Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Thomas Sowell :: Townhall.com Columnist
The new nomenklatura
by Thomas Sowell
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Who won Tuesday's presidential debate?


One of the bitter ironies of the 20th century was that communism, which began as an egalitarian doctrine accusing capitalism of selfishness and calloused sacrifices of others, became in power a system whose selfishness and callousness toward others made the sins of capitalism pale.

The ruling elites of the Soviet Union, called the "nomenklatura," had their own separate and superior stores where ordinary citizens were not allowed to shop, their own separate and superior medical facilities, as well as their own separate and superior living quarters, all off-limits to the masses.

Everyone in communist societies addressed one another with the egalitarian term "comrade." But some comrades had the arbitrary power of life and death over other comrades.

Soviet communism is now history but people who talk equality and practice elitism, who wrap their own selfishness in the mantle of idealism, and who sacrifice others on the altar to their own vision without a moment's hesitation are not only still with us but have become the norm on the left.

They don't have nearly the power that the Soviet dictatorship had. But they use whatever power they do have in the same spirit. The green ideology of today, like the red ideology of the past, takes it for granted that other people do not have the same rights as the new nomenklatura.

Where the new nomenklatura enjoy a particular lifestyle in a particular community, then the power of government is used to preserve that lifestyle and freeze that community where it is, even if that means freezing out other people who may not have the same money or the same lifestyle preferences.

Monterey County, California, is a classic example, though by no means unique. A recent story in the Wall Street Journal quoted residents of that coastal community as saying how much they liked its lifestyle and ambiance -- as a justification of laws that make it nearly impossible for anyone with less money to live there.

First of all, laws forbid building anything on three-quarters of the land in that county. Existing residents who support such laws don't own that land but they can politically keep others from living on it, which is the whole point of much rhapsodizing about "preserving" this and "saving" that.

Land prices skyrocket when the supply of land is artificially and drastically reduced, which means that housing prices become astronomical. The consequences for those on the outside looking in were illustrated by the story of a farm worker in Monterey County whose family had been living in a room for years but who now could finally afford to buy a small house.

This farm worker was described as "thrilled" to the point of tears as he bought a 1,013-square-foot home for $490,000, even though it would take 70 percent of his income to make the mortgage payments. He planned to rent out one of the rooms to try to make ends meet. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Subject: From TomBreyer to BurtB
You asked:

"However, Why should Conservatives accept the words of liberal lies? We should call them as we see them, not accept them as workable dodges."

I agree. We should call them on their lies and tell them to stop accusing others of racism or worse just because others do what liberals do.

But getting this name-change will neither alter their behavior nor discredit the basic acitivity Sowell considers wrong.

You asked:

"Further, why should it be acceptable to allow a few well connected individuals to change the zoning on land and not have the land owners compensated? If there is no cost to an action, that action will be invoked more and more often."

It shouldn't be and that is why the Kelo decision must be overturned. Furthermore, the only way to make liberals understand the consequences of their actions is for the Conservatives to become "the unintended consequence" and make liberals pay for the costs. Unfortunately, that is not what Conservatives do.

See, BurtB, every ideology, at one point or another, creates these "unintended consequences" that backfire on the ideologue. The liberals quest for perfect equality and freedom sometimes produces results that hurt liberals themselves. Liberals then have to invent workarounds to right the mistakes they make. Hence, "riffraff" becomes "environment" and other forms of hypocrisy.

The Liberal rationalizes these hypocrtical acts because, on balance, they are "doing good" and they deserve to be rewarded for doing good. Thus, we see how flexible liberal morality creates solutions to "unintended consequences" that make liberal lives better but wreak havoc on everyone else. Townhall.com and talk radio exist precisely because of this phenomena.

And yet, why should this happen? Shouldn't conservatives oppose this? They should, but conservatism suffers from its own "unintended consequence": It is very inflexible and does not allow the use of liberal methods to combat liberalism. The conservative focus on systemic rules and principles that benefit all (including rules that prevent totalitarianism) prevents the kind of nuanced and targeted use of power that would greatly aid us in defeating liberal machinations. Heck, we can't even muster enough political support to seize David Souter's house.

This rigidity gives liberals an enormous advantage over conservatives. Liberals know they can do whatever they want because conservatives are hemmed-in by their ideology. That is why liberals never worry about "the law of unintended consequences". They never have to worry that a conservative would use these rules against them.

So, BurtB, when you ask why liberals should be the arbiters of economic activity...well...they already are. This is because conservatives are too busy acting like computer systems designers (always reacting to threats) instead of acting like computer hackers (the ones that cause the threats).

This is why I'm making this argument. I want these kind of liberal powers to be used by conservatives to keep our own "riffraff" out of our lives and, one day, hopefully, out of our country (like renters, leftist, hippies, and such). Once liberals see that their cries of hypocrisy fall on deaf ears, they will then start thinking twice about enacting certain laws...assuming we don't end up killing all of them first.






sorry for the double
seems my service has problems
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily dose of conservative columns, editorial cartoons, talk radio, news, and more!
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.