Hehe. Logical argument. But liberals, progressives, do not think logically. They speak propaganda, appealing to emotions. Logical arguments and critical thought can never counter emotional beliefs. It is easier to open a rock than a mind.
[From article]
Why are most engineers politically conservative? The answer is that engineers fail most of the time. In engineering there is a cycle of design, test, test failure, diagnosis, and redesign, until a product is perfected. Failure is the natural state of engineering new devices. Through their repeated failures, competent engineers are forced to become rigorously honest and functionally conservative.
This honesty is notably lacking in the ungrounded wishful thinking of the political left. The great failure of liberals is that they never fail (according to them).
[. . .]
There are three classes of top-down social engineering. Government programs to restructure society is one class. Government laws, regulatory mandates, and court orders to change behavior is a second. The third is liberal social pressure, often with government complicity, to control thought. We call this third method “political correctness.”
[. . .]
America has hundreds of millions of people. Each individual is infinitely complex and unique. Each has desires, intentions and needs that normally are incompatible with any master scheme. And yet, the left has the arrogance to assume that a master planner can engineer a social system that best for all the people -- a “one size fits all” program. There is no way, other than forcing everybody to be identical robots,
[. . .]
Unfortunately, most political Democrats, and many establishment Republicans as well, have been seduced by a lifetime of pro-government experience into believing that top-down, big-government programs are the answer to all ills. It is vanity to think that they are specially chosen to steer everyone’s life.
[. . .]
Of the seven deadly sins, theologians say the most deadly of all was Vanity. The Greeks called it Hubris. We call it Arrogance. All the other deadly sins derived from Vanity. This sin is really at the heart of progressive, or liberal, social engineering programs. One can do no wrong if one’s heart is in the right place -- so liberals believe.
Our Founding Fathers thought otherwise. They realized that no person, or selected group, could anticipate all circumstances. They therefore created a Constitution that allowed for local adaptation within a protective framework -- a framework that inhibits vanity by enlisting contending interests in making the most important decisions.
The American Constitution was designed for a society whereby people manage their own affairs and solve their own problems. Beyond promoting trade among the states, protecting against foreign invasion, and ensuring the rights of property, the Federal Government really has no legitimate role in structuring society. Society was intended to evolve social arrangements on its own within the protective framework of the Constitution. Thus, this progressive idea that government has the right to impose social change is contrary both to the spirit and to the words of the Constitution.
[. . .]
successful complex structures grow organically: Start small, and simple. Find out what works. Try adding features. Edit out those elements that don’t work and build on those that do work. [. . .] Consider computers. Computers today are far different, and vastly more complex, than they were at their beginning. All successful innovations start simple and evolve complexity as discoveries are made about what works and what doesn’t.
[. . .]
many people, including many conservatives, believe that Social Security has been a success. In fact, Social Security is a great, compulsory, Ponzi scheme. But even it, too, started small: merely as insurance against personal catastrophe. It has grown to be a monster that is devouring the national budget and jeopardizing national security. There is no money in its so-called “Trust fund” and it is generally conceded that the program is on the verge of financial failure, the only dispute being when insolvency will occur.
[. . .]
ObamaCare is the contemporary classic. But, what we have not yet seen is all the damage that ObamaCare has in store. Examples of programs where we do see the wreckage are those “Great Society” antipoverty programs initiated by President Johnson. Enough time has passed to validate the early warnings. Senator Daniel Moynihan warned, all the way back in 1965, that liberal poverty policy was leading to disaster: the breakup of families, crime, drug use, wasted lives and all the other horrid consequences that have followed. The liberal community did not listen and, today, we are stuck with the predicted social disaster.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/02/the_lessons_of_engineering_for_social_engineers.html
February 10, 2016
The Lessons of Engineering for Social Engineers
By Chet Richards
