Wednesday, July 31, 2013

Renewed Faith in the Public

I was looking at the IMDB comment boards on the film The Fifth Estate, about Wikileaks, and was heartened to see some common sense for a change. Granted, there were some who were strong Wikileaks boosters, the usual "the state and big corporations will enslave us" types, but there were also some, many who were clearly not strongly or even mildly conservative, who seemed to have a quite clear picture of why Wikileaks rubs so many the wrong way.

Here are a few examples:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It seems everybody wants to be Woodward and Bernstein from Wikileaks to Edward Snowden but they aren't quite hitting the mark. They come off more attention seeking than genuine fighters for transparency. I never felt like the Wikileaks things was that big of a deal but it seems like many people want it to be. 

Did I miss something was it a big deal or wannabes trying to prove something? 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was and it wasn't. It was a thing but not as big as many people wanted it to be. The media didn't even cling to it that long and frankly, neither did the public. 

Its not that the public is necessarily apathetic to corruption but are apathetic to "freedom fighters" or "those who know the real truth". They are everywhere and the internet is their mecca. 

We need whistle blowers. We need a outlet for someone who knows something to get the information out to the public safely. I think most would agree on that; the problem is not the message but the messenger. 

The demographic of the people who create these websites have lost the public's trust. They have pressed the panic button so many times people have stopped listening. The public will listen to the "average joe/everyman" whistle blower but any whiff of political posturing, "transparency/keeping the governments/corporations honest", that sort of thing gets you ignored. 

It also doesn't help that these people are going after governments and corporations, which is fine, but it does come off as adolescent rebellion towards authority rather than transparency. What I mean by this is don't just go after governments but also focus on organised crime, terrorist, pedophile rings, human trafficking, identity thieves, and drug lords. You hear about cyber attacks on the government but what about the people in the world that do truly trouble things. Aren't they on the internet in some form or another? 

If you really want to get people to hear you affect their day to day lives and not just "freedom". That's my take on it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm with you, mickey. You've put it beautifully. 


the problem is not the message but the messenger...The demographic of the people who create these websites have lost the public's trust. They have pressed the panic button so many times people have stopped listening.

That's the problem with Assange. He's now like the Boy Who Cried Wolf, people are sick of it and a lot of us question his current credibility. 


The public will listen to the "average joe/everyman" whistle blower but any whiff of political posturing, "transparency/keeping the governments/corporations honest", that sort of thing gets you ignored...going after governments, which is fine, but it does come off as adolescent rebellion towards authority rather than transparency.

That's the other major problem with Assange. His political posturing now looks so affected and self-important, like he thinks of himself as some kind of Demigod Who Affects the Course of Human History. It's a real turn-off. His ego got in the way a long time ago, and it seems like it's affected his judgment. 


don't just go after governments but also focus on organised crime, terrorist, pedophile rings, human traffics, identity thieves, and drug lords. You hear about cyber attacks on the government but what about the people in the world that do truly trouble things.

That's why someone like Lowell Bergman, of 60 Minutes and Frontline fame, would always have my respect and attention. People like him tend to focus on issues and stories in which the corruption/atrocities/perpetrators that are uncovered really ring a bell with the average 'man-in-the-street.' Bergman (see the film The Insider) knows how to make this connection. 

This rather hazy 'governments-are-smothering-us-and-taking-away-our-freedom' business doesn't always connect, somehow. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Snowden himself, doesn't come off well. You fully expect to hear about his book and movie deal any day now. Then he ran to Russia for asylum, a country where if their spies tell their secrets they kill you. LOL. With Snowden and the CIA I think most people felt like there was already programs like that in existence anyway so there was less shock and outrage. When you are talking about invasion of privacy in peoples homes, their property, and on their person expect outrage. But when it comes to the expectation of privacy on the internet, there is a whole rainbow of feelings in that regard so you are going to get a more diverse response. 

As for Wikileaks is wasn't necessarily a big deal but more of a medium size deal. I mean, this is the stuff progressive liberals live for, the media as well. So they are going to make it a bigger deal than the public will. I remember during the Arab Spring, both those groups where on it like honey but where disappointed in the lack of support and/or response for the public and the government. They felt like this was a big deal and expected everyone else to feel the same way. Yet, everyone else was more "wait and see what happens" before they jump on the "history in the making" bandwagon. 

I think the public now is developing a wait and see attitude before the grab their Torches and Pitchforks. Because you know we will.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snowden himself, doesn't come off well. You fully expect to hear about his book and movie deal any day now. Then he ran to Russia for asylum, a country where if their spies tell their secrets they kill you. LOL.
I know, seriously. Can you say: cynical and transparent? And Russia for asylum?  


