Here’s ThinkMarkets’ Mario Rizzo on special-interest hypocrisy.
Special-Interest Hypocrisy
Share
Previous post: Protectionist Inconsistency
Next post: Legalize Freedom
where orders emerge
Previous post: Protectionist Inconsistency
Next post: Legalize Freedom
{ 37 comments }
When a politician complains about “special interests”, he’s not actually complaining about special interests in general, he’s complaining about those specific special interests which stand in opposition to the specific specials interests which have lobbied around him.
That’s the hypocrisy.
“Obama wants to continue and expand redistribution of burdens in healthcare. The poor and middle class will benefit. The ‘rich’ will pay.” – M. Rizzo.
So how exactly will Prez. Obama health policies going to lead to ‘eugenics’ (as if that’s a bad thing provided it’s not forced onto people)? It quite clear his health policies are going to lead dysgenics – the highly smart and competent can’t pay for their healthcare or for their children (assuming they can afford to have any) because all their money paid for the stupid and inept and their offspring.
Prof Rizzo wrote:
“Obama wants to continue and expand redistribution of burdens in healthcare. The poor and middle class will benefit. The “rich” will pay. Forget for a moment the obvious falsity of the claim.”
That statement is a perfect example of what’s wrong with libertarianism.
The professor understands full well that redistribution is “the bottom line” of the Left, but manages to avoid having to discuss it.
Forget it for a moment, he says.
That’s turned out to be a long moment.
Forget the “obvious falsity of the claim,” he says.
Since it’s so obvious to smart people like ourselves, we don’t have to discuss it.
So, it remains our secret, and the “bottom line” of the Left, unchallenged.
Libertarians like that are not leaders in the fight for freedom but irrelevant to it.
True, but at least redistribution doesn’t increase inequality.
If I’m not mistaken, DK just made a joke.
shhhh… if you tell him it’s a joke we might not get to see him get belligerent.
We each have a right to what we earn, to what we can then pay for; anything beyond that is a gift, a privilege.
Obama and the left do not want to turn America into a nation of sugar tit suckers, that has already happened to a large extent. They just want to expand the size of the sugar tit.
The hypocrisy is the lie about the motive. The true motive for the nationalizing of healthcare is control, not concern for citizens.
Once that bill is passed, America will gradually begin to fear the possibility that any one else will have a hand on the lever that dispenses the goodies, so you can expect a socialist government until this nation grinds to a bankrupt halt.
If we can just give enough power to enough consciencious people so that they can make everyone cooperate for the greater good, then we can create a collective reflecting the highest values of fairness and compassion.
“The hypocrisy is the lie about the motive. The true motive for the nationalizing of healthcare is control, not concern for citizens.”
That point cannot be reiterated enough.
The hypocrisy about the complaint of special interest and lobbyists, is as politicians make themselves more powerful, they make lobbying more necessary.
I wouldn’t assume it’s nearly that simple. I wouldn’t assume that anyone’s motive in Washington is “control”. Certainly there are loads for whom that is the motive. But a great many are genuinely concerned for citizens – across the political spectrum, including the few libertarians there. The harder task is to determine whose motives match up with the reality of the policies they propose.
I think you’re confusing intentions with methods.
It may very well be that some of the politicians in Washington are sincere and well intentioned. That doesn’t conflict at all with my statement.
“The true MOTIVE for the nationalizing of healthcare is control, not concern for citizens”
I’m sorry, I thought the discussion was about intention. I wasn’t confusing method and intention – I was just talking about something different. And I don’t disagree with your fundamental point (nor do I have any real problem with lobbying… a more charitable word for it is “petition for a redress of grievances”, after all). I was just pointing out that it CAN be reiterated too much, in fact I think it is reiterated too much because many people are indeed motivated by concern for others.
Disingenuous Kuehn,
For once we agree. There are a few in government that genuinely have concern for people and would genuinely like to help. We call them true conservatives, or even libertarians.
However they are in contrast to those who genuinely want control, permanence in political position(re-election), and the heady power of having people kow-tow to them as they seek favors and privileges. We call those people liberals/socialist/progressives/communists/democrats, and we can call them genuinely evil.
