In response to:

Shepherds and Sheep

GPeyton Wrote: Feb 26, 2013 3:22 PM
Intelligentsia will always favor totalitarians, as their own particular goal is to rule. Never seems to occur to them how power corrupts, though I suppose they simply view themselves the beneficiary of said corruption.
Luscious Lars Wrote: Feb 26, 2013 3:39 PM
Most intelligentsia men I've come across, tend to be effeminate. They are more like women than men. Many women, for whatever reasons, tend to love strong, forceful men. Maybe it's that vulnerability vs. protection thing. So these effeminate intelligentsia males look at dictators as their superiors. If they get the dictator to like them, at least on the surface, then maybe the dictator will favor them and protect them. We've seen how that doesn't work because most dictators are virile men. They want women, not half women, to pleasure them. They'll use the intelligentsia males to get what they want, then they'll either imprison them, exile them, or kill them. We've seen this before.
pascagoulapappy Wrote: Feb 26, 2013 4:13 PM
What was the difference between Oliver Cromwell and Charles II ? One was a dictator and one was a di_k toter.
SFLBIB Wrote: Feb 26, 2013 3:33 PM
Well, the intelligencia wants its causes célèbres implemented, but it seems that those causes more often than not require taking away peoples' freedoms, and so naturally they resist. The responsible intelligencia rarely have the stomach to knock heads and/or "break a few eggs" required to eliminate those who do resist. This is where the Brown-shirted bully-boys come in: to do the dirty work for the brainiacs. This is why Leftism is inherently authoritarian.
45caliber Wrote: Feb 26, 2013 4:32 PM
The "intellects" have no stomach for knocking heads, etc. themselves but they have no problem ordering it done. Further, they have no problem harming millions if it will test out some theory they have. After all, like the DOJ official told the agent about "Fast and Furious" eggs must be broken to make omlets.
John Stuart Mill's classic essay "On Liberty" gives reasons why some people should not be taking over other people's decisions about their own lives. But Professor Cass Sunstein of Harvard has given reasons to the contrary. He cites research showing "that people make a lot of mistakes, and that those mistakes can prove extremely damaging."

Professor Sunstein is undoubtedly correct that "people make a lot of mistakes." Most of us can look back over our own lives and see many mistakes, including some that were very damaging.

What Cass Sunstein does not tell us is what sort of creatures, other than people, are...