Progressives

Progress Through State Violence or Smaller Government?

Progressives can't imagine progress without government force

|

Obamacare! The War on Drugs! A War on Poverty! Prohibition! The idea that government will bring social progress isn't new. 

Europe's monarchs believed in big government long before there was a Soviet Union or a welfare state. Eighteenth-century philosopher Voltaire praised "enlightened" monarchs like Prussia's Frederick the Great. Since the nineteenth century, so-called "progressives" have wanted government to get ever larger. They got their wish. The results were not so good for people.

Today pundits and protesters moan about fiscal "austerity" in nations like Greece. But if austerity means cuts in government, there hasn't been much of it. 

Sure, Greece cut spending, but only by 3 percent. One in four Greek workers still works for government (vs. one in seven in the U.S.). Greek politicians run government "businesses" that employ politicians' cronies. In other words, Greece has barely begun what I would call austerity. 

Paul Krugman deceitfully trashes real cuts and writes that he wants to see "some example, somewhere, of austerity policies that succeeded." 

But there are plenty. The Cato Institute's Chris Edwards and Dan Mitchell discussed some at FreedomFest, a giant gathering of people who care about free markets held last week in Las Vegas. Mitchell points out that Ireland, New Zealand, Sweden, Canada and the Netherlands cut government spending and were quicker to recover from economic problems. 

In the mid-90s, Canada was going broke, so the government cut its budget by about 10 percent. The growth that followed allowed Canada to cut its debt dramatically—from about 68 percent of GDP to 28 percent. During that same decade, unemployment shrank. Canada's economy grew faster than that of every other G7 nation. Good things happened not because government spent more, but because it spent less.

The U.S. contains its own version of the Greek debt crisis in the form of Puerto Rico. 

A recent island governor tried to cut Puerto Rico's bloated government. Luiz Fortuno fired thousands of workers and made it easier to open a business. The economy improved. But firing workers isn't popular. Fortuno lost the next election and his successor increased spending and raised taxes. Of course that didn't work. Now Puerto Rico can't pay its $70 billion debt. 

"Are there any success stories based on tax hikes or bigger government? The answer is no," warns Mitchell. 

Progressives pretend they have a technical fix for problems. On a national level, their fixes always involve giving more power to Washington, D.C. That soothes the left, since they love the idea of centralizing decision-making. 

For a while, around the start of the twentieth century, technology advanced while government grew. Intellectuals thought the two things must go hand in hand. Government electrified rural areas! It can do anything! 

Well, government can do some things, mostly expensive, obvious things, like building interstate highways, guarding borders and going to war—though government doesn't do those things efficiently. Almost all its projects end up way over budget and behind schedule. 

"Centralization of government spending in Washington over the past century has severely undermined good governance," argues Edwards on the site he edits, DownsizingGovernment.org. "Citizens get worse outcomes when funding and decision-making for education, infrastructure and other things are made by the central government rather than state and local governments and the private sector." 

Politicians rarely notice the millions of tiny opportunities for people to make progress via new inventions and smarter ways of doing things—the new app, the robotics start-up, the do-it-yourself metalworking printer. 

Instead, politicians' limited imaginations lean toward big government-run projects like building bigger airports (needed or not), more welfare and micromanaging every private workplace. 

"Politicians and lobby groups constantly complain that America does not spend enough," writes Edwards. "But they rarely discuss how to ensure efficiency in (government) spending, or cite any advantages of federal spending over state, local and private spending."

Government shovels more money into its big, dumb projects and pretends to build the future. But our future is more likely to be built by thousands of entrepreneurs who make the countless contributions that quietly improve our lives. 

COPYRIGHT 2015 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

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.

85 responses to “Progress Through State Violence or Smaller Government?

  1. Reason has published this bullshit before

    “In the mid-90s, Canada was going broke, so the government cut its budget by about 10 percent. ? Good things happened not because government spent more, but because it spent less.”

    They also killed thousands of Canadians.

    In 2005, their “Medicare” was ruled an unconstitutional threat to human life, citing all the Canadians dying on waiting lists of a year or more. Chaoulli v Quebec, was a man who needed a hip replacement but was told he’d have to wait a year or more (in intense pain)

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/…..n-1.547692

    Their federal government was already under a court order to increase healthcare spending by our equivalent of a half-trillion dollars over ten years, to reduce waiting time and increase diagnostic testing. That too traced to the budget cuts mentioned here (which screwed the provinces)

    My point? A libertarian campaigning on the Canadian lie would have his balls cut off. With a dull blade.

    Likewise, the “postwar boom despite massive spending cuts” is also bullshit (claimed by Gillespie and also a Reason print story that included the Canadian lie.). The print story was bad enough to suggest intentional fraud.

    We have our goobers like everyone else, but most libertarians are adults. We can handle the truth We neither want not need tribal pandering

    1. lol wat

      So, Libertarians should instead oppose cuts to govt spending? I’d think there’s valid Libertarian arguments for slashing govt spending regardless of whether it induces societal prosperity.

