Libertarian History/Philosophy

Another Bout of Anti-Libertarian Nonsense from the Left-Wing Center for American Progress

Confronting the ugly record of "genocidal progressivism."

|

Public Domain

Yesterday I commented on an article published by Ian Millhiser of the left-wing Center for American Progress which described the late 19th century social theorist Herbert Spencer as an advocate of "genocidal libertarianism" who "literally argued that the impoverished and the unfortunate should be left to die in order to purify the human race." In reply, I noted that Spencer repeatedly championed the virtues of "Positive Beneficence," "human benevolence," "spontaneous sympathy of men for each other," and other forms of private charity designed to mitigate "the operation of natural selection." In short, I argued, it is simply incorrect to say that Spencer "literally" advocated letting the poor and unfortunate die in the streets.

Today Millhiser has published a response. Although ostensibly written as a rebuttal, I could not help but notice that Millhiser quietly admits his own initial errors, thereby conceding the validity of my case. For example, Millhiser now acknowledges that there were in fact instances "where Spencer believed that private donors should improve conditions for the poor." Furthermore, Millhiser also now admits that "it is true that Spencer did believe that charity was appropriate under limited circumstances."

Can those new admissions be squared with Millhiser's overheated initial claim that Spencer "literally argued that the poor and the unfortunate should be left to die in order to purify the human race"? No, they cannot. It's time for Millhiser to admit that he got it wrong and stop trying to dig himself out of the hole.

Strangely, Millhiser also accuses me of "chang[ing] the subject to eugenics." I would have thought the connection was obvious. Herbert Spencer is falsely smeared as "genocidal" by an organization that champions the legacy of late 19th and early 20th century Progressive activists, yet many of those same Progressive activists openly advocated eugenics, which typically involved state-sanctioned sterilization (and sometimes murder) of "unfit" people. Sounds fairly "genocidal" to me.

So I pointed out that rather than trying to smear Spencer (and libertarians more broadly) with trumped-up charges, Millhiser should instead confront his own organization's recent cheerleading for a bunch of people who literally endorsed the tactics of "genocidal progressivism."

NEXT: Should We Let Taxpayers Decide Where Their Money Goes?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. And these idiotic, moronic, projection-laden attacks will just get worse and more frequent. This is just the tip of the iceberg. It’s the prog way. It’s all they know.

    1. The amazing thing is that this isn’t some drunk jackass in a bar. This is someone who gets paid to write for a living and wrote something that he presumably put some thought into as part of his job and the quality of the thought and argument was this bad. You see how stupid, uninformed and easily refuted the things the “smart” progs write are and it really shows how much these people live in a bubble. Only someone who has never in their life been challenged or had any understanding that anyone other than him and people who agree with him could ever be right could publish something this stupid and uninformed. Their whole movement is intellectually dead. They don’t even try to think anymore.

      1. I’ve actually realized what their “thinking” is almost exclusively composed of. Their entire thought process is focused on finding ways to pin their own innumerable failings and prejudices and hatreds and envy on others. The reason they seem to be nothing but projection is that…that’s actually all they are. They hate themselves so much that their only purpose is finding “others” to project themselves onto and attack. This “purges” and “purifies” them of these failings, making them morally superior to everyone else.

        1. I am always amazed at how so much if not everything they say seems to be the exact opposite of reality. Whatever you think of Herbert Spencer, he wasn’t genocidal in any sense of the term. In fact, if anyone at that time was genocidal, it was the Progressives. So of course this guy claims it was Spencer who was genocidal. So much of what they say isn’t just wrong or mistaken. It is the exact opposite of the truth. Black really is white to these people.

        2. ^^^^THIS^^^^

          Every time I here a progressive accuse someone of somethign heinous, my first reaction is that they are projecting and assuming the other guy is doing it because they do it. And they firmly bellieve that they are justified in doing it because as their accusation shows, the others are doing it too, so the end justifies the means.

        3. Their entire thought process is focused on finding ways to pin their own innumerable failings and prejudices and hatreds and envy on others.

          It’s all about intentions. When something happens that they don’t like, then it’s a result of malice. Except when it’s the results of their good intentions. Well, even then it was the other guy’s malice that screwed it up.

      2. I think part of it is that they don’t consider that they might be writing for people who don’t agree with them. They aren’t trying to convince anyone who disagrees, just to paint their opponents as some kind of cartoonish parody of evil. That seems to be the whole strategy of the left (and much of the right). Republicans are only motivated by racism and misogyny, libertarians hate poor people and want them to starve to death.

        1. No Zeb. They really think this way. They are arguing. They just don’t know how to do it.

          1. Think? You give them too much credit. It’s all feelings. There is no thinking involved.

          2. They don’t even try to think anymore. John|4.15.15 @ 1:23PM|#

            I think you were right the first time. Many such people are capable of thought and looking critically at their own arguments. But if they did that, they might have to reconsider some of their precious convictions. And if they did that the cool people might not like them anymore.

            1. And if they did that the cool people might not like them anymore.

              Exactly. I’ve managed to get proggies to actually think about issues from time to time and even see the merits of my argument. Then the next time I see the person they have completely forgotten. Wiped clean. Like PTSD or something.

          3. I think the point stands though that the intended audience guides the tone. The purpose of political media in general is to reaffirm the prejudices of the reader. You don’t go to a new site (especially if you’re a progressive who’s ‘intellectualism’ is central to his self image) to see your views challenged, you go there to get metaphorically jerked off by the writer. That’s what columnists are, they’re public hand-job dispensers.

            That’s what ThinkProgress’s purpose is: to jerk off the troops to keep their morale up before the big battle.

            1. This is a huge part of today’s “marketplace of ideas”. Anyone who doesn’t get that has never listened to talk radio (Limbaugh, Beck, Schultz), Talking Head TV (Hannity, Maddow, etc) or visited any “new media” websites like HuffPo, Gawker, etc.

              The echo chamber is strong in our world. Really, really strong. The result of this is that anyone who runs in to someone from the other camp in a social setting has an incredibly difficult time. They react with anger and bluster and frustration as their talking points fly past one another. There is rarely a meeting of the minds, or even a semblance of a discussion. Both parties go home and tell their echo chamber about the idiot spouting nonsense they ran into the night before.

              1. Which is all the more reason it is fun to be a Libertarian. We get to go home to our tiny little echo chamber and commiserate about just how much of an idiot everyone else is.

                Green Party folk probably have a similarly enjoyable experience, except instead of being able to call 98% of everyone else idiots, they get to call 35% evil (Republicans and Libertarians), 38% misguided and weak (Democrats), and 27% idiots (independents).

                The book keeping is much easier if you are a Libertarian. You even get to complain about how all the other Libertarians are idiots and not true libertarians.

              2. Maybe I just live in a majority liberal town, but I have never seen a conservative act like that. Really. The only people I know who do that are not liberals but very far left Progs.

      3. This is all rooted in post-modernism. Facts, truth and objective reality are counterproductive concepts. The function of the writer is to craft a politically correct narrative.

        Of course, this is nothing new. Plato described the same sort of thinking in his dialogue titled Sophists back in the 5th Century BC: “Is it not possible to enchant the hearts of young men by words poured through their ears, when they are still at a distance from the truth of facts, by exhibiting to them fictitious arguments, and making them think that they are true, and that the speaker is the wisest of men in all things?”

        The Progressive, like the sophist, exploits ignorance.

