Here’s my latest column in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. A snippet:
But if the stimulus does work — if the economy does recover as a result of this massive spending — then doesn’t it follow that whatever deregulation has occurred since the mid-1970s was, in fact, not as disastrous as many folks now make it out to be?
After all, how structurally damaged is an economy and its legal framework if the mere spending of lots more money to “stimulate” demand is sufficient to restore that economy to reasonable health?
Share
{ 94 comments }
Great point. Or perhaps we could say, if the mere act of raising taxes on future generations is sufficient, because that’s what “stimulus” really is.
You forget the current diversion of funds from productive allocation to government allocation. I’m not sure which, that or future debt service, is the most damaging.
“The Krugmans of the world are angry that ObamaCare opponents don’t interpret the proposed health-care “reform” in the happy and innocent way that Barack Obama and, say, Moveon.org would like that reform to be interpreted.”
No. I’m angry that I can’t have a meaningful discussion with someone opposed to universal healthcare without being called a socialist or communist. I’m angry that opponents are flooding townhalls and drowning out any civilized discussion. I’m angry that people can’t act like adults about this.
So forget about the town halls and discuss things in civilised blogs like, say…. this one.
Where do you think he gets called a socialist and a communist?
Don’s point is worthwhile – Krugman shouldn’t expect everyone to see eye-to-eye with him. But when Krugman thinks people are inaccurately characterizing health reform he says as much, bluntly, because he thinks they’re wrong. That’s exactly what Don and Russ do here, and it’s exactly what they should do. But there’s nothing wrong with being exasperated with people who you feel “don’t get it”. What’s ironic is in this way Don and Krugman are very, very much alike.
So argue the merits and keep the discussion going. Get frustrated without getting entitled or self-righteous.
But anon is right – if everyone on this blog argued points as maturely as Don does, it would be a civilized forum. Some just resort to name calling. It’s not the end of the world, but it does hamper any real thought provoking dialogue.
Your point is weakened by the fact that Krugman et al want to FORCE millions of Americans to pay (through the nose) for something most don’t want. In contrast, Don wants all Americans to be free to make their own choices (i.e. not forced). That difference puts the burden of proof squarely on the Obamanites. So Krugman needs to lose the attitude and try to prove his case with reason and sound analysis.
Unfortunately, most of what I’ve heard is insulting and demonizing their opponents rather than attempting to prove their case (simple assertion ain’t gonna cut it). I suspect the reason is they cannot prove their case, so they need to marginilize anybody who opposes the power grab.
If these people were really interested in improving the health and healthcare in the US the tactics employed would be very different.
I’m not sure you’re accurately characterizing Krugman’s approach… he’s not a single payer advocate, from what I’ve been able to gather.
But even then, I don’t exactly buy your logic. Essentially those who take a libertarian approach don’t have the same obligation to provide evidence as other positions? It seems to me that view is definitive of opposition to a real debate. Krugman and others have pored over the minutiae of their case. Maybe they haven’t proved it to your satisfaction, but I’m not sure you’re right to say that it’s all attitude and no “attempting to prove their case”. And yes there are some cat fights. But if you think this is unique to the Krugmans out there, or that the cat fights are all that he offers, you really aren’t paying attention to the discussion.
Years ago I asked my father-in-law, who was an engineer at the time working for Foster Wheeler selling garbage plants, what was the most economically feasible way to deal with garbage. He replied by making less garbage. Why not address the health insurance issue by looking in that direction.. Maybe more parks should be built, more streets closed, more areas re-zoned for commercial applications. Smart cities if you will. If we got off our fat asses and worked at it we wouldn’t have to listen to the Krugmans of the world with their money throwing campaigns
Duplicitous Kuehn,
So you think it is mature to begin a discussion by tainting the topic with one;s own personal agenda that implies the opposition are wrong or unique in their tactics? That, to me, seems like a cheap tactic to put your opponent in the corner before words are even spoken.
“No. I’m angry that I can’t have a meaningful discussion with someone opposed to universal healthcare without being called a socialist or communist. I’m angry that opponents are flooding townhalls and drowning out any civilized discussion. I’m angry that people can’t act like adults about this.”
The tactics, if they be called that, have been honed and refined by the socialist and communist. That conservatives have finally woke to the understanding and now use them to advance their agenda is simply evolution.
Anon and yourself, should think (if you can) back to just the last two major political parties’ presidential nominating conventions and reflect that at the convention held by the democraps there were peaceful Republican protesters holding signs in designated areas. Ahh, but at the Republicraps convention there were looney lefties running amok, vandalizing, blocking streets as much as possible, in other words being socialist and doing everything they could to disrupt the proceedings.
Gotta love the way you guys on the left frame your discussions or debates.
Intelligent people who are long time observers of the political scene know full well that if the opponents of Obamacare weren’t aggressive they would be ignored, never heard. Ignoring or shutting down opponents is also a well developed and known tactic of the socialist or communist.
Anon reminds me of the knife fighter who complains that someone has brought a longer more deadly blade to the fight.
Most intelligent people know instinctively when a proposal is made whether it will be long term negative and undesirable. In the political arena that instinct kicks in on all proposals that have the end result of government involvement or management. No intelligent person can look at the government track record in management and conclude it is desirable. Government can’t even perform its designated functions efficiently and effectively, and that is taking into consideration that none of its designated functions include the making of a profit or at worst simply holding the line.
RE: “So you think it is mature to begin a discussion by tainting the topic with one;s own personal agenda that implies the opposition are wrong or unique in their tactics?”
I’ll start with your last point first. No, my whole point was that these “tactics” aren’t unique at all. Krugman is “angry” that opponents don’t interpret reform the way he does. OK, but Don is “angry” that opponents don’t interpret reform the way he does. I put “angry” in quotes in both cases because what Don sees as angry in Krugman’s case, Krugman might not call “angry”, and vice versa. But regardless – both get frustrated when people “don’t get” how they interpret the proposals. Would we expect anything otherwise? Are these reactions unique to one side? Of course not.
As for “wrong”, what is wrong with implying the opposition is “wrong”? If you felt your opposition was right they wouldn’t be the opposition!!!! I see no problem here.
Finally, your “tainting with a personal agenda” is another man’s objective conclusion. And another man’s “tainting with a personal agenda” is your objective conclusion… I wouldn’t drag this line of attack out too far, vidyohs.
RE: “at the convention held by the democraps there were peaceful Republican protesters holding signs in designated areas.”
Look, a friend of mine just got punched by a Republican protester at Jim Moran’s town hall meeting in Reston, Virginia. I know you think that Democrats have a monopoly on violence. I don’t understand it. It seems patently absurd to me and not even worth engaging, so I’ll just leave it at that.
Of course you can have an adult conversation about health care, and so could Krugman if he wanted to. People are talking about it all over the internet, and even at the town hall meetings. However, talking about the name-callers and angry ranters is so much easier than engaging with people who have earnest objections to the health care bill(s) on offer, and an angry kook makes a much more entertaining news segment than a bunch of boring, wonkish debate. What’s more, I’ve noticed among my friends, at least, that supporters of the reform bill don’t really want to talk about health care policy; they just want someone in authority to tell them it’s ok to dismiss the objections. Thus, Krugman and his ilk focus on the kooks and weirdos (subtly implying in the process that those are the only opponents of the health care reform), and they try to pretend there is no real debate.
Shorter version: if you can’t find adult conversation about health care reform, it’s because you’re making a choice to avoid it.
And it’s a toss-up. The ranters and yellers deserve attention and concern insofar as it is the force that’s hampering the real debate. It’s one thing when Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin talk about “death panels” – that’s bad enough because it does prevent voters from really being informed when they evaluate it. But what really scares me is when the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee buys into it. It’s hard to have a real “wonky” debate at that point. Serious, meaningful critics are out there but they are few, and that’s the problem.
And one thing Krugman is definitely guilty of is lumping Democrats and Independents who have reservations with the cooks. He doesn’t think very highly of Democrats that raise these issues.
Doesn’t that make Krugman and Palin/Beck two sides of the same coin? Both of them are just saying what their mindless bases want to hear. Both could have the sort of reasoned discussion that anon wants to have, but both choose not to because caricaturing the other side is a lot easier and saves you having to answer tough questions. I don’t have much respect for either group.
I’m not sure what Krugman has said that is comparable to death panels… and he’s definitely engaged the details of the proposal more than Beck or Palin have. But if you have examples I’m interested in hearing them. Krugman is certainly a firebrand and a partisan – there’s absolutely no doubt about that. But I see him as one of the ones that actually is wading through the wonky weeds on this. Having a very strong opinion doesn’t mean you aren’t engaging the real issues – again, I’ll cite Don as a great example. Don has as strong of an opinion against this as Beck, but unlike Beck he actually talks seriously about the issue. I think Don and Krugman are two sides of the same coin – and Beck and Palin and their ilk are the types that are drowning the meaningful points out.
RE: “Doesn’t that make Krugman and Palin/Beck two sides of the same coin? “Oh was – this a response to my point about Krugman’s thoughts on centrist Democrats?Sure – nobody’s perfect and that’s a big criticism I have of Krugman (being a centrist Democrat myself). Yes, that is a big problem. But again, he does actually talk seriously about issues, which does make him stand out.And I should point out once again that Krugman isn’t alone in comparing thoughtful moderates to the extremes. I believe just the other day Don compared Ted Kennedy to the Soviets, for example. I think those comparisons are ill-founded, but I’m not going to hold passion against either of them (well… not for too long at least!). They both redeem those over-reaches with very insightful commentary.
“It’s one thing when Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin talk about “death panels” – that’s bad”
What’s bad is that criticism of the literal falsehood of “death panels” detracts from the truth of its implication.
Their problem with the “death panel” discussion is that even though it is over the top, there is more than a kernel of truth to it. Yet instead of discussing it, they call everyone names then pull the provision out of the bill, like no one is going to notice, then afterward say “Look there are not death panel provisions….see!”
It’s their tactics, try to slip things through, then when they get caught…distract and revise, then call names again. Not a civilized discussion or even a legitimate debate.
Honestly, I don’t see what’s wrong with calling a socialist program socialist. A public option certain falls under the definition of socialism: “collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.” People who support socialist programs are, at least proximately, socialists. Of course, there are different ways that one can use the term. I agree that if someone is calling you a socialist only as a substitute for calling you an idiot, that is not warranted. However, if someone calls you a socialist because you are supporting socialist government policies, I don’t see the problem.
If you call it socialist, then proponents will have a difficult time defending it in the context of the historical failure of socialism. “Socialism” and “Fascism” are like the “N” word.
Socialists have been running a campaign to relabel socialism for a few decades and useful idiots have been falling for it. The answers to “in what way is this proposal different from a socialist program?” can be quite hilarious. I’ve always been a fan of calling a spade a spade.
The question to ask a socialist-in-denial is, “What would a socialist policy look like to you?”
They always point to Norway as a model country, oblivious to the fact that the only way Norway can finance their socialist heaven is through OIL! Most can’t stand that thought so they purposely try not to acknowledge it. Otherwise if they did, they’d have to acknowledge that if the got their way (getting rid of evil Carbon) Norway would go bankrupt and their model Socialist country would be in ruin, unable to stand it’s own weight.
The other part to that is, they usually fail to acknowledge that Norway is busy trying to shed a lot of it’s Statist programs in favor of “evil, greedy” private programs.
As I see it, we pretty much have universal healthcare now, it’s just expensive. So, the real issue is cost, not access. Since the government is one of the most significant forces increasing cost, IMO the discussion should begin with an analysis of what the government should stop doing to let the market work better.
The health of Americans is a separate issue from healthcare. Lifestyle choices and genetics dominate health outcomes, and preventative measures only go so far.
PS – You certainly can have a meaningful discussion but, as David pointed out, ObamaCare is a Socialist approach. How could someone support it and not be a socialist?
How about a meaningful discussion with someone opposed to free trade? Opposed to the Gulf War?
My whole life I’ve been watching demonstrations by Hitler-labeling sign-toting chanters, and now, after decades of this kind of activity, you are suddenly angry about it?
Could you possibly be more disingenuous?
Anon,
I’m angry that I can’t have a discussion with someone who is pro-Obamacare without being called a racist.
Have you considered that the vast majority of the anger exhibited by some opponents at the town halls is rooted in the Democrats’ attempt to ram this legislation through without debate in a matter of weeks? When it was discovered that the town halls were mainly attended by people concerned about the destruction of all that is good in our current health care system, the left advertised for paid participants to shout them down and, in some cases, physically attack opponents. They have now taken to making sure that the townhalls are filled with paid and volunteer pro-Obamacare people with professionally made signs to keep anti-Obamacare people out. And that’s before we consider the contempt with which representatives and the leaders of the Democrat party treats their constituents. It’s enough to make a normal person snap.
Of course, there were no such complaints about the lack of “reasonable discussion” when anti-war protesters were marching around screaming with Bu$Hitler posters and burning him in effigy. Let’s not pretend that your side is any more reasonable and prone to intelligent discussion than the other side.
RE: “I’m angry that I can’t have a discussion with someone who is pro-Obamacare without being called a racist. ”
Sure you can! Have I ever called you a racist? I don’t think I have. We discuss this all the time.
There, done.
Well, Danny, as long as YOU don’t call me a racist, then it’s all good. I mean, you are the most important person I’ve ever met and all. But, I’m going to go ahead and put more weight on congresswoman Watson’s, left-wing media pundit’s and organized labour’s accusations anyway. Plus, I don’t remember you ever being pro-ObamaCare.
I’m sure that Anon can also find at least one person who does not just dismiss him as a socialist for advocating a socialist policy. But, please, feel free to nitpick while complaining that people nitpick you to death.
“Well, Danny, as long as YOU don’t call me a racist, then it’s all good. I mean, you are the most important person I’ve ever met and all.”Ah yes, sarcasm – an excellent way to communicate.You said you can’t have a discussion without being called a racist. I’m making the point that I, and I don’t think anyone here, has even come near broaching the possibility that you’re a racist. And I HIGHLY doubt that all the non-racist-accusing pro-Obamacare people congregate here and you won’t find any elsewhere. I’m saying stop worrying so much – most won’t call you a racist and the ones that do aren’t worth your time.RE: “Plus, I don’t remember you ever being pro-ObamaCare.”I have reservations with a whole lot of it, but I also am not usually in the habit of making the perfect the enemy of the good.Re: “I’m sure that Anon can also find at least one person who does not just dismiss him as a socialist for advocating a socialist policy.”I agree completely, that was over the top. It is interesting, though. I bet I’ve been called a socialist far more than you’ve been called a racist. And think about this supposedly left-leaning MSM. How often do you hear “racist” accusations on the major networks? How often do you hear “socialist” accusations?I wasn’t nitpicking – I was reassuring you. Feeling embattled is unbecoming of you – you’re usually too confident and well poised for that. And I mean that as a compliment.
Let’s talk, then, about how civilized it is to affect my liberty — through legislation that causes compulsory taxpayer funding and even more central planning — just because you don’t value your own liberty all that much. Just how meaningful do you expect that discussion to be, Comrade Anon?
I’m pretty sure the Krugmans of the world are on record stating that the stimulus does not fix the underlying fundamentals.
This is a 30 plus year mess in the making and like a dying patient a shot of adrenaline will not fix his failing kidneys. Next up we have a failing $1 trillion dollar commercial real estate market.
Bottom line; until we correct the factors that created massive economic inequality… and I’d argue political inequality we are a nation with failing kidneys. Our best hope is for a new health care system and transformation of our energy policy. If we can get all that profit going to health care administrators and fossil fuel CEO’s into jobs and wages paying people who actually do something productive like nurses and energy technologist we will see the economy grow on the base the stimulus provided. In other words health care and the new energy sector will be big growth industries when the massive profits the current industry CEO’s make are instead put into productive jobs that actually increase wages and do things for people. Having a system that allows CEO’s in health and energy to make $100 million dollar salaries does nothing to improve productivity.
Those Forbes 400 riches making $1.4 trillion in 2007… they’d be fine making 0.4 trillion with the rest going to pay for people actually doing something productive. But if people want to keep insisting the Forbes 400 earned that much and produced that much and we don’t address the policies that allowed them to make so much… don’t plan on any real recovery.
“This is a
3090 plus year mess in the making…”Don,
I’m very sorry but the quality of this op-ed was lost in your ranting about the “Krugmans of the world,” which I think you used in just about every paragraph. The force of your arguments were once again lost in what can be seen as jeliousy of Krugman’s popularity. Stick to the facts Don.
