Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Great Automaker Bailout: A Question of When, Not If
So the folks behind the Big 2.5 Amerian automakers—GM, Ford, and Chrysler—are angling for $34 billion from the feds to keep 'em going for some period of time into the future.
Much drama in Congress this past week centered on this shameful spectacle (as with the financial sector bailout, the American people seem less giving with their tax dollars than Congress. About 61 percent are against the idea.)
Here's Rep. Barney Frank (good on Internet gambling, medical marijuana, one or two other things, and pretty awful on everything else) sizing up the situation, according to Reuters:
Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who chairs the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee, said the economy would be devastated if an automaker were forced into bankruptcy or shut down.
"In the midst of the worst economic situation since the Great Depression it would be an unmitigated disaster," he told a hearing with the CEOs.
Frank said there was a "pretty broad consensus" among committee members to assist Detroit, which he called a step forward. But that sentiment alone "doesn't quite get us there," and said he would be talking with other lawmakers about the form of a bailout bill.
For those of us who oppose bailouts (of the financial sector, the auto industry, the corporate dry cleaning mafia, home mortgage owners, you name it), that sounds pretty heartening, doesn't it? Frank doesn't have the votes, despite a "pretty broad consensus" in a Democratically controlled Congress.
But it's not like the Bush administration and, one assumes, most of the weak-spined Republicans in Congress who ended voting for the Paulson plan, are really against a bailout. They just want it to come from a different pile of money:
The White House refuses to carve out for Detroit some of the $700 billion bailout it is already showering on Wall Street and the banks, saying that money is intended only to help stabilize the financial sector.
Bush said he was concerned about taxpayer money going to companies that may not survive but said modification of the fuel-efficiency loans could help worthy auto companies.
"It is important that Congress act next week on this plan," he told reporters.
In other words, Bush wants to pull the auto bailout dough from an existing $25 billion Department of Energy program to help U.S. automakers create more fuel-efficient cars.
And here's a preview of a plan that will almost certainly carry the day, a Washington-style compromise, meaning everybody gets something, and the taxpayers are stuck with a bill about as good-looking as a Pontiac Aztek:
Michigan Republican Rep. Thaddeus McCotter proposed a $25 billion automaker bridge loan drawn half from the TARP [Troubled Asset Relief Program, a.k.a. the Paulson-pushed bailout] and half from the Energy Department program.
Asked about such a compromise on Thursday, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, called it "a reasonable idea," although just one of many.
And a special note for those of you who plan on living into 2009: Remember, the odds have got to be at least 50/50 that whatever gets done now will get redone once President Obama actually takes office and starts to worry about the bottom falling out on the collectible plate market.
Naga Sadow|12.6.08 @ 2:11PM|#
"Broad consensus"? Yet he still doesn't have the votes? Please, please, gridlock! Gridlock where art thou?
Orange Line Special|12.6.08 @ 2:23PM|#
So, how's that Reason-supported Hope 'n' Change workin' out for
the "libertarians"?
change.gov/newsroom/entry/the_key_parts_of_the_jobs_plan/
I'm currently trying to figure out how to personally profit from
some of those, especially the last.
As an Ethnic-American,
can I get a set-aside?
P.S. Did Weigel leave yet? Before he goes,
he lied about Obama's having proved he was born in HI.
Balloon Maker|12.6.08 @ 2:39PM|#
A $5 billion bail-out is just what I need to get my cotton gin business back up and running.
|12.6.08 @ 2:44PM|#
I started typing this
comment in another thread before this thread appeared.
I'm a crappy typist.
One thing I neglected to mention in that lengthy meandering post is
that lots of folks around her, both pro and anti bailout, have
noticed the stark difference between the way politicians of both
parties treated Wall Street (minimum $1 trillion bailout) and the
way politicians are treating the auto industry asking for less than
10% of that.
I'm against both of course, but I'm kinda pissed myself.
Naga Sadow|12.6.08 @ 2:51PM|#
Ballon Maker,
The hell with your "cotton gin" idea. I need a bailout to keep my
buggy whip business going.
I AM THE WAVE OF THE FUTURE!!!
|12.6.08 @ 3:12PM|#
So, it's going to be just like the bank bailout, eh? It will
fail in the house the first time, then they'll load it up with
another hundred billion or so of pork, and then it's off to the Fed
for another round of freshly-inflated monopoly money.
-jcr
Naga Sadow|12.6.08 @ 3:18PM|#
VM,
Holy shit! I never thought of the safety issues surrounding my
taint!!! Yikes! Here sir, is a signed check. Fill in any number you
want, and I will pay it!
MNG|12.6.08 @ 3:24PM|#
"Holy shit! I never thought of the safety issues surrounding my
taint!!! Yikes! Here sir, is a signed check. Fill in any number you
want, and I will pay it!"
Now THAT'S economic coercion...A man with a threatened taint will
sign anything in front of him...
left_nut_right_nut|12.6.08 @ 3:25PM|#
if you do a really huge thing, its a game changer. Therefore it makes sense that the bailout is go because it fits the theme. The illusion that it would possibly be rejected is a solid play. It's really hard to makes sense of the previous bailout if this one is rejected. It's like some jackass thinks he's playing a card game with the economy.
Drip Doze|12.6.08 @ 3:32PM|#
The Democrats have to deliver the goods to the UAW and Detroit
if they want to win another election. So, yes, a bailout was never
in question.
But people must remember, this isn't really a "bailout". The U.S.
auto industry has been de-facto nationalized for a long time now.
This isn't a bailout any more than taxpayers are "bailing out" the
U.S. Postal Service.
Some Guy|12.6.08 @ 3:44PM|#
Some part of me thinks I'd rather see them just vote yes now, given the way the $700B turned into $850B when that was voted down.
SIV|12.6.08 @ 3:49PM|#
Let's restore america to her glory days and become the leading producer of cathode ray tubes again.
Drip Doze|12.6.08 @ 3:50PM|#
One thing I neglected to mention in that lengthy meandering post is that lots of folks around her, both pro and anti bailout, have noticed the stark difference between the way politicians of both parties treated Wall Street (minimum $1 trillion bailout) and the way politicians are treating the auto industry asking for less than 10% of that.
U.S. car makers are declasse, like Kraft Dinner and Walmart...
Everyone with taste and sophistication hates the American car
makers. Hating the American car makers is a social cue that lets
people know you aren't working class.
Where as, you are in no danger of appearing working class if you
want to spend the hard-earned money of the working class bailing
out a bunch of rich bankers.
Naga Sadow|12.6.08 @ 4:01PM|#
SIV,
Awesome story to tell. When I was growing up we had an old, middle
aged, and new TV. Old tv was huge and was practically a mantle
piece: no longer worked. Middle aged tv was smaller but had
terrible reception. New TV was 28 inches and was of course tiny. We
created a wall with one on top of the other. Guests were always
thrilled till they found out the bottom two didn't work.
Jerry|12.6.08 @ 4:14PM|#
So Obama wants to borrow money from the Japanese in order to help American car companies that are unable to compete with Japanese manufacturers. F*ck me sideways.
|12.6.08 @ 4:30PM|#
Nick, Gotta agree with you about the Pnntiac Azteck, and this
comes from a guy who thought the Edsel was handsome.
But here are the two problems with any bailing out:
1. You can't play the game if you keep changing the rules in the
middle of it. The government wants to change the rules.
2. Anticipation of new rules causes activity to freeze. I wish I
could get an amen to my theory of Alphonse and Gaston. That was the
comedy sketch where they went through this long rigamarole about
who would hold the door for whom. Intentions, whether good or evil,
if they are broadcast, will always cause a traffic jam at the
doorway of prosperity.
|12.6.08 @ 4:41PM|#
The $25b energy bill rider will have to be re-written. It specifically restricted the loans to "financially viable" companies. Maybe BMW would like some loot for their new electric mini.
|12.6.08 @ 4:50PM|#
Funny how those who are quickest to condemn big business are the first to offer handouts to big businesses for the purposes of keeping them from becoming small businesses.
