MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Why the Evil Koch Bros. Must be Stopped: They Support Drug Legalization, Gay Marriage, Reduced Defense Spending.

If you're interested in complicating dumb media narratives and blowing the minds of some of your leftard friends, here's a spirited posting at Reddit by someone with the handle epistemicfail:

The KOCH brothers must be stopped. They gave $40K to Scott Walker, the MAX allowed by state law. That's small potatoes compared to the $100+ million they give to other organizations. These organizations will terrify you. If the anti-union thing weren't enough, here are bigger and better reasons to stop the evil Kochs. They are trying to:

  1. decriminalize drugs,
  2. legalize gay marriage,
  3. repeal the Patriot Act,
  4. end the police state,
  5. cut defense spending.

Who hates the police? Only the criminals using drugs, amirite? We need the Patriot Act to allow government to go through our emails and tap our phones to catch people who smoke marijuana and put them in prison. Oh, it's also good for terrorists.

Wikipedia shows Koch Family Foundations supporting causes like:

  1. CATO Institute
  2. Reason Foundation
  3. cancer research
  4. ballet (because seriously: FUCK. THAT. SHIT.) ...

If there's one thing I know about billionaires, it's that they only care about money. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and George Soros. They aren't fooling me. Bill Gates isn't fooling me with his vaccination campaign in Africa. He's just trying to make African children live longer so they will buy more copies of Windows. Wow. Not even trying to hide it.

Now, I don't know why the KOCH brothers want gay people to have the right to marry. Everybody knows marriage is for a man and a woman. Even Obama said that. Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve amirite? I haven't figured out the angle. Maybe it's like this:

  1. legalize drugs
  2. legalize gay marriage
  3. sell drugs and oil to gays
  4. ????
  5. PROFIT$$$

I don't know exactly how it would work, but we can all agree that they're evil.

Read "STOP THE KOCH BROTHERS. They are trying to end the War on Drugs and increase civil liberties." I don't know who epistemicfail is, but the whole thing is totally worth reading.

As Matt Welch noted last night in another piece well worth reading, David Koch is a trustee of Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes this website.

Reason.com on the Kochs here.

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.

  • ||

    And they fund NOVA, a notorious right-wing "science" "show" on PBS, the Proletarian Bitch-Slap network.

  • ||

    plus the kochs punk-out that teabagging scott walker!

  • ||

    You seriously need to stop showing your gorilla mask around here. You're embarrasing yourself.

  • ||

    Well, that's gonna be a problem. I laser. It's like a turtle shell down there.

  • ||

    embarrasment comes fm internalizing other peoples' emotions. i got my own but thx.

  • ||

    You're the worst character ever, Towelie.

  • ||

    That's an insult to Towelie dude.

  • ||

    You're a towel!

  • ||

    Oh man, I have no idea what's going on.

  • Maxx||

    I love liberturds circle jerks.

  • ||

    ura dumb shit

  • Dangerman||

    We used glue, so that's gonna be your loom for a while, bro.

  • ||

    I like this epistemicfail. And, he/she and I share the first four letters of our handle. I now consider him/her a brother/sister.

  • ||

    I always thought you were pro-episiotomy.

  • ||

    I take no stand on vaginal tearing prevention techniques.

  • ||

    I wonder if Penn & Teller hang out with the Kochs?

  • Warty||

    And why did that fucker stop doing Penn Says? And what's his handle on here?

  • ||

    It can't be me--I'm too civil to the opposition. Well, usually.

  • Warty||

    I say fuck a lot, so maybe I'm Penn. Does he like metal?

  • ||

    And then there's this asshole!

  • ||

    You're a potential candidate.

  • ||

    He stopped doing Penn Says because he started doing Penn Point.

  • ||

    I miss Penn Radio, which ruled.

  • ||

    WE ARE...

  • ||

    Fucking billionaire bastards spreading wealth and freedom and providing jobs!

  • ||

    The nerve. *worlds tiniest shaken fist*

  • ||

    Sadly, the comments at Reddit show that many people don't get it. Especially that the first reply is a link to that damnable New Yorker piece.

  • ||

    Expecting intellectual responses on Reddit is wishful thinking.

    I like epistemicfail. I look forward to more from him.

  • ||

    Would you go so far as to subscribe to his newsletter?

  • ||

    Only if it is poorly xeroxed.

  • ||

    Mimeographed.

  • ||

    If you've been on reddit for any length of time, you'll realize that that's almost theoretically impossible. The guy will get downvoted out of existence.

  • ||

    Having browsed reddit for years, I can tell you that the politics section is worthless, it's a circlejerk of liberal Democrats. They can't even handle left wing criticisms of their Democrat idols. These are high schoolers and college students with no background in economics or political theory screaming about how corporations and Republicans are trying to turn us all into starving, sack-cloth-wearing paupers to work in their pollution mills.

  • ||

    If it wasn't for unions, we'd all be working for $1.00 a day in a coal mine, living in shanty towns and eating dirt!

  • ||

    Gee! I didn't know that!

  • ||

    " I've got some stuff you should read.. "

  • ||

    *Democratic

    "Democrat" is a noun. "Democratic" is an adjective.

  • ||

    Glad I'm not the only one who gets sucked in to debating these idiots on reddit.

  • ||

    Glad I'm not the only one who gets sucked in to debating these idiots on reddit.

  • ||

    http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?type=A

    I didn't hit the button twice I swear.

  • ||

    That's a great link. Notice the top 15 donors either lean Democrat or are on the fence. Who is the party of big money now?

  • ||

    And 9 of the top 15 are strongly Democrat with over 90% of their support going to Democrat candidates.

  • ||

    Both parties are and mostly always have been. Of course. Because they are the Gatekeeper and Keymaster to Leviathan's largess.

  • ||

    Who is Gozar again?

    Ray!

  • ||

    I'm blown away by how much certain unions contribute. Jesus.

    Between AFSCME , NEA, SEIU and AFT, no wonder the public union thing is causing a shit storm.

    Right now, their getting their money's worth.

  • ||

    If there were a a group of huge corporate political donors who:

    1. managed to garner a monopoly in their industry
    2. used that monopoly power to force payment for their services
    3. used the forced payment to strengthen the monopoly through political donations

    what would the typical "liberal" say about that?

  • ||

    Union members contributions to the "union" are kept specifically for that purpose, for administration expenses and for a strike fund in escrow.

    Political contributions are done on a separate voluntary basis by union members. No coersion takes place.

  • ||

    "Political contributions are done on a separate voluntary basis by union members. No coersion takes place."

    Well,:
    "It is unlawful for a labor union to take money from your paycheck for contributions to a federal PAC or for the federal PAC to accept such contributions without your written authorization.....
    One national union PAC, according to the FEC audit, could not produce written authorizations for 93% of PAC contributions the FEC examined."
    http://www.nrtw.org/d/illegalpac.htm

  • ||

    In my last union, a portion of our fees were considered "non-chargeable." Those dollars went to fund political causes. However, the money was automatically deducted from our checks. You had to write a letter at the beginning of each year, stating your objection and requesting to receive the money back. Of course, the union didn't exactly publicize the information. One objector made it his personal crusade to recruit other objectors and he made himself a big old pain in the union's ass. It wasn't much money - amounted to about $13 per quarter. But I was happy to prevent it being spent on political causes I am personally opposed to.

  • ||

    "Health insurance."

  • ||

    The Koch brothers make their money the old fashioned way. They start companies and if they don't turn a profit they close them or sell them. Democrats and Republicans simply can't understand such radical behavior.

  • ||

    neither can the employees

  • ||

    "neither can the employees"

    Yeah, that's the kind of employees you want, the kind who are too dumb to realize that their job may go away at anytime.

  • ||

    greenspan testified that his business model failed to predict the wall st collapse because he (incorrectly)assumed mgmt had the best interests of the shareholders in mind. >it wasnt only the employees that got effed

  • ||

    Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn....

  • ||

    farrrrrrrt...

  • ||

    the truth will light ur farts

  • ||

    *barf*

  • ||

    "the truth will light ur farts"
    ura dumb shit

  • ||

    Greenspan said it.
    I believe it.
    That settles it.

  • ||

    Inheriting it?

  • ||

    "The Koch brothers make money the old fashioned way. They inherit it, then use it to steamroll their competitors."

    ftfy

  • ||

    Actually, the Kochs do make money the old fashioned way. They inherited it.

  • ||

    Their company is worth 2000 times what it was worth when they inherited it, dumb ass.

  • jim x||

    And?

    When you're born on third base and own the refs, it's pretty easy to score home runs.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    You may want to tell that to all the trust fund babies who squandered their inheritance and the family fortunes, and left their kids with jack.

    It happens almost like clockwork every 3 generations or so with big money families. It's actually only the very rare cases where generations later the money is still there - at least in the US.

  • jim x||

    Oh, many people can still screw it up, no question.

    The thing that often happens then, is that the trust fund kids get brushed back to 1st, but still feel like they've worked just as hard as that guy who struggled all the way past them to 2nd.

  • ||

    Get your baseball analogy straight: You can't score a home run from third- you would be merely scoring a "run". Baseball officials are umpires or "umps".
    Many trust funders are born on third and get picked off with out scoring.

  • jim x||

    Ok, sure. But many trust-funders consider sliding into home from third the equivalent of hitting a home from the parking lot.

    As for many trust funders born on third getting picked off without scoring - ok. But far less than start from any other position. Yet they consider themselves equally as accomplished, and rather conveniently forget their far easier starting place in "Lifeball".

  • Sam Grove||

    Many of those trust fund kids consider themselves "progressive".

  • Sam Grove||

    The government makes its money in an even older old fashioned way, extortion.

  • ||

    Successful people need to have all their money and rights taken from them for the government to spread around.
    For example some randomly chosen homeless guy will get a membership to Pebble Beach.

  • ||

    The Koch brothers aren't liberal/progressive, so it logically follows that they are extremist conservatives. Get with the program people! We're at war!

  • ||

    actually, you only need to look at the political groups the contribute to, to know they're extremist conservatives.

  • ||

    you only need to look at the political groups the contribute to, to know they're extremist conservatives

    What is conservative about either Cato or Reason? And don't throw in some subjective word like "extremist" to marginalize your opponent; it only makes you sound paranoid and intolerant.

  • jim x||

    There's also the Tea Party that the Koch brothers are supporting. You know, those cute little guys.

  • ||

    Glad to see that couple extra million really paid off! Thats a good cheap whore Nicki! I fucking own you!

    A society with a few at the top, some bought off lackeys, and the other 98% in poverty! Its the Koch Way! In 20 years, max, we will be back to the goold ol' days of the 1880s, except this time we make you compete against billions in Asia for scraps from the tabe, see!

  • ||

    You're not very good at this. Leave the trolling to professionals.

  • ||

    Nothing better for my bottom line than a bubch of white, male, computer geek middle managers buying the "free market" bullshit hook, line, and sinker!

  • ||

    What part of "you suck at this" don't you understand?

  • ||

    koch nailed it

  • ||

    Oh shit, I'm a white male, typing this message at work.... in I.T.!

  • Warty||

    I like how it thinks the 1880s were the bad old days. Marvelous.

  • ||

    Bad? Bad!? They were wonderful! No minimum wage, no child labor laws or any labor laws whatsoever, no federal oversight, no eight hour day, and the only "vacation" you shits got was called "unemployment!"

    Nothing but pure, unadulturated PROFIT! By any means necessary!

    And if you got any ideas, I could send in the Pinkertons to crack some heads! They were even bigger than the federal military!

  • ||

    It's funny that you think you have a point. Keep going!

  • Warty||

    I hope it dressed up as one of the Billionaires for Bush a few years back.

  • ||

    Dude. I think this is the new waffles attempt. nahh he is much better than this.

  • ||

    thankfully not me, I didn't H&R today.

  • ||

    YAAAAAAWWWWWWWWN.

    Try harder and smarter.

  • ||

    u mad?

  • ||

    orrin cum lately

  • ||

    And no credit scores haunting you for half a decade because of one mistake. If you screwed up, you could go West, or just move to another state, and start up all over again. This wasn't a 3rd world hell-hole; people FLOODED here from everywhere else in the 1880s trying to get a piece.

  • Shannon Love||

    They were even bigger than the federal military!

    Oh my gosh what an awful time! Imagine the terrors of living in a society so at peace that a private security firm armed with shotguns was bigger than the national military. Man you're right, we sure as hell don't want to scrap the military-industrial complex and its consumption of 5% our GNP and go back to the awful past you describe.

    Nothing but pure, unadulturated PROFIT! By any means necessary!

    Which is always better than nothing but power, unadulterated power by any means necessary.

    On the other hand, perhaps businesses should be forced to pursue "higher" and more "socially responsible goals than "mere" profit.

    After all, from roughly 1865-1945 white supremacy was universally regarded as an obvious "higher" social good that businesses driven by "mere" profit would never provide. Social reformers all agreed that greedy business people would hire workers based solely on merit and would allow the white races to be swapped by inferior races just because the inferior races were better at manual labor. Fortunately, the greedy selfish Kochs of that era didn't manage to use their wealth to block social reforms like Jim Crow laws, racist unions and racial restrictive immigrations laws.

