Comments on: Paul Krugman’s Deficient Perspective http://cafehayek.com/2009/08/paul-krugmans-deficient-perspective.html where orders emerge Mon, 16 Jan 2012 02:06:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Anonymous http://cafehayek.com/2009/08/paul-krugmans-deficient-perspective.html/comment-page-1#comment-179823 Anonymous Wed, 02 Sep 2009 21:41:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6090#comment-179823 Brotio, Thanks for having my back while I wasn't checking in on this thread. I suppose that DK could give us numerous instances of right wing governments having camps - you know like Cambodia, VietNam, China, DPRK, etc. Oh wait, those are all left wing...Geez, never mind. Oh, and I am glad that you remembered to note that camps did exist in the USA at one time and that it was during the reign.. er...I mean the administration of the prototype of modern liberalism (ie, progressivism who is on record for admiring the monsters you cited). Yes, Daniel - Chile did exist and it was bad under Pinochet. But calling that government right wing is a reaction to the socialist government that Pinochet unseated. I file Chile under "politics ain't beanbag" category which is right next to the "sometimes the cure for a disease can seem worse than the disease" folder. Chemotherapy is a fine balance between just enough to kill the cancer but not so much as to kill the patient. Chile had a cancer under Allende (sp?) and Pinochet was the cure. However, I have seen it said that historical analysis shows that most right wing dictatorships end because the government had liberalized (ie - given freedoms) to the point that their heavy hand lightened over time until the government and its bad actors went away and a more classically liberal regime peacefully took over. Brotio,
Thanks for having my back while I wasn’t checking in on this thread. I suppose that DK could give us numerous instances of right wing governments having camps – you know like Cambodia, VietNam, China, DPRK, etc. Oh wait, those are all left wing…Geez, never mind. Oh, and I am glad that you remembered to note that camps did exist in the USA at one time and that it was during the reign.. er…I mean the administration of the prototype of modern liberalism (ie, progressivism who is on record for admiring the monsters you cited).

Yes, Daniel – Chile did exist and it was bad under Pinochet. But calling that government right wing is a reaction to the socialist government that Pinochet unseated. I file Chile under “politics ain’t beanbag” category which is right next to the “sometimes the cure for a disease can seem worse than the disease” folder. Chemotherapy is a fine balance between just enough to kill the cancer but not so much as to kill the patient. Chile had a cancer under Allende (sp?) and Pinochet was the cure. However, I have seen it said that historical analysis shows that most right wing dictatorships end because the government had liberalized (ie – given freedoms) to the point that their heavy hand lightened over time until the government and its bad actors went away and a more classically liberal regime peacefully took over.

]]> By: Name http://cafehayek.com/2009/08/paul-krugmans-deficient-perspective.html/comment-page-1#comment-179617 Name Tue, 01 Sep 2009 23:42:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6090#comment-179617 This post is an effective prescription to the massive metaphorical headache I've been suffering since this morning, which is when I first saw Krugman's utterly pathetic article. Thanks. This post is an effective prescription to the massive metaphorical headache I’ve been suffering since this morning, which is when I first saw Krugman’s utterly pathetic article. Thanks.

]]> By: Anonymous http://cafehayek.com/2009/08/paul-krugmans-deficient-perspective.html/comment-page-1#comment-179371 Anonymous Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:21:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6090#comment-179371 I think you're drifting back into a one-dimensional mentality :) I think you’re drifting back into a one-dimensional mentality :)

]]> By: JohnK http://cafehayek.com/2009/08/paul-krugmans-deficient-perspective.html/comment-page-1#comment-179367 JohnK Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:13:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6090#comment-179367 I have no idea why populists would support Ron Paul anymore than anarchists would support Obama. As far as your being a statist goes, you see a legitimate role for government in managing economic affairs which puts you in defense of government at times. When you defend the State you portray yourself as a statist. I have no idea why populists would support Ron Paul anymore than anarchists would support Obama.
As far as your being a statist goes, you see a legitimate role for government in managing economic affairs which puts you in defense of government at times.
When you defend the State you portray yourself as a statist.

]]> By: Anonymous http://cafehayek.com/2009/08/paul-krugmans-deficient-perspective.html/comment-page-1#comment-179333 Anonymous Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:18:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6090#comment-179333 Two dimensional is far better than one dimensional in my book :)I wonder if that's really appropriate too sometimes, though. For example - take libertarians and populists. They should be diametrically opposed on a two-dimensional map, and yet populists seem to take up the Ron Paul banner with ease. Maybe it's an issue of opportunity? I don't know. Either way, two dimensional is a big improvement on forcing a square peg into a round hole by arguing that the right-wing is freedom oriented, Hitler is a leftist, etc. Adding at least one dimension makes those issues a lot less forced.On these two dimensional maps I always end up at the corner of libertarian/left/centrist. I guess the meeting of West, Southwest, and Center in this one you've linked to. But in a one dimensional spectrum who knows where I am - I'm told I'm a statist ;-) Two dimensional is far better than one dimensional in my book :) I wonder if that’s really appropriate too sometimes, though. For example – take libertarians and populists. They should be diametrically opposed on a two-dimensional map, and yet populists seem to take up the Ron Paul banner with ease. Maybe it’s an issue of opportunity? I don’t know. Either way, two dimensional is a big improvement on forcing a square peg into a round hole by arguing that the right-wing is freedom oriented, Hitler is a leftist, etc. Adding at least one dimension makes those issues a lot less forced.On these two dimensional maps I always end up at the corner of libertarian/left/centrist. I guess the meeting of West, Southwest, and Center in this one you’ve linked to. But in a one dimensional spectrum who knows where I am – I’m told I’m a statist ;-)

]]>