Geoff Nathan|12.6.08 @ 5:14PM|#
Being a fellow Detroiter I'll second J sub D's concern about
what this will do to our city. And an article in today's Free Press
argued that the collapse of these companies would probably
seriously damage Honda and Toyota since the collapse would cause
collateral damage to suppliers who also supply the 'import'
brands.
And, of course, I oppose any and all bailouts, and have all
along.
But I worry about the future of the Detroit Symphony, the Detroit
Institute of the Arts and similar institutions that depend on
sponsorships from the big 2.5. Not to mention the restaurants that
make this city great... Some of my favorites are already in
trouble.
|12.6.08 @ 5:29PM|#
The very fact that most of the people are in charge of it should make it impossible for the leftist illuminati to give $15b, like they decided to do yesterday
|12.6.08 @ 5:32PM|#
keeping them from becoming small businesses.
Which is exactly the problem; even now, there are people actively
advocating a merger between GM and Chrysler. As if making GM bigger
would in any way be an improvement.
GM needs to be be broken up. Smaller, independent companies might
have a better chance of reacting to the market. GM has been
"restructuring" itself for as long as I can remember, and they're
still hopeless.
And, of course, government meddling in the automobile market needs
to be radically reduced, to eliminate some of the perverse
incentives which have contributed to the present disaster. But
Barney Frank is not likely to get up in front of the teevee cameras
and pontificate about that.
Kolohe|12.6.08 @ 5:40PM|#
the taxpayers are stuck with a bill about as good-looking as
a Pontiac Aztek
Say what you will about the styling of the Aztek, it was an
immensely practical car. After finishing a school in Connecticut a
few years ago a classmate loaded the wife, two kids, and a dog into
his Aztek for a cross country move to Puget Sound. I don't think he
could have done that trip with a Prius.
Now, I concede that the Azteks were practical for the same reason
fat girls are nice; they have to be.
economist|12.6.08 @ 6:17PM|#
"But Barney Frank is not likely to get up in front of the teevee
cameras and pontificate about that."
Don't you know, according to a certain poster on this website, that
Barney Frank is the great libertarian Democrat hope? Along with
Barack and Russ Feingold?
economist|12.6.08 @ 6:47PM|#
With regards to my last comment:
Geotpf was the one who argued that Barney Frank was the great
libertarian Democrat hope. Along with Russ Feingold.
\"single issue voter\"|12.6.08 @ 6:50PM|#
Don't you know, according to a certain poster on this website, that
Barney Frank is the great libertarian Democrat hope? Along with
Barack and Russ Feingold?
Don't forget Bill Richardson!I started commenting here somewhat
regularly and with the SIV handle when(and in part because) he was
touted as the Great Libertarian Democrat Presidential
Hope. Now he is the future Commerce secretary. I tells ya,
it is going to be a regular libertarian-Democratopia for the next
four years!
matt2|12.6.08 @ 6:53PM|#
Kolohe, your anectode about the practicality of the Aztek is applicable to any small SUV. That thing blew, and that's an indisputable fact.
SIV|12.6.08 @ 6:56PM|#
economist,
a little searchin' will bring you back to the good ol' days when
all sorts of "libertarian-democrats" and their cosmotarian fellow
travelers were shillin' for Richardson. They were even falsely
crediting him with the views of former NM governor Gary Johnson who
actually is a "libertarian HYPHEN Major Party" politician.
economist|12.6.08 @ 6:59PM|#
SIV,
I didn't know your handle stood for "single-issue voter". What is
your single issue? I have multiple issues. I drink too much, I
binge eat, and I've been known to curl up under my desk at work and
ask why everyone's out to get me.
economist|12.6.08 @ 7:00PM|#
I particularly liked the Barney Frank, Russ Feingold, and Obama shilling. BTW, is OLS right about Weigel's imminent departure? Or is he full of it?
economist|12.6.08 @ 7:09PM|#
I believe joe was the one who commented "right-libertarians are
shit".
I will respond by this: Cosmotarians are shit. Leftists aren't
necessarily shit, but leftists who pretend to be something they're
not (libertarians) are shit. Which is why Mike Gravel sucks.
SIV|12.6.08 @ 7:10PM|#
My "single issue" is legal cockfighting. Bill Richardson had
just arm-twisted the NM legislature into outlawing it and signed
the bill after campaigning as being neutral/agnostic on the
issue.
Opposing cockfighting prohibition is an excellent "libertarian
purity" test which many commenters here failed.It was an easy
troll.
MNG|12.6.08 @ 7:34PM|#
"The Democrats have to deliver the goods to the UAW and Detroit
if they want to win another election."
It's clearly the other way around, the Republicans who went along
with a much bigger bailout earlier are balking now because they
hope to drive businesses with significant union membership out of
business.
"Did you just get spoofed?"
Oh lord did he, mostly because he's a GOP shill as many here have
noted. Ask "libertarian" SIV his position on Iraq for
example.
I once challenged SIV to state one, now ONE area in which Democrats
were better than Republicans and he would not. No honest
libertarian would have that position.
Like any good "libertarian" he's a fan of Michelle Malkin. You
know, pro-internment Michelle Malkin.
But hey, I'm not the best of this, search out some of joe's classic
exposes of SIV.
MNG|12.6.08 @ 7:43PM|#
"I will respond by this: Cosmotarians are shit."
In my experience "cosmotarians" are libertarians who don't think
the 1964 Civil Rights Act was the worst infringement on liberty in
the past century, who are well read and tolerant of alternative
lifestyles and prefer urban settings. They seem happier than paleos
too. And they tend to defend libertarianism with utilitarian
arguments (that government won't work as well as the market).
Paleo's tend to be Neo-Confederates who hope the market will
preserve traditional inequalities and institutions. And they seem
culturally retarded. And they are usually very angry. They tend to
defend libertarianism with quick and constant reference to "rights"
to own hand grenades and racially discriminate in employment.
Those are generalizations of course and there are certainly
exceptions, but its remarkable how confirmed by my experience these
are.
|12.6.08 @ 7:59PM|#
In my experience "cosmotarians" are libertarians who don't think the 1964 Civil Rights Act was the worst infringement on liberty in the past century, who are well read and tolerant of alternative lifestyles and prefer urban settings. They seem happier than paleos too. And they tend to defend libertarianism with utilitarian arguments (that government won't work as well as the market).
Paleo's tend to be Neo-Confederates who hope the market will preserve traditional inequalities and institutions. And they seem culturally retarded. And they are usually very angry. They tend to defend libertarianism with quick and constant reference to "rights" to own hand grenades and racially discriminate in employment.
Those are generalizations of course and there are certainly exceptions, but its remarkable how confirmed by my experience these are.
Oh jeez. True libertarians are those who agree with me, J sub D, on
every goddam issue, even the ones where I don't take the
libertarian position. All true libertarians also reason similarly
which makes libertarian discussions interesting, cacophonous and
ultimately fruitless.
|12.6.08 @ 8:50PM|#
Where should old peaceful anarchists hang out in
cyberspace?
I'm sick and tired of you whippersnappers continuing to hold out
hope for that unicorn, the Libertarian Party.
