LIBERALISM, PROGRESSIVISM & SOCIALISM: inexcusably uncivilized, destructive, immoral, and antediluvian

LIBERALISM, PROGRESSIVISM & SOCIALISM:  inexcusably uncivilized, destructive, immoral, and  antediluvian

Speaking of Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Randy Holcombe continues to offer important thoughts on Piketty’s book.  A slice:

Piketty promotes the politics of envy, in which greater equality is a goal in itself — as opposed to the goal of helping out those at the bottom of the income distribution — and Piketty plainly states that the policies he recommends to reduce inequality would do so by pulling down those at the top rather than bringing up those at the bottom.

Indeed.  It is truly – yet sadly – astonishing that attitudes and behaviors that rightly bring down punishment on children who exhibit them on the playground (envying the toys that others have and ganging up to take from those who are perceived to have more toys) are regarded as progressive, humane, and just when exhibited by adult voters and when encouraged in adults by adult professors, pundit, politicians, and preachers.  Such attitudes are inexcusably uncivilized, destructive, immoral, and (contrary to “Progressives’” fancies) antediluvian.

NOEMIE EMERY:

 How’s That Whole Technocracy Thing Workin’ Out For Ya?

They had a dream. For almost a hundred years now, the famed academic-artistic-and-punditry industrial complex has dreamed of a government run by their kind of people (i.e., nature’s noblemen), whose intelligence, wit, and refined sensibilities would bring us a heaven on earth. Their keen intellects would cut through the clutter as mere mortals’ couldn’t. They would lift up the wretched, oppressed by cruel forces. Above all, they would counter the greed of the merchants, the limited views of the business community, and the ignorance of the conformist and dim middle class. . . .

As Edsall asked, “Is the federal government capable of managing the provision of a fundamental service through an extraordinarily complex system?” The answer is probably no, and even if it is yes, it’s abundantly clear that the uber-class of super-professionals aren’t the people to do it. Their faith in academics and experts had failed this new class of liberals, as would soon become obvious. Their related belief that the opinion of the less-elite classes should not be important would soon fail them, too.

Even though the media class pretty much bought into the whole idea of rule by people like them.