We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
And some, I assume, are good people. Seen online:
When America elects people, they’re not electing their best. They’re not electing you. They’re electing people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems to us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
As George Carlin pointed out: Think of how dumb the average person is. Half of them are dumber than that.
The three characteristics of a successful politician are: an unquenchable lust for power, narcissism and the ability to lie (or avoid telling the truth).
Now, perhaps powerful incentives are okay if yoked to a worthwhile cause, like winning a war. But today they’re brought to bear on policing Facebook, regulating nail salons and putting the climate in a state of suspended animation.
And the public are pretty okay with it.
since the brits only elected perfect people,
OK forget that opening… nevill e chanberlin comes to mind..
What makes you think a Brit posted that?
You may be on to something, Uriah
Contradictory statements.
I’ve never known any person who didn’t have their own unique problems and idiosyncrasies and issues. If we’re electing people with problems, we are electing us.
And therein lies THE problem!
First, we would need to define what we mean by ‘best’. Best-looking? Best at maths? Best at making friends? Best at blackmailing people into supporting one’s position or policies? Best score on an IQ test? Best at school, or sports?
Then, if several people seem to fit our rigorous standards, we could vote for the one person who is the best of the best, as it were.
That would be the Great Frog, of course, assuming It qualifies as a “person,” but It refuses to run. I asked, and It merely burped at me and hopped over to a more distant, greener pad.
Completely OT, I know, but if anyone wants to watch (live) Ben Shapiro’s talk at Berkeley, it starts in about five minutes, here.
The truth is even more depressing than the George Carlin quote would imply. Fairly smart people (such as the average Samizdata reader) frequently base their conception of average intelligence on what is average in their own social environment. The natural social and professional filtering process limit their contact with most of the people hanging out on the left hand side of the intelligence bellcurve. The world as a whole is far dumber than their own social environs, and thus their intuitive sense of ‘normal’ would indicate.
People do not elect the best. They elect the least worst. Trump may not be a good President but he is less worse than Clinton. In the UK, perhaps May is not a good Prime Minister, but she is less worse than Corbyn. And so it is and always will be.
I think Trump is a very good president. The country is divided which makes his job impossible and he is generally on the side of not kicking the can down the road on a number of issues.
Without any further information I’d say that it was 10 to 1 that it was written by an American liberal about their President.
The thing with Trump is that he runs on instinct (says I; famous Trumpologist). The base can’t relax and just assume that he has it all planned out and is doing his supposed 4D chess thing. They need to kick and scream and get noticed. He has two audiences; Washington and the Deplorables. The latter need to make sure that they are the loudest.
The fatal flaw in the slogan is the notion that amongst the group; of people being elected, and thus presumably running for office, there are some who are ‘good people’.
There are not.
Seeking political power is an automatic disqualified for consideration as a ‘good person’.
The expedient thing to do would be to send them back.
But somehow I suspect the person quoted doesn’t want to let us send them back. I suspect he’s probably happy the F.B.I. is investigating a Russian fairy tale, rather than people in and around D.C. who been doing criminal things for several decades.
And this is the second time America has voted for the ‘peace’ candidate, because Obama posed as the peace candidate, and Trump was the least war-hawkish amongst the wicked witch Hilary and however many Republican dwarves he beat. Also more than a little annoying that we can’t stop the damn wars despite it being obvious we want to.
BTW, this is an alteration of what Trump said pre-election about Mexicans who were coming over the border.
Yes. That’s why I’m guessing the guy quoted is talking about Trump and not about the actual flipping criminals that have been in D.C. for decades.
Agree. Your line of “The expedient thing to do would be to send them back . . ” is what reminded me of where I had seen this before.
Thanks for pointing that out, bobby b*; I hadn’t made the connection. But even though it is really just a cheap play on Trump’s line, it’s still a fair point. I see it as a corollary to Groucho’s Maxim: “I don’t care to belong to any club which will have me as a member.” Similarly, I don’t care to vote for anyone who actually wants the job.
* Or do you now prefer “booby b”, as I recently saw it in another thread? 😆
At some point I’ll begin reading editorial comment into it. For as long as possible, though, I’ll assume a typo. It makes me feel better. 🙄
For ‘Read my lips,’ substitute ‘On day 1,’.
we can’t stop the damn wars despite it being obvious we want to.
You can’t stop the wars. When you waded into Europe you stayed for half a century, to “win” in Iraq or Afghanistan you’re going to have to stay there a similar amount of time. You could fail to start any more though.
(please note I’m not making any value judgements about which are “right” or “wrong” wars to get into)
Given how some people defined our “best and brightest” in the past I will take not electing them as a *good* thing. We’re not sending them out to win pageants or gain gold medals. We’re voting them into office because we think they’ll get the job done in a way we prefer over the alternatives on offer. ^_^