Obituaries

Nat Hentoff, 1925–2017

One of the most vocal civil libertarians of the past century has died.

|

HarperCollins

Nat Hentoff, the prolific critic, journalist, and civil libertarian, passed away yesterday at age 91. His son Nick reports that he "died surrounded by family listening to Billie Holiday," which I suspect is exactly how he wanted to go.

Hentoff wrote many things, from young adult novels to the sleeve notes of an early Bob Dylan album. But he was most famous for two great passions: his defenses of the Bill of Rights, especially Amendment One, and his enthusiastic writing about music, especially jazz. When people talk about old-school liberals who'd defend to the death your right to say anything you want, chances are good that Hentoff is the fellow they've got in mind. In his columns for The Village Voice and The Washington Post and in articles for countless other venues (including Reason), he pounded away at the evils of censorship, and he didn't care if the censor had a left-wing agenda or a right-wing one. If anything, he seemed especially perturbed when people he expected to share his values started stomping on individual liberties.

Hentoff was less likely to be called a liberal later in life. That's partly because his brand of free-speech absolutism was growing less common on the left, and it's partly because of his heterodoxy on abortion. (Hentoff was pro-life, arguing against abortion on the same grounds that he argued against capital punishment and war. Or, at least, against some wars—he eventually rended his seamless garment to support interventions in Rwanda and Iraq.) But you couldn't really cast him as a man of the right either: Besides his intense distrust for the police agencies that conservatives tend to revere, he was a longtime democratic socialist who held onto a lot of his leftist economic ideas in old age. It's not even quite right to call him an ACLU liberal, because he kept butting heads with the ACLU. (The nation's most prominent civil libertarian organization wasn't always civil libertarian enough for him.) Best to think of him as his own man, with at least a couple of views to offend pretty much anyone.

He would have left a substantial legacy even if he had never written about politics at all, thanks to his work in the music world. His criticism covered several genres—one of my favorite articles of his was an appreciation of the country singer Merle Haggard—but his great love was jazz, a topic on which he wrote whole volumes. He produced several jazz albums too, by artists ranging from Max Roach to Cecil Taylor, and he had a hand in the great 1957 TV special The Sound of Jazz, which my colleague Kurt Loder once called "a landmark of televised jazz that has never been surpassed." (Watch it here.)

But it was his political writing that left its biggest mark on me. I grew up reading Hentoff's attacks on censorship and surveillance, and whatever disagreements I sometimes had with him on other topics I learned a lot from his uncompromising consistency on those issues. For a taste of just how committed to free speech he was, I'll wrap up this obit with a video of him attacking the existence of libel laws, a hardcore position that even some of the fiercest civil libertarians aren't willing to accept. (For the record: I think he's right.) The video, shot in 1986, shows him debating the Objectivist philosopher David Kelley, who argues that we need libel suits to protect our "right to a reputation." When it came to regulations on speech, Nat Hentoff could make even a Randian look like a big-government guy by comparison:

NEXT: Lionel Shriver Doesn't Care If You Hate Her Sombrero

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. But he was most famous for two great passions: his defenses of the Bill of Rights, especially Amendment One,

    He could have been worse on the 2A (and was until this article):

    It was inconceivable, I finally realized, that after the Revolution free American citizens would agree — as part of the Bill of rights — to give up their right to keep their own arms, whether or not they were members of a militia. . . .

    Seeing the Second Amendment as the Framers did — and as Pat Buchanan does — does not mean that the private right to bear arms is without limits, just as the First or Fourth Amendments do not provide absolute individual rights.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..0c414d1a84

    Even then, he could help but say ‘shall not be infringed’ means ‘eh, can be infringed some’.

    1. That is the problem with the leftoids. Even if they say they like the Bill of Rights, they are pretty picky about which bits count.

    2. Nat lost me at “living constitution.”

      1. Same here. I understand that some words in the Constitution change over time, such as “freedom of the press” being extended to personal printers, broadcast, the internet, and so on; that the 4th amendment extends to telephone calls, third party email repositories, and so on; but I’ve never seen any living constitution which kept itself on such a narrow expansion.

