Free Markets, Free People


Zombie Government

How to explain what is going on with government today using a horror movie analogy:

Explains it pretty darn well, doesn’t it?

~McQ

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

12 Responses to Zombie Government

  • I hate Illinois zombies.

  • Rather reminds me of THIS line from an old movie….
    ¬
    I never get tired of watching this clip…..

  • The metaphor works on several levels. The unthinking nature of zombies dovetails nicely with the “we don’t need to know the details of the bill” imbecility exhibited by big-government fools.

    But for me,¬†by far¬†the best part of the analogy is that if the zombies succeed, they wipe out their own source of sustenance. This is the part I continue to shake my head over. I suppose I shouldn’t; after all, these socialist minded fools still don’t understand why the Soviet Union collapsed.¬†

    • Simple enough Billy, they’re ‘smarter’ than those Russians..you just ask em.¬† Take Professor Erb as a sample, or the President or Nancy Pelosi, or Rahm Emanual.¬† They’re just plain smarter and they won’t let greed and badness and corruption happen as they did in Russia (oh, sure, there’ll be a little patty fingering going on, nudge nudge…this is Washington!¬† but nothing that would be like Stalin’s Russia…).
      ¬
      How you ask?¬† Why… simple, by proclaiming that they will have greed free, corruption free,¬† crony free,¬† transparent, open, honest, caring administrations that are doing the people’s work and taking care of hard working American families.
      ¬
      Next question?

  • All right, libertarian blood courses through my veins, but I’m tired of hearing “government doesn’t create anything; it doesn’t create jobs, etc.”.¬† That’s a gross oversimplification and makes it easier to dismiss libertarian viewpoints on the role of government. ¬† Propoents of libertarian thinking would do well to drop the sophomoric (if it’s even that sophisticated) hyperbole and make reasonable claims.¬† Of course it’s a lot easier to churn out emotive catch phrases but doing so lower’s the level of ‘argument’ to that of the bumpersticker slogan progressives.

    • Agreed.
      ¬
      And when Klavan says, “[government] doesn’t invent anything.”¬† He’s wrong.¬† He’s flat out wrong.
      Government funded projects are the largest creators of technology.  Since the dawn of civilization, in fact.
      ¬
      Wait a minute… Andrew Klavan…¬† Oh yeah, he’s the guy who compared Bush to Batman.
      ¬
      Riiiight…¬† Andrew “Bush is Batman” Klavan.
      Just the kind of spokesman the libertarian/conservative movement needs.
      ¬
      PJM and its “Night of the Living Government”
      Simplistic, condescending, and childlike.  What kind of pajamas are these people wearing?  Underoos???
      ¬
      But, no.¬† It describes it, “pretty darn well.”
      For a five-year-old, maybe.
      ¬
      Cheers.

      • You have confused “invention” with the “creators of technology”.¬†¬† Government invents very little.¬† They may describe something they want, but government, outside of the atomic bomb, does not have the resources to create much of anything.¬†¬† In military applications, government will fund the creation of the technology, but in most other areas they rarely fund past the proof of concept.¬† It is then up to businesses to actually develop that concept into something usable.
        ¬
        Take for example, pharma.  Government may fund a project to see if some potential drug can work, but they simply do not have the ability to take that idea through the development process.  How many biotech drugs are being produced by the governmeent.  If you have ever been involved with government funded projects, you would know that the primary purpose is to get the initial funding and to get continued funding.  Whether the project results in anything is of less consequence.  Oh, the work will be done, but the results are almost immaterial.  Another example is software such as Ingress.   Michael Stonebreaker at Berkley got funding to investigate relational database.  After finishing the grant work, he moved on to trying to develop a commercial product based on that research, called Ingress.  Look around. Ingress does not exist today.  However, Ted Codd, from IBM with IBM development, funds defined the concept of relational database.   That resulted in DB2, which is still available and being enhanced.   No government involvement at all.
        ¬
        Along those lines, in what way was government involved in the creation and production of computers.¬† They were not.¬† It would be interesting to take the total R&D budgets of all R&D shops and see if government funding reaches half of the total.¬† I would bet it doesn’t.
        ¬
        ¬
        There are also other problems with your claim of government as the “funder of technology”.¬† The government, via their funding, attempts to pick winners and losers.¬† They cannot do that.¬† Ask the Japanese how well MITI worked out.¬†¬† The political atmosphere directs the funding.¬† How much funding is dedicated to proving AWG vs the funding showing CO2 is not responsible for the warming.¬† All the counter work is being privately funded.
        ¬
        “Dawn of Civilization” is even less likely.¬† Did government invent the wheel?¬† How about fire?¬† Was the steam engine government funded?¬† How about the industrial revolution?¬† Was that government inspired?¬†¬† What about the airplane.¬† How did the Wright brothers get their government funding?¬† Your “dawn of civilization claim” is absurd.
        ¬
        Cheers,
        ¬
        Rick

        • You have confused ‚Äúinvention‚ÄĚ with the ‚Äúcreators of technology‚ÄĚ.¬†¬† Government invents very little.¬† They may describe something they want, but government, outside of the atomic bomb, does not have the resources to create much of anything.¬†¬† In military applications, government will fund the creation of the technology, but in most other areas they rarely fund past the proof of concept.¬† It is then up to businesses to actually develop that concept into something usable.
          ¬
          ¬
          Wrong.  I chose my words carefully.  I stated that government funded projects are the largest creators of technology.
          The government farms some of its R&D to the private sector, and that’s a good thing, because the private sector is most often the best means to an end.¬† Nevertheless, without the backing of the large purse of the state, many if not most of today’s technology might still be the dreams of science fiction.
          ¬
          ‚ÄúDawn of Civilization‚ÄĚ is even less likely.¬† Did government invent the wheel?¬† How about fire?
          ¬
          I think you’re confusing the “dawn of civilization” with the “dawn of time.”
          It is believed that homo sapiens, even neanderthals, had control of fire perhaps as long ago as 70,000 BC, and the wheel perhaps as long ago as 10,000 BC.  Yet the first of what we would consider civilization, were the Sumerians around 4500 BC.
          And yes, since the dawn of civilization, it has been the government funded projects that have spawned most of the greatest achievements in technology.  From the pyramids, to the Roman aqueducts, to the first space flight.
          By no means are the government funded projects the only creators of technology, but it is by far the largest.
          ¬
          To suggest otherwise is what is absurd.
          ¬
          Cheers.

          • I gave you multiple examples of technology that was not created or funded by government.¬† So, where is your analysis of¬† all that government funding that created technology.¬† I saw the other day that government funded research was responsible for 4% of all available drugs.¬†¬†¬†¬† We can go back to Da Vinci and Guttenburg for more examples .¬† I do not consider the pyramids, which basically used an abundance of manpower and block and tackle, to be a technology advance.¬†¬† I think man pretty well knew that water flowed down hill before they built the first aqueduct.¬† The pyramids and the aqueducts were not an advance in technology, but instead civil engineering projects.¬†¬†¬† I do agree, though, that projects of that scope require government.
            The actual funding of research is a pretty new concept.  For your claim to be true,  you would have to show that more than 50% of all technology had to be derived from government funded research and that 50% would have had to have occurred  since the  Manhattan Project.  That would be difficult to show.
            ¬
            Cheers,
            Rick

      • “That’s a gross oversimplification.”

        ” Agreed. Government funded projects are the largest creators of technology. Since the dawn of civilization, if fact.”

        Amusing.

  • And yeah, I can’t spell today. Sure would be nice to be able to edit one’s posts.

michael kors outlet michael kors handbags outlet michael kors factory outlet