The ones who genuinely want to help people are beat back by the evil ones. The reason this is possible is because the real way to genuinely help people is demand that they learn and accept self responsibility, and show them how if necessary, but in all things learn that for self security there are standards in life that nature itself sets and one ignores them at one’s peril. A peril that will be self-inflicted.
The evil one’s tell everyone, no no no, don’t worry, we will use those good people’s money to take care of you. Take it easy, if it doesn’t work out at your job, if you think your handicapped or have a disability…..shiiit don’t try to overcome it, just lay back and take it easy…..we will use their money to make it okay for you.
People being, in generally inclined to get all they can with as little effort as possible, take the evil way.
In the end as they lie dying they will still be too stupid to recognize that the things truly worthwhile, the way to true happiness, are found in personal effort and accomplishment.
That is what socialism steals from people, DK, it steals the best of what a human is, and replaces it with gimme and privilege.
Sick sad people there are in D.C. to be sure, and they far outnumber the ones who have genuine love for people.
“true conservatives”, or “libertarians”? The net is a little wider than that, my friend.
What motivates you to label everyone you disagree with as “evil”? I truly, truly don’t understand that impulse. I get raving against ideas you disagree with, but where in the world do you get the assumption that only the people that see things like you do “have genuine love for people”? That’s a pretty twisted way of looking at the world. It’s gotta be depressing, too.
Now that’s a great joke, Daniel! Who are these politicians who are genuinely concerned for citizens?
Daniel, please accept my apology. It was rude of me to make that comment, and it contributed nothing to the conversation.
Please understand there is a callous cynic that shares my body. Most of the time I am able to keep him suppressed. This time, unfortunately, he escaped my perimeter. Again, I apologize for the wise-crack.
It’s deeper than this. I don’t care if Obama’s or any other politician’s intent is evil or highly altruistic. It’s the arrogance that lies underneath that intent. They cannot possess the knowledge required to run the world the way they think they can. And in the end, other than a further diminishment of freedom, the results of their ambitions cannot be known (LBJ’s war on poverty is an example-how did that work out? or our recent crash?). This is what happens when government oversteps its proper role.
Daniel,
Just the thought of you taking another breath is enough to make me belligerent.
How dare you!
As I knew you would, you walked right into it. If you have the courage read to the end. Thank you very much.
Like a good elder I now take you by the scruff of your disingenuous young neck and shove your face in the confirmation of what I have been saying about the liberal/democrat/socialist/communist/progressive (ldscp).
I do this out of the kindness of my heart and because I know you need it. I harbor no illusions that you will actually learn from it, but again, after this you will no longer be able to say, “I didn’t know”.
The ldscp is comprised of people who are basically evil. They have been taught an evil religious theory, enculturated in it, steeped in it, and practice it all while thinking that they are normal and the rest of the world is simply not as sharp as they are.
To support, confirm, and prove that statement I now take you by the scruff of the neck and we go back a couple of posts to the John Mackey letter and all of the comments posted in reply to that letter.
Ldscp people all profess that great empathy and concern for “the people” and “all” they want to do is just to help. Ldscp people all profess a great love for democracy and the will of the majority. But, DK, long years of running these roads has shown me that it is just a patina, a thin facade, that they wear to cover their envy, hatred, and desire to control those of us that can think and do for ourselves and who don’t need their paternalization, or help.
Look at all the replies to John Mackey’s letter, and you have already, and notice that many (maybe half) are from those of the ldscp stripe. All those of the ldscp stripe share a common theme.
Is the common theme one of democratic disappointment, peaceful debate, peaceful disagreement? No, of course not. The common theme they share is the typical response when an ldscp is opposed.
The common theme is, “How dare you oppose what we believe in and oppose what we want! We will destroy you, WE WILL DESTROY YOU, in anyway we can, and if we can’t DESTROY YOU, we will hurt you as much as we can!”
Those ldscp replies express not only the desire for destruction, but a personal heartfelt hatred for Mackey simply because he disagrees with the ldscp and opposes their agenda.
I would classify people who will act to destroy an honest business and an honest businessman, and do so out of personal hatred, are evil people. It is particularly poignant when they (ldscp) are in the minority.
I suspect that the vast majority of the public will agree with me on this.
That expression of intense hatred and desire to destroy is reflected in every single one of the ldscp replies.
Now what does this blind hatred and willingness to destroy do in relation to those unintended consequences we talked of?