        One thing that especially galls me about the RKBA is that all other limits says “Congress shall make no law”; the Second specifically is more expansive with “shall not be infringed”, which Itake to mean it applies to the states and all governments. The framers weren’t that sloppy. The fact that they singled out the Second Amendment for that special language must mean something.

        1. And your examples are all ones that expand freedoms, not limit them. I’m OK with definition of “living.”

          1. With THAT definition

        2. I understand that some words in the Constitution change over time, such as “freedom of the press” being extended to personal printers, broadcast, the internet, and so on; that the 4th amendment extends to telephone calls, third party email repositories, and so on;

          Those are not really examples of the meaning changing over time. “freedom of the press” was always the freedom to report news, especially political speech and opinion by news outlets. It did not matter what means they were transmitted.

          Secure in your papers was not literal either, as it referred to your documents in whatever form they took, not limited to literal paper, or where you were storing them.

  2. (The nation’s most prominent civil libertarian organization wasn’t always civil libertarian enough for him.)

    If you think the ACLU is sufficiently libertarian on the entirety of the Bill of Rights, you’re probably not a libertarian.

    1. Perhaps they meant just “most prominent civil liberties group.” Which I must admit is true, and then I take another drink of rum and stare at the ceiling.

      1. I take another drink of rum and stare at the ceiling.

        You say this as if it were a bad thing.

        1. Calypso Bollywood about drinking rum. Not bad. The girl on the left is a cutie. But a song over 5 minutes long? Come on! Verse chorus verse chorus bridge chorus verse chorus end. In and out in 3 minutes or less.

              1. You’ve just triggered a billion Muslims.

                Enjoy your fatwa, buddy.

          1. Calypso dudes with Robert Mitchum.

            1. Lord Kitchener and Lord Pretender are dead, when the Mighty Dougla passes away, Calypso shall truly be dead.

      2. Perhaps they meant just “most prominent civil liberties group.”

        That isn’t merely what I meant; it’s pretty much what I wrote.

        1. Just be thankful people actually read the article.

    2. I’m sure the ACLU agrees with Wickard V Filburn. They are horrible on property rights.

      1. They are horrible on property rights.

        FTFY.

        1. They are horrible on property rights.

          fixed it for YOU.

    3. If you think the ACLU is sufficiently libertarian on the entirety of the Bill of Rights, you’re probably not a libertarian.

      If you think that is bad, you should see who the libertarians nominated for president.

    4. The American (selective) Civil Liberties (for some) Union is about as civil libertarian as Bill Weld (as in, not really at all). But, Reason seemed to be just fine with Weld and so one can assume they are just fine with the ACLU’s selective version of civil rights.

      1. Reason seemed to be just fine with Weld

        When making sweeping statements, try not to pick ones that are so easily disproved.

  3. That sucks. He was one of the greats. A true champion of freedom who would call out both sides equally.

    Reason could use a lot more guys like him and a lot fewer big government Top Men dick suckers like Peter Suderman.

      1. Queefer Pooterman

    1. Treason could use a lot more guys like him and a lot fewer big government Fop Hen dick suckers like Heater Schoonerman.

  4. RIP Nat Hentoff. I remember reading him in high school. I respect honest liberals. Sadly, there are so few of them left. Truly a dying species. We had much in common with them. We have little in common with the current brand of SJW progressive.

    As for this:

    The video, shot in 1986, shows him debating the Objectivist philosopher David Kelley, who argues that we need libel suits to protect our “right to a reputation.” When it came to regulations on speech, Nat Hentoff could make even a Randian look like a big-government guy by comparison:

    Opposition to libel laws is a pretty standard libertarian position. You do not have a right to a reputation. That means you are making a claim on what is in other people’s brains about what they think of you. Other people are not your property. Nobody should consider Randians as the end of the small government spectrum. They are on their own little trajectory of foolishness.

    1. I regard defamation as a species of fraud – untrue statements that cause damage.

      You have a reputation, and damage to it that causes identifiable damages that, when caused by falsehoods, should get you restitution. As an attorney, my reputation is as important to my livelihood as tools are to a mechanic.