But when it comes to the expectation of privacy on the internet, there is a whole rainbow of feelings in that regard so you are going to get a more diverse response.

Exactly. These 'whistleblowers' are making premature assumptions about what the public will be outraged by. The public isn't always so na├»ve as they seem to expect. You can't just yank a chain and expect it to react a certain way. It's not Pavlov's Dog. 


As for Wikileaks is wasn't necessarily a big deal but more of a medium size deal. I mean, this is the stuff progressive liberals live for, the media as well. So they are going to make it a bigger deal than the public will. I remember during the Arab Spring, both those groups where on it like honey but where disappointed in the lack of support and/or response for the public and the government. They felt like this was a big deal and expected everyone else to feel the same way. Yet, everyone else was more "wait and see what happens" before they jump on the "history in the making" bandwagon.

^^^^ THIS. This. I don't think I've ever heard it described so well. It's as if they're ready to throw a tantrum if the public doesn't react to it with the overwhelming response they practically demand. 


I think the public now is developing a wait and see attitude before the grab their Torches and Pitchforks.

Well, that's the thing that evidently makes Assange and people like him mad. When the public wants to wait before bulldozing onto some pretty thin ice. 

It seems to me his work is all about knee-jerk reactions. Just IMHO. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I will grant, a lot of this is just chatter and off the cuff impressions, not deep thought on the matter, but it still does a fair job of explaining why the general public is so opposed to Wikileaks, and also why the internet conspiracy theory, Lew Rockwell, "libertarian left"* , neo-anarchist crowd will never get much traction. So long as they scream excessive claims about the loss of freedom, make claims the public sees as unjustified, they will be written off as spoiled children or fear mongers.

This may also serve as a warning to the right. Though the boosters of Wikileaks are largely left-leaning -- with a few left-libertarian types, and maybe some "fear of business" paleo-con types -- the right has fallen into the same trap from time to time. Yes, we raise valid issues, and often see real problems, but we need to be careful about how we make our case. Screaming out that Obama will destroy all freedom does not win converts, it causes most to stop listening, and, whether we are right or not, it does no good to be in the right if no one listens to you**. I do not suggest denying our beliefs, or staying silent, but instead, perhaps it would be more beneficial to simply point out the immediate and palpable harm of these policies, with a mention of potential longer term problems, rather than scream that the end of freedom is nigh. After all, people will fight against smaller ills as much as greater, and if a problem is immediate and palpable it may even draw more attention than some abstract, remote or potential harm.

In the end, does it matter why an evil is removed? Pushing the public a single step in the right direction is a lot better than shouting and screaming to try to force them to take a hundred steps or more, and not just failing, but so alienating them they will never again listen to what we have to say. One step at a time still reaches the goal***.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* See  "The State of Nature and Man's Rights", "A Beast's Life", "Civilization and the Fear of Death",  "The Libertarian Left", "Liquid Ice? Female Father? That's Nothing!", "The Failure of Wikipedia", "Copyright as Politics", "Some Libertarian Analogies", "Revelation From Bottom Feeding", "The Tragedy of the Creative Commons" , "Every Kid Likes Hot Dogs", "Guns and Drugs" , "A Little Bit of Irony" and "Speechless".

** See "The "Liberal Bubble" Becomes Universal" and "With Friends Like These".


*** See "All Life in a Day, or, How Our Mistaken View of History Distorts Our Understanding of Events", "Catastrophic Thinking, The Political, Economic and Social Impact of Seeing History in the Superlative", "Harming Society""The Case for Small Government""Tyranny Without Tyrants", "In Praise of Slow Changes", "Conservatism, Incremental Change and Federalism", "Traffic Lights, Predictability and Conservatism", "Why We Need Adults"  and "Why We Need Adults II".

69 comments:

  1. 'Conservatives' in Senate can't even get behind cutting $1.5 billion in aid to Egypt...

    http://news.yahoo.com/why-did-ron-paul-s-group-single-out-marco-rubio-for-voting-against-rand-paul’s-aid-bill--210620563.html

    And yet you idiots want us to believe you'll take on the TRILLION$ of nat'l debt!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mandy...go choke on a piece of pork chop!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again you mention me choking on "meat". How often do I have to tell you I don't swing that way?

      Delete
  3. Indeed, the Israel Firsters have already begun the assault on Sen. Paul: apparently his earlier pilgrimage to the Motherland was insufficiently appeasing.

    The Establishment – both "right" and "left" wings of it – is scared to death of libertarians, and with good reason. We are the only organized tendency in American political life ideologically and politically situated to take on the emerging police state that is strangling what’s left of the Founders’ vision. And we are growing by the day, by the hour, which is why their fear is so well-founded.

