Talk show host Dennis Miller said, “I don’t dig polo. It’s like miniature golf meets the Kentucky Derby.”
Nothing illustrates the superficiality of our times better than the enthusiasm for electric cars, because they are supposed to greatly reduce air pollution. But the electricity that ultimately powers these cars has to be generated somewhere — and nearly half the electricity generated in this country is generated by burning coal.
Advertisement
The 2012 Republican primaries may be a rerun of the 2008 primaries, where the various conservative candidates split the conservative vote so many ways that the candidate of the mushy middle got the nomination — and then lost the election.
Because morality does not always prevail, by any means, too many of the intelligentsia act as if it has no effect. But, even in Nazi Germany, thousands of Germans hid Jews during the war, at the risk of their own lives, because it was the right thing to do.
In recent times, Christmas has brought not only holiday cheer but also attacks on the very word “Christmas,” chasing it from the vocabulary of institutions and even from most “holiday cards.” Like many other social crusades, this one is based on a lie — namely that the Constitution puts a wall of separation between church and state. It also shows how easily intimidated we are by strident zealots.
If you don’t like growing older, don’t worry about it. You may not be growing older much longer.
What do you call it when someone steals someone else’s money secretly? Theft. What do you call it when someone takes someone else’s money openly by force? Robbery. What do you call it when a politician takes someone else’s money in taxes and gives it to someone who is more likely to vote for him? Social Justice.
When an organization has more of its decisions made by committees, that gives more influence to those who have more time available to attend committee meetings and to drag out each meeting longer. In other words, it reduces the influence of those who have work to do, and are doing it, while making those who are less productive more influential.
Anyone who studies the history of ideas should notice how much more often people on the political left, more so than others, denigrate and demonize those who disagree with them — instead of answering their arguments.
The wisest and most knowledgeable human being on the planet is utterly incompetent to make even 10 percent of the consequential decisions that have to be made in a modern nation. Yet all sorts of people want to decide how much money other people can make or keep, and to micro-manage how other people live their lives.
The real egalitarians are not the people who want to redistribute wealth to the poor, but those who want to extend to the poor the ability to create their own wealth, to lift themselves up, instead of trying to tear others down. Earning respect, including self-respect, is better than being a parasite.
If no man can make 10% of the decisions necessary to run functioning government, it then behooves us to choose men of honest, republican character to lead. Men who believe in smaller government bounded by the authority given it in our Constitution. Men who believe in more individual freedom, less regulation. Men who will choose others of the same character to stand beside them.
They don't seem to be crawling out of the woodwork.
The effort to use electric car in the urban concentrations makes sense weather you believe in global warming or not. At worst; they are carbon neutral, at best the allow to store energy from excess renewals capacity optimizing the system. But the health benefits if highly concentrated urban areas independent of such debate are clear and uncontroversial.
Electrics come nowhere close to being carbon neutral. If they are powered by coal plants, an electric will produce at least twice the CO2 as an standard car of the same size. While the best power plant may be as much as 50% more efficient than the worst IC car, more than 2/3rds of the power generated is lost before it reaches your electrics wheels.
What kills me in all the talk of "carbon neutrality" and "energy footprints" is that nobody takes into account the energy used to manufacture the vehicle. A few years ago, I read an article (sorry, I don't have a citation) that demonstrated how the total energy footprint of a Chevy Tahoe was significantly less than that of a Toyota Prius. Despite the higher consumption of energy during the Tahoe's operational period, its manufacturing economies of scale were far more efficient than those of the Prius. The high energy cost of manufacturing batteries for the Prius widened the difference even more. Even if a city full of Priuses has somewhat cleaner air, somebody somewhere else is still eating the carbon.
First, an observation. It is amazing to me that someone who is as obviously intelligent at Thomas Sowell can still nonetheless have their thinking dominated by simplistic cliches. I suspect that many intelligent conservatives, especially economists, suffer from the same problem. Looking at the world from a top-down perspective as though a few ideas can explain everything is largely the problem. As is typical of those with libertarian leanings, Sowell attempts to mask what is actually a sort of top-down intellectual arrogance with fake pleas for intellectual humility. Don’t we realize the mere humans can never solve problems using government, they say. But doesn’t it take either a genius or an arrogant fool to make THAT sweeping top-down assertion as well?
“Nothing illustrates the superficiality of our times better than the enthusiasm for electric cars, because they are supposed to greatly reduce air pollution.”
How convenient that Sowell forgets another reason to prefer electric cars. Namely, to decrease the price of oil so the West is less complicit in subsidizing dysfunctional and oppressive regimes in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Sowell is of course right that there is currently no way to produce energy without downsides. It is also not possible to produce computers without cost. But compare the price of a computer that used to take up entire rooms (millions of dollars) with today’s more powerful modern laptop (less than a thousand dollars) and you realize that the true statement that computers will always cost money is far from the whole story. Magnitudes matter. We will never eliminate human pollution. However, with new technologies, we can reduce it.