Ruthless
economist|12.6.08 @ 10:08PM|#
MNG,
We might be using different definitions of "cosmotarian" then,
although they overlap. I personally do not consider the 1964 Civil
Rights Act a particularly infringement .On the list of things the
government does that I would eliminate if I were the libertarian
king, the '64 Act falls somewhere between public education (higher
on the list, but sort of an end-stage thing) and public
infrastructure (which, to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure I would
privatize even if I had the chance). I'm not the best-read guy on
earth (to be perfectly honest, I'm not even that well-acquainted
with Hayek, Friedman, von Mises, et al.) As for the "happier" part,
I haven't met many of the self-professed cosmotarians in person
(they are a rare subset of an endangered species), but in general I
wouldn't say that the "Paleos", some of whom I have met, are
unhappy, and only 1 of the 10 or so that I've met is a
neo-confederate (and he can take good-natured ribbing over it.) One
big difference is that the "Paleos" are generally religious.
The reason I dislike "cosmotarians" is that there "tolerance" for
alternative lifestyles and preferance for urban environments
translates usually into an obnoxious disdain for people who don't
share their cultural proclivities, even if they tend to agree, in
principle, on political issues. They try too hard to be "hip", and
are too eager (as I see it) to gain the approval of leftwing
friends.
Also, cosmotarians piss me off for having a leftist-style swoonfest
over Barack Obama. To be fair, I also don't particularly like
libertarian support for McCain, but I've observed that it was
generally more measured than cosmotarian support for Barack Obama.
Personally, I think all principled libertarians should have voted
for Barr (despite his own inconsistencies), to send the message
that some people don't actually support either of two styles of
statism.
For those libertarians who felt the need to vote for one of the two
major-party candidates, I would have implored them to avoid
anything other than the "lesser of two evils" argument. Instead we
heard different variations of the "hope, change, unity" message
from the likes of Chapman and "Obama's not really an economic
leftist, that's just for the ignorant proles. He's really a
sophisticated fellow who's been exposed to Chicago-school
economics" line from the likes of Dave Weigel.
The bottom line: I'm pissed off at cosmotarians, because when it
comes right down to it, they'd rather be hip and please there
liberal friends than be principled.
Orange Line Special|12.6.08 @ 10:09PM|#
The *true* libertarian position is to favor all forms of animal
fighting, whether with knives, razor-equipped claws, or whatever
form of weapons the animals can operate. Let them use cannons or
hand grenades if they want: it's their choice.
But, this shouldn't even be an issue at all, because the true
libertarian would not, could not, and should not live in the U.S.
and thus have to be subjected to the violence of the state. The
only true libertarian place on Earth is Somalia, and if anyone here
were real libertarians that's where they'd move. (I heard a rumor
that Badnarik is moving there next year).
P.S. Here's the
true libertarian position on baby seal hunts
economist|12.6.08 @ 10:23PM|#
A note on cosmotarians: I have a strong suspicion that for most
of them, there "libertarianism" stems from some sort of desire for
radical chic. But when the chips are down, they're happy to go with
the statist flow.
They also tend to have an incapacity for independent thought. Take
the resident Cosmotarian at Reason, Dave Weigel. He admitted that
in the runup to the Iraq War, he was one of the "prowar" crowd, in
part because he didn't stop to question whether the evidence
indicated Saddam Hussein posed an immediate threat. So, having been
burned by his uncritical association with the conservatives, he
turns around and forms a similarly uncritical association with the
left. If he has any libertarian principles, he will find himself
sorely disappointed by Obama, and then who the hell knows what
he'll do.
Oh, yeah, and then you have the clinically insane cosmotarians like
Chapman. I don't think I need to say more on that subject.
economist|12.6.08 @ 10:28PM|#
"They tend to defend libertarianism with quick and constant
reference to 'rights' to own hand grenades and racially
discriminate in employment."
Being one of the "extremists" with respect to the right to keep and
bear arms (I think it's a better way than elections to keep the
government in check), I tend to agree with Paleos there. Cosmos are
happy to knuckle and under and say "that's just what you have to do
in a democracy". Of course, I'm not a revolutionary. Just a bitter
middle-aged guy who gains a perverse enjoyment from watching
large-scale train wrecks.
economist|12.6.08 @ 10:30PM|#
Last rant tonight on the Cosmo vs. Paleo issue:
Ahh, forget it. I don't give a crap. Good night, all.
economist|12.6.08 @ 10:31PM|#
"I personally do not consider the 1964 Civil Rights Act a
particularly infringement"
This was from a previous post. It should have read "a particularly
egregious infringement of individual rights".
Geoff Nathan|12.6.08 @ 10:42PM|#
Although I guess I count as a 'cosmotarian', in that I like
opera, symphony and old-fashioned folk music, I certainly don't
yield on gun-rights (although I don't personally own one, because
my wife's a more standard leftist and wouldn't let me back in the
house). What scares me is the large-scale train wreck that I fear
is coming in the next six months if Obama, who I generally thought
was probably the lesser of the two evils, does the Roosevelt thing.
Which I suspect he will.
I had always thought things would generally get better, or, at
least, not deteriorate. Now I'm not so sure. I don't think I'll end
up on a bread line, but I'm no longer optimistic that the future
will be as good as the present. Bush sure fucked things up, between
the stupid response to 0/11 and the nationalization of banks, and
soon-to-be auto companies. Certainly explains why I don't think
libertarians should reflexively vote Republican.
Grrrr
SIV|12.6.08 @ 10:42PM|#
Ask "libertarian" SIV his position on Iraq for
example.
Opposed the initiation of war in 1991.
Opposed not finishing what we started by stopping at Iraq border
and leaving Saddam in power.
1964 Civil Rights Act?
Right as it applied to public institutions and places.Egregious
violation of property rights and freedom of association in regard
to private property and enterprises.
economist|12.6.08 @ 10:48PM|#
Good for you, Geoff. But you don't count as "cosmotarian" just for an appreciation of high culture. Nor even necessarily for voting for Obama (it only counts if you splooge over him). Though I have to ask: what changed between the election and now that made you go from thinking that things wouldn't deteriorate and might get better to thinking it might be a complete train wreck.
cunnivore|12.6.08 @ 11:19PM|#
I believe the whole cosmotarian vs. paleotarian thing arose out of Ron Paul's mixed reception among libertarians, did it not? IOW, it wasn't so much a matter of actual political positons as whether or not you supported the Doctor. Ask ten libertarians on the street what a cosmotarian is, and you'll get five different definitions, and the other five will say "huh?"
cunnivore|12.6.08 @ 11:23PM|#
I should add that my original understanding of the cosmo vs. paleo divide was that cosmos tend to advocate a more libertine culture than paleos. For example, while paleotarians support legalizing marijuana, most of them don't think it's a good idea to actually use it.
cunnivore|12.6.08 @ 11:25PM|#
"Pubic accommodation" is sadly also a legal fiction, tonight at least. :\
Mike Laursen|12.6.08 @ 11:41PM|#
In my experience "cosmotarians" are libertarians who don't
think the 1964 Civil Rights Act was the worst infringement on
liberty in the past century, who are well read and tolerant of
alternative lifestyles and prefer urban settings. They seem happier
than paleos too. And they tend to defend libertarianism with
utilitarian arguments (that government won't work as well as the
market).
Well said.
Mike Laursen|12.6.08 @ 11:45PM|#
The bottom line: I'm pissed off at cosmotarians, because
when it comes right down to it, they'd rather be hip and please
there liberal friends than be principled.
Is there some particular cosmotarian you have in mind when you make
all these statements about what cosmos are like? I mean the word
barely has a definition. It's kind of a vague slur that started
being thrown around here about a year ago.
SIV|12.6.08 @ 11:47PM|#
Dead on at 11:23 Cunnivore.
There is that difference of opinion on liberty as utilitarian
social policy rather than individual rights.
Mike Laursen|12.6.08 @ 11:48PM|#
Take the resident Cosmotarian at Reason, Dave
Weigel.
Guess that kinda answers my question. When you think "cosmotarian"
a picture of Dave Weigel pops into your mind.
ed|12.6.08 @ 11:49PM|#
Rep. Barney Frank (good on Internet gambling, medical
marijuana, one or two other things, and pretty awful on everything
else
Barney Frank: Cocksucker, Patriot.