    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2013/07/30/bring-it-on-justin/

    ReplyDelete
  4. “neo-anarchist”

    I like that! Can I borrow it?

    I can’t say that I agree that the concerns about the NSA are excessive, but I am glad to see a bit of sanity out there where Snowden is concerned. Also, as you might have expected I see the warnings about Obama a bit differently as well. What I think the Right should do is to help people understand what the real motives of the Left are and why such motives will never protect liberty but will always suppress it. That way they see the danger in all leftists, not just Obama or any other individual.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree the solution is to make the public aware of the dangers inherent in big government. My only problem is that the right too often -- at least since about 200-2006 -- has gone in for "Angry Left"-like extremism, screaming and making extreme claims, which alienates the middle, and thus ends up making change less likely, not more.

      Consider this, the election of both Nixon and Reagan were, at least in part, the result of the mainstream left allowing in the late 60's extremists. Thanks to their embracing of the excessive claims of the radicals, the left managed to alienate enough of the middle that the right, which had been on the margins of politics for quite some time (especially if you consider Eisenhower centrist, or middle-right at most), was revived thanks to the alienation of the center. If the right continues to do the same thing, we may return to that wilderness once again.

      Nor does it help that the Angry Left is equally extreme. Because the left controls much of the popular media, entertainment, education, the press and so on, if both sides alienate the center, the left wins by default.

      Not to mention that, for any number of reasons, the young tend to favor the left... If both sides alienate the center, and most people start off on the left, the majority will end up staying on the left, maybe center-left at best, and the left wins.

      So, fair or not, the right must be more temperate and sensible than the left if we have any hope of success. It is a depressing truth, but that does not make it any less true. Sometimes life is unfair. That doesn't mean we can ignore it. We must deal with it and accept reality as we find it, and unfortunately that means we must be moderate in our claims, accept small, incremental reforms, and behave in every way better than the left, or face loss.

      Perhaps I should write a bit about my reasoning on this point, as I think sometimes I manage to skip a few steps in my explanations, so maybe a slightly longer examination might do some good.

      Delete
    2. That should read "2004-2006" rather than "200-2006". Actually, the right started to shift toward behavior similar to the Angry Left shortly after the modern Angry left was born in the 2000 election fiasco. Angry at the left's behavior and the pass the press gave them, some on the right began to argue that if the left got what they want by yelling and whining and suing and not playing fair, then maybe we should do the same. (I argued then, and now, that this position ignores the uneven playing field, and is a recipe for failure. But that is explained in my last comment.)

      Fortunately, between 2000 and about 2006, this seemed to be a minority position on the right. Maybe a bit more popular after the attempt at repeating the Florida 2000 strategy in Ohio in 2004 (and elsewhere), but still a minority. It was only with the left's apparent resurgence in 2006, and the Republican pandering tot he left and the media in subsequent years that the right really became noticeably similar to the left.

      Delete
    3. I guess I don’t see the screaming and extremism you’re referring to. Who in particular do you mean?

      Delete
    4. Oh, those who were worried that Obama was creating a private army. Those who swore that ObamaCare would so poison the electorate that Democrats would win every election. All those participating in the sturm und drang over the birth certificate and Kenya and the rest. Those calling for armed revolt. There are certainly others, but that list should give a decent starting point.

      I admit, they are not the majority. Then again, neither are the Angry Left. However, movements are often judged on their loudest members, especially if the rest do not disavow them.

      Delete
  5. And feel free to borrow neo-anarchist whenever you wish.

    I think I used it before, in my essay http://andrews.blogtownhall.com/2011/11/04/the_state_of_nature_and_mans_rights.thtml , or maybe earlier, but it seems quite useful to me, as a means to describe the modern half-way cushy, suburban trendy pretend anarchists who would probably be the first robbed and murdered should the state truly collapse.

    Not that I think anarchism is a good philosophy, but I have to say at least the anarchists at the turn of the 20th century were willing to face deportation, assault, even execution, not renting nice hotel rooms near WTO conferences so they could break a few windows secure in the knowledge they would be released ROR in a few hours, if they were arrested at all. Or the even more common "anarchist" who loves to spout conspiracy theories on line and parrot Lew Rockwell, but otherwise lives a comfortable upper middle class life, and would likely deny their paranoid delusions if confronted with them in person.

    The modern would be anarchists just seem a pathetic, cossetted, effete new breed, and thus the need for a new term.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, anarchy is in the eye of the beholder, apparently.

      I don’t know if you saw my conversation with the neo-anarchist, “Unknown,” but he suffered from the same delusions about anarchy as anarcho did. It’s the “absence of government” they say. People will get along together by following a system of rules. I’m sure I don’t need to tell you what’s wrong with that logic but they are in denial.