      1. So, Libertarians should instead oppose cuts to govt spending?

        Did you say that in public?

        I’d think there’s valid Libertarian arguments for slashing govt spending regardless of whether it induces societal prosperity.

        With no fucking clue how to achieve them. And why would you defend total bullshit?

        The more intelligent approach is to combine spending cuts with tax cuts — as Reagan proposed, but buried in a Republican Congress. Then he wanted a line item veto … over his own party.

        America’s dumbass right thinks they can cut spending and create prosperity, based on obvious bullshit. Before today’s goober libertarians, classical libertarians promoted “competing governments” to make all levels of government DIRECTLY accountable to taxpayers. But that’s not as sexy as a Ron or Rand Paul braying like jackasses about BIG spending cuts that will never happen.

        If you “want” to make big spending cuts, Reason will lionize you regardless of how stupid your “plan” is. Fundraising and exciting the base now ranks higher than actually governing and achieving anything, for even libertarians now, making our tribe no better than the other two.

        It’s been over 30 years since Reagan failed to get the largest peacetime spending cuts in history through a REPUBLICAN congress. Why are we such slow learners? Bullshit gets more readers and raises more money.

        1. America’s dumbass right thinks they can cut spending and create prosperity, based on obvious bullshit.

          Government spending can crowd out private investment or lead to excessive monetary inflation, both of which are obviously deleterious to prosperity. Curtailing said spending isn’t a terrible idea.

          1. Government spending can crowd out private investment or lead to excessive monetary inflation, both of which are obviously deleterious to prosperity.

            memorized sound bite (yawn)

            Curtailing said spending isn’t a terrible idea.

            If done properly, instead of the bullshit you’re defending. You also state here that human lives are mere “political chips” if the cuts cause people to die (as in Canada, England and our own Medicaid).

            https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_5442520

            Would Rand Paul ampaign on your idea?

    2. Michael,

      Either I don’t understand your point or I misread the article for which you provided a link. If I understood the article correctly, the Canadian government was preventing individuals who were waiting for government-covered treatments from buying private insurance so that they could receive medical treatment right away rather wait in queues.

      This seems to contradict what I took to be one of your main points, not support them.

      1. If mandatory government healthcare is a threat to human life, I would think less of it would be an improvement, not more.

        1. I think your “If A then B” argument is sound.

          1. Not sure where Hihn was trying to go with that (though obviously the idiot thought he was making a point against libertarianism and personal responsibility). Canada couldn’t pay for their bloated welfare state, so the court was going to wave a magic wand and make it happen? huh?

            1. Well, they can force Canada to take on more debt again, apparently. That’s the sort of ruling that makes the American Supreme Court look like a bunch of King Solomon’s. Now Canada’s debt has doubled as the idiots and is back at half the GDP. Spending increases are outpacing economic growth.

              In a word, the left that loves the word sustainability so much should consider it with economics. But they’d rather declare things like healthcare to be rights despite what a bastardization of the word that is.

              1. Brochettaward
                Well, they can force Canada to take on more debt again, apparently.

                One more mindless goober. The rest is babble.

                How could so many goobers miss the point, which was stated as:

                (from original, emphasis added)
                My point? A libertarian campaigning on the Canadian lie would have his balls cut off. With a dull blade.

                Hmmmm

                My conclusion: “We have our goobers like everyone else, but most libertarians are adults. We can handle the truth We neither want not need tribal pandering”

                You can lead a goober to books, but can’t make them literate.

            2. Goober alert

              Libertarius
              Not sure where Hihn was trying to go with that

              WHoooooshed over his head, as he goes on to prove …

              (though obviously the idiot thought he was making a point against libertarianism and personal responsibility)

              Obviously? (laughing at you). Next, the REAL idiot!

              Canada couldn’t pay for their bloated welfare state, so the court was going to wave a magic wand and make it happen? huh?

              Any other idiots believe that?How many goobers suffer severe denial — like birthers and truthers — when an “inconvenient” lie is exposed? huh? Is it okay to tell fucking lies in defense of liberty (or have a credible alternative)? Is it treason to show when spending cuts have totally failed? huh?

              Yes, they are precisely that stupid! The inevitable destination of being anti-gummint instead of being pro-liberty.

              (my tone here is in defense against aggression, which also frees me to properly ridicule … the ridiculous)

          2. I think your “If A then B” argument is sound.

            But of no relevance here.

        2. If mandatory government healthcare is a threat to human life, I would think less of it would be an improvement, not more

          Read it again, Sparky.

      2. Good question. The character limit here. Spending cuts caused the long waiting times. The ruling said government CAN mandate a single-payer plan, ONLY if it’s capable of adequate and timely treatment.

        Add court-ordered reversal of the spending cuts. Diagnostic testing is another lesson denied. Canada, like the others, does MUCH less testing because the equipment is so costly. People die from cancers that were never detected. Bullshit denies us that argument too.

        This seems to contradict what I took to be one of your main points, not support them.