According to his blog, Krugman is out on vacation for the next two weeks… no columns… few blog posts.
Cafe Hayek may start getting sparse as a result
Are you planning a vacation any time soon?
OOOOOHHHH BUUUUUURN!!!!!
Actually, yes I am. Thanks for asking. I may check up every once in a while on Cafe Hayek though – just visiting my brother for a week. He doesn’t need constant attention, after all.
neither do we.
This is absolutely awesome. Thanks.
Remember that debate/opposition was not intended to happen. The bill was supposed to be passed before the Congressional recess, but the public furor prevented that.
This is too important an issue to leave to the voters.
danielkuehn – you are a disingenuous socialist. Time after time, you are confronted with evidence that Krugman and company want to FORCE government down the throats of people – and you deny it.
Krugman, like his god (Keynes) are socialists. They want socialism but they are trying to destroy capitalism from within.
If we can just give smart enough people enough control over our lives, they can make everything better.
Now your sounding like a true Keynesian…err I mean Socialist. =)
Justin Palmer wrote:
Their problem with the “death panel” discussion is that even though it is over the top, there is more than a kernel of truth to it.
Indeed, we already have “death panels” in this country — and they are run by the FDA.
Every year, many people die waiting on treatments that are being held up by the FDA. It takes the FDA something like 3 years to review the double-blind trials and other research done by the pharmaceutical companies to develop a drug. Whenever you hear that the FDA has just approved some new drug that is expected to “save X number of lives per year”, just multiply that by about 3 to get the number of people needlessly sentenced to death by the FDA.
What’s more, people with terminal illnesses are denied access to experimental drugs that are their only hope, even thought they are fully aware of the risks and fully prepared to accept those risks. In this manner, the FDA sentences still more people to death every year.
Make no mistake about it. Just as “government-approved” drugs means you do without those drugs until the government gives you permission to take them, so “government-supplied” healthcare will mean you get the healthcare the government thinks you need, not what YOU think you need.
And yes, this is fundamentally different from the so-called “rationing by insurance bureaucrats” that is allegedly currently taking place. No insurance bureaucrat has the power to keep you from switching to another insurance company. No insurance bureaucrat has the power to keep you from simply deciding to pay for the treatment you want yourself. Only government has the power to legally use force against you to eliminate your options and force you to accept their decisions — and that is fundamental objective of this health care “reform”: to extend government’s control over your life to a whole new level.
I’m glad you saw the point I was trying to make. Yet if you bring this kind of topic up to a Dem or Lefty, they will go ad hominum.
As a student of Paul (I will no longer give him the courtesy of using his last name—I do wish for my money back), I can only conclude from his lectures and writings.
The 1980s: We are screwed. (We prospered).
The 1990s: We are screwed (for this see the Age of Diminished Expectations (where he predicted that free trade would lead to massive unemployment—it happened to drop rapidly after publication—productivity would accelerate under a certain President who will not be named).
The Early 2000s: We are screwed again (the productivity gains he moaned about materialized—see again the Age of Diminished Expectations).
The Bush Presidency: Oh the horror of 2.5% deficits!
The Obama Presidency: 11% deficits are great, and if the stimulus fails then it is because evil Republicans did not make it bigger—ha, ha I win anyway. BTW, I got my Nobel Prize revealing how countries are more interdependent on trade than anyone thought—meanwhile trade is bad.
Why is it great economists always seem to need a good dose of Lithium?
I like this web site.
Krugman is a single-payer advocate for sure.
You may not buy my logic, but you seem to have completely missed my point. I reread my post and the point seems clear and obvious to me, but your comments have nothing whatsoever to do with it. I’ll try again.
Clearly, the burden of proof falls on those who would force something upon others. How could it be any other way? Is this really a difficult concept?
So, logically, opponents of ObamaCare have no obligation to provide evidence – they’re not trying to forcibly take people’s wealth for something many oppose. However, as a practical matter, it is in the best interest of every American that those opposing ObamaCare present a strong case against it.
