Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Michael J. Hurd Ph.D.

Reblogged:Why So Many Politicians Are Crooks

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Why are so many politicians crooks? How did an obvious crook get to be the nominee for one of the country’s two major parties?

The answer is unbelievably obvious.

Think about it. We ask our politicians to provide almost unlimited goods and services. We don’t just want roads and armies. We want health insurance. We want K-12 education. We want food stamps. We want retirement income. We wanted college loans and now we want college tuition. We want cell phones. We want sports stadiums, we want, we want … it goes on and on. And we want it all to be excellent.

Unlimited goods and services cost money. But more than that, the provision of unlimited goods and services requires elected officials to make decisions we’d never make in the real world of daily life.

Most of us would not knock on our neighbor’s door and say something like, “I notice you have three cars. You only need two. Give me your third car so I can buy better health insurance, or send my kid to college. If you don’t, I’m calling the police.” It’s absurd, when you think about it that way. Yet this is precisely what we expect our elected leaders to do. Every single day!

In politics, just like anything else, we choose the people who are best at what we’re asking them to do. Who’s best equipped to rob from one group of people for the sake of the another? Career politicians, of course. Hillary Clinton is the career politician to end all career politicians. When you look up career politician in the dictionary, her picture is there. Does she lie, twist arms, make sinister deals, cheat, betray and even murder, if necessary, to get what she wants? Of course she does. Because when you ask your government to do things you’d never consider civilized in the daylight of real life, this is what you get: criminal personalities. Soiciopaths in pantsuits with fake laughs and insincere clichés. But they’re still sociopaths. And they have to be. It’s the nature of what we’re telling them to do!

No one election will solve this problem. It’s not over this coming Wednesday. Until or unless we take a look at all the things we’re expecting our government to do, and how immoral and irrational those things really are — especially in any other situation — we won’t see the “change” politicians keep promising us.

Is Hillary Clinton crooked? The evidence is overwhelmingly obvious. But let’s not forget how she got where she is. In a society where the majority did not keep telling the government to do crooked things, we would not have a government so populated with crooked officials.

We are not victims. We created this mess by ignoring our Constitution and telling Congress and the President to make exceptions. Not just in the last few years, but for decades and generations now.

It has all caught up with us. Don’t blame that on Donald Trump or even on Hillary Clinton. We have created our own mess, and we have to be the generation that cleans it up. If we don’t, we’ll be the last generation of America that matters, because America will no longer matter.

 

Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael  Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1

Dr. Hurd’s writings read on the air by Rush Limbaugh! Read more HERE.

 

The post Why So Many Politicians Are Crooks appeared first on Michael J. Hurd, Ph.D. | Living Resources Center.

View the full article @ www.DrHurd.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Michael J. Hurd Ph.D. said:

Why are so many politicians crooks? How did an obvious crook get to be the nominee for one of the country’s two major parties?

The answer is unbelievably obvious.

Think about it. We ask our politicians to provide almost unlimited goods and services. We don’t just want roads and armies. We want health insurance. We want K-12 education. We want food stamps. We want retirement income. We wanted college loans and now we want college tuition. We want cell phones. We want sports stadiums, we want, we want … it goes on and on. And we want it all to be excellent.

Unlimited goods and services cost money. But more than that, the provision of unlimited goods and services requires elected officials to make decisions we’d never make in the real world of daily life.

Most of us would not knock on our neighbor’s door and say something like, “I notice you have three cars. You only need two. Give me your third car so I can buy better health insurance, or send my kid to college. If you don’t, I’m calling the police.” It’s absurd, when you think about it that way. Yet this is precisely what we expect our elected leaders to do. Every single day!

In politics, just like anything else, we choose the people who are best at what we’re asking them to do. Who’s best equipped to rob from one group of people for the sake of the another? Career politicians, of course. Hillary Clinton is the career politician to end all career politicians. When you look up career politician in the dictionary, her picture is there. Does she lie, twist arms, make sinister deals, cheat, betray and even murder, if necessary, to get what she wants? Of course she does. Because when you ask your government to do things you’d never consider civilized in the daylight of real life, this is what you get: criminal personalities. Soiciopaths in pantsuits with fake laughs and insincere clichés. But they’re still sociopaths. And they have to be. It’s the nature of what we’re telling them to do!