“The 2012 Republican primaries may be a rerun of the 2008 primaries, where the various conservative candidates split the conservative vote so many ways that the candidate of the mushy middle got the nomination — and then lost the election.”
Yes, Mitt Romney will both win the Republican nomination and lose the general election to Barack Obama. However, so would any of the more conservative candidates in the field. The failure of conservatives to elect their own candidate is pernicious, as it feeds Republican delusions that all they need to do is be more extreme and the American people will support them. Probably the only way to correct such dysfunctional thinking among conservatives is for them to finally select a “real” conservative in their primary and have that candidate go down in flames.
“Because morality does not always prevail, by any means, too many of the intelligentsia act as if it has no effect.”
The same fallacious reasoning is exercised by Thomas Sowell in this very post. Because effort to reduce pollution does not always prevail or work perfectly, Thomas Sowell acts as though efforts to reduce pollution have no effect and are unimportant.
“In recent times, Christmas has brought not only holiday cheer but also attacks on the very word ‘Christmas,’ chasing it from the vocabulary of institutions and even from most ‘holiday cards.’”
The so-called war on Christmas exists mostly in the minds of paranoid conservatives. Merry Christmas! From a proud liberal Californian.
The point that one should be sensitive, within reason, to people with other religious beliefs still holds. However, there is no contradiction between the words “Merry Christmas” and respect for people with different religious convictions. The words “Merry Christmas” are offensive to very few people.
The significance of the so-called War on Christmas is to unite conservatives around a common enemy, however imaginary that enemy may be.
“What do you call it when a politician takes someone else’s money in taxes and gives it to someone who is more likely to vote for him? Social Justice.”
What do you call conservatives who want to deny healthcare to the poor in order to minimize the tax burdens of the wealthy? Inhumane.
And let us not forget that so-called “free market” outcomes already are highly redistributive. When a lawyer bills out a paralegal’s services for $200 per hour but pays that paralegal $20 or less per hour, what exactly is going on? It is quite clear that unequal negotiating power enables those who are well positioned to redistribute the gains from common effort to themselves. But Thomas Sowell says that if we tax the lawyer to provide an education to the children of the paralegal so that they may have a chance to become doctors or lawyers if they can meet the competition, we are stealing. I say shove it.
I think Elizabeth Warren explained this point quite well.
“Anyone who studies the history of ideas should notice how much more often people on the political left, more so than others, denigrate and demonize those who disagree with them — instead of answering their arguments.”
Actually, I have heard Thomas Sowell denigrate and demonize people who disagree with him. For example, by implying that they hate Christmas, are basically thieves, favor parasites, want to micromanage the lives of others, and tend to denigrate and demonize those they disagree with.
Dr. Sowell, why don’t you think twice about what YOU say for once? You do not paint a pretty picture of those you disagree with. Ever. So don’t complain about being demonized.
“The wisest and most knowledgeable human being on the planet is utterly incompetent to make even 10 percent of the consequential decisions that have to be made in a modern nation. Yet all sorts of people want to decide how much money other people can make or keep, and to micro-manage how other people live their lives.”
I love the fake humility. So, how do you propose that we avoid making decisions about how much money people can keep? Are you suggesting that we end all taxation? Even if you decide not to tax people, you are still making a decision about how much they can keep.
Let me explain while the whole libertarian line that since the world is a complicated place, we should do nothing to try to solve problems is a complete and utter failure. Simple: Because doing nothing is a choice with consequences. To not perform surgery, to not intervene, to not report a child molestation, to ignore genocide, to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons, these are all examples of inactions with serious consequences. Thomas Sowell is right that the world is a complicated place and that solutions to problems are difficult to formulate. That does not mean that the correct response it always to do nothing out of fear of unintended consequences.
If Thomas Sowell were as humble as he implies, he would admit that he does not know enough to say that inaction is always or mostly the correct choice. He would admit his own ignorance. But he does not and will not. This shows that he is no more humble than those he criticizes for not being humble enough.
“The real egalitarians are not the people who want to redistribute wealth to the poor, but those who want to extend to the poor the ability to create their own wealth, to lift themselves up, instead of trying to tear others down.”
First of all, as I have shown in the past, conservatives do not even support equality of opportunity. For example, they are generally perfectly content to tolerate great disparities in the quality of our schools at the K-12 level, as wealthy districts are able to provide vastly better educational environments. Conservatives also increasingly tend not to believe in keeping college education available to everyone, but instead argue that higher education is vastly overrated. Funny how most of these same conservatives generally plan for their OWN children to receive a college education.
Beyond that, equality of opportunity and equality of outcome are not so easily separated. Yesterday’s outcomes greatly influence tomorrow’s opportunities. The outcomes of one’s parents greatly influence the opportunities of children. The world is, as Thomas Sowell eluded to earlier, a messy place. Doesn’t it take a certain arrogance then, to impose a false clarity on the world as Thomas Sowell does?