Kaiser|12.6.08 @ 11:52PM|#
J sub D
One thing I neglected to mention in that lengthy meandering post is that lots of folks around her, both pro and anti bailout, have noticed the stark difference between the way politicians of both parties treated Wall Street (minimum $1 trillion bailout) and the way politicians are treating the auto industry asking for less than 10% of that.
I have a lot of the same sentiments. If congress hadn't opened the
door to begin with with the Wall Street bailout the Big 3 wouldn't
have much of a leg to stand on asking for billions. Now they do
though, and they are asking for a fraction of what Wall Street got.
Not to mention the audacity of congress to hold hearings about
their companies. At least their private jets, fancy cars, and fine
living came from private money and not tax payers dollars *cough*
congressman.
OTOH, you don't point to one wrong to justify another, and the
bailouts have got to stop somewhere. Which is why overall I am
completely opposed to the Big 3 bailout and any others in the
future.
|12.7.08 @ 12:16AM|#
Actually, "cosmotarian" was coined in response to blog entry by Virginia Postrel, wherein she used the term "cosmopolitan tolerance" as a definition for libertarianism. That is a very different foundation than the traditional non-aggression principle. Hence the new word to describe those who think Barack Obama to be more libertarian than Ron Paul.
Mike Laursen|12.7.08 @ 1:15AM|#
Brandybuck, you were pretty much sticking to documented history of the word "cosmotarian" until your last sentence, where you went off into unwarranted generalization.
|12.7.08 @ 4:40AM|#
I don't personally own one, because my wife's a more
standard leftist and wouldn't let me back in the house
Mixed marriages can be challenging, that's for sure. Maybe she'll
change her mind if she gets mugged.
-jcr
|12.7.08 @ 4:43AM|#
libertarians who don't think the 1964 Civil Rights Act was
the worst infringement on liberty in the past century,
I'd give that distinction to FDR's concentration camps,
myself.
-jcr
|12.7.08 @ 7:08AM|#
What about the post-bankruptcy cost of supporting the workers of a collapsed auto industry within the existing US social safety net? Isn't that the doomsday scenario Frank is trying to avoid here?
Fluffy|12.7.08 @ 7:13AM|#
In my experience "cosmotarians" are libertarians who don't
think the 1964 Civil Rights Act was the worst infringement on
liberty in the past century, who are well read and tolerant of
alternative lifestyles and prefer urban settings.
Anyone who doesn't realize the truly pernicious effect the CRA had
on our "litigation society", on the growth of the nanny state, on
extending state control of property and enterprise into scores of
"micro" areas, and on inspiring and by precedent enabling further
outrages like the ADA, is either no libertarian or has not been
paying attention.
I'm plenty tolerant of "alternative lifestyles", whether it's gays,
polygamists, or Rick Santorum and the rest of the surrendered wife
crowd, and I prefer what I consider organic development
settings, which I personally think would trend much more to the
urban and the rural than to suburbia or exurbia - but I hate the
CRA and am not so afraid of the clucking of liberals that I will
hide it or refuse to say it. So am I a cosmo or a paleo?
I think a much better way to make the split would be: a cosmo is a
libertarian who can't understand why anyone would go to church, and
a paleo is a libertarian who can't understand why anyone
wouldn't.
Fluffy|12.7.08 @ 7:22AM|#
About the bailout discussion:
I'm not even going to be willing to listen to Frank's argument
until he stops dishonestly lumping together a bankruptcy of the Big
3 and a liquidation of the Big 3 as if they were the same
thing.
They are much different scenarios.
He, like everyone else taking Pelosi's lead, is trumpeting
estimates of economic damage that would result if every last Big 3
plant was immediately shut down, and if every last Big 3 supplier
and creditor went completely unpaid and shut down in turn, and
acting as if this would be the result in either a bankruptcy or a
complete failure. And that's just dishonest. Want me to give your
plan a hearing? Stop being dishonest.
They don't want to honestly talk about the different costs
associated with a straight bailout and with a prepackaged
bankruptcy with the Feds as the DIP financing provider. I suspect
this is because a prepack would void the UAW's contracts.
Travis|12.7.08 @ 8:56AM|#
I've said this before on here & I'll say it again. Can we PLEASE stop using the Cosmotarian & Paleotarian terms, they sound so fucking stupid. No one has any idea what they truly mean. We've had numerous definitions just on this thread.
|12.7.08 @ 9:22AM|#
OK so what happens in a few months when the billion dollar
handout runs out and they are STILL not selling cars? More free
money at Main Street Americas expense?
jess
http://www.Ultimate-Anonymity.com
Mike Laursen|12.7.08 @ 9:34AM|#
No one has any idea what they truly mean.
True. The terms are a total Rorshach test.
|12.7.08 @ 9:47AM|#
If there was ever any question whether Congress actually wants to "save" Detroit, this week dispelled it. This is not a bailout that Congress is debating. It is a federal takeover. We don't mean that in the sense that the feds will own the companies on paper, although that can't be ruled out. What Congress wants to own is their business plan, and Detroit seems prepared to oblige.
Yet amid all the hopeful talk about the brave, new green car world, the men from Detroit were studiously silent on whether they can sell these new cars at a profit any better than they can their current lineup. Yes, the restructuring plans, especially GM's, have some stark numbers about downsizing -- 30,000 blue collar jobs are on the chopping block at GM alone. And this is accompanied by gauzy predictions of matching Toyota's labor costs by 2012. But it's hard to see how that gets done without a bankruptcy judge to tear up the contracts and start over. Once the auto makers agree to let Barney Frank run their businesses, does anyone really believe organized labor will roll over and let them gut the United Auto Workers?
WSJ
We hear a lot of blather about hybrids, and electrics, but nobody
talks about profitability. The Volt won't save GM. It's a publicity
stunt.
|12.7.08 @ 9:53AM|#
Fluffy,
The bankruptcy consequences are potentially disastrous to the
supplier chain, as their thin margins would be devastated by the
giant receivables hole that would accompany a big-3
bankruptcy.
Yes, there is a bit of dishonesty in predicting a total collapse of
the big-3 and their associated supply chains. But I still suspect
that the consequences of either a liquidation or a bankruptcy would
dwarf any bailout.
And as long as I'm on the hook (as a taxpayer involuntarily
supporting our social safety net) for the consequences of a failure
of the big 3, I'll only vote against a bailout if the alternative
is found to be not many multiples more expensive.
MNG|12.7.08 @ 9:53AM|#
fluffy
That's not a bad definition, but really if you read a "cosmotarian"
mag like reason you'll see very few articles railing against the
Civil Rights Act and if you read Rockwell you'll see more of that
thing as well as railing against Lincoln and weepy sentimentality
about the CSA. To some extent don't you think this is practical:
those who take strong stands against the CRA will not be a part of
the national discussion (kiss those AEI-Brookings-Reason Foundation
events goodbye).
But yes when I think cosmo I think Jesse Walker, someone who
probably likes to live in cities because they like the diverse
cultural scene (jazz clubs beside gay bar beside store front fundie
church) while hating the nannyism of those urban politicians while
when I think paleo I think of someone like Ron Paul living in TX
where most neighbors think and act alike. Speaking of Paul while
the Postrel thing may have originated the term cosmo it was
certainly Paul's mixed reception among libertarians that brought
the term to my attention so much. Interestingly paleos tend to
characterize cosmo's as sellouts when what Paul drew the most fire
about were his sometimes questionable (from LP standards) stances
on things like immigration, gays and seperation of church and
state. Paul deviated from libertarianism im many areas which would
make him more popular to Texan conservatives, more so than any
Reason writer does to please liberals...
MNG|12.7.08 @ 10:03AM|#
fluffy
Not to threadjack to a discussion of the CRA but:
1. I never damn the granting of a right because people then try to
exercise it (your "litigous" claim). Similar claims are made about
Sec. 1983 claims to enforce constitutional rights. There is a great
deal of litigation there, or over habeas corpus. Do you think those
are bad laws?
2. Of course the CRA expanded government, but so did the actively
segregationist laws which preceded it for decades fostering the
racism and resulting discrimination which the CRA opposes. The
segregationist laws fostered private sentiments which working
through private institutions and employers harmed and continue to
harm minorities so I'm OK with an equal governmental effort to
right the wrong it started. The libertarian alternative, to just
repeal the bad laws and then do nothing affirmative to combat the
evils they had created and fostered is to simply put the onus on
the victims (the minorities) to overcome the effects of hundreds of
years of active government malfeasance.
That's all I'll say on that for this thread which is about the
bailout and not the CRA or cosmos.
|12.7.08 @ 1:02PM|#
Here is my understanding of the definitions:
COSMOTARIAN:
Someone who holds a mix of Hillary and Kucinich's beliefs, but
argues them for 'libertarian' reasons.
Somone who understands that things like public school, and state
definition of marriage are not going away so they support further
state intrusion into the matter to make things more 'equal'. But
only more equal to the set of friends they hang out with.
Someone who thinks that a corporations power to fire you is the
same as the states power to inprison or kill you.
PALAOTARIAN
Someone who might think that we have lost liberties because there
is a cabal of Bankers plotting for it to be so. Or a cabal of
Joos.
Someone who is completey radical in the ways of freedom or anarchy
exept where it may empower foreigners, joos or bankers.
I guess the Paleo thing might be extreme. I was getting that from
my readings of Lew Rockwell, and the sort of emails I get from that
directions.
If paleo meens "freedom, let the chips fall where they may". Then
count me in that category.
|12.7.08 @ 1:18PM|#
The U.S. auto industry has been de-facto nationalized for a
long time now.
How so?
Bingo|12.7.08 @ 1:25PM|#
I'm probably HnR's biggest cosmotarian (urban-living, urban-employed, falafel-eating hipster) and work with a few others. You guys are completely wrong about the political ideals especially the Obama/Kucinich support.
Paleotarian Underlord|12.7.08 @ 1:30PM|#
Paleotarians are the true supporters of freedom this nation. We
stand up against the PC Police, the Multi-Cult, and the polluting
of our cultural values from leftists and neocons.
Everyone knows this nation was more free in 1850 than it was
now!
BDB|12.7.08 @ 1:31PM|#
Does anyone know what the difference is between a Paleotarian and a Paleoconservative? They seem like the same thing to me.
BDB|12.7.08 @ 1:32PM|#
Ex., read The American Conservative (Pat Buchanan's mag). It sounds like Lew Rockwell, minus the Lincoln bashing. But in every other respect, it holds about the same views (albiet much better written).
Bingo|12.7.08 @ 1:40PM|#
BDB - Paleocons aren't as free-market-oriented as paleotarians. I think the divide between cosmo/paleotarians is mostly cultural.
BDB|12.7.08 @ 1:43PM|#
Bingo--which is why I think the divide is so small and rather
over-blown. We should leave the incessant sectarianism and mutual
excommunications to the Marxists.
If SIV wants to set up an Ultimate Cock Fighting Ring in his
backyard, I don't really care. I'll think he's a weird dude, and a
lot of other people will too. But I'm not gonna get the state to
shut him down. Ditto if he wants to hang up a Confederate flag and
talk about the "glory days" of the Old South or whatever.
BDB|12.7.08 @ 1:45PM|#
Not as much for the free market? Paleotarians aren't very free market sometimes either. See: trade deals, immigration. And they share those blind spots with their Buchananite counterparts.
Bingo|12.7.08 @ 1:55PM|#
I think it's important to recognize and appreciate the
differences. It's pretty cool that the same philosophy that lets
people who want to drink beer and shoot automatic weapons from an
emissions-spewing vehicle on their ranch in the middle of nowhere
also attracts people who want to snort a line of coke and have a
threesome after a cocktail party at an art gallery.
Freedom should be a big tent.
Bingo|12.7.08 @ 2:02PM|#
Also I think immigration is important to paleotarians for
utilitarian reasons but it's important to paleocons for cultural
reasons. Paleotarians mostly seem to be concerned about their tax
dollars going to fund another welfare family and paleocons are
concerned about American culture and traditions being
diluted.
Take the federal government out of doling out money to people that
don't work and paleotarians really wouldn't give a shit if the
family down the street eats tacquitos for dinner. Paleocons will
still continue to shit a brick that they might be celebrating Cinco
De Mayo.
BDB|12.7.08 @ 2:19PM|#
That's a good point, re: the differences in the root of their immigration restrictionism. I think the Paleotarian argument is in good faith and a legitimate point, even if mistaken, while the Paleocon argument with the screaming about "reconquest" is batshit insane.
Bingo|12.7.08 @ 2:40PM|#
BDB: The problem is that both the paleocons and -tarians will
often use arguments from each other, so its easy to get them mixed
up. Take the federal government out of the equation and they agree
on very little. As soon as paleocons start regulating gambling,
blowjobs, violent videogames, and implementing further alcohol and
tobacco restrictions that alliance falls apart very fast.
The litmus test between a paleocon and paleotarian is pretty much
the no-knock SWAT raid. Paleocons don't see anything wrong with it
as long as the victim was doing something they didn't like. A
paleotarian will be absolutely livid that someone would even think
of violating their property and privacy.
|12.7.08 @ 3:03PM|#
Found the original coining of the word "cosmotarian" here. Yes,
Ron Paul was involved.
Then again, political labels seem to change wildly over even short
periods of time. Look at how "liberal" meant basically the opposite
of what it means now less than a century ago.
|12.7.08 @ 3:08PM|#
Also, I think it's important to point out that paleos and cosmos
agree on basically every domestic political issue, with the
possible exceptions of abortion and gay marriage, which are
respectively a dead issue and a silly argument over words, so who
cares.
It's a cultural difference, not a political one.
Mike Laursen|12.7.08 @ 3:14PM|#
Who the hell identifies himself as a cosmotarian,
anyway?!
I would never walk up to someone and introduce myself as a
cosmotarian, but the label does fit me. With the big caveat that
the word doesn't seem to have a precise meaning. Not sure how it
has gotten the pro-Democrat/pseudo-Democrat associations it has for
some commenters on this thread.
BDB|12.7.08 @ 3:14PM|#
Tulpa--
Sadly, a lot of people don't quite get it that Roe v. Wade will
never be overturned and will just be used as a political
football.
|12.7.08 @ 3:14PM|#
Paleotarians aren't very free market sometimes either. See:
trade deals, immigration.
You do realize the free market position on trade deals is that you
shouldn't need a trade deal to trade. This happens to be Dr. Paul's
position and why he opposed NAFTA etc.
If you think 200 pages of trade regulations represents "free
trade", you're a funny, funny guy.
|12.7.08 @ 3:19PM|#
Going deeper into the link I just posted, the "cosmo-paleo
divide" is mentioned in this article in
The Nation (of all places!). They seem to place it as a
CATO/Reason vs. Mises.org/AntiWar.com dispute.
Self-identified libertarians may be a tiny portion of the electorate, but small numbers have never stood in the way of bitter intramural sectarian disputes. When Lindsey says that Paul "comes from a different part of the libertarian universe than I do," he's referring to the libertarian version of the Trotsky/Lenin split, which opened up in the early 1980s and continues to echo through libertarianism today.
Mike Laursen|12.7.08 @ 3:21PM|#
The Volt won't save GM. It's a publicity stunt.
