And this bit is a short way of describing Rich People's Leftism:
Rich People's Leftism is one of the clearest explanations I've ever seen for the utter failure of government in Blue States:The Progressive defense of the Deep State has proven beyond a doubt that the purpose of government, at all levels, is to create sinecures for people too incompetent to succeed in the private sector.College kids are coming out of school (college and public) less educated than ever before, school tuition or per student cost is at an all time high, and our schools have more non-teaching administrators making more money than ever. This is not a coincidence, this is the system.
With this new approach in mind, let me contrast Rich People’s Leftism (RPL) with Poor People’s Leftism (PPL).There's ever so much more over there, and it all hits center mass. The only thing to add is that nobody embodies the entirety of Rich People's Leftism than Elizabeth Warren.
RPL thinks that its goal is to help poor people, while PPL thinks that RPL’s primary goal is to ensure that wealthy leftists dominate and get great jobs.
RPL favors equality and so rejects upward mobility. PPL favors upward mobility via capitalism, since it sees that “egalitarian” schemes never work and are really disguised hierarchies with wealthy leftists at the top.
RPL respects wealthy liberals for wanting to help the poor. PPL observes that these wealthy liberals ensure that they are well paid for what they do and prefers to support wealthy conservatives, who at least are honest about where they are coming from.
RPL thinks capitalism is horrible, while socialism or even communism is best. PPL thinks that capitalism is fine or at worst a necessary evil, while socialism and communism, since the best jobs in such systems usually go to the wealthy, are nothing but systems that allow wealthy leftists to assuage their feelings of guilt about being wealthy while not actually doing anything for the poor.
2 comments:
A question I've yet to read asked; since the city of Denver apparently claims the alleyway is the private property of the business being fined, why can't the property owner erect fences, etc to control access to its private property so as to prevent the public health crime(s) being perpetrated there? I'm well aware the city will likely claim necessity of public (which is to say, city) access for reasons, but wouldn't that statement set up a potential civil rights case? As is, the business owner can only comply with whatever the city management dictates today. Forever.
Well that was right in the X Ring.
Post a Comment