The Terror of Carbon Dioxide Induced Human Extinction and the Dismal Ideology

 Rasmussen Reports and The Heartland Institute conducted a survey of 2,000 likely American voters from 29 April to 3 May 2021 on the issue of climate change.  The poll found that 55% of likely voters believe that climate change is primarily caused by humans, while 45% believed it was primarily caused by long-term planetary trends.

Numerous Democrat politicians, bureaucrats, and media pundits have informed us for several decades that humans or the Earth face an existential threat if mankind does not cease to add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere within 10 - 12 years.  To date, this existential threat has proven about as dangerous and catastrophic as a newborn puppy.

The Rasmussen - Heartland poll asked likely voters to identify themselves as Conservative, Moderate, Liberal, or the Not Sure category I hate, since one may be very sure of one's ideology but simply not fit into the other choices.  The poll found that 21% of likely voters who consider themselves to be Moderate and 21% who are Liberal believe that if global carbon dioxide emissions continue at a rate comparable to that of the last decade, then humans will become extinct or nearly extinct due to climate change within 50 years.  For Conservatives, only 12% believe this early demise for humans due to climate change.  OK, that 12% is still an absurd portion of Conservatives.  52% of Liberals believe human extinction or near extinction will occur within the next 100 years.  43% of Moderates agree, while 23% of Conservatives agree.

There are tens of millions of Americans who ascribe to each of these ideologies.  Even 23% of Conservatives are many millions of Americans who face the dismal prospect of human extinction or near extinction within 100 years.  Yet, how much more dismal is the ideology that has 52% of those ascribing to it in a state of terror, presumably, of human extinction within 100 years?  Would such believers want to have children even, or if they did, would they not be irresponsible?  Perhaps this belief is a meaningful factor in the falling birthrate of Americans documented by the last couple of census reports.  If it is, then the reproduction of Liberals should be significantly lower than that of Conservatives!

Further results of the poll show that Liberals are much more likely to exaggerate the amount of warming that has occurred since the late 1800s.  60% of them believe there has been more than 3 degrees Fahrenheit warming.  In comparison, 36% of Conservatives believe warming has exceeded 3 degrees.  Even NOAA's exaggerated warming since the 1880 to 1900 average is only 2.14 degrees Fahrenheit.  Such warming would be far more beneficial than harmful.  More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at the present concentration has virtually no warming effect and is great for plant growth.  This in no catastrophe.

This is only one example of the many ways in which Liberals have a dreary, dismal worldview.  It fits nicely with a belief in other dismal viewpoints such as systemic racism, the belief that some ethnic groups are incompetent to manage their own lives, the denial of the ability of humans to improve their standard of living by living productive lives, and the believe that humans are always a threat to the environment in myriad ways.  It has to make a life miserable to be such an ingrained pessimist.  This goes way beyond seeing a glass as half empty instead of half full.  This is a determination to see the glass which is really full as being almost empty.  It is a consistent denial of reality.

 

Congress Members in the Democratic Socialists of America Caucus

The American Socialist Voter, a publication of the Democratic Socialists of America, claims that the Democratic Socialists of America Caucus in the United States Congress has a membership of 70 Representatives and one Senator.  It also claims that 11 of these Democratic Socialists of America sit on the House Judiciary Committee.  The members of the caucus are:

Co-Chairs

Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)

Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)

Vice Chairs

Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)

Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)

Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)

Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)

Senate Members

Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)

House Members

Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)

Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)

Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)

Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)

Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)

Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)

Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)

Hon. André Carson (IN-07)

Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)

Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)

Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01)

Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)

Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)

Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)

Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)

Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)

Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)

Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)

Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)

Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)

Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)

Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)

Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)

Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)

Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)

Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)

Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)

Hon. John Hall (NY-19)

Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)

Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)

Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)

Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)

Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)

Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)

Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)

Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)

Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)

Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)

Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)

Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)

Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)

Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)

Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)

Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)

Hon. George Miller (CA-07)

Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)

Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)

Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)

Hon. John Olver (MA-01)

Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)

Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)

Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)

Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)

Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)

Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)

Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)

Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-39, though incorrectly given as Loretta Sanchez' CA-47 in The American Socialist Voter)

Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)

Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)

Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)

Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)

Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)

Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)

Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)

Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)

Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)

Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)

Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)

Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)

Not surprisingly, my Representative, Donna Edwards, is one of these Democratic Socialists of America.  It is clear that there is a core group of Democrats who do not hesitate to proclaim themselves socialists in socialist circles, though I expect they are reluctant for the most part to tell their constituents of this.