        1. They don’t exploit it so much as move in and dwell in it. I think calling them sophists is giving them too much credit. The sophists knew they were lying and consciously choosing to make the clever and appealing but false argument. These people are not that self aware. They don’t even know what false is. They only know the talking points.

          1. You are speaking of the useful idiots of the progressive movement. They are Plato’s “young men” whose hearts are enchanted.

            The elites of the progressive movement know exactly what they are doing.

          2. But you’re probably right: I’m probably giving all of them too much credit.

        2. “A little knowledge is dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring.”

          Selection bias isn’t considered a bias to them; it’s their default modus operandi.

      4. Walter Duranty was paid to write for a living. This is nothing new.

        -jcr

    2. I’m happy they are turning their attention to us. As we are far more capable of defending ourselves than conservatives. It’s like a bully who beats on some scrawny kid for years then tries to go after a fat kid and gets the shit kicked out of them.

      Depiction:
      http://youtu.be/Kupi4ST707U

      1. Don’t underestimate them. Conservatives thought winning the argument was good enough too. It is not. It not good enough when the other side deals in emotion and social signaling.

        1. You think only this narrow segment of the population deals in emotion and social signaling? Please.

      2. Don’t underestimate them. Conservatives thought winning the argument was good enough too. It is not. It not good enough when the other side deals in emotion and social signaling.

        1. And instead of exposing progs arguments as amounting to nothing more than raw emotion, too often a time conservatives responded with equal amounts of emotion and social signaling.

          1. Which, sadly, I think demonstrates that the majority of people don’t give a shit about the value of arguments and reasoning and are concerned with emotion, social signalling and being on a winning team.

            I’m sure libertarians are more capable of defending their arguments than Conservatives. It’s kind of what we do. But no one gives a fuck because politics really is all about emotion and social signalling and team loyalty.

            1. “But no one gives a fuck because politics really is all about emotion and social signalling and team loyalty.”

              Which helps support the theory that the vast majority of libertarians reside somewhere on the Autism Spectrum.

                1. But one is the loneliest number.

            2. I’m sure libertarians are more capable of defending their arguments than Conservatives.

              Apparently you haven’t read any of “Michael Hihn’s” posts.

              1. Well some libertarians. I’d suggest perhaps even most.

              2. Apparently you haven’t read any of “Michael Hihn’s” posts.

                Michael Hihn is as much of a libertarian as Botard the Hotard.

            3. I contend that people with minority opinions tend to be better at defending their positions than members of large insular camps. Members of the camps can fairly easily make their whole lives occur in a political circle jerk where they never have to confront opposing view points. People of other persuasions, however, are forced to live in a world dominated by their opponents of one kind or another; so these intellectual minorities are compelled to come up with good reasons for their opinions, or they end up getting converted to one of the major camps.

              It’s like intellectual survival of the fittest, where the larger the species, the more able it is to shelter its members from outside competition, and this lack of competition leads to a failure to weed out the weaker ones (ideas, that is). Only the few who put themselves on the fault lines are actually forced to defend anything, and event hey are often quite disingenuous about what they really believe.

            4. Yes politics is all about emotion and social signalling and team loyalty. More accurately its about stimulating the lizard part of our brain and fear-mongering it; about engineering consent and regimenting the public mind. It has been ever since Edward Bernays used uncle Freud’s theories about the human mind to create modern mass advertising and propaganda and ever since Walter Lippman charged journalists and opinion makers with doing the same.

              And it isn’t just politics. It is pretty much everything in ‘mass’ society now.

        2. The error that conservatives and libertarians make is in thinking that humans hold opinions for rational reasons. Of course we don’t, at least not in the aggregate. We get our opinions for emotional reasons, or because our neighbors or parents have those opinions, or for self-interested reasons. Liberals long ago learned to argue by social appeal, and that’s why they’ve been winning for a long time.

          1. I read somewhere that the reason why evil usually wins over good is that evil is big and good is small. Good is always about the individual. Don’t steal, don’t kill, don’t lie, are all negatives and they all are things only I can do for myself. Good is always about how the individual should act.

            Evil in contrast has no such constraints. Evil can be big and be about doing big things. That makes it much more naturally appealing than good.

            1. “I read somewhere that the reason why evil usually wins over good is that evil is big and good is small.”

              I thought the reason evil always triumphs is that good is dumb.

              1. I thought the reason evil always triumphs is that good is dumb.

                You win the internets today.

            2. Evil wins, because good is stupid, John. Duh.

            3. I would put it this way: people value meaning and a sense of belonging almost more than they value freedom; in any case, the former is a powerful motivator, in some circumstances more than others. They sacrifice freedoms to attain a sense of belonging and meaning too; will fight windmills and hang innocents as witches too in order to fulfill those longings.

              There’s also the unavoidable role of hatred in the human psyche. People just aren’t naturally configured to be able to live peacefully side by side with people we hate, which is necessary for a free society. They always tend toward conversion and/or annihilation of the maligned. I think the real separating point here, which sets progressives apart from classical liberals, is that progressives always only viewed individual freedom as a temporary means to setting the stage for conversion. They believed that once people were free from old tyrannies, they would quickly convince everyone to go along with their vision. But alas, many remained unconvinced. Leftists only espouse freedom in so far as they believe everyone will voluntarily go over to their side. Same as most worldviews throughout history.

            4. I want in on this.

              Evil wins because to win good must become evil.

              Which goes along with John’s original comment. To win a major political or cultural battle, you have to get big.

          2. “The error that conservatives and libertarians make is in thinking that humans hold opinions for rational reasons.”

            Conservatives AND libertarians, one big happy family for Warty.

            The mask, it slips!

            1. No. It is that reasonable men can disagree. If anyone’s mask here has slipped it is yours. You apparently think that since Warty thinks conservatives are reasonable, he must be one. Ah no. It just means that reasonable people can disagree and that you think anyone who doesn’t agree with you is unreasonable. That of course makes you a Progressive, but we already knew that.

            2. You think Warty is a secret conservative? You really have lost it.

              He’s pointing out a character flaw that many conservatives and libertarians have in common. That’s a criticism, not a declaration that those groups are superior or something.

              1. Shh. Let him keep being stupid, plz.

                1. OK, that’s my last one, as long as he keeps being this stupid.

                  Sorry, I’m just a charitable guy. I thought he could be redeemed for a while.

              2. seriously, he’s clearly off the reservation at this point.

                1. Seriously. The set of people he has been bitching about lately is rather puzzling. It’s like he;s hiding in the bushes waiting for someone to say something insufficiently critical of Republicans so he can jump out and say “boo!”.

              3. seriously, he’s clearly off the reservation at this point.

                1. along with the squirrels.

        3. Conservatives, broadly speaking, are at a disadvantage because in many cases they’ve already given up on intellectual consistentcy. You can’t be against aid to mothers with dependent children while being for aid to dependent farmers. Well I guess you can, but it makes you look like an idiot. There’s also the comparison between banning drugs and soft drinks that you’ve noted.

          1. I don’t think conservatives are of one mind on drugs and farm aid. There’s a vocal anti-legalization contingent, still fighting the Great Anti-Hippie Crusade, but there are also legalizers acting in the tradition of William Buckley.

            And the only conservatives who seem enthusiastic about farm aid either represent agricultural states or are running in the Iowa primary.

