The Law of Unintended Consequences

Always works against efforts to regulate through government intervention.

Pro-regulatory activists often proclaim that the solution is to appoint non involved and ignorant ... possibly antagonistic types to regulator panels or commissions.

But the smart ones know that co opting insiders is the way to go...... As explained by Richard Fernandez Some Excerpts ....

Therefore all attempts at “financial reform”, “healthcare reform” and “Green Energy” must be scrutinized very carefully because regulatory expansion is a two-edged sword. It may lead, not to the protection of the “little guy” by the government, but to his proxy enslavement to special interests through the mechanism of the state. This risk has been known for a long time.

In 1913 Woodrow Wilson wrote: “If the government is to tell big business men how to run their business, then don’t you see that big business men have to get closer to the government even than they are now? Don’t you see that they must capture the government, in order not to be restrained too much by it? Must capture the government? They have already captured it.”

And so it goes that as the perpetually wrong liberal left and self styled progressives continue to repeat the childish demands for undefined "change" and ignorant criticisms of the social structures that gave them the very opportunity to indulge their fantasies of self actualization .... the actual results achieved are the exact opposite of what they so fervently believed.

Now after more than 100 years of failed socialist experiments you'd think they would begin to understand this cause and effect relationship between asking for more government and losing any chance at all of being able to exercise self determination.

In this context there seems to be only two possible explanations for this behaviour... the first being that it is willful self destructive behaviour ... the second that it is deliberate malevolence.

Batshit crazy or just plain evil.

Know your enemy.


OMMAG