The Politcal Spectrum and Economic Wrongheadedness

Daniel B. Klein, professor of economics at George Mason University, worked with pollster Zeljka Buturovic to characterize the relative degree of determined wrongheadedness of Americans self-identified as one of the following:

• Very Conservative
• Conservative
• Libertarian
• Moderate
• Liberal
• Progressive/ Very Liberal

They say they were out to measure the relative degree of economic enlightenment, but this is not an accurate a way of stating what they really did.  They rated responses to economic questions based on the responses:

• Strongly agree
• Somewhat agree
• Somewhat disagree
• Strongly disagree
• Not sure

Suppose the correct answer to the question is Strongly Agree.  They counted up the responses that were strongly wrong, namely those responding with Somewhat disagree and Strongly disagree.  The answer Not sure was not considered strongly wrong.  Thus, this was not a test for economic knowledge, which it has been mistakenly characterized as being.  Instead, it is a test for those who do not understand economics and who refuse to recognize that they do not understand it.  It is a test for the pretense of knowledge which does not exist!

What were the statements?  What are the correct answers?

1. Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable.  Answer: Strongly agree
2. Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services.  Answer: Strongly agree.
3. Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago.  Answer: Strongly agree.
4. Rent control leads to housing shortages.  Answer: Strongly agree.
5. A company with the largest market share is a monopoly.  Answer:  Strongly disagree.
6. Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited.  Answer:  Strongly disagree.
7. Free trade leads to unemployment.  Answer: Strongly disagree.
8. Minimum wage laws raise unemployment.  Answer:  Strongly agree.

While it may allow one a faster response to these questions if one has previously thought about them, most of these statements are easy to think through and come to the correct answer.  For instance: restrictions on housing development will mean such things as a local government refusing to allow housing to be built on parcels of land in the county or town.  This must cause those parcels on which housing can be placed to be priced more highly, since the government is putting the restrictions on other land because otherwise housing would be placed on it.  Thus, the demand for housing is greater than the amount of land which will be made available, so the prices of that land will be bid upward.  Housing will be more expensive as a result.  There are other types of restrictions, such as building codes and requirements to use union labor or licensed tradesmen in the building, but all of these restrictions are placed precisely because they must be since they will raise costs.


Question 5 is really just an understanding of a definition, but as such, it requires some knowledge of economics as a study.  Question 3 requires some knowledge of how people lived 30 years ago, so it requires a bit of historical knowledge, which many young people may find challenging to come by.  Since young people are indoctrinated by the public schools and universities to become liberals and commonly have little historical knowledge of 30 years ago, this question may be a bit hard for some of them.

Question 7 is a more abstract question to which the answer is somewhat harder to think through on one's own.  But, Adam Smith and many others long ago figured this out.  It is reasonable to expect that the answer should be common knowledge today.  There are many special interests and political groups which have spread claims that free trade leads to unemployment, at least in the developed countries.  They claim that low-cost-of-labor countries are stealing American jobs.  But their wages are lower because they are less productive or production in their countries is less efficient or involves greater investment risks.  Many Americans only see the company making buggy whips whose product is now more cheaply produced in Kenya, so the American company has laid off workers.  They fail to see that the workers who were once employed making buggy whips are now becoming employed to make biomedical prostheses and infrared sensors and the old buggy whip manufacturing building is now being used to produce Kindles.  Study after study has shown that free trade leads to more jobs in the U.S. and across the world, while raising most people's standard of living.  But, it is clear that it is helpful to know some economics to understand the right answer to this question.  But also remember, one does not need to know the right answer, one only needs to know what one knows and what one does not know.  The answer 'I do not know' is not wrong.  It is not wrongheaded.  It is not a pretense to knowledge one does not have.

So, what are the results of this test for economic wrongheadedness?  Who across the political spectrum is found to be a big-headed pretender to knowledge?  Each very wrongheaded answer adds 1 to the score of each person.  The average for each person in each self-identified part of the political spectrum is given below.