    I mean look how that all turned out and how proud we all are today of the "progressive" back then who force business to eschew profits for higher goods. Surely, we can do as well today.

  • ||

    +100!

  • ||

    Compared to the 1780's, or the 1680's or the 1580's, etc. the 1880's were pretty sweet.

  • ||

    Don't pout, D.K. - what's left of the unions in America is fading (with unemployment high & bound to stay high, the furore in Wisconsin smells like a last gasp, not a renaissance - note that the WI unions were willing to give Walker everything he asked for & demanded exactly zero in return) & I suspect those pesky child labor laws are in for some "austerity" of their own soon enough. Also, you had to PAY the Pinkertons - now you have legions of restless idle "Patriots" who're eager to be your personal muscle for free! Not to mention no Teddy Roosevelt to wreck the party with trust-busting - the Wall Street wheeler-dealers of today don't ADVISE the government, they ARE the government. Plus you have TeeVee & internet-circuses to keep the peons much more isolated & docile than ever before ... the robber-barons of 1880 never had it so good.

  • ||

    "Bad? Bad!? They were wonderful! No minimum wage, no child labor laws or any labor laws whatsoever, no federal oversight, no eight hour day, and the only "vacation" you shits got was called "unemployment!"

    Nothing but pure, unadulturated PROFIT! By any means necessary!

    And if you got any ideas, I could send in the Pinkertons to crack some heads! They were even bigger than the federal military!"

    And 6% annual growth. If we'd have kept that up, your dejected factory worker today would be living in mansions, and basking in the carribean on vacation for 6 months out of the year.

    And you'd still complain about inequality.

  • ||

    The 1880's weren't so awesome.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....ightbearer

  • ||

    "The 1880's weren't so awesome."
    Yep, the Post Office was busting people over the Comstock law.
    Not good, but a long ways from terrible.

  • ||

    Yes, Master. I will now join the ranks of the robot ballerinas and wear a free market mind control laser for brainwashing the audience.

  • ||

    Can I get a robot ballerina that looks like Natalie Portman?

  • ||

    If you build it, they will come.

  • ||

    YES!

  • ||

    There is no ballet, only the robo-boogie.

  • ||

    sound good koch brother

  • ||

    Fuckin' Koch brothers, how do they work?

  • ||

    Deviously and for the perpetual oppression of the proles, duh.

  • ||

    And all you dumbasses think youre going to be the Galtian Overlords of the new globalized, free market free trade world?

    Heh, Heheheheehhe, its too damny easy. baby! Just wait until you find out your janitors instead of captains of industry!

  • ||

    What about my janitors?

  • ||

    They will be found out.

    Apparently they're up to something.

  • Janitors||

    We're all in the closet. DADT!

  • ||

    No. I think I am probably going to stay at my middle of the road job, or something similar, beacause I am not ambitious in that way. But I am glad that other people are able to be successful in business because that is where jobs come from. Assholes like you who pretend to know what people who you clearly know nothing about think want to fuck this all up so no one can reap the benefits of the (yet to be seen) globalized, free market free trade world. Fuck you.

  • jim x||

    Money goes to business from customers.

    Customers without money therefore means less money goes to business.

    This is why times of economic expansion as well as economic stability depend on money being available to the poor and middle class.

    This is why times of economic recession always follow a lack or repeal of economic regulation.

    History. It's good for you.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    What in the... Holy god... fail. Jim... That fail was spectacular.

    Do it again.

    "Money goes to business from customers."

    Good lord... I think you believe that what you said up there is actually a coherent view of the economy! I'm not sure whether I'm supposed to laugh hysterically at you or cry for the horrendous failure you've exhibited.

    You're right though - learning some real history would be really good... for you.

    I might start with "A History of Money & Banking" by Murray Rothbard: http://mises.org/books/historyofmoney.pdf

  • jim x||

    OK, just skimmed your pdf link. Basically it related the Great Depression's causes solely to monetary policy, and specifically banks' "inflating" and "overexpansion" - without even mentioning demand, inequality, or any other huge factors.

    This monetary-only view, while apparently very ideologically comforting, is fundamentally unserious. It has been disproven about as thoroughly as such abstract theories can be. Paul Krugman has the most recent debunking. I can't post the link here apparently, but just google the title:

    "Was the Great Depression a monetary phenomenon?"

    So, if you can tell me how Krugman is wrong there, please do! I'd love to hear it. Sincerely - I like my views to be in step with reality.

    And if the response is "Paul Krugman is a librullllll!!" or some such variation - more importantly, Paul Krugman is a liberal who's been **right**. He has repeatedly predicted and diagnosed issues for years before they've shown up, from the housing crisis to the incomplete stimulus that relied too much on tax breaks. He has yet to be proven wrong. Plus he won a Nobel prize, which also indicates he knows what he's talking about.

    So, it appears you have some history to re-learn, in order to be in step with reality. Here's hoping you get to it.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Uh... WHAT??? Krugman hasn't been right on shit, first of all. He's done a fairly decent job of hacking apart his previous writings and pretending/claiming to have been right all along well after the fact.

    I keep a great number of reasons why Krugman is a moron on hand constantly:

    Going back a while, too...

    http://seanwmalone.blogspot.co.....fraud.html

    http://seanwmalone.blogspot.co.....crity.html

    Also - although I am not allowed to post another link, I'd like to give you another fine example of Krugman being "right":

    “To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.”


    -Paul Krugman, August 2002

    Uhh... Oops!

    Krugman (and any Keynesian) lacks a functioning theory of capital, he doesn't seem to understand the role of prices & entrepreneurs in market coordination or how various laws actually effect people's behavior, nor does he grasp the limitations of his own methodology - and thus he regularly mistakes statistics based on weak aggregated data, not to mention predictions based on models with the reality of how people actually act... whereas far better economists don't make that mistake.

    He's also regularly guilty of the Broken Window Fallacy, Parmenides Fallacy, Excluded Middle/False Dichotomies, and any number of other serious logical problems - at least in virtually every article of his I've ever had the misfortune of reading... and I've read far more of his writing than I'd care to recall.

    And FA Hayek, James Buchannan and dozens of other economists who are actually worth a damn have won Nobel Prizes too, and who would/do all think Krugman is a dipshit... So you can shove his award up your ass, Jim.

    More importantly, around 163 years ago, Fredric Bastiat explained the difference between the good economist & the bad economist:

    "There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.

    Yet this difference is tremendous; for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favorable, the later consequences are disastrous, and vice versa. Whence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good that will be followed by a great evil to come, while the good economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil."

    This actually describes Krugman's bad economics pretty much to a T.

    It's pretty clear that you actually don't wish to be in step with reality at all - which is why instead of bothering to actually read Rothbard (much less anyone else who actually studies this stuff today) you just sycophantically regurgitate bullshit from Paul Krugman of all people.

    So no... My response isn't "Paul Krugman is a librulllll!!". I don't really care if he's a liberal.

    I don't feel compelled to go through a litany of reasons why Krugman is wrong for an entirely different reason:

    Paul Krugman is a fucking idiot.

  • jim x||

    First, you haven't addressed how I entirely debunked your pdf, and it's ludicrous attempt to blame the Great Depression solely on monetary policy. So, you're ditching that entire line of argument means that my original comment still stands.

    Second, re: Paul Krugman - you are correct that Krugman suggested creating a bubble in housing to overcome the effects of the dotcom bubble. But what you fail to note, because it destroys your argument, is that Krugman later also correctly predicted the bubble was growing out of control - and wasn't heeded. Spam filter isn't letting me post links, so google "Krugman on the US housing bubble " (youtube video).

    Krugman also predicted that Obama's stimulus was too heavy on tax cuts and too light on direct stimulus, and might result in a flat slow growth rather than faster growth needed. google "
    Krugman: Obama's Stimulus Doesn't Go Far Enough".

    So, I've refuted your statement re: Krugman. Now please refute those two specific statements. Or, kindly get your worldview in touch with reality.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    "I entirely debunked your pdf"

    Huh?

    You did nothing of the sort. You lamely pointed to Paul Krugman, who you claim "debunked" "my" PDF. You didn't even read the PDF in question, you didn't address a SINGLE argument made by Rothbard, you didn't cite a single contradiction to his historical analysis, your knowledge of economics is so woefully minute that you wouldn't even begin to comprehend his economic analysis... and Krugman, for the nine millionth time, is a fucking idiot.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    PS. Krugman only "predicted" the housing bubble was way out of control looooong after other economists (i.e. Mark Thornton) had been saying so for years. And as an added bonus, Mark Thornton never advocated blowing up a bubble in the first place - nor did he pretend, as Krugman has done countless times, to not understand how monetary expansion produces bubbles.

    Krugman doesn't get to have it both ways, after all. Either he was right that Alan Greenspan, then chair of the Federal Reserve could create a housing bubble via monetary inflation... OR... He's right that monetary expansion has nothing to do with booms & busts as he also likes to claim. They can't simultaneously be true (and since the first statement is empirically true, then we can be damn sure the second is false).

    The other point is that the stimulus "didn't go far enough"? Well... That'd only be true if you fundamentally have no clue how prosperity & economic growth occur - which Krugman has demonstrated multiple times that he doesn't.

    "Spending", by which I (and Krugman) mean consumption, does not produce economic growth, government spending least of all. Robert Barro has estimated, and history certainly bears him out on this that the true "multiplier" for government expenditures is about 0.8 - meaning we lose about 20% on all government spending initiatives.

    There is no multiplier greater than one as Krugman would have you believe, and more over, there is utterly no logical way that there could be in any circumstance. Government gets its money from taxes only to pay off bureaucrats, favored industries, political allies and buddies, not to mention the army of administrators... long before it uses tax money for so-called "productive" purposes like building roads or what-have-you. Besides which, very little of government expenditures go towards that kind of neutral infrastructure anyway. Most of it goes to bombing brown people or straight out wealth transfer.

    ALL of this is based on broken window fallacy reasoning... Krugman's favorite. For example on September 14th, 2001, Krugman wrote:

    "These aftershocks need not be major. Ghastly as it may seem to say this, the terror attack like the original day of infamy, which brought an end to the Great Depression ? could even do some economic good.

    ...So the direct economic impact of the attacks will probably not be that bad. And there will, potentially, be two favorable effects.

    First, the driving force behind the economic slowdown has been a plunge in business investment. Now, all of a sudden, we need some new office buildings. As I've already indicated, the destruction isn't big compared with the economy, but rebuilding will generate at least some increase in business spending."


    Unfortunately, I'm going to guess that you haven't got the slightest clue why this is such a retarded comment coming from an economist (especially a "nobel prize winner").

    So I'd encourage you to read up on the Parable of the Broken Window (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window), and on the essay from which it was taken, "What is Seen and What is Not Seen" (http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html).

    No, I stand by my original claim that Krugman is a fucking idiot. If you'd like to attempt to make an argument on economics that wasn't propagated by a useless hack, then by all means... fire away.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Oh for godsake, I finally read Krugman's little bit of bullshit here:

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c.....henomenon/

    And it doesn't even remotely speak to Rothbard's point, because it's a two paragraph blurb in response to Milton Friedman & Anna Schwartz... And it utterly fails as a "rebuttal" to them too, because it ignored their points as well...

    Jesus... Anyone who gets any of their information about economics from Paul Krugman is bound to be as confused as Jim.

    For the record, Jim... If you're still around... Friedman & Schwartz considered the Federal Reserve to be the proximate cause of the Great Depression because at the very moment where they believe the Fed should have expanded the currency and prevented the failure of the first banks in New York in 1929 they contracted the money supply - as Krugman's own FRED chart clearly shows!

    What happened in the 10 years following that, in Friedman's view, didn't make up for the chain reaction set off by that initial monetary contraction.

    HOWEVER... Friedman's view isn't even remotely what Rothbard's "A History of Money & Banking" is about... That's more-so about monetary expansion during the "Boom" years - during the period from roughly 1923-1929. This reflects a vast difference between Friedman (and other Monetarists), who's looking at what sparked the final fire, vs. Rothbard (and the Austrian School) who is looking at how the fire-hazard got put into place.

    Krugman stupidly glosses over both views, creating a third - entirely strawman - view of Friedman's position, and ignore's Rothbard outright... So if you actually think that his stupid blog post is a legitimate counter to Rothbard's well-sourced, 510 page BOOK, you are a bigger moron than I even realized up to this point.

  • jim x||

    "PS. Krugman only "predicted" the housing bubble was way out of control looooong after other economists (i.e. Mark Thornton) had been saying so for years."

    Which puts Krugman still far ahead of the bubble popping, and still makes him the only mainstream economist I heard of in the news warning people. So, thank you for reluctantly showing that I'm right.

    I'm also noticing that you aren't addressing Krugman's accurate prediction re: the insufficient stimulus.