      Free speech does not mean freedom from any and all consequences of speech.

      1. Fraud is not criminal any more than carrying lock picks is criminal.

        If fraud causes harm, that harm is the crime. Absent harm, what is there to make criminal?

        If I lie about how fast my car is, and we bet a beer on it, the beer payoff is the end of the story. If you buy my car on my word alone, you are a fool, but my fraud has still robbed you, and that is the harm.

        Libel is barely even fraud, and fraud is not harm.

      2. Yes, except that if you lie about me, the people who believe those lies and take actions based on them are the ones defrauded. “Reputation” is a legal fiction whose purpose is to get around the Coasian transaction-cost problem of dealing with this sort of broad-but-shallow fraud.

    2. You do not have a right to a reputation.
      Be that as it may, you do have a reputation and another person cannot attempt to trash it by lying. It’s assault on a person in different form.

      1. Oh, ok, we are legislating against lying now? You wanna sue people for their yelp reviews?

        Fraud is an NAP violation in libertarianism because it is really theft and a contract violation. Spreading false rumors against someone is not a property violation.

        It’s assault on a person in different form.

        You mean like a microaggression?

        1. It’s a falsehood that causes damage. Why shouldn’t the victim get restitution?

          1. Restitution for the damage, not for the falsehood itself. It’s like making conspiracy a separate charge. It’s bogus.

            1. If I sell you a car with a bad gasket for $10,000, your situation is the same whether I told you about it in advance or said the car runs great and has no problems. In either case you paid $10,000 for a car that leaks oil. So how can you claim “damages”?

  5. Thanks for including the Cato interview.

  6. RIP, Nat Hentoff.

    Here are his contributions to Reason – the most recent was in 2001.

    This 2015 column, concerning the “dismemberment method” of abortion, may explain why Hentoff’s byline didn’t appear as often in Reason as it ought to have done.

    “‘Many of the respondents (staff at an abortion clinic) reported serious emotional reactions that produced psychological symptoms, sleep disturbances, effects on interpersonal relationships, and moral anguish … (Most staff) thought that D&E was more difficult, tedious, risky, and painful than other procedures for everyone involved, and some feared major complications.’

    “This is still civilized America?

    “Will anyone dare to show videos and other depictions of unborn American human beings with their own DNA undergoing these horrible procedures — and the eyes of those committing these undeniable crimes against humanity — in classrooms around this complicit nation?

    “Yes, classrooms. This is essential education for future generations.

    “Meanwhile, if you are interested in a medical illustration of this procedure, it is at nrlc.org/abortion/pba/deabortiongraphic. Indeed, you ought to send a copy to vehement pro-choice President Barack Obama.”

    1. I sure miss the old days when Reason was a genuine libertarian journal, and not The Nation lite.

          1. Your momma’s womb.

            1. I must reflect on the points you have made.

      1. I sure miss the old days when Season was a genuine libertarian journal, and not Dre Patron lite.

        1. So….do you have a program, or a website (alal Gazoogle) that assists with “Mike M’ing” up names?

          Link, plz.

    2. Here are his contributions to Reason – the most recent was in 2001. This 2015 column, concerning the “dismemberment method” of abortion, may explain why Hentoff’s byline didn’t appear as often in Reason as it ought to have done.

      Yes, we somehow didn’t notice his position on abortion until 2001. And then blacklisted him, but not the other pro-lifers who sometimes write for us. Great deduction there, Sherlock.

      1. I said *may explain,* it’s an hypothesis based on Reason being aggressively “prochoice.”

        And my interest of course would have been to see Reason running his prolife articles, not articles by prolifers discussing other topics.

        But if I guessed wrong about why you didn’t showcase Hentoff more often, then I certainly apologize.

        1. Anyway, the Reason Web site has a compilation of the magazine’s abortion coverage – there are things like the interview with Judge Napolitano on prolife libertarianism, and support of the 1st Amendment rights of prolifers.

          Obviously, then, you don’t have a flat-out ban on prolife material. If I suggested that you did, I’m certainly very sorry 🙁

          But take a look at how most of those articles lean – and you can see why it might seem that you prefer prochoice writers over prolife ones.

