Didn't read the article, I just wanted to pop in and say that Gene Roddenbooby was a pinhead.Ping for your interest. Please ping to others whom you think might be interested.
Didn't read the article, I just wanted to pop in and say that Gene Roddenbooby was a pinhead.For your possible interest. Please share with others who might be interested. Otherwise, pardon the intrusion.
Er . . . um . . . ping?
Pretty good.
Now you just need to get it published in the NYTimes
Bump for later read.
I know how to win over the other side to vote for me I'll call them dumb, ignorant, bible thumping knuckle draggers. </sarcasm>
A good book to read is called "The Mystery of Capital" by Hernando de Soto. The guy is a Peruvian. The book came out in 2000. Its become something of a sensation in the academic world. The book asks the basic question "why are some countries rich and some countries poor."
The answer is that all the rich countries have monetized their properties. They are surrounded by a halo of "invisible wealth" as de Soto puts it. That is you can buy and sell and--most importantly--borrow against-- land and most assets in the rich countries whereas you cannot in poor countries. You can't buy and sell with any ease most of the land and assets in poor countries. These countries don't have the political, legal and bureaucratic infrastructure that supports property. So its dead.
However, it would be in the interests of these countries to create the infrastructure that would support respect for property.
They just don't get it yet.
Just a talking point.
Also reject closed federal/state/local union shops.
To the disciples of Voltaire and Hegel, "noble savages" are useful only inasmuch as they can be used as a controllable mob to storm the ramparts of their ideological adversaries. They have no real "love" for the proletariat, the peasant masses, the brownshirt mob. They only wish to control them and to use them.
Not being this articulate, or on the other hand, being this articulate and burned out, I haven't found any Liberals classically liberal enough to engage in discussion. The all seem to get red faced and white knuckled and revert to ad hominem attacks. But then I haven't read Ann Coulter's latest book yet...
Interesting article though, and worth a second read.
I fully agree with your "we are here to study them" theory. The left do think this way. However, I think, they tend to choose the First World leftist escape holes because deep down, they know where the life is better and the freedoms they grew to take for granted are available and not under the imminent threat (apart from the Left themselves, of course.)
Of course, there are always some particularly delusional characters who choose various dictatorships as places to search for that 'ideal' (but that's just Darwin's theory in action.)
I have thought about "Star Trek" and the Left as well.
But I have not gone to such depths as you have or the same direction.
My observation of the Left is how they have reacted to the threat of Islamofacism. They truly believe that we can talk out our differences -
I call it "The Star Trek Assumption".
They seem to think we are living in a "Star Trek" world.
That you can solve any problem with talk.
Their idiocy can only make this world more dangerous.
ping...
I too have understood leftism in terms of their subscribing to a sort of "Prime Directive" for a while now. My reasoning and basis for coming to this conclusion ran along different lines than yours (I actually like yours better).
To recapitulate my thinking in this area a bit: I think any analysis of lefty thought has to take into account their millenial utopianism. The future will be utopia; the utopian monoculture will cover the world; this is a given. The only question is, what will be that monoculture be like? Or rather, what current culture will form the seed or root of, and evolve into, that monoculture? Clearly this question must plague most leftists, because they look around, and what is there to root for - especially with USSR gone?
Here's where I believe that the "paradox" you've discovered can be resolved and understood. Basically, the Prime Directive needs to be obeyed because lefties don't like our culture enough to be willing to see it become the future utopia. Other "indigenous" cultures therefore need to be coddled and firewalled because if they are not, lefties know we will swallow them up. This is intolerable not because our swallowing up other cultures will harm those cultures (in most cases they'd benefit) but because then there would be no alternatives.
And the main thing the lefty wants to preserve is alternatives to our society. Why? Again: because he does not like our society.
So, a lefty has a lot of trouble advocating the use of force against even the most vicious of "indigenous" killers. Yes, sure (says the lefty subconscious), we could save a lot of indigenous lives doing it, but look at the down-side: (1) we increase our power and prestige, (2) we reinforce our precedent for "interfering", and (3) we will inevitably influence that culture in our direction.
It's "better" to let other cultures, even vicious/murderous ones, to stay out there, protected from us. Think of it as a sort of extension of lefty thinking on the benefits of "diversity". If each Culture is a member of the Culture-Gene-Pool, then (since diversity is good) it's better to keep them around than to risk them being swallowed up by larger, more dominant (even if better and kinder) cultures!
Hence: the Prime Directive.
Within the context of the Star Trek show, my understanding of why lefties like the Prime Directive fulfills a metaphorical function. The effect of the PD on Star Trek is to ensure that the "Federation culture" is never going to be the only one in the universe. There are always going to be "strange new worlds" to explore, "new life forms" - if a Star Trek viewer had ever been concerned about this, the PD ensures it. This is obviously necessary on a TV show whose main appeal is often the alien encounters. In fact, the humans of Star Trek are often rather boring, so of course a rule to ensure others survive, is a priori a good thing.
Well, lefties, perhaps by definition, think that "our" culture is rather boring (=should NOT be the sole root of future utopian monoculture) thus find it necessary to "protect" others with a PD. Even if this leads to apparent betrayal of their principles.
The betrayal is only apparent because the truth is their principles have less to do with their oft-professed devotion to "human rights" etc., and more than anything else to do with fundamentally disliking their own culture.
IMHO.
Very well thought out. This goes far to explain why liberals can
rail against bigotry/racism while being bigots and racist
My first blush reaction is: thought provoking. I think it is a natural human response to engage in contrary behavior: we hold "us" to both higher standards and lower ones, depending on the context. No prophet is with honor in his own town, no great person is great in his valet's eyes. But we also tend to give "our folks" the benefit of the doubt and assume that, when they conflict with "them", they are in the right. I like the way you've mapped this split onto leftism, but I wonder if it doesn't apply more broadly. We hold our children to higher standards than their guests in our homes, yet defend them against criticism by outsiders.
If you could go back to the planet that you came from and not have to be a dispassionate observer any more, what would you do? Be native (as opposed to going native)? Just live an unreflective life immersed unquestioningly in your folkways?