Utopia, you are standing in it!

 Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan

Liberals like President Obama (and John Brummett) want to shoot for an equality of outcome. That system does not work. In fact, our free society allows for the closest gap between the wealthy and the poor. Unlike other countries where free enterprise and other freedoms are not present.  This is a seven part series.

Created Equal [1/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980)

Uploaded by investbligurucom on May 30, 2010

Relying on intermittent wind and solar requires a kind of blind faith that power might be delivered when needed most, such as the Big Freeze that hit America’s Mid-west last month, and the heatwave that hit Victoria and South Australia, the month before that.

On that score, STT’s post – Minnesota Madness: Big Freeze Exposes Wind & Solar’s Deadly Flaw – Hopeless Intermittency – must have hit a nerve. It went viral, with over 40,000 hits, so far.

Faced with the truly serious threat that comes with plunging temperatures, those who might have once entertained the idea of being ‘powered’ by sunshine and breezes, are probably a whole lot less inclined to risk their lives on the chaos that comes with wind and solar.

Let it be said that reliable and affordable power saves lives. The corollary being that not having electricity as and when it’s needed, puts lives…

That we’re on the brink of an all wind and sun powered future is an audacious wheeze that sits at the heart of the ‘New Green Deal’.

Any sentient being, bothering to apply a little superficial consideration, understands that the claim that wind and solar will soon provide 100% of our electricity needs is complete and utter nonsense.

For those keen on an even deeper understanding as to why it’ll never work, here is a very thorough analysis by Mark Mills.

The “New Energy Economy”: An Exercise in Magical Thinking
Manhattan Institute
Mark P. Mills
26 March 2019

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A movement has been growing for decades to replace hydrocarbons, which collectively supply 84% of the world’s energy. It began with the fear that we were running out of oil. That fear has since migrated to the belief that, because of climate change and other environmental concerns, society can no…

In our latest post, Dr Patrick Little of the House of Commons 1640-1660 section revisits the Parliament of 1659, which opened in such confusion that its membership was unclear and a stranger could sit undetected – with disquieting implications…

On 8 February 1659 the journalist Gilbert Mabbott reported
the latest developments in Parliament to Henry Cromwell, the lord deputy of
Ireland based in Dublin. Among other news he included the brief statement that
the Commons ‘committed one King, a vintner in London, for sitting 3 days in
Parliament, he being no Member thereof’ (Henry
Cromwell Corresp. 447). What lay behind this extraordinary incident?

The protectorate Parliaments of the 1650s had seen
many MPs elected and then excluded by the Cromwellian regime, mostly notably in
1656, when as many as 98 of the 460 Members returned were kept out of the House
by order of the protectoral council. These…

This video, produced by the The Sun, gives an overview of the gang green’s latest group of thugs, Extinction Rebellion. The group claims to be a peaceful movement but they have conducted acts of vandalism and are illegally blocking means of mass transportation such as bus routes and major highways which have resulted in hundreds of arrests. Extinction Rebellion also claims to have attempted to lobby parliament for policy changes but have been unsuccessful and are now resorting to outright force.

If you want to read more about these nihilistic hoodlum’s destructive efforts, you can do so here.

Especially right and necessary for Memorial Day, Victor Davis Hanson talks about War. Why do we have wars? What makes men start wars? How do you end a war? How can we avoid war? Is war simply natural to the human condition? Is there no hope? He spans the entire history of the wars of civilization and shows how the study of the history of war  can be a torch to light our way through the darkness.  Absolutely brilliant. It’s 20 minutes long and worth every minute.

Reposted from the same time last year.

Here is the video clip and transcript of the film series FREE TO CHOOSE episode “What is wrong with our schools?” Part 1 of 6.

Otago law professor Andrew Geddis highlighted important realities about law-making in a response to Maxim Institute chief executive Alex Penk’s  concerns about the End of Life Choice Bill currently awaiting a second reading in Parliament. T

Some of Penk’s concerns are misplaced, Geddis said.  Others are missing some important context.

Todd Gitlin wrote a reply to my above review, which in my view missed every available point. You can decide for yourself by going to the Democracy site and searching for Gitlin.
Our exchange of letter in the current issue is below. Gitlin argues that he was criticised by Chomsky and the far Left in the Nineties and that excuses his uneasiness about showing solidarity with the victims of Islamo-fascism today. But that only goes to prove the argument I made in What’s Left? that extreme anti-western, anti-liberal ideas which began in obscure corners of the left in the Nineties, moved into the mainstream.
Anyway. Here is our exchange.

Issue #12, Spring 2009
Letters to the Editor
by Democracy Readers

Left, Right, Left . . .

Suppose officials in the Obama Administration are anxious to find ideas to guide America in a new direction. They might turn to Democracy and read Todd…

The ‘Cooper-Letwin Act’ (European Union Withdrawal (No 5) Act 2019) may yet come to be known as the constitutional crisis that wasn’t. But, the advocacy by some of the Government’s ability to advise the crown to refuse assent in order to legitimately prevent the Bill from becoming law has provoked significant debate. The object of this post is not to address the question of whether the Government can properly advise the Crown to refuse royal assent (among others: advocated by John Finnis, Robert Craig; rejected by Mark Elliott, Jeff King and Tom Poole). The aim is to address the slightly different issue, raised by Professor Finnis, that the ‘Lord Chancellor’ can legitimately withhold Bills from presentation to the Monarch (considered in terms of constitutional principle by Elliott and David Howarth). On this point, I suggest that Professor Finnis’s argument is constitutionally mistaken, as a matter…