What Makes A Great Villain
Big Hollywood has posted a great article on why modern villains stink. His basic premise is that liberals tend to excuse actions based on motivations. If the perpetrators of a crime have a reason, you can’t really blame them for their actions. As Hollywood is made up overwhelmingly of liberals, this has resulted in neutered villains. They have a hard time writing a decent villain as giving them a motivation will negate their actions, make them less villainous. They will no longer be villains, at least to a hollywood screenwriter.
The problem is that all of the great villains have, in their minds, legitimate points of view. In their minds they’re not villains at all. They have reasons for doing the things they do. Here are some of my favorite villains which demonstrate this:
Ozymandias from Watchman – He puts in action a plan that kills millions of people to save billions of people. What is even better is that this decision takes a toll on him. As the other Watchmen leave he is left alone with his conscience and the knowledge of what he’s done. He looks like a broken man.
Dr. Zaius from Planet of the Apes – Dr. Zaius knows the truth. He knows that man came before ape. However, he’s not willing to let this knowledge get out as it will mean undermining the whole basis of Ape Society. He also knows that, despite his brilliance, mankind managed to destroy the world. How could he not fear the arrival of a talking man?
Khan Noonien Singh from Star Trek II – The Wrath Of Khan – From his perspective Kirk marooned him on a planet that quickly turned into a hellhole and resulted in the death of his wife. Who wouldn’t want revenge?
The Problem With Public Sector Unions
Ben Shapiro has posted a great article concerning the video below over at Ricochet. It nicely explains why public sector unions are corrupting the political process while bankrupting governments at the same time.
I don’t think this issue has gotten near enough attention. Public and private sector unions are fundamentally different. In the private sector both owners and their unions are restrained by the marketplace. If the owners give too much, or the unions take too much, they may very well destroy the very business they both depend on. There is no such restraint in the public sphere. All you need to do is increase taxes or add more debt. The other big problem is the inherent conflict of interest in that the government is giving benefits to people who will vote and support them.
I honestly see no reason for public sector unions at all. When I’ve worked in the non-union private sector I’ve often had my wages determined by an outside firm hired by the company. They would look at my skill level and determine what they are worth in the marketplace. The recommendations are very realistic. They can’t be too low or the employer will lose valuable employees overtime. Likewise, they can’t be too high as the employer has to make a profit to stay in business.
I don’t see why this same system can’t exist in the public sector. As secretary in the public sector should be making the same as her counterpart in the private sector. In fact, I would say the public sector worker should make 5% less as a price for the increased job security the public sphere offers.
The authority that has been given up by Congress to Washington’s alphabet soup of agencies is another big problem that no one seems to talk about. To me it is in direct opposition to the spirit of the founding and bottom up government. But what to do about it?
I have two ideas.
First of all most of the agencies mention shouldn’t even exist at the federal level. Those that remain should have their abilities to pass regulations stripped. They can make recommendations to Congress, but only Congress can actually pass their recommendations into law. Any other ideas out there?
The Explosive Growth Of Government Spending
I’ve always enjoyed articles by Neil Reynolds. He combines real historical knowledge with solid economic analysis. I’m surprised he works for the Globe and Mail. Anyway in this article he shows how government spending has exploded just about everywhere. Why is this? I think my analysis in my Bob the Builder article explains it pretty well. If you’re in government, the easiest way to get elected is to promise people unearned benefits. In the short term you get elected. In the long term you’re Greece.
Here’s the article
Related articles
- The government spends well over half our collective earnings (about 57%). Result? (politics.ie)
- Welfare Economics (jimdew.wordpress.com)
Is Obama A Liar?
I’m not entirely sure if Obama lies deliberately. My take is that he’s gotten by for so long with people just believing anything he says it just comes naturally to him now. Being president is the first time in his life where his words actually mean something. Its the first time he’s actually had to match his words to deeds. I think the collision that is occurring between his fantasy world and reality is really beginning to take a toll on him. Thankfully for him though most of the press is willing to sacrifice their credibility to cover for him (with the exception of this article below).
Related articles
- Is Obama a Serial Liar? (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- Why is Our Leader Such a Liar? (hiwaychristian.wordpress.com)
What The Reaction To Captain America Reveals
I’ve just written a post on Captain America and what it says about America’s current state of mind over at Richochet.com. The post itself turned out to be much longer than I originally anticipated. I’m planning on writing more on the subject, particularly on why it’s important for a culture to believe in itself. I’ll most likely be posting that one here. In the meantime, feel free to check out Richochet.com for my post on Captain America:
http://ricochet.com/member-feed/What-The-Reaction-To-Captain-America-Reveals
Why Government Grows (otherwise titled The Tale Of Bill, Bob, and Government Gus)
One of the big, make that maybe the biggest, issues that Conservatives and small government types have to come to grips is why government automatically grows. Even government led by such conservative stalwarts as Ronald Reagan or Margret Thatcher are not immune to this. Looking back at their records it becomes painfully obvious that, at best, they only managed to slow the rate of growth. Why does his happen?
One of the biggest reasons is simply the dynamic of modern (meaning, post WW2) elections. If you want to get elected the easiest way to do so is to simply bribe people. When asked to choose between getting something for nothing as opposed to standing on principle most people tick the box for option A. It’s always easier for any politician of any stripe to talk about some new vote getting program or benefit as opposed to running on thrift. As Obama himself said a few days ago, he’d rather be talking about new programs than plans to cut any amount of spending.
The question becomes, how to change this tendency that is built into the system?
I think I have the answer.
You might think the solution is radical, but I think it makes sense.
The solution is to privatize money.
Try this thought experiment on for size.