    Unfortunately, I"m going to guess that none of this will change your opinion which is already set. No doubt because "monetarist policies uber alles" is an ideologically comfortable position for you.

    So, cheers and good luck.

  • jim x||

    Your pdf was debunked by simply noting how it attempted to say the Great Depression was mostly caused by monetary policy.

    This simple nonsense, and is rejected by the overwhelming majority of economists and economic historians.

    This is basically like an astronomy book that states the Earth is flat. Any other theories the book have are basically a waste of time if they come from the same logic.

  • ||

    Plus he won a Nobel prize, which also indicates he knows what he's talking about.
    ...lol...

  • ||

    You'd be a lot scarier if you could spell

  • Shannon Love||

    Just wait until you find out you'll be just another welfare drone instead of a member of the glorious ruling party or the glorious leader you have wet dreams about.

  • ||

    David Koch|2.24.11 @ 1:16PM|#
    "And all you dumbasses think youre going to be the Galtian Overlords of the new globalized, free market free trade world?"

    Nope, but 'way better than the brain-damage required for this sort of crap.

  • ||

    Seriously, libertarian rich people shouldn't offend the left so much. After all, a large chunk of what they're trying to influence should be consistent with leftist goals (civil liberties, mostly). Unfortunately, with the total class warfare mode firmly switched to "on", the left can't think sensibly about these things.

    There are far better targets for their ire, even just symbolically.

  • ||

    If you agree with right wingers about anything, you are EEEEVIL.

  • ||

    Especially if you ever give them money, then you must be stopped at all costs. THERE ARE ONLY TWO TEAMS!

  • ||

    There are 5 lights.

  • ||

    +1 reference!

  • ||

    Well done.

  • ||

    Jellico was still a better captain. The last few seasons of STTNG would have been better if Picard had been tortured to death.

  • ||

    You don't like Picard? Really? He's no Kirk, but no one is. Except Kirk. He's Kirk.

    I'm watching ST:TNG on DVD (something I've never done, surprisingly), and the one disappointment I've had so far (the principal one) is that Wesley was somehow not at the helm when an alien decided to kill a helmsman for fun. Come on, that's just wrong.

  • ||

    You must have missed this Very Special Episode.

  • ||

    Jellico was still a better captain.

    Agreed. I still want to see Riker courtmartialed.

  • ||

    He was also a better actor

  • ||

    Not a Riker fan. What's interesting is how often we're told that he's a great XO and a potential captain any second now, but the way he acts and is portrayed, at least most of the time, makes you wonder why he's even allowed on the ship in the first place.

  • ||

    My 10-year old son actually asked me the other day, out of the blue, "Dad, who do you like better, Kirk or the bald guy?"

    I almost teared up with pride at that moment. It was that special.

  • ||

    At which point, you cried, "Kroykah!" and attacked your son with the lirpa, all while the "Star Trek Fightin' Song" was playing in the background.

    Or so I choose to believe.

  • ||

    The Star Trek Fightin' Song is always playing in the background, ProL, no matter what the occassion. You of all people should know that.

  • ||

    That ship has sailed, Pro. Today we have Team Red! vs Team Blue! and the people with any principles are few and far between.

  • ||

    One of the saddest thing about the American intelligentsia today is that people feel constrained to fold, spindle, and mutilate their values, philosophies, economics, culture, and politics into one of two limited, and, quite honestly, venal mindsets represented by the major political parties. One is diminished by pigeonholing his/her beliefs into these distorted and largely illogical frameworks.

  • ||

    Amen.

  • ||

    We're witnessing a looming civil war in the Republican party between socons and secular libertarians. Democrats can barely agree on the weather. People do not join parties and then become mindless zombies being fed instructions. Some people just recognize the practical reality that there are only two parties, and hoping for a third to gain as much power as either is likely to fail in the near-term. So people actually interested in changing public policy pick a side and influence it from within. On the other hand, people interested merely in patting themselves on the back for being so right and pure and good with hands so clean, tend to form small, fringe, cult-like movements and shout TEAM BLUE TEAM RED a lot.

  • ||

    People do not join parties and then become mindless zombies being fed instructions

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    (takes breath)

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • ||

    *rushes in with oxygen tank*

    I hope I'm not too late!!

  • ||

    (takes deep breaths from oxygen mask)

    Thanks, dude. I almost passed out from laughing so hard.

  • ||

    That's not oxygen, Frank.

  • ||

    I'LL FUCK ANYTHING THAT MOVES

  • ||

    reallys?

  • ||

    Why am I totally unsurprised you failed to get a Blue Velvet reference?

    (not you, ProL--you got it.)

  • ||

    Do you think Hopper created the hipster "movement" and it's odd liking of PBR in that moment?

    I do.

  • ||

    Do you think Hopper created the hipster "movement" and it's odd liking of PBR in that moment?

    I do.

    Bullshit. PBR was cheap and was sold in dive bars that had pool tables and bar tenders who had good taste in music and control of the CD player.

    Seriously.

    Budweiser $2 a glass vs PBR $1 a glass...

    when you make $7 an hour which one would you choose?

  • ||

    You obvs haven't been into a post-ironic hipster dive lately. There are tall cans of PBR in all of them, along with their post-ironic juke box selections of Johnny Cash and Tony Bennett.

  • ||

    Do you think Hopper created the hipster "movement" and it's odd liking of PBR in that moment?

    I don't know about creating hispterism, but Hopper is why I used to buy PBR in the mid-90's. That, and the old and corny "Midnight Madness" movie I used to watch as a kid that had an interlude where they played the PBR jingle to pass a checkpoint in their scavenger game.

  • ||

    my only entertainment is sub-titled B&W mexican vampire flicks, whiskey, porn, & fireworks. is BV 1 of those?...i dont think so

  • ||

    Heineken? Fuck that shit. Pabst. . .Blue. . .Ribbon.

  • ||

    HERE'S TO YOUR FUCK, FRANK

  • ||

    Tony|2.24.11 @ 1:41PM|#
    ...People do not join parties and then become mindless zombies being fed instructions.

    Oh god the irony. It burns!!!

  • ||

    Meh. I'll agree some people are pretty dogmatic in their anti Red team/Blue team shtich.

    But come on. I'm as close to positive as I ever get that dogmatism is more prevalent in members of Red/Blue team, if only because they're so pervasive that there's self-selection in people outside the group (not many people are born communists/libertarians/whatever)

  • ||

    The parties tend to lose when they become dogmatic. Despite recent successes, the GOP's increasingly hard line is going to spell trouble for it if it can't figure out how to form a majority coalition.

    People in fringe groups like libertarians are much more likely to be dogmatic, as is evidenced every single day on these threads. It's easy to be dogmatic when you don't have any power.

  • ||

    I hear nothing but dogmatism from you all day long in nearly every single post. So boring.

  • ||

    This has nothing to do with your comment, but I noted in another thread that your name is pronounced "kunt" in German. Yet no one ever says it that way in English. Pussies.

  • ||

    Please don't be his porn.

  • ||

    Maybe "dogmatic" is the wrong word, since really the difference between dogmatic and principled tends to rest mostly on whether or not you agree with the person

    "Blind" is a better word. It's an unthinking allegiance to a position rather than an idea. You see it all the time on the internet; people will rotate their arguments, as necessary, to win debates. This makes them impossible to argue with: there's no way to falsify an endlessly shifting set of arguments. And it suggests to me they're holding the opinion because they're "supposed" to, not out of any genuine belief.

    And I would think it'd be more prevalent amongst party members primarily because there really isn't, as far as I can see, any coherent overarching ideology behind them. There platforms are a random set of opinions, many held (I suspect) more to spite the other party then out of geniuine belief. To restate that, I don't see any reason why one's opinion on gay marriage should correlate so highly with one's opinion of the Iraq War.

    Whether or not they're flexible about it, at least most fringe movements have a coherent ideology behind their positions.

  • ||

    ---"People in fringe groups like libertarians are much more likely to be dogmatic"---

    I like to think of it as adhering to my priciples.

  • ||

    or principles

  • ||

    People do not join parties and then become mindless zombies being fed instructions

    I actually think that this is true. Which makes the level of knee-jerk support your team shit that one sees all the more depressing. A lot of people don't agree with their party's whole platform, but still are willing to go full retard to support the team.

  • ||

    What's wrong with that? The only way to make policy changes happen is to get one of the two parties to do it. That involves a fair amount of party cheerleading. I know that if I want my policies enacted, the single most important factor is whether my party is elected rather than the other guys.

    I don't believe in spending a lot of time fantasizing about utopia. Every change you want in the world requires a path to get there.

  • ||

    What's wrong with that?

    Maybe after spending years rationalizing mandatory union memebership as a condition for employment, because you want the pro-gay-marriage party to win, you start to actually think it's okay to force people to join a political organization.

  • ||

    Maybe after spending years rationalizing mandatory union memebership as a condition for employment, because you want the pro-gay-marriage party to win, you start to actually think it's okay to force people to join a political organization.

    Good point, actually. There is that danger. It's one you have to accept and be independently minded enough to guard against if you want to have any policy influence.

  • ||

    The paths to the changes I would like to see in the world are not to be found in either party. Both are committed to doing absolutely awful things that I cannot support at all.

    When offered the choice between getting punched in the face or kicked in the nuts, why not at least ask for neither?

  • ||

    When offered the choice between getting punched in the face or kicked in the nuts, why not at least ask for neither?

    Because you'll probably get both as a result.

  • ||

    ---"The only way to make policy changes happen is to get one of the two parties to do it"---

    I seem to recall, sometime in the last twenty years or so, people with principles but weren't members of the political establishment, were able to effect radical changes in their governments. I think it happened in the USSR, most of Eastern Europe, now in Africa and the Middle East.

    So much for having to be in the ruling party to accomplish change. Real change comes from people with real convictions who are willing to put themselves on the line, and make the effort to convince others. It may take some time, but I believe we are getting there.

  • ||

    So much for having to be in the ruling party to accomplish change. Real change comes from people with real convictions who are willing to put themselves on the line, and make the effort to convince others. It may take some time, but I believe we are getting there.

    That's true. You could always have a revolution. Good luck with that!

  • ||

    Revolution don't have to be violent. The Velvet Revolution in the Czech Republic and the government ouster in Egypt are just a couple of examples. Most of Eastern Europe, with the exception of Romania managed to do it peacefully.

    I have no worries that a revolution, actually a return to the principles this country was founded on, cannot be accomplished peacefully. People just need to get fed up and vote the Team Red/Team Blue bastards out.

  • ||

    I agree that a revolution of the mind would be a peaceful path. There is no way that the statists and moochers are going to lose their power with out violence.

  • ||

    The only way to make policy changes happen is to get one of the two parties to do it. That involves a fair amount of party cheerleading

    Have you been in a coma during the past two years? The GOP hated the Tea Party's guts in 2008, and the TP returned the favor by badmouthing the GOP and defeating several high ranking members of the party in primaries. And now the previously spendthrift GOP is at least doing a little bit to curb spending.

    Meanwhile, the party you cheerlead is continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, continuing the operation of Gitmo and the policy of indefinite detention without trial, re-authorizing the Patriot Act, continuing raids on medical marijuana dispensaries in states where they are legal, etc.

  • ||

    Too many people distort their own values and observations to fit in with the appropriate team. If that weren't the case, we'd do things other than debate whether some maniac was a leftie or a rightie or whatever other nonsense serves whatever political purpose of today.

  • ||

    Seen any war protests lately?

  • ||

    Exactly.

    As far as voting one way or the other or even supporting candidates goes, yes, there is some need to do that to get some of the political results you want. Things being the way they are.

    But that doesn't mean you have to toe the party line and adopt every silly talking point. In fact, if more of us would make principled objections to ridiculous positions, statements, actions, what have you, we might have a somewhat saner system.

  • ||

    J sub D|2.24.11 @ 2:17PM|#
    Seen any war protests lately?

    Most of the "anti-war" whatever-you-call-ems are just self-aggrandizing douchebags looking for the Cause of the Moment to help get themselves into the spotlight. They'll move around and change focus at light speed depending on where the media attention is that day. This is literally true.

    An acquaintence of mine moved to DC to be a porfessional activist (the fuck?), originally to protest the wars, but I think of all the actions she did (probably about 100 or so), I could count on one hand the number that were specifically targeting the wars.

    Last year they switched to health care. FEMA/Katrina was in there somewhere. Now it's Wisconsin.

    They don't give two shits about any fucking war.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Which is why www.antiwar.com still rocks so much. Principles. Get some.

  • ||

    LOTS of people get sucked into supporting everything that their chosen party supports, out of a sense of solidarity.

    Once you identify yourself as a Democrat, Republican, liberal, or conservative, you get emotionally invested in everything those words represent. An attack on them becomes an attack on you.

    Sure, there are SOME people who can distance themselves from the party or political philosophy they associate with, but for the most part, that is not the case. The vast majority of the public tends to be emotionally driven into defending their "side". It's standard human psychology.

