Category Archives: Ideology

New Labor Turns Brits into Libertarians?

Posted on by

From The Guardian:

“A poll run by PoliticsHome this week revealed a fascinating result to the question: “Do you think in general, the state has too much or too little of a say in what people can and cannot do?” Nearly four-fifths of the sample (79%) answered that the state had too much of a say, while only 8% believe the state has too little say.
If the poll is an accurate reflection of the nation’s mood this is an important finding. For some time I have been aware of sharp change in the public’s attitudes to surveillance, as well as a general feeling that the government is too quick to seize personal data and tell people how to lead their lives.”

Prince of Peace Loses With Christian Neocons

Posted on by

From the Lew Rockwell blog:

“The Christian neocons voted for Huckabee for president at their Value Voters Summit today in Dee-Cee. There was a virtual four-way tie for second: Romney, Pawlenty, Palin, and Pence. No reports in the media on Ron Paul’s votes, but given that the VVs booed him during the presidential campaign for saying that he worshipped the Prince of Peace, who could be surprised?”

Florida Republicans Purge Libertarians from GOP

Posted on by

“On Friday — timed just right to minimize news coverage — Republican Party of Florida Chairman Jim Greer and the state party Grievance Committee notified a number of party members, many of them holding elective office, that they were effectively purged from the party and had been removed from their offices and would be ineligible to hold any other party positions for periods ranging from two to four years.

The targets of this purge are mostly members of the Florida chapter of the Republican Liberty Caucus, a group which seeks to return the party to its core beliefs of individual liberty, limited government, and free markets. These particular individuals were targeted because they had expressed opinions critical of party policy, candidates, and office holders, on the basis of which the grievance committee decided that they had “engaged in disruptive conduct likely to interfere with the activities of the Republican Party.”

More here at The Next Right. Thanks to reader, Zara.

Sarkozy Advocates “Bruni Index” to Measure Economic Progress

Posted on by

Well, he didn’t call it exactly that…but Sarko has joined former World Bank economist-turned-critic-of-globalization Joseph Stiglitz to co-author a report demanding that governments measure economic progress in broader terms than GDP, including such things as health care availability, leisure.

Developmental economist Amartya Sen has been at the forefront of that approach.

“French President Nicolas Sarkozy asked world leaders to join a “revolution” in the measurement of economic progress by dropping their obsession with gross domestic product to account for factors such as health-care availability and leisure time….”

More here

My Comment:

While applauding the sentiment, this must win some kind of medal for fuzzy thinking. The point of a measure of economic productivity is that it measures, well, economic productivity.

Now, the productivity (or the production ) of morality, pleasure, good health or anything else, isn’t outside the realm of economic activity or of government statisticians, but if you think economic activity is hard to quantify, as we’re increasingly realizing, how much more difficult would it be to quantify such subjective factors?


The problem is only trained economists would ever have been silly enough to confuse the GDP of a country with its economic progress, or with its state of civilization, in the first place. No one else does. Then having made this elementary error, the experts now want to compound it by confusing production with consumption, economics with sociology and medicine, and work with leisure. It was the dismal science. Now it’s the dumbbell science. Or, as I suspect, this is the start of another propaganda effort of some kind..

Stalinist “Libertarian” Fan Mail

Posted on by

The morning mail can always be guaranteed to bring something out of the fever swamps. This one calls itself libertarian.  But it shows every sign of a Stalinist disposition, down to the puerile and quasi-racist invective. I’ll parse it after I’ve had breakfast. Just a small sample of the abuse you get for pouring yourself near full time into enlightening people and supporting unpopular positions…when they are unpopular. This one doesn’t even write me a mail under his own name. And so far, his contribution to libertarianism seems to be confined to writing apoplectic email. Hmmm. I am usually less annoyed by such things. I really should go and get some coffee…

“It seems that your beloved barefoot snowbilly from Wasilla has not quite made it through “The Language of Empire”   http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2009/09/07/from-the-people-and-sarah-palin-who-brought-us-the-iraq-war/ Do you still defend this vile, statist thug? Will I STILL see more stupid LRC posts in the near future?   I have a question. If I asked you to choose a position on the the Socialist-Corporatist TARP Program (I call it the TARD program, for obvious reasons), would your position be closest to…   A) “This whole situation is a perfect demonstration of why “doing nothing” and letting failing companies fail would have been much better than sinking valuable money and resources into them.”   or   B) “inaction is not an option we have got to shore up our economy… ultimately what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the healthcare reform that is needed to help shore up our economy um helping the… oh – its gotta be all about job creation too – shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So healthcare reform and reducing taxes and reigning in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans and trade we’ve got to see trade as opportunity not as competitive um scary thing but one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today we we’ve got to look at that as more opportunity – all those things under the umbrella of job creation – this bailout is a part of that.”   I will give you a hint. The first statement was made by a principled Libertarian, and the second statement was made by an idiot.   What if that idiot also “managed a 6 percent increase in part of the state’s budget, as well as being responsible for a windfall tax on oil companies—much like that proposed by Democrats” and gave their state “some of the highest resource taxes in the world”?   Do you still defend this vile, statist thug?”