No one election will solve this problem. It’s not over this coming Wednesday. Until or unless we take a look at all the things we’re expecting our government to do, and how immoral and irrational those things really are — especially in any other situation — we won’t see the “change” politicians keep promising us.

Is Hillary Clinton crooked? The evidence is overwhelmingly obvious. But let’s not forget how she got where she is. In a society where the majority did not keep telling the government to do crooked things, we would not have a government so populated with crooked officials.

We are not victims. We created this mess by ignoring our Constitution and telling Congress and the President to make exceptions. Not just in the last few years, but for decades and generations now.

It has all caught up with us. Don’t blame that on Donald Trump or even on Hillary Clinton. We have created our own mess, and we have to be the generation that cleans it up. If we don’t, we’ll be the last generation of America that matters, because America will no longer matter.

 

Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael  Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1

Dr. Hurd’s writings read on the air by Rush Limbaugh! Read more HERE.

 

The post Why So Many Politicians Are Crooks appeared first on Michael J. Hurd, Ph.D. | Living Resources Center.

View the full article @ www.DrHurd.com

 

No, by all means, continue blaming the poorest and weakest in society for its ills. Why are so many politicians crooks? Oh I don't know, but it probably has absolutely nothing to do with all the crony capitalists paying them millions to loot the public treasury.

 

Quote

It has all caught up with us. Don’t blame that on Donald Trump or even on Hillary Clinton. We have created our own mess, and we have to be the generation that cleans it up. If we don’t, we’ll be the last generation of America that matters, because America will no longer matter.

Nah, yeah don't blame the plutocrats and their friends, blame yourself.

Edited by SpookyKitty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:

No, by all means, continue blaming the poorest and weakest in society for its ills. Why are so many politicians crooks? Oh I don't know, but it probably has absolutely nothing to do with all the crony capitalists paying them millions to loot the public treasury.

Where were the poorest and "weakest" in society mentioned?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JASKN said:

Where were the poorest and "weakest" in society mentioned?

Read between the lines. He says "we" need the government to pay for things like "food stamps" and "health care". The crony capitalists obviously don't need the government to pay for that for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, SpookyKitty said:

Read between the lines. He says "we" need the government to pay for things like "food stamps" and "health care". The crony capitalists obviously don't need the government to pay for that for them.

I took "we" to mean all citizens. Who are the crony capitalists, and what do they do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rich people wouldn't need to ask the government for food stamps and other programs. Hurd didn't think it through, and at worst he is placing primary blame on poor people who would want those things. How would you explain the existence of corporate and banking entities that abuse so much, e.g. Wells Fargo, or VW, or any others who are entangled with regulators and/or abuses of law? It's not a demand for entitlements there.

No, don't mention them, just blame people wanting entitlements. Those are poor people. If only they stopped asking, then we'd be okay! All pragmatists or sociopaths, none really do believe in a safety net as a principle. It's not an underlying issue with the way the government is run, not at all monetary policy determined independently of what people want anyway. Oh, and Clinton kills people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:

Read between the lines.

Wouldn't it be easier to just put whatever you have to say IN THE LINES, in clear, unambiguous, well thought out English?

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an awful lot of conflating and oversimplification coming from someone complaining about conflating and oversimplification. If I hear another millennial whine about being poor...

Edited by JASKN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Nicky said:

Wouldn't it be easier to just put whatever you have to say IN THE LINES, in clear, unambiguous, well thought out English?

That's good advice. Maybe Hurd is listening. Probably not, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:

Nah, yeah don't blame the plutocrats and their friends, blame yourself.

Blame philosophy.  We are told from birth the government is your provider.  That's a crude philosophic political view taught to and accepted by most.  Dr Hurd needs to clarify a few things and it would be fair to ask him if the poor, for example, should be blamed for their poverty and a government that helps to cause it.  He better answer a resounding "NO!" and explain himself.  It would also help if he understood and communicated the fact the Donald Trump is no capitalist of any kind and that he's the wrong vehicle through which to change the crooked system.  On the other hand, even if we want to sympathize with the poor and blame the system more than them for their situation, our anti welfare statist position makes us a big target for the welfare state advocates who resort to smears (racist, greedy, cruel..).  

