Whining Causes Powerlessness

I was reading this post on why the fattest populations are Polynesians. One of the commenters claimed to be Polynesian and he was such a whiner that I that rather went off on him. I don’t think it’s good form to copy his entire post, but the first paragraph rather fully sums up the tenor of his whine:

I am unsure on your reasons for postulating that “obesity may seem like a small price to pay for access to the modern world and all its comforts and opportunities.” I can resolutely say, as a Pacific Islander, that it is needed a massive price to pay. The ‘opportunities’ of the modern world that you seem to be praising, must include the western tradition of monetizing the health and happiness of a person – in this case to the detriment of Pacific communities. Obesity is a disease, a disease that robs people of their ability to realize the fullest potential of their bodies (and all of the physical, mental, emotional and spiritual growth that results from increased health)
… (continued here.)

That whining really got under my hide and I went off on the guy:

Oh, give me a break.
 
Stop it with the polynesian version of pastural idealism. Pre-contact Polynesia was a blood soaked land of incessant warfare, conquest and mass murder. You know, just like everywhere else. The societies were highly-heirachial and oppressive and ruled by a warrior elite who gained their positions with murderous violence. Just like everywhere else. The technology level meant that the vast majority of the population lived and died at the whim of nature. Just like everywhere else.
 
Everything in the past uniformly sucked and everything in the present by comparison uniformly rocks. Don’t believe me? Well, how about that pre-20th century dentistry? What, did traditional polynesians have some secret for antibiotics and anesthesia?
 
Anyone who whines about being provided to much food and treats it like a crime against humanity has never watched a child starve to death. At anytime prior to the last 30 years the idea that making people fat was doing something wrong would have provoked gales of laughter. It still should.
 
People like you are the reason that Polynesians are marginalized. Brained dead romantics who would rather whine about the loss of a mythical past than adapt to the modern world. Polynesians are marginalized because they don’t have the individual and collective skills to make themselves powerful in the modern world. You can’t use traditional Polynesian culture to find success in the modern world anymore than white Americans could act like their medieval ancestors and expect to prosper.
 
You whine just like American Southerners used to whine. Oh, it was so unfair that the South was as rich and economically advanced as the North. It was all the fault of the greedy and exploitive Northern industrialist and capitalist! In response, the Southern states adopted a wide range of economic policies intended to “protect” themselves from Northern exploitation such as making it nearly impossible for out of state banks to operate.
 
In reality the Souths economic backwardness was entirely self-inflicted. They needed to lose the slavery, lose the Jim Crow, lose economic protectionism and lose the hostility to entrepreneurism. Starting in the 1960s they did all those things and like magic the South began to grow and even outpace the North (which ironically was headed in the opposite direction.)
 
If you want to run your society the same way that grandpa did, expect to have grandpa’s standard of living and grandpa’s place in the world.
 
Playing on the sympathies of others just makes you a well respected beggar. Even if you it earns you a house of gold you are still a beggar and still marginalized. You still depend on the whims of others for your livelihood and you never have any real respect.

The worst fate to befall any people is for leftists to decide they are victims. The moment the people themselves buy into the fallacy of their own helplessness, they doom themselves to a life of economic marginalization and permanent political dependency.

If We Outsourced the DMV

Writing on public sector unions Walter Russell Meade says in passing:

Public sector unions did not have to face that kind of pressure until recent years. You can’t outsource the Department of Motor Vehicles or the local public school to China.

He’s right but wouldn’t it be awesome if we could?

Just imagine the scene…

(Scene: The local DMV. As you approach the doors, they are thrown open by two Chinese dressed in silk robes. As you pass, they throw themselves to the floor in a kowtow. Inside, the office is decorated in red silk and gold. A fountain burbles somewhere. A peacock saunters by. An elderly gentlemen with a fumanchu mustache and flanked by four others hurries up and prostrates himself before you.)

Li Chou: Oh, most esteemed and honored citizen! Pray tell us what glorious task we most humble and unworthy public servants may have the honor of performing for your most graciousness today?

You: Uhm, well, I need to get my license renewed.

Li Chou: (Rising up to kneel) Aiee! Having grown in years more beautiful and wise you now justly demand the articles of success that the mandate of heaven grants you?

You: Er, yes?

Li Chou: (Looking to the ceiling and claps his hands rapidly) The citizen has spoken! Bring forth the citizen’s throne and ring the gong of renewal!