  • ||

    I've watched some of the infighting between groups like the Republican Liberty Caucus and the state and national party leadership. While you'd think there would be enough common ground between those groups for them to work towards shared goals, the leadership's obvious desire to purge "improper" thinking as exhibited by the RLC is telling.

    And, of course, the Democrats do the same on an even deeper level.

    "Wrong thinking will be punished. Right thinking will be as quickly rewarded."

  • ||

    The problem is that dissent internal to the team tends to reduce the chances of electoral success. When the team's sucess is more important that specific policy goals, lot of people will stifle dissent or keep quiet about issues where they disagree with the team's consensus.

  • ||

    The reason for that? The prize is the end-all, be-all. Control of the money and the power of government. If our government couldn't do so much and spread so much wealth, they would direct their energies to something more productive.

  • Shannon Love||

    On the other hand, people interested merely in patting themselves on the back for being so right and pure and good with hands so clean, tend to form small, fringe, cult-like movements and shout TEAM BLUE TEAM RED a lot.

    Very true. No one is more self-rightous than those who self-margenlize themselves so that their ideas can never be tested in the real world. As long as the ideas remain untested hypothesis the self-rightous outsider can always console themselves that they are unrecognized geniuses.

    On the other hand, there is a real psychological danger to joining any competitive team. We inherently drift towards the standard that the victory of team is the actual goal instead of the implementation of the ideas that the team notionally stands for. Almost everyone who specializes in politics for more than a couple of years falls into that trap. Everyone whose livelihood depends directly on politics does.

  • ||

    Libertarians haven't self-marginalized. Plenty of libertarian policies have been tried out in the real world: airline deregulation, welfare reform, school vouchers, etc. A person who believes deep down that the public school system shouldn't exist is no more marginal than a person who thinks the government should pay for everyone's health care.

  • ||

    "A person who believes deep down that the public school system shouldn't exist is no more marginal than a person who thinks the government should pay for everyone's health care."

    Many countries with significantly better health outcomes for their citizens than the US have a publicly funded health care model.

    No countries with significantly better educational outcomes for their citizens than the US have a private educational model.

    The public health care model is in the mainstream because other countries use it successfully.

    The private education model isn't because nobody uses it successfully.

  • ||

    I'll take this more seriously than it deserves and point out:

    1) The marginal voter is the voter who controls the outcome. Aligning strongly with a particular party makes your vote less sought after - you're never going to vote for the other party, and you'll probably vote for "your side" anyway no matter how many concessions they make to sway swing voters. Even in the primaries, "electability" ultimately trumps loyalty to the ideological pole that party represents.

    2) You're completely ignoring issue advocacy, which is very effective. Take gun control for example. A handgun ban hasn't be less likely than it is now in decades, but not because 2nd amendment advocates have unconditionally thrown their lot in with Republicans, but because Democrats realized that not pushing gun control gave them an advantage in their races. If the NRA automatically supported Republicans as a whole rather than targeting only Democrats (and the occasional Republican) who advocate gun control, it would likely result in more Republicans in office but more gun laws on the books.

    3) Another powerful testament to the political efficacy of fence-sitting is that the big corporate donners do it. AT&T donates about equally for both parties and always has a sympathetic ear in power; and if that's not enough, they can always threaten to become a decisive backer of one side or the other.

    In summary, once you "pick a side" you're no longer able to negotiate concessions in exchange for support. The party establishments like people who pick a side, since they can be pissed on as necessary to swing moderates without losing the votes or donations. Just ask any Obama supporter who gave a shit about civil liberties or Bush supporter who cared about spending.

  • ||

    Marginal and "fence sitting" are really not the same thing. A fence-sitter is one who is undecided and is waiting on some information to make a decision, if they ever do.

    Someone who holds string views and sticks to their principles is, by definition, NOT a fence-sitter. They are also no necessarily part of the political mainstream.

    It's apples and oranges you're talking about here.

  • ||

    agreed PL. i prefer progressive militarists.

  • ||

    Okay but liberals are for all those wonderful things too, minus the larger goal of turning the country into an oligarchy and the planet into an oven.

  • ||

    Did he just Godwin this thread?

  • ||

    Could be.
    S/he just tossed out one of his/her 'I'm on the side of angels, and you're all evil' bullshit lines.
    To be ignored.

  • ||

    Was in the Nazi Youth. You got no room to talk here.

  • ||

    The ADL just condemned you AND Glenn Beck, I guess.

  • ||

    Good intentions drive the laws of nature as we all know. The well-intentioned always get unalloyed positive results.

  • ||

    Yes, it is our goal to turn the country into an oligary and the planet into an oven. We we want to do so is still a mystery, but you've found us out.

  • SIV||

    consistent with leftist goals (civil liberties, mostly)

    lol

  • ||

    Okay, "stated" goals.

  • jim x||

    Actually the "liberals" are being quite sensible. Minority rights are important - but everyone's rights *and* financial well-being is risked by unregulated businesses and poorly regulated financial markets.

  • ||

    If only they believed that their industries had a responsibility not to impose costs on other people's property, or pay for the damage they do cause. No, instead they give $48 million to fund anti-science propaganda and pretend the problem doesn't exist at all. I'm sure none of the rationalists here would ever do that.

  • ||

    Yeah, that NOVA program is a hotbed of flat-earth, anti-galilean reactionism.

  • ||

    I'm going to report this to the Kochs on their secret, pneumatic tube network! I watch NOVA, and they're definitely on the AGW side. How can our dear overlords continue to fund such madness?

  • ||

    I thought they still kept the Wind Talkers enslaved in the catacombs so they can use the Morse code network?

    When did they upgrade to a series of tubes?

  • ||

    Several years ago. Only the elect have tube access, however.

  • ||

    i gots ur tube

  • ||

    My understanding is that such use of a vacuum tube is discouraged. There are warning labels all over the intertubial network.

  • ||

    Those are just for the cleaning crew.

  • ||

    So that excuses their very real funding and advocacy of anti-science propaganda?

  • ||

    Like the Smithsonian?

  • ||

    You obviously haven't read the New Yorker article about how the exhibit on the Ice Age that they funded is thinly veiled anti-AGW propaganda.

  • ||

    Wow. I just went and read the excerpt from the article. Man, what a bunch of butthurt. These people are pissed off because an exhibit about human evolution wasn't an exhibit about the looming human caused climate catastrophe.

    I also found this video. This guy seems to have his tinfoil hat on pretty tightly. When he looks at a touchscreen thing for kids about how humans might evolve on another planet, he goes off about "NO! They're not talking about the climate crisis we have RIGHT NOW! We can't have kids imagining about living on other planets. They have to shit their pants right now!!"

    Jesus Christ.

  • Shannon Love||

    If only they believed that their industries had a responsibility not to impose costs on other people's property, or pay for the damage they do cause.

    Is it that or they don't think they have a responsibility to pay for imaginary damages to other people's property? Are we talking real objective damages or damages that only exist if we string together a long series of untested and usually untestable assumptions? Are we talking about damages that will only manifest decades down the road but which have to paid for right here and now?

    Wait, when you say "property" are you saying the the Kochs sneaking into people's bad yards to buy toxic waste? I mean we have a long series of laws and even customs to handle that so how are they getting away with it

    Water and air aren't anyone's property so you can't be talking about that.

  • ||

    Koch industries is one of the biggest polluters in the country.

    They want to continue being so without having to pay for it.

  • ||

    Beating the government's 50% share of pollution?

  • ||

    Dixie Cups?

  • ||

    In the West, water is 'owned', through an elaborate system of water rights.

    For example, it was illegal until very recently to use rain barrels in Colorado, because they constituted "diverting" the water from its natural course. Since someone else had rights to that water, you were in effect stealing it from them, even if the rain fell on your land.

    Needless to say, if Koch Industries were polluting the water, there would be no shortage of plaintiffs ready to file suit against them.

  • ||

    "leftard "

    Oh Mr. Gillespie, please please don't use this term or any other type of adolescent name-calling. Folks on the left do this all the time when referring to libertarians, and it wouldn't be good to lower ourselves to their level...

  • SIV||

    Prove you're a real libtard.

    I'm betting you are a DemocRAT Party shill leftard.

  • ||

    Who the fuck calls him "MR. Gillespie"?

  • ||

    Which Republican candidates that the Koch brothers helped fund in the 2010 campaign are currently actively working to legalize gay marriage, decriminalize drugs, and cut defense spending?

    Now which politicians with Koch funding are trying to bust unions, impose barriers to abortion, and deny equal rights to homosexuals?

    According to OpenSecrets, the congressmen that David Koch has donated the most to are Todd Tiahrt, Elizabeth Dole, Mark Foley, James Inhofe, and Sam Brownback: http://www.opensecrets.org/new.....thers.html

    Yeah, I can't figure out why liberals aren't ecstatic about these guys.

  • ||

    Right...because "liberals" are about one thing: unions. And the little dust-up in WI is showing that in a crystal clear way. Civil liberties? You couldn't care less.

    Spare us what you are ecstatic about, because it's unions and only unions.

  • ||

    Unions and collective bargaining are one issue that tends to garner support on the left, yes. Other issues include reproductive rights, gay rights, expanding health care access, and addressing climate change. It's great that the Koch brother personally believe that drugs and gay marriage should be legalized - I agree with them! I'm sure many other liberals do! Unfortunately, the elected officials the Kochs have donated to are actively hostile to just about every aspect of the Democratic agenda, as well as several of the points Nick Gillespie mentioned that, while not officially part of the Democratic, enjoy general sympathy on the left.

    The Kochs don't worry me because they fund the Reason Foundation and the Cato Institute - Hit & Run and Cato@Liberty are part of my daily reading. The candidates that they donate to are fundamentally opposed to many aspects of liberty that I consider essential. Tiahrt, Dole, Foley, Inhofe, Brownback - which of these could be called a social or civil libertarian with a straight face?

  • ||

    So the Koch brothers support much of what you (supposedly) believe in, but they're still the boogeyman. Good to know that you can think outside your TEAM BLUE paradigm...oh wait, you can't.

    Does it ever get uncomfortable being a mindless partisan drone? Really, I'm curious.

  • ||

    What he's saying is, they actually DON'T support any of what he believes in, because the candidates they help to elect would essentially disagree with most of what appears in "Reason".

    So, the question becomes: what do you make of them supporting Reason on the one hand, and anti-civil libertarian conservatives with the other hand?

  • SIV||

    self-interest?

  • ||

    Right...but to issue a blanket statement saying "they support these things", when their self-interested actions contradict some of that, is intellectually dishonest.

    Yes, they support foundations that espouse a libertarian belief. They also support politicians who do not. We shouldn't just make a pronouncement that they want to support these things, because their actions in this regard are contradictory (not from a self-interest standpoint, but from an ideological consistency standpoint).

  • ||

    Yeah, this is basically the point I was making. I can find plenty of common ground with libertarians on social and civil liberties issues, and I enjoy plenty of what I read in Cato and Reason, even if I often agree with it. But there's nothing libertarian about the politicians who receive the bulk of Koch money - it's across the board conservatism. There's nothing I can support about the social conservative agenda.

  • ||

    Well, no, that's not even close to the point I was making.

    The Kochs support gay marriage. I support gay marriage. The congressmen who have received the most money from the Kochs are among those most actively hostile to gay rights.

    The Kochs support decriminalizing marijuana. So do I. The candidates who have received the most money from the Kochs favor Draconian drug laws.

    I'm guessing the Kochs are personally supportive to indifferent about abortion - I can't recall them making any public stances on the issue. I support legal abortion. The candidates who have received the most money from the Kochs are heavily pro-life.

    On the issues where I diverge from libertarians - economic policy, health care, collective bargaining rights, etc., there's nothing even close to common ground with the candidates supported by the Kochs.

    On issues where liberals and libertarians can find common ground - gay rights, abortion, immigration, the Patriot Act, drug sentencing, etc., it seems that while the Kochs might personally hold the same beliefs as I do, the candidates they have helped elect do not. The congressmen David Koch has donated the most to are against every possible policy position I take, so it's irrelevant what they really believe deep down.

  • ||

    Wait. Are you saying details matter?

    SIV hits the nail on the head, btw.

  • ||

    Wait, this is a lucid and reasoned criticism of the Kochs? Stop confusing us with such shenanigans.

    FWIW, I had the same thought as SIV. However, it may be that they're priming the pump, since that's the way the political game is played, much like a perfectly honest refugee bribing the border guard to get out.

  • ||

    While that's a reasoned argument, it's also not a persuasive one. Libertarianism is a lonely road and we make narrow alliances when opportunities present themselves.

    If Tyler Cowen considers himself a libertarian compromiser/bargainer, I don't see why any of us, errr, I'll just speak for myself here, should attempt being ideologically pure.

    I prefer the company of liberals over social cons, but I tend to vote R because it's the economy stupid. My feeling is that Koch x2 do the same. Do they support R. Paul (either)?

  • ||

    Thanks for being reasoned & logical.

