Another shadow of “DoubleThink, DoubleSpeak”:

by Skip

(H/T: Liberal Logic 101)

Leave a Comment

  • C. dog e. doG

    Even I see the duplicity there. Let’s have stupid fat people, but make them live with, and pay for, the consequences.
    – C. dog law of conservatism of momentum

  • Luke

    I’m sorry, since when does regulation imply illegality? That’s essentially what that image is trying to equate. You can have something be legal and have it regulated at the same time.

    #BadLogic

    • granitegrok

      Luke, the original premise of America was Individual Freedom and Liberty. When we have THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of regulations, many written not by the legislative process but by mere dint of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats who can make up pretty much what they want, can we still uphold that premise as being true?

      Look at the EPA – an “independent” agency. Can you really tell me that it should have the power to complete change our transportation system on its own say-so? That it can put two industry sectors out of business just because it feels that it can (coal mining and coal fired electricity generation)? Forget the reason why for a moment – should an independent Executive Branch agency have that power on just its own say so? Isn’t that for the General Society, via the marketplace, to decide which energy source it most best for its own purposes?

      NLRB – should it have the power to mandate what seems to be a “re-unionization” of Labor? with the new regulations, isn’t it attempting to usurp the property rights of company owners?

      How about DOT – with the new CAFE standards (along with the EPA), why should this unelected agency have the power to radically change our transportation choices without legislative action?

      #BadArgumentOnYourPart

      • Luke

        “Luke, the original premise of America was Individual Freedom and Liberty.”

        Couldn’t agree with you more.

        I think there’s a fundamental issue at hand here, and that’s that there is more than one America today. There’s the America that I, and other liberals, perceive, and then there’s the America that you, and other conservatives/libertarians/(pick whatever word you choose) perceive.

        Now, of course, in reality, it’s not that clear cut. There are shades of blue and shades of red, along with other colors, but the primary point is that different people hold different views on what ideological pole America should rest on.

        I hold the belief that, if there is a *reasonable* greater good to be found, not necessarily utilitarianism, that would significantly improve something for everyone universally, then that should take priority over individual or corporate rights.

        Under this example, abortion would not be restricted because it only benefits those that believe in Christianity.

        When it comes to the EPA and the likes of it, such as vehicle emissions standards, the greater good involved is mitigation of climate change (which is fact, whether one likes it or not). Yes, we give up the right to drive a gas guzzler, but it serves a better purpose that benefits everyone universally (mitigation of dangerous climate change).

        • granitegrok

          You missed my entire point, sir! Our Republic is founded on the premise that our Representatives (and not bureaucrats) are supposed to pass laws that are philosophically within the original intent of the Constitutional values laid down by our Founders. The intent was to constrain the power of Government to the betterment of Society so as to maximize individual liberty and freedom. Remember, the Bigger the Government, the smaller the citizen. Translation – bigger government, in order to justify itself, must always do more. In doing more, it MUST make more decisions and intrude into areas of individual lives that it never did before. That necessarily means that WE are constrained in the decisions we can make for ourselves and our families. That is NOT a public good, in my eyes, as it continues to take that freedom (for freedom is the number of choices one can make) away.

          Luke – your premise is that Govt only does good and that it always has enough (or more) information to always make the right decision. Does that mean that you are fine with bureaucrats making all decisions for us (which is the Progressive end game – the Administrative State)? If so, why do we vote?

          Another question – at what point has Govt made ENOUGH decisions for us – when do we tell them to stop? And if we do get to that point, WILL they stop? what is YOUR end point when enough is enough?

          Where is that point when YOU would say “er, we’ve gone too far”? Or do you not care?

          ” Yes, we give up the right to drive a gas guzzler, but it serves a better purpose that benefits everyone universally (mitigation of dangerous climate change).”

          Let’s be clear – nobody ASKED if I wanted to give up anything – it is being TAKEN from me. My Representatives never drew up a bill, nor discussed it, nor amended it, nor voted on this major change in our lives. Regardless of the issue, you (as an American) should be OUTRAGED that our lawmakers are not doing their jobs and that bureaucrats are doing far more than Constitutionally empowered. they are part of the Executive Branch – they carry out the laws – they are not supposed to make them.

          Small nit: and if you look at the charts, we have not seen any overall warming lately:

          http://granitegrok.com/blog/2012/11/the-world-is-not-getting-warmer-mr-president
          http://granitegrok.com/blog/2012/10/global-warming-still-a-hoax

          Yes, one pole is loosing ice (and that is well trumpeted in the media); the other one is gaining mass (and nary much is said at all).

  • JaguarRose

    No one is proposing we make sugary foods illegal or criminalize their sale or consumption. Some liberal want marijuana legalized AND regulated and TAXED. What’s so hard to understand about that?

Previous post:

Next post: