Carbon Dioxide

Did the Sun Come Up This Morning? Well, Jonathan Chait Has Written Another Provably False Thing About Libertarians

|

You can see, but you can't unsee

Unfunny sock puppetteer, longtime John McCain fanboy and late-breaking Saddam Hussein restorationist Jonathan Chait (hey, you asked for synonyms, Koch-brain!) responds to some responses to his blog post about Reason, apparently one of his favorite activities. As reliably transpires when he makes an assumption about libertarianism, Reason, and all the other orphan-eating Balrogs in the Moria of his mind, Chait makes a here-let-me-Google-that-for-you category of error:

I don't think the Kochs care all that much if they're supporting writers who oppose pricing their carbon emissions due to skepticism with climate science or due to some other reason. I do think that if Reason started advocating a carbon pricing scheme that stood some plausible chance of legislative success, the Kochs—who boast about cutting off funding for work they disagree with—would probably respond.

Let's test that theory out, shall we? Here is a forum in the July 2008 issue of Reason, entitled "Carbon: Tax, Trade, or Deregulate?" It was an edited transcript from an October 2007 panel discussion that I moderated between three free-market thinkers who focus on environmental policy. The panelist holding down the "tax" argument was none other than Reason's longtime science correspondent, Ronald Bailey. A selection from Bailey's comments:

For consumers, for inventors, for innovators, a tax offers price stability in a way that the cap-and-trade markets don't. […]

Basically it would be a globally harmonized tax, but the money would be collected by each country and spent by the governments in each country.

In the ideal world, you would recycle that money by reducing other taxes, so the overall tax level in the country would not increase. What you would be doing is incentivizing people to conserve energy but also incentivizing people to innovate, to find new ways to produce energy that people would want using low-carbon technologies or carbon-sequestering technologies. […]

Government does not innovate. So by creating a carbon tax you would encourage private people to marshal the information in response. So carbon tax is a price, to figure out better ways to make energy, low-carbon energy. I don't know what those energies will be. I'm sure the government doesn't know either, and I don't want them wasting the money doing it. […]

I realize that [some people] believe that somehow the invisible hand will take care of a commons problem always, but commons problems are solved by creating property.

Keep in mind that Chait just last week described the person who made the above comments as condoning "the notion that corporations should be able to pollute the commons with harmful greenhouse gases at no cost whatsoever." This is what happens when you proceed from the false premise that the Kochs' giving is motivated primarily by a desire to avoid environmental regulation on their factories.

So did the Kochtopus indeed "respond" to Bailey's hereticism, as predicted? Well, I've only been editor for three years, but my next phone call or e-mail from anyone named Koch will be the first of my tenure. David Koch is the only member of the Reason Foundation's Board of Trustees I have not met. Ron Bailey, I can testify, still has a job. Heck, we have even allowed fans of France's health care system to write now and then!

It's a shame Chait's interest in exposing the murky ties between deep-pocketed philanthropists and opinion magazines is not sufficient to motivate a Google search, since there's so much promising material to be mined, for instance, when cross-checking The New Republic and the Kaiser Family Foundation. Though I suppose it's more fun inventing phony pay-to-play theories about the magazine you don't understand than examining the real paid-propaganda record of the magazine you work for.

Joseph Nye pitches his next Libya story

To sum up: The New Republic's Jonathan Chait contends, falsely, that "the Kochs will happily put their money behind candidates and intellectuals who agree with their economic agenda but disagree with their social agenda. They will never put their money behind candidates or intellectuals of whom the reverse is true." When informed of his error, Chait contends, falsely, that Ron Bailey (typical of a Koch-whore!) thinks "corporations should be able to pollute the commons with harmful greenhouse gases at no cost whatsoever." When informed of his error, Chait contends, falsely, that Bailey (typical of a Koch-whore!) is a "fierce foe of any carbon rationing policy" who opposes "any plan to price carbon emissions."

Given this track record, I am more than confident that Chait will respond to this latest corrective not with the journalistic impulse of agonizing over how he could have ever written a single word that isn't true, but rather with the hack's reflex of commenting on the tone and even imagined mental background of the rebuttal. What a way to go through life.