        Sorry if I was unclear. Point is that fucking lies is no way to increase liberty. Added now, also keeps us from learning far more useful truths.

        Bullshit denies us THE best argument against single-payer. Political healthcare means trusting politicians, if forced to choose between raising taxes and cutting benefits, will always raise our taxes! Do YOU expect taxpayers to rally for higher taxes?!

        Last year, England found MUCH greater atrocities in their healthcare. Ever read THAT? Or was it too ignored because it came from …. spending cuts?

        Do you know we spend more money (per capita) on public healthcare alone, for less than 40% of our population, than 5 industrial countries spend for their entire population? Or did you learn it now?

        Copyright 2015 by Michael J Hihn. All Rights Reserved.

        1. Copyright 2015 by Michael J Hihn. All Rights Reserved.

          Did you really just assert a ? trademark on a comments section post? Lol.

          1. Government spending can crowd out private investment or lead to excessive monetary inflation, both of which are obviously deleterious to prosperity.

            memorized sound bite (yawn)

            Curtailing said spending isn’t a terrible idea.

            If done properly, instead of the bullshit you’re defending. You also state here that it’s mere “political chips” if the cuts cause people to die (as in Canada, England and our own Medicaid). Tell Rand Paul to campaign on your idea!

          2. Did you really just assert a ? trademark on a comments section post? Lol.

            Only when I scoop the entire libertarians establishment, chump.
            Ridiculing you so many times is a bonus. THANKS!

    3. If you were actually knowledgeable about the situation here, you’d know that long wait times are not solvable by spending. It’s the fucking shortage of doctors that is the overriding problem.

      Why is there a shortage of doctors? Because many doctors don’t want to work in a system where the government dictates to them exactly how many patients they must see each hour, for how many hours each day, and even (in QC) which language they are allowed to speak to those patients in, regardless of how the patient and they feel about it. The result is that many doctors leave the province or even the country rather than be micromanaged like that. A good percentage of the ones that stay opt to work in private clinics that don’t accept government insurance.

      As usual with people of your ilk, you think it all comes down to giving the government more money to throw around and more control to exercise over everyone. It is the only solution you are allowed to consider. It’s like the guy with a hammer who perceives everything in the world as a nail.

      1. Obviously, the government just needs to force doctors to stay and provide care. Some law that limits where they can move to. And pass a law that there needs to be x number of doctors to patients.

        See? Problem solved. That way, Canadians get their right to healthcare.

      2. Just some of the damage the lies have caused

        If you were actually knowledgeable about the situation here, you’d know that long wait times are not solvable by spending. It’s the fucking shortage of doctors that is the overriding problem.

        Caused by?

        Why is there a shortage of doctors? Because many doctors don’t want to work in a system where the government dictates to them exactly how many patients they must see each hour, ….

        See HIS bullshit. Puppet on a string. I lived there, still have friends to check with, and research outside a tribal echo chamber. Next the biggest laugh of all:

        As usual with people of your ilk, you think it all comes down to giving the government more money

        Bzzzt, you lose again. These were all published roughly 20 years ago.

        http://libertyissues.com/archive.htm

        Thanks for proving my point. How much do I owe you?

        (my tone here is in defense of aggression)

        1. Is there supposed to be an actual argument in there? I don’t see it.

          No libertarian could be for government healthcare. How about you just explain that one for us?

          1. Is there supposed to be an actual argument in there? I don’t see it.

            (laughing at you) If you’d checked that link I gave you, to the proof, you MAY have avoided being a total jackass. Just a thought.

            No libertarian could be for government healthcare. How about you just explain that one for us?

            OMG they run in packs! Like all goobers, you start attacking because “I don’t need the steeeeeking proof Hihn linked me to.” Do you know what a “link” is?

            (My tone here is in defense of aggression, which also allows me to ridicule anything THAT wacky)

            1. You’re not a libertarian, you’re an incoherent fag defending a tired, bankrupt collectivist ideology on a libertarian website. Get a life dude.

          2. Out of compassion for the less fortunate, I tried his link. Silly me.

            404 Server Error – Page Not Found.

    4. Long queues do not result from lack of spending but from a demand/supply imbalance. In a free market revenue would increase with the increase in demand and solve the imbalance. But a socialist, centrally planned system cannot keep up with variations in supply and demand and will always result in perpetual shortages and gluts. This was/is a problem of ideology–not revenue.

      So, you’re for socialism, Michael?

      1. Another manipulated goober, chanting slogans

        . In a free market ….

        yada yada yada

        But a socialist, centrally planned system cannot keep up with variations in supply and demand and will always result in perpetual shortages and gluts. This was/is a problem of ideology–not revenue.

        This is how libertarian goobers react. “no problem if they’d just switch to free markets.” Their bullshit keeps them from giving people a REASON to do so .. just reciting memorized slogans and swallowing bullshit. Tribalism, a major obstacle to liberty.

        So, you’re for socialism, Michael?

        (laughing at the public fool)
        Here’s my published writing on healthcare (and taxes and governance) It’s an archive of my best, and still relevant, from 20 years ago.

        http://libertyissues.com/archive.htm.

        This is the story of the Libertarian Party. do a page search for my name, while I try to avoid wetting my shorts from laughing so hard.

        http://bit.ly/1diJC3X

        This is one reason Cato found the libertarian brand rejected by even 91% of libertarians

        (My tone here is in defense of aggression)

    5. Socialized medicine is an expensive boondoggle and it’s the Libertarians fault! Libertarians should support increased government spending and market manipulation for the goal of properly functioning, government controlled health care system!

      This is your argument, isn’t it?

      1. Woodchippers are the most gooberish of all!

        Socialized medicine is an expensive boondoggle and it’s the Libertarians fault! Libertarians should support increased government spending and market manipulation for the goal of properly functioning, government controlled health care system! This is your argument, isn’t it?

        Dumbass goober defends outright lying … if the cause is pure enough! (Hallelujah!) It’s also why we keep losing. Woodchippers are a bigger threat to libertarianism than Obama, Pelosi and Ried combined (who make fools of only themselves)
        Anyone else too retarded to see my point is we can’t advance liberty with lies and bullshit?
        Will this thug feed me feet-first or head-first into its wood chipper? Enquiring minds want to know.

        Awww geez, will we now suffer ALL the wood chippers. (-:

        (My tone is self defense against aggression. including the earned right to ridicule)

        1. Free shit = liberty!

    6. Your argument seems to be that not providing enough healthcare kills people. Our obvious argument is that if it hadn’t been socialized in the first place, this would never have been a problem, meaning that socializing it is actually what killed people: a more fundamental causal relationship.

      “When you ask ’em, how much should we give? The only answer: more more more.”
      -CCR

      1. Your argument seems to be that not providing enough healthcare kills people.

        You missed the part about using bullshit and lies.

        Our obvious argument is that if it hadn’t been socialized in the first place, this would never have been a problem, meaning that socializing it is actually what killed people: a more fundamental causal relationship.

        Ummm, are you saying we don’t NEED such crazy bullshit? If so, we agree?

    7. Hihn, you really should just label yourself a progressive and be done with it.

      Lack of government spending killed thousands of Canadians. I knew you were a moron, but you usually place a bunch of layers between your idiocy and the truth. This was basically ripping the mask off for you. I hope you learned something about yourself, at least, you fucking statist twat.

      1. Why am I able to understand Mike Hihn, & the rest of you not? He’s saying that jus because you have goods that are good but not selling so well doesn’t mean you should try to sell them by exaggerating the claims for their goodness or presenting the facts about them in a way that ignores their flaws. Merely cutting gov’t spending in Canada had benefits, but doing so w/o changes to their system of medicine also had drawbacks that lead to a policy rebound against the reform.

        I’ve brought this up in cx with spending on gov’t schools. Fortunately libertarians primarily promote policy changes to improve schooling. If we focused on spending to the exclusion of all other factors, we’d try to get some spending cuts in gov’t schools, but while everything else about how they’re run & funded stayed the same, we’d just wind up w shitty schools & a probably less efficient expenditure of $. You could similarly save $ superficially by stopping construction of a bridge that’s 80% complete. Or you could stop sending ammunition to soldiers in the field at war.

        Just because libertarians have good ideas about policy that would lead to big savings in all those areas doesn’t mean that any savings by any means would bring about good policy.

        1. You have a point (and can bring it up in an intelligible way, unlike Hihn). However, much like how the anti-open borders crowd insist that the welfare system be uprooted before you can allow more immigration, and that government must get out of marriage before it allows gay marriage, your argument has a massive problem.

          Government does “A” and the result is bad/evil. Government also does “B” and the result is bad/evil. If you undo “A” and not “B”, “B” will be worse than it now is. Should you undo “A”?

          Of course you should, as you cannot morally do “A” either way. The results may even be worse than if you didn’t stop “A”, but we aren’t Utilitarians, we have principles. If “B” gets worse, then that is an argument for destroying “B” next, not an argument to keep doing “A”.

          1. Of course you should, as you cannot morally do “A” either way. The results may even be worse than if you didn’t stop “A”, but we aren’t Utilitarians, we have principles. If “B” gets worse, then that is an argument for destroying “B” next, not an argument to keep doing “A”.

            This dilemma has a practical component to it as well. As a would-be Libertarian fiscal reformer would somehow need to scrutinize every layer of govt bureaucracy down to the local level, to assure that cuts are prioritized responsibly where they ought to be. Else you end up with entrenched bureaucrats + reform opponents swindling to cut off the more vital services instead, and then blaming the reformer ? la, “look what he/she made us do, spending cuts are bad.”

            Though given the sheer complexity of govt bureaucratic administration, this aspect is probably insurmountable from the top-down. So the only way forward would simply be to cut spending, and let the political chips fall where they may.