            1. I imagine the farm aid types may be akin to the Ross Perot types. Plenty of conservatives a la Perot are actually fairly protectionist, and minimum wage is fairly popular among conservatives (Rick Santorum comes to mind). It has more to do with ethos than with logic: they prefer the idea of people getting paid more to work to the idea of people getting paid while not working, but fail to realize the former helps cause the latter.

              One example illustrating why I never believed in a monolithic left or right. Libertarians are constantly picking up disgruntled liberals like sex-positive feminists revolting against the new movement, anti-war types who are tired of high tax rates. Just like conservatives pick up social and economic progressives who are too hawkish on foreign policy to be content with the Democrats (e.g. Charles Krauthammer) and the Democrats are awash with socially conservative poor people who rely on the Democrats for free stuff.

              By right, this country should have at least a six or seven party system.

              1. Our Constitution does not envisage political parties as part of the mechanism of government, and its framers seem not to have pictured to themselves the existence in our national politics of anything like the modern political machine. But the American voters soon found that without organization and direction their individual votes, cast, perhaps, for dozens or hundreds of candidates, would produce nothing but confusion. Invisible government, in the shape of rudimentary political parties, arose almost overnight. Ever since then we have agreed, for the sake of simplicity and practicality, that party machines should narrow down the field of choice to two candidates, or at most three or four.
                In theory, every citizen makes up his mind on public questions and matters of private conduct. In practice, if all men had to study for themselves the abstruse economic, political, and ethical data involved in every question, they would find it impossible to come to a conclusion about anything. We have voluntarily agreed to let an invisible government sift the data and high-spot the outstanding issues so that our field of choice shall be narrowed to practical proportions. – Edward Bernays from Propaganda (1928)

          2. Conservatism itself is at a disadvantage as well. It’d ideas are generally more complex and multi-faceted than that of liberalism (and libertarianism) and can’t be easily explained or expressed in signs and sound bites.

      3. You may be more capable of defending yourselves, but you have to remember you’re dealing with people who have to lie, endlessly, because actually admitting what they believe in and want would make them instant pariahs. They’re not the normal kind of opponent (or whatever you want to call someone who is attacking you intellectually) that you would expect. They don’t feel shame, or embarrassment. They don’t care if they completely contradict themselves. They don’t care about anything but trying to shut you up.

        1. The thing is, they don’t think that they’re lying. They’ve been so cocooned most of their lives, live in such an echo chamber, they’ve been spoon fed such ridiculous caricatures of their political enemies by the popular media (see: trained seals), that they think it’s reality.

          The other issue is that they have no issue whatsoever in the state using force to achieve their ends, because they don’t see it that way. It’s magic. The state tells them to do something and that’s as deep as their thinking goes. And the right is just as guilty in that respect.

          Either you’re part of the collective and tithing your wealth and labor to it, or you’re the enemy of the collective and anything needed to bring you into line is valid.

          1. But the self-contradiction is the most amusing part;

            Conservative: every dollar spend on Defense makes the world safer from terrorists! Every military employee (most of whom are bureaucrats, not real soldiers) should get a million dollars a year for their ‘service.’

            Prog (formerly): That’s stupid. Every dollar spent on Education makes children smarter! Every teacher should get paid a million dollars a year for their infinite contributions to humanity! (never mind the market salary would be closer to 40k)

        2. This is why they have to be attacked on their own level. “Greater good” arguments are susceptible to privilege shaming. Privilege arguments are subject to “first world problem” and “what have you done about it” shaming.

          The best way to beat a progressive is to turn their shame machine against them. Defensiveness loses. Logic loses. Taking it to them and making them feel guilty for violating their own guilt hierarchy is the only thing that shuts them up.

          1. Feelings Feelings, nothing more than feelings,

            1. Exactly. When you find a feral child in the jungle, you can’t expect them to be able to read. Progs (among others) are feral people with respect to logic and critical thought. They have literally never been taught to think through something.

              How do you approach a 3 year old who is doing something wrong? Do you explain how what they’re doing may cause them negative side effects in the future? Of course not! You make them feel guilty for doing something “bad”! You take away their toy so that they associate the feeling of loss and sadness with the bad thing that they did.

              Same thing with these philosophically stunted progressives. They will only learn through guilt and sadness.

          2. I agree that turning their own shit against them is effective, mainly because it’s so easy to do because their entire belief system is irrational and is the exact kind of thing that will eventually eat itself because of its own internal contradictions. But it requires thinking like them and at least mastering their belief system and I find that incredibly distasteful.

            1. It takes a certain intellectual detachment coupled coupled with a perverse sense of humor.

              I don’t understand why you’re not totally into it.

              1. To be honest, I don’t understand why I’m not either. I guess I just find it rather gauche and jejune. I prefer my own brand of stupidity too much.

                1. I actually find it rather blas? and a source of ennui, mon cher enfant.

                  See I can throw around French words too, ya commie!

            2. it feels so dirty to debate on their level, but the prog tears wash it off. There is nothing better than the helpless anger in the eyes of a progressive that has just been called out in their own language. It’s like a teenager after they get grounded.

              1. Yeah, I get that, it’s just I don’t really want to crawl in the mud with them, you know?

                1. Progs are tweens that never grew up. They want to dress up and play grown up, but they really want mom and dad to be mom and dad for ever.

                  You just need to learn to be sarcastic and paternalistic at the same time. You don’t need to get down to their level.

            3. You have to posit the idea in rhetorical questions.

              “Who are you planning to kill/rape/rob today?”

              Once they get over their confusion of being accused of what they’re accusing, the fun begins.

      4. Today I learned we are fat kids.

  2. Well done, Damon.

  3. You genocidal maniacs had better stop leaving people alone.

    1. YOU GENOCIDAL MANIACS! YOU BLEW THE NARRATIVE ALL UP! OH DAMN YOU! OH GOD DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!

      1. Well done, sir.

  4. Forget it, Damon. It’s Proggytown.

  5. “It’s time for Millhiser to admit that he got it wrong and stop trying to dig himself out of the hole.”

    Bo
    Tony
    Turd
    etc.
    Ha and ha!

    1. Your projection is…incredible. Do you ever admit you’re wrong about anything? Usually you’re too busy loudly cursing anyone who disagrees with you on anything, no matter how abstract (the best example being your shouting tirades about religion).

      1. Do you ever admit you’re wrong about anything?

        The irony…it burns.

        1. Bo’s never wrong. One can’t be wrong when he shifts the goalposts and poorly rephrases the other side’s argument so that it is more easily defeated, even if he misrepresents his opponent completely.

      2. “Your projection is…incredible.”
        Really? What brand does he have? The Digital Galaxy LCD one got decent reviews on Amazon, but the Samsung projector seems to last longer, only it’s a lot more expense. Help me out, I’m in the market, how good was his projection?

    2. Tony and Palin’s Buttplug are in a class of their own. No one here is as disingenuous and obtuse as those guys. People here don’t like Bo for some reason.

      Palin’s Buttplug linked a article that projected a premium decrease in Florida (or some other state). He thumped his chest, and I linked a updated article in which the author admitted she made a mistake. The premiums would actually go up. He never responded.

      He also insisted that Clinton left us a surplus. I linked a CNN article that debunked that myth. Again, no response.

      Their people don’t admit to mistakes. They just don’t. Check out their reaction to Ellen Pao and the “Jackie” incident. The boyfriend of that mattress activist was treated like a rapist months after he was cleared.