First off, if the ldscp are successful in destroying Whole Foods Markets (LFM), the consequence is that not only will the ldscp have to find other sources for the food that they believe is best for their health and happiness, but so will all the others who shop at LFM. So, what do we take from this? We take the understanding that the ldscp will simply flip them off, tell them “fuck you”, too bad, but we think LFM is bad so you are out of luck. With this we understand that evil is also very self centered.
But, what about all the people who are employed by LFM? Well, the ldscp are quite willing to give the same “fuck you” to them as well. So, now to satisfy the evil ldscp we have a company ruined, large number of employees let go, and none of them have that nice health insurance that Mackey spoke of. But, hey, the ldscp can feel smug that they crushed another opposing voice and viewpoint, not with logic or reason, but with pure intense personal hatred.
Lovely people, you in the ldscp. When people take an honest look and listen to what you’re actually saying they see the ldscp as evil.
Further confirmation of the evil hearts of anyone and everyone in the ldscp camp.
Sarah Palin was announced as the choice for Vice President, immediately a little ldscp squirrel, like you DK, with hacking skills, ran to his computer with one purpose in mind, to hack into her e-mails to find whatever he could to destroy her. When he found what could be questionable or could possibly expose her to denigration and gave it to the ldscp authorities….what did they do with it DK? Well, of course being ldscp, they never hesitated a moment, but used it to attempt to destroy her in anyway they could.
ldscp hate, evil hate, do not oppose the ldscp.
The ldscp never even pretended reluctance or ever apologized for using illegally obtained information to destroy……what are you kidding me? The ldscp loved every bit of it. The actions are evidence that the current crop of ldscp are no different from the Lennin created variety in Russia and international communism, in which the theory and practice was “whatever it takes, lie, cheat, steal, kill, or destroy, just win”.
Are we to believe for a moment that David Letterman did not know exactly how dirty and evil his comments about Palin’s daughter were? He still has his job? Go figure that an ldscp could do that and still keep his public position? Could it be that evil does not give a shit about right and wrong?
Obama, head ldscp of the moment, told us that his granny had a hip replacement and he didn’t even know how much it cost, and he said he, “would’ve paid for it out of pocket.” Is that evil? Well, Obama made millions on his books and presence in politics, why didn’t he pay for his granny’s hip replacement out of pocket instead of putting the burden on me and my kinfolk? Is it evil to ignore the money in your pocket and use the money stolen from strangers? I think so.
You see DK, being me, well worn warrior that I am, when I read those replies to Mackey’s letter, I understood all of this instantly and saw it for what it is.
The screaming screeching hatred for opposition has been the hallmark signature of the ldscp as long as I can remember.
Look back to the riots at the World Trade Organization meetings around the world, screaming screeching vandalizing destructive hatred and all coming from the left. Over and over again I can shove your young nose in the evidence of the evil hatred of the left for opposition, and the evidence of how they handle it, destruction.
Find me examples where those who identify as conservative or Republican have acted in such a manner. Examples where the right side has told the left, tough shit, we are in the majority and you can go get fucked. Examples where the right side has denied the left the opportunity to disagree and respectfully listened.
And, I am sorry DK, but your youth plays such a big part in who you are and how you express yourself. You youth obviously plays a huge part in your perspective or lack thereof. How can I ignore it and not mention it when you flaunt it over and over?
I have the courage to read to the end, but not the time right now.
I’ll welcome in August the 18th with my morning cup of coffee and your post. Read the first two paragraphs, though. I can’t emphasize enough two things to you:
1. It is incredibly frustrating to be dismissed for my age over and over again, and I imagine you know this. It trivializes what I have to say simply because I’ve said it. I’m fine with you trivializing what I have to say – but please focus on what I’ve said, not on me.
and,
2. Ultimately, though, I shrug it off because that age-emphasis says a whole lot more about your confidence in your own reasoning than it does about the quality of mine.
I could attribute all the errors I perceive in your argument to senility and dementia, but I don’t see how that would be constructive and it would make me come across as mean-spirited.
Okay, Jr., you present all you perceive.
Let’s see you make sweetness and light out of the ldscp commenters to Mackey’s letter.
OK – I’ll have to admit I was a little disappointed in reading that. It was essentially what you said above, but a lot longer.