• Very conservative, 1.30
• Libertarian, 1.38
• Conservative, 1.67
• Moderate, 3.67
• Liberal, 4.69
• Progressive/ Very liberal, 5.26

Note the very large jump in wrongheadedness between conservatives and moderates.  Those who are very conservative, libertarian, or conservative do not have a great tendency to pretend to economic knowledge which is in fact wrong.  Moderates are much more like liberals in their tendency to be wrongheaded.  The more liberal one is, the greater the pretense to knowledge in general and the more frequently that knowledge is economically wrong.  Progressives, which Obama and Hilary Clinton are, are very pretentious and very wrongheaded economically as a group.

Progressives answered the monopoly question badly wrong 31% of the time, while conservatives were badly wrong only 13% of the time.  Libertarians were so wrong only 7% of the time.

The Progressives were wrong on the living standard comparison 61% of the time, while conservatives were wrong 13% of the and libertarians were wrong 21% of the time.

Broken down on party lines the results were:

• Libertarians, 1.26
• Republicans, 1.61
• Democrats, 4.59

Another huge leap in economic wrongheadedness is found for Democrats.  So-called conservative Democrats clearly do little to improve the party standing relative to Liberals with the wrongheaded score of 4.69!

Ms. Buturovic noted that men scored better than women, as did married people better compared to those who were single.  She noted that particularly poor scores were earned by those who never shop at Wal-Mart or who consider themselves residents of the 'planet Earth', rather than of America or the city or town where they live.  She says, "It took many centuries for basic economic concepts and principles to be discovered so, in a sense, it is not that surprising that some people are having trouble grasping them."

Of those who have had trouble grasping the principles and concepts of economics, unusual numbers have become politicians, book writers, newspapermen, network news announcers of the mainstream media, public school teachers, and university professors outside of economics departments.  The elitists who believe they should rule America through socialist governments are happily wrongheaded about basic economics concepts and eager to force their mistakes on the rest of us.  We can readily see that in efforts of government to micromanage the economy through long-discredited central planning, the constant meddling in our personal lives, the excessive taxes, the still more excessive government spending, the self-indulgent salaries and benefits of government workers, the claims of government job creation in the private sector, and the many special interest groups chosen as the recipients of income and wealth redistribution thefts.

Declaring our Independence from the Progressive Aristocracy

The Progressive (Liberal, Socialist) elitists have become an aristocracy who rule, manage, and manipulate the remainder of Americans who are supposedly no more than organic bits of various special interest groups or factions.

The Progressives have long insisted that man's nature could evolve rapidly with proper indoctrination in the government-run schools to engineer American youth who hold socialist values.  Some of the indoctrinated would prove suitable to be selected as the new members of the aristocracy, but most would just be trained to be docile followers.  The government-run schools reflect this philosophy, with many schools being little more than holding cells to train the inmates in being members of an underclass and in doing as they are told by authorities.  Some schools have effective multiple tracks and some few produce many future Progressive elitists.  These indoctrinated youth are then to vote democratically to further enlarge government.

The old American tradition, stated in the Declaration of Independence, in which the only legitimate purpose of government is to protect the equal, sovereign rights of the individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is the enemy of progress in their viewpoint.  This traditional American viewpoint necessitates a very limited government and a very dynamic private sector, where everyone has an equal right to exercise his choices and to find others who will associate or trade with him for a given purpose in a voluntary activity.  That limited government was provided for by the Constitution.  The Progressives claim these traditional, but radical, American ideals deny the science of history.  They have pointed to a long history of governments around the world always trying to expand their powers and usually succeeding in doing so.  They have claimed that history is a march of progress, so if many governments have succeeded in expanding their powers, this must be what progress is and progress must be good.  These governments with expanded powers need to be directed by energetic leaders who will not shrink from using force to promote the General Welfare, which is always found in the organic expression of shared democratic will.  The government tells the people what their rights are.  Those suitable for leadership are those most indoctrinated and knowledgeable about the goals of socialism.  These leaders are the graduates of the right colleges and are those who are well-connected in the network of Progressive activists.