Even more pathetic, the CEO didn't even think to try to get some
green cred p.r. until after being scolded for showing up at the
first round of hearings on a private jet.
|12.7.08 @ 3:25PM|#
BDB, right on about abortion. As a pro-lifer myself, I've come to the realization that our place in the GOP is analogous to that of blacks (who for example support school vouchers in large majorities) in the Dem party -- always fawned over when it comes to rhetoric, and always sold out when the chips are down and independent votes/teachers union money is on the line.
BDB|12.7.08 @ 3:30PM|#
I have some sympathy for Ford because they're actually starting
to do better, and even more sympathy for Chrysler because they got
screwed over by Mercedes for ten years, but none for GM. GM has
been behind on EVERYTHING since the 1970s.
Behind on compacts. Behind on the minivan. Behind on the SUV.
Behind on hybrids. It goes on, and on, and on. They're the worst
car company in the universe.
|12.7.08 @ 3:32PM|#
And now blacks are excited to have one of their own in the White
House. Too bad he loves public schools* hates school
vouchers, loves abortion, and loves the Drug War, in opposition to
large majorities in the black community.
I remember the feeling back in 2000 when we finally got one of our
own in the White House, a real pro-lifer, not lukewarm like Bush I
and Reagan had been. Those labels don't offer much comfort for
long.
* Momentarily forgot he doesn't love them enough to send his kids
there.
BDB|12.7.08 @ 3:35PM|#
"I remember the feeling back in 2000 when we finally got one of
our own in the White House, a real pro-lifer, not lukewarm like
Bush I and Reagan had been."
Remember how he was going to have a "humble foreign policy" and
stop "nation building"? Yeah. So do I. The guy is such a mental
midget he can't stand up to the people in his administration that
order him on what to do.
|12.7.08 @ 3:41PM|#
Yeah, I suppose Bush's record on pro-life turned out better than his record on humble foreign policy and fiscal restraint. Of course, he would have had to eat embryos for breakfast every day to do worse than he did on those issues...
|12.7.08 @ 4:07PM|#
Mike, if you take the definition of "toleraant cosmopolitan" as
the definition of libertarianism, then you need to ask which
presidential candidate was most tolerant and cosmopolitan. The
answer is clear. It wasn't Nader, wasn't Barr, wasn't McCain,
wasn't Paul and wasn't McKinney. It was in fact Obama.
The huge problem with Postrel's definition is that it completely
ignores the evils of the state, and completely ignores free
markets.
p.s. Of course, paleo- and cosmo- are only minorities in the
broader libertarian movement. You also have objectivists, agorists,
voluntaryists, neo-libertarians, classic liberals, and just plain
vanilla libertarians.
Bingo|12.7.08 @ 4:16PM|#
Brandybuck - don't forget the "dope-smoking Republican" libertarian faction ;)
SIV|12.7.08 @ 4:18PM|#
Cosmotarians are the ones who support libertarian ideas on
utilitarian grounds.
With some individual exceptions:
They see a ban on Govt funded stem-cell research as a bad thing.
They favor "market based " solutions for global warming.They
support enforcing race and gender anti-discrimination laws.They
favor marijuana taxes while being troubled,if not
outright opposed, to legalizing the rest of the pharmacopoeia.
.They ridicule Govt enforced professional licensure for
hair-braiders and interior designers but strongly support it for
doctors and lawyers.
Bingo|12.7.08 @ 4:35PM|#
SIV - making good the enemy of perfect already? I almost think
you're trolling here, because you have a lot of half-truths in that
paragraph.
1) They see a ban on Govt funded stem-cell research as a bad
thing.
The issue was whether the government should subsidize it or ban it
completely (on Right-to-Life grounds). An outright ban is
a bad thing, subsidization is also bad.
2) They favor "market based " solutions for global
warming.
Any solution to global warming, if there is one to be found, must
be sustainable in the market, otherwise it will fail. The solution
is going to be market based just because EVERYTHING is market
based, even when the government interferes in the market.
3) They support enforcing race and gender anti-discrimination
laws.
I'll give you that.
4) They favor marijuana taxes while being troubled,if not
outright opposed, to legalizing the rest of the
pharmacopoeia.
I think you're going to find that most of the libertarian community
is colored in different shades of gray over drug legalization.
However, the status quo of the Drug War is unacceptable for any
proponent of liberty.
5) They ridicule Govt enforced professional licensure for
hair-braiders and interior designers but strongly support it for
doctors and lawyers.
You're getting industry-enforced and government-enforced licensing
mixed up.
hotsauce|12.7.08 @ 4:48PM|#
Bingo, I think you're wrong about #5. There are state-enforced licensing schemes for doctors and lawyers.
BDB|12.7.08 @ 4:50PM|#
"4) They favor marijuana taxes while being troubled,if not
outright opposed, to legalizing the rest of the
pharmacopoeia."
I'm for making everything over-the-counter at the local 7-11. I
don't think meth or crack will be any more popular than bathtub gin
or pure grain alcohol is at that point.
Bingo|12.7.08 @ 4:50PM|#
Oh yes, they definitely exist. However, as a cosmotarian, the industry enforcing a standard is a much better solution than the State enforcing one.
|12.7.08 @ 4:52PM|#
What about the post-bankruptcy cost of supporting the
workers of a collapsed auto industry within the existing US social
safety net? Isn't that the doomsday scenario Frank is trying to
avoid here?
Too big to fail, huh?
Kiss my royal libertarian, libertine posterior.
Mike Laursen|12.7.08 @ 4:53PM|#
Mike, if you take the definition of "toleraant cosmopolitan"
as the definition of libertarianism, ...
Sorry, I think I have to stop following your train of thought right
there. I don't think that's the definition of libertarianism.
hotsauce|12.7.08 @ 5:03PM|#
Mike, that's the definition Virginia Postrel attributed to libertarianism (see above).
|12.7.08 @ 5:23PM|#
I wouldn't be true to myself if I didn't point out that today is the anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor.
|12.7.08 @ 5:30PM|#
Libertarianism -
I own my own body.
I own my own property.
Fraud and force are verboten.
This all applies to my adult neighbors, regardless of peripheral
shit.*
* "Race", gender, religion, who you're banging, etc.
Formerly Jennifer|12.7.08 @ 5:48PM|#
J sub D,
Does that boil down to "Ain't nobody's business if you do"? That
kinda sums up my approach.
MNG|12.7.08 @ 5:49PM|#
I hate to defend SIV here, but he's right that govt funded stem
cell research is the issue, even Bush did not take action to ban
private research (though he probably would support such a
ban).
And on doctor/lawyer liscensure private industry liscensing is
government backed, which is what I gather he's referring to.
The global warming thing always cracks me up. Whether global
warming exists, can be traced to mankind and is a threat to
mankind's well being is a factual issue, where one falls on that
issue should have no more bearing on whether someone is a
libertarian or unitarian for that matter. Now, for those
libertarians who think that the overwhelming consensus among
experts in the relative fields is correct then of course they
should be for market based solutions rather than command
solutions.
MNG|12.7.08 @ 5:53PM|#
Saying it's "unlibertarian" or "cosmotarian" to believe that global warming is occurring, is a threat to mankind's wellbeing and can be addressed by our efforts is no like saying its "unlibertarian" or "cosmotarian" to believe in plate tectonics.
SIV|12.7.08 @ 6:02PM|#
Bingo,
With #1 you characterize the REASON line of thought
perfectly--false dichotomies.
There was no ban on stem cell research.
The proposed comprehensive immigration reform was not "the good"
yet any opposition was decried as nativism for another
example.
If there is such a thing as a "solution to global warming"(there's
not) it should be voluntary.
Drugs are a property rights issue. For many it is an "I want to get
high issue".
People should be free to choose between competing private
professional licensure boards and unlicensed professionals.Lying
about your credential is fraud.More professed libertarians than
just the "cosmotarian faction" are appalled at the idea of
this(especially doctors and lawyers).