      Delete
    2. It was said that the Bush Bailouts of 2008 (TARP)--which most [neo]cons erroneously remember Obama signing into law--largely contributed to the rise of the 'conservative'-wing of the Tea Party Movement (Ron Paul's LIBERTARIAN-flavored TPM existed prior to the phony 'conservative'/GOP/mainstream version arose) .

      'Conservatives' had a funny way of showing their displeasure w/TARP by:

      1. Nominating a pro-TARP candidate (McCain) in 2008.
      2. Nominating a pro-TARP candidate in 2012.

      And, in 2012 w/their rallying cry of "Repeal Obamacare!", what did cons do? Nominate Mitt "Father Of ACA" Romney!!!

      How STUPID are you people?

      Delete
    3. Does “Chao” mean something different in libertarianese?

      I can’t speak for Andrews but I haven’t attributed TARP to Obama, nor did I choose McCain or Romney in their presidential primaries. So I’ll remind you again that you’re barking up the wrong tree.

      But you sure seem to love this tree!

      Delete
  6. It is amazing that, in a world dominated by statists, you two idiots keep making snide comments about "anarchy" (which neither of you are smart enough to understand).

    'Conservatives' (i.e., Republican-voters), since 1980, have had more--or at LEAST as much--electoral success than 'Liberals' (Democrat-voters).

    Yet, all you idiots do is whine about how "the Left" is "destroying America".

    Can you NOT see how ridiculous this is?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I said before, your high opinion of your own intelligence is undeserved, particularly for someone who doesn’t even know whether he’s an anarchist or a libertarian or some impossible hybrid of the two.

      What I find ridiculous is that you put “conservative” in quotes and then further specify that you were talking about republican voters and you did so because you know that registering as a republican doesn’t necessarily mean someone is conservative, nor does calling oneself a “conservative” mean that someone is truly conservative, and you’ve already acknowledged as much which makes this game that much sillier.

      I know McCain isn’t a conservative. I know Romney isn’t a conservative. I didn’t vote for them because of some illusion I have that they will take us back to the Constitution. I voted for them because my options were limited and they were the best alternative WITH A CHANCE OF WINNING. And before you do your Linda Blair impression, only a fool thinks (1) Ron Paul could have won; and (2) winning isn’t important. Should constitutional conservatives have tried to offer a better choice? Sure but you tell me how to do it, genius. Your side doesn’t seem to know how to do it either, in case that’s escaped your notice.

      Seems to me you do plenty of whining of your own.

      Delete
    2. So, say McCain or Romney--people you say "aren't cons"--WOULD'VE won...what good do you THINK that would have done? If Reagan--a "real con"--presided over MASSIVE increases in spending/debt, how likely is it that a "non-con" like McCain/Romney would've been different?

      If you're a "conservative not a Republican" who votes Republican EVERY ELECTION...what, really, is the difference and why doesn't "conservative" simply describe (in MOST cases) a "Republican-voter"?

      Since 1980 has a Republican POTUS and/or congress EVER significantly tackled the fedgovt's out-of-control spending/debt? Since we BOTH know the answer to this Q ("NO!") why do you continue voting Republican?

      Since the "electable" McCain and Romney DIDN'T win, what good did your vote do--besides signal the GOP that "non-con" Republicans are the only ones WITH A CHANCE OF WINNING?

      I'll note, AGAIN, that you dodged my point...sigh...you really DON'T know how to debate do you?

      Why is "the Left" which elects Dems solely responsible for "destroying America", but "the Right" which has had MORE electoral success since 1980 w/o blame?

      Isn't it amazing that NEITHER the mainstream "Left" or "Right"--despite comprising 99% of the electorate and being more-or-less equally responsible for the govts. of the last 30+ years--take ANY responsibility for it?

      Delete
    3. @Neo-anarchist

      >>”If Reagan--a "real con"--presided over MASSIVE increases in spending/debt, how likely is it that a "non-con" like McCain/Romney would've been different?”

      It’s not very likely, but they’re better than Obama.

      >>”If you're a "conservative not a Republican" who votes Republican EVERY ELECTION...what, really, is the difference and why doesn't "conservative" simply describe (in MOST cases) a "Republican-voter"?”

      What’s the difference between you and Bill Maher, Thomas Sowell, Mark Cuban, Neal Boortz, or anyone else who claims to be a libertarian? If/when libertarians become the dominant party, I guarantee you will face the same problem as republicans/conservatives face, because the usurpers will move in to try and corral all that power according to their own particular views.

      >>”Since 1980 has a Republican POTUS and/or congress EVER significantly tackled the fedgovt's out-of-control spending/debt? Since we BOTH know the answer to this Q ("NO!") why do you continue voting Republican?"

