[From article]
Much as many liberals like to put guilt trips on other people, they seldom seek out, much less acknowledge and take responsibility for, the bad consequences of their own actions.
[. . .]
In this part of California, liberalism reigns supreme and "open space" is virtually a religion. What that lovely phrase means is that there are vast amounts of empty land where the law forbids anybody from building anything.
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell042314.php3#.U2bvu90--yN
Jewish World Review
April 23, 2014 /23 Nissan, 5774
The High Cost of Liberalism
By Thomas Sowell
* * *
[From article]
Liberals can be disarming. In fact, they are for disarming anybody who can be disarmed, whether domestically or internationally.
Unfortunately, the people who are the easiest to disarm are the ones who are the most peaceful — and disarming them makes them vulnerable to those who are the least peaceful.
We are currently getting a painful demonstration of that in Ukraine. When Ukraine became an independent nation, it gave up all the nuclear missiles that were on its territory from the days when it had been part of the Soviet Union.
At that time, Ukraine had the third largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world. Do you think Putin would have attacked Ukraine if it still had those nuclear weapons? Or do you think it is just a coincidence that nations with nuclear weapons don't get invaded?
[. . .]
As with so many things that liberals do, the disarmament crusade is judged by its good intentions, not by its actual consequences.
[. . .]
If in fact tighter gun control laws reduced the murder rate, that would be the liberals' ace of trumps. Why then do the liberals not play their ace of trumps, by showing us such hard facts? Because they don't have any such hard facts. So they give us lofty rhetoric and outraged indignation instead.
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell042414.php3#.U2bxwd0--yN
Jewish World Review
The High Cost of Liberalism
By Thomas Sowell
* * *
[From article]
Liberals can be disarming. In fact, they are for disarming anybody who can be disarmed, whether domestically or internationally.
Unfortunately, the people who are the easiest to disarm are the ones who are the most peaceful — and disarming them makes them vulnerable to those who are the least peaceful.
We are currently getting a painful demonstration of that in Ukraine. When Ukraine became an independent nation, it gave up all the nuclear missiles that were on its territory from the days when it had been part of the Soviet Union.
At that time, Ukraine had the third largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world. Do you think Putin would have attacked Ukraine if it still had those nuclear weapons? Or do you think it is just a coincidence that nations with nuclear weapons don't get invaded?
[. . .]
As with so many things that liberals do, the disarmament crusade is judged by its good intentions, not by its actual consequences.
[. . .]
If in fact tighter gun control laws reduced the murder rate, that would be the liberals' ace of trumps. Why then do the liberals not play their ace of trumps, by showing us such hard facts? Because they don't have any such hard facts. So they give us lofty rhetoric and outraged indignation instead.
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell042414.php3#.U2bxwd0--yN
Jewish World Review
April 24, 2014 /24 Nissan, 5774
The High Cost of Liberalism: Part II
By Thomas Sowell
* * *
[From article]
Most Americans living in "poverty" have air conditioning, a motor vehicle and other amenities, including more living space than the average person in Europe — not the average poor person in Europe, the average person.
"Poverty" is in the eye of the statisticians — more specifically, the government statisticians who define what constitutes "poverty," and who are unlikely to define it in ways that might jeopardize the massive welfare state that they are part of.
[. . .]
Yet liberals often act as if this is an injustice to those who don't work, rather than an injustice to those who do work, and whose taxes support those who don't.
[. . .]
If increasing your income by $10,000 a year would cause you to lose $15,000 worth of government benefits, would you do it? That is more than the equivalent of a 100 percent tax rate on income. Even millionaires and billionaires don't pay that high a tax rate.
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell042514.php3#.U2b0i90--yN
Jewish World Review
The High Cost of Liberalism: Part II
By Thomas Sowell
* * *
[From article]
Most Americans living in "poverty" have air conditioning, a motor vehicle and other amenities, including more living space than the average person in Europe — not the average poor person in Europe, the average person.
"Poverty" is in the eye of the statisticians — more specifically, the government statisticians who define what constitutes "poverty," and who are unlikely to define it in ways that might jeopardize the massive welfare state that they are part of.
[. . .]
Yet liberals often act as if this is an injustice to those who don't work, rather than an injustice to those who do work, and whose taxes support those who don't.
[. . .]
If increasing your income by $10,000 a year would cause you to lose $15,000 worth of government benefits, would you do it? That is more than the equivalent of a 100 percent tax rate on income. Even millionaires and billionaires don't pay that high a tax rate.
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell042514.php3#.U2b0i90--yN
Jewish World Review
April 25, 2014 /25 Nissan, 5774
The High Cost of Liberalism: Part III
By Thomas Sowell
The High Cost of Liberalism: Part III
By Thomas Sowell
No comments:
Post a Comment