What Jsub says above.
SIV|12.7.08 @ 6:05PM|#
MNG,
Get back to me when there is force based schemes to ban technology
and confiscate wealth as a solution to the plate tectonics
problem.
The Incredible, Edible Egg|12.7.08 @ 6:22PM|#
Of course, he would have had to eat embryos for breakfast
every day to do worse than he did on those issues
He doesn't? I must be losing my touch.
MNG|12.7.08 @ 6:52PM|#
SIV
Assume for a minute that all those scientists are right and you and
other ideologues are wrong and that global warming is real,
man-made and a threat to all mankind's welfare. You don't think
that would justify some coercion to combat it?
If I dumped something into the air that was proven to make you and
everybody else sick you don't think that would justify ya'll
coercing me to stop?
MNG|12.7.08 @ 6:57PM|#
Oh, I've got something similar right here up my sleeve
SIV.
Malarial pools. Let's go back to a time when malaria drugs were not
readily available. And let's say that science shows that letting
stagnant pools of water fosters malaria carrying mosquitos.
And my lazy ass has let several pools accumulate on my land. And
the mosquitos, doing what they do, are biting people all around me
and they are getting malaria.
I can't be coerced to clean that up?
That's incredible buddy.
MNG|12.7.08 @ 7:01PM|#
This is a great example of what I've seen as the paleo-cosmo
debate.
Jacob Sullum a year or two ago wrote about "public health" measures
like fighting obesity and "gun violence" and how these were
bullshit "public health" measures. As an example of a legit public
health exercise he noted combatting malarial pools.
Now I can just see a paleo: "Urgh, urgh, the pool is on my land I
have a right to have malarial pools on my land, urgh urgh no one
can tell me what to do with my land, argh."
Is Sullum "selling out" to appease his liberal cocktail party
mates? Of course not, he just realizes that something you do on
your land that does me and him direct harm falls into the same
category as someone firing a bullet into me from his land.
Which gives evidence to my working theory: paleo's are rather
inflexible and dense libertarians (this could explain the religion
appeal too). I've seen some exceptions though (hey, I read
Rockwell's guys, some of them are ok in my book).
tarran|12.7.08 @ 8:04PM|#
MNG,
I think we inflexible libertarian extremists would argue that if
you are sending malarial mosquitoes into my property to bite me, it
is no different than shooting randomly into my property from yours
with a gun.
If you want to keep a malarial pool on your property and put a net
over it so that no mosquitoes escape, it's not my business.
The Angry Optimist|12.7.08 @ 8:08PM|#
If you think 200 pages of trade regulations represents "free
trade", you're a funny, funny guy.
OTOH, if you think the status quo of freedom of trade prior to
NAFTA was better, then you're an exceptionally funny guy.
I like the "UGGGHHH...DR PAUL" reference you threw in there,
too.
And good dodge on immigration!
The Angry Optimist|12.7.08 @ 8:08PM|#
hey, I read Rockwell's guys, some of them are ok in my
book
Oh praise Jesus. Now they can hopefully sleep at night.
|12.7.08 @ 8:10PM|#
Hi MNG -
Assume for a minute that all those scientists are right and you
and other ideologues are wrong and that global warming is real,
man-made and a threat to all mankind's welfare. You don't think
that would justify some coercion to combat it?
To be fair, there are reputable scientists that deny
anthropocentric global warming is actually occuring. The debate is
not like evolution or relativity which are settled issues with only
quacks denying them.
Malarial pools. Let's go back to a time when malaria drugs were
not readily available. And let's say that science shows that
letting stagnant pools of water fosters malaria carrying
mosquitos.
And my lazy ass has let several pools accumulate on my land. And
the mosquitos, doing what they do, are biting people all around me
and they are getting malaria.
I can't be coerced to clean that up?
Of course not. They're now federally protected wetlands thanks to
the court's interpretations of the Clean Water Act. Essentially,
they belong to the feds. ;-)
cunnivore|12.7.08 @ 9:17PM|#
I can't be coerced to clean that up?
Of course you can -- libertarians do believe in the common law
court system dealing with externalities of that sort after actual
harms have been demonstrated.
What we don't believe in is empowering a pencil-pushing bureaucrat
to dictate what property owners can do with their property, in the
name of vaguely defined "public health".
cunnivore, channeling Adm. Ack|12.7.08 @ 9:24PM|#
a $25 billion automaker bridge loan drawn half from the TARP
[Troubled Asset Relief Program, a.k.a. the Paulson-pushed
bailout]
Would have been a more accurate acronym if they called it "Troubled
Relief Asset Program".
SIV|12.7.08 @ 9:25PM|#
So now I'm a .....
Proud Pro-Malaria Partisan
Keep 'em coming.I need more resume builders.
And all you cosmotarians have to brag about is being effete dope
smoking Republicans who hate roads;^)
economist|12.7.08 @ 10:32PM|#
"I would never walk up to someone and introduce myself as a
cosmotarian, but the label does fit me"
To be perfectly honest, I never introduce myself as a libertarian.
Mostly because, at best, most people would just say "that's nice"
and slowly edge away.
economist|12.7.08 @ 10:33PM|#
SIV,
"So now I'm a .....
Proud Pro-Malaria Partisan "
Now you just need to give your everlasting support to the global
DDT ban, and your credentials will be perfect.
economist|12.7.08 @ 10:37PM|#
"It's kind of a vague slur that started being thrown around here
about a year ago."
It can mean many bad things to many people. Therefore, saying
"Cosmotarians are shit" is perfectly appropriate, because you
probably have someone (Chapman) in mind that deserves the
insult.
And Matt, when are you going to get around to ousting Steve
Chapman?
economist|12.7.08 @ 10:44PM|#
"Everyone knows this nation was more free in 1850 than it was
now!"
!850? No. 1880? Yes.
economist|12.7.08 @ 11:07PM|#
Nonetheless, I'll still take compact discs and antibiotics, thanks very much.
|12.7.08 @ 11:15PM|#
Sorry, I think I have to stop following your train of thought right there. I don't think that's the definition of libertarianism.
Except that cosmotarians are the ones using that definition. Hence
the name given to them.
Bingo|12.7.08 @ 11:25PM|#
Look, I know a lot of you hate cosmotarians and have a bunch of
stereotypic beliefs made up in your head, but its a matter of
culture. We believe 99% of the things you paleolibs do... I can't
count the times I've agreed with economist while lurking.
The point is that though we may have different priorities in life
and our political struggle for freedom, it shouldn't make us even
close to ideological enemies.
I helped coin the term with joe (of all people) last year, you'll
find that the
driving-to-Whole-Foods-on-a-scooter-before-snorting-coke-and-attending-a-cocktail-party
is completely farcical and completely true. It's not derogatory, we
are the cosmopolitan libertarians, and the "boots on the ground"
for advocating freedom in urban areas.
Cultural battles are completely lame and unproductive. Cosmos and
paleos don't have to be friends, we just need to realize that our
philosophies are the same and take every chance we get to expand
our love of liberty in government and in the collective
consciousness.
Mike Laursen|12.8.08 @ 12:00AM|#
Except that cosmotarians are the ones using that
definition.
I don't think there's like an official Cosmotarian Club with a
manifesto or even a PowerPoint slide with a mission statement.
:-)
Mike Laursen|12.8.08 @ 12:10AM|#
Mike, that's the definition Virginia Postrel attributed to
libertarianism (see above).
Is this the Virginia Postrel post being referred to:
http://www.dynamist.com/weblog/archives/002695.html
The phrase she uses is "tolerant cosmopolitan" and she says nothing
about it being a definition of libertarianism.
Mike Laursen|12.8.08 @ 12:14AM|#
With #1 you characterize the REASON line of thought
perfectly--false dichotomies.