Read more

Leftists and the Pierian Spring

Victor David Hanson’s has a good post on”The Rise of the  Adolescent Mind” which discusses how much of the public discourse seems driven by an adolescent mind set of “I want it, why won’t you give it to me?”. It inspired me to write a comment that turned out unusually well so I thought I would repost it here:

I think the problem with adolescents and Leftists in general is best summed up by Pope:
 

A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again

 
When the mind starts to flower in late adolescence we feel empowered and wise because we compare our new found level of knowledge not with the sum of all knowledge but only relative to that which we personally knew a few months or years before. We feel that since we know so much more than we did, we must know all we truly need to know. This trait in youths has been noted since classical times. Usually, we only lose that arrogance when we graduate to life’s only true school, the school of hard knocks. The teachers in the school of hard knocks shove our heads under the water of the Pierian spring and force us drink or drown.
 
Unfortunately, many people never attend the school of hard knocks and never take those very vital deep draughts of experience. For those who spend their entire lives in government, activism or academia, inescapable physical reality never intrudes to disrupt the intellectual elegance of their fanciful hypothesis. Facts and physical limitations become strange mythological things spoken of only by the ignorant pagans in business, technology or the military. We grow up only when we have to. These people’s intellects and emotion freeze in late adolescence because they are never challenged to grow up.
 
A true education teaches humility. In a real education, every new thing we learn only expands the radius of our ignorance allowing to see how much more of the world actually exist and how very little of it our personal real knowledge covers.
 
A failed education, an indoctrination, teaches arrogance. It teaches that all that one needs to know lies within the circumference of the ideology. Anything outside the circumference is trivial. That is what we see in various collectivist ideologies. “Our knowledge is so vast and so encompassing that we have right, even the duty, to impose our will on everyone for the collective good.”
 
Perhaps we could find the Perian spring, bottle the water and market as something rich people drink to help the environment. Only then can we force our hoards of adolescents to imbibe the wisdom they truly need.

Environmentalism Isn’t About the Environment

So, here’s a NYTimes story [h/t Environmental Economics] about three separate groups filing environmental lawsuits blocking a solar thermal project in California. The three groups filing the lawsuits are: The Sierra Club, the First-American Quechan tribe and “a labor group.”

Each group gives a different rationale for blocking the project and I think it reasonable to ask what each group’s real agenda is. (But let’s remember this is the NYTimes reporting here, who are not exactly known for their competence.)

The Sierra Club’s rationale is given as:

“The task at hand is to bring clean energy online, which includes large-scale renewables,” said Bill Corcoran, the western regional director for the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign in Los Angeles. “But as we looked at all of the fast-track projects, Calico was far and away the most harmfully located project.”[emp added]

Okay, firstly, that statement seems to imply that most or all of the alternative-energy projects are “harmfully located” and this one is just the worst of the lot. Secondly, the statement doesn’t say that the harm is actually of an unacceptable level. Does the project really threaten the environment to any great extent? Does this lawsuit really give Sierra Club donors the most environmental bang for their donated bucks? The statement really leaves the impression that the Sierra Club is more interested in finding an excuse to file a lawsuit, any lawsuit, than they are in protecting the environment.  Is the Sierra Club more interested in brushing up its radical environmental creds or drumming up donation-generating publicity than they are in targeting the worst environmental damage?

Read more

Conflicts of Interest Inside of Government

You know, it amazes me that people never see conflicts of interest internal to government itself. The USDA guidelines are  a prime example.

Think about it. The guidelines purport to be an objective assessment of what food we should all buy and consume, but what is the USDA primary mandate? Oh, yeah, to advance the interests of agricultural producers in the US. It’s the Department of Agriculture, not the Department of People Who Eat.

Like all “regulatory” agencies USDA has long ago succumbed to regulatory capture, and now exists largely as just a means for people who make their livings in agriculture to advance their economic interests using the power of the state. The USDA only has an institutional incentive to advance the welfare of food producers. The USDA has no institutional incentive to look out for the welfare of food consumers.

By sheer coincidence, the USDA recommendations for the percentage of a particular type of food we should eat always seems to roughly parallel the relative economic size of the agricultural sector that produces that food. I wonder why?

One of the biggest reforms we could make in government would be to legally separate promotional, regulatory and research powers.

Read more