      Because that is the only hope, for the time being, for keeping democrats out.

      >>”Since the "electable" McCain and Romney DIDN'T win, what good did your vote do--…?”

      What good did your vote for Ron Paul do you? We both ended up in the same place.

      >>”I'll note, AGAIN, that you dodged my point...sigh...you really DON'T know how to debate do you?”

      Hahahaha! Would you like the list of questions YOU haven’t answered? Besides, you didn’t come here to debate. You came to criticize. You just don’t like getting a taste of your own medicine.

      >>”Why is "the Left" which elects Dems solely responsible for "destroying America", but "the Right" which has had MORE electoral success since 1980 w/o blame?”

      I never said the “Right” was without any blame. Republicans –not necessarily the “Right” – share much of the blame; but it’s the Left, or typically democrats, that have been most instrumental in paving the way to socialism. Much of what republicans do, to their folly, is to fall into the traps set by the Left.

      >>”Isn't it amazing that NEITHER the mainstream "Left" or "Right"--despite comprising 99% of the electorate and being more-or-less equally responsible for the govts. of the last 30+ years--take ANY responsibility for it?”

      I “debated” with a couple of libertarians/neo-anarchists for quite a long time before hearing one of them sheepishly admit that he had voted for Bush the first time around. Now he spends all of his time pointing the finger at everyone else. Very few people deserve 0% of the blame for what’s happened to this country, if for no other reason than that they talked a big game but never bothered to run for office or help a good candidate win. Your energy is better spent extolling the virtues of your ideology (if you ever figure it out) and helping to change minds than to spend endless hours whining about who gets what share of the blame.

      Delete
    4. Ah, I see...it appear politics is like a game to you.

      You root for 'your' team (GOP) against the other guy's (DP)--it doesn't really matter who wins, but you "feel" better when big-govt. GOPers win as opposed to when big-govt Democrats win.

      Boy, that sure is some rational thinking there!

      Delete
    5. No, it’s not a game but we are in a war against the socialist’s takeover of this country and wars are often won on strategy, particularly when you’re outnumbered. Part of that strategy is to give up as little ground as we can. To borrow your borrowed phrase: it’s not rocket science.

      Delete
    6. @ CW

      Well, to be in "a war" against socialism you have to actually OPPOSE socialism, not support a political party which has incorporated major portions of the Communist Manifesto.

      Its incredible I have to even tell you--a "realist"--this!

      Please, keep the comic relief coming!

      Delete
  7. @ TSG's

    You shouldn't run your mouth so much...

    Open Carry March on DC a Success
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sAGGoPidEY

    Police: Because of ‘Free Staters,’ We Need an Armored Vehicle
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/08/thomas-woods/shaking-in-their-jackboots/

    Free Pete Eyre, Caged for Wearing a Hat
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8KK1wk7_QY

    We also have the heroic Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden...whom you [neo]cons HATE for their temerity to disobey authority!

    Contrast this w/'conservatives' who sh*t their pants at the thought of Obama taking their guns...and whom are SO authoritarian-minded that the THOUGHT of disobeying govt. is so foreign as to be unthinkable!

    What a snide little moron you are...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >>” What a snide little moron you are...”

      Said the snide little moron.

      Delete
    2. I wonder if you two can provide any examples of Cons having the stones to disobey...

      Delete
    3. Anything their masters (Obama, Hillary, etc.) tell them...

      Delete
    4. Hahahahaha! What exactly did YOU disobey?

      Delete
  8. SLAVE ON SLAVE ACTION

    The sociopaths in government must not believe their good fortune that they barely even need to lift a finger and the slaves will demand more chains. Perhaps the most amazing example of this occurred just this week when North Dakota residents, flush with cash from the shale gas discoveries, were given the option on a ballot to stop charging property taxes on themselves. According to Fox News, the amendment was "resoundingly defeated".

    The slaves in the US have Stockholm Syndrome and now don't even know what they would do if they were allowed to keep some of their own money for their own use. The thought scares them.

    Thankfully, many parts of the world are yet to be anywhere near this enslaved. In Mexico, as example, annual property tax was assessed on one of my condos at AcaCondos for last year at $150. I mentioned it to a Mexican friend, mostly wanting to point out how cheap it was compared to the US but before I could mention that he stated, "It's terrible, isn't it!".

    That's a better attitude! There is no slave on slave action down here... and in many parts of the world. I highly recommend looking at living somewhere where slave on slave action is far less prevalent. As the US dollar really begins to collapse they are going to eat each other alive in the US. Heck, they've already started.

    http://dollarvigilante.com/blog/2012/6/13/slave-on-slave-action.html

    You two 'conservatives' are just more examples of grateful slaves who can't STAND "uppity" anarchists!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So are you saying you're an anarchist?