    If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say the Kochs donate to these politicians for a couple of reasons a) there are almost no real libertarian-leaning politicians holding national office at this time (I can think of three off the top of my head, and perhaps a couple more I don't know) and b) they see the political game of dirt and grime as separate from their idealogy and life philosophy.

    IN other words, donating to politicians is a necessity of doing business in America under the system we have set up; but donating to Cato, reason or PBS is a moral and philiophical action. Cynical? A-yup. Unfortunate reality? A-yup.

  • ||

    This is a perfectly fair, Kristen. I don't begrudge the Koch brothers the right to make political donations to causes that serve their business interests (I don't want to open up the campaign finance can of worms). Their business interests are primarily served by electing politicians who promise low taxes, lax environmental/safety regulations, and who deny global warming. They have every right to do this - that's how democracy works. My problem is with the intellectual dishonesty of Nick Gillespie's original post. He's acting as if they're using their influence mainly for the purpose of decriminalizing drugs, legalizing gay marriage, ending the Patriot Act, and cut defense spending. I can't think of a single campaign donation they've made towards furthering those goals. If they want to make donations based on their economic interests, that's fine, but the Koch brothers' economic interests are irreconcilable with the core beliefs and goals of liberals.

    Jon Chait made this point this morning: they're willing to give their money to people who advance their economic agenda but are opposed to their social agenda, but not those who support their social agenda with a different economic agenda. This is why there is no liberal/Koch alliance. I would imagine Nick Gillespie knows this.

    Furthermore, I'd add that the Koch brothers' donations don't necessarily advance a libertarian economic agenda, but a hard-line Republican agenda. I doubt anyone at Reason think the Bush years really represented a high water mark of fiscal conservatism and libertarian principles, but going back to that list of the highest donees of Koch money - Tiahrt, Dole, Foley, Inhofe, Brownback - they all actively advanced the Bush agenda. High deficits, Medicare Part D, the Patriot Act, gay marriage fearmongering, an incredibly conservative social agenda - all of these were advanced by politicians who Koch supports. It's convenient for Republicans to rediscover their libertarian streak every time a Democrat is in the White House, but you guys are fooling yourselves if you think the Koch brothers have truly advanced libertarianism at the federal government level. What they've been successful at is divorcing a social agenda that could unite liberals and libertarians from an economic agenda that can unite libertarians and conservatives (low taxes, anti-unionism, attacking the welfare state, etc.)

  • ||

    Tru dat, double true.

    Chait really busted this zit,and Gillespie's brain-pus is all over the floor.

  • ||

    It's "bogeyman", Epi.

  • ||

    Unfortunately, the elected officials the Kochs have donated to are actively hostile to just about every aspect of the Democratic agenda

    You suffer under the delusion that there is a distinction with a difference between the 2 TEAMs. Both want to expand the state and expert control over the populace. The only real disagreement over is whether the soup spoon goes to the left of the setting or to the right.

  • ||

    I, actually, see a meaningful difference in the two parties. The Republicans want to, primarily, expand the state to PREVENT you from doing things (social conservative agenda items are almost always prohibitive), while Democrats want to expand state power to FORCE you to do things (social welfare agenda items).

    It may be, from a libertarian perspective, a distinction without a difference, but I do think they are different agendas.

  • ||

    It may be, from a libertarian perspective, a distinction without a difference

    Bingo.

    but I do think they are different agendas.

    Of course they have different agendas, much as the fascists and the communists did during WWII. Nevertheless, I can't say that there was much difference in the end result.

  • ||

    This is an interesting point. Always force, but in opposite directions.

  • ||

    I'd say that both teams want to ban and force as much as the other. They only differ as to what.

  • ||

    The force element is the key problem with our country today. Rather than persuading people to be or act a certain way--which is an absolutely fine thing to do in my view--the focus is on compulsion.

  • ||

    COMPLY.

    It's a dessert topping and floor wax.

  • ||

    There is no compulsion in politics.

  • ||

    the focus is on compulsion.

    It's the crack of authoritarianism; it gets very effective short term results, but eventually requires greater and greater doses to achieve the desired outcome.

    It also requires theft of others to maintain the habit.

  • ||

    This is an interesting point. Always force, but in opposite directions.

    Force has no borders, nationalities, or genders?

  • ||

    Don't get shitty!

  • ||

    Except it isnt true.

    Democrats want to expand state power to FORCE your from doing things also. Like eating foie gras or smoking or prostitution (see Reid for an example of the last).

    Republicans want to expand state power to FORCE you to do things, like kill people in Afghanistan or support Israel.

  • ||

    No one is forced to kill people in Afghanistan or support Israel...unless you're talking about "through taxes" which is just as true of the Democrats.

  • ||

    No one is forced to kill people in Afghanistan or support Israel...unless you're talking about "through taxes" which is just as true of the Democrats.

    I will get thrown in jail if I become a prostitute or don't pay taxes to kill people in Afghanistan.

    I don't see a difference.

  • ||

    I am talking trends, not absolutes here. The Republican PREVENT list is longer than the Democratic PREVENT list and the Republican FORCE list is shorter than the Democratic FORCE list.

    And, of course, you can always spin a prevent into a force if'n ya want.

    e.g., The Democrats want to FORCE pate' producers to treat their animals humanely...and the Republicans want to PREVENT you from letting the terrorists take over.

  • ||

    And, of course, you can always spin a prevent into a force if'n ya want.

    so we are back to not a dimes worth of difference.

  • ||

    so we are back to not a dimes worth of difference.

    Not really. The difference that the FORCE/PREVENT distinction highlights comes out in policy quite clearly. Taxes are the main mechanism for forcing you to do something. Police are the main mechanism for preventing you from doing things. For instance.

  • ||

    Except for carbon taxes, cigarette taxes, and police enforcing seat belt laws and fast food menu laws.

    A trend of a trend of a trend of a trend is nothing at all.

  • ||

    carbon taxes, = force you to pay for pollution.

    cigarette taxes = force you to pay for...let's just go with pollution again.

    police enforcing seat belt laws = force you to wear your seat belt.

    fast food menu laws = force you to eat healthy.

    You are making my point for me...for the most part.

    The last one has a pretty easy "PREVENT" vibe, I'll admit.

  • ||

    carbon taxes, = prevent industries from polluting

    cigarette taxes = prevent you from smoking/prevent tobacco companies from marketing to certain demographics

    police enforcing seat belt laws = prevent you from killing yourself in a car crash

    fast food menu laws = prevent you from being fat

    Basically, no difference whatsoever between prevent and compel.

    So, again, it's all the same. FORCE.

  • ||

    A prime example: Do Democrats want to PREVENT oil companies from drilling? Or do they want to FORCE oil companies to take environmental precautions?

  • ||

    It all flows from the threat of violence, incarceration and/or deprivation of wealth for failure to comply, so, what robc said.

  • ||

    A prime example: Do Democrats want to PREVENT oil companies from drilling? Or do they want to FORCE oil companies to take environmental precautions?

    Both. Ken Salazar is in contempt of a federal court order that lifted the ban on offshore drilling, yet he is not allowing permits where the oil companies wish to drill.

    "The Democrats" don't want drilling, but they want the oil companies campaign contributions, tax revenue, and the control to dictate how the industry operates.

  • ||

    Shorter DNS: the Democratic Party, like the Chicago Democratic Organization, is a glorified Protection Racket.

    It's not very well understood that Saul Alinsky learned his organizing methods from Frank Nitti, Al Capone's bagman and protection boss.

    Now you understand why Obama is the way he is.

    Once you understand Protection and how the Mob uses it, then you understand what Obama is doing to big business and Wall Street.

    This leads to Peronism as it was practiced in Argentina. Everyone knows what happened to those clowns.

    Wonderful steaks. Outstanding football. Not so great a currency or economy.

  • ||

    A prime example of what, NM? What is the point you are trying to make? Saying that the same action can be interpreted as preventing or forcing actually goes against your original point.

  • ||

    Just talking around an issue. Fleshing out an idea. Not trying to make a strong case...I said from the start that from a libertarian perspective it probably was a distinction without a difference.

    But from other perspectives, it is usually the specifics of those FORCE/PREVENT lists that swing voters one way of the other.

  • ||

    Actually, I'm pretty sure the answer is yes to both of those questions.

  • ||

    Actually, I'm pretty sure the answer is yes to both of those questions.

    While I think you could find people who want to stop all drilling, I think the questions are mutually exclusive. You can't take environmental precautions when drilling if you are not drilling. I think, by and large, Democrats want to force the precautions.

    By and large.

  • ||

    It is well known that I have my own killing agenda that I enjoy carrying out in Afghanistan. I am very skilled at expanding state power.

  • ||

    Different agendas, NM, but similar goals.

  • ||

    Different agendas, NM, but similar goals results.

    FIFY, mister.

  • ||

    Fuck you

  • ||

    Yeah, I can't figure out why liberals aren't ecstatic about these guys.

    It's because the scarf they wear is not the same color as theirs.

  • ||

    Fucking freedom of speech and association. How does it work?

  • ||

    Two hundred and thirty six odd years and still we're not sure.

  • ||

    The stache apparently doesn't understand that modern liberalism begins and ends with public sector unionism. If you don't support that, you can't be a liberal. The rest is just window dressing for the proles.

  • ||

    Right on, Johnny boy! I miss the days of child labor, 12 hour shifts, and the Pinkertons, hpw about you?

  • ||

    Damn, being a government employee was harsh in the day!

  • ||

    And we're waiting here in Allentown.
    But they've taken all the coal from the ground
    And the union people crawled awaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay
    aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah aaaaaaaaaaah aaaaaah.

  • ||

    go back to boning whats her face

  • ||

    Your mother?

  • ||

    the other whats her face

  • ||

    Please tell us how exploitative child labor came to an end, and how the working week and day were shortened. If you say unions, you will be partly right (unions doing their thing absent violence employed by them, against them, or on their behalf are PART OF THE FREE MARKET.) If you say regulation, you are ignorant.

    Furthermore, do you think that the "Gilded Age" was some sort of free market paradise? Sorry to rain on your parade but the government was heavily involved in the American economy at that time and the sorts of exploitation which is so often condemned could only take place because the state was complicit and encouraged it. Businesses can be evil, governments can only be evil.

  • ||

    So like all libertarians you're claiming that there's not a single bit of evidence for the claims you make about how society should best be run (since we've never had that type of society) and for that very reason, you're obviously right about it.

    We may have never had libertopia, but we've had more laissez-faire moments and more progressive moments. Things don't tend to go well when we're going in the free market direction, and saying it will all be OK if we just go completely over the cliff just isn't convincing to people who appreciate evidence.

  • ||

    The progressive moments were great, weren't they. World war I, eugenics, forced sterilization, legally enforced racism, the great depression, world war II, Vietnam. Good times.

    Why not give freedom a try for a while and see how it works out?

  • ||

    World war I, eugenics, forced sterilization, legally enforced racism, the great depression, world war II, Vietnam.

    What does any of that have to do with progressivism? The real kind, not the kind Glenn Beck talks about.

  • ||

    Does "Three generations of imbeciles are enough" ring a bell, Tony?

    Or was Progressive Hero Oliver Wendell Holmes not "progressive" enough for you?

  • ||

    Mwahahaha. That can't be the real Tony, the hypocrisy is too blatant and perfect.

  • ||

    Well I can see plenty of actual evidence of widespread systemic exploitation and brutality and in almost every case it was/is enabled and encouraged by the state.

    Also you fail to grasp my point, the sorts of improvements in the lives of working people in the first part of the twentieth century occurred because of market forces, despite the interference of the state. The state jumped on the reform bandwagon as a way to co opt working class movements and assist and encourage a new sort of oligarchy. The state's interest in this was simple, a growing economy developing along somewhat free market lines would be too hard for central power to control, while channeling economic power to fewer beholden firms would serve to increase the power of the state.

    By the way people employed an argument structured very much the same as yours to argue against the end of monarchy and abolitionism. I'm not saying this to compare you to a monarchist or slave owner, but to point out that the "it's never happened before" argument is pretty damn weak.

  • ||

    No, Tony, it's simply the realization that every time societies have made steps towards implementing liberal policies (that's the classical liberal, not the neo-liberal), conditions for all members of that society have improved. And conversely, when societies have made steps away from liberal policies, conditions for the majority of people have gotten worse.

    No, we have not implemented a libertopia, but it's not a stretch of logic to think that if we keep following liberal policies, things will improve.

  • ||

    Except when you're talking about economic issues. That's why for most of us classical liberalism evolved into modern progressivism, meaning incorporating social and economic justice into the equation. Workplace rights, safety nets and social insurance, anti-racism laws--all of these things were a bonanza for freedom, despite any cost in tax dollars.

  • ||

    Except that it's not true. Classical liberalism did not "evolve" into socialism.

    Also, for the first 80 years or so, progressives were not "anti-racist"...quite the opposite, in fact, as has been documented over and over.

  • ||

    Also, for the first 80 years or so, progressives were not "anti-racist"...quite the opposite, in fact, as has been documented over and over.

    Yeah well everyone was racist. Who got over it first?