UPDATE: Sure enough, Chait has responded without one word about his serial errors of fact, other than insisting that a carbon tax does not qualify as "a carbon pricing scheme that stood some plausible chance of legislative success." An "A" for effort, surely.

Advertisement

NEXT: Happy 10th Birthday to Spiked Online!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Who’s Jonathan Chait, and why should I care?

    1. Nobody. And you shouldn’t. But it’s still fun to point out the intellectual bankruptcy of the opposition.

    2. Damn it, you beat me to it.

    3. He’s a writer for a magazine in such dire straits that you have to pay them for the privilege of commenting on their blog.

      1. So their two commenters are Jean Garafalo and Michael Moore?

  2. Koch-a-Kola.

    1. …or is it pronounced “cock-a-cola”?

      1. Maybe kotch-a-cola.

        1. It is, indeed, “Coke”.

          1. I think all the different Koch families need to get together and decide one way to pronounce that name. Cook, Coke, Kok, Kahtch…it’s so confusing…let’s pick one and go with it for e’erbody.

            Here’s my vote for pronouncing ALL Kochs as “Smith”.

    2. Koch-aine. Unoriginal, but good enough for me.

  3. Strong post.

    1. I, for one, am outraged.

  4. Unfunny Partisan Jackass Acts Like an Unfunny Partisan Jackass.

    More at 11:00.

  5. At this point, Matt would be more than qualified in teabagging Chait. Literally.

    :::claps:::

    1. Teabagging? What is this, 1998? Go with a gorilla mask.

      1. That’s gonna be a problem. I laser. It’s like a turtle shell down there.

        1. It’s funny every time!

          1. GRR RANDROID SMASH! RANDROID OBSESSED! EPISIARCH WOULD BE FLATTERED IF EPISIARCH CARED! ARRGHH GRR!

            1. IF EPISIARCH CARED!

              You do care, evidently.

      2. He should reverse space-dock him.

      3. Matt’s old school, man. You gotta respect.

        1. Matt’s from the school they tore down to build the old school. Reckanize.

      4. NO, give him a Rusty Venture.

        1. With the perfect Italian leather ankle boots to complete the ensemble.

  6. Give him a break, Matt. It must be hard to go through life being that intellectually dishonest.

    The Koches are literally liberals’ boogeymen at this point. As Balko pointed out, they serve the same purpose Soros does for the right, and any evidence to the contrary (ACLU (?) donations, cancer donations) will be happily disregarded.

    1. If the Kochs are donating to cancer they truly are as evil as the left claims!

      1. I donate to Big Tumor every year.

    2. It must be hard to go through life being that intellectually dishonest.

      Only if you have any self-respect.

    3. The Koches are literally liberals’ boogeymen at this point.

      I get absolutely no love anymore. Except from my ballbusting Chinese wife.

  7. Kochs’ giving is motivated primarily by a desire to avoid environmental regulation on their factories.

    Three reasons to give bucks
    1.Tax deductions
    2.prestige
    3.Influence to make more

    Reason is not prestigious. So It is tax-deductible and more money

  8. Kochs’ giving is motivated primarily by a desire to avoid environmental regulation on their factories.

    Three reasons to give bucks
    1.Tax deductions
    2.prestige
    3.Influence to make more

    Reason is not prestigious. So It is tax-deduct and more money

  9. Kochs’ giving is motivated primarily by a desire to avoid environmental regulation on their factories.

    Three reasons to give bucks
    1.Tax deductions
    2.prestige
    3.Influence to make more

    Reason is not prestigious. So It is tax-deductible and + money

  10. Matt, the fact that you and Ronald Bailey haven’t been fired as a result of all this just PROVES how deep the Kochspiracy goes! What brilliant reverse-psychology.

    Chait is clearly on to something. One day we’ll figure out what it is.

    OK, back to divining secret messages from the back side of highway signs….

    /tinfoil

    1. Note how much Chait’s reasoning is exactly like a Truther’s or other conspiracy theorist. Exactly.

      1. Ah, I see Epi gets it – see you “at the meeting” tonight…

        *gives knowing look*

        1. Tonight…you.

  11. Three reasons to give bucks
    1.Tax deductions
    2.prestige
    3.Influence to make more

    Reason is not prestigious. So It’s tax-deduct + money

  12. Kochs’ giving is motivated primarily by a desire to avoid environmental regulation on their factories.

    Three reasons to give bucks
    1.Tax deductions
    2.prestige
    3.Influence to make more

    Reason is not prestigious. Do It is tax-deductible and more money

  13. This is why we need to bring back dueling, though that pussy Chait would probably run for the hills and his second would have to do the deed or take the bullet.
    why do you guys even respond to asshats like him anyway? C’mon Matt, its obvious that he’s disingenuous.

  14. Reasons to give bucks
    1.Tax deductions
    2.prestige
    3.Influence to make more

    Reason is not prestigious. It is tax-deductible and more money

  15. ABC of giving
    A.Tax deductions
    B.prestige
    C.Influence to make more

    Reason is not prestigious. It is tax-deductible and more money

    1. A. Do you have a blog where I can learn more?
      B. Do you have a full set of chromosomes?

      1. OK, that right there made me shoot a little Mt Dew out my nostrils…

      2. rectal has one more chromosome than you, dude! That’s better, right?

        1. Moar is better. Everyone knows that.

          Have you seen rectal’s very nice hat?

          1. She brings home the bacon.

            1. Fries it up in a pan.

              1. Then eats it in the bathroom with the shower running so her roommate won’t hear her sobbing.

                1. Then eats it in the bathroom with the shower running so her roommate [cats] won’t hear her sobbing.

              2. What the hell was the product pitched in that commercial? Maja-something?

                1. Enjoli perfume.

                  1. Ah. I remember that commercial pretty well, though I guess I didn’t catch the name.

                    1. To be fair, it is a pretty stupid name. “The 8 Hour Perfume; or I-Can-Stink-Like-A-Whore-All-Day Juice”

                    2. How about B?kon Putain as an alternative?

                    3. The unfortunate thing is that so many people associate the song with that commercial. Peggy Lee did a great version of it way before that crappy perfume ever existed.

        2. If you’re going to say that, how could you not link to this?

          1. …even if it was referenced in the comments…

        3. About half an hour after posting, I thought “it could be Klinefelter’s syndrome though…”

    2. You know that for every $100 you give to charity you can get at most $35 back from the IRS, right? This is hardly a get-rich-quick scheme. It’s not even a great stay-rich-longer scheme or a get-poor-less-slowly scheme.

      And prestige and influence? Seriously? For prestige you pick higher profile charities and you make a bigger stink about it. For influence you don’t spend money writing to a tiny fraction of the voters who are responsible for not reading the bookshelves of federal regulation, you spend money on the lobbyists who are responsible for writing those regulations.

      1. Thinking … how does it work?

      2. lol you haven’t a clue

    3. Ho-hum. You know, I may kick myself in the ass later for saying this but, after reading rather’s posts, I kind of miss Max’s witty repartee.

      1. ARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARF

      2. You seem to have an obsession sticking things up your ass

  16. Bailey finding religion on global warming is right on the Reason Foundation’s Wikipedia page…

    “But in 2005, Reason magazine’s science writer Ronald Bailey wrote a column declaring that climate change is both real and man-made. He wrote, “Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up. All data sets?satellite, surface, and balloon?have been pointing to rising global temperatures.”[22]

    In 2006, Bailey wrote an article titled “Confessions of an Alleged ExxonMobil Whore: Actually no one paid me to be wrong about global warming. Or anything else.”[23] In the article Bailey explains how and why he changed his mind on climate change.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R…..ate_change

    There are a couple of interesting points here.

    1) Chait not making an ass of himself was as easy as looking at Wiki on the Reason Foundation.–but he couldn’t do it!

    2) When Bailey was wrong about something, he publicly admitted it–which to my eye puts Bailey head and shoulders above Chait.

    Now’s your chance to be like Bailey, Chait! …if you can.

    Admit you were wrong, move on and be done with it.

    1. I’m telling you – that’s just more cleverness by Bailey to cover up the Kochspiracy. [Allegedly] changing his mind about teh GLOBAL WARMING! Sheer, evil genius…and a coverup for the work he’s doing on behalf of the Kochtopus.

      Chait will help us get to the bottom of this nefarious…nefariousness…oh yes….

    2. I think Bailey is wrong about his change of heart. There is no way to know if any climate fluctuation is man-made. Climate is a complex chaotic system with many inputs that we aren’t even close to being able to quantify. Any suggestions as to what makes it move, or specific predictions about any particular region of the world more than a few months into the future are just educated guesses.

      While I disagree with Bailey on this point, that doesn’t mean I’m going to rabidly attack him or ignore what he has to say.

      1. Instead of “rabid attacks”, I believe we should now say “rabbit attacks.” In honor of Monty Python’s contributions to our culture.

        1. Wabbit season!

          1. I see that you are a Fuddian.

            1. You insolent loaf, I’m a Bugsian.

              Splitter!

              1. Cook! Bring me my hossenfeffer!

                1. I love that one. It’s hasenpfeffer when you’re placing your order, however.

        2. “Instead of “rabid attacks”, I believe we should now say “rabbit attacks.” In honor of Monty Python’s contributions to our culture.”

          And Jimmy Carter’s.

          1. Indeed!

      2. “When informed of his error, Chait contends, falsely, that Bailey (typical of a Koch-whore!) is a “fierce foe of any carbon rationing policy” who opposes “any plan to price carbon emissions.”

        Just for the record?

        I’ve read most of what’s been posted by staff on Hit & Run every day–for about eight years.

        I’m not exactly in the Tea Party–not libertarian enough for me–but I support their reaction to the bailouts (both by Obama and Bush the Lesser) and their apparent reaction to overspending…

        …and if I could change one thing about America today? I’d get rid of all federal corporate, income and capital gains taxes–and replace them all with a hefty tax on carbon emissions.

        Even if global warming were a hoax, I’d rather tax carbon emissions than productive activity anyway!

        How’s Chait explain Kochtopus victims like me?!

        Again, I think the left–especially the Progressive left–hates us libertarians more for finding out that we’re to the left of them on a variety of issues.

        They’re supposed to be to left of us–but we’re to the left of them, and they hate us for it! How would you feel if you went public for being all in on environmentalism–and were exposed by the little libertarians…?

        There’s nothing as silly as environmentalist crusaders who refuse to back environmental reform if it means they can’t redistribute our income anymore.

        We could have punitive taxes on carbon emissions if they’d agree to eliminate corporate and income taxes–never stop laughing at them for it.

        1. The Progressive left hates us libertarians more for finding out that we’re to the left of them on a variety of issues. They’re supposed to be to left of us–but we’re to the left of them, and they hate us for it!

          Don’t hate us because we’re narcissists!

        2. It’s an intellectual exercise, of course, but still it may need to be said as a reminder that programs to tweak the system in your favored direction would never turn the way you intend. The bureaucrats come from an entirely different mindset than you. Given the power to tax and regulate carbon emissions, they’ll find ways to play favorites, and adopt policy that is more on the lines of their collective goals of replacing the world they were born in to one more reflecting their values. Better to kill the system altogether than allow yourself to be persuaded towards its rationality.

          1. “Given the power to tax and regulate carbon emissions, they’ll find ways to play favorites, and adopt policy that is more on the lines of their collective goals of replacing the world they were born in to one more reflecting their values. Better to kill the system altogether than allow yourself to be persuaded towards its rationality.

            Just like they do with tax policy today. Of course! They’ll do the same thing with a carbon tax…

            Would you rather they horsetraded on any activity that produces income or profit? …or that they were relatively limited to horsetrading on carbon?

            It’s not as if the things you’re talking about aren’t happening already on a huge scale–taxing income and making it more expensive to hire unemployed people is stupid policy. We could get rid of that.

            The state isn’t going away tomorrow, and they’ll be taxing something. …unintended consequences is no reason to keep harmful tax policy the way it is.

            Why discourage investment, initiative, raising people’s pay, or profitable activity–when we could just discourage carbon emissions instead?

            Any tax on carbon sufficient enough to make a dent in the problem–as they see it–would crush our economy unless we made cuts in all other taxes to offset those carbon taxes…

            And any Progressive who says the environment isn’t worth saving if it means we have to cut taxes everywhere else? Cares more about redistributing income than they care about the environment.

            Pointing out that fact leaves Progressives sputtering–it’s like kryptonite for Progressives.

            We should use it. Progressives won’t get rid of the income tax–not even to save the baby seals! Those hateful bastards.

            1. Underneath your quite logical post is the assumption that by dueling in a tit for tat fashion with the socialist, you have a chance of winning. Excuse me, but exposing their fallacies has not slowed them down in the least.

              Better to make a straight forward case for wiping out federal corporate and personal income and capital gains taxes, or reducing them significantly to the American people than to have your case obfuscated by a brawl over unnecessary trade offs that are after all, even if it did somehow go your way, would have the taxman perusing a fiction.

              1. pursuing a fiction dang autocorrect!

        3. Again, I think the left–especially the Progressive left–hates us libertarians more for finding out that we’re to the left of them on a variety of issues.

          Indeed. I think that Penn Jillette summed it up best:

          I am so much more socially liberal than Olbermann will ever be. You can’t believe how pro gay and pro freedom of speech I am. I’m way out beyond anyone on the Left. And as for fiscal conservatism and small government, I’m so much further to the right than Glenn Beck. Nobody is further left and further right than me. As I’m fond of saying, if you want to find utopia, take a sharp right on money and a sharp left on sex and it’s straight ahead.

        4. Now if libertarians just stopped defending the corporate legal structure/limited liability the same way they stopped defending the legal structure of marriage, we could really own the progressive Left. I’ve never met a single person on the Left who can make a compelling response to the argument that big business is a result of government barriers to entry on small business thanks to the Left, rent-seeking by big business enabled by the establishment, and the moral hazard created by limited liability, which Adam Smith warned against in his case for laissez faire. Tony’s unwillingness to challenge this argument, which I make repeatedly, is the perfect example.

          The fact is that the Left is not progressive – they are inept paternalists who pride themselves on their good intentions while they manipulate and condescend to the poor by keeping just enough food on their table, and they block any permanent routes out of poverty like school choice and entrepreneurship for people with minimal capital and without professional licensing.

          1. “…they manipulate and condescend to the poor by keeping just enough food on their table, and they block any permanent routes out of poverty like school choice and entrepreneurship for people with minimal capital and without professional licensing.”

            And all in the name of progress!

  17. The screwball picture is no longer animated.

    CANSUL MY SUBKRIPSHUN

    1. I’ll drink to that!

  18. OK, anyone – what the fuck is rather saying here? Any translators online now? No? It’s OK, I don’t really want to know…

    1. Dude, just incif the retarded tramp. You’ll be glad you did. Besides, it doesn’t stop you from hurling insults at her.

    2. something about kosher dills I suspect

  19. Is Chait the guy who keeps calling us glibertarians, or is that some other hack?

    1. A lot of that emanates from BallonJuice. And I suspect a lot of our trolls do as well. I hope John Cole dies of cancer of the jackass.

      1. The Balloon Juice geniuses troll Radley’s site as well. They are as stupid and partisan as you would expect.

        1. Wow. Trolling a site dedicated to ending police abuse. Talk about vermin.

          1. It’s all about TEAM BLUE, baby!

            1. That never gets old! Or this:

              GRR RANDROID SMASH! RANDROID OBSESSED! EPISIARCH WOULD BE FLATTERED IF EPISIARCH CARED! ARRGHH GRR!

              I laugh every time! Keep up the good work.

  20. Is there any level of embarrassment that can cause a hack like Chait to say “ok, I was wrong” or will he continue to squirm and struggle to pretend he isn’t a liar and a scumbag?

    1. not at all. they lack the self-awareness to be wrong

      1. Are you saying they are some sort of automatron? Some kind of mechanical man? Brent Spiner?

        1. THE ONLY WAY TO WIN IS NOT TO PLAY

          1. Or whatever the fucking quote was. Fuck you, Ferris Bueller.

            1. No, no, it was D.A.R.Y.L., you moron.

              1. A.W.E.S.O.M.-O: Um… Okay, how about this: Adam Sandler is like in love with some girl, but it turns out that the girl is actually a golden retreiever or something.
                Mitch: Oh! Perfect!
                Executive: We’ll call it “Puppy Love”!

                1. I want credit for the D.A.R.Y.L. reference, Warty. Give it to me or perish.

                    1. Number 5…is alive?

                  1. is that the one with Mrs. Bueller or was that Flight of The Navigator?

        2. Brent Spiner is infinitely cooler than Chait, but you’re on the right track. TEAM COLOR FTW!!!1!eleventy!

    2. Nope! He’ll just continue being Chait until he undergoes a full Horowitz and changes teams!

  21. Reason v. Chait! Chait v. Reason! More, more, more, more! Except that I won’t be reading any of it.

    1. That’s just crushing, Alan. You know we hang on the edge of our seats about what you read and what you don’t. Can you read?

      1. If he could, he’d be reviewing books instead of films.

    2. Except, apparently, this bit.

    3. Why hasn’t someone delenda-ed Vanneman by now? You fucking slackers make me ill.

      1. Who would review episodes of Glee for us? What about that country singer movie with Leighton Meester and Gwyneth Paltrow? We need Alan for these things.

    4. Unfortunately, that won’t stop you from commenting on it.

  22. Well done, my friend!

  23. The assumption behind this is that Chait is particularly interested in being right. This is a political guy. It’s about points scoring, not actual arguments.

    And from that perspective he’s “won”, in the sense that all the people who read TNR now think he’s won. They’re not going to click over here and read this. If the dude ever bothers to respond, I’ll be stunned.

    At some point the internet as a whole needs to learn to just swear off responding to certain people who publish columns the same way they swear off responding to trolls. Of course said people will scream about “intellectual closed minded” or whatever, but it should be fairly clear some people are not bringing anything to the debate.

    1. It would be nice for these more public trolls to be tracked in their inanity. Showing over time that they always take a partisan position and, more importantly, showing that their positions are often fundamentally inconsistent over time would be useful.

      Same deal for politicians. If the media were worth a shit (collectively speaking), a politician who makes 180? changes would be mercilessly beaten about each change in the press.

      1. I actually disagree here. Part of the problem is that people are so unwilling to have been wrong. 180 degree changes should be welcomed, provided the changer say the words, “I was fucking wrong before,” and not be allowed to pretend his current view is consistent with his old view.

        1. No, no, I’m not suggesting a pillorying for people who change their mind for a good reason. I just think the change in position should be called out. Honest changes can be explained and defended.

          Let’s be honest–well over 90% of such changes aren’t factually justifiable. Well, at least, with facts that aren’t purely about political point scoring.

    2. swear off responding to trolls

      It’ll never happen. Narcissists need trolls, and vice versa. It’s a symbiotic relationship.

  24. Well, I’ve only been editor for three years, but my next phone call or e-mail from anyone named Koch will be the first of my tenure. David Koch is the only member of the Reason Foundation’s Board of Trustees I have not met.

    Matt, that’s how shadowy cabals work. Unless Hollywood has been lying to me all these years, you don’t meet the PrimeMover until you’re getting whacked.

    1. So, you’ve only met his minions, Matt. The fact that Koch doesn’t even need to talk to the editors just proves that the Kochs own Reason down to the floor cleaner in the hall closet.

      1. by not meeting him, he means he kept his eyes closed

    2. You will see me one more time if you do good. You will see me two more times if you do bad.

  25. Bailey sure comes in handy when Reason feels the need to defend their relationship with the Kochs.

    1. Your Mamma!

    2. Too bad they let Dave Weigel go, he would have been useful for that purpose as well.

      1. Don’t knock Weigel. He and I have a great working relationship. He pays me money and I let him lick my ass clean.

  26. Matt, don’t feed the trolls. I counted five links in the first graf to other Reason pieces on Chait. To him, the most unbearable response would be silence.

  27. That’s all fine, but the hardest punches Chait landed in the post in question were not about global warming, but health care. To wit:

    “He [Bailey] also points out that his article called the individual mandate a “second-best” alternative to an anarcho-utopia in which people without insurance get hit by cars and are denied medical care in the emergency room.”

    Ouch. Seems like you should be quick to rebut that, and not just fussing over whether a carbon tax got brought up in an old conference room transcript.

    1. Bailey himself completely decimated that charge last week.

      It’s in the H&R archives. Go look it up.

      1. Er …

        Chait’s post was from yesterday, March 7th. The post you are talking about from Bailey is from March 4th. So I think that would be impossible, absent time-travel.

        And Bailey’s post did not address, let alone “decimate,” the matter of denial of care, which is the subject of Chait’s accusation quoted above.

        1. Plenty of hospitals treated patients who couldn’t pay for treatment before Medicaid existed.

          1. Thank you for the random observation.

            1. What was the subject of Chait’s accusation posted above?

              1. Specifically, whether an accident victim would be assured ER care or not.

                1. Nothing is ever assured, Danny. Even when enshrined in law. Except, of course, death and taxes.

                  1. Thank you for the metaphysical cosmic perspective.

                    All the same, I’ll stick with what we have going here, ever mindful that the zombie uprising could take it all away tomorrow.

                    1. You look good with the clown nose on. Do you also host a fake news show?

        2. You cant force someone to give you service withoug slavery. You expect Bailey to defend slavery?

          1. The issue is not some generic duty-to-assist law. The issue is accredited medical facilities staffed by accredited medical professionals.

            You start throwing the “slavery” word around like Rand-Speak and you forfeit, hoser.

            1. Bullshit.

              Any business can serve or not serve any customers as they see fit. Any other requirement is fucking slavery.

              1. ^This. Unfortunately, passing the CRA kinda opened the can of worms (necessarily at the time) of being unable to deny certain customers.

                Somehow a convenient store can say “No shirt, no shoes, no service” but a hospital can’t say “We’ll treat you if you can pay.” Fucking hypocrisy.

              2. Ah, another Rand-boy who sheds a tear for the loss of the whites-only Woolworth lunch counter. You go with that, bro’ and see how far it gets ya.

                1. Im not an objectivist. You are a moron.

                  1. I said that you are a “Rand-boy.”

                    That could be Ayn.

                    …or…

                    That could be Paul.

                    Either way, you are the bigger moron.

                    1. I said that you are a “Rand-boy.” That could be Ayn….or…That could be Paul…

                      …or McNally. Or Remington.

            2. Also, fuck accreditation.

              1. Yeah. Knowing that, if I get rushed to the nearest ER, the doc in attendance actually passed med school — what a horrendous deadweight loss to the free market system.

                How do you people even get 2% at the ballot?

                  1. Drink!

                    That’s funny every time!

            3. “You start throwing the “slavery” word around like Rand-Speak and you forfeit, hoser”

              You don’t make the rules of the game.

              1. Who does, then?

                I make the rules as much as anybody else.

                You don’t like ’em, find another thread.

                1. The rules are: prove me wrong.

                  If forcing someone to work for you against their will isnt slavery, prove it.

                  1. Nah. We’ll start with the burden of proof on you.

                    Ready.
                    Set.
                    Go!

                    1. Sure, no problem:

                      Axiom: I own myself.

                      Proof follows obviously.

                    2. “Forcing someone to give you service” and “forcing someone to work for you” are not the same.

                      Coercion and slavery are not the same.

                    3. “Forcing someone to give you service” and “forcing someone to work for you” are not the same.

                      Coercion and slavery are not the same.

                    4. Coercion and force are not the same either.

                2. That’s very libertarian of you.

                3. Find another one yourself.

                  You aren’t the thread policeman either.

            4. You are nothing to Danny!

              NOOOOOOTHIIIIIING!!!!!!

              Tool.

            5. Oh, and I hope you’re on your lunch break, you fucking leech.

              1. I get confused when the replies stop tabbing over from the margin. I’m not sure who is responding to what anymore.

          2. Not to defend Danny but you’re going to have to do better than that to answer his argument.

            a.) Accredited doctors voluntarily take the Hippocratic Oath (which is not legally binding) to serve all in medical need, regardless of need as long as their lives are not in immediate danger. It’s seen as an expected moral code for physicians, although in practice physicians realize they need to charge for as much as they can to stay in business.

            b.) Although the law does say medical providers must provide service regardless of ability to pay, doctors (the individuals) are not forced to be doctors.