          1. Yeah, Fusionist, you should know better. There’s one pro-life writer and one contributing pro-life writer. Just because they appear on the website sporadically and they never write about the pro-life topic means nothing. And besides, we all know that being pro-choice isn’t just ‘libertarian’, but also giving government largess to Planned Parenthood is ‘libertarian’ (rent-seeking for me, but not for thee), as Elizabeth Nolan Brown would have us believe.

          2. you can see why it might seem that you prefer prochoice writers over prolife ones

            It is certainly true that the pro-choicers at Reason outnumber the pro-lifers, but that’s rather different from what you suggested before. (If we were blacklisting anti-abortion writing, we wouldn’t have published this.) Anyway, apology accepted.

            1. You sure are trying to defend strongly. It almost sounds like you want to protect from libel.

              1. I don’t know where that comes from, but anyway I’m not Nunya and Nunya is not I.

      2. As we used to say around these parts: PWND

    3. That’s awful how they rip the fetus to shreds like that.

    4. “Here are his contributions to Reason – the most recent was in 2001.”

      That’s a shame; what pathetic appeal to emotion. I expected better of him.

      1. What was pathetic? His linking a diagram of a fetus being dismembered? It was only a drawing, not a photograph, and it didn’t have nearly as much blood and guts as a photograph would have had.

        How would *you* have conveyed this information?

      2. “Murder is bad” makes for a short argument, and, for some reason, doesn’t seem to convince people. Nothing wrong with pathos as a second line of attack.

  7. Yeah, this one was a big loss. RIP to one of the best of the good ones – Free Speech For Me But Not For Thee is right up there with McWilliam’s Ain’t Nobody’s Business If You Do and PJ O’Rourke’s or John Stossel’s stuff for a good read.

    1. The good news is that McWilliam’s book is available by free pdf at numerous sites, including the site he founded. The freedom loving quotes he has on the top of each page will send a committed SJW into a major cardiac arrest.

  8. Fixing a broken link within one of the links to a Rutherford Institute interview with Hentoff on how bad Obama is.

    “I try to avoid hyperbole, but I think Obama is possibly the most dangerous and destructive president we have ever had.”?Nat Hentoff

    1. If the American people have their health care paid for by the government, depending on their age and their condition, they will be subject to a health commission just like in England which will decide if their lives are worth living much longer.

      Palinbaggingwingpig. (My nicknames suck)

      1. Conspiracy nutjob who believes the VRWC’s laughably ridiculous slanders about “Death Panels”. They’re Quality Of Life Committees, dumbass.

      2. DEATH PANELS!

  9. Good piece on the man. RIP. Since you mentioned WaPo, it’s time for me to curl up in bed with a cup of cocoa and read my nifty new book. *Licks index finger and turns to page 1*

    1. it’s time for me to curl up in bed with a cup of cocoa

      I’ve elected to read that as “cup of cocaine,” as I wish to maintain my esteem for you.

      1. I suppose that would be less creepy.

    2. Having white privilege means that we don’t have to strengthen our argument by using ridiculous acronyms.

      1. Yeah, you would you say that, you RINO LINO.

      2. Um, ok. Rest In Peace, Nat.

    3. “It is hard to be white and empathetic to others,” he argues early on.

      And yet he expects me to buy his book for $24.99, listen to more Beyonce and pay black people more than white people. I’m not sure why I would if I’m not doing that already, defective sociopath born into evil that I am.

      He seems to be missing an element of logic here.

      1. “Your resistance to feelings of guilt is absurdly intense.”

        Stop resisting!

        1. The lectures will continue until morale improves.

        2. I didn’t think 40 acres and a mule was too much to ask.

          Cough it up.

          1. “So you’re saying black people are rural hayseeds? Racist!”

            /defining racism down

            1. How about 20 acres and a donkey?

              1. I got 1/4 acre and a 12 year old tabby cat?

        3. Michael Eric Dyson, professor of sociology at Georgetown, appear to have no idea how white people live their lives, other than as this faceless blob that doesn’t listen to Beyonce.

