All twelve make the same point: those who scream the loudest for some regulation or another, routinely cheat.

This would seem to suggest that we have, among our adversaries, more Gerald Starnes, Juniors than Ivy Starnes. Ivy would occupy the left crescent of each of those Venn diagrams. Gerald sits in the Big Overlap. John Galt, most of the time, isn't even in the diagram.

2, 3, and 8 apply to conservatives who support President Trump's populism.

Then, there are those who support the Constitution, but do not support the XVI Amendment. Then there are those who are opposed to federal intervention in the states but who expect $5.8 to $7.8 billion in federal disaster relief after a hurricane.

It is important to understand why Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism provides a method for establishing non-contradictory political theory and political practice.

Who needs Venn diagrams to show the intellectual inconsistency of the left? Talking to a leftist for a minute or two should be sufficient.

Venn has made hypocrisy an art form.
There are many other things masquerading as what they are not that are in reality, art forms. For example baseball claims to be a sport, but it is actually an art form in disguise. Note in particular the various moves exhibited by the participants in a ritualistic sort of way, much like ballet. Note how all the Venn diagrams in this example are made so as to come out with the same conclusion, which is a very artful procedure.
(Satirical Parody)

Politics is the are of making the illogical appear logical.

I'd like to see a list of all the liberal cognitive dissonance. Another to add: they encourage illegal foreign workers to come to the US and earn sub minimum wage, yet feel everyone deserves a 'living wage'.

This goes into my "Best Post Ever" list!

Applies more broadly than liberals, but still very good points.

My understanding of this is if you're going to pick a package of policy ideas, they ought to be consistent. I certainly agree with being consistent, but I do not understand the reason for pre-packaged policies ideas.

I also think these apparent inconsistencies are where interesting discussion happens. Just take #1. You have someone who believes in "buying American" but likes foreign vacations. Rather than just belittle the person, we could ask him how he resolves the apparent contraction. Maybe buying American doesn't mean the same thing to him. Maybe vacations don't count because it's buying services instead of goods. I have no idea how protectionists think, but I'd be more interested in reading about how they square these issues than just something laughing at them.

I also wonder how often these apparently inconsistent things show up. I don't imagine there are many protectionist Americans travelling the world on vacation or many progressives who do not condemn mistreatment of women by religion. If the Nation and the Progressive mention the issue several times a year, why do we care about the few supposed progressives who abide sexism?