Why do you expect that I would even want to make “sweetness and light” out of the “ldscp” commenters on Mackey’s blog? This is what I try to keep telling you, vidyohs. You have this made up image of me as a closet socialist that is for some reason afraid to reveal myself. When I talk about the advantages of the market, you assume it must just me being disingenuous because you, the wise, experienced vidyohs, know what I REALLY think. So you assume I’d even want to defend the “ldscp” commenters. I don’t. And even insofar as I find the “ldscp” perspective important to listen to and take seriously, and even insofar as I find them making some good points, I still don’t feel any obligation to defend the rude and meanspirited ones. That’s not defensible for anyone – even if these ldscp commenters were closer to my political beliefs I wouldn’t even defend their behavior then.
If you truly think this type of stuff is limited to the left, then I think you’re the one that’s being a little sophormoric here. How many death panels, birthers, antichrist references, Hitler references, “sterilizers in the drinking water”, etc. do you need to hear to realize that craziness is a human condition – nobody has a monopoly over that.
If you’re concerned about courteous commentary, please start with a little self-evaluation. In my experience you are the single most meanspirited person commenting on Cafe Hayek. Lots of people accuse me of “socialism”, which is patently ridiculous – but you go farther than that and regularly impugn my honesty, intelligence, motives, insight, and age. I personally am put off by those Mackey commenters. I thought Mackey had a lot of great things to say (and I said as much when Don first posted it). But if you’re looking for rude comments on the other end of the spectrum and you still can’t find them… I’m not sure what else to tell you. They’re all around, vidyohs. Your experience hasn’t shown you that?
And I should say – it’s not just the meanness of the “ldscp” commenters that’s the problem. It’s something that has been symptomatic across the political spectrum for quite a while now: the instinct that “if that idea wasn’t in our prior platform, I have to reject it”.
That’s a really dangerous instinct – for obvious reasons, it keeps society from innovating. But it also makes people miss a lot of common ground that exists. Did I think Mackey’s references to socialism and single payer were odious and irrelevant? Sure I did. But I can shrug that off because I agree with him on single payer and socialism – I just feel like that was somehow directed at “our side”. But oh well – these are the times that thick skin comes in handy. Once you get past that he had a lot of really great ideas – a lot of ideas that the left SHOULD be able to embrace too, I might add. Why don’t they? Because the title of his editorial (which he probably didn’t even write) set him at odds with Obama.
How depressing is that? They can’t even entertain ideas espoused by people who are opposed to a president they like? That’s a very sad testament. It’s hugely unfortunate, but it’s an impulse that’s not restricted to the left.
Disingenuous Kuehn,
Off we go to the mulberry bush, eh. You claim that this mean spirited drive to destroy opposition is a shared trait between the socialist and the right. But you neglect my ending of the last post. This:
“The screaming screeching hatred for opposition has been the hallmark signature of the ldscp as long as I can remember.
Look back to the riots at the World Trade Organization meetings around the world, screaming screeching vandalizing destructive hatred and all coming from the left. Over and over again I can shove your young nose in the evidence of the evil hatred of the left for opposition, and the evidence of how they handle it, destruction.
Find me examples where those who identify as conservative or Republican have acted in such a manner. Examples where the right side has told the left, tough shit, we are in the majority and you can go get fucked. Examples where the right side has denied the left the opportunity to disagree and respectfully listened.”
Look at that last paragraph DK. Then look at your weak replies and tell me where you gave examples of right wingers declaring destruction on opposition, and then going out in screeching angry mobs to make it happen?
You can’t do it. The best you can do is quote labels such as birthers to besmirch honest people who want the honest account that is demanded by the Constitution, people who know full well, as do I, that the Constitution is a meaningless document to the left who see it as a “living document”, which means they get to interpret it as they see fit relative to time, place, and socialist goals. How many cars have they overturned and burned, how many socialist auto paint jobs have they keyed in petty anger, how business have the birthers threatened to ruin, etc. etc. In the 2008 elections the left was/is desperate for ultimate power in the seizure of the executive mansion and both houses of congress, a young articulate black man, was an ideal candidate in this sick PC nation of ours, so they settled for a young half black man who is semi-articulate with teleprompter thinking he would do. There is no way in hell you can convince intelligent people that they wouldn’t fudge the qualifications to put that candidate on the ballot, and there is now way in hell you can tell people that the MSM would get right into bed with them and no serious investigation would be conducted.