  • ||

    Considering the fact that it was Conservative Republican Presidents Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge that pushed for anti-lynching laws, I'm not sure you can argue it was the "Progressives."

    "In 1924, Coolidge responded to a letter that claimed the United States was a "white man's country":

    ....I was amazed to receive such a letter. During the war 500,000 colored men and boys were called up under the draft, not one of whom sought to evade it. [As president, I am] one who feels a responsibility for living up to the traditions and maintaining the principles of the Republican Party. Our Constitution guarantees equal rights to all our citizens, without discrimination on account of race or color. I have taken my oath to support that Constitution.."

    http://www.calvin-coolidge.org....._race.html

    http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/3583.html

    You should also look up: Moorfield Storey, Robert Taft, Warren G. Harding, and Goldwater's record in Arizona on Civil Rights. And as for who got there first, the Left or the Right. Well, I don't know, but it damn sure wasn't the Democrats!

  • jim x||

    Please note Herbert Hoover, and his policy as a Republican candidate of firing loyal Black Americans in the GOP and replacing them with racist whites. This is what enabled him to win the presidency. Note that all GOP presidents after him have pursued the restriction of civil rights rather than their expansion.

    Hoover's campaign was also the GOP's first use of fanning racism in order to siphon off votes that would otherwise go to Southern Democrats, AKA the Southern Strategy, later used to great effect by Nixon.

    In your convenient recitation you also fail to note the significant efforts of FDR, Truman who desegrated the army, JFK who initiated civil rights bills and LBJ who passed even more of them.

  • ||

    "Yeah well everyone was racist. Who got over it first?"
    Those who would have made money hiring blacks if they weren't stopped by Jim Crow laws.

  • ||

    Well, there was the whole problem of Himmler and Heydrich getting their neat ideas from Margaret Sanger.

    Beck may be a tad crazy, but he's not wrong about that racist progressive, Margaret Sanger.

    She's your baby, Tony. I'm not sure that she and Ayn Rand were best buds.

  • ||

    Here's Rand from her article on Racism

    Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or poltical significance to a man's genetic lineage--the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.

    Racism claims that the content of a man's mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man's convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control. This is the caveman's version of the doctrine of innate ideas--or of inherited knowledge--which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.

    Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man's life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination.

  • jim x||

    So, you're going to claim that the Southerners who enforced Jim Crow laws were progressives. And the people who fought for the removal of Jim Crow laws were conservatives.

    Please do explain. I would LOVE to see how that has been documented "over and over".

  • ||

    The Eisenhower administration declared racial discrimination a national security issue, meaning that the Communists around the world were using racial discrimination in the U.S. as a point of propaganda attack.[62] The day after the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Brown v. Board of Education in which segregated ("separate but equal") schools were ruled to be unconstitutional, Eisenhower told District of Columbia officials to make Washington a model for the rest of the country in integrating black and white public school children.[63][64] He proposed to Congress the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 and signed those acts into law. The 1957 Act for the first time established a permanent civil rights office inside the Justice Department. Although both Acts were weaker than subsequent civil rights legislation, they constituted the first significant civil rights acts since the Civil Rights Act of 1875, signed by President Ulysses S. Grant.

    The "Little Rock Nine" incident of 1957 involved the refusal by Arkansas to honor a Federal court order to integrate the schools. Under Executive Order 10730, Eisenhower placed the Arkansas National Guard under Federal control and sent Army troops to escort nine black students into Little Rock Central High School, an all-white public school. The integration did not occur without violence. Eisenhower and Arkansas governor Orval Faubus engaged in tense arguments.

    Notice who is bolded?

    On the other hand we have these quotes from Progressive Icon Woodrow Wilson.

    Adventurers swarmed out of the North, as much the enemies of one race as of the other, to cozen, beguile and use the negroes. The white men were aroused by a mere instinct of self-preservation — until at last there sprung into existence a great Kuklux Klan, a veritable empire of the South, to protect the Southern country.
    A History of the American People (1901), describing the Klan as a brotherhood of politically disenfranchised white men; famously quoted in The Birth of a Nation (1915).

    And...

    Segregation is not humiliating but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen.
    Conference with members of the National Association for Equal Rights (November 1914), defending the resegregation of federal offices

    Just pointing the way toward over and over...

  • jim x||

    You seem to have skipped Hoover and his policies of firing Black Americans from the GOP, which helped seal his initial Presidential win.

    ON the other side of things, you seem to have skipped FDR and Truman, both of whom significantly bettered the plight of African Americans. And Truman, who triumphed over his own background to completely desegregate the military.

    Yes, Eisenhower also said and did some notable things. Also of note is that many conservatives don't like him for that, and almost no one actually considers him a conservative.

  • ||

    Remember the 1990s, Tony? What direction was the government going in at that time, more toward laissez faire or more toward socialism? And how was the economy doing?

  • ||

    Let's see. The most prosperous decades in the past 100 years have been the 1920s of Calvin Coolidge's adminstration, the 1950s of Eisenhower's (following the Taft-Hartley Act which massively restricted union activity), and the 1990s of Clinton and welfare reform. See a pattern?

  • jim x||

    I see a pattern. You're skipping FDR's pulling us forward out of the Great Depression, and you're placing credit for CLinton's boom on Welfare reform and not on his directly Keynesian policies of raising taxes on the wealthy to invest in the poor and middle class.

  • ||

    I would take issue with the implication that moves toward more laissez-faire actually caused the prosperity in the 90s. In fact we've been moving more laissez-faire since at least the 80s, and the end result was a near-depression.

    So what about the 50s?

  • ||

    "In fact we've been moving more laissez-faire since at least the 80s,"

    So that must be why the government has been MORE involved in the economy?????

  • ||

    Tony seems to have missed the administration of George Lyndon Johnson Bush.

    Or he thinks he can just ignore the expansion of regulation and spending that occured in those years because none of the regulation and spending did what he wanted them too.

    Oh, and they were done by someone with an (R) next to his name.

    Now that someone with a (D) next his name is doing all the same things, only harder and deeper, it's all good.

  • ||

    That's why for most of us classical liberalism evolved into modern progressivism

    Whats this "most" bullshit??

    Progressives make up maybe 15% of the population.

    I think you are confusing "status qou" with "progressives".

  • Shannon Love||

    I grew up on a farm and worked a whole lot of child labor. Big machines, dangerous animals, dangerous weather, the whole lot. We had lots of fun. City kids are pussies.

    Of course there is also the minor problem that child labor, 12 hour shifts etc were necessitated by technological limitations and not politics. Prior to roughly 1920 a adult working only 40 hours a week could not generate enough material wealth to feed, clothe and shelter a family of four much less generate the surplus wealth needed to advance civilization.

    Muscle power did move enough stuff around to create all those material benefits. Only when capitalist magnified the work of human muscles with "dehumanizing" machines powered by evil carbon engines could an adult produce enough material wealth in a mere 40 hours of work to get buy.

    Of course, all those machines and organizational systems were created by greed driven people like the Kochs and not the eras "social reformers."

  • ||

    I've never really understood why people think that child labor is so wrong....if the parents are so negligent as to let their children be exploited, those kids have a lot worse things to deal with than just having a job.

  • ||

    In places with child labor problems, choice isn't usually a big factor.

  • ||

    If your family is so poor that you have no choices, then wouldn't further restricting the income of the family be cruel?

    OH WAIT, I KNOW....you're more in favor of creating a permanent dependent class to solidify your voting bloc.

    Back in the day, they didn't call it "child labor", they called it "chores" and "apprenticeships". They were considered an integral part of growing up and becoming an adult.

  • ||

    I would say that before you can have laws against child labor, you probably need to have a society that's rich enough to be able to do without it.

    You might say, so why do we need the laws of we can do without. Because children work for cheap, and absent restrictions, businesses might opt for the cheapest option. They're not, of course, entitled to the cheapest avenue in all things, if it leads to abuses.

  • ||

    "Because children work for cheap, and absent restrictions, businesses might opt for the cheapest option."

    And they might not; my hypo is as good as yours, without the need to restrict those who still need the kid's help.

  • ||

    And they might not; my hypo is as good as yours

    No it's not. A business's purpose is to maximize profits. In your magical free market that means the cheapest capable labor is the best labor.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    "I would say that before you can have laws against child labor, you probably need to have a society that's rich enough to be able to do without it."

    For once in your pathetic little life, Tony... You nailed it.

    Child labor ends exactly at the moment that societies become wealthy enough to not need all hands on deck.

    And for the record, what I mean by the word wealth is that they have enough surplus goods & services and a high rate of production... I do NOT mean that they get wealthy once they have enough money, as you always mean when you incorrectly use the word "wealth".

    Like when I wrote this blog for you: http://seanwmalone.blogspot.co.....money.html

    Now, if only you had anything even approaching a basic understanding of where wealth & prosperity are derived. Remember when I explained how that works to you, too?

    http://seanwmalone.blogspot.co.....ption.html

  • ||

    This post has the ring of the mythical.

  • ||

    I guess those pictures from the 1910s of kids working on machines in factories must have been doctored.

    Mechanization and robotics has pretty much removed the utility of children doing heavy factory work, but that's a much more recent development. Child labor was a problem back then.

  • ||

    Define "problem".

  • ||

    9 year old girls getting ripped apart in a mechanical loom while they try to dislodge stray threads while the machine runs at full speed to maximize profits constitutes a problem.
    (They were hired because their small hands allowed them to reach into the smallest, hardest to reach parts of the machine)
    Goddamn progressives and unions always screwing with the free market.

  • ||

    +++

  • jim x||

    Factory work is different.

    Ask those who worked in the Triangle Shirtwaist factory.

  • ||

    Have you given to the abolitionist movement, DK? If we don't keep them funded, why, slavery might become legal again!

  • ||

    Yep, back in the day in movie thee-ayters, the conditions were incerdibly harsh. Like, the projectionist actually had to turn the reels manually with his pinky finger for hours on end! Damn good thing they unionized, so that when I worked part-time in that theater for three months in the summer of 1991 they could take money out of my paycheck to prevent such horrors!

  • ||

    Teachers, nurses, and firefighters are worthless parasites!

  • ||

    Keep going! You're on a roll! Your arguments are compelling and interesting!

  • ||

    Allentown Lyrics
    Artist(Band):Billy Joel Review The Song (1) Print the Lyrics

    Send "Allentown" Ringtones to Cell

    Well we're living here in Allentown
    And they're closing all the factories down
    Out in Bethlehem they're killing time
    Filling out forms
    Standing in line.

    Well our fathers fought the Second World War
    Spent their weekends on the Jersey Shore
    Met our mothers at the USO
    Asked them to dance
    Danced with them slow
    And we're living here in Allentown.

    But the restlessness was handed down
    And it's getting very hard to staaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay
    aaaaaaah aaahhhhh ooooooooh ooooooh ohhhhhhh.

    Well we're waiting here in Allentown
    For the Pennsylvania we never found
    For the promises our teachers gave
    If we worked hard
    If we behaved.

    So the graduations hang on the wall
    But they never really helped us at all
    No they never taught us what was real
    Iron or coke,
    Chromium steel.

    And we're waiting here in Allentown.
    But they've taken all the coal from the ground
    And the union people crawled awaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay
    aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah aaaaaaaaaaah aaaaaah.

    Every child had a pretty good shot
    To get at least as far as their old man got.
    If something happened on the way to that place
    They threw an American flag in our face, oh oh oh.

    Well I'm living here in Allentown
    And it's hard to keep a good man down.
    But I won't be getting up todaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy
    aaaaaaaaaaah aaaaaaaaaaah aaaaaaaaah.

    GUITAR SOLO

    aaaaaaah aaaaaaah aaaaaaah oh oh oh.

    And it's getting very hard to staaaaaaaaaaaaaay.
    And we're living here in Allentown.

  • Shannon Love||


    No they never taught us what was real
    Iron or coke,
    Chromium steel.


    That's the important part of the song. People thought politics and ideology was more important that production.
  • ||

    You mean it's not GUITAR SOLO?

  • ||

    David Koch|2.24.11 @ 1:38PM|#
    "Teachers, nurses, and firefighters are worthless parasites"

    Copied off the posters in the hiring hall?

  • ||

    Is there any one but libtards ever signup for Reddit?

  • ||

    Actually, a lot of libertarians do too, but they're mostly of the anarcho-capitalist or left-libertarian sort.

  • jim x||

    Depends on how many libertariantards or rightards want to get a thrill.

  • Warty||

    It has the word "satire" in its handle, and it is spectacularly inept. The evidence points toward Dan T.

  • ||

    Except that the only thing Dan T. does that qualifies as satire is when he's completely serious.

  • ||

    So if the Koch brothers are pro drug legalization, then whey do they drug test all new employees?

  • ||

    Pro drug legalization =/= drug user. Not even remotely close to the same fucking thing.

  • ||

    One has nothing to do with the other. Just because you support someone's right to use drugs, doesn't mean you have to hire them, too.

  • ||

    They don't let their employees handling heavy machinery booze it up on the clock either! What the fuck Koch?