          There’s a word that would fix Professor Dyson from Georgetown University’s emotional and factual disconnect, it’s on the tip of my tongue…

          Yeah, that’s it. Empathy.

          What a tool.

          1. There’s a word that would fix Professor Dyson from Georgetown University’s emotional and factual disconnect, it’s on the tip of my tongue…

            Backpfeifengesicht. Nothing short of that will have any effect.

          2. Who’s “Beyonce”?

            Maybe you’re trying to describe Beyonc?, but you’re such a racist you forgot the accent mark.

            /sarc

    4. I hope you washed your finger first.

    5. Could Kmele Foster please film himself reading through that book? I would like to count the facepalms.

  10. In addition to all his other contributions, Nat Hentoff exposed the mendaciousness of the prochoice crowd.

    One of their key talking points is that you’re not a *real* prolifer unless you’re against the death penalty, against (Republican) wars, for government welfare programs, etc. Google “prolife hypocrisy” to see the prevalance of this lineof BS.

    Hentoff, though, was by all these accounts a “real prolifer.” He was (I believe) for welfare, against the death penalty, against Republican wars and even many Democratic wars.

    Strangely, though, this didn’t make him any more acceptable to the progs – you’d think the prog media would highlight him in order to showcase the “contradictions” in the position of prolife Republicans who (say) want convicted murderers to be executed.

    But such a tactic would backfire, since it would show the audience that it’s possible for people who aren’t Republicans or conservatives to be prolife. And for prog thought-leaders (and I use that term sarcastically), it’s Not OK to tell their followers that it’s possible to leave the reservation on abortion.

    Far from welcoming Hentoff as a vibrant voice of the diverse progressive blah blah, the progs basically excommunicated him – because their interest isn’t in promoting a so-called “consistent” prolife ethic as it is to support abortion.

    1. It does seam that killing babies is one of the core progressive principles. Perhaps its due to their latent racism.

    2. Yeah, progressives aren’t for tying a women to a gurney for 9 months because said women has said she doesn’t want to endure the very real danger that pregnancy represents or take care of a screaming banshee asshole for 5 or 6 years, or have economic responsibility for a person for the next 20 years. This is way less important than laws designed to change the number of bullets you can put in your gun.

        1. I always knew that you were John Waters.

          It explains a lot, actually.

          1. It fails to explain my poverty. And my extreme heterosexuality.

            My favorite Waters quote, ever: “If you go home with somebody, and they don’t have books, don’t fuck ’em!”

        2. I watched the video and my response is: Yep, true that. That’s why we should have liberal abortion laws and dismiss libertarians-for-life as the probably conservative evangelicals they really are.

      1. economic responsibility

        Yeah, that sucks. Better to offload that onto other people.

      2. Give it up for adoption if you don’t want to raise it?

  11. Here’s a good place to burn an hour when taking a break from Reason and Pornhub:

    This is why I’m broke.

      1. Kill the Alien Queen while you’re at it.

  12. I wonder,what was this man’s stance on economic and property rights was ? That’s important very important when you talk about ‘civil liberties’. Many are for free speech,they say, and other rights until you own property and ,or own a business.The addition of money,making a living,makes many in to want to eliminate those rights.

  13. From NYT via SF Chron:

    “Trump calls for closer ties with Russia”
    […]
    ” A day after the release of a damning intelligence report on Russia’s wide-ranging efforts to influence the U.S. election, President-elect Donald Trump called Saturday for a closer relationship between the two nations, saying only “stupid” people or “fools” would think this is unwise”
    http://www.sfgate.com/nation/a…..842379.php

    I presume the NYT staff read the headline on the “report” (scare quotes intended) and left it at that.
    I gave it a try and all I saw was:
    ‘Well, it seems like some people who work for something kind of associated with the Russian government maybe hacked some servers belonging to the Democrats’.
    If that’s the sort of expert analysis that the intelligence community is offering, I’d ask ’em to mail it in every week or so.

    1. I agree. There’s nothing the Russians did here that we haven’t done in any number of Central and South American country. The fact that we have a voting populace rendered somnabulistic by a failed political and media establishment and bought-and-paid-for elections lies collectively with the voters in the U.S.– not those in Vladivostok. There’s absolutely no reason to pick a fight with Russia over something that we’ve done to ourselves. Tell you what, let’s you and I vote in 2019 to get out of this rotting, militaristic empire and start something better.