The Progressives look down on people who produce goods and services in the free market and are paid with money.  They believe those who serve have a higher moral status, even if those who serve do so as government employees and are well paid with taxes levied mostly on the producers and taken from the producers under the threat of force.  The producers are evil because they use resources of the earth such as materials, because they change the earth, and because they pander to individuals acting on their individual goals and needs.  The Progressives believe that when the individual is subsumed by some group or other, the individual has become an organic part of a greater whole.  They believe there is some higher ideal reached whenever the individuality of the individual is diminished.  But Progressives do not have a very high regard for the ability of most people to choose their own values and then to manage their own lives in accordance with those values.  Indeed, they find the very idea of such an expression of individuality to be abhorrent.  If people were actually to do any such thing, the government would not be able to satisfy them with its central planning efforts.  The people must be taught to identify themselves with one group or even a number of different groups, so the Progressives and government can deal with the easier problem of just dealing with this much smaller number of groups.

Once the people are just so many groups or special interests, or factions, then the democratic process can be used to sort out who the winners and losers will be.  Of course, this results in quite a bit of a free-for-all, but that is why the elitist Progressives are needed as leaders and controllers of the governments.  They are the parents watching over the children squabbling over the toys in the sandbox and setting the rules of play.  The elite Progressives make the laws and regulations in government as the democratic rulers.  So, Progressives tend to flock to government positions because that is where the real action is.  They shun the private sector and they grow the public sector.  The game is in fact one of redistributing the wealth produced by the private sector through their hands in government and handing it out to grateful groups who will vote for them, give them money, and sing their praises. 

Of course, these leaders are so important to the cause of Progressivism, that it is perfectly reasonable for them to use their power to extort those in the private sector with threats to do them harm, unless the leaders are given enough money for their re-election campaigns ad nauseam.  Or, these leaders offer factions favorable legislation in exchange for re-election campaign backing, as they do to labor unions, teachers, trial lawyers, and many Wall Street investment firms.  These Progressive government employees are the new aristocracy.  Like the aristocracy of old, they control the levers of power to do whatever they want as they manipulate the peasants and give them just enough to keep them from rebelling.  At least this is how it has often worked in the past and it is how they believe it is supposed to be working now.

The Progressive elite is now furious.  Many of the peasants are revolting.  This is how they see the Tea Party protesters.  Their response has been one of utter hatred.  The hatred is so strong, that they describe the Tea Party rebels with all the words they have long associated with evil or disdain.  So, the Tea Party rebels must be racists.  They must be ignorant.  They must be trailer trash. The Progressives know this to be so, because the peasants must be evil to rebel against the progress of history and the evolution of society.

The Tea Party activists are not evil.  Mostly, they are American individualists who have finally taken notice that Progressivism is an attack upon their individuality.  It is an attempt to dictate to them what their personal values will be.  It is an attempt to micromanage their lives.  It is a refusal to recognize them as individuals.  It is a thorough-going attack upon the very idea that they have sovereign and unalienable rights which are not given to them by government.  It is an attack on the idea that legitimate government exists to protect the equal rights of the individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  The Tea Party protesters are sick of the attacks on the productive Americans to force them to forever subsidize less productive Americans and illegal aliens.  They are sick of the transfer of wealth from the private sector to the public sector.  They are sick of the transformation of their personal choices in the private sector to democratic and factional choices in the public sector.  They are tired of being ignored and denigrated.  They are tired of an aristocracy of bureaucrats, politicians, college professors, and media people who look upon them as peasants.  They are sure that they are competent to choose their own values.  They know they are able to manage their own lives and make their own choices.  They have awakened to the fact that it is the free market that provides them with these choices and the opportunity to express themselves as individuals.  They are coming to understand that they have made themselves the individuals they are in large part and they want to continue to be in control of the development of their own character and that of their children.

A choice has to be made about the purpose and scope of government.  Our Founding Fathers and the Framers of the Constitution chose very limited government consistent with the viewpoint that the General Welfare of the People who institute government was best served when government's function and scope was to simply protect the equal, sovereign, inalienable right of the individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  The individual American was seen as capable of choosing his own values and of managing his own life.  Freedoms such as freedom of speech, of press, and of assembly would allow any American to develop his knowledge, his judgment, and his character.  Americans had the freedom to work and to own property and the income from their work.  When an American individual wanted to work with others for a common goal, he could arrange that using his many freedoms of association and contract in the free market.  There he would have a plethora of choices and ample expression of his individuality.  The interests of many individuals could be worked out in great harmony in the private sector.  While our government had a measure of democracy in the choosing of its leaders, that democracy was constrained by the Constitution, which gave us a representative limited government.  This government of limited powers had a further balance of power within the branches of the government and between the federal government and the states that required a strong consensus to be developed before the federal government could act.  The power of government was to be limited, so that the warfare among factions would be limited.  Too powerful a government led to too many factions being created.  These factions then would fight too viciously for too much power.  In that environment, the rights of the individual could not be equally protected and they would not even be protected.  The General Welfare and the peace and tranquility of the nation would be damaged by such factional squabbles over the exercise of government power.  The antithesis of this American viewpoint is Progressivism, which is largely a European import.