            1. Another one proves my point

              As a would-be Libertarian fiscal reformer would somehow need to scrutinize every layer of govt bureaucracy down to the local level, to assure that cuts are prioritized responsibly where they ought to be.

              YOU are just as bureaucratic. (lol) Simply replace it entirely, show voters in what ways it will benefit them personally. Versus your dumbfuck conclusion at the end.

              Though given the sheer complexity of govt bureaucratic administration, this aspect is probably insurmountable from the top-down. So the only way forward would simply be to cut spending, and let the political chips fall where they may.

              This is why they laugh at us. Human lives are mere “political chips” to a goober … just cut spending because the goober has no clue how to do anything without the tedious bureaucratic bullshit he invented — a laughable straw man to justify killing people — out of ignorance and incompetence.

              The same libertarian conflict for 40 years …a pro-liberty focus vs an anti-gummint focus. Do you look for policy solutions that will work better and be supported by people. Or do you look for more ways to ridicule government. mfckr can’t see liberty because its not even looking for it.

              1. This is why they laugh at us. Human lives are mere “political chips” to a goober … just cut spending because the goober has no clue how to do anything without the tedious bureaucratic bullshit he invented — a laughable straw man to justify killing people — out of ignorance and incompetence.

                Not equating human lives to political chips. Just pointing out that the accreted layers of intractable bureaucracy & political infighting within ‘the system’ will tend to grind most pro-liberty institutional reforms to a halt. Meaning there’ll have to be cuts to spending in order for actual positive change to occur.

                The same libertarian conflict for 40 years …a pro-liberty focus vs an anti-gummint focus. Do you look for policy solutions that will work better and be supported by people. Or do you look for more ways to ridicule government. mfckr can’t see liberty because its not even looking for it.

                I look at both. In brief, I think most people intuitively understand (and desire) liberty, yet a philosophical sleight of hand occurred during the Enlightenment such that people began to conceive government as liberty’s guarantor?which is a fundamentally unworkable notion. Ultimately, one can’t be pro-liberty without being anti-government.

                1. Not equating human lives to political chips.

                  Bullshit. This regarding a comment on how mindless cost-cutting has killed people.

                  So the only way forward would simply be to cut spending, and let the political chips fall where they may.

                  Even if it kills. people!

                  Just pointing out that the accreted layers of intractable bureaucracy & political infighting within ‘the system’ will tend to grind most pro-liberty institutional reforms to a halt.

                  ONE MORE TIME: DON’T CUT SPENDING, REPLACE IT.
                  AND DON’T FUCKIING LIE.

                  Ultimately, one can’t be pro-liberty without being anti-government.

                  That’s like “You can’t be a fiscal conservative without being a social conservative.” Those goobers have their excuse. Our goobers have theirs. And I can see why you defend lying.

                  Now, go back and read what I said on that!!!

                  1. Bullshit. This regarding a comment on how mindless cost-cutting has killed people.

                    You’d need to somehow prove that the spending cuts directly killed people, rather than the irresponsible bureaucracies’ misallocation of funds that killed people.

                    1. You’d need to somehow prove that the spending cuts directly killed people, rather than the irresponsible bureaucracies’ misallocation of funds that killed people.

                      A true anti-gummint goober. (laughing) Ummm,you forgot the court-ordered reversal of the spending cuts. You really do suffer denial as severe as a Birther.

                      Plus, one of your many documented lies is that you didn’t disagree with my point. Ooops. It’s sad, as you get increasingly desperate, grasping at straws.

                      What’s that have to do with the lying?

                    2. A mere court-ordered reversal of spending cuts doesn’t prove that the funds weren’t bureaucratically misallocated.

                      de jure ? de facto

                    3. (laughing) Hey, phony. You were called out to support your lie. Here:

                      https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_5443640

                      Now, ever more desperate, you presume a half-trillion dollar court order was issued … based on zero evidence!. Wow, Dude, you’ve now surpassed even the Birthers. Your stalking is increasingly pathetic. Even for a goober.

                    4. mfckr
                      A mere court-ordered reversal of spending cuts doesn’t prove that the funds weren’t bureaucratically misallocated.

                      Now you presume that a half-trillion dollar court order was issued … with no supporting evidence! Your desperation has become pitiable, even for a stalker

                    5. You’d need to somehow prove that the spending cuts directly killed people, rather than the irresponsible bureaucracies’ misallocation of funds that killed people.

                      Umm, nobody has proven the spending cuts had a net benefit., And you’ve already agreed with Robert on that part. Your desperation is actually funny. For a stalker.

          2. (yawn) One more goober disaster

            your argument has a massive problem.

            (laughing) Watch him crash and burn …

            Government does “A” and the result is bad/evil. Government also does “B” and the result is bad/evil. If you undo “A” and not “B”, “B” will be worse than it now is. Should you undo “A”?

            How many people are in each, and what it the extent of the damage before and after.?

            Of course you should, as you cannot morally do “A” either way.

            Umm, then it’s equally immoral to leave “B” Hello? Hello?

