... it's funny: I caught wind of this cartoon by Chuck Asay after spending a good bit of my morning considering that the biggest differences between Democrat and Republican panderings is one of Symptom versus System.If you're in the savior business (Democrat), you've got ruin the system, or else you're unnecessary. If you're in the tradition business (Republican), you've got to keep the system static in case your interests are threatened. Neither's compatible with
Along the same vein, today's Wondermark:
10 comments:
FYI, the quote is actually from Instapundit.
I think that both parties are equally bad for us. Democrats feel that they have to control/micromanage the system to give the appearance of doing good for the common good while the Repubs feel that the status quo must be maintained at all costs, even if it does lead to ruin when nothing is done to react to the fluid/chaotic environment that is the real world. Both parties seek to eliminate our ability to have any choice, they just have very different ways of going about it.
Ultimately, both parties are no good for us as a nation. In previous incarnations there was enough moderation in both parties to always ensure some level of progress such that the two interests balanced each other out, sometimes with good reforms reigning in the excesses of both philosophies. Now though the parties achieve nothing because they're at such extremes and neither has a clear majority. Once one party obtains this again, they'll do EVERYTHING they can to mess things up back to their perception of right, which is really wrong for all of us.
In previous cases, one single-handedly devastated the world's economy with the Smoot-Hawley tarriffs, creating the Great Depression (R), and the other invented the Committee on Public Information and threw people in jail on felony sentences for daring to criticize duly appointed bureaucrats. (D)... oh, and once put two jewish butchers up on long-sentence felony counts for the crime of letting their customers choose their chickens.
Heh, those cartoons are funny. I am so not in the mood to get deep right now so I will just enjoy the humor. But you guys blab away please.
I'll join after this weeks beating is over.
Since I have been so wisely reminded of history I guess I have to revise my statement.
Both parties are no good for us now and have never been good for us. They're both equally corrupt and both should go. I guess if one has to put up with it, one must decide if one wants to be condescended to (D - We don't think you can make any good decisions so we'll decide for you for the greater good in our opinion) or stuck in a rut (R - you can make any decision you want, provided you make a decision we approve of which keeps everything as it is now).
Just to point out (not that I'm a Democrat, because I'm not) - in San Francisco you can get counseling, mental health therapy, and addiction treatment, all for free. And w/o much bureaucracy.
Also, I'm a big fan of pharmaceuticals - but I don't think they should cost about $800 a month, which mine would w/o insurance. Taking advantage of the sick isn't helping the sick.
Basically, the comparisons are overly simplistic & that bugs me.
Yes. Much as I loathe Gavin Newsome, by shifting focus away from handing out cash to bums and providing services instead, he's taken a great step forward in this regards. But San Francisco is supremely tiny: attempting the same thing in Los Angeles or larger places is a much higher bar.
As to pharma, &c., which brings the point of the lower cartoon, "should" is largely irrelevent until one has developed an alternative means. When we have a way to invent and bring to market fully safety-tested drugs that cost much less, I'll be happy to sign on the dotted line. So far, the profit motive seems to be doing a better job than anything else, though.
I would say they're making an unjustifiable profit, especially since a lot of the research they're building on was done with our tax dollars, and when they hold a patent they're a monopoly.
And free services were available way before Newsom came in (trust me, I know). I note that they were NOT available for some time because of a certain governor of Cal who went on to be president. Or at least he played one on TV.
ps Yes, I recognize at this point that this is the intro to the "unjustifiable profit" debate, which I'm not feeling up to at the moment. :)
No-one should be in a position to dictate the boundaries of another's successes. Until we sign away our freedoms for the hollow dreams of Marxism and the inevitable tyranny that follows, there's no debate about the "justification" of profits.
Post a Comment