      Delete
    2. Is he really extolling the freedom of Mexico? I rarely, if ever, use internetisms, but OMG! Mexico! Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha! Well, I guess if you are an anarchist, Mexico is a pretty good model for your ideal government, but I would hardly hold it forth as either free or a good model for government. I suppose if you are an American who has the protection of the consulate, and a little money to pay off the locals, Mexico looks pretty free, but ask some Mexicans how free their government is. It is like extolling the free market credentials of India or the religious freedom of Saudi Arabia. (Or running away from US "oppression" to Russia, China and Cuba as did one of his idols...)

      Delete
    3. I had the same reaction! The reason the guy’s Mexican friend was so astonished at the property taxes wasn’t because he’s so used to “freedom” but because the median income in Mexico is a small fraction of what it is here in the U.S. $150 is A LOT in Mexico. Besides, if Mexico is such a bastion of freedom why are so many taking pains to come here?

      Delete
    4. There's the Stockhold Syndrome again...

      Delete
    5. So are you saying you're an anarchist?

      Delete
    6. Yeah, those Mexicans...how do they survive w/o their govt. collecting all of their private communications?

      Americans are SO much better off...IF you ignore the $100,000's each PRIVATE sector worker is on the hook to Uncle Sam's lenders for!

      Hmmm...me suspicious at your Q...

      Delete
    7. Heritage’s Economic Freedom Index places Chile at #7, the U.S. at #10 and Mexico at #50. So while Chile makes some sense Mexico is a bit of a head-scratcher. Chile has a presidential election coming up in November and the socialist candidate is favored to win so who knows what will happen long term.

      Why should you be suspicious of my question? Unlike you I’m giving you the opportunity to define your ideology for yourself.

      Delete
  9. CW:

    I have never blamed Bush's foolish bailout on anyone but Bush. (Then again, the Bush I am criticizing here is the first one.) However, even if Bush did foolishly bailout many companies, Obama continued and expanded the policy, so blaming him for inflation is quite fair. Just because Bush made the same mistake does not exonerate Obama (which seems to be Unknown's idiotic contention).

    Yes, Bush signed the first stupid bail out, then Obama continued to spend more and more, as well as creating the incredible money pit which is ObamaCare. So, yes, I lay our present inflation at his feet as his continued spending, and efforts to depress interest, are causing the continued inflationary pressures, regardless of what Bush did.

    It does not seem a hard point to follow. Only someone interested in equating Republicans and Democrats, insisting on finding them equally bad regardless of the degree of guilt, would have trouble grasping this point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's a big difference between TARP and the Obama "stimulus." TARP was mostly loans, and the majority of that has been repaid. "Stimulus" was nothing but a wealth transfer plan. That money's gone into someone else's pocket and will never be seen again except to fund the Left's agenda. It's apples and bananas. I don't know if TARP was the right thing to do because of the catch-22: the gov't was largely responsible for the collapse that created the "need" for TARP. If anything it was a lesson on why gov't has no business meddling in what should be the consumer's business.

      Delete
    2. I agree the government created a lot of the problems (actually almost all) in the case of the recent subprime fiasco, and also the earlier S&L fiasco from the 80's and 90's. However, in both cases, painful as it would have been, the best solution would have been to step away and let the market correct the problem. By involving the state, we simply drew out the suffering and pushed the problem into the future. Granted, we may have staved off a recessionary crisis at the time, but only by adding to inflation and creating a worse future crisis, as well as slowly eroding the country's stored wealth through inflationary theft.

      I wrote about it in http://andrews.blogtownhall.com/2008/12/04/hair_of_the_dog.thtml , where I compared it to using methadone to cure heroin addiction, but in truth, I think it is more akin to using heroin to cure alcoholism, actually making things worse, not better, though it may, for a time, make everyone feel better.

      Well, perhaps a topic for yet another future essay. Painful as it is to let people suffer because of the government's bad ideas, it must happen eventually. Sooner or later we will all suffer. Better to do it now, when the problem is at its smallest, rather than put it off and suffer more in the future (and also suffer little problems all along the way).

      Delete
    3. Hmmmm...and who VOTED GW into office?

      Who VOTED for pro-bailout McCain and Romney?

      My gosh, this would be like ObamaBots complaining about ACA!

      You two become more ridiculous by the post...

      Delete
    4. Yes, I guess we should have let John Kerry take it. I'm sure he would have stood strong against any bailouts.

      McCain and Romney wouldn't have done a trillion dollar stimulus.

      Delete
    5. We don't know what Kerry would or wouldn't've done, only what Bush DID. But I can agree w/you that he probably would've been every bit as bad as GW.

