[Note: As they say, "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." Kim’s wife, Connie du Toit (Tech Support) apparently doesn’t want readers from this site to link over there (long story; see comments below), so she’s blocking referrals. So, in order to get there … huh? yes, if Kim ever gets too far out of hand, he probably will find all of his clothes in the street … you’ll have to do a copy/paste job on the link:
Infantile, I know, but fear often brings out strange behavior.]
From Ronald Reagan:
“You know it’s said that an
economist is the only professional who sees something working in
practice and then seriously wonders if it works in theory.”
From this we may extrapolate the following corollaries:
– A conservative is one who sees something working in practice and then formulates his philosophy around it.
– A liberal is one who sees something working in practice and then ignores it because it does not conform with his theory.
– A libertarian is one who sees something working in practice and then
ignores it if it is the outcome of government, or heartily endorses it
if it is the outcome of private initiative.
As much as I’ve shown respect for Kim du Toit in the past, this kind of crap is really beyond the pale. Now, while I’m sure Reagan’s quote was delivered tongue-in-cheek, Kim seems to have derived "truth" from it, and a sad reflection that is on him. (Note: this is illustrative of why conservatives are utter lightweights when it comes to ideas.)
What the Reagan quote means is that economists place principles first. You know: if you see slavery "working," for instance, it matters more that is violates important principles. Of course, most economists are pragmatists, so the meaning of the quote isn’t even applicable. Kim’s corollary to conservatives actually applies to most economists — where they even care about having any sort of consistent philosophy, that is.
And it truly does apply to many conservatives as well, sadly. At least he’s honest about that evil.
But that’s not all there is to it. There’s something missing. By what standard does Kim and his conservatives judge something to be "working?" From where does he steal the concept of a value judgment ("working"), before he has formulated a philosophical framework (reality, mind, ethics, politics, art) or foundation to judge "working?"
As far as libertarians go, I don’t speak for them, of course, but you’re going to find quite a lot of them who formulate a philosophy first, and then determine whether something "works" or not — at least to far greater extent than anyone else on the political scene. It’s their stock in trade; it’s why the party never goes anywhere; and it’s why most of them don’t vote. It’s not that they don’t care to bother. It’s not that it’s useless (it is). It’s that it’s evil to attempt to coerce others by an appeal to sheer numbers. Evil.
Theft never "works," and neither does coercion. So, regardless of the outcome of either, we have an unworkable situation. It matters not whether the "work" is done by the hands of state or private institutions. Wrong does not transform into right by producing goodies for someone.
Come to think if it, perhaps this is why Kim is so enamored of voting. ‘Cause it "works" so damn well. I mean, how could he know except in the arbitrary? After all, he doesn’t even have a philosophy yet, so by logical consequence of his own words, he’s utterly incompetent to judge values.
Jesus. How bad off we are when people like him can do this.
Update: First off, for those who might read the comments over at Kim’s place, or those from his place reading here, the original posting contained references about Kim’s character which I have edited out. In point of fact, I don’t believe those characterizations are true. I get carried away sometimes.
Second. John T. Kennedy over at No-Treason posted a comment at Kim’s place that illustrates exactly one of my references, above.
Right Kim, a conservative like John C. Calhoun saw slavery working and formulated his philosophy around it.