Quote of the day—Dustin Koellhoffer

In essence, liberal thinking is immature thinking believing that what sounds good is good regardless of results.  This is what becomes their “Law of Unexpected Consequences,” which is only unexpected to them and not to those who think things through.  It is the foundation of their argument that the results of their policies are not what is to be judged, but only their good intentions.  Unfortunately, the Road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions.

Dustin Koellhoffer
2015
Liberals Backwards Think
[It goes further than this. It’s not just that good intentions are good enough to them. Many of them are incapable of rational thought.—Joe]

12 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Dustin Koellhoffer

  1. This posting made me think of the preface to the last edition of Ayn Rand’s “Anthem”, in which she said

    Some might think — though I don’t — that nine years ago there was some excuse for men not to see the direction in which the world was going. Today, the evidence is so blatant that no excuse can be claimed by anyone any longer. Those who refuse to see it now are neither blind nor innocent.
    The greatest guilt today is that of people who accept collectivism by moral default; the people who seek protection from the necessity of taking a stand, by refusing to admit to themselves the nature of that which they are accepting; the people who support plans specifically designed to achieve serfdom, but hide behind the empty assertion that they are lovers of freedom, with no concrete meaning attached to the word; the people who believe that the content of ideas need not be examined, that principles need not be defined, and that facts can be eliminated by keeping one’s eyes shut. They expect, when they find themselves in a world of bloody ruins and concentration camps, to escape moral responsibility by wailing: “But I didn’t mean this!”
    Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead.
    They must face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

    “Neither blind nor innocent” to me means that I can no longer accept their “good intentions” anymore. They’re just plain evil, and need to be stopped

  2. I was going to repeat myself in saying that I wish we’d stop using “liberal” to describe an authoritarian, but I see that the word can be accurately applied.

    Authoritarians seek liberation from standards and principles, and from those who would constrain them to reason. To them, we are their oppressors as surely as they would be to us.

    It follows therefore that one must be able to recognize the truth if one is going to war against it, to oppose it and crush it wherever it appears.

    Incredulous, you might ask how it is that someone should see the truth, recognize it, and still oppose it. The answer is simplicity itself; the light of truth is easy to see, as that which reveals, constrains and condemns us. So we rebel against it. We need not be its slaves!

    • I’m tired of the “liberal” and “conservative” labels. I saw a post on another forum the other day complaining about “liberals” in Colorado allowing legalized pot. Isn’t freedom from too much government a conservative issue? So, is legalized pot a liberal or a conservative issue? It seems to depend on what kind of conservative/liberal you are.

      • I actually agree. The “liberal-conservative” spectrum, in modern usage, doesn’t account for personal freedom. Both sides are authoritarian; they just desire authority over different things. Taken together (in alternating fashion, as our political cycles tend to go), nothing is sacred or safe.

        This, in my opinion, is why we’re seeing so many people turn to “libertarian” (small-l) principles, which (often but not always) starts with individual freedom as the foundation upon which everything else is built. And it’s also why, in my mind at least, the word “conservative” is no longer synonymous with “pro-freedom”; they’ve destroyed that correlation.

      • Legalized pot is a personal freedom issue. I’m for it even though I have never even tried a small sample and intend to never try it.

        I don’t identify with either the “liberal” or “conservative”. At one point I voted for democrats. That ended in the late 1980s. After Clinton was elected and the democrats declared a war on gun owners I have not voted for a single one.

        It is my understanding that at one point a “conservative” was one who “conserving in the use of government”. It hasn’t meant that for many decades.

          • My single issue is freedom.

            When the ERA was viable I was a big supporter. But it’s a lost cause for the foreseeable future. You are likely to be “not happy” for a long time if your happiness depends on that passing.

          • Yes, I support that. Women will not be able to falsely accuse a man of rape without consequences. Men will no longer be discriminated against in hiring teachers. We will all have unisex bathrooms in public facilities. Women’s centers on campus will have to be matched by “men’s centers,” and every “women’s studies” class taught by a woman at a public university will have to be matched by a “men’s studies” class taught by a man. Paternity leave must be as long as maternity leave. Men cannot be discriminated against in child custody cases. No longer will there be a presumption of a disparity of force when a man and a woman fights. Men can’t be forced to pay for women’s healthcare, because the current system (ObamaCare) is discriminating against men in that respect.

            Yeah, it’d be really great if that passed. I think it’s a case of “be careful what you ask for.”

      • First; congratulations on diverting the subject. You don’t like “liberal” and “conservative”? I don’t either. Then how about authoritarian (top down, command and control, “planned” economy and culture) and libertarian (government’s role is protecting liberty – the economy and culture are not its business)? Which are you?

        Alcohol Prohibition was foisted on the country by Democrat and Republican Progressives (incremental socialists) as were the drug laws that replaced Prohibition.

        As much as it might please you, there’s no cause for confusion there at all– Prohibition is an authoritarian concept, regardless what its proponents may strategically call themselves.

        I hope you’re not trying to entrap someone who favors liberty by associating him with authoritarian tricksters and then saying he’s a hypocrite, ’cause I for one am not buying it, and I’ll call you out on it. On the other hand, we who favor liberty have ample cause to refer to “liberals” as hypocrites, who claim to favor liberty or “choice” while advocating for restrictions, government interventions, coercive redistribution, and countless prohibitions.

        So no, Little Sister; there is not hypocrisy on “both sides” as you insinuate, because the two “sides” you mention are in fact the same side, authoritarians playing a cheap and transparent game of on us.

        • Most of these QOTD are regarding “liberals” and “conservatives,” not authoritarians and libertarians. (And, since you asked which I prefer of the a’s and l’s, I prefer a mix since I believe government is necessary to pursue certain goals of society. I do fall more on the libertarian side when it comes to personal freedoms.)

          • Shorter ubu52: I prefer that thugs run things; I just want them to be the right thugs.

            Unfortunately, not too different from a lot of people. Fortunately, such people _somewhat_ impede each other.

          • Ubu, I don’t believe you. Since you insist on attacking people’s right to defend themselves, you have no claim to the “libertarian” label.

            Anyway, yes, libertarian vs. authoritarian is the meaningful distinction. That also helps because both Democrats and Republicans fall into the “authoritarian” bucket. They are not totally consistent: Democrats leave a few personal freedoms unattacked, while Republicans leave some different freedoms intact. But both insist that most of your freedoms should be forfeit to the omnipotent state, and both spit on the Constitution at every opportunity.
            For more thoroughly consistent authoritarianism, look at fascism, socialism, or communism, which are the same thing by three different labels (with some trifling differences in preferred means to the ends — though not in the ends).

Comments are closed.