      1. american socialist|1.8.17 @ 12:29PM|#
        “I agree. There’s nothing the Russians did here that we haven’t done in any number of Central and South American country”

        Whoosh!
        That was the point sailing right by you.

        1. No, he did a very fancy dodge. East German judges gave him a 9.

    2. Even if all of this is true, what happened is that the Russians ‘hacked the election’ by publicizing evidence of the Democrats and the Legacy Media colluding to hack the election (well, the nomination; but the bias was so brazen during the fall that no one needed the Russians to say what was happening)

      I find all this amusing.

      1. “I find all this amusing.”

        The left is in hysteria over it!

  14. I’ll confess. I’ve never heard of him, but this “partly because of his heterodoxy on abortion. (Hentoff was pro-life, arguing against abortion on the same grounds that he argued against capital punishment and war. Or, at least, against some wars?he eventually rended his seamless garment to support interventions in Rwanda and Iraq.)” doesn’t sound like a libertarian to me.

    1. american socialist|1.8.17 @ 12:24PM|#
      “I’ll confess. I’ve never heard of him,”

      Given you’re an imbecile, this is not surprising in the least.

    2. We all have had momentary lapses of reason. I did with Iraq. I just thought it was time to clean house but now that I’m older and wiser and presumably more learned I admit it was not such a cool idea.

      I convinced myself THIS TIME the Americans with some help from the West were going to stick around and see it through properly. Alas, it didn’t happen.

      Soooo, yeah.

      1. It was right around that time, by the way, I discovered Reason. It was like listening to Nick Drake for the first time.

        Reason saved me.

        /bites into brioche and nutella.

      2. That’s ok. I attended 100s of anti war rallies back then and I didn’t see any libertarians there until around 2007. In 2003 it was mostly me and a bunch of Leftists who were getting their asses kicked by police and being called a traitor (a term that after the voters returned the casually murderous GWB administration back to power I minded less and less). So, you’re in good company. I can’t pin the label of hypocrisy on you any more than I can any other run-of-the-mill libertarian.

        1. american socialist|1.8.17 @ 12:53PM|#
          “I attended 100s of anti war rallies back then and I didn’t see any libertarians there until around 2007.”
          Bullshit. Twice.

        2. I attended 100s of anti war rallies back then and I didn’t see any libertarians there

          You did see libertarians there, you just didn’t know it. See, you and they were both there protesting Bush’s war – but the libertarians are still out there protesting Obama’s war as well and you’re not.

          1. He also didn’t attend “hundreds” of anti war rallies, unless he includes a couple of guys sharing a joint and whining about how horrible the Rs are.
            He lies.

            1. or…. he’s one of those professional Soros-paid protester types (which is always a possibilty)

              1. Could be, but more likely, he went to the standard ‘we hate rich people’ rallies where a couple of people griped about the war, too, and wondered why no successful people were there.
                And, BTW, the local press bought the bullshit about ‘anti war’ rally, so he gets to claim the lies.

            2. He intended to. That counts in lefty crazy.

              1. There we go! He read about them and would have been there if he didn’t have to hit up the folks for rent money.

  15. Finland and universal basic income

    I dunno. I’m open to the idea and will be watching with great interest. I can’t see how any universal basic income, whatever amount it is, doesn’t wind up serving as the new zero.

    There is no such thing as a free lunch. There is a basic daily cost to survival. Maintenance happens, however small, every day. All of it must be paid for – you don’t have to milk the cow or dig the carrots personally but someone had to. Carrots and milk do not just happen, any more than notarized contracts and Ford F-350s just happen. The price must be paid, in work or in kind. It seems we’ve come up with ever more convoluted theories to get around that, or at least make someone else pay for it.

    In regards to automation, it all becomes quite interesting. Say the robot pays for it. Ooh, now we’re cooking with charcoal. If we get efficient enough, could that work? Build enough slack into the system that the machines we build to cover the cost of human survival, provide enough largesse for a basic minimum? Could be. Could be. Could very well be.