“Earning respect, including self-respect, is better than being a parasite.”
That you would so casually resort to calling other people parasites says a lot about your character or more precisely, lack thereof. Let’s go along the next step along the logical chain of reasoning. What do we do with parasites? We exterminate them.
Notice how with such ease Thomas Sowell makes the major decision to classify his fellow human beings as parasites. This shows that Thomas Sowell is anything but humble, despite his previous talk about how the complexity of the world demands humility. I think what Thomas Sowell really means is that the complexity of the world demands humility from anyone who happens to disagree with him.
“But do we then legalize all the illegalities we haven’t been able to detect and prosecute?”
This is an impractical argument. Of course there is no such thing as perfection in enforcement. Nothing in the real world is perfect, which is why the perfect should not be made the enemy of the good. Perhaps Sowell would remember this point the next time he argues against trying to advance technology in terms of replacing gasoline with electricity. Given how smart Sowell is, it is rather amazing that his argument against electric vehicles earlier basically boiled down to that this wasn’t a perfect solution.
Generalities aside, although the ability to enforce with perfection (which never exists) is not decisive, the question of the ability to enforce is still an important consideration. For example, one of the important arguments against Prohibition was that it was difficult to enforce, because of the violent black markets that arose to replace legal commerce in alcohol products. I would be very surprised if Thomas Sowell didn't find the impracticality of enforcement in the context of Prohibition to be very relevant and important, even if not decisive.
I am not going to be too harsh with Thomas Sowell on this point. Being consistent is actually extremely difficult. We humans tend to weigh and emphasize points to the extent that they support our own preferred outcomes.
“Some also prefer class-warfare politics that brings in votes, if not revenue.”
Hardly anyone. It is necessary, however, to expect balanced sacrifice. And in any case, class-warfare has been going on for a long time. For example, when Republicans try to prevent basic medical services from being provided to those without health insurance. Or when they want to cut back on education and the equality of opportunity that it provides. Or even when, against their own stated principles, they do not even try to implement a system of vouchers to pay for private education for the poor, middle class, and everyone else when they have the power to do so.
A final point. I may point out what I see as the flaws in Thomas Sowell’s arguments, perhaps with some rhetorical flourishes, but I do so with respect.
Clearly you missed a key piece of his point. That you less productive set about to beat down those who don't share your beliefs. My dad often told me that there was great promise in a fool but an educated fool was not a good investment of your time. I read your lenghty response and you clearly reacted to his points and did not take a moment to consider his points.
Welker complaining about simplistic cliches. Now that's funny.
In Welker's world, balanced sacrifice means that others have to give up more of what they earn, so that David won't have to give up as much stolen money.
Godd grief, Welker...when you shave in the morning to you routinely kiss the mirror?
(what a self-absorbed, know it all, boring post...FYI - use Dr. Sowell's writing style as a guide ...you know, state a position and support it with clarity and brevity!)
I have noticed over some time that liberals tend to consume more column inches with their replies than what the author used for the original post. Seems to work that way with public finances, too.
"Because morality does not always prevail, by any means, too many of the intelligentsia act as if it has no effect. But, even in Nazi Germany, thousands of Germans hid Jews during the war, at the risk of their own lives, because it was the right thing to do." - One doesn't have to be religious to be convinced, as so many of us are, that a single moral act - especially of courage - can have tremendous, earth-shattering, if not metaphysical, implications.
Talk about arrogant. I had to quit after reading that we should drive elecric cars "to decrease the price of oil so the West is less complicit in subsidizing dysfunctional and oppressive regimes in the Middle East and elsewhere". LOL. Seriously? Anyway, you should get your own column. You obviously have a lot to say.
David Welker's words: "It is amazing to me that someone who is as obviously intelligent at Thomas Sowell can still nonetheless have their thinking dominated by simplistic cliches."
Notice the word "dominated."
Thomas Sowell's words: "Random thoughts on the passing scene."
Well, one ad hominem deserves another in Mr. Welker's world. And constant reductio ad absurdum arguments yield very little (electric) light to the discussion. We seem to have left out of the discussion, at base, that the poor are much better off with lower energy prices than feel good, "save the planet" energy solutions whose benefits are infinitesimal today, infinitesimal tomorrow and infinitesimal forever (I'm wondering if Mr. Welker drives a Leaf or a Tesla.). It seems we have been having this kind of discussion since the Enlightenment. Sometimes with civility, sometimes not. If his comments were not so acerbic, I might be inclined to believe Mr. Welker's final comment. But given the tenor of his missive, I have to conclude that his "respect" for Mr. Sowell resembles more closely disregard. As to the Swiss cheese arguments in the penultimate paragraph, politics requires hybrid answers, not all electric.