  • Sean W. Malone||

    +1

  • ||

    There are many reasons why companies drug test new hires.

    Some do it because their insurance companies, both health and liability, require it to get the lowest premiums or, in some cases, any policy at all.

    Others, because of contract requirements, usually with government agencies.

    Others might do it because in spite of believing you have the right to use drugs they still don't want to hire drug users.

    Considering the cost of drug testing, it's highly unlikely that they do it for fun.

  • ||

    Even though the Koch brothers agree with at least 75% of the progressive agenda they are evil, because less than 100% cannot be tolerated.

    They must be eradicated like kulaks.

    And anyone else who dissents from their unassailable dogma.

  • ||

    If progressives aren't nearly 100% focused on the economy and climate change, their priorities are off. The Kochs happen to disagree profoundly on these issues.

  • jim x||

    How about, whatever the Koch brothers privately feel or agree with, 100% of the candidates they support are against 100% of what progressives want?

    You know, that little thing.

  • ||

    The ACLU supports 9/10 of the bill of rights.

    Why do libertarians always complain about the ACLU? Is the 2nd amendment really that important?

  • ||

    They Support Drug Legalization, Gay Marriage, Reduced Defense Spending.

    Well, they should be stopped for supporting two of those positions.

  • ||

    the Kochs are trying to:

    4. end the police state

    Those BASTARDS !

  • ||

    Seriously, libertarian rich people shouldn't offend the left so much.

    They're not offended, and it's not class warfare. That shit's boob-bait (just like "civil liberties"). What they're doing is enforcing class discipline.

    Think for a second. How many "rich libertarians" are there? I can name four—and half of those are the Kochs, who aren't any more libertarian than, say, Palin or Greenwald. They're all (different kinds of) kinda. Libertarian-as-needed.

    But there are no kinda traitors, no kinda double agents. The Kochs broke the oath (and it's not an oath to defend "civil liberties"). It doesn't matter how they broke it, or by how much.

  • ||

    David Koch was enough of a libertarian to be the Vice Presidential candidate for the LP in 1980. He did so mainly so that he could bankroll the campaign.

    Read the 1980 LP platform some time and then tell me if you question the libertarian credentials of someone willing to pour a few mill of his own into a campaign to implement it.

    Note also that no LP candidate has ever matched the vote total that Ed Clark got.

  • ||

    Don't forget about museums where they teach your kids about EVILution. And cancer research where they are trying to play God and thwart God's will.

  • ||

    I once toured an ammunition factory in a formerly communist, former country. The part I want to share was the quality control station. A conveyor belt brought blasting caps and ammunition from 7.65mm (pistol) up to 152mm (howitzer) in and out of the room. The inspector sat in a wooden chair next to the belt. Between the inspector and the factory was a wall with about two feet of concrete, at his back the outside wall was a wooden frame with canvas. If the inspector screwed up, or just had a bad day, the canvas wall blew out and the concrete protected the people's factory. The people's inspector was another matter.

  • ||

    so?

  • ||

    Forget it, I'm rambling.

  • ||

    They are trying to end the War on Drugs and increase civil liberties.

    Increase civil liberties for the wrong people, for the wrong reasons.

  • ||

    What?

    Wow.

  • ||

    Lurk moar and lrn 2 satire

  • ||

    They want Gays to marry so they can give more arts funding to ballet drug-users - duh!

  • ||

    If "the unions" had any interest in ending child labor, it was strictly as an effort to impose a floor under union laborers' wages.

  • ||

    Please lend me your time machine/telepathy helmet combo so I can find out why Ayn Rand REALLY collected welfare.

  • ||

    People do not join parties and then become mindless zombies being fed instructions

    I agree. People prone to partisanship start out as mindless zombies, who then cast around for someone to feed them instructions, so they join a party.

  • Alan Vanneman||

    "Who hates the police? Only the criminals using drugs, amirite?"

    Radley Balko, put down that joint.

  • ||

    Man! Last night, I had the roughest anal sex session EVEH!

  • ||

    Anal Vanneman, stop spreading the herpes.

  • ||

    I do find it odd that people are touting the support for NOVA and the Ballet in this discussion. As if that would somehow deflect criticism of them supporting candidates with a very conservative social agenda. I believe they support many issues I support, but they don't support candidates that would move us towards the solutions I would prefer. I can compartmentalize their good and bad activity. I am sure many can't...on both sides.

  • ||

    It's just an attack on the Kochs-as-Bogeymen meme. Objecting to some of what they are doing is fine, as I'm sure there is plenty they support or fund that we'd have reservations about. "We" meaning the various libertarians in this country.

  • Shannon Love||

    Hmmm, since when is Gay Marriage and Drug Legalization "socially conservative?"

    The Left and the social conservatives both believe that the state needs to control individual behavior that otherwise does not immediately and physically transgress against the rights, persons and property of others.

    Both the Left and social conservatives believe that the need to violently micromanage people is so blatantly obvious that only a selfish evil person would believe otherwise. It just takes one deviation on one issue to mark out someone as an evil other.

    It's all about individual hubris. People think so highly of their own assessment of how things should be they simply cannot accord anyone who doesn't agree with any morality at all.

    People who aren't so likely to exclude and attack others are simply not so arrogant and self-rightous.

  • ||

    Shannon,

    See discussions up thread. Aiden makes the point coherently enough that there is no reason to repeat.

  • Pete Guither||

    Aidan

  • ||

    I would not be surprised if the Koch's put far more money into advocacy groups (like Cato etc) than they do to actuall political campaigns.

  • ||

    Which one gives them more bang for their buck?

    And, I would guess you are right given current campaign finance laws.

  • ||

    I would bet they put more into the 1980 LP campaign than any other campaign too. So on a dollar basis, they have supported those issues way more than they opposed them.

  • ||

    Which one gives them more bang for their buck?

    On the one hand, you can give to advocacy groups whose advocacy is generally ignored by those in power.

    On the other, you can give to politicians who have a good chance of getting power, but probably won't advocate for the issues you support.

    So if "bang" is defined as winning, it's better to donate to politicians. If "bang" is defined as actually accomplishing your policy goals, it's less clear.

  • ||

    I know next to nothing about the Kochs or, more to the point, their motives, but if I had hundreds of millions or even billions to spend on causes, I'd surely spend a nice chunk of that money on libertarian causes, regardless of whether they directly benefited my operations. I'd also toss money at technological innovation and likely have my own space program, but that's me.

  • ||

    But wait, if these candidates are now in the Kochs' pockets, then haven't the Kochs bought their future support of gay rights, drug legalization and etc? If not, then they aren't being bought by the Kochs.

  • ||

    Which candidates should they have supported to move us toward a drug legalization solution you would prefer?

    There aren't any out there.

  • ||

    How about a couple of Democratic Party gubernatorial candidates Vermont: Peter Shumlin; and Connecticut Dan Malloy?

    Barack Obama?
    http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7499

  • ||

    Good find. Thank god for people with workplaces that have weak search filters. I'm astonished I can even comment on this website.

  • ||

    Barack Obama

    You better laugh when you say that.

  • ||

    Barack Obama? Whose Justice Department keeps raiding state-sanctioned marijuana sellers? Nice you pulled an article from 2008, look at what he's actually done.

  • ||

    Post 2008 behavior shouldn't impact a decision during the election to support someone, I would think.

    And, yes, Tulpa...I guess I should have included the ;^)

  • ||

    Whether the candidate has enough integrity to keep his promises should factor into that decision. And we already knew Obama was a backstabbing liar before 2008.

  • ||

    And we already knew Obama was a backstabbing liar before 2008.

    I would file that under "Tulpa had formed an opinion that..." rather than a "we knew."

  • ||

    It turned out to be true, didn't it?

  • ||

    I would say...no, it didn't.

  • ||

    Face it, NM... Obama is a liar. All politicians lie, and the higher the office, the more and bigger lies must be told to obtain the power sought.

  • ||

    Post 2008 behavior shouldn't impact a decision during the election to support someone, I would think.

    Your statement here implies that his post-2008 behavior doesn't match up with his promises before the election. Are you redefining "lie" so that it doesn't include this circumstance?

  • ||

    I was, primarily, focusing on the term "backstabbing liar."

    There is an implication of deliberate betrayal in the term that I don't think fits his behavior...at all, actually.

  • ||

    There's no question about the fact of betrayal, so you seem to be hanging your hat on it being unintentional. Sorry, I don't see that. The man can't simultaneously be an intellectually formidable skilled politician AND a poor little puppy dog who makes promises he can't keep because he just doesn't know how the political world works.

  • ||

    I am thinking that a term like "disappointing" is more appropriate than "backstabbing", but you are free to think what you think.

  • ||

    There's no question about the fact of betraya

    Actually, the fact that we disagree on whether his actions are a "betrayal" kinda refutes your point here.

    your hat on it being unintentional

    Or low priority.

  • ||

    Did call the Steelers a bunch of "backstabbing liars" because they didn't win the superbowl like they promised they would?

  • ||

    Koch Industries PAC donated $5,000 to Rand Paul who at least believes the federal government should not enforce drug laws. I don't feel like looking up the the drug policy of the other candidates they donated to, but here's the list: Koch Industries Contributions to Federal Candidates

  • ||

    I'm pretty sure Rand Paul thinks that the drug war needs to be ended but that he won't come right out and say so because he wanted to get elected.

    On the other hand, his Dad has never shied away from his support for ending the drug war and he continues to get elected in his Texas district.

    The fact that both would oppose the federal government mandating that states get rid of their laws does not mean that they would not support the rescinding of those laws as well.

    I guess principles are so rare nowadays that people just can't understand what they are.

  • ||

    Neu Mejican|2.24.11 @ 2:42PM|#
    I do find it odd that people are touting the support for NOVA and the Ballet in this discussion. As if that would somehow deflect criticism of them supporting candidates with a very conservative social agenda."

    I find it odd that you manage to contradict yourself in such a short post.

  • ||

    Please, sevo, elaborate.
    How did I contradict myself?

  • ||

    it's there money and they can support whoever they like. If they support _some_ libertarian causes, then more power to them (and us). Ideological purity is a very lonely road.

  • ||

    *their*

  • ||

    "Leftards?" What the hell.

  • SIV||

    Fucking leftards all over this thread;)

  • jim x||

    And Rightards are very confronted by it.

  • ||

    This whole conversation makes me think politics is either too much like calvinball or not enough.

  • ||

    I don't know who epistemicfail is, but the whole thing is totally worth reading.

    I am disappointed he/she is not one of us.

  • ||

    Nick,
    You need to flog Bill Schulz with these points during your next redeye appearance. He has insulted libertarians by characterizing the Koch's as conspiring conservatives.

  • ||

    Ummm. That's a spoof comment, you blithering idiots.

  • Warty||

    Out-fucking-standing.

  • Old Mexican||

    I leave you guys for just 40 minutes and you rack up 270 comments on this thread? What's wrong with you?

  • ||

    I'm not sure that the Koch's supporting candidates who support, say, low taxes and deregulation while opposing gayrights etc is that much different from George Soros supporting candidates who do not support drug decriminalization, which is a major hobby horse of his.

    Democrats may support the War on Drugs for different reasons than Republicans (they usually see drug users as helpless victims instead of deranged degenerates) but they tend to be as enthusiastic.

    And the closest BHO has come to supporting legalization is conceding on an obscure internet forum that it was a legitimate topic for debate. he's still opposed.

    Joe Biden has probably done more damage on drug war legislation than any Republican, but I admit that like Lieberman he is a bit of an outlier in the Democratic camp.

  • ||

    Democrats may support the War on Drugs for different reasons than Republicans (they usually see drug users as helpless victims instead of deranged degenerates) but they tend to be as enthusiastic.

    Eh, if you want to see drug reform your best bet is Democrats. But this is a great opportunity for the supposedly libertarian Tea Party to form a coalition with liberals. They did it on the Patriot Act, which worked in a supermajoritarian situation.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Since when is the Tea Party "supposedly libertarian" to anyone who's not a complete moron with no understanding of basic libertarian philosophy?

    They're a mix of SoCons and fiscal conservatives for the most part - and while half of that lines up with half of the libertarian position, it's not really all that much in the grand scheme. It's not like anyone around here is confused about who they are.

  • ||

    It's all just typical mainstream media playing loose with the facts. They portray the Koch Brothers as Right-Wing monsters when they are anything but that. Yes, they are mainly Libertarian in their views. I'm a Libertarian and I'm certainly don't consider myself Right-Wing.

  • ||

    leftard

  • jim x||

    Please name one liberal, progressive or even Democratic candidate the Koch brothers have supported.

    Thank you.

  • ||

    Wow, *that's* how easy it is to make Gillespie and the glibertarians your best friend?! Promises?!

    Where the *fuck* did you healthy skepticism and cynicism go? A few bullet points and you turn into think-tank equivalents of Obots.