My Comment:

First. Nowhere have I written that I support Sarah Palin’s positions. I’ve clearly stated “I am no fan of hers”. I thought she was unqualified…besides having some criticisms of her personal choices that may or may not be relevant to her candidacy as Vice-President. As a long-time (since 1991) antiwar activist, I obviously don’t support her pro-war position. But let’s see, exactly who were the choices? McCain, Biden, Obama…yes , wow, a bunch of peaceniks, all. I supported only one person this time around – that’s Ron Paul. In 2004, I supported any third party candidate, including Nader. Not because of lack of principle, or because I agree with all of Nader’s positions, but on the principle of support for any one opposed to the status quo. I stand by those positions.

I was opposed to the war in Yugoslavia, when many people thought it was a good war. I opposed the First Gulf War and the Second, as well as the sanctions, when hardly anyone talked about them (in 1995). I’ve signed petitions/letters in support of people as different in their politics as Norman Finkelstein and Ward Churchill, on one hand, and Hans Hoppe on the other.  I’ve written in support of Jerry Falwell when he was attacked personally. I also defended Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Sonia Gandhi when they were attacked personally. And, I defended Sarah Palin. No candidate for public office (or anyone else) for that matter, deserves to be trashed personally in such a racial, sexual, and classist way.

Demonizing them as though they were each a mini-Attila the Hun is an exercise in silliness. These politicians are run-of-the-mill people, no worse nor better than those around them.  I will bet “principled libertarian” above would never dream of criticizing the people pushing the war on terror – the neo-conservative cabal running the government. Oh no. That would never happen.

And I’ll bet he wouldn’t call them the translation of “Wasilly snowbilly” that would apply to neo-conservatives.

I wrote about  Goldman Sachs – more than two years ago – “Why It’s Time to Sell Goldman.”And I’ve written dozens of pieces and posts about them since. A piece I wrote last year was the first to tie Goldman to AIG (“Putting Lipstick on an AIG”). And I took TARP apart almost as soon as it came out.

But I guess, actually reading what people wrote would be asking too much from the underworld of internet forums.

Sorry to be so dour. But reading this sort of thing, I wonder why anyone should bother. Why inform people about the malignant lot at the top? The people at the bottom seem pretty malignant too…

On my darker days, I wonder if they don’t deserve each other…

The Over-Medicated and the Under-Medicated

Posted on by

From Dissident Voice, a piece by Joseph Grosso on the drug companies’ recreation of the definition of disease:

“This year will see the publication of the new edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V), the field bible for mental health professionals. If earlier editions are any indication the latest one will feature and slew of newly established disorders all to be treated with the latest anti-depressants or anti-psychotics……

Other disorders, both mental and physical, conjured up or legitimized in recent years include Social Anxiety Disorder, Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder, Irritable Bowl Syndrome, Estrogen Deficiency disease, Osteoporosis, not to mention the always stretching boundaries of ADD (see Adult ADD) and ADHD to include more and more drug takers. It can’t be said that the effort of branding new disorders and expanding the very concept of what disease is has been a failure for the drug companies. Prescription drug use has skyrocketed over the past two decades. Americans now spend money on prescription drugs in amounts that equal or surpass the amount spent on higher education and automobiles. Their profits enable to have a death lock over the country’s political process. The predictable flipside being that, according to a 2005 survey by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse the number of Americans who admitted to abusing prescription drugs doubled from 1992-2003.

While American children living in the suburbs get pumped with medication for all sorts of overstated or marketed illnesses, children living in the planet’s rapidly expanding slums perish of preventable digestive-tract diseases rooted in contaminated drinking water and overall polluted conditions. In sub-Saharan Africa alone neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) are the most common conditions affecting the region’s poorest 500 million people. A recent assessment published in the journal PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases estimates that hookworm, an infection that weakens immune systems and causes anemia, occurs in 40-50 million school aged children. Schistosomiasis, the second most prevalent NTD claims 192 million victims and is ‘possibly associated with increased horizontal transmission of HIV/AIDS.’ There are many others (Lymphatic filariasis, onchocerciasis, roundworm) often overlapping in the same individuals. Why put all of them under the banner of ‘Neglected’? The WHO webpage puts it thusly:

The misery caused by neglected tropical diseases is largely hidden. Affected people live almost exclusively in remote rural areas and sprawling shantytowns, where lack of safe drinking water, poor education, poor sanitation, substandard housing and where access to health care may be virtually non-existent… Neglect also occurs at the level of research and development. The incentive to develop new diagnostic tools, drugs, and vaccines is low for diseases with a market that cannot pay…”

Norman Podhoretz Admits Liberalism is a Religion..

Posted on by

From The New York Times blog, a round-up of reasons why American Jews have identified so much with liberalism.

There’s a moment of candid speaking from the arch neo-conservative himself:

“Liberalism, he [Norman Podhoretz] argues, “is not, as has often been said, merely a necessary component of Jewishness: it is the very essence of being a Jew. Nor is it a ‘substitute for religion,’ it is a religion in its own right, complete with its own catechism and its own dogmas and obdurately resistant to facts that undermine its claims and promises.”