      McCain and Romney were both pro-TARP. And...you...voted...for...them...

      Delete
    6. Ron Paul never had enough support to get elected. And…you…voted…for…him.

      Delete
  10. And it is interesting to see Unknown telling me I run my mouth, as he fills page after page with regurgitated Lew Rockwell-isms.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's an authoritarian, wouldn't you say?

      Delete
    2. He's a bizarre mix of authoritarian and anarchist and bits of constitutionalism. Kind of like those paleocons who are social conservatives, claim to like small government, but fear trade and support strong protectionism and tend to favor unions. Actually, "paleo-con" has become almost as meaningless as "neocon" (which basically means "I don't like you" for certain groups, and that is the most concrete definition I can find).

      Delete
    3. Too bizarre to even know how to respond to...more projection for sure...

      Delete
    4. “I’m rubber you’re glue…” Hahahaha! It’s a good thing we have you to school us in how to debate!

      So far every “live and let live, just don’t hurt anybody” neo-anarchist I’ve met sees nothing wrong with coming to someone else’s blog and telling them to “S.T.F.U.” or suggesting that they’ve got their nerve “running their mouth.” So much for freedom, eh?

      Delete
    5. Again, more projecting and no point...you sure have proven to be a gold-mine of irrational fallacies!

      Delete
    6. Says the guy who…

      …thinks anarchy is simply the blissful absence of gov’t, even though that’s never how it’s worked out in the history of mankind.

      …thinks the “system” of “rules” that people would have to live by under anarcho libertarianism doesn’t constitute a form of government.

      …tells me how stupid the Constitution is, then votes for the constitutional candidate in an election for president of a federal gov’t and applies for residency in a state with a constitution.

      …hates centralized gov’t but admires people who favor global government.

      Etc., etc., etc.

      Delete
  11. OFFICIAL NAT'L DEBT: $16.7 TRILLION

    SHADOW STATS CALCULATION OF NAT'L DEBT: $85.4 TRILLION
    http://www.shadowstats.com/article/no-500-special-commentary-us-government-gaap-based-2012-financial-data

    UNFUNDED FUTURE LIABILITIES ESTIMATE: $222 TRILLION
    http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=38718

    C'mon you two...at this point Cons and Libs are simply arguing over the arrangement of the furniture on the deck of the USS Titanic and fighting over who gets to be at the helm when the ship goes under...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Once again preaching to the choir.

      Delete
    2. And you guys are running around breaking up the lifeboats to make pyres to burn the crew for their crimes.

      On the other hand, though they are having little success conservatives are trying, at least some, to begin bailing out the water. (While at the same time you are telling us it is futile, since it won't save the ship all at once, so we should just give up until a magic water remover comes along...)

      Yes, there have been Republicans who had horrible ideas, and most people seem convinced some degree of big government is needed. On the other hand, if we continue to support those who want less government, we can, over time, gradually move toward a smaller government and maybe, in time, change minds. It is a whole lot more likely than the other plan, which is sit around, rant about how everyone else is wrong, alienate voters and wait for everyone to magically decide to vote Ron Paul.

      I may be proposing a gradual solution which won't solve everything overnight, but at least my proposals have some chance of succeeding, unlike your pipe dreams. Yet you condemn me for supporting "big spenders" because I feel the need to support those who might get elected and move the system somewhat in the right direction.

      You are so full of nonsense it is laughable.

      Delete
    3. @ TGS

      The problem is that you DON'T support people "who want less govt"!

      Your "gradual solution" of electing Republicans who preside over RECORD-BREAKING deficits doesn't seem like much of a 'solution' to me...but, then again, I'm not real astute as far as your "New Math" goes, LOL!

      And yet I'M the one who is "full of nonsense"!

      Ha!

      Delete
    4. @ CW

      Hmmm...I don't think people (like you) who see NO ALTERNATIVE but to support Republicans who think ignoring the debt disaster--while piling trillion$ more on top--will make it go away are "the choir"...LMFAO!

      And I'M the one who is "unrealistic"...LOL!!!

      Delete
    5. “And I'M the one who is "unrealistic"...”

      Well, gee, I see your point. After all there’s nothing unrealistic about supporting a candidate with zero chance of winning.

      Delete
  12. Meanwhile, Mr. McCain described former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s work on the global level as “rock star” status...

    Mr. McCain also said moments later in the interview that he would have “a tough choice” to make in a presidential election that pitted Mrs. Clinton against Sen. Rand Paul...

    Sen. John McCain...suggested that tea party members were damaging to the Republican Party...

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/31/sen-john-mccain-fox-news-schizophrenic-and-tea-par/

    McCain Floor Speech - Tea Party Hobbits
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7GfPEtyQsE

    WOW...you [neo]cons must LOVE eating shit!