  • ||

    Sorry Reason, but fuck liberals. Spend time building an alternative media outlet and changing the political system. Fuck trying to reason with liberals on Reddit. Liberals at their foundation hate any one wants to be an individual and choose for self. Liberals believe they know more than you, liberals believe they are of superior intelligence, liberals believe you only exist at their good graces. FUCK THEM.

  • ||

    How dare you question our intentions? We believe in helping Union workers make enough for housing they otherwise wouldn't afford in the private sector!

    We know cigarettes and junk food are bad for you, so we control your options FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!

    We believe in helping homeless people, even if they make no move to help themselves, and all it takes is a cut of your paycheck!

    We know we're the good side, so any other opinion isn't informed or a civil disagreement! It's wrong and evil!

  • ||

    Oh, by the way, has Oceania always been at war with Eastasia?

    Or is it the other way around?

    And while we're on the subject of Health Care Reform, where the fuck are my Victory Cigarettes?

  • ||

    You are right. I am tired of it. Everyone seems to be cemented into their beliefs and afraid to think independently. It takes guts to change your mind -- in my own case, I don't believe much of what I did 10 years ago because I challenged myself to look at what it was I was professing. So now I am not a Christian, having read every one of Bart Ehrman's books and knowing what really happened to "scripture." I used to be a death penalty supporter, but now I know you can't trust the state to do THAT right, either. (Conservatives say the state can't fill potholes right, but consarn it, build up that Army and all the police forces anyway.) It was hard, it took a lot of reading and discussion and effort, etc. Most people just don't want to have to think that much. I do not hold out much hope for this country any longer, I'm sorry to say. Wish I felt differently, but the future just looks completely bleak. Bummer.

  • ||

    The state is very good at killing people and destroying property. I don't think you can really deny that.

    And if you don't think the justice system is capable of administering the death penalty fairly, why do you believe it can lock people in cages for the rest of their lives fairly?

  • ||

    why do you believe it can lock people in cages for the rest of their lives fairly?

    Did he say he believed that?

    By the way, Tulpa, why do you believe that Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks?

  • ||

    Perhaps he thinks the state should just give convicted murderers a stern warning and send them on their way. Otherwise, he's trusting the state to administer some sort of coercive punishment.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Yeah, but Tulpa... Wrongful imprisonment can be corrected at some point - more or less - with release from jail and renumeration. The state murdering someone who's innocent is kind of irrevocable. You know... just a bit anyway.

  • ||

    Liberals are not homogeneous.

    In fact I think the clearest distinction between liberals and conservatives is that liberals understand and appreciate nuance, whereas conservatives tend to view the word as a slur.

    It's pretty clear why you hate liberals.

  • ||

    If the Koch Brothers have their way, real freedom could break out! Who would keep you in chains then, puny mortals?

  • ||

    "He's just trying to make African children live longer so they will buy more copies of Windows. Wow. Not even trying to hide it."

    That was fuckin hilarious, thanks for the best laugh so far today...haahah

  • ||

    Awesome!!!

  • ||

    Big surprise a website with David Koch as one of the board of trustees and financial donor defends him.

    How stupid do you think people are?

  • ||

    Oh, yeah, something that would NEVER happen with YOUR heroes. Effing idgit.

  • ||

    How stupid do you think people are?

    Apparently not as stupid as they actually are.

  • ||

    Well, once again, facts don't help when dealing with hardened ideologues. A few EX-"friends" on Facebook were posting the usual Walker/Hitler comparisons and calling the Koch brothers Satanic, etc. So I sent this link, even adding a few others showing what they really support. These lefties agree with about 70% of it, until the Koch name comes up. Do you think any of 'em read it? Or believed it? I give them citations, they answer (always) with more assertions and calumnies, no facts except that the Koch are union-busters. These leftist nincompoops actually conflate the Kochs with the Christian right! Good grief. how can counter that mindset? It's not possible. Frankky, I am about to throw in the towel with adults, and try to get to the kids while they still have a healthy sense of anti-authoritarianism... which used to last into the teens (in my era), but I guess I'll have to catch today's kids before they're about 10. Look at all the blankfaced babes "marching" for "worker's rights" in Wisconsin. Sorry to carry on ... but I really give up. My brother, less libertarian than me, is moving to Costa Rica. And goddamn it, I am considering it. I've had it.

  • ||

    My wife sent me an article on why people cheat. The basic answer came down to something I could have told you for a lot less than a two year sociology grant.

    People rationalize their behavior.

    The more often and longer they commit themselves to an idea or point of view, the less likely it is you will ever be able to change their mind. I believe that the majority of die-hard Democrats and Republicans fall into this category. They've been doing it for so long that to change would be to admit they're wrong, and nobody wants to do that.

    Libertarianism requires self-examination and challenging your preconceptions almost daily, because it does fly in the face of the basic instinct to become part of the group, regardless of how much rationalization is required to do so.

  • ||

    If you've been libertarian for your entire adult life, the same "sunk costs" effect probably holds.

  • ||

    I'm seeing that all over the place. It's nuts, really. They don't know jack about the Koch brothers' actual political beliefs - but they know they're evil troublemakers!

  • ||

    I gave up on my friends. You know how many posted Facebook links to Mother Jones? I mean, Mother fuckin' Jones for God's sake!

  • ||

    So I sent this link

    You BASTARD.

  • ||

    Unfortunately, the people the Koch's are getting elected don't share most of those values. How many of these things can be said about Scott Walker, for instance?

  • ||

    The Koch demonization is as stupid as the Soros demonisation, but it's a smart political move.

    While I don't believe in puppetmasters, I do believe that big contributors get special favors and that whole section allowing the Gov to sell any public utility he wants to anyone he wants for any price he wants without needing to get anyone "ok" or being subject to ANY post-facto review is just .... damn farking suspicious! Even if it's not a "conspiracy" it is an OPEN invitation to corruption that cannot be allowed to pass be be left lying around for future corrupt officials to game.

  • ||

    Go Freedumb Fonzie! Greg Gutfelch will fellate you soon enough, seeing how he's only 4'5" tall

  • ||

    Honestly, I don't think it's that hard. If liberals understood basic economics: price ceilings and floors, arbitrage, we would have instant libertarians. The solution is to put econ education in high schools. Mix it in with "financial management," which all Americans fail at anyway, and BAM. We can stop supporting right wing douchebags.

  • ||

    Problem is that economics is taught in school, but it's almost all of the Keynesian variety or worse.

  • ||

    So the kind that most economists agree with is taught in high schools? Disasterous!

  • ||

    If liberals understood basic economics: price ceilings and floors, arbitrage, we would have instant libertarians.

    You mean if they understood basic economics, but not advanced economics.

  • ||

    You're one to talk, Tony. I doubt you can tell me what "marginal utility" is without having to google it first. Keep reading Paul Krugman and pretending that you know more than us about economics.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    If you don't understand basic economics, you are frankly not equipped to understand anything beyond that. And Krugman proves that daily by employing broken window fallacies in almost every article he writes. Nobel Prize or not, the guy's a dipshit.

    And of course, you aren't even worth talking to on the subject.

  • ||

    I am rightwing and I support Gay marriage. Go commit suicide, leftard.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    legalize gay marriage,


    I wonder how much NOM and ADF are contributing to the anti-Koch campaign.

  • ||

    Wow! You are either retarded or you're about 10 years old. I agree that these brothers should be stopped and that gay marriage is wrong and so are drugs. But how in the world do you figure that these African children, who didn't even have access to vacinations, could possibly afford a laptop, desktop, or for that matter Windows. You sir have no right to speak anymore. If you want to support our cause please do it by shutting the hell up.

  • ||

    Wow! You are either retarded or you're about 10 years old. I agree that these brothers should be stopped and that gay marriage is wrong and so are drugs. But how in the world do you figure that these African children, who didn't even have access to vacinations, could possibly afford a laptop, desktop, or for that matter Windows. You sir have no right to speak anymore. If you want to support our cause please do it by shutting the hell up.

  • ||

    Find me a republican the Kochs funded that wants to legalize drugs, keep the state out of wombs, separate corporate power from government power, treat gays as full citizens and doesn't want to remove workplace safety considerations for workers.

    I don't think the Kochs are against the parts of the libertarian agenda that fall outside of the "LOWER TAXES LESS GOVERNMENT THE ENVIRONMENT TAKES CARE OF ITSELF HURR DURR" obsession, but I don't think they really care about US citizens apart from themselves.

  • ||

    "I don't think they really care about US citizens apart from themselves."

    You say that likes its a bad thing. Why don't you go donate a couple of kidneys to someone in need.

  • ||

    You seem to think that "Freedom for all unless they impinge on the freedom of others" is a sort of ideal way to build a society.

    I think the gulf between libertarian theory and real-world application is as wide as that between communist theory and communism put into practice.

  • ||

    You know, I'm so tired of this "libertarianism would never work in the real world" crap. "It's no way to build a society!" That says so much about your own ideology. You're saying that minus force, people are basically bastards. They need a combination of your philosophy and the barrel of a gun to come together as a society. All libertarians are saying is they believe in the basic rule of law, and that free association and non-aggression are paramount.

    Start whatever collectivist organization you want, as long as it is voluntary. In a libertarian society nothing stops you from starting your own commune where you can follow whatever ideology you please. Healthcare for all? Start up a collective. Like minded people can join.

    All you're saying is you don't believe in the success of your ideology enough to make it voluntary.

  • ||

    The solutions to uncontained externalities are pretty much by definition compulsory.

    If people would voluntarily not pollute, there would be no need for the EPA.

    In the real world, however...

  • ||

    Why don't we just institute a "death tax" that makes EVERYONE donate their kidneys?

  • ||

    You know, John Cole's "Balloon Juice" used to be a decent blog before it became just another partisan megaphone. So naturally, Gillespie is being slammed over there.

    The sad thing is, the Koch Brothers meme is something the White House political office came up with to distract the libtard sheeple from their own Bond Villain, George Soros.

    And to prove that they had absolutely no sense of independent thought, the Leftards went for the cheese in the rat trap. It's deeply pathetic.

    The Left doesn't REALLY care about the Koch Brothers. The White House simply threw that out there like chum and the little activists responded like tiny pirhanas to an errant cow in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    The Koch Brothers meme is the biggest red herring in modern politics. It's the Lefty version of Beck's rants about Cloward and Piven.

  • Gregory Smith||

    Cloward and Piven are real, section9, they are dangerous people. I don't know why everyone is always so quick to dismiss Beck.

    SCHULTZ WANTS YOU TO STOP SAYING "OBAMACARE"
    http://libertarians4freedom.bl.....p-and.html

  • karen||

    day by day in this world humans are creating sensational things which can be some times gives more surprises like technology,science, research etc... as the days are passing the thinking of the human living style also been changed .... which are against the human naturalism like gay marruage etc etc...

  • ||

    This is a list of the top 5 things the Koch brothers, and Reason-style libertarians, will bail on as soon as one coalition dangles tax and entitlement cuts.

    So willing to bail on them, in fact, that I think I prefer the honesty of southern conservatives.

  • ||

    Naw dude, I'm sure that if the libertarians manage to castrate public unions in Wisconsin they will immediately start criticizing Walker for selling public assets to Koch via no-bid contracts.

    The average libertarian cares *just as much* about corporate involvement in politics as that of public unions. They'll come through!

  • ||

    Some libertarians are principled "small government in every respect" folks. Some libertarians are Republicans who don't want to defend republican hypocrisy.

    It seems about half and half here.

  • ||

    Nicholas,

    I could put much more credibility into those blog posts that you had NOT typed while on your knees before a picture of the brotherly pair that deposits a paycheck in your offshore bank account.

    This, sadly, is not one of those instances.

    Now, please, get up off of your knees. You're wearing out the cheap carpeting.

  • Sean W. Malone||

  • ||

    1. Child Labor is soul crushing. Especially factory work in the 1880's to 1920's. Working 14 hours days for very little pay, which can lead to malnutrition, stunted growth, and horrific injuries.

    2. Yes, outlawing child labor was a restriction on the labor pool during the time, that was the point. Eventually wages had to rise because the labor pool shrunk to the point where the labor could demand higher wages, thus lessening the need for children to help support their families.

    3. The country also decided around this time that children in general needed to be better educated, and companies were actually supportive of this because they could indoctrinate children into becoming better company men, and hopefully along the way make better workers. One thing that is still carried to this day is the damn bell schedule. If you ever wonder why schools use a fucking bell to signal the start and end of class time, this is why.

    4. Whomever the Koch's are (at this point, I believe they are robots), I hope that eventually they start spreading the wealth around a bit. As noted above, the candidates they do choose to support don't represent Libertarian ideals in any fashion, and that's regrettable.

    5.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Do you mean spreading the wealth like... $231,000,000 to cancer research?

    Or... You know, funding this very website/publication?

  • ||

    Pathetic, just pathetic.

  • jim x||

    First, you haven't addressed how I entirely debunked your pdf, and it's ludicrous attempt to blame the Great Depression solely on monetary policy. So, you're ditching that entire line of argument means that my original comment still stands.

    Second, re: Paul Krugman - you are c