Can you give some citations of writers in reason magazine
or posters on this blog engaging in false dichotomies?
Mike Laursen|12.8.08 @ 12:24AM|#
To be perfectly honest, I never introduce myself as a
libertarian. Mostly because, at best, most people would just say
"that's nice" and slowly edge away.
Yeah, sigh. Back when I was on the board of my county Libertarian
Party organization, one guy was berating us because we didn't want
to put his homemade Libertarian bumper stickers on our cars. I
explained that I would be willing to, if we could make a deal that
our campaign chair would stop writing ballot arguments accusing the
local public library boards of being lying thieves.
Paul|12.8.08 @ 1:41AM|#
Where as, you are in no danger of appearing working class if
you want to spend the hard-earned money of the working class
bailing out a bunch of rich bankers.
And if you want to spend money on neither?
|12.8.08 @ 4:31AM|#
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/08/world/europe/08kremlin.html?hp
Now, the Kremlin seems to be capitalizing on the economic crisis,
exploiting the opportunity to establish more control over
financially weakened industries that it has long coveted,
particularly those in natural resources.
At least we're not alone!
MNG|12.8.08 @ 7:27AM|#
"Of course you can -- libertarians do believe in the common law
court system dealing with externalities of that sort after actual
harms have been demonstrated."
Uhh, so we can clean it up AFTER we all have malaria.
See, that's the problem people may have with libtertarians. You'd
rather have malaria than regulations ;).
tarran|12.8.08 @ 8:02AM|#
In all earnestness MNG,
Most of the time, the choice is between no malaria and no
regulations, and no malaria and regulations.
For example, I am pretty sure that one of my neighbors illegally
owned a gun while I was growing up. Somehow we made it through
adolescence without being shot by the guy.
|12.8.08 @ 8:40AM|#
"But I worry about the future of the Detroit Symphony, the
Detroit Institute of the Arts and similar institutions that depend
on sponsorships from the big 2.5. Not to mention the restaurants
that make this city great... Some of my favorites are already in
trouble."
In 1987, Texas lost 175,000 oil related jobs in a year. We got no
bailout. We are still here - where's my retroactive bailout?
Travis|12.8.08 @ 8:54AM|#
"But I worry about the future of the Detroit Symphony, the
Detroit Institute of the Arts and similar institutions that depend
on sponsorships from the big 2.5."
Why are corporations that are losing money giving money to a
symphony?
|12.8.08 @ 9:50AM|#
Why are corporations that are losing money giving money to a
symphony?
Coprporate chairitable donations are a form of
advertising. Some would say cost effective
advertising.
You wouldn't stop advertising your wares if your business was
running in the red, would you?
Fluffy|12.8.08 @ 9:51AM|#
Malarial pools. Let's go back to a time when malaria drugs
were not readily available. And let's say that science shows that
letting stagnant pools of water fosters malaria carrying
mosquitos.
And my lazy ass has let several pools accumulate on my land. And
the mosquitos, doing what they do, are biting people all around me
and they are getting malaria.
I can't be coerced to clean that up?
I would support a state requirement to clean up a stagnant pool
that might produce mosquitos - but only if that requirement was
imposed equally on all property owners in the malarial zone. Each
and every one.
That would mean that I would not support it if you were only
required to come up with a "malaria control plan" if you wanted to
build something new, and existing property owners didn't have to
worry about mosquitos or stagnant pools or what have you.
That also means that I would not support it if the cleanup
requirement only applied to my stagnant pools, and the stagnant
pools on Teddy Kennedy's property were declared an "environmentally
sensitive wetland that must be left undisturbed" or what have
you.
That also means I would not support it if I was required to clean
up my stagnant pools, but large property owners with existing
stagnant pools were issued free "stagnant pool permit credits",
which they could sell for a profit, while I was issued
nothing.
It's just not enough to point to an existing problem and say,
"Doesn't this problem justify coercion to solve it?" It very well
may, but the exact type of coercion and its method of application
is important, too.
Travis|12.8.08 @ 9:55AM|#
"You wouldn't stop advertising your wares if your business was
running in the red, would you?"
I think everybody in Detroit has heard of GM, Ford, & Chrysler
by now.
cunnivore|12.8.08 @ 10:57AM|#
Uhh, so we can clean it up AFTER we all have
malaria.
When do you think your public health bureaucracy is going to have
it cleaned up? AFTER people start complaining about it, ie, after
people start getting malaria. (And in my experience with
bureaucrats, most likely LONG after they start receiving
complaints).
You seem to be under the impression that holding a govt job
suddenly makes you omniscient.
cunnivore|12.8.08 @ 11:01AM|#
J sub D,
Sorry, if my tax dollars are supporting the Big 2.71828... then I
think taxpayers should have a say in how they advertise. No more
opera contributions, no more John Cougar songs, no more boats
mysteriously accelerating past trucks after the trailer hitch
breaks.
Mike Laursen|12.8.08 @ 12:06PM|#
Uhh, so we can clean it up AFTER we all have
malaria.
Excellent point. People living in close proximity do have to
establish preventative rules establishing public sanitation. No
reason libertarian philosophy can't allow for such practical
measures.
Mike Laursen|12.8.08 @ 12:09PM|#
When do you think your public health bureaucracy is going to
have it cleaned up?
I'm as anti-big government as you, I'm sure, but not every public
agency if fucking up 100% of the time. For example, we have a
competent mosquito vector control agency in my area; they were even
commended by a grand jury for being notably conscientious about
sticking to their budget.
Blake|12.8.08 @ 1:10PM|#
Does no one understand that even with this "bailout" they will be back in a couple of months asking for more? Are you going to go out and buy a new car? I sure as hell am not! So what are they saving?
Mike Laursen|12.8.08 @ 2:33PM|#
So what are they saving?
Votes, I suppose.
I wonder what is the least destructive thing they could do that
would actually sell politically. Maybe a cash outlay for extended
unemployment and job training programs. They might have to throw in
a "pilot" subsidized Federal health insurance program.
cunnivore|12.8.08 @ 2:41PM|#
Mike Laursen, that was just a sideswipe, not my main point. A
mosquito control agency is not going to be staffed by clairvoyant
individuals, and is hopefully not searching every property every
day for breeding puddles, which means they'll only be notified of
their existence when people start getting bitten.
There's no reason common law remedies can't handle the situation
just as well, without helping the public health statists get their
foot in the door.
|12.8.08 @ 3:22PM|#
The phrase she uses is "tolerant cosmopolitan" and she says
nothing about it being a definition of libertarianism.
Perhaps because being a tolerant cosmopolitan is perfectly
consistent, in principle, with being a redistributionist nanny
stater, and, indeed, people who would self-identify as tolerant
cosmopolitans are probably much more likely to favor than to oppose
the exercise of state power as a solution to perceived
problems.
Mike Laursen|12.8.08 @ 4:02PM|#
A mosquito control agency is not going to be staffed by
clairvoyant individuals, and is hopefully not searching every
property every day for breeding puddles, which means they'll only
be notified of their existence when people start getting
bitten.
Actually, according to their website they do searches for stagnant
pools of water large enough to show up on digital aerial
photos.
Mike Laursen|12.8.08 @ 4:04PM|#
Perhaps because being a tolerant cosmopolitan is perfectly
consistent, in principle, with being a redistributionist nanny
stater, and, indeed, people who would self-identify as tolerant
cosmopolitans are probably much more likely to favor than to oppose
the exercise of state power as a solution to perceived
problems.
Huh? Seems like whether one is a tolerant cosmopolitan would be
completely orthogonal to one's views on redistribution and nanny
state-ism.
|12.8.08 @ 5:05PM|#
I also don't particularly like libertarian support for
McCain
There's no such thing as libertarian support for McCain.
-jcr
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245