  6. Weekend reruns already? After like 30 posts today?

  7. It’s time for Millhiser to admit that he got it wrong and stop trying to dig himself out of the hole.

    Dig up, stupid!

  8. Leftists attacking Darwinism because they think it encourages genocide. It’s like they’re reading it straight out of one of Ann Coulter’s “books.”

  9. I realize Root us just turning Millhiser’s irresponsible hyperbole back on him, but let’s all sides give the ‘genocide’ charge a rest. Genocide means the deliberate killing of a large group of people, particularly an ethnic group. Forcible sterilization are awful, but it’s far short of genocide, and ‘leaving people to die’ is even farther short.

    1. And even Spencer isn’t saying leave them all to die. Millhiser even quotes a paragraph where he says that if you kick people off charity they will painfully transition to independence. Becoming financial independent is a lot different than dying.

      At best you can say that Spencer believes in leaving *some* people to die, primarily he seems to dislike drunkards and spendthrifts. But Spencers point is that maybe if you cut the drunkard off of welfare he’ll be forced to reform himself. And if he does, it is good and fit that he should live.

      Unlike the progressive eugenicists, Spencer is NOT advocating that the government should make decisions about who should get to live or reproduce. He’s saying that decision should be left to “nature” and the choices of the individual themselves.

    2. Genocide means the deliberate killing of a large group of people, particularly an ethnic group. Forcible sterilization are awful, but it’s far short of genocide

      So if you forcibly sterilize all jews, are you not deliberately killing the jews off?

      1. Beside the point. Spencer didn’t advocate forced sterlization of anyone.

        Not giving a group of people charity isn’t “genocide”, even if they die with out the aid.
        If that were true, we’d all be commiting daily genocide by not giving all our money to poor people in Africa.

        1. Beside the point. Spencer didn’t advocate forced sterlization of anyone.

          Hazel, I would like Bo to answer the question. Which is why I asked it.

          1. Well, he’s answered now, so I’ll add this. Systematically sterilizing a whole ethnic group is a different thing from using forced sterilization for misguided eugenics plans when it comes to calling it genocide.

            They are both terrible and immoral, but congenital idiots and criminals are not ethnic groups.

            1. I was asking a very specific question which Bo answered.

              I understand genocide is associated with ethnicity, but my point was that the method used could be either killing or forced sterilization and the end result would be the same.

            2. “but congenital idiots and criminals are not ethnic groups.”

              Sure they are – “Congress”

              1. Congress is multicultural in its cupidity.

      2. Fair point

    3. “Forcible sterilization are [sic] awful, but it’s far short of genocide”

      WRONG. The crime of genocide is defined in international law in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.

      Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

      (a) Killing members of the group;
      (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
      (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
      (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
      (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

      1. Well, I certainly learned something new about genocide today.

    4. Genocide means the deliberate killing of a large group of people, particularly an ethnic group.

      Yeah, like the progs did to the plains indians. It was their biggest project between the cvil war and prohibition.

      -jcr

  10. The one part of Millhiser’s original piece that stuck out to me was the part where he accused Rand Paul and libertarians of wanting to “tear down the master’s house with the master’s tools”.

    Now bear in mind that the purpose of the piece was to persuade progressives that Rand Paul was no friend of black people because he wants to wage “genocide by neglect” in shrinking government.

    So if government is the “Master’s House” what does that make the helpless black people Millhiser insists are so dependent on government that they’d literally die without its benevolent support?

    1. This is becoming the most tired and rote attempt at racist rhetoric judo found on the right.

      Certain government programs ‘serve’ minorities disproportionately, and so when people on the right talk of cutting or ending them they often get charged with being racist. Understandably tired of that many on the right have developed this judo attempt to throw the charge back: ‘oh, so you think those minorities need that help, you think they’re inferior and must have it!!! You’re the REAL racist, not me!!!’

      It’s stupid. By that logic the Union army members who thought they should fight to free the slaves were the REAL racists because they thought the slaves were inferior and incapable of winning their own freedom.

      Thinking someone needs help because they face greater obstacles or have less resources through no fault of their own doesn’t make one a racist. Give it a rest, it’s so very tired it deserves one.

      1. Did Bo just compare blacks held in chattel slavery to those in modern day America?

        1. GODDAMMIT BANJOS

          1. Sloopy’s traveling on business and I’m bored!

            1. Couldn’t you just get drunk, beat your children, and entertain strange men like a normal person?

              1. “And so I ask you this one question. Have you ever tried simply turning off the TV, sitting down with your children, and hitting them?”

              2. I grew tired of all of those months ago. I’m now dabbling in eating deep dish, perfecting our artisanal mayo recipes, and responding to trolls.

            2. Sloopy’s traveling on business and I’m bored!

              Oh, so that’s why we haven’t had any more scintillating updates of the Adventures of Florida Man…

        2. Analogies, how do they work?

          1. Apparently, not at all for you.

      2. You’d have a point if Millhiser wasn’t the one talking about the state being the master’s house and tools.

      3. Your complete inability to grasp anything but the most crude logic never fails to amaze. The situation dictates the applicability of the logic. In 1860, black people were forcibly held as slaves. Understanding that they were unlikely to free themselves is not being racist. It is facing reality. White people couldn’t have freed themselves from that position either.

        The reason why Progs are racist is not simply because they think Blacks need help. It is because they are unable to articulate any situation or set of circumstances where blacks would no longer need their help. If Progressives would admit the racial progress that has been made and admit that that progress alleviates the need to give special help to blacks, they wouldn’t be racists. The problem is they never do that. It is for Progressives forever 1963. No matter how much progress is made, no matter how big the black middle class, no matter how many high offices black people hold, Progressives are forever convinced that black people need their help. It is this attitude that makes them racists. It is not that they think blacks need help now or needed help in the past. It is that they think blacks will always need help. They only think that because they view black people as inferior and view helping them as a way for white Progressives to assert their superiority over blacks and their moral superiority over anyone who might object.

        1. Progs honestly think blacks still are short on resources and or face greater obstacles in very situation where they advocate assistance that I can think of.

          1. A lot of people are short on resources. A lot of white are short on resources. And lots of people other than blacks face discrimination. Progressives think everyone else can over come that. Blacks, in Progrerssives’ view can’t. That is because they are a damaged people. Progressives look at blacks as nothing but props in the Progressive morality play. America and slavery forever damaged them and rendered black people in need of the services of enlightened white people.

            1. Disproportionate, what does it mean?

            2. I’m personally just amazed that Bo managed to take Serious’ criticism of a specific rhetorical statement by Millhiser (the Master’s house shit) and somehow conclude that Serious is making an entirely separate argument regarding overall progressive racism.

              Apparently you aren’t allowed to say ‘man, that “Master’s house” comment by Millhiser sure does sound oddly racist and patronizing’ or else Bo will proclaim you’re making a totally separate overarching argument you never mentioned.

              1. “article is that not only does he think blacks need the Federal government to survive, ”

                Yeah, all about the Master language Irish!

              2. You have identified one of the many bad qualities of Bo’s online persona. I no longer interact with her due to these bad qualities, and I encourage everyone else who values their time to similarly not waste it on her.

                    1. Really? That chick is not a law student. How do you figure it is her?

                    2. Okay, I’ll bite…

                      Her?

                      Someone who used to hang out at politico noticed the similarity in handles *and* the nearly identical debating style. He confronted her, and she refused to deny it.