            The results may even be worse than if you didn’t stop “A”, but we aren’t Utilitarians, we have principles. Which goobers often screw up.

            If “B” gets worse, then that is an argument for destroying “B” next, not an argument to keep doing “A”.

            Speaking of goobers,
            A causes 25 people to get the flu.
            B causes 100 people to get incurable cancer, which increases to 101 when A is repealed.

            Principle: If you kill a single additional person, whats’s your fucking principle?
            Will you also defend lying about the results of your spending cuts to brainwash YOUR goobers

            What was your point????

        2. Why am I able to understand Mike Hihn, & the rest of you not? He’s saying that jus because you have goods that are good but not selling so well doesn’t mean you should try to sell them by exaggerating the claims for their goodness or presenting the facts about them in a way that ignores their flaws. Merely cutting gov’t spending in Canada had benefits, but doing so w/o changes to their system of medicine also had drawbacks that lead to a policy rebound against the reform.
          ?
          Just because libertarians have good ideas about policy that would lead to big savings in all those areas doesn’t mean that any savings by any means would bring about good policy.

          Which isn’t a bad argument, and I was tempted to infer that this is what he was really trying to say. But it’s difficult to parse that message through the near apoplectic tone of his usual rantings.

          1. Which isn’t a bad argument, and I was tempted to infer that this is what he was really trying to say. But it’s difficult to parse that message through the near apoplectic tone of his usual rantings.

            If all you can do is recognize theory, this is why you find facts-as-bullshit way over your head.

            You’re just pissed because I called it ll bullshit.
            And supported the argument. BLASPHEMY to the cult wing of the movement.

            1. Sup with all this hyperbolic posturing? Kind of ironic to see you make sweeping indictments of others being tribal ooga-boogas, but I digress?

              To clarify: I never attacked your argument, was just trying to make sense of it since you aren’t coming off coherently.

              And to a point, I agree with what Robert explained?cutting spending by itself isn’t necessarily conducive to good policy in lieu of sound reforms. But reasonable reforms to presently dysfunctional institutions aren’t going to occur without attendant cuts in spending either.

              1. Kind of ironic to see you make sweeping indictments of others being tribal ooga-boogas,

                (sigh) It’s called a supported argument, now with tons of evidence.

                but I digress?

                From more lies

                since you aren’t coming off coherently.

                Blame me because you fucked up the entire point, which was stated as: “My point? A libertarian campaigning on the Canadian lie would have his balls cut off. With a dull blade.” (emphasis added)
                So, I’m calling you out (again). In which of your responses, where do you ever ADDRESS THE POINT? (bullshitting about the effects of spending cuts)
                Robert said what I did, and quite well, but with Politically Correct speech. He’s a peacekeeper. I used Politically Incorrect speech, intentionally, to see how many tribal goobers would pop up. Quite a few!.
                You agree with Robert …except the where he’s perplexed that nobody gets it. (Likely WHY he reframed it all)

                And to a point, I agree with what Robert explained?cutting spending by itself isn’t necessarily conducive to good policy in lieu of sound reforms.

                (sigh) Then why did you say the precise opposite here?
                https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_5443390

                As hinted, I trolled for goobers, caught MANY more than I feared, and keep saving the page as evidence.

              2. (yawn) one more mfckr lie

                To clarify: I never attacked your argument,

                To clarify, you were also stupid in doing so.

                lol wat
                So, Libertarians should instead oppose cuts to govt spending?

                lol wat

                https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_5441200

        3. Robert, today I decided to show the majority of readers how many goobers are here.

          1. Keeo on crying Hinh. Maybe if you whine loud enough someone just might take you seriously.

            1. JPyrate, If that’s whining, then I can now add one more goober to the list.
              Thanks.

              1. Your welcome you old crank.

                =D

        4. Robert
          Just because libertarians have good ideas about policy that would lead to big savings in all those areas doesn’t mean that any savings by any means would bring about good policy.

          You’ve been around long enough, Robert, to remember “always be pro-liberty, never anti-government.

          What you describe is the only logical consequence of the anti-gummint crowd, which has brought the movement to this dead end. If your primary cause is anti-gummint, then you are most excited by THE most anti-gummint rhetoric … even if the words are totally fucking stupid. See Ron Paul’s “repeal the income tax and replace it with nothing.” Or Cato’s (perhaps crazier) “plan” to privatize Social Security.

          It’s also why 91% of libertarians see NOTHING of value to them personally from the movement, so they reject the label. And why shouldn’t they? What’s in it for them? BLANKOUT

          These people are even too extreme for Ayn Rand, who was an incrementalist on expanding liberty. She at least understood the power of persuasion — and the limitations of even her our own philosophy in creating and maintaining a fee society. We must change the society FIRST — which is not within the province of political philosophy.

          1. See Ron Paul’s “repeal the income tax and replace it with nothing.”

            Which is one of the best ideas to come out of anywhere in the last hundred years.