Michael Medved, the conservative cultural critic, goes past ‘support for Israel’ as the irreducible core of Jewish political belief:

“Jews, like all Americans, vote not so much in favor of politicians they admire as they vote against causes and factions they loathe and fear. Jews fear the GOP as the “Christian party,” and as the sole basis of Jewish identity involves rejection of Christianity, Jews will continue to reject – Republicans and conservatism.”

This is territory most non-Jewish writers would hesitate to explore for fear of being labeled anti-Semitic. But the more relevant question might be whether it’s completely accurate. A liberal commentator, Ron Rosenbaum diverges. He has another explanation of Jewish liberalism:

“I won’t say that it isn’t difficult, that there aren’t contradictions with being Jewish and liberal, but I’d rather associate my political orientation with those who supported the Civil Rights movement than with those who have yet to repudiate the racism behind the Southern strategy.”

Another writer, Robert McCain, adds the suburban-urban divide to the mix:

“Most American Jews are fundamentally urban in their orientation, while most American conservatives are fundamentally rural.”

My Comment:

It’s an interesting piece to read, but for me it raises a question about definitions. Most Jewish people might identify with liberalism. But is liberalism itself identified with Jewishness? I may be wrong, but surely it’s not. And surely a great deal of the purported venom of liberalism against Christianity arises from Gentiles.... from former Christians….from lapsed Christians…or from cultural or secularized Christians who loathe the religious aspects of their culture.

The Hundred Who Made the Economy Collapse

Posted on by

Vanity Fair’s piece on the hundred who made the economic crisis manages to include blackberries and VIP rooms, Ralph Nader, George Bush and Bill Clinton, Woodrow Wilson, Republicans Hank Paulson and Hank Greenberg…

But it omits Robert Rubin….and Larry Summers…and Tim Geithner….and any of the numbers of hedge funds that were shorting companies for years….and it forgets AIG….and  Barney Frank..[Correction: It does include AIG and Barney Frank, a great improvement] and even good old Eliot Spitzer, who should have done much more, for all that sound and fury about going after crooks…

What a tendentious list.

Does the Government Do a Better Job Than the Private Sector?

Posted on by

An excerpt from Bill Blum’s latest anti-Empire report below.

Blum is perfectly correct in his analysis up to a point…and then he misses it.

The “crazed” anti-healthers, while no doubt wrong on many details, and no doubt mixed up in their use of the word socialist (they should say collectivist), are actually more right than he sees…

And the only reason they are wrong at all is because of government intervention in the first place.

I’ll come back to the reasons why later, but meanwhile, here’s the piece. ( I ended up interspersing my comments within the piece).

Note:

It makes all the usual left-liberal mistakes, but since it’s the kind of argument you hear all the time, I’ll post it here anyway – since the best antidote for this kind of thing is free debate.

BB: These good folks wanna get their health care through good ol’ capitalism; better no health care at all than godless-atheist commie health care; better to see your child die than have her saved by a Marxist-Stalinist-collective doctor who works for the government.……

LR: False alternative. . And ad hominem.
What those “screaming crowds” are getting at in confused language is that they want the government out of health care, as well as all the so-called private corporations, lobbyists and professional associations (they’re just a bit confused about the second part). They want to go back to the time when there were simple country doctors who knew their patients individually, helped poor people in their extra hours, and charged what people could afford to pay.

That’s how it was before the government, insurance companies, professional associations and the rest of the racketeers got into the debate.

BB:

A common refrain, explicit or implicit, amongst the recent health-care hecklers is that the government can’t do anything better or cheaper than private corporations. Studies, however, have clearly indicated otherwise. In 2003, US federal agencies examined 17,595 federal jobs and found civil servants to be superior to contractors 89 percent of the time.

LR: Earth to Bill Blum – government contractors are not the private sector. They’re part of the government’s rent-seeking, dependent constituencies because they’re responding to an artificial market.

BB:

Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Boys of Capital have been chortling in their martinis about the death of socialism. ….. Not one socialist government or movement — from the Russian Revolution to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, from Communist China to the FMLN in El Salvador — not one was permitted to rise or fall solely on its own merits; not one was left secure enough to drop its guard against the all-powerful enemy abroad and freely and fully relax control at home.

LR: The Boys of Capital aren’t Austrian free-marketers. They’re statists. But surely, I hope Blum isn’t arguing that the Soviet Union and Communist China killed and robbed their own people, defensively?

BB:

It’s as if the Wright brothers’ first experiments with flying machines all failed because the automobile interests sabotaged each test flight. And then the good and god-fearing folk of the world looked upon these catastrophes, nodded their heads wisely, and intoned solemnly: Humankind shall never fly..”

LR: Flying was a productive technological innovation. Communism is a fatuous theory of social organization that’s been tried on a small-scale (and a few times on a large scale) without any great success.

In any case, who’s stopping anybody from voluntarily sharing his goods, his food, his medicine, his house or his wife with anyone else? People object to being forced into the scheme. Voluntary socialism might well be the most admirable idea ever. But the Soviet Union or Korea or China or the US government aren’t exactly voluntary, are they?