            More accurately it is government interference with private contracts, which happens in almost every industry.

            The proper counter-argument is that it creates a moral hazard to pay for those who can’t pay, causing costs go up for everyone else, disproportionately for the middle class with insurance. In a free market, costs would be lower, and some combination of private charity, local public hospitals (depending on the community), voluntary taxation, wealthy donors, compassionate doctors, medical intern/nurse/pharmacist-assisted care, low cost cash clinics, cheap catastrophic insurance, etc. could more than cover the poor, especially when you figure that taxes would be minimal, need is more obvious and people have more money to give. Government action guts voluntarism, which is almost always preferable.

            1. regardless of need ability to pay

            2. I really need to respond to this. I agree with you Hobo. When I was 25 I had an enlarged prostate. I went to a doctor and only had to pay $40 (it pays to shop around). I had an infection of the prostrate and needed an antibiotic that would cost me $110 a pill. He gave me what “Big Pharma” gave him for a promo… for free. That is the Hippcratic Oath. The Gov would have not done the same. Taxpayers would have paid instead.

        3. “Chait’s post was from yesterday, March 7th. The post you are talking about from Bailey is from March 4th. So I think that would be impossible, absent time-travel.”

          Bailey prefers non-mandates to mandates, but if we’re gonna have mandates? Then Bailey prefers a capitalist system with mandates to socialized medicine with mandates…

          If Chait was accusing Bailey of supporting mandates last week, and now this week (in response to Bailey’s post on the 4th) if he’s accusing Bailey of not supporting any mandates?

          Then I don’t see why Bailey should bother answering the phone every time Chait calls up with another stupid accusation…

          Chait has already publicly humiliated himself twice to my eye–at some point Bailey starts doing Chait a favor by ignoring him.

  28. Chait is on the Koch payroll as the dull-witted, mouth breathing rube, whose insipid arguments are dispatched easier than Glass Joe, right? RIGHT?

    1. I’m pretty sure everyone except me is on the Koch payroll, paid to play their bit parts in the grand overarching plot to make me miserable.

  29. Someone needs to read himself up on some public choice theory.

    1. Danny or Chait? Either way, it would be over their heads.

  30. Back in the paleolithic era before the internet, morons like Chait were strictly controlled by editors so the world would have no idea how dumb they actually were. Now thanks to the wonders of the intertubes, we understand just how dumb the typical journalist or political comentator actually is.

    1. I’m not sure it was any better back then.

      Back then? People didn’t fact check your stuff. If it was printed back then? People believed it.

      People used to spend hundreds of dollars on encyclopedias. Just because we couldn’t fact check people’s work back then doesn’t necessarily mean their work was any better…

      Maybe it was just easier to get away with it.

  31. You’ve got a lot of quotes here – some of them are on point, some of them aren’t.

    Chait’s point is not that Reason always trumpets the Koch line … far from it. It is that you will abandon previously held positions as they edge toward political reality.

    1. Chait doesn’t know what the “Koch line”
      is to begin with.

      And he’s no authority on what constitutes “political reality” either.

  32. Chait has posted yet another response in this go-round.

    Aren’t you guys in the same city?

    You should have a taped face-to-face sit-down and cross-post it on your respective blogs. Clear the air already. This turn-based-duel-of-the-written-blog-posts is sooo 2003.

  33. Coercion and force are not the same either.

    Except for self-defense, I’m pretty sure they are.

    1. Huh. I kind of looked at it like the diff between a nudger and a nanny. But I guess not.

    2. Fraud is not force (without considerable definition-stretching), but is usually considered coercion.

  34. The update is like: zziinng!!!

    Once again, The People’s Front of Judea delivers a devastating blow to The Judean People’s Front.

  35. 03/08/2011 – 2:31pm EDT | Fishpeddler
    “Anyone who kicks off their attack by calling Chait “unfunny” loses their cred right there, full stop.”
    Keep in mind, Jonas, that Chaitt has never drowned a puppy, so to a conservative he may be unfunny by definition.

    It’s terrifying that this place has one of the best commentariats around.

    1. Warty 3.8.11 @ 4:57PM

      It’s terrifying that this place has one of the best commentariats around.

      What the fuck happened?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.