Now consider what we have seen.  We have a Progressive government, which very little constrains itself in accordance with the Constitution.  We have top leaders who are disdainful of the People.  We have top leaders who have said they disagree with the Constitution and its limits on their power.  We have top leaders who tell us we only have the rights the government gives us.  It is clear this government is a Progressive government.  So, I ask you:

• Have we seen government serving the best interests of the American people (the General Welfare) with minimal factionalism and a great tranquility of our society?
• Do we see evidence that Americans have evolved such characters that they have lost their individuality and are willing to submerge themselves in a Hegelian whole of society? 
• Have we seen solid evidence that the Progressive ruling elite is able to choose our values for us better than we can choose them ourselves?
• Have we seen a powerful government evolve which wisely micromanages our lives?
• Have we seen this government make centrally planned economic decisions which are wise?
• Have we seen this government responsibly manage its finances and minimize the debt to be passed on to later generations?
• Do we like what we see in Europe so much that we agree that their way is superior to the American way of life?

I submit to you that the answer to each of these questions is NO!!!!  From this objective evaluation, I conclude that Progressivism is a proven failure.  It is a concept of government which is wholly unacceptable.  The vision of our Founders and of the Framers of the Constitution was in fact astoundingly wise.  They were not ignorant of the essence of Progressivism.  They considered it and they astutely rejected it.  They were right to do so.  I wish to encourage every American to think these issues and choices through carefully and to chose the most beneficial concept of government function and scope of these two waring viewpoints.  If you do so, I think most of you will be wise enough to confirm the wisdom of our Founders and the Framers of the Constitution.  They were the real advanced thinkers, not these wrongheaded so-called progressives who merely added a bit of democracy to an essentially aristocrats-know-best feudal merchantilist society.

Charity Stronger Among Republicans

George Will, in a commentary called Conservatives More Liberal Givers, discusses a book by Professor Authur C. Brooks of Syracuse University entitled Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism. This author may have been surprised by his results, but I have long argued that this appeared to be the case. Some key findings were:

• Conservative-headed households gave 30% more to charity than liberal families, despite the fact that liberal families had incomes 6% higher.
• Conservatives donate more blood and more time to charities.
• Bush carried 24 of 25 states against Kerry where charitable giving was above average.
• Those who reject the idea that government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality, give 4 times more to charity than those who agree with that idea.

The article then goes into a discussion of the influence of religion and the role of government and how this affects people's charitable giving. On the issue of the role of government, I have long argued that the most people's attitude about that comes from an examination of themselves. It is their own character which is projected onto others or their desire for power that drives them into believing either in a limited role for government or for a broad and activist role for government. Consequently, while a strong correlation with charitable giving exists, the cause and the effect have been interchanged in the discussion in Will's commentary.

Essentially, most conservatives believe in individual rights and that individuals are generally capable of managing their own lives and choosing their own values. They believe that a man can live in liberty and pursue his own happiness without using force to wrest what he wants from his neighbor. He believes that with hard work, rational thinking, and the right values, he will likely be able to define and secure his own happiness. Admittedly, there are some conservatives also who have a low opinion of many of their fellow men, but they are a minority.

Liberals are more bifurcated. Most believe that many of their fellow men are not capable of managing their own lives rationally. Interestingly enough, even though they are better educated and wealthier on average, they have a rather low opinion of themselves. They are rather appalled that they have such materialistic values and feel guilty for their wealth. Some feel guilty because they believe they are the oppressors who hold the poor in subjugation. Some actually feel guilt for using the power of government to shift wealth from others to themselves. Some feel guilty because they have such a low opinion of so many others, which is something that those with a low opinion of themselves are inclined toward. It makes them feel that they are better in comparison. They are especially inclined to have a low opinion of blacks and Hispanics, because they view them as such helpless victims. Those who accept victimhood and those who project it upon others are the worst racists.

