We’ve been blessed in ways that were completely unforeseeable, even only a couple/few decades ago – instant communication world-wide in our pockets, on a device with computing power equivalent to what took warehouses full of machines; knowledge far more vast than an encyclopedia set, near real-time information from around the world, all at our fingertips; shopping online, comparison of multiple retailers, with it’s bargain pricing; logistics that can deliver those products to our door in two days, or within a week if from another part of the world; kickstart crowd source funding for new companies with promising innovative ideas; etc..

I could go on for days with examples.

For a lark, one need only look at the old Star Trek reruns to see the laughable version of technological foresight they had of the future – it was mostly a projection of their present on the future.

If we continue to live in a collective funk about this country, when, in reality, it is still by far the greatest, and attempt to regulate further, by various means, all this “change”, we will eventually kill the “goose” that provides all these “golden eggs”. THEN, we will have real basis for a collective funk.

Wealth provides for (a) needs, then (b) opportunities. Measured that way, the world has never known wealth like we have today, and no one’s ever known wealth like the US does today.

I believe that it is one of the many Sowell readings I have come across that says that given the relative nature of defining poverty in our nation, we fail to realize that even that is a level of wealth that the vast majority (90% ?) of the world aspires to.

A specific comparison to “developing nations”:
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/TUbsiKw2cFI/AAAAAAAAO4U/7JCxCvhfIFQ/s1600/economix-28milanovic-custom1.jpg

Some of the most effective charts to demonstrate the dramatic real results of massive redistribution policies:
http://b-i.forbesimg.com/warrenmeyer/files/2013/12/income_sweden.gif

http://www.coyoteblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/income_all.gif

Not much improvement on the low end of the income scale, but major downside on the upper end of the income scale.

Most people look around at their situation and it seems like it’s tight but they’re getting by. That’s true for the 90% of the population, in terms of earnings. They think it’d be easier if they had a little more money, but they don’t really need a whole lot more money. They think they could maybe get by with a little less, but anyone who has a lot less must need help.

These are reasonable, decent thoughts for a person to have. They’re not quite as deep as they should be, but there’s no ill intent behind them. The problem is they lead to the thinking that Sowell condemns. If a lot more money than I have is too much, and a lot less money than I have is an emergency, then someone needs to step in and move money from those who are richer than me to those who are poorer than me. And as I said, the intention is decent; it’s the basis for donation. It just gets out of hand when applied broadly.

“You know nothing about me or my opinion of Gerard Vanderleun.”

All that I know of you is based on reading your comments, this comment says nothing about your opinion of Van. Whatever.

That is your prerogative.

But, it is truly sad that you “deem” it is unworthy of responding to them, because, while you claim yourself to be open to debate, re-reading the correspondence (and all can see that) you haven’t really given me much back on the challenges to your initial point.

So, come now! This is all yet another more elaborate evasion, and suspect you know that full well, given your final line.
.

This article was about seven deadly sins.

I proposed hypocrisy is an “eighth” one, largely because this cycle we have seen many who espoused one set of ideas, consistently, and for a very long time, suddenly change, and with little explanation.

Steve (really Stephen) Moore is one such example.

If it were all about “purity” then I would never have been okay with past GOP POTUS candidates, nor several other representatives, past and present, in local, state, and federal chambers. But, somehow, I largely am. “Purist”? Strawman?

trump has given a variety of conflicting messages during his campaign, a great many are very far afield from what the GOP stood for, and many also are very much what dems would and/or do gladly hold.

Several GOP leaders, and several conservative thought leaders / media voices, who long held positions very different are now somehow okay with what they opposed and found anathema in the very recent past.

In particular, a man like Moore who has waxed eloquently and deeply for years on one view, seems to give little explanation as to why his new views are more valid today than all his past ones.

If it were merely a matter of “theory vs practice”, why wouldn’t all these people have just argued what should be “practiced” rather than debate about the superiority of their “theory”, vs those of the dems, all these years?

If they are still in favor of limited government, why are they okay with a massive increase?

Did they ever care about their ideas in the first place, or was that just a marketing brand that they are happy to quickly discard the moment they smell the opportunity to hold power, make money from the situation, or otherwise make some personal gain?

Ultimately, how can we trust what they have to tell us now?

If one still wants to talk the “theory” talk then in “practice” does just the opposite, how can we believe their talk?
.