                      Her derangement over gamergate is another point in the favor of the hypothesis.

                      Of course, I could be wrong. 46% of the population is not female, so there is a significant probability that Bo isn’t a chick. And it’s really kind of irrelevant; Bo’s gender really hasn’t any bearing on the vacousness and the poor manners.

                    3. I don’t believe it.

                    4. Top recommended skill: Facebook.

                    5. Oh…duh, yeah, I forgot about the Bo-sock theory.

                      Occam’s razor…Bo is, more than likely, just an asshole.

                    6. Seems like a stretch.

                      I don’t need any complicated explanation for an obsessive twit on the internet.

            3. Perhaps less surprisingly, I’ve seen a handle on Salon named “Tony” whose comments bear an uncanny resemblance to those of ours truly.

        2. The truly grotesque thing about Millhiser’s article is that not only does he think blacks need the Federal government to survive, he also flatly states that it is preferable that we preserve the welfare state first and foremost rather than risk Rand Paul ending the Drug War and stopping the mass incarceration of black people.

          Yes, welfare is more important to Millhiser than ending the most abusive practices of government in modern America.

          1. That is because he thinks black people are inferior and incapable of even living without the help of people like Milhiser.

            1. Stupid racist trying to play racial judo!

              /Botard the Hotard

          2. Millhiser is very consistent on being okay with mass incarceration. He’s been clear that he thinks Rand would be the worst president since Reconstruction. And his Twitter banner photo is of FDR. So.

            1. Black people need to be locked up so people like Milhiser can feel good about helping them.

            2. Someone should tell him that re-segregating the Federal civil service (Wilson) and interning thousands of Japanese (FDR) is a pretty high bar for Rand to clear.

              1. Were they Republicans? No.
                Is Rand a Republican? Yes.

                Check-mate.

            3. There is no amount of force and violence that is too much, too severe, to ensure the continuation of the collective and the status quo, as long as it’s happening to other people, particularly, poor people.

              I don’t mean to keep sarcasming repeating it, but that’s at the core of their beliefs.

      4. “Certain government programs ‘serve’ minorities disproportionately, and so when people on the right talk of cutting or ending them they often get charged with being racist. Understandably tired of that many on the right have developed this judo attempt to throw the charge back: ‘oh, so you think those minorities need that help, you think they’re inferior and must have it!!! You’re the REAL racist, not me!!!'”

        Except Bo that in this case she actually used slave terminology in her own argument. Serious is criticizing that rhetoric, not making the argument you’re projecting onto him.

        This therefore is nothing like what Serious is talking about and if you weren’t a knee jerk contrarian I think you’d realize that.

        1. ” helpless black people Millhiser insists are so dependent on government that they’d literally die without its benevolent support?”

          1. Which is directly related to the rhetoric used by Millhiser when he talked about the ‘Master’s house.’ It’s a direct criticism of Millhiser’s argument and you’re inflating it in order to make one of your patented wild denunciations of right-wingers.

            In this case, Millhiser actually used ridiculously racial terminology, Serious criticized him for that, and you, being an attention whore, misinterpreted what had just been said.

      5. By that logic the Union army members who thought they should fight to free the slaves were the REAL racists because they thought the slaves were inferior and incapable of winning their own freedom.

        Oh bullshit. There’s a big difference here. Progressives want to nanny. Which is condescending. Whether it’s racist or not, I can’t say. But it is definitely condescending. However, if progressives are assuming that certain races and ethnic groups are incapable of taking care of themselves, then I’d think there might be some racism involved.

        Thinking someone needs help because they face greater obstacles or have less resources through no fault of their own doesn’t make one a racist.

        The no fault part is problematic. Assuming that someone of a different race or ethnic group is incapable of solving their own problems without the helping hand of white progressives is bordering on racism.

      6. “Thinking someone needs help because they face greater obstacles or have less resources through no fault of their own doesn’t make one a racist.”

        But thinking that it is a waste or even counterproductive to give some form of ‘help’ so anyone, regardless of their race, is racist?

        Not to mention the fact that this ‘help’ is part of what perpetuates the problems that supposedly render the ‘help’ needed in the first place.

        Oh, and btw, the reason I think progressives are racist is because every time a group of people consists disproportionately of white people, they blame it on racism, and yet still I hear no calls for more white guys in the NBA.

      7. If someone thinks cutting government benefits or limiting the size of government is inherently racist, then it’s perfectly logical for anyone to respond by turning the tables on them.

        Most Asians don’t like affirmative action. We could credibly say “It’s racist to assume that college admission requires racial quotas, when non white Asians are already getting into elite colleges without it”

        The government doesn’t give more to someone just because they’re not white. Minorities tend to be poorer than whites and wealthier immigrants, so they make up a sizable (but not all) portion of the welfare recipients.

        Of course government programs are racist. Why do you think colleges have have these ridiculous trigger warnings and code of ethics that protect the feelings of women and minorities? Why won’t progressives just try out libertarian solutions, like whittling down certification requirements or promote school choice to see how minorities would react? Why are they alarmed when fast food joints start popping up in poor neighborhoods?

        When you put someone on a pedestal to the point of infantilizing them, it’s racist.

  11. Don’t you love how progressives want to give away your money and your stuff so the government can tell you how and when you should do things you can do yourself already? [not really?]

    Don’t magically forget the role Progressivists played in US eugenics campaigns in the 19th & 20th century. They sterilized women of color, the developmentally disabled, “inconvenient” women & prisoners. When the State determines your mental and reproductive capacity as a “social detriment” you end up with internment camps, sterilization campaigns, re-education campaigns (indigenous), life long institutionalization over identity, and lobotomies. Then the State assumes or cannibalizes your assets and gives them away to someone else. Awesome right? [Not really.]

    Nazi is as nazi does.

    1. What I really love is how progressives have coerced me to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars of FICA “contributions” because I’m too stupid and irresponsible to save for my own retirement. And, then they stupidly and irresponsibly squandered those “contributions” on worthless crap like military adventures, useless bureaucracies, antisocial welfare handouts, an enlarged police state, a drug war, new prisons, and general graft, corruption, and crony crapitalism.

  12. Don’t you love how progressives want to give away your money and your stuff so the government can tell you how and when you should do things you can do yourself already? [not really?]

    Don’t magically forget the role Progressivists played in US eugenics campaigns in the 19th & 20th century. They sterilized women of color, the developmentally disabled, “inconvenient” women & prisoners. When the State determines your mental and reproductive capacity as a “social detriment” you end up with internment camps, sterilization campaigns, re-education campaigns (indigenous), life long institutionalization over identity, and lobotomies. Then the State assumes or cannibalizes your assets and gives them away to someone else. Awesome right? [Not really.]

    Nazi is as nazi does.

    1. For a clear, and disturbing, story of how progressive elite treated ordinary people who stood in the way of progressive vision, check this out:

      Mountain Folk Maligned: Pork, Propaganda, and Creation of a Cool National Park

      The park is Shenandoah Natl Park. The land was coveted by progressive elites, but had been occupied by hillbillies for generations. To evict them, the progressive elites declared them mental defectives, shunted them off to the Virginia Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded, sterilized many, and stole their land.

