My mood

Rpl, you have no idea what I saved you from ;)

I don't particularly disagree with you. One of the fundamental difficulties with the military is how to make it accountable. If you think there can be issues with government accountability, it's kind of like that with guns.

If they are accountable to politicians, then they serve to keep them in power.

If they are accountable to the aggregate of people, they are subject to the war-weariness of the populace (though some find this agreeable) when control is not lax.

If they are accountable to individuals, crime ensues.

If they are accountable to no-one, it results in pillage and tyranny.

These are not absolutes, but they are historically demonstrated. I think the problem was best explained by what Chris said earlier. Ultimately, we're fighting a bad thing with an imperfect solution. I don't by any means disagree with the existence and use of the military, but we do have to organize it to minimize the negative consequences that will inevitably come from a system that is inherently problematic.

Hey muirgeo, I sure you're looking forward in 10 years time to a graph showing improved economic performance with a Democrat president, eh?

It may be a part of "Big Government " but when you have a government responsible to the people and representative of the people instead of the rich, the corporations and lobbyist you will likely have a more efficient government.

Demotopia. And you of accuse us of wishful thinking.

George from VA

The poster's name appears after his/her post.

Sam big gov is for big gov its not for you or me its for them.

if it was for you and I why would they take so much of our $s and give us nothing in return.

Thats the thing I think lots of lifers in Govt think I work for them instead of them working for me.

At the end of the day they're overhead and should be treated as the baggage they are.

"You really have no clue do you? You might want to look at all the debt obligations you now hold in the treasury of the country you pay taxes to thanks to Bush and his incompetence. . Bush has put this piece of shit economy together with paper tape and handed it off to Obama. He doubled the national debt officially but the risk we hold could be trillions more.

Do you even care to hear about the facts?"

Posted by: muirgeo | Jan 21, 2009 7:29:46 PM

Wow. You really should drop the condescension muirgeo. You missed the point so badly that it's embarrassing.

I'm not defending GW Bailout...I'm saying Obama isn't any different.

Please work on your critical reading skills.

"...but when you have a government responsible to the people and representative of the people instead of the rich, the corporations and lobbyist you will likely have a more efficient government."

This is no more likely than libertopia. There is only one form of government and that is aristocracy. Modern aristocracies are just more subtle in their exploitation and far better propagandists than their predecessors.

Mezzanine,

True. The rinse and repeat of resident morons is tiresome. I don't know that registration would help. The professors did this to their own blog.

See I think we hit upon where we differ muirgeo. I believe incompetence, cronyism, war, abuse of power, and all that other stuff is part of big gov not part of Red or Blue.

Posted by: george from VA

It may be a part of "Big Government " but when you have a government responsible to the people and representative of the people instead of the rich, the corporations and lobbyist you will likely have a more efficient government. The Democratic party is far more representative of the peoples desires but still we have far to go.

I only hope that if Obama goes off track those who voted for him will hold him accountable compared to the average republican who simply covers for the gross incompetence of his party.

These libertarians are glum and bitter and can't understand why we didn't vote for another Republican. What are they thinking?

You assume we care which party is in power.

I assure you I don't. I'm satisfied to have the GOP repudiated by the election of BHO.

What matters is what they do while in office.

We might wish Ron Paul had won the primary, but not because he's Republican.

"$800 billion is less? Sounds roughly equivalent to Bush's spending ideas to me. You might be a pragmatist, but you sure as hell aren't a realist."

MnM

You really have no clue do you? You might want to look at all the debt obligations you now hold in the treasury of the country you pay taxes to thanks to Bush and his incompetence. . Bush has put this piece of shit economy together with paper tape and handed it off to Obama. He doubled the national debt officially but the risk we hold could be trillions more.

Do you even care to hear about the facts?

"No we haven't. We argue that interference with the pricing mechanism distorts information transmitted by those prices. People make bad decisions when they have bad information."

MnM

Oh really. So how'd the pricing mechanism work for unregulated OTC financial derivatives and CDO's?

Methinks - I think the blog comment section is deteriorating to the point of unreadability due to trolls. Cafe Hayek should add user registration.

"Another way to look at it is that so long as we have political freedom we can continue to fight for economic freedom, but without political freedom we're finished."

I agree with Randy's response to this. It's actually the other way around. Economic freedom usually leads to political freedom - not the other way around. The right to elect your chief thief is not all it's cracked up to be. Singapore is a great example of lots of economic and civil freedoms with zero political freedom.

Mezzanine,

I think the folks here tend to like to toy with the village idiot from time to time.

so as long as we're going to have bailouts and entitlements, I'd rather have them without the torture, to say nothing of the incompetence, cronyism, war, abuse of power, and all that other stuff. - rpl

rpl,

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but all that happens with both parties too. These are characteristics of government and centralized power - not solely of Republicans.

