in just 3 years. It outpaced the “Euro super economic powers” by 300-400% in the 20 year span. All because they allowed their markets to become free, compared to the socialist doldrums. All the while – members of the EU as long as other euro nations.

They are equally poised to rebound, if and when the global economy recovers. All due to free market capitalism.

To cause serious, long-term, grinding poverty, however, you need government involvement.

I really like this sentence. Clear, distinct, and to the point.

The elephant in the room, though, with regard to poverty, is the role of the family. Marriage is the greatest anti-poverty program in history — that is, marry, then have your children, and then stay married.

Yeah, I’d add that stable societies are founded on stable (heterosexual) families. The (heterosexual) family is the model of the state, and produces normal citizens. Without families (as ‘traditionally’ understood) you won’t have any citizens who are more than 2 days away from a state of absolute anarchy.

And on top of that I would also add that the Demoncratic party has with their condescending and patronizing entitlement programs largely maintained black people in a state of servility, dependency, and slavery for the past 30 years. So factor that in…

I feel like liberalism, well, modern liberalism represents
an amalgamation of everything bad about humanity

greed
envy
sloth

blatantblue on July 22, 2009 at 12:38 PM

I draw a hard line between principled greed and unprincipled greed. The former is something benefits me when present in others. Even the latter pales in comparison to the damage done by envy.
Sloth is simply unhelpful, unless it contributes to making greed unprincipled or leads to envy.

“If the six long months of this Administration serve any constructive purpose, it should be permanently dissolving the illusion that a small group of political appointees can predict what the economy will do, and control it to produce an improved outcome.”

I truly hope so…………

…….. Another good one, Doc. Thanks!

I think, to an extent, we’re both right. There’s more than one type of leftist, and as I said, cognitive dissonance is part and parcel of the ideology. When their own ideas conflict it can be difficult to parse out exactly what they’re supposed to think. We’re searching for logical consistency where there might not be any.

TheUnrepentantGeek on July 22, 2009 at 12:30 PM

Well, there should be a logical set of motivations behind it all, even if there are contradictions in their self description. It is important not to take their word for it what their motivations are, and to take note that different leftists will have different subsets of the motivation set.

greed
envy
sloth

Nevertheless, I certainly agree that a vigorous free market would greatly reduce the damage done by both government and personal failures.

Liberals believe that mankind is conservatives are degenerate, flawed, and needs the good offices of the state to free him from his bonds re-educate and enlighten them.

Conservatives believe that mankind God is essentially good, that a man is for the most part the product of his industry man is made in His image — and possesses certain inalienable rights endowed to him by his Creator, and the state serves only to protect the nation these rights.

coldwarrior on July 22, 2009 at 12:56 AM

There. FTFY.

My collie says:

No need to thank us. Just bein’ neighborly.

Don’t be mistaken – some on the left do believe that people are selfish and must be beaten into virtue by government force. But they also must believe that people will perform at peak efficiency without adequate compensation “for the good of their fellow man.”

TheUnrepentantGeek on July 22, 2009 at 12:26 PM

I think it might be a corruption of “let me do my own thing”.
The leftist thinks that he should be able to make a living doing what he likes to do, and, if he fails at that (or someone else fails at that), then it must be the fault of those who succeed, or some subset of them. Once the leftist sifts out all of the successful that agree with him (usually because he grants them a pass on parts of their behavior that the rest of society rejects), he then labels all that remain as greedy, and claims that it is their greed alone that prevents the success of the unsuccessful. Attempts to confiscate that success follow.

To cause serious, long-term, grinding poverty, however, you need government involvement.

Awesome work.

There is something not-quite-right with both of these views of leftists. I feel like if I could actually put my finger on what it is, I could unravel the whole thing.

I think, to an extent, we’re both right. There’s more than one type of leftist, and as I said, cognitive dissonance is part and parcel of the ideology. When their own ideas conflict it can be difficult to parse out exactly what they’re supposed to think. We’re searching for logical consistency where there might not be any.