    Roll on, 3D printing. That’s pre-replicator technology. Hot damn!

    I still lean toward humans having too wide a streak of douchebag for a universal income to be more than the new zero. It’s not enough to win, the other guy has to lose.

    1. I still lean toward humans having too wide a streak of douchebag for a universal income to be more than the new zero. It’s not enough to win, the other guy has to lose.

      That’s the thing. For a Star Trek-like post-scarcity economy to work, you also need the technology to rewire the deeply entrenched cognitive biases present in our brains that evolved during our hairless ape in the savanna days. Even B-list primates like Capuchin monkeys have life as a zero-sum game hardwired into them.

    2. Human nature and its basic axioms of vices and virtues kinda render this experiment to doom and futility I reckon.

      But, if you’re gonna do it, do it in a (largely) homogeneous where similar characteristics and shared values still remain in tact in a tiny population. It’s a helluva lot easier to pull something like this off in small countries like Finland than in places like the USA and its breathtaking diversity and endless streams of different beliefs and thoughts; the same for Canada. Just too big and diverse to make it work as “intended”.

    3. They are limiting it to a select 2000 people; that’s not an experiment, that’s a bail out of 2000 people.
      If they were a random 2000 matched to a random 2000 who didn’t get the bail-out *and* could somehow be shielded from the belief that they wouldn’t qualify by X behavior, it might mean something.
      Prediction: It will result in stats such as ‘O-care has increased access to healthcare by 70%!’ or some such BS.

    4. And, from the link:

      “At a time when there are fears that automation may well reduce the total number of workers needed in industry, it’s great to see these experiments exploring an approach that could help to alleviate social problems arising from this shift.”

      The buggy whip makers approve this message.

      1. This was an extremely interesting comment. They lost me when they decided we could solve everything by vastly increasing the capture of taxes*, whereas I just think we need to get off everyone’s back and let the outliers innovate moar harder with the stagnant capital available. The bulk of the point was insightful, even if I differ on the remedy.

        * Hahahaha.

        1. Ah, yes; ‘Where’s the money coming from?’:

          “Wealthy taxpayers, including corporations. But before you weep for them, consider current job trends:”

          And, it’s to be assumed “wealthy” is anyone making a dime more than the slaver.

    5. A free lunch is either charity or stolen.

  16. This was an extremely interesting comment. They lost me when they decided we could solve everything by vastly increasing the capture of taxes*, whereas I just think we need to get off everyone’s back and let the outliers innovate moar harder with the stagnant capital available. The bulk of the point was insightful, even if I differ on the remedy.

    * Hahahaha.

    1. And now a threading fail. The coffee, it does nothing.

      This was supposed to be a reply to Sevo’s reply to me.

      1. Thank you, P Brooks.

  17. You want to get good income at home? do you not know how to start earnings on Internet? there are some popular methods to earn huge income at your home, but when people try that, they bump into a scam so I thought i must share a verified and guaranteed way for free to earn a great sum of money at home. Anyone who is interested should read the given article..
    Click this link.

    ===========http://www.joinpay40.com

  18. Apologies if already linked – FEE also had an article on Hentoff.

  19. Nat Hentoff was a body-hijacker/woman-slaver/RIGHT-TO-LIFER.

  20. I bought brand new RED Ferreri by working ONline work. Six month ago i hear from my friend that she is working some online job and making more then 98$/hr i can’t beleive. But when i start this job i have to beleived herNow i am also making 98$/hr if you want to try just check this out…..

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  21. Nevaeh. I agree that Richard`s storry is shocking… last wednesday I got a great BMW M3 from earning $5318 this-past/4 weeks and just a little over 10/k lass month. without a question it is the most comfortable job Ive ever had. I began this 10-months ago and pretty much straight away got me at least $83, p/h. see here now

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  22. I think Kelley did more than hold his own against Hentoff.

    1. start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this ? 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail?

      ??? http://www.JobMax6.com

  23. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty

    consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to

    you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in

    addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this

    website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you .
    http://www.geosalary.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.