If we were to write an essay on why politicians are crooks what should we say that's different from the essay in the OP?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Craig24 said:

If we were to write an essay on why politicians are crooks what should we say that's different from the essay in the OP?  

Well, that's easy. Politicians are paid by crony capitalists to write and pass favorable legislation for them. And by "favorable" I mean the anti-free market sort of favorable. 

And yes, you make a good point about how our education system teaches us that the welfare state is normal. And yet, there are many people who are against it.

The buying and selling of political favors, on the other hand, is

1) Rarely discussed at all

2) Seen as normal and inevitable

3) Most people believe that it is protected under free speech

4) Virtually nobody challenges it.

There is a much stronger case to be made here that our education and media institutions support crony capitalism, rather than the welfare state.

Edited by SpookyKitty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SpookyKitty said:

There is a much stronger case to be made here that our education and media institutions support crony capitalism, rather than the welfare state.

The underlying assumption here is that government welfare is more fundamental than capitalism, which is not true. If left alone, people would overwhelmingly choose their own wellbeing over the welfare of others. Only the government can enforce welfare, whereas capitalism would exist without coercion. "Crony capitalism" isn't a thing, there is only capitalism and freedom, or welfare and enslavement. A true "crony capitalist" isn't a capitalist, he's just another version of a welfare statist.

Crying about being poor in America makes me roll my eyes so far back in my head it hurts. Venezuela would be a better example. But both are the same: the poor (actual, as with Venezuela, or perceived, as with the US) do not choose freedom, they choose continued looting. Even though people are literally dying in the streets, the solution isn't continued looting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, JASKN said:

The underlying assumption here is that government welfare is more fundamental than capitalism, which is not true. If left alone, people would overwhelmingly choose their own wellbeing over the welfare of others.

I really doubt that, I think it makes more sense to say most people really do believe in altruism believe in a safety net. I kinda doubt this is the "real problem", as in those aren't the people that Hurd is claiming politicians want to satisfy. I suppose it's fine to argue that crony "capitalists" are still welfare statists - I think SK is aiming to say that those people are the main problem. Hurd implicitly blames poor people and ignores all other people.

Why do you bring up crying about being poor? No one here did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

I think SK is aiming to say that those people are the main problem. Hurd implicitly blames poor people and ignores all other people.

Dr. Hurd does not implicitly blame anyone, he explicitly says "we," to include all citizens.

30 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Why do you bring up crying about being poor? No one here did.

Give me a break. Arguing that welfare can't be changed because "crony capitalists" have all the power is what I call crying about being poor.

30 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

I really doubt that[...]

Does this mean you believe that people will choose to roll over and die if welfare dried up?

Edited by JASKN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the we would not reasonably be applied to us all, so either Hurd is dumb, or doesn't mind blaming mainly poor people. Why would all people want those entitlements? Really, the only people who would "want" all that are poor.

Are some poor people to blame? Sure! But so are some rich people - the people who wouldn't care about having their own food stamps.

Who argued that welfare "can't be changed"? The article is about who bears the blame, and that's the discussion! It's the people who want stuff, apparently (but as I said, that doesn't make sense).

I think most people adapt if necessary. I do not think poorness or richness makes anyone inclined to act differently with regard to principles. "Wanting stuff" is irrelevant for political trends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Who argued that welfare "can't be changed"? The article is about who bears the blame, and that's the discussion! It's the people who want stuff, apparently (but as I said, that doesn't make sense).

On one side, you think poor people don't want stuff, so they're not to blame for an expanded welfare state. But on the other side, you think we're only talking about poor people, because they're the only people who want stuff...?

I do think rich(er) people are also to blame, for a lack of good principles and enabling the lazy.

Edited by JASKN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The title "Why So Many Politicians Are Crooks" may segue into altruism being at the root in some circles. Dr. Hurd's outreach is predominantly Facebook, Newsmax, and his own website. Who is his target audience? What can they be reasonably expected to know in general, and more extensively, expected to know about Objectivism?