      Brief documentary with footage of the “Colony”

  13. From the ThinkProgress tripe:

    Root’s claim that Spencer did not support allowing the least fortunate to die from neglect is simply wrong. Social Statics claims that “stupidity,” “vice,” and “idleness” are “nature’s failures,” that people who possess these traits “are recalled by her laws when found to be such.” These human “failures,” are the people Spencer casts aside with the dismissive conclusion “they die, and it is best they should die.”

    To rebut this point, Root quotes a different passage of Social Statics, where Spencer writes that “in so far as” nature’s cruelty “is mitigated by the spontaneous sympathy of men for each other, it is proper that it should be mitigated.”

    1. How far removed was this distant “different passage”? Let’s see…:

      At the heart of Hofstadter’s case is the following passage from Spencer’s famous first book, Social Statics (1851): “If they are sufficiently complete to live, they do live, and it is well they should live. If they are not sufficiently complete to live, they die, and it is best they should die.”

      That certainly sounds rough, but as it turns out, Hofstadter failed to mention the first sentence of Spencer’s next paragraph, which reads, “Of course, in so far as the severity of this process is mitigated by the spontaneous sympathy of men for each other, it is proper that it should be mitigated.”

      Well, a whole nother paragraph away? Aint nobody got time for that!

      In short, Ian Millhiser is a mendacious shit.

      1. tl:dr;

      2. Ian Millhiser is a mendacious shit.

        That’s a job requirement at the progtard institute.

        -jcr

    2. Yeah, the different passage was, iirc, directly following or preceding the one Millhiser’s highlighted.

  14. At this point Millhiser has shifted from ignorance to willful misreading of Spencer.

    When Spencer talks about keeping people on welfare producing more misery in the long term, and that private charity should be individually directed (rather than administered through impersonal organizations or the state), he’s not advocating anything that can be remotely called “genocidal”. He’s talking about targeted aid to worthy individuals so that it won’t be wasted on people with drug or alcohol problems or spendthrifts. Tough love maybe, but “genocidal” is absurd.

    Also it’s kind of ironic how many progressives love the film ‘Idiocracy’, given that it is essentially making the same point as Spencer. I guess they can’t see past the ‘Derp, it makes fun of Bush and dumb Americans…’

    1. When Spencer talks about keeping people on welfare producing more misery in the long term, and that private charity should be individually directed (rather than administered through impersonal organizations or the state),

      The United States has over the last 50 years spent more money than on all of its wars combined proving Spencer to be exactly right in this assertion. Millhiser willfully misreads Spencer because he has to. Reading Spencer honestly would require Milhiser to honestly confront the sorry legacy of Progressivism. That is something a true believer like Milhiser can never do.

      1. He never read Spencer in the first place. He read a few snippets from leftists hatchet jobs and reposted it as his own research.

    2. A big debate in the 19th century was about whether charity should be restricted to the “deserving poor.” It’s not irrational or immoral to think that limited charitable resources should be focused on people who can be helped more than on people who can’t. It’s a rational view of the world, if a little sad, as we can’t spend infinite money or work hours on anything, and not all problems can be solved by group effort or throwing money at them.

      The above, of course, was mostly about religious and private charity, with government having little to no role in that process.

      1. Also, we do have drug testing for welfare recipients. So we’re kind of already picking the “worthy” anyway. Welfare policies favor single mothers with children, mainly because we think young children are more worthy of help than healthy adult males.

        1. To some extent, yes, but not really. Means testing is mostly out, as is any robust anti-fraud measures. When it became about buying votes (or not losing them), then the idea of deserving recipients flew out the window. It’s why welfare fraud (esp. the new fad, everyone on disability) is through the roof.

        2. Right. Drug testing. The drunks are much more worthy than the stoners and crack heads.

          I see your point. Just in reality it is kind of a joke.

          1. It’s certainly far from the kind of selective aid that Spencer envisioned.

          2. Just like everything else government taints with its tainted touch, that’s because of politics.

    3. “Also it’s kind of ironic how many progressives love the film ‘Idiocracy’, given that it is essentially making the same point as Spencer. I guess they can’t see past the ‘Derp, it makes fun of Bush and dumb Americans…'”

      I love Idiocracy because everyone assumes it’s mocking their political opponents. It’s the ultimate projection movie. Clearly this is meant just to make fun of the stupid people who don’t think like me!

      1. There’s also the part where dumb people outbreed the smart ones, lowering the intelligence of the population over time, which matches at least some of the old eugenicist arguments.

        1. Which really isn’t how it works.

          Anyway, if stupid people do end up outbreeding smart people, then intelligence probably isn’t as great as it’s cracked up to be, from a purely biological evolutionary point of view.

          1. I was critiquing the movie, not endorsing it or confusing Spencer with it.

            1. Sorry, didn’t mean to imply anything about what you said. Just further commenting on it.

          2. Well consider that smart people are more likely to know how to use condoms, think to use birth control and wait to have kids till after they’re well-situated, and only have as many as they can afford.

            Intelligence is clearly advantageous. However, because society (especially smart people) insists on caring for the poor no matter how many children they have, the survival rate of poor children is about as high as for rich ones. In a truly Darwinian society, poor children would largely starve to death, and the children of the intelligent would survive better. So, ironically, it is the beneficence of the intelligent that has rendered intelligence a reproductive ‘disadvantage.’ This type of situation could end poorly for the poor too, as the decline in smart people means fewer people to finance their higher rate of reproduction and ultimately eventually leads to a population cataclysm.

            All theoretical of course, just a though experiment. But evolutionarily, it was arguably more advantageous for the population the way things were in older times in that rich people had more children than poor people; also spread the wealth around, so less ‘income inequality.

        2. Well, not exactly the same point as Spencer. Spencer seems to envision a future populated by masses of dependent poor afflicted with stupidity, idleness, and vice. Idiocracy is sort of like the “what happens after” of that.

          Come to think of it, levels of welfare dependence in some parts of the country resemble Spencers prognostication to an uncomfortable degree. There are places in the Deep South where everyone in some families has been on welfare for multiple generations. Kids grow up without a single adult in their family who has a job.

        3. Free and readily available birth control!!!

          1. Actually a redeeming feature of the ACA, really. Although I’m amazed that the D’s are willing to shoot themselves in the demographic foot like that.

      2. Yeah, people often really don’t get Mike Judge. He’s just mocking stupidity in general, and apathy too. There’s really nothing more to read into it, especially not partisanship.

        By the way, if you haven’t been watching it, Silicon Valley is SUPER fun. And Amanda Crew is adorable.

        1. I just about died laughing at the first season’s finale. Judge is brilliant and highly under appreciated.

        2. Yes, we have been enjoying that as well.

          Also Portlandia.
          There is this Indian comedian who is on both shows that is great. I keep seeing him in stuff and going “It’s THAT GUY again!” The guy that always plays really obnoxious and unhelpful customer service representatives.

          1. Portlandia does a good job of appealing to people who are like the people being parodied in the show and to people who see the show as a vicious satire on those people.

            1. Having been to Portland a few times, I have always assumed that show was a drama or reality show. Satire isn’t supposed to be truthful. And that show is exactly how those people are.

              1. I’ve never been there, but I’ve heard that from other people who have.

                I have a hard time imagining such a place being real.

            2. I think I am both.
              Every time I watch the show, I’m either like “I am that person.” or else “I know that person.”

              There was this one where they were watching this parady video that explained “escrow” that had me in tears, because I had just been through trying to buy a house via a short sale.

