Are you as irritated as I am by Hollywood actors and actresses who insist on having political opinions despite the fact that they are dumber than a stump?
Recently, Richard Dreyfus chastised the GOP for not helping Democrats "fix" ObamaCare. Dreyfus called ObamaCare a "safety net" and a "national endeavor." He said if Republicans don't get behind an ObamaCare fix "they should anticipate having the sick and the dying and the dead on their lawns.”
Really? On our lawns?
Dreyfus is not the only genius in Hollywood. According to reports, Antonio Banderas is an unhappy Hollywood camper. He wants the federal government to "nationalize" big American corporations "like Chávez did in his day." Apparently, Banderas is all for turning America into the third world country that Venezuela has become.
Oh, by the way, Dreyfus has a net worth of $55-million, and Banderas is worth a cool $45-million.
Why can't these super-rich actors leave us alone? They got their millions wheeling and dealing on the free market and now it seems they're trying to put the rest of us in the poor house by campaigning for tax-and-spend progressive Democrats.
I've often thought these privileged, super-rich movie stars are progressive Democrats because they feel guilty that they have so much and had to do so little to get it. They live a life of happy endings, where ends can be made happy and satisfactory by means of applied imagination. They live the life of kings and queens on earth by simply applying makeup and playacting. It pains them to see that so many others are not so lucky, that so many others have to struggle to make ends meet.
Plus, these privileged products of endless art and theater classes know little or nothing about economics. They solve problems as children do, simply and naively. If Paul lacks what he "needs" the simplest solution is to take from Peter what he doesn't "need." Problem solved. It never occurs to them that they don't need what they have. Therefore, they won't give away their millions, but they'll damn sure vote for politicians who will tax away our feeble incomes, and piss away their ill-gotten gains in the Washington latrine.
Here's the net worth of some other Hollywood liberals who refuse to practice what they preach to us:
George Clooney, $180-million
Cher, $305-million
Barbra Streisand, $340-million
Think about this the next time one of these wealthy windbags opens his yap and tries to tell you how to live your life.
"Side by side with the word 'property' in the program of liberalism one may quite appropriately place the words 'freedom' and 'peace.'" Ludwig von Mises, "Liberalism, In The Classical Tradition"
About This Blog
Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) was the greatest economist of my time. His greatest works can be accessed here at no charge.
Mises believed that property, freedom and peace are and should be the hallmarks of a satisfying and prosperous society. I agree. Mises proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the prospect for general and individual prosperity is maximized, indeed, is only possible, if the principle of private property reigns supreme. What's yours is yours. What's mine is mine. When the line between yours and mine is smudged, the door to conflict opens. Without freedom (individual liberty of action) the principle of private property is neutered and the free market, which is the child of property and freedom and the mother of prosperity and satisfaction, cannot exist. Peace is the goal of a prosperous and satisfying society of free individuals, not peace which is purchased by submission to the enemies of property and freedom, but peace which results from the unyielding defense of these principles against all who challenge them.
In this blog I measure American society against the metrics of property, freedom and peace.
Mises believed that property, freedom and peace are and should be the hallmarks of a satisfying and prosperous society. I agree. Mises proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the prospect for general and individual prosperity is maximized, indeed, is only possible, if the principle of private property reigns supreme. What's yours is yours. What's mine is mine. When the line between yours and mine is smudged, the door to conflict opens. Without freedom (individual liberty of action) the principle of private property is neutered and the free market, which is the child of property and freedom and the mother of prosperity and satisfaction, cannot exist. Peace is the goal of a prosperous and satisfying society of free individuals, not peace which is purchased by submission to the enemies of property and freedom, but peace which results from the unyielding defense of these principles against all who challenge them.
In this blog I measure American society against the metrics of property, freedom and peace.
No comments:
Post a Comment