Yeah there are crazies across the spectrum, but the telling difference is how they behave in their zaniness. As documented by the left themselves, the left actively tries to destroy all opposition, while the right talks and grumbles.
In all examples of political protest find one committed by the right that even remotely resembles the 1968 leftwing demolishing of Chicago by your leftwing zealots angry at the their own party for not being socialist enough.
You are such a young fool, and you just keep shooting yourself in the foot.
Your inexperience shows up in the lack of understanding that all government policies always wind up being abused in all manners allowed by the language of the policy. Always.
Some one holds up a sign with the word Hitler on it and that word is circled with a red circle and a line drawn through it, the reference be to Obamacare which can accurately be compared to the socialized medicine of the NAZI party. Same questions as above, where is the violence and threats of destruction, where is the hatred?
Death panels, see my comment about such in a subsequent post, which I will repeat here just for you. If the panel that is provided for in Obamcare denies treatment to an elderly person based solely on the decision of cost Vs age, then they have condemned that person to death by neglect. Is “death by neglect” any less deadly than death by bullet, club, or needle? Slower maybe, but effective in most cases. And, you can not deny that those deciding panels are provided for in Obamacare.
A thick skin is indeed important, and most of us wear them on the outside of our body, not inside our head wrapped tightly around our brains.
You make all the denials about being a socialist and then in the two posts above you tell us obliquely that you are, and think you’re fooling everyone?
At the bottom line I will tell you once more, all those on the right that protest and ask the embarassing questions of power, if successful in reforming government into the model that was hoped for by the founding fathers, if successful DK, will not cost you an involuntary penny now or in the future, nor will their goals intrude on your life and your personal decisions in any way. You will be free to live under natural law and a very restricted common law.
In every step the socialist have accomplished in moving us away from freedom towards total control, everything they have done has cost us in involuntary money, and every step has taken one more individual choice out of our control. Everything they have done has decayed the moral fiber of this people and destroyed the very standards that permitted the American people to be strong, independent, productive, and self responsible. If the present administration and congress are successful with their plans and goals, it is all history and this nation is going to accelerate in it slide to the bottom.
If those differences aren’t clear cut enough to make you chuck all your socialist pretensions, all your socialist enculturation, and leave the dark side of hate and envy; then, son, you are indeed clear cut stupid.
Now the examples…..I await your examples.
Disingenuous Kuehn,
Once again you exercise your propensity to be disingenuous.
I don’t label everyone that disagrees with me as evil, like anyone else I run into disagreement everyday and I work it out with people.
I label as evil those whose past and present actions show them to have the very worst motives for acting, and whose actions have shown in the past and present that they have only personal power and permanence in office as those motives. That means I label as evil all democrats/liberals/progressives/socialist/communists, and those who are willing to compromise with them.
Fair enough, Jr.?
Evil is generated more often through stupidity than by design. It can come from intended results or most often through unintended consequences.
Those unintended consequences are why truly concerned and wise men interfere in others’ lives as little as possible, or not at all.
Someday you’ll have put enough miles on your tires to be able to understand what I am telling you. Right now your tires are so new and shiny, original tread, still have the little hairs on them they are so little used.
It is called perspective and you don’t have it. Yet.
My mistake, I was probably being too broad. It was just “liberals/socialist/progressives/communists/democrats” of whom you say “we can call them genuinely evil”.
I still don’t understand it.
And is it possible for you to respond to me without referencing my age or calling me disingenuous? It really detracts from the discussion. Particularly when your arguments ultimately come down to “trust me I have more perspective than you” – that’s not a very convincing line of argument.
Come on, vidyohs, the real control is the evil politicians are creating is a dysgenic society of retards. Gone are the days of the frontier men because they were taxed too much to have their own children because they were forced to pay for the retarded children of other retards thus creating today’s modern society of mostly retards instead of Libertarians.
I don’t like writing itty bitty, see reply below. You don’t want to miss it.
“The true MOTIVE for the nationalizing of healthcare is control, not concern for citizens”
But control is the motive, whether the politician is well intended or not.
Oh please don’t apologize for that! In fact, I’m going to demand an apology for that apology
If you really actually believed that politicians are somehow a different species and none of them care about the public, I’d try to reason with you and point out how ridiculous that is – regardless of all the very obvious problems that arise with politicians.
