Skip to main content

The Price of Intellectualism

There’s something remarkably impressive about the notional, theoretical compulsions which drive people to accept that other people’s money, the product of their labor, even a not-so-modest fraction of their own, ought to finance a near-infinite space of institutions, of near-infinite cost, which academically purport to advance select idealistic notions of the famed, mislabeled, and ill-defined public good while pragmatically and historically failing to ever sustainably achieve these ends, only to expend exorbitant sums of wealth in the pursuit of this great masquerade and other interests completely remote from those of the published and implied official mission. It is, of course, easy to accept the costs, as they are collectivized and distributed so as to appear negligible; thus, the costs are largely inapparent and invisible to the layman whose personal interests stretch only so far as his visible profile and reputation, his own pocketbook and his theoretical convictions and dispositions. The public sphere, as far as he is concerned, operates not from any regard to finite capacity but rather from the otherwise limitless abstractions of demand spawning from heartwarming intellectualism and executive control, the popular synthesis of which is enabled through the illusion of democratic, that is unit-based instead of merit-based, participation. 

The pitfall of unit-based calculus over merit-based process is the former’s insensitivity to retained, personalized risk and its circumvention of palpable, replicable exposure to the circumstances and costs attending the whimsical ambitions punctuated by the moment’s swipe of a pen. Within the institutions of a democratic republic, there exists this unfounded vestige of virtue which stands only to further the expectation that one's ignorance ought to be just a powerful as one's knowledge. As evidenced by the largesse of debt spanning the United States, the thresholds of one’s wishful demands often outstrip the capacity of his budget. This is only exacerbated in that space which seems ever-prepared to finance itself into oblivion.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

The Keynesian mantra, in its implications, has its roots in destruction rather than truth: “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your guiding principle, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. While it is true that our fates intersect in death, that does not mean that we ought to condemn our heirs to that view: the view that our work on this planet ought only to serve ourselves, and that we ought only to bear in mind the consequences within our own lifetimes.  The Keynesians, of course, prefer their outlook, as it serves their interests; it has the further benefit of appealing to other selfish people who have little interest in the future to which they'll ultimately condemn their heirs. After all, they'll be long gone by then. So, in the Keynesian view, the longterm prospects for the common currency, social stability, and personal liberty are not just irrelevant but inconvenient. In their view, regardless of the consequences, those in charge tod

There's Always Another Tax: The Tragedy of the Public Park

In the San Francisco Bay Area, many residents work tirelessly throughout the year to pay tens of thousands of dollars in annual property taxes. In addition to this, they are charged an extra 10 percent on all expenses through local sales taxes. It doesn't stop there. In addition to their massive federal tax bill, the busy state of California capitalizes on the opportunity to seize another 10 percent through their own sizable state income taxes. But guess what! It doesn't stop there. No, no, no, no.  In California, there's always another tax. After all of these taxes, which have all the while been reported to cover every nook and cranny of the utopian vision, the Bay Area resident is left to face yet an additional tax at the grocery store, this time on soda. The visionaries within government, and those who champion its warmhearted intentions, label this one the "soda tax," which unbelievably includes Gatorade, the preferred beverage of athletes

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century.  Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties?  The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery.  It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession.  It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860. It was a war whose total cost, including pensions and the burial of veterans, was an estimated $12 billion. Likewise, it was a war that would