Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Satire: Absolute Proof of the Success of Conservative and Libertarian Philosophy

Satire: Absolute Proof of the Success of Conservative and Libertarian Philosophy

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Below at right is the change in American life expectancy by county in the twenty-year period from 1987 to 2007, and as soon as I saw this map I had an epiphany! All this time I had thought that the higher the life expectancy, the better things would be for the nation as a whole, but I was working with the wrong paradigm! I suddenly realized that the conservatives and libertarians had it right all along!  They’ve proven that the level of health care coverage and the population’s life expectancy are of no importance whatsoever when the future of the nation as a whole is at stake! The only thing that really matters is, is a person lazy or not, and it’s time the not-lazy people began standing up for themselves!

You see, the conservatives and libertarians had all this figured out a long, long time ago. They understood that if they could keep the lazy people from getting a good education and access to good health care, the lazy people would start dying a lot sooner, and they were right! As the map above shows, life expectancy is falling in many of the counties of the heartland of red state America, which must mean that the lazy people are dying off in sufficient numbers to skew the statistics so much.

And what does this mean? Without so many lazy people around (heck, they were probably all lib’ruls from the Democrat party anyways), then the real Americans, the conservatives who are all highly educated and are not lazy, could save more of their precious tax dollars and that means that as the rest of the nation crumbles under an unsustainable nanny-state burden, red America will rise to save American civilization, just as John Galt was preparing to do as he safeguarded the American industrial braintrust in Atlas Shrugged. Isn’t it incredible how life imitates art?

I stand in awe at the enormity of the concept! This grand effort by the conservatives and libertarians of America is without doubt the most brilliant long-term example of social engineering since, well, since Ozymandias bestrode the world of antiquity like a colossus!

Powered by

About Glenn Contrarian

White. Male. Raised in the deepest of the Deep South. Retired Navy. Strong Christian. Proud Liberal. Thus, Contrarian!
  • Glenn Contrarian

    Since the map is hard to read, here’s a link.

  • troll

    Glenn – you failed to grasp the depth of the conspiracy…following the story back to the la times we find that the decline in life expectancy is almost exclusively among women

    …they are going after the mothers of the ne’er do wells

  • Clavos

    …which they richly deserve for having given birth to bums.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    See? Clavos validates it all! Get rid of the poor people (because all of the poor people are lazy and that’s why they’re poor) and voila! we’ll magically morph into a libertarian utopia! Yaaaay!

  • Clavos

    Start rounding ‘em up, Glenn…

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    You’ve got it all wrong, Glenn. True libertarians love the poor because a capitalist society needs a poor underclass in order to function efficiently. This is why we support open immigration.

    Dave

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Dave –

    The problem is that such ‘true’ libertarians don’t allow for a sizable middle class. America had a strong middle class when we had strong unionization and a strong public sector. Now that our unions are weak and our public sector has been hung out to dry – and now that “free trade” has caused much of our manufacturing base to go overseas – we’re left with an ever-increasing wealth inequality, such as has not been seen since before the Depression.

    What is it, exactly, that libertarians have against a strong middle class?

  • Cannonshop

    #7 We had strong unions and a FUNCTIONING Civil Service, Glenn, not “Strong”-it’s already ridiculously strong, it just doesn’t serve any purpose save self-perpetuation now. Notably, at the time in question, we did NOT have a lot of “Public/Private Partnership” garbage, nor did we have the extent of Government taking all the risk for the profit of certain well-connected entities in the Private Sector.

    There was NO SUCH THING as “Too Big to Fail” in the days of which you speak, and Unions served their membership instead of serving the desires of Leftist Political Theorists, Mob bosses, or other non-member entities, and we didn’t have a situation where Democrats would talk union at the same time they were doing everything possible to put union members out of work by destroying the industrial base that employed them (usually in the name of Environmentalism…)

    There was a time, in fact, when U.S. Military actions were dictated by National Interest, rather than being done to sop to sentimental demographics, and that time happens to coincide with… a large working middle-class with strong union representation, competitive multi-company industries not consolidated under the same holding company, and a small, efficient government that served the Public, rather than itself.

  • http://fuguewriter.wordpress.com/ Michael R. Brown

    Contrary to so much of the disinformation out there about her, it isn’t the case that Ayn Rand was against charity. She was personally charitable to her friends and donated to help Israel defend itself. In her own words: “My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.”

    Her point was that you have to have a healthy non-charitable sector in order to be able to provide charity, and that economic freedom (and nothing else) provides that health. How much can one donate if one is starving or dies at age 35, as before technology one did.

    Government welfare is a perversion of charity because it is ill-managed and cripples the productive sector over time. Look at the tens of trillions in unfunded liabilities that are going to cripple our economy; and it’s just going to get worse unless we get the system right.

    One part of the foolishness of the recent debates about Rand is the idea that agreeing with Rand’s prediction and diagnoses in “Atlas Shrugged” – the accuracy of which has been demonstrated in the last few years to a nicety – somehow magically commits one to agreement with her total philosophy. Would this argument be extended to an atheist leftist who recommends Tolstoy or Victor Hugo?

    The other part is a specific misrepresentation of Christianity. Christianity is not a pro-Statism religion; indeed, given who killed their Savior, it tends to the anti-State. (This is something the left has not yet dealt with.) Nowhere in the Bible does it say that wealth should be expropriated and redistributed by the dubious means of government structures; it speaks of personal and *voluntary* charity. One might add, looking at the horrific debt and unfunded liabilities situation that the U.S. is in right now, that the Bible and Jesus were wise in staying away from government panaceas.

    This entire kabuki charade is in bad faith. The Bible does not advocate any Progressive notions of “economic justice.” The progressives who have suddenly discovered religion and its necessary role in politics – after thirty decades and more of stridently and rightly insisting it must be kept out of politics – are not sincere. After this temporary rhetorical bubble is over, they will resume their previous, also ad-hoc, declarations.

    As for the “sociopath” accusation, this is what comes of copying attack website garbage. The whole thing rests upon one author – Michael Prescott’s – highly selective excerpting and chopping up of a private [i.e., thinking out loud without clarifications ] journal written when Rand was barely out of her teens, fresh from the blood bath of 1920s Soviet Russia – and still made it very clear that her read on the personalities of the observers showed that they were not appalled by Hickman’s crime – she said there had been far worse, without the same spectacle of glee – but by his flamboyant and mocking defiance of society. She – who was writing about a *legally innocent man* at the time of the trial – even called him a monster, a pervert, a repulsive and purposeless criminal. Enough with the disinformation and – yes – Satanizing of Ayn Rand.

  • Leroy

    I? always surprised that anyone takes Ayn Rand seriously.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    “Nothing too original, because this is Hollywood! What worked for Al Capone would work for the Mickster.”

    Sid Hudgens voice-over outlining the rise and fall of Meyer Harris Cohen (Mickey C, to his fans), a local mob boss.

    L.A. Confidential

  • Clavos

    always surprised that anyone takes Ayn Rand seriously.

    Why? Look at all the people who take Thomas Friedman and Robert Reich and Maureen Dowd seriously.