Obviously his forte is psychology rather than Objectivism.

I've encountered comments that nicely highlight what is amiss in some of his posts that helps me to underscore something I otherwise missed.

 

Francisco and Galt pointed out to Rearden and the other strikers the weapon being used against them, and ultimately how it required their acceptance for it to be effective. So when Dr. Hurd says "we", — look at the varied list and ask if any of them apply, perhaps not to you specifically, but what about from the field of people you know? If going on strike is not a viable option, what about identifying ways that might help teach others what needs to be said "No" to.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

The title "Why So Many Politicians Are Crooks" may segue into altruism being at the root in some circles. Dr. Hurd's outreach is predominantly Facebook, Newsmax, and his own website. Who is his target audience? What can they be reasonably expected to know in general, and more extensively, expected to know about Objectivism?

Hurd is consistently atrocious about reasoning well. He's just bad at it, or at least doesn't question ideas well. He literally says Hillary has probably had people murdered. His target audience is people that don't mind not thinking, like Trump supporters. His psychology stuff is mediocre at best. He's a mediocre doctor as far as his writing, and a shrill political thinker.

All I want to point to is the bad logic here in the OP. "We want stuff". We is all of us. We all like some entitlement programs. So, politicians seek power and provide it. But this is bad reasoning. Not all people would get much out of entitlements, only poorer people do. The richer people would not contribute to this wanting. So, regardless of intention, the poorer and poor are to blame. Bank bailouts may be an example of rich people "wanting", but there are still many examples of richer people flouting law alongside entrenched fraud. This is a different monster than "wanting". It doesn't help that many people still seek safety nets, a separate issue about principles to support as opposed to wanting.

An argument can be made to point at jealousy. This isn't just "wanting", it's about feeling inadequate, or failure to think long term in favor of hedonism. That would be a better argument than blaming a desire for entitlements that by nature consists of lots of poor people.

If you double down on "wanting" as the issue, you'd need to say politicians want stuff. Of the "bad" ones, they'll seek the highest bidder. Who are they? The crony/faker "capitalists" who only need people to look the other way. So, again, that seems like a bigger problem than entitlements. But I don't buy that people vote for entitlements because they'll "get stuff". Of those who benefit, they don't get much anyway (people don't ENJOY using food stamps).

I don't know what SK agrees on or if this is what she meant, but it's what I've been thinking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, JASKN said:

The underlying assumption here is that government welfare is more fundamental than capitalism, which is not true. If left alone, people would overwhelmingly choose their own wellbeing over the welfare of others. Only the government can enforce welfare, whereas capitalism would exist without coercion. "Crony capitalism" isn't a thing, there is only capitalism and freedom, or welfare and enslavement. A true "crony capitalist" isn't a capitalist, he's just another version of a welfare statist.

You are just harping on semantics. Come back to me when you have a real argument.

Quote

Crying about being poor in America makes me roll my eyes so far back in my head it hurts. Venezuela would be a better example. But both are the same: the poor (actual, as with Venezuela, or perceived, as with the US) do not choose freedom, they choose continued looting. Even though people are literally dying in the streets, the solution isn't continued looting.

1. Get your head out of your ass. There ARE poor people in America.

2. You could have just said from the beginning that the poor are to blame for the lack of freedom in America. Would have saved everyone a lot of time.

3. Your only response to my argument that politicians are crooked because crony capitalists pay them to do that is to say that crony capitalists don't exist because they are "really" just welfare statists. That's exactly the same argument communists use to say that the Soviet Union wasn't "really" communist.

If what you really want to say is that many rich people don't pay off politicians to do their dirty work, then just say it. Otherwise, re-evaluate your position. Either way, put up or shut up, and quit trying to hide behind semantic games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/5/2016 at 9:42 AM, Michael J. Hurd Ph.D. said:

In a society where the majority did not keep telling the government to do crooked things, we would not have a government so populated with crooked officials.

Dr. Hurd's description of our situation will not be very helpful to non-Objectivists, because he does not even touch the deeper, more important moral question: Why do we keep telling the government to do crooked things, if we know it's wrong to take that which doesn't belong to us?

