“Values” vs. science in the mind of a Liberal Democrat

Over the last year or so, I have had several conversations with various flavors of Liberal Democrats, who profess to be very upset about religious people, presumably Republican such. The Liberal Democrats seem particularly upset about the “science vs. creationism” debate, that religious Republicans in particular allegedly have rejected “science” in favor of “creationism,” which in their mind also carries over into “values” in a broader sense.

On those terms, I actually agree with the Liberal Democrats 100%. It is no news that I find all forms of religion – at least the way the word is typically defined – to be nonsense per definition. But that is not the only thing that’s bothering me in this debate. No, what I find incredibly hypocritical is that the people who rightly find “creationism” and “values” so deplorable are themselves rejecting at least as much science as do the prototypical religious Republicans!

What do I mean by that? Specifically, the Liberal Democrats have all rejected the science of economics! There is no remotely credible economist who says anything but that the most efficient – “scientific” – economic system is 100% pure laissez-faire. Free markets, free trade, the smallest possible government, if any at all. This is nothing but basic Economics 101.

Yet the Liberal Democrats are all rejecting economic science! They are all in favor of ever-increasing socialist intrusions in people’s freedom to own and trade on voluntary terms. Why? Well, the Liberal Democrats believe that their “values” trump the science of economics. In their world, Laissez-Faire economics is also the most efficient economic system, but government policy needs to be guided by their non-scientific “values” in favor of $2+ trillion worth of annual taxes and millions and millions of pages of red tape.

Yeah, the Liberal Democrats are right when they criticize some religious Republicans about “creationism,” but who are they to cast the first stone? At least the debate about creationism has to do with deeply historical nonsense – who cares what may or may not happened some 2000 or 2000 billion years ago? The Liberal Democrat rejection of economic science, however, means that not only I, but billions of people on planet Earth are suffering today and tomorrow from lack of economic freedom and prosperity.

Bad weather, common sense and personal responsibility

Is there any personal responsibility left in this world? Or is anything bad that’s happening always someone else’s fault, including the government’s? The Mississippi/Louisiana hurricane Katrina was an act of nature, predictable over time and warned with specificity days before it hit. As a result, there are two lessons here: First, if you live or build in a hurricane-prone area, especially below sea level, you can’t blame your fellow taxpayer if your house blows away or gets flooded. Second, if you have taken the risk to live below sea level in a hurricane-prone area, and every level of government tells you to get out immediately in order to save your life, and then you don’t follow orders, you also can’t blame your fellow taxpayer if you die or face hardship.

People assume different risks by doing different things. Some people smoke, some people do bungee-jumping, others ride motorcycles, some people live on a fault line in California, and yet others stay below sea level when there is a hurricane approaching. Darwinism is a process of weeding out survivors. Part of such survival is intelligence, and in turn intelligence partially consists of judging risk/reward ratios. So Darwinism weeds out weaklings, physically and mentally. Darwinism furthers the evolution of the human race, so with the government subsidizing stupidity, the quality of the human race could decline.

So here is some simple intelligence: If you don’t want to be flooded in a hurricane, you can choose to live in Denver, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City or somewhere like that. However, if you ignore this basic intelligence, and choose to live on the Mississippi or Louisiana shores, perhaps under sea level, don’t complain if one day you get screwed by bad weather.

To summarize: We watch TV and see the pictures of people in and near New Orleans. The evident question must be: What were all of those people doing there? First, why did they live in that nasty place to begin with? Second, why were they there when they had been told they should evacuate and that they may die if they remain? Well, why do people continue to smoke…