          2. I think I’ve encountered him, too.

          3. I assume you mean Kumail Nanjiani? He’s Pakistani, you fuck!

  15. Oh look, Ian engaged in selective editing:

    Though we quote Spencer’s 1851 book Social Statics, which opposes “[a]cts of parliament to save silly people” ….

    What Spencer says in context:

    Acts of parliament to save silly people from the evils which putting faith in empirics may entail upon them, do this, and are therefore bad. Unpitying as it looks, it is best to let the foolish man suffer the appointed penalty of his foolishness. For the pain?he must bear it as well as he can: for the experience?he must treasure it up, and act more rationally in future. To others as well as to himself will his case be a warning.

    To put Spencer in contemporary terms, he’s saying “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.”

  16. Good job, everyone. Keep it up.

    1. Goddammit. I jinxed it.

  17. The comments on the article (all three of them) were enlightening.

    Basically, we libertarians are just – evil.

  18. My response to Think Progress – never in the history of the world did a society create so many fat poor people.

  19. I noted that Spencer repeatedly championed the virtues of “Positive Beneficence,” “human benevolence,” “spontaneous sympathy of men for each other,” and other forms of private charity designed to mitigate “the operation of natural selection.” In short, I argued, it is simply incorrect to say that Spencer “literally” advocated letting the poor and unfortunate die in the streets.

    You poor deluded fool!
    .
    Absent government coercion, those things have no legitimacy. They do not even exist, in any meaningful sense.

  20. “the father of modern libertarianism literally argued that the impoverished and the unfortunate should be left to die in order to purify the human race.”

    “Millhiser should instead confront his own organization’s recent cheerleading for a bunch of people who literally endorsed the tactics of “genocidal progressivism.”

    OK Now I’m confused. WHICH ONE IS HITLER!?? Its literally driving me crazy.

    1. You know who else was confused about Hitler?

      1. omg i know i read this somewhere.

        literally, its on the tip of my tongue.

      2. The Neville Brothers?
        Wilt Chamberlain?

      3. Charlie Chaplin?

    2. You are Hitler.

      1. That was totally how the movie Memento ended, right? because that confused me. Then someone was like, “He’s hitler”, and I was like, “OMG it all makes sense”

    3. What’s funny is I have never read anything by Herbert Spencer and am in no way influenced by his views. I’ve heard of them, am familiar with social Darwinism, but he is about as much a father to my views as Proudhon. I almost never consider him. James Madison or Edmund Burke or a few Greeks and Romans are much more relevant.

      Does anyone know if Rand Paul has ever referenced Herbert Spencer? If not, then Millhiser’s whole article is a disingenuous pile of shit. It’s logically laughable to say ‘A is a libertarian; Libertarianism all derives from B; B is evil, ergo A is evil.

      Here, I’ll try it: the German Social Democratic Party (which fathered the other major Social Democratic Parties of Europe and is the originator of Social Democracy as an ideology) was co-founded by Karl Marx. Therefore, if you sympathize with Social Democracy or belong to a Social Democratic Party, you are a communist who wants to murder millions of Ukrainians and send all their opponents to gulags.

      /proglogic

  21. “tear down the master’s house with the master’s tools”
    .
    What the fuck does that even mean?

    1. It doesn’t even work as an analogy. Wouldn’t you just want to kill the master and keep his house (presuming the neighbors would let you get away with it)? When did we go from “slavery is wrong” to “the world must burn”?

      1. But we must be purified by fire!!!

  22. The initial argument is completely absurd, anyway, even if they had characterized Spencer’s views correctly. There can be no ‘genocidal libertarianism’ as long as a libertarian is not advocating government force against the poor…which wouldn’t be libertarianism to begin with.

    The argument is the old leftist tactic of equating not giving as taking. By not wanting to help the poor, libertarians are in some way genocidal. No – you are genocidal if you actively work to destroy another group of people.

    1. It’s not even true to say libertarians don’t want to help the poor. Libertarians don’t want to use government force to help the poor.

      Though in the feeble mind of a progressive, there is no difference.

      Time to quote Bastiat for the second time today:

      Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

      We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

      1. Yeah, really good point.

        Let us suppose that we really were to cut off all welfare tomorrow.
        Yes it’s quite possible that millions of people would die. It’s also possible that they wouldn’t. That they would get jobs or start vegetable gardens and live in tent camps and figure it out, somehow. Or that the number of people who actually die would be a lot smaller and most fo them would work it out.

        But even if a few hundred thousand people can’t figure it out and end up dying, that’s still not “genocidal”. Not only because not helping people isn’t the same as killing them off, but also because technically speaking, the people dying off have to have something genetically in common for it to be “genocide”. And unless you think all of the “stupid” “idle” poor people share common genes (ahem), then it isn’t genocide, it’s a random distribution of individuals across the population. If you took a lottery and killed off every 10th person, would that be genocidal? Not really, because those people don’t have anything in common that makes them a cohesive group.

        1. Thing is, it’s basically illegal to be poor in this country. By that I mean things that really poor people could use, like flop houses and below-minimum wage jobs, are illegal.

          Progressives feel that by outlawing services that are used by the poor, that they make poor people richer.
          Why should a poor person sleep at a flop house? That’s icky. Let’s outlaw flophouses so the poor will sleep in motels. But it doesn’t occur to them that that means the poor person without the coin for a motel is now on the street.
          Same thing with minimum wage. Why should a poor person work a job that doesn’t pay a living wage? That’s not fair. Let’s outlaw low paying jobs so poor people will get jobs that pay better. It never occurs to them that that means a poor person without skills now has no job at all.

          The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

          1. ^^This^^

            That road is paved not only with intentions but with a misunderstanding of cause and effect.

            1. It’s all about intentions. Their policies can’t be the cause since they were made with good intentions. There must be some other cause, like greedy capitalists with bad intentions. That is why, without exception, every time bad policy has bad results, the solution is more, more, more. Getting rid of bad policies is simply not an option, because they interpret that as insulting the good intentions of the people who wrote it.

          2. That is absolutely correct and one of the better things I have read in a while sarcasmic. Well said.

      2. I made this argument on the CAP article in shorter terms. The left hasn’t just equated society with government, but political ideas with the personal.

        I reject the notion that anyone has the right (or any collection of people, such as government) to take others property and redistribute it for a number of reasons; not the least of which is that it is ineffective. None of that has to do with my views towards personal charity.

        But for progs, the two can’t be separated. Their individual beliefs have to be projected onto society and enforced.

        1. I reject the notion that anyone has the right (or any collection of people, such as government) to take others property and redistribute it for a number of reasons; not the least of which is that it is ineffective.

          I reject the notion because it’s a logical contradiction.

          If the job of government is ensuring justice, then how can government redistribute wealth?

          If some well-intentioned person steals from you so they can help poor people, you’ve been a victim of an injustice. It is the duty of government to bring you justice.

          But if the person who steals from you is from government, you’ve still been a victim of an injustice. But where can you go for justice, since the people whose duty it is to bring you justice were the ones who dealt you an injustice?

          Government cannot both protect property rights while also giving some a claim to the property of others.

          It’s logically inconsistent.

          1. I don’t see how it could possibly be the job of the government to ensure justice. For one thing, the government would have to know what justice was in an abstract sense — a question about which there is considerable disagreement. Secondly, the government would have to be omniscient, or at least strive constantly to become so. Then, it would have to act coercively on the lives of its subjects in microscopic detail to compel them to behave justly at all times. While there are people who would like to pretend to be doing this, there is no way they could actually do it in the world as it is.

