Tag Archives: culture

Capitalism and the Progressive-Democratic Party

Posted on by
Reply

Barton Swaim, in his Wall Street Journal op-ed, pointed out “socialists'” error when they claim that capitalism is a system.  Their attempts at such a definition—whether of economics, or politics, of…whatever—is necessary, though, in order for them to draw their supposedly favorable comparisons between the socialism flavor of the moment and capitalism.

But capitalism isn’t a system at all, as Simone Weil pointed out 80 years ago, using the then-European economy as her example, and which Swaim cited:

…consists in certain methods of production, consumption, and exchange, which are continually varying, however, and which depend upon certain fundamental relationships: between the production and the circulation of goods, between the circulation of goods and money, between money and production, between money and consumption.

Or, it’s consumers and producers, buyers and sellers, coming together entirely voluntarily and of their own volition, to exchange things each party valued for valued things the other party had—and after which exchange, all parties were better off than they were before the exchange.

The critical part of this arrangement, this unsystematic economy, consists in its voluntary and self-initiated nature.  It cannot be a system because it does not even approach anything systematic.

Sadly, the obfuscation of “systematizing” what they claim to be “capitalism” is all that the 21st century crop of socialists, the Left and its Progressive-Democratic Party, have. They certainly have no coherent economic, or political, or whatever policies on which to expound, other than these:

  1. Big Government is the answer

Then recursively,

2. Raising taxes

3. Raising Government spending

Harms in Public Spaces

Posted on by
Reply

The Brits are working out a new way to intervene in private lives and in private businesses, this time in an attempt to control “harms” done via (not by, mind you) “online platforms”—social media.

Under the [British] government’s proposal, a new regulator would have the power to require companies to protect users from a number of identified online harms—such as pornography, extremist content, and cyber bullying.

And

[T]he pair talked through the different terms that had been used to describe social media in a legal context, looking for the right analogy. They tried “platform,” “pipe” and “intermediary.” Nothing seemed to fit. Then “we thought of a ‘public space,'” says Ms Woods. “People do different things online. It was just like ‘how do we regulate spaces?'”

“Identified” online harms? We can’t even define the harms—such as pornography, extremist content, and cyber bullying.  Even Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart ultimately walked back his foolish I know it when I see it nonsense, recognizing that such a nebulous “definition” had no place in law.

We have not—we cannot—define any of these harms, much less what constitutes a “public space;” there is no basis for Government regulating these things.

Nor have we succeeded in recognizing who actually is responsible for these harms, whether public or private.  See the disconnect, at a high level, between the Left’s Big Government is responsible on the one hand and the Right’s focus on individual responsibility on the other.

The British government may want to create a whole new, intrusive bureaucratic agency for controlling one more aspect of British citizens’ lives. When we wrote our Constitution and ratified it those two and a quarter centuries ago, we explicitly walked away from the British system of governance for a number of reasons; central among them being the illegitimacy of Government intrusions into private lives.

This is one more example.

Is Buttigieg For Sale?

Posted on by
Reply

In Thursday’s Progressive-Democratic Party debate, in the context of ridiculing competing Party Presidential Candidate Pete Buttigieg’s fund raiser with rich folks in a “wine cave,”  Party Presidential candidate and Senator Elizabeth Warren (D, MA) said,

Billionaires in wine caves should not pick the next president of the United States.

Sure sounds like she’s accusing Buttigieg of raffling himself off to the highest bidder. Wine sellers, though, seem to be jake with Warren, including, if not $900 bottles of wine, at least $1,000/donation bottles of wine.

Her accusation, too, stands in sharp contrast with her decision not to call out two billionaires who are trying to buy their own way, first, into the nomination and then into the White House: Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg.

Xi, Lam, and Hong Kong

Posted on by
Reply

Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam met in Beijing with People’s Republic of China President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Keqiang earlier this week.  Li said, in a press conference afterward,

The city’s government must continue to make efforts in stopping violence and ending chaos in accordance with the law, and restore order.

On this, I agree.  Lam must have her police stand down from provoking violence in the protests by Hong Kong’s citizens and then using that violence as pretext for shooting tear gas at the protesters, beating them, and shooting them with live ammunition.

Lam must also have her government address in a serious manner—accepting the bulk of them, if not all—the five demands of the protestors:

  • withdrawal the extradition bill [lately done; although nothing has been done to prevent its being reintroduced]
  • Lam to step down
  • inquiry into police brutality
  • release of those arrested
  • greater democratic freedom

To which I add a sixth, a responsibility of the PRC press as well as of Lam’s Hong Kong government and of Xi’s PRC government:

  • To stop characterizing the protesters’ movement as an independence movement

It’s nothing of the sort. The protestors have been at pains to emphasize that they explicitly do not desire independence from the PRC; they want only their rights restored under the one nation, two systems framework promised by the PRC government at the time of handover from Great Britain.

When Lam has her government act responsibly, there can be a just peace and prosperous economic activity in Hong Kong.

The initiative is entirely hers. And Xi’s.

Meetings and Talk

Posted on by
Reply

Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam is in Beijing this week, her first meeting with her boss, People’s Republic of China President Xi Jinping, since pro-democracy parties rebuked and rejected Xi’s politicians in last month’s local Hong Kong elections.  It’s likely a Come to Jesus meeting, and Lam’s job may be on the line.

What’s truly cynical, though, is Lam’s Facebook postings.  (Use Bing Translator; it does a much better job than Facebook’s translation facility.) Deutsche Welle, at the first link above, has a sound summary of Lam’s words.

Lam stressed the importance of an open dialogue between community and officials in a post on social media platform Facebook on Saturday morning.
She said her governing team would continue to pursue “different formats of dialogue to listen to citizens sincerely” and that “our sincerity to have dialogue with citizens has not changed.”

Right.  She’ll talk and talk and talk.  She’ll listen the sincere Hell out of what Hong Kongers might say to her.

She’s already given her game away, though.

Just this week [the week of 9 Dec], Lam said a cabinet reshuffle was not an “immediate task” after the election defeat and she would focus her efforts on restoring law and order in Hong Kong.

She’s also clear that public meetings are meaningless.  This is from her weekend post:

The first “community dialogue” was enthusiastic, but as the event was held in an open format, it was important to consider whether the public who spoke would be “bottomed down” as they were last time….

Only private, secretive meetings are to be trusted by her.  Of course, it’s only in those secretive meetings that she can employ her metaphorical cudgels and lay down the…law…to those impudent citizens.

No, yap, yap, yap isn’t concrete action; it’s just Lam’s mouth talking. She has no intention of acting on Hong Kong citizen’s concerns. And neither does her boss.  They do, though, have every intention of extending mainland despotism to the city.