Imagine a simple country made up of two hardworking people, Bill and Bob, as well as a third person we’ll call Government Gus. Both Bill and Bob have worked hard and have $10 each. Government Gus, who does no work that anyone will pay for, has not a dollar to his name. Still, Government Gus wants to win an election so he needs to buy both Bill and Bob’s vote. “What do you want?” coos Gus. “Ask me for anything, it won’t cost you a dime!” Bill thinks about it and says, “If you give me free health care, you’ve got my vote!”
“No problem”, says Gus. “What do you want, Bob?”
Thinking this sounds like a great deal, aBob says “I’d like free daycare!”
“Your wish is my command!” says Government Gus. “All you have to do is vote for me!”
Both Bill and Bob vote for Gus, and Gus is true to his word.
However, he does it in a way that Bill and Bob didn’t count on.
With one sly hand he takes $5 from Bill. He then hands $1 to Bob with a big smile on his face.
“Here’s your free daycare!”
“Thanks!” says Bob. “This is great!” Bob is so happy in fact that he doesn’t notice that Gus has just picked $5 from HIS pocket.
He then turns back to Bill, hands him $1, and says “Here’s your free health care!”
“Thanks, I guess”, says Bill.
After a goods nights sleep Bill and Bob think over what just hit them. Although Government Gus did what he said he’d do, they’re actually poorer for it. As things stand now Bill has $6 ($5 + $1 of heath care) and Bob has the same “($5 + $1 of day care).
Bill and Bob are pretty bright guys. It’s obvious that they were better off before accepting Government Gus’s “free” stuff. What’s more Government Gus now has $8, and god only knows what he’s doing with it. What do you think will happen the next time election year rolls around. Will Government Gus find it so easy to bribe Bill and Bob with their own money? Probably not.
They might even vote for Big Liberty Pete, and tell Gus to hit the road and get a real job himself.
But what happens if Government Gus DOES have a skill?
What if he’s, say, a world class counterfeiter?
Let’s rerun the above scenario with this new condition factored in.
Government makes the same promises, but this time he prints out some money when Bill and Bob aren’t looking.
Both Bill and Bob are thrilled. At first blush they both appear to be better off. They both still have their $10, plus a $1 worths of benefits they didn’t pay for. What more could you want? Bill and Bob aren’t quite sure where Gus got the $8 he now has, but hey, every body is richer now, at least in paper.
And of course, that’s the problem. Real wealth has nothing to do with numbers printed on pieces of paper. Money is merely a medium of exchange, nothing more. An unknown word starts to creep into Bill and Bob’s vocabulary. That word is inflation. The cost of everything is going up, to the point where they are just as poorly off as they are in the first scenario.
There is one crucial difference, though.
They are not able to make the connection between Government Gus’s sneaky counterfeiting, rising inflation and their now poorer states. The only thing they know is that things are getting more expensive and their lives are getting harder.
What happens when the next election rolls around? Do they vote for Gus, who is offering more programs to help, or Big Liberty Pete? I think you know the answer.
And there in a nutshell is the reason for the explosive growth of government the world over in the 20th century.
The fatal mistake is allowing Government Gus his own printing press.
As soon as you do the concept of “Of the people, by the people, and for the people” is turned on its head.
Without the ability to counterfeit Government Gus has to tax people honestly. This puts the people in the drivers seat. They earn the money and they have the power. The only way government can grow is if the people let them. Most people will see the benefit in being taxed a little for the few things that people can’t do themselves. These are things like national defense or a court system. Beyond that it is obvious that Gus can’t do much beyond his core competencies very well. Only when the productive Bill and Bob’s of the world give him the ability to counterfeit is Gus able to create the illusion that he can do more.
So, the question is, why transfer the power from the people to the government at all? It amounts to taxation without representation. Government Gus’s the world over have been able to take money from productive citizens and use it to buy power without the citizens knowledge or consent. If anything it’s WORSE than taxation without representation as most people are not even aware that they’re BEING taxed.
The answer, then, is obvious. It’s time to get rid of national currencies.
This is obviously an out there idea which I’ll have to expand on in a future post.
Tell me why I’m wrong though.
Told you it was radical. 
Climate Science vs Astrology
I’ve recently been thinking about people who believe in Global Warming vs those who believe in Astrology. Why does one group maintain a level of respect while the other is considered to be a group of cranks at best?
In some respects the two belief systems are not as different as you might think.
Consider this.
Astrology promises to predict the future based on the relative positions of various celestial bodies. Modern practitioners of this art even use complicated computer models in an attempt to peer into the future.
Climate scientists promise to do much the same thing. Using data collected from various sources they construct elaborate computer models that promise to predict the future insofar as climate is concerned.
Why is one discipline regarded as legitimate whereas the other is considered the purview of cranks and charlatans?
The reason, I believe, is that most people use common sense with respect to astrology. They demand that Astrologers prove that they actually know what they’re talking about. Saying that you can predict the future based on the movement of the planets is an extraordinary claim. In order for people to believe, you have to back it up. This is why various skeptical organizations like CSICOP (The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry) typically challenge astrologers to put up or shut up. They force them to make widely publicized predictions to see if they come true. Typically, they come up far short.
Why does no one demand the same of climate scientists? They are essentially saying that they understand an unbelievably complicated system and can make predictions based on it. Why should anyone trust them? How long has climate science been around as a science anyway? Why do so many people seem ready to accept the wisdom of these unproven prophets?
Isn’t it far past the point to ask the climate change community to make some predictions and stand by them? Shouldn’t they have to prove, like astrologers, that their models actually work in the real world?
It makes sense to me.
Below are links to two articles about climate change. The pro climate change article, entitled “Climate Change: Still Worse Than You Think” is from Mother Jones. Notice how the entire thrust of the article is based on computer models and how accurate or not they are.
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/07/climate-change
The second article, which is skeptical of climate change theory, goes through examples of how those computer models have failed in the past.