            Many purposes can be ascribed to government, but I don’t think the production of justice is likely to be one of them.

            1. Government enforces legislation. So long as the legislation is just, the government enforces justice. Like legislation that prohibits theft for example, even if the theft is well-intentioned. But when it’s the government that engages in well-intentioned theft, then the law ceases to be just.

              1. Legislation is part of government, and I don’t see how legislation can be just, for the reasons I give above with regard to government as a whole. Furthermore, besides the fact that the legislature lacks the necessary omniscience to enact just laws, there is the great likelihood that its members may be corrupted by special interests, and another great likelihood that the administrators of the law will be incompetent or corrupt. This is supposed to be why the powers of the government have to be strictly limited if, indeed, they exist at all.

                1. and I don’t see how legislation can be just

                  You don’t think that legislation that commands punishment for theft or murder is just?

                  1. *isn’t*

                    1. Some might be, some might not be. Each crime and each punishment would have to be exactly defined, taking into consideration all mitigating and aggravating circumstances which were relevant — all in advance, since we are talking about legislation and not adjudication. Moreover, in the case of theft, we would have to have a perfectly just law assigning property rights to every possible individual, group, and relation what might be affected. We don’t have the necessary information or thinking ability to do that. And even if, by chance, our laws happened to be just, we would not know that they were just. We are not godlike enough to be just. We can try to approach justice, but we can hardly be confident of our efforts.

                      Of course I’m assuming here that one does not propose that the laws and justice are identical per se. I can think of many laws which I regard as having been unjust. I suspect most people feel that way.

                    2. s/what/that/

        2. Which, following Millhiser logic, means modern-day progs are Nazis. The idea of ‘the personal is the political’ was essentially developed by Carl Schmitt, as part of an ideological justification for the implementation of fascism. Ergo, progs=Nazis.

          1. The sick and twisted thing about the Nazis is that they had good intentions. They really felt that they were making the world a better place as they paved the road to hell.

            1. Some of them certainly did. And it is interesting as well to read early proposals and manifestos of the Italian fascists, wherein they sound like earnest social democrats. I am pretty sure most of them thought they were doing the right thing.

  23. we can’t spend infinite money or work hours on anything, and not all problems can be solved by group effort or throwing money at them.

    You

    MONSTER.

  24. what the fuck are they so afraid of?
    .
    Maybe they are afraid of being exposed as developmentally stunted children, incapable of seeing past their initial emotional reactions to the world.

    1. That would make sense if they were self-aware. But the are not.

  25. Right-Wing Terrorist* Flies Helicopter** into Capitol***

    (* Well, he *seems* ‘Right-Wing’. He wants lower taxes!!

    “The Tampa Bay Times reported that a Florida man planned to land the one-man chopper on the Capitol grounds as an act of civil disobedience.

    “”we don’t have to accept that it’s a corrupt government that sells out to the highest bidder,” he told the paper. “We can have a government that works for the people, that answers to the people, that can only take money from the people in small amounts.””

    **Well, it was sort of a one-man gyrocopter mad-max thing

    *** He landed it on the lawn. But it was near the Capitol!)

    1. “It’s my snake, I raised it, and I’m gonna eat it!”

    2. Yeah, Florida Man in this instance was protesting campaign finance.

      He reportedly flew the contraption to Washington to compel lawmakers to pay attention to the issue of campaign finance reform. So far, his stunt has drawn the attention of Capitol Police, who responded to the scene and apprehended Hughes.

      “The U.S. Capitol Police continues to investigate with one person detained and temporary street closures in the immediate area,” the Capitol Police said in a statement.

      Hughes, who works as a mailman, flew to Washington with 535 two-page letters for each member of Congress, according to the Tampa Bay Times.

      “I’m demanding reform and declaring a voter’s rebellion in a manner consistent with Jefferson’s description of rights in the Declaration of Independence,” Hughes wrote. “As a member of Congress, you have three options. 1. You may pretend corruption does not exist. 2. You may pretend to oppose corruption while you sabotage reform. 3. You may actively participate in real reform.”

      Seeing as how most of the people wailing about campaign finance these days are the anti-Citizens’ United brigade, I’m guessing Mr. Dough Hughes (awesome Florida Man name) was of the same mindset. Especially given the lack of mention in the corporate media of his firearms ownership and Tea Party bona fides.

      1. I don’t know man. “Gyrocopter” is pretty-strongly-suggestive of “Right Wing” to me. Progressives are much more “Ultra-Light*”

        (*confession: I sorta wants. or do they drop out of the sky if the engine fails? do they not glide? if so, then i do not wants.)

        1. If you lose the engine you’re going to have a rough landing. You won’t drop like a stone but it’s not going to be a fun journey to the ground again.

          1. Yeah, that’s what i thought.

            I’ve been hang gliding a few times, enough to where i developed an appreciation that “too slow” means “you’re falling”

        2. A gyrocoptor does not supply power to the rotating wing. Forward movement from the propeller at the rear causes the blades to spin, not the motor. The spinning then provides lift. When a helicopter suffers engine failure, they use forward motion to keep the blades spinning and providing lift, just like a gyrocoptor. I would imagine that you’ve have a comparatively softer landing in the latter since it’s lighter and designed specifically to fly that way all the time.

          1. I was talking about ultra lights.

            I would never, ever, ever, ride in one of those flying fucking egg-beaters. Sorry. I live dangerously, but i draw the line in certain places.

            1. There’s a guy around here who flies a powered parachute.

              Here’s a youtube of a guy landing one after the engine failed.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oyHypD54dw

              1. That didn’t look like an engine failure to me. Looked like they guy shut it down.

                1. Take it up with google.

    3. a Florida man planned to land the one-man chopper on the Capitol grounds as an act of civil disobedience.

      Banjos, you need to call Sloopy bash from his business trip right now…

      1. *back

        1. TOO LATE! THE SLOOPY HAS LANDED!!!!

    4. And since the guys who have to repair the lawn are mostly Mexican, this act was clearly racist too!

  26. Here’s a genuine left-wing progressive’s take on Social Darwinism:

    “You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself.”

    — George Bernard Shaw

    Collectivism always ends up with death camps.

    “The moment we face it frankly we are driven to the conclusion that the community has a right to put a price on the right to live in it ? If people are fit to live, let them live under decent human conditions. If they are not fit to live, kill them in a decent human way. Is it any wonder that some of us are driven to prescribe the lethal chamber as the solution for the hard cases which are at present made the excuse for dragging all the other cases down to their level, and the only solution that will create a sense of full social responsibility in modern populations?”

    Curiously, Shaw was also a defender of Lysenkoism, the equivalent of catastrophic global warming in his day.

    1. Shaw was also an admirer of Hitler, and an advocate of mass murder by the means of poison gas.

      -jcr

  27. Milhiser’s grown up. I remember when he first appeared on the Simpsons

  28. So the Hillary campaign group, funded by the Podesta lobbyist brothers and fraudulently disguised as a 501c3, tried to erase Herbert Spencer’s hard drive.

  29. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  30. Liam . I agree that Jessica `s st0ry is really cool… on monday I got Bugatti Veyron since getting a cheque for $9519 this month and-even more than, 10 grand last munth . without a doubt its the best-work I have ever done . I started this 4 months ago and almost immediately started earning more than $80 per hour ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.