Notice, Muirgeo just called all of us "children" and you all keep talking to him as if it matters.

While listening to our Sec. of the Treasury to be, it dawned on me that his personal affairs point the way to a brighter day. If we all stop paying our taxes, even to the limited extent he did, then we will have an immediate infusion of potential savings, consumption or retirement of debt as opposed to federal bondoogles over the next ten years. Does anyone have a better idea of how to shorten or make less onerous the present downturn?

rpl,

"If the government can imprison and torture you at will, how long do you think they will let you keep your earnings?"

Incentives matter. The government has no incentive to imprison or torture me. They have every incentive to seize my earnings. And of course, the latter actually happens. So it seems reasonable to be more concerned with the real threat.

"If they have complete dominion over your person, what possible incentive could they have to let you keep your money?"

They do have complete dominion over my person. The idea of rights is propaganda. If the political class had an incentive to kill me, they could and would. The reason they don't, and that they let me keep some of my earnings, is that my working produces revenue for them. Its just a question of efficiency.

RPL

I'm not sure I get it so your saying the blue side is less represssive? Show me how they're for federalism, show me where their for deluting thier power and moving it back to the states, show me where thier for not taking any more of my $s or freedom (like property rights or 2nd amendment rights).

Dude they're for consolidating power just like the last pres was. It's just diff set of people.

At the end it seems like its mob rule and who ever has the biggest mob sets the rules.

I wonder when the mob will be at my door?

Randy,

If the government can imprison and torture you at will, how long do you think they will let you keep your earnings? If they have complete dominion over your person, what possible incentive could they have to let you keep your money?

George from VA (if he's still reading),

Also, I'm bemused by the appearance of big government/small government in this discussion. If a government claims the authority to imprison you without trial or to torture you for information if it merely suspects you of terrorist ties, isn't that about as "big" as government can get?

Cheers,

If that's your short version, I'd hate to have had to read the long version. My short version is, when military forces stop taking orders from civilians they cease being soldiers and become brigands, no matter their claims to be acting in the interests of the citizens they no longer serve. Fortunately, we're nowhere near that point in our country, since it appears not to have been military officers that ordered the imprisonment and torture, but politicians and other civilians.

Some friends of mine, who are VERY leftist, recently asked how I felt about yesterday's inauguration festivities, so I forwarded them this article. The perspective embodied in this article was written off as being childish, immature, and naive. It is seen as the perspective of neanderthals, nitwit back-country yokels and racists who are definitely not members of the intelligentsia. In this view, it is time for dissenters to shut up and get out of the way of true progress towards the ultimate goal: A Society Just Like Western Europe. Behold: The Ego of the Left. They can't be wrong! They're too smart to be wrong!!!

... the whole new threat that is international terrorism and asymmetrical warfare.

New? I'm far more threatened by drunken drivers myself.

It's vague. Says next to nothing. I don't want Obama's "stimulus package" financed by the sale of more entitlement to tax revenue, but the Bushniks have handed it to him on a silver platter, not only by feeding every conman with a gun in sight but also by creating their own trillion dollar "stimulus" on the way out.

But that's not "tyranny", we're told. While damning the Obamatrons for everything Bushniks have already done, before Obama even has a chance to lead the next charge, Harsanyi emphasizes that Bush is not a "tyrant". Hell, let's just anoint him the Greatest Chief Executive since Hitler. Surely, he deserves an accolade for that.

"So, imprisoning people without trial, extraordinary rendition, torture, manufacturing a bogus case for war, domestic spying, all these things are not tyranny, or at least troubling steps along the path to tyranny?"

No, they are a clearly imperfect solution to the problem of the whole new threat that is international terrorism and asymmetrical warfare. Maybe the ICC is the answer, since these are crimes against humanity, but I'm not sure sure.

The ICC doesn't seem to move any faster.

I read somewhere that with Obama's inauguration comes the death of irony. And his comedian supporters are welcoming it. We're in a new age of sincerity and seriousness. I'll probably spend the next few months laughing inside so as not to offend anyone until people get over themselves.

A sociology professor I know was commenting how wonderful it was to see so much interest and participation in politics during last election. I tend to take another view. I worry. Politicians shouldn't have enough power to get so many people so interested in their election.

A high rate of political apathy signifies that politicians are not important enough in the lives of ordinary people for them to care who is elected. What a wonderful situation that would be.

rpl,

"Another way to look at it is that so long as we have political freedom we can continue to fight for economic freedom, but without political freedom we're finished."

I see it the other way around. If they can seize my earnings at will, what good is it to have the right to complain about it?

