16 12 11 - 23:42If we were really enlightened... -- no, wait, that's not it.
If we were really cool fellows... -- closer, still not it.
If we were Christlike social mavens... -- colder.
If we were part of the herd, we'd be telling you all about how (a) you are a victim of society (b) it doesn't understand you (c) the situation is rectified by fewer obligations to you with more gifts by society for you. And if that doesn't work, we're all going to agree that reality is different from how it is, form a political group and take power, then crush those who point out that our new Emperor has new clothes that don't exist.
The sacred cow of democracy, freedom, liberalism, etc. is equality. Not just of end result, but in how we approach others. We are supposed to treat them as if they are all so equal that all ideas are the same and therefore no one is ever wrong. That's true freedom.
The result is that we have popped the idiots, charlatans, manipulators, retards, liars, perverts and cruel bastards to the top of the stack, and deprecated those who have any depth of intelligence, long-term vision, or profund integration to their thoughts.
Contrary to the ideal of a completely engaged electorate, individuals who have the least interest in a specific outcome can actually be vital to achieving a democratic consensus. These individuals dilute the influence of powerful minority factions who would otherwise dominate everyone else, according to new research published in the journal Science.
"The classic view is that uninformed or uncommitted individuals may allow extreme views to proliferate. We found that might not be the case," said lead author Iain Couzin, a Princeton assistant professor of ecology and evolutionary biology. He and his co-authors found that even a small population of indifferent individuals act as a counterbalance to the minority -- whose passion even can cause informed individuals in the majority to waver -- and restore majority rule. - Science Daily
And we have the proof daily:
The study most often cited by behavioralists was undertaken in 2007 and published in 2008. Two researchers at Texas A&M Corpus Christi decided to test the mental-accounting theory. They recruited 141 students and asked them to pretend that they had received a tax refund. Then the researchersâââone an accounting professor, the other an economistâââgave them all a questionnaire (or âthe instrument,â as social scientists call it, sounding scientific). The questionnaire asked the students how they would use the rebate if it was given in a lump sum. Would they invest in stocks, pay off their credit cards, use it for monthly bills, buy furniture or some other durable good, or save it up so they could blow it on a vacation later?
Then the students were asked to pretend the refund had been given them in monthly increments. How would they spend the money then?
And there the experiment ended. The two researchers pored over the answers their students gave and concluded that they had established a truth about the behavior of the human animal. People will spend different kinds of income differently. They keep mental accounts!
They got up a paper and published it in the Journal of Economic Psychology. âResults confirm,â they wrote, âthat monthly refunds stimulate current spending significantly more than yearly refunds.â
And so the Obama administration designed its tax cut accordingly. âItâs a policy that works with people as they are,â the New Yorker columnist wrote, ârather than as we imagine they should be.â - Weekly Standard
We don't spend much time Obama-bashing here because it's like stealing candy from children. Facts:
- He is the least-qualified president in American history.
- We know the least about him of any president.
- He is connected to shady underworld figures like Reszko and Blagojevich.
- He embraces an ideology that the majority oppose (cultural Marxism).
- Most people voted for him out of novelty: he's black!
- He and his wife are effectively disbarred lawyers.
It's pointless to bash Obama because it's not his fault he's in over his head and arrogant. He's arrogant because our Affirmative Action educational maniacs gave high praise for relatively non-important work. He's over his head because his experience is as a community organizer and advocate. He's not the right guy to be president and never was, but the voters disagreed with this relatively obvious observation. But why blame him? He just took advantage of the stupidity. Blame the stupidity instead!
Listen carefully to the Republican debates, and you get a view of the type of society many Republicans seek. The last time we had it was in the Gilded Age of the late 19th century.
It was an era when the nation was mesmerized by the doctrine of free enterprise. It was also a time when the ideas of William Graham Sumner, a professor of political and social science at Yale, dominated American social thought. Sumner brought Charles Darwin to America and twisted him into a theory to fit the times.
To Sumner and his followers, life was a competitive struggle in which only the fittest could survive - and through this struggle, societies became stronger over time. A correlate of this principle was that government should do little or nothing to help those in need because that would interfere with natural selection. - SFGate
This article is a hit piece on Social Darwinism, which is a cornerstone of the right. It's not in any way a mis-interpretation of Darwinism, unless we assume that society magically stops the natural selection process. It states that we should favor the most competent over the rest, and design economic and social systems to do that for us, so that we don't get swamped in incompetents.
In other words, so we don't get swamped with the kind of reckless idiots who would elect the unqualified Obama.
People aren't turning to Social Darwinism out of some kind of inner cruelty, although the SFGate article tries to make sure you don't come to that conclusion. People are rejecting the opposite of Social Darwinism, which is liberalism, in which we replace natural selection with forced equality. In forced equality, no one has to be the loser. Everyone is OK. And so, why be smart at all? Idiots thrive under equality and die out under Social Darwinism.
You can imagine which way they're going to vote on this issue.