But a joke about it? No no, Dan. Nothing to be sorry about
I’ve had far worse said about me on Cafe Hayek than a moderately sarcastic identification of one of my points as a great joke! Politician jokes are like lawyer jokes – you can’t really get enough of them, and they have a kernel of truth. The problem comes in when you start taking them literally and as universal truth – not when you crack a joke.
RE: “You make all the denials about being a socialist and then in the two posts above you tell us obliquely that you are, and think you’re fooling everyone?”
How in the world do you conclude that I’m admiting to being a socialist in the posts above? I thought I made quite clear that I didn’t consider myself one of your identified “ldscp”‘s
Left-wingers have a strong history of revolutionary violence. Right-wingers have a history of reactionary violence. So of course leftists in this country are going to resort to violence perhaps more easily – Seattle, for example. We don’t have a particularly right-wing reactionary government, so the prospect of reactionary violence is low. Since leftists primarily operate as revolutionaries, they still have considerable scope for violence. I’m not going to challenge that – but I don’t think that damns the left uniquely or as a perspective. I just think that’s the context that we find ourselves in in the United States at this time.
Granted – if you’re going to reach back to the 60s as you have, that provides more opportunities to identify right-wing counterparts. In the 60s we DID still have reactionary leadership in many of the states – and predictably, we also had right-wing violence. Lynchings, assasinations, etc. etc. Could it happen again? Sure. We’ve already busted right-wing bomb plots against protesters at Jerry Fallwell’s funeral, assasination plots on Obama’s life, and an increase in right wing separatist activity. So yes – the nature of the current historical situation in the U.S. – the absence of a reactionary government prevents a lot of right wing violence from happening. But that hardly says anything conclusive about “the right” or “the left” in general.
I’m not sure what your problem is with violence, though. There’s nothing inherently wrong with violence. We would still be imperial subjects if it weren’t for violence. We might be fascist subjects. The problem isn’t violence per se – but ill conceived violence.
Regardless, I’m not sure exactly what you’re trying to get at – I feel no need to defend idiots commenting on Mackey’s blog. If you’re talking about left wing or right wing violence in general, I think it’s too complicated to dismiss outright.
Take the riots in 1968… ARGUABLY “left-wing” violence, but I don’t know how ideological it really was. One shooting, a right-wing shooting, sparked all that. Considerably more violent riots happened in reaction to that shot. Maybe “leftist”, maybe not. What was “more violent” the initial assasination or the riots that followed?
Is ANY of that sequence of events a damning critique of either the right or the left? Of course not. It’s a predictable historical episode that we would expect to see given the enormous frictions of 1968. It doesn’t really speak to the quality of the right or the left at all.
What exactly are you looking for from me? Do you want me to just say “the left is evil and the right isn’t evil?”
One more trip around the bush and then I go make some money.
So those are your examples of right wing violent suppression and destruction of opposition?
So, you equate lynchings to rightwing violence? How about those murders of blacks in the north by white union members? Are you so sure that lynchings were the exclusive territory of a right wing? You might want to reexamine that theory.
And, if the closing three paragraphs of my last doesn’t tell you what I’d like you to recognize, then I have nothing else I can say.
“Are you so sure that lynchings were the exclusive territory of a right wing?”
It’s pointless to even talk to you sometimes, vidyohs.
No, of course that’s not what I’m saying. My whole point is that none of this violence is the exclusive territory of anyone.
It is pointless to play the disingenuous game with me DK.
Vidyohs 1: Now I know that DK said this: “In the 60s we DID still have reactionary leadership in many of the states – and predictably, we also had right-wing violence. Lynchings, assasinations, etc. etc.” A statement in which he exclusively linked the right wing to lynchings.”
Vidyohs 2: No you dumb shit, he didn’t say that at all, can’t you see there in that quote where he considered the possibility of socialist union members being involved? Christ what a dummy!
Vidyohs 1: Well, actually no………..
Vidyohs 2: Oh for Christ’s sake, you know what he meant!
Vidyohs 1: Wow, you want to grab a beer and forget DK?
An example of right wing violence is lynchings equals all lynchings are done by right wingers?
For someone that was griping about grammar the other day, you sure are exhibiting a mangled implicit syntax if that’s what you got out of what I said.