Politicians today are seriously corrupt, not because we ask them to be that way, but because they, and most Americans embrace an evil moral system called altruism, which teaches man to corrupt his own moral purpose in life. It teaches him to sacrifice himself and/or others for the sake of the needy, instead of pursuing his own happiness without infringing upon the natural rights of other people.

Dr. Hurd blames a mooching American society, but fails to explain why we're moochers. Thus his attack will only be perceived as an attack and not an arrow to a solution.

As for the rich businessmen who demand favors from politicians, this is probably the last vestige of the individualist, capitalist spirit, where a person expects to trade value for value. Yes, the value is a political favor, but can we imagine what these businessmen have traded for that value? We are talking about the businessmen who are still providing jobs for people in this horrible political climate. Don't they deserve to be rich as hell? Some of them are no doubt scummy con-artists. But I believe the good ones are simply trying to keep capitalism and Western Civilization alive, and they are doing what they think is necessary to do that, including buying political favors.

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why So Many Politicians Are Crooks?

Because: "(That's) where the money was/is." Thank you, Willie Sutton.

Spooky Kitty,

8 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:

Well, that's easy. Politicians are paid by crony capitalists to write and pass favorable legislation for them. And by "favorable" I mean the anti-free market sort of favorable. 

And yes, you make a good point about how our education system teaches us that the welfare state is normal. And yet, there are many people who are against it.

The buying and selling of political favors, on the other hand, is

1) Rarely discussed at all

2) Seen as normal and inevitable

3) Most people believe that it is protected under free speech

4) Virtually nobody challenges it.

There is a much stronger case to be made here that our education and media institutions support crony capitalism, rather than the welfare state.

1) Indeed, political favors, in the form of votes are purchased from the poor and middle-class for policies that grant them favors in the form of funds from the public largess. Many of the unnecessary projects and their funding is slipped in between the lines of other non-related legislation.

2) Indeed, it would be inevitable to build roads, bridges, and a viable defense system with public funding. Presently, "normal" government expenses include everything from tobacco and sugar subsidies, to prescription drug programs, to Olympic and other sports stadiums. And the list of other expenses could on until the economy collapses again. The proper minimum services and infrastructure is normal and inevitable; that's why local government should handle as much as it realistically can.

3) Goddamn right free speech is protected. That is, until one more idiot proposes another brilliant pieces of legislation to limit monies donated and spent on political speech.

4)  People and the press challenge it quite often; the very same people then help to elect the same megalomaniacs into power, generation after generation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/5/2016 at 0:42 PM, Michael J. Hurd Ph.D. said:

Does she lie, twist arms, make sinister deals, cheat, betray and even murder, if necessary, to get what she wants? Of course she does.

 

3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

He literally says Hillary has probably had people murdered.

I would say Dr. Hurd states it much stronger than as a mere probability. Why hedge your terminology? In this instance, he does not. Doing so is a tactic of skeptics who do not want to state anything in absolute certain terms in fear of being pinned down to anything specific. This is akin to the real-estate inclusion of loopholes in a purchase agreement more affectionately known in their trade as "weasel clause(s)."

Can you identify (with regard to murder) what/who he might be referring to here, and why he might be asserting it. Clearly and certainly she has not been indicted for murder, (or for breach of national security with regard to classified information.)

This is not, you might say, a tactic objective minded people should pursue. However, in your own words, Eiuol,  "there are still many examples of richer people flouting law alongside entrenched fraud". Could Hillary Clinton be considered an example of a richer person flouting the law via her affluence?

 

I picked this point, among the others you highlighted, as the most salient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

This is not, you might say, a tactic objective minded people should pursue. However, in your own words, Eiuol,  "there are still many examples of richer people flouting law alongside entrenched fraud". Could Hillary Clinton be considered an example of a richer person flouting the law via her affluence?

Yes, I think so.

I mentioned the murder bit as reason to say Hurd is not really an objective person. I mean, that's a big claim to say she even murders people. It fits his narrative in his mind to say that. He didn't say "responsible for deaths", he says murder, i.e. hitmen. I've seen those claims before. I hedged because I recalled it being less extreme, until I reread it.

Can we stick to the main topic though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×