            When you put out a fire. . . what do you replace it with? Nothing.
            When you extract a bullet from a gunshot victim, what do you replace it with? Nothing.
            When you remove a brain tumor – what do you replace it with? Nothing!

            Troll Fail.

            Next?

      2. We now explore goobers as a cult. If their “sacred text” is challenged, they immediately scream “You’re a progressive!”

        Hihn, you really should just label yourself a progressive and be done with it.

        (smirk) now the funny part

        I knew you were a moron, but you usually place a bunch of layers between your idiocy and the truth. This was basically ripping the mask off for you. I hope you learned something about yourself, at least, you fucking statist twat.

        How many goobers are so stupid, Scroll the thread and count. Fucking scary?
        How many goobers, in their mindless rage, missed my clearly stated point?

        From original, boldface added now for the mentally challenged.
        My point? A libertarian campaigning on the Canadian lie would have his balls cut off. With a dull blade.

        Goobers often make fools of themselves, screeching “You’re a progressive.”
        This is a web archive of my published writing on taxes, healthcare, federalism and others. The index includes a brief summary of each column ? enough to humiliate the “you’re a progressive” goobers

        http://libertyissues.com/archive.htm

        I’d link to my role in the Libertarian Party, but I’ll save that for the next cult follower

        (My tone here is a response to aggression, which also earns the power to ridicule)

        Love and kisses, the fucking statist twat

  2. And another fine piece by The Stash that won’t be read by the people who most need to.

  3. Calm down, progressives know what’s best for you. Their central committee is pro-choice. They will choose and mandate what’s best.

  4. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.online-jobs9.com

  5. Wait a minute, it’s not noon yet…

  6. John Stossel wrote: “Government shovels more money into its big, dumb projects and pretends to build the future.”

    Great! Then I look forward to conservatives and other non-progressive sorts cutting back the number of “big, dumb projects” the US is involved in.

    Like its multi-trillion-dollar wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, for example, both of which were started by a conservative administration.

    Now I mention that because those who oppose the new proposed agreement with Iran tend to be of conservative bent. They also seem to think that a war with Iran would be better than that agreement. Meaning that if Congress rejects that agreement America might yet find itself embarking on yet another “big, dumb” (and expensive) project.

    John Stossel wrote: “The U.S. contains its own version of the Greek debt crisis in the form of Puerto Rico.”

    Why stop with Puerto Rico? The US has its own debt problem. The US federal debt is currently running at 101.5% of US GDP. Check out the second of the two graphs at:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png

    That graph graphically illustrates that the current problem the US has with its national debt began under the Reagan administration and was exacerbated under the George W. Bush administration, both of them of conservative bent.

    Conservatives who live in glass houses should NOT be throwing stones at progressives.

    1. If any conservatives stop by, we’ll be sure to tell them.

    2. Two wrongs make a right…therefore we need big gov and more spending!!!

      /prog

      Obama and bush are pretty similar. Arent you throwing stones here?

      As far as your iran comment….i havent seen any calls for war with iran so at best you are speculating…maybe even projecting your desires

    3. I will give you Iraq. But Afghanistan was the “good war”. Remember in Iraq we took our eyes off the ball, meaning fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan? And we DIDN’t start the war in Afghanistan shithead. The Taliban, which was the de facto govt in Afghanistan trained the men who attacked us and harbored the leader of that organization. Had they given up Bin Laden, we wouldn’t have invaded in the first place. Not that I support the nation building we have tried. Those stone age goat fuckers should be left to their own bullshit.
      The national debt problem under Reagan, while we were dealing with the SOVIET FUCKING UNION, and by the way, for a significant period of time a democrat controlled Congress. And those of us libertarians (small l) who still vote mostly with the stupid party, argued AGAINST much of Bush’s spending. We argued AGAINST Medicare prescription coverage, more spending in Africa etc.
      And NO ONE is remotely suggesting that we fight a war in Iran. Just leave the existing sanctions in place dipshit!

      1. Yea he created a strawman and used exaggeration…bush seems closer to being a dem

      2. The national debt problem under Reagan

        Remember to place the blame where it belongs. Congress. Especially his own party.

    4. Your quote didnt even mention progressives but rather government in general.

      The mention of progressives in the article is about central planning which shows how they are part of the big gov problem. It was never stated they were the only part.

    5. Progress is movement towards a destination.
      Progressive is when something in happening gradually.

      Maybe a good example of ‘progressive’ relative to politics might be when no therapy is reducing the growth of a cancer.
      Progress, on the other hand, is when the therapy is working.

      Of those I know who claim to be conservative, it only means living within their means, and not being wasteful or destructive, NOT returning to slavery or any other definition which has been promoted by the Left, Progressives, Communists, Socialists, Collectivists, or Democrats ALL of which I view as closely related to one another with similar political views and agenda.

  7. Science: The Antidote To The Toxin Of Fear

    “And you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” -John 8:32

    The fundamental appeal of Donald Trump is that he says that which many people think but are afraid to say, and he says that which the mealy-mouthed, feckless, hypocritical Republican candidates never would dream of saying with the possible exception of Ted Cruz.