I keep hearing about the peaceful transfer of power, and I agree that it's a great thing.

What allows it to happen? What makes those countries that transfer power peacefully between competing parties different from those that don't?

I think the answer is limited government. If government gets too big, too powerful, it matters too much who is in charge.

I also think we're heading in the wrong direction.

Guess I'll move on I'm just tired of hearing all these people expecting Govt to help them.

I feel sad one day my kids and many others will have to move away from the US to avoid all this debt.

Martin Brock, Sam Grove, numerous others, and I have explained to him what is that libertarians believe (numerous times, I might add). That those explanations have gone ignored seems awfully...dogmatic.

See I think we hit upon where we differ muirgeo. I believe incompetence, cronyism, war, abuse of power, and all that other stuff is part of big gov not part of Red or Blue.

"You guys are the ones that argue that democratic policies are destructive of (sic) the economy."

No we haven't. We argue that interference with the pricing mechanism distorts information transmitted by those prices. People make bad decisions when they have bad information.

"So where was the destruction during the Clinton years? Hummm.... how could there horrible policies allowed such prosperous growth? Hmmm....?"

They didn't allow anything. You clearly missed Jay's point.

"I mean he raised taxes and the economy still boomed in all deference to what you all would claim should happen. Then Bush massively cut taxes and regulation"

Like I said, you miss his point. The bubble would have burst regardless of what party was in the White House.

"I'm voting for the democratic leaders because history shows they tend to spend LESS, do better at growing jobs and are better at getting money into the middle class which spurs growth more then anything. I'm a realist and a pragmatist."

$800 billion is less? Sounds roughly equivalent to Bush's spending ideas to me. You might be a pragmatist, but you sure as hell aren't a realist.

"You guys think you're so brilliant but you are just children bound to a black and white simplistic world view"

This from the guy who thinks that how well the economy does is dependent upon what letter follows the president's name...

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you irony.

"And you are completely incapable of divorcing yourself from this dogma to even try to come and look at issues from outside your tiny little box!"

And more irony. Both wrong and condescending. And you say Jay is childish...

"So, imprisoning people without trial, extraordinary rendition, torture, manufacturing a bogus case for war, domestic spying, all these things are not tyranny, or at least troubling steps along the path to tyranny? I realize that you are reacting mostly to the economic issues, but there is more to government than economic policy."

Well, I'll bite this one...

I was actually going to do a point by point, but it was taking too many words to explain it clearly.

Simply put, I'll say three things.

First, there was once upon a time that the military could choose it's targets without non-military personnel believing that they knew better or that the military should be directly accountable to each of their personal value judgments. Once upon a time, there was a belief that military action was a normal state of affairs. Nowadays, we don't believe that, but others do.

Second, the issue of terrorism is not the same as war, and it's dishonest to compare it. The way that military units, and even resistances function, there is control and deterrence. In a system without those controls, typical military action is not a deterrent. I don't necessarily agree with the use of torture, but once upon a time the act of hiding in the woods instead of lining up on a flat battlefield to take turns shooting was considered barbaric and animalistic. Not only that, but every agreement on torture to date is multilateral for a reason: mutual deterrence. I have a feeling that there may be some soldiers that disagree with your civilian perspective on providing a unilateral promise not to torture when it's their time as POW's on the line and not yours.

Third, no. All three of these things have been happening for hundreds of years. The only question is what form they took, and how visible they were. The only difference is that now you have to face the reality that soldiers have protected you from and politicians have exacerbated for many years: There are people willing to do terrible things in the world, they're no different than you and I, and being nice doesn't always work.

Aside: Wow, if Clinton was able to bring the stock market from 3,000 to 8,000, if we had 2 presidents, then it would be at 13,000 by now.

An absolutely fantastic column! For 6-8 years we're been repeatedly told that indeed it is. Will that sentiment continue after yesterday?

George from VA,

I'm all for limited government, but we weren't getting that under either party, so as long as we're going to have bailouts and entitlements, I'd rather have them without the torture, to say nothing of the incompetence, cronyism, war, abuse of power, and all that other stuff. Another way to look at it is that so long as we have political freedom we can continue to fight for economic freedom, but without political freedom we're finished.

Someone else asked, how do we know the Obama administration won't be just as bad? We don't, of course, which is why I'm only cautiously optimistic. However, at least we now have an administration that has professed its opposition to the abuses, rather than one that defended them. As I said before, it ain't much, but it's a lot more than we had before.

John,

You guys are the ones that argue that democratic policies are destructive of the economy. So where was the destruction during the Clinton years? Hummm.... how could there horrible policies allowed such prosperous growth? Hmmm....? I mean he raised taxes and the economy still boomed in all deference to what you all would claim should happen. Then Bush massively cut taxes and regulation (well and actually Clinton as well) and here we are with guys like you making the lamest of arguments to uphold a position that has no support in real world results.

