Monday, July 13, 2009

Why I Hate Modern Conservatism

'Elitist Protection Consumers Don't Need' Veronique de Rugy]

The American Enterprise Institute's Peter Wallison has a nice piece in today's Washington Post. Wallison rightfully argues against treating ordinary Americans like idiots who can't decide for themselves what's good for them.

A niece piece? What does nice mean? Use proper English when pretending to be a Conservative. Nice means something, as all real Conservatives will admit. "He's a nice guy", "he was nice to me" "I'm a nice person". Last time I checked nice guys finish last. National Review really sucks for publishing such a moron. People writing about serious issues should never be "nice" or use such a stupid word, if they really mean or care about what they are writing.

Conservatives have always argued that liberals are elitists who do not respect ordinary Americans; this legislation seems to prove it..

Actually conservatives haven't always argued that liberals are eltitists; this is a modern problem. Any sane, properly educated, person would recognize.

For example, the administration's plan would allow the educated and sophisticated elites to have access to whatever financial services they want but limit the range of products available to ordinary Americans

This has been true of all societies for all time and barring a communist utopia will continue to be so.

This unprecedented result comes about because, under the proposed legislation, every provider of a financial service (a term that includes organizations as varied as banks, check-cashing services, leasing companies and payment services) is required to offer a "standard" product or service — to be defined and approved by the proposed agency — that will be simple and entail "lower risks" for consumers. These standard products are called "plain vanilla" in the white paper that the administration circulated in advance of the legislation.

This is neither unprecedented nor does it necessitate your lamentations.

On that point, George Mason University and Cafe Hayek's Don Boudreaux makes this really great comment:

But let's accept, for argument's sake, the administration's judgment that ordinary Americans can't adequately assess complexity. Doesn't it then follow that Americans' election of Mr. Obama to high office deserves no credit? After all, isn't the task of assessing the merit of one person's ideas on economics, foreign affairs, ethics, law, and other difficult topics extraordinarily complex? Given that Joe Six-Pack and Jane Soap-Opera cannot be trusted with the relatively straightforward task of sensibly investing their own money, how can they be trusted to meet the far more complex challenge of choosing powerful national leaders?

No they cannot Mr. Boudreaux, that's why our Constitution was written for a republic. If Mr. Boudreaux had any idea what he was talking about instead of living within a thirty-year vacuum of history. he'd realize that 4 of the last 15 amendments to the Constitution since our civil war have involved extending the franchise.

From Wikipedia:

The Delaware Constitution of 1776 stated that "Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall (...) also make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit: I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration." [6]. This was repealed by article I, section2. of the 1792 Constitution: "No religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, under this State." [7]. The 1778 Constitution of the State of South Carolina stated that "No person shall be eligible to sit in the house of representatives unless he be of the Protestant religion" [8], the 1777 Constitution of the State of Georgia (art. VI) that "The representatives shall be chosen out of the residents in each county (...) and they shall be of the Protestant religion" [9].

Why give the serfs a meaningless vote and work under the pretense they are in control unless you have something pernicious planned for them and seek their approval for your own motives? The last 8 years of George Bush and the Republican party hammer this into my mind incessently.

No comments:

Post a Comment