All this just devolves political discussion down into Red vs Blue, as neither side has any credibility remaining, since their “practice” looks very much different from their “theory” they’ve long been promoting, and, worse, looks very much like the other team’s “practice”.

I thought that is what we hated about DC. The GOP were really just “dem lite”, beholding to the crony donor class, and other special interests, etc., etc., rather than delivering on what they “promised”.

Maybe what we really hated was that our team wasn’t in power, and that they seemed to fumble the ball at critical points.

Maybe “theory” has nothing to do with it, other than as a marketing gimmick for the useful idiots who believe it.

Michael Walsh referred to a “checklist of conservative principles” and I get the impression that such is how you are proceeding; fail to address just one of those and one’s credibility as a conservative is denounced. You claim to be a “realist” but seem to denounce any Trump action that does not conform to your
checklist. If so, that’s the simplistic approach of an ideologue not the nuanced approach of a realist.

You write, “I really do hope that trump [sic] will make the kinds of decisions to make changes that I believe are good for the country,” while simultaneously condemning as a finality his administration-elect for anything you see as a failure to check off a conservative box on your list. Risible.

From your comments, I draw the conclusion that you seem to have no real sense of the interplay of theory vs. the dynamics of working in the real world as well as a rather blinkered understanding of the economy and the marketplace. Your #NeverTrump stance was marked by a fear that 1) Trump could/would be worse than a Hillary presidency and 2) that Trump wasn’t really a conservative but a closet liberal. Both reasonable assumptions at the time. From your current comments and criticism that latter seems to continue to be your motivating factor in spite of the evidence that has started to appear. Caveat: this evidence isn’t necessarily representative of future actions either, but it is a good start that should be lauded by conservatives not simply dismissed.

If I am correct, all of this gives you the same mindset as a Progressive liberal while not necessarily the same principles; the Trump administration must either be with the entire program or it’s not conservative at all. My own take is that like the liberal exploding heads, there is much cognitive dissonance here and you live in fear of having to admit to yourself that you were wrong (whether you actually are or not remains to be seen).

BTW, no one is telling you to sit back and shut up. Just don’t expect much substantive or continuing feedback until you have something valuable to add to the conversation yourself.

Now, I’ve given you enough material to work with.

Cue your response telling me how I have just proven myself guilty of exactly the suppositions I have listed in this comment.

Huh?

You accused me of not reading your stuff, but you mustn’t have read what I posted, as you accuse me of “harp(ing) on the supposed current failure of an administration not yet even sworn in”.

Hardly in these posts since you addressed me.

Do you not recall, we were talking about Steven Moore?
http://neoneocon.com/2016/12/02/is-it-greed-envy-or-covetousness/#comment-2008844
http://neoneocon.com/2016/12/02/is-it-greed-envy-or-covetousness/#comment-2008937

BTW, it is about Steven Moore that you initially responded to me about.

Oh, yes, forgot to mention, I was basically referring to how Steven Moore has abruptly changed his tune.

Hey, did you happen to notice that Steven Moore was long pushing free market ideals, but hasn’t explained why those don’t seem to matter anymore?

How many ways to you want me to express it, and how many ways to you want to avoid addressing it?
.

To address your new point, if I level any concerns about trump:

Yes, I am a skeptical “wait and see”.

Why should I automatically accept the positive spin on trump, and on people’s unfounded assertions / beliefs on what trump will do or intends, when he has long campaigned in a way that leaves much open to question?

Is there something wrong with explaining why I might be so or what I might see from a different point of view?

I really do hope that trump will make the kinds of decisions to make changes that I believe are good for the country.

Largely, that would mean a major reduction in the size and scope of the federal government.

What I fear is that we merely get some of those changes, but simultaneously get a whole new whopping dose of big government, just with different beneficiaries / favorites.

What allows trump to do so is the backing of the GOP majority in Congress.

To the degree that these people, and the thought leaders / media voices who remain proponents of the free market ideas they long espoused, it is possible that my hopes come true.

To the degree that these people have abandoned their previously stated principles in pursuit of power, it will obstruct those hopes from fruition.

So while I wait and see (and hope) it doesn’t mean I will sit back and shut up.

Now go ahead and respond to this last bit and ignore the rest.

” You’ve seem to have already labeled this administration-elect a failure, a violation of conservative principles, from the get go”