I'm voting for the democratic leaders because history shows they tend to spend LESS, do better at growing jobs and are better at getting money into the middle class which spurs growth more then anything. I'm a realist and a pragmatist.

I'm not a socialist or a communist. Just a rational guy who looks at the facts and supports the policies that consistently seem to do best for both liberty and the economy.

You have nothing on me John. You guys think you're so brilliant but you are just children bound to a black and white simplistic world view that looks great on paper but fails miserably in the real world. And you are completely incapable of divorcing yourself from this dogma to even try to come and look at issues from outside your tiny little box!

AWWWW.....How cute!!!!

Muriego is trying to argue that president Clinton was responsible for the successes of people like Michael Dell, Sergei Brin, and any of the other innumerable amount of entrepreneurs who lead the tech fueled economic boom of the 90's. A better pro government argument would of thanked DARPA for their toil in creating the internet. However, granting praise to Clinton for a tech boom that he happily presided over, yet had no hand in bringing to fruition, is bad political tripe. Shame on you Muriego.

Even if you give Clinton full credit for the collapse it was at 8,000 in Sept of 02... 8 years later it remains there.

As a reminder 8,000 is much bigger then 3,300. And now 7+ years later from "Clintons collapse" to 8,000 where is the stock market?

8,000!!!

Regarding , "Post hoc ergo propter hoc?"... I think you should see a doctor that doesn't sound too good.

"Well lets see when Clinton was president the stock market went from about 3,300 to about 10,500."

Post hoc ergo propter hoc? It is really unfortunate that Bush won in 2000. Because otherwise the donkeys on the left would realize that the late 90's was a stock bubble that was going to collapse REGARDLESS of who was president in 2001.

RPL and MnM we're talking about the need for limited govt because big govt has neg effects on business and personal freedoms.

you make some interesting points but you really think those things wont go on under the new administration? It's not a red vs blue thing its a we need less central power thing.

Yeah, Muirgeo,

... and the horse you rode in on.

Right on rpl,

These libertarians are glum and bitter and can't understand why we didn't vote for another Republican. What are they thinking?

Well lets see when Clinton was president the stock market went from about 3,300 to about 10,500. Then for some reason we decided to change leadership and the stock market went from 10,500 to 8,000 under Bush. The national debt doubled during the last 8 years but when Clinton left office there was a budget surplus.

The last 8 years we saw warantless wiretappinmg, the loss of Habeaus corpus, torture justified and a president bent on consolidating the power of the presidency with complete disregard for the constitution.... and the libertarians here are glum??? They voted for McCain and expected the rest of should have done so as well.

It incrediblty bizarre. We had a vote and the people of this country spoke clearly on the direction they want to proceed.

Anyway I couldn't be more optimistic.

"All hail, the golden calf."

Posted by: Superheater | Jan 21, 2009 10:52:16 AM

Haha. Superheater you made my morning. Thank you.

Superheated just simply does not have the intelligence to understand the drivel she copies from the manual.

Enough about that.

The short summary, and I am not the irst to discover this, is that as bad as this place is, it is (was?) better than anyplace ion the planet.

Russ,

I'm wondering if you include this little snippet in the part that captures your mood perfectly:

I would submit that today these other issues are far more important than the purely economic issues. Bailouts, stimulus, entitlements, and whatever madcap schemes the government promises as the road to prosperity are all fads whose popularity waxes and wanes over time. Right now they are popular, and when we re-learn that they don't work, they will soon be a memory. Go too far down the ugly road of locking people up because you don't like their religion or their politics, or the kind of friends they have, however, and the only way back is through a river of blood.

Like you, I am disappointed with the Obama administration's hollow promises of economic salvation. Perhaps the they will let us down on these civil liberty issues too, but for now I am cautiously optimistic. It's not a lot, but compared to the bleak outlook during the Bush regime it's cause for jubilation.

Given Professor Robert's citation of the bible passage the other day, I've been thinking for all our pretentiousness, we aren't much different than the Isaelites chronicled in the Book of Exodus, who decided to make a golden calf to worship.

All hail, the golden calf.

My mood is a bit darker. While reading the transcript of Obama's speech (hyper-critically, of course) the thought that came to mind, over and over again, was a simple FU - I have no desire to be a part of some unitarian abomination...

Also thinking that maybe I'm spending too much time on blogs. In real life this stuff never even comes up...

It's sort of frightening that I've been told by numerous people that "now is not the time to be a skeptic."

Harsanyi captures exactly just how unpatriotic and fundamentally anti-democratic Obama's message has been.

It's a message rarely heard since the 1930s.