Yet despite all this guilt, they are not inclined toward personal acts of charity and this conflicts with their conviction that they should feel more maternally for the many they think are not able to adequately care for themselves. They see many of their neighbors, or at least those living in the poorer neighborhoods, as victims and as helpless. So how do they resolve this conflict between having materialistic values and feeling guilty for doing so little to help the many victims they see around them? Well, they toss this burden onto everyone's shoulders by claiming it is the role of government to care for the needy and the victims. Of course, there are also some liberals who love being victims and using that to put a claim on the products of the hard work of others and using it as an excuse for not having proven to be very productive members of society.

Those in favor of maternalistic government feel very good about themselves, even as they put zoning requirements in place that make it difficult for the poorer folks to own decent homes and as they slap high taxes on gasoline to make it harder for the poorer folks to get to work or to take vacations. Yes they love themselves for being enlightened liberals even as they use eminent domain to take the apartments of the poor and turn them into upscale shopping malls or apartments. They feel the cheap thrill of giving the poor a living wage, even as the minimum wages prices those with poor educations and no work experience out of the market. They love themselves even more as they boost the cost of cars with requirements for higher fuel efficiency and more safety features. They feel so morally superior as they use the force of government to maintain the social security system to transfer wealth from the young to the old, who are usually actually wealthier, despite the popular mythology. They bask in their own sunlight as they dictate to health care professionals how they will deliver health care to those on Medicare. They buy carbon credits as the poor do without energy or pay much more for it than they should in the name of preventing greenhouse gas emissions.

It makes them feel great that they can use their vote, rather more than their own money or time, to alleviate their guilt. It is also very important to them that with their maternalistic or paternalistic desires, they also become the intellectual and caring elite who set the direction of government programs. Since they already suffer from a low self-esteem and have a generally low opinion of others, when they are put in charge of government programs, they find myriad ways to direct the money to other liberals who are already well-off. But little actually goes to those the laws intend it to go to. See for instance the huge sums that go into the Washington, DC public schools for the education of children and how ineffectively the money is used. Or see how effective the huge sums of money directed at government programs for the development of alternative energy sources have been. See how many liberals favor high taxes, but prove to be the best at using deductions so they pay little of the taxes. Isn't it incongruous that those who favor high taxes should be so diligent in seeking to reduce their own tax payments?

The conservative is more likely to have a core respect for other humans and to believe that when someone is briefly down in their luck, that they are worthy of help. But they do not believe in helping people who are chronically down on their luck. They are inclined to believe that that is likely to be due to a defect of character, unless their is a severe illness. The defects of another's character are not their responsibility. Thus, they reject the idea that every black or Hispanic or poor person deserves special help. No, they, like everyone else, are capable of managing their own lives. They deserve to be treated equally before the law, but they are not to be given special condescending privileges. It is reasonable to expect them to think for themselves and to work as hard as anyone else. This expectation is the foundation of the respect for others that limited government presupposes. The conservative does not boost his own self-esteem by looking down on others. He also does not wallow in envy of others.

The modern progressive or liberal is a person of a different character from most conservatives and it is not at all surprising how this relates to how they assess others and any charitable relationships they may have. The conservative gives of himself and does not presume to use force to take from others and then claim that as his act of charity. Unfortunately, the fascist liberals do just that. Charity does not really consist of stealing from some to give the stolen goods to others one does not respect. Charity is the act of voluntarily helping someone that one has reason to believe is worthy of respect as a human being. It is an act directed at those we believe to share our fundamental value of life itself. One cannot share that value if one does not generally use one's rational faculty to identify the nature of reality and one's relationship with it. Man must act purposefully to achieve the value of his life, his liberty, and his pursuit of happiness. When he does these things, he is worthy of respect and worthy of our help when he suffers one of the set-backs that life can bring on unexpectedly. Of course, most such set-backs are handled by the rational individual by himself, but some we can all understand can be overwhelming and we may choose to help when we can. This is a matter of personal choice, however, and not a universal dictate to be imposed by government wielding a gun, as the liberals would have it.