I’m not the kind who would own slaves; I’m the kind who WILL shoot anyone trying to enslave me. The AGW crowd are just this century’s version of phrenologists. Except these morons are dangerous.
You got that right - I am trying to remember something I read about mandatory psychological asssessments of every American due to the “untreated conditions” out there. Not sure if this is part of the Obamacare BS, but this is how they will identify people who are thinking rational human beings who don’t buy into the BS given the facts - then off to FEMA re-education camps we go.
Yes, these morons are dangerous
Given the complexity of life, the narrow range of understanding possessed by any particular group is guaranteed to fall short at some point. Given the concentration of power exercised under a centralized system, the failures are guaranteed to have widespread and crippling effects. By contrast, the multiplicity of successes and failures over a wide range of scale that appears so chaotic in a state of liberty has the benefit of limiting the damage and of spreading throughout society successes which can be emulated and modified to fit local conditions.Well, it was probably this part that really did it, given that that prof was probably already in negotiations to become the public health director of Cincinnati or Columbus:
Among some, the attitude seems to be We know so much now, but people dont care or wont listen or arent changing fast enough. What can we do to change things now?" The yearning appears to be for some universal remedy. This may be nice, but is hardly practicable, let alone even conceivable. It would require an understanding of life and society beyond the capability of any individual or group. Universalist approaches in the realm of economics and government have proved uniformly disastrous.
"But, somebody ought to pay me to do it because I'm right!"
Some health professionals seem to believe that the government should sponsor their efforts to counter the self-interested efforts of others (nutrition and diet quacks for example) because they are right and the others are wrong, because they are altruistic and the others are not. It may be true that they are factually correct and genuinely altruistic, and that what they wish to do will have a beneficial effect on many people, but it doesnt follow necessarily that the government should fund them.
This is a manifestation of a widespread phenomenon brought about by the advent of the secularized state. Instead of viewing the state as a limited means to a limited end, the tendency has been to imbue it, a temporal entity, with the attributes of a transcendent final judgment in which all injustices and inequalities are finally rectified. In this way, the secular state has been categorically, though not personally, deified and expected to act accordingly (something of a diffuse divine right of kings).
This is seen in those who believe the necessary response to a social ill is the passage of a law, especially a federal law, and the enactment of a program, especially one that they can devise and administrate (and that not necessarily for cynical reasons). Those who feel they are on the side of right, certain they arent acting against societys interest, often appeal to the State to aid them in their struggle against evil. Since the spirit of the secular state is money and power, they ask to be endowed accordingly. Its pathetically naive and dangerous.
Power accumulates power. Government grows until it meets a limit, either a systemic one (Constitutional limits), or a fiscal one (limits imposed by the amount of money it is able to generate or extort from its own citizens or those outside), or a social one (limits provided by massive societal non-compliance or armed insurrection or by other countries response to aggression or perceived weakness). Even then it still has great power to drain resources and people from productive enterprise and turn them to its own ends. In this way it is functioning as a parasite living off the body politic.