Search This Blog

Monday, February 09, 2015

If It Doesn't Kill You, Is It a Bad Decision?

I stumbled upon an excerpt today that I think nearly perfectly describes the contempt many conservatives assign to the progressive experiment (liberal disease):
It should be apparent by now that these social policies [of modern liberalism] and the passions that drive them contradict all that is rational in human relating, and they are therefore irrational in themselves. But the faulty conceptions that lie behind these passions cannot be viewed as mere cognitive slippage. 
The degree of modern liberalism’s irrationality far exceeds any misunderstanding that can be attributed to faulty fact gathering or logical error. 
Indeed, under careful scrutiny, liberalism’s distortions of the normal ability to reason can only be understood as the product of psychopathology. 
So extravagant are the patterns of thinking, emoting, behaving and relating that characterize the liberal mind that its relentless protests and demands become understandable only as disorders of the psyche. The modern liberal mind, its distorted perceptions and its destructive agenda are the product of disturbed personalities.
Personally, I don't think it's a problem of liberalism, but rather it's part of the human condition. All of us, conservatives, libertarians, progressives, communists, etc., are so divorced from reality that we can all have "extravagant" "patterns of thinking, emoting, behaving and relating" that have little or nothing to do with reality. Almost no matter what we do, we'll all survive, at least into our reproductive years. We'll all have enough food, clothing, and shelter to keep on breathing, even the poorest among us.

A significant part of the reason for that is that neither conservatives, libertarians, progressives, communists, etc. are going to let children starve or otherwise die from destitution. None of us can stand to watch children die, especially if those children are in our own communities. That aversion is part of being human. But that means that all children, even very poor ones, even ones that come from a long line of folks whose decisions we disagree with, such as those whose actions result in single motherhood which results in poverty most of the time, will reach adulthood and will likely have children of their own, who also will be kept alive, enabling the cycle of poverty to continue.

Is anyone making an objectively bad decision? I claim no. For those that support safety nets (which is nearly everybody, really), the money is more than worth it to not have children starving. For those making decisions that will likely result in children being raised in poverty, they're propagating their DNA, which seems like an objectively good decision as well.

4 comments:

Hey Skipper said...

Is anyone making an objectively bad decision? I claim no.

That is tantamount to claiming that bad decisions don't exist. If that was true, then there would be no such thing as regret, either.

Have you ever met anyone who was glad to be a drug addict, alcoholic, or smoker? Any woman who would prefer to raise alone children by serial, absent, fathers, compared to having a dedicated, present, husband?

Personally, I don't think it's a problem of liberalism ...

Progressives from everyone else in a fundamental way that falsifies that statement: the presumption they have enough information and intelligence to run society.

No one does.

At least the rest of us have that figured out.

Bret said...

Hey Skipper wrote: "That is tantamount to claiming that bad decisions don't exist."

Well yeah, thus the title of the post.

Hey Skipper wrote: "Have you ever met anyone who was glad to be a drug addict, alcoholic, or smoker?"

My dad was happy enough to be an alcoholic (the rest of us were much annoyed, of course), I smoked some when I was young and enjoyed it immensely. I've been addicted to caffeine off and on and have no regrets.

So yeah.

To me, sort of by definition, if someone ingests a drug, overall, their neurons firing must think it's the best course of action at that point, otherwise they wouldn't do it.

Hey Skipper wrote: "Any woman who would prefer to raise alone children by serial, absent, fathers, compared to having a dedicated, present, husband?"

Prefer? I would prefer to be king of the world (well, maybe not:-), but my preferences have nothing to do with anything.

In reading about the 70% of poor children born out of wedlock (all races!), what's clear to me is that in most cases, the mother and father have absolutely no regret. They're both happy to have a child.

So what's bad about their decision from their point of view?

Hey Skipper wrote: "Progressives [differ?] from everyone else in a fundamental way that falsifies that statement: the presumption they have enough information and intelligence to run society."

So that's their "Bad Decision" that "Doesn't Kill You." That's the point of this post.

Annoying Old Guy said...

Bret;

For now. But the Gods of the Copybook Headings may falsify that claim as well.

Bret said...

Your Brain Is Primed to Reach False Conclusions.