    “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” -Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

    A majority of productive Americans fears its government or should. A majority of productive Americans understands that the federal government has become corrupt, self-serving, and tyrannical.

    It’s time for a new and different political party … an apolitical party based upon the science of human behavior. Can there be such a thing? Yes.

    Politicians will fight it. Lawyers will fight it. Ideologues will fight it. Members of the Big Media will fight it.

    Read. Learn. Think. Act.

    Science says, “Behavior has its consequences.”

    http:inescapableconsequences.com

    1. You know who else used “science” for their political goals?

      1. Galileo?

  8. J. Stossel said : ‘Government ……. pretends to build the future.”

    It pretends to do a lot of things. However, its core nature is 100% criminal.

    The pretense of doing [whatever] is a necessary cover to attempt to legitimize its actions, which all boil down to a combination of violence [or the threat thereof], theft, and slavery, nothing more, nothing less.

    Via public “education” it has been largely successful in brainwashing the booboisie into believing that it is a legitimate non criminal organization with only the individuals and society’s best interests at heart.

    Point in case: it appears that after all these years, even Mr Stossel has been successfully brainwashed into believing in its necessity to build interstate highways :-).

    “In your dream, Obama is not a scam”
    “In your dream, George Bush was not a scam”
    “In your dream, Clinton was not a scam”
    “In your dream, Reagan was not a scam”
    “In your dream, all the rest were not a scam”
    “In your dream, the constitution was not a scam”…….”

    But by all means, dream on John !!!! 🙂

    Quotes from original music and lyrics: “Dreams[ Anarchist Blues]”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0o-C1_LZzk

    Regards, onebornfree.

    Personal Freedom Consultant:
    http://www.freedominunfreeworld.blogspot.com

    1. In the grand compromise that creates a libertarian state, we plan on giving the proggies the roads. They are obsessed with them.

      1. LOLz

    2. Via public “education” it has been largely successful in brainwashing the booboisie into believing that it is a legitimate non criminal organization with only the individuals and society’s best interests at heart

      (yawn)

  9. Paul Krugman deceitfully trashes real cuts and writes that he wants to see “some example, somewhere, of austerity policies that succeeded.”

    But there are plenty.

    Hw wouldn’t be Kruggernuts if he wasn’t a lying, mendacious cunt.

    1. Hw wouldn’t be Kruggernuts if he wasn’t a lying, mendacious cunt.

      I think it’s widely understood that Krugman is paid to be a shill.

  10. What’s the deal with all the fucking blog whoreing and drive by dipshits in this thread?

  11. I think one of the best examples of how cut in government spending and regulations have worked is India.

    The only sector where India remains globally competitive is in IT outsourcing which government did not even know existed untill tax revenue started pouring in.

    Post 1992 wherever government conceded space, that industry grew rapidly. Aviation, Courier, Telecom, Hospitality and even Healthcare.

    On the other hand Agriculture and Education remains one of the worst and and inefficient systems in the world.

  12. Proof of the value of government spending on medical problems?

    Drug Prohibition.

  13. Part I
    As usual, Stossel makes excellent points grounded in facts. My only disagreement with was his wording of “Well, government can do some things, mostly expensive, obvious things, like building interstate highways, guarding borders and going to war?though government doesn’t do those things efficiently.” Even then, government doesn’t ‘DO’ anything more than acquire the revenue necessary to fund those things, which in the end are accomplished by people/private enterprises, but yes government and many voters accept government need not factor means in spending, resulting in inefficiency.

  14. Part II
    Article IV, Section 4, guarantees each State in the Union a Republican Form of Government, not a Centralized Collectivist Form of Government ruled by the agenda of a political party. Freedom begins with the people, each and every one of us, and it is the duty of our government at each level to protect our rights to exercise our own choices, even if they result in our failure, and only protect us from choices of others being imposed upon us in ways which are harmful to us. Societies are built and grown as a result of people seeing value in one another, which leads to them providing charitable assistance and/or protection to others they find in need by their own free choice. Beginning in the 20th century our Federal government has gradually shifted our government from being one beginning with the people empowering the government into one in which the government itself determines where, if any, limits of constraint exist on its power. This has been accomplished by the appointment of activist Supreme Court Justices who have and continue to interpret our Constitution based on the agenda of the political party where their biases reside.

  15. Austerity as practised by most governments means more taxes on their citizens, not less spending by governments. Yet by confounding the two, citizens who don’t recognize the distinction naturally object to austerity, although it’s not government-austerity, it’s citizen-austerity.

    After the election, Greece’s new Syriza politicians resumed profligate spending – they rehired a few thousand government employees who’d previously been let go and reopened the State Broadcasting company which had been closed.

    The problem is that when most governments, apart from the Germans, spend too much, their policitian’s reaction is to tax citizens more, rather than spend less. As Margaret Thatcher pointed out, the problem with socialism is that you eventually run ouf of other people’s money to spend…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.