    I hope to GOD that I never become a 'pragmatic conservative'!!!

    Again: How STUPID are Arizona 'conservatives' to keep sending this guy back to the Senate decade after decade...???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Libertarian Bill Maher gave $1 million to re-elect Barack Obama.

      Libertarian Mark Cuban said he would vote for Romney if he were a democrat.

      Libertarian Neal Boortz defended George Bush and the war in Iraq.

      Libertarian Glen Beck supported Rick Santorum for president in 2012.

      Libertarian Ron Paul helped get Ronald Reagan elected.

      Libertarian Wayne Allyn Root said in 2012 that libertarians should support Romney.

      Shall I go on?

      Delete
    2. Sure you little "Hobbit", go on and continue making fool out of yourself...LOL...

      What any of this has to do w/the FACT that YOU voted for John "I Hate The Tea-Party" McCain is beyond me...

      Delete
  13. Robert Higgs also stated the following:

    "My wife and I have several motives for emigrating to a remote village in Mexico. We love the Caribbean coast and the adjacent waters; we enjoy Mexicans and many aspects of Mexican culture; and we relish the idea of living in a tropical paradise amid marvelous creatures on the land and in the sea. However, we are also moving because the United States is now a police state and becomes almost daily a more dreadful and intolerable police state. Even if we supposed that we might be lucky enough to avoid the worst that this vile state inflicts on its many victims, we abhor what the country has become and look forward to distancing ourselves from it. Americans have sold their souls to the devil as politicians have manipulated their fears. Many more of them ought to have seen through this shameless and evil manipulation."

    http://dollarvigilante.com/blog/2013/8/1/a-beautiful-message-of-libery.html#

    ReplyDelete
  14. @ CW

    I know you have trouble focusing (or is it reading comp skills?), but I have to ask:

    Should 'conservatives' in California (roughly 2/3 Democrat) who vote Republican stop voting Republican since there is "no chance" of them winning statewide office--and start voting Democrat?

    ReplyDelete
  15. @ CW

    If I think socialized HC is "inevitable" does that make it so, and also make you naive for wasting your time opposing it?

    ReplyDelete
  16. The insane American electorate is nothing if not entertaining.

    On one hand we have 'conservatives' who perpetually vote for the, according to them, 'non-conservative' GOP while blaming everything--even the actions of the GOP (whether they're the majority or minority Party)--on "the Left".

    On the other we have 'liberals' who perpetually vote for the, according to them, 'non-liberal' DP while blaming everything--even the actions of the DP (whether they're the majority or the minority Party)--on "the Right".

    And then both 'cons' and 'libs' call those of us who refuse to engage in this little charade--voting for the captain who promises to keep the USS Titanic on course for that giant iceberg dead ahead and bickering over the arrangement of the deck chairs--"unrealistic" and "naive"...

    As that old Russian comedian used to say, "What a country!" LMFAO

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On the other hand we have pragmatic anarchists who vote for old, self-proclaimed constitutionalists. Go figure!

      Delete
    2. And...you...voted...for...McCain/Romney...

      Which means you implicitly support EVERYTHING they do...

      Now be a good little Hobbit and help Newt build that base on the Moon!

      Delete
    3. So it seems after all your blustering about your superior intelligence and debating skills you’re content to go around in circles, trying to hide from the hypocrisies of your own positions and fighting strawmen. I guess some people are easily challenged.

      The bottom line is that you didn’t come here to debate. That’s very clear now. You came here to be an a**hole, which apparently is all they teach at the school of Lew Rockwell. Your squawkings about McCain and Romney don’t bring out the effect you keep hoping for, and they never will, because I simply consider the source, and I understand it better than he understands himself, it seems.

      If and when you figure out what you stand for and feel that you are up to the challenge of having a real debate, let me know. Until then permit me to teach you the real meaning of the word “ciao.”

      Delete
    4. So, should California Cons stop voting GOP since it "has no chance" of winning statewide elections anymore?

      Delete
  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  18. @ CW

    Why do political libertarians vote for people who "have no chance" at winning?

    Its called standing on principle, supporting courageous people (like Ron Paul) who take the EXTREME trouble to put themselves on the line to be slandered and ridiculed for their 'kooky' ideas (by POS's like you), registering opposition to the insanity of the Con-Lib majority, letting like-minded people know they're not alone, promoting good ideas (Ron Paul has done more than the entire Con movement to spread ideas of liberty), and--I know this is 'crazy'--but actually supporting people who have ACTUAL solutions...

    If you're not gonna use the political system to support people who REPRESENT YOUR VIEWS, or at least have PRACTICAL solutions then you're just engaging in self-wankery...



    ReplyDelete