Fortunately, several (who know much more than I on this topic) have presented overwhelming evidence against increased government involvement in healthcare. Among that evidence is the poor results of the experiments in government run healthcare we can observe. Several sound approaches to containing cost have been suggested as well.
If the Obamanites have pored over the minutiae of their case, why do they keep demonizing their opponents rather than crushing them with their sound analysis, logic and evidence?
No, I got that quite clearly. And that’s why I started by pointing out that to my understanding Krugman doesn’t propose forcing anything on anybody. So that scuttles a lot of your argument.
But even if he did, you’re illogically priveleging the libertarian position from the get go. You’re forcing other people to assume the illegitimacy of a social contract approach to the role of the state. I don’t buy that, and I don’t buy that case to get out from under the burden of truth.
RE: “If the Obamanites have pored over the minutiae of their case, why do they keep demonizing their opponents rather than crushing them with their sound analysis, logic and evidence?”
This is largely your perspective. I would argue they have not spent most of their time “demonizing” their opponents, and a lot of their time with sound analysis, logic, and evidence. then again it probably also depends on how you define “obamanites”. I don’t even read places like Daily Kos – maybe that does go on there. I’m thinking of people like Ezra Klein or Krugman.
WOW!!!!! I’m “forcing other people to assume the illegitimacy of a social contract approach to the role of the state”??????
That’s a ridiculous and nonsensical statement – I’m not forcing anything on anyone. What you seem to be saying is that some vague, fuzzy, intangible “social contract” concept is equivalent to forcibly taking real, physical, tangible assets from people to pay for things those people object to. I have to call BS on that one – it’s just laughable on its face.
First “social contract” is a hopelessly vague term that could mean any number of things to any number of people. Second, I don’t remember anything about a “social contract” in the constitution. Third, since a “social contract” implies forcing me to do things to honor a “contract” I never entered into, it seems that the burden of proof is on those who claim such a thing exists (but that’s a separate argument).
And I’m “illogically privileging the libertarian position” how? By following simple and obvious logic? I even pointed out that in spite of no logical obligation those opposing ObamaCare have a strong reason to put forth arguments against it (I might go so far as to say an overwhelming moral reason). And fortunately that has been done. The analyses show that the results will be worse healthcare, higher costs and less freedom (hardly surprising given government performance in other areas).
RE: “I have to call BS on that one – it’s just laughable on its face”
And that’s fine – it’s what you should do, but don’t presume that the fact that you find it laughable is convincing to anyone but yourself, and don’t presume that that’s a “get out of jail free card” that puts the burden of proof on everyone except the people that agree with you already.
I’ve said many times on this blog how weak and vague I think the “social contract” is – I’m with you on that. But that doesn’t mean that “taxes are stealing” or that any action of the state is a priori illegitimate sound any less ridiculous to me, so I have to put forward some vague concept of a social contract – not my ideal, trust me.
The point of it all, though, is that you are trying to escape having to provide the same evidence that everyone else does, not on the basis of your logic (as you claim), but on the basis of your assumptions and really your philosophical position on the state. That’s a non-starter, yet another Dave. Sorry – the same rules apply to you as anyone else.
But by all means – make the case that taxes=stealing, etc. It’s not that the case shouldn’t be made. It’s simply that you’re being foolish if you think that your views are “simple and obvious logic”. There’s a wide world out there that would contest that.
RE: “And fortunately that has been done. The analyses show that the results will be worse healthcare, higher costs and less freedom”
You’ve got it all wrapped up, huh? Glad to know you’re that smart. The results of what? You realize that there’s not just one plan out there, and that any given person’s plan has multiple components to it, and that there may be more dimensions on which to evaluate success, don’t you?
Re: “That’s a ridiculous and nonsensical statement – I’m not forcing anything on anyone.”
OK – didn’t realize you would react that strongly to that particular phrasing.
How about “by claiming that the burden of proof is on them, you are assuming that everybody has to start the discussion by agreeing with all your foundational assumptions”.
Which of course is a goofy thing to assume, which is my whole point.
Just out of curiosity, DK, did your friend get to see the voter’s registration card of the man who punched him? Was the puncher a Republican or a trouble maker who claimed to be one so that he could cause trouble and have it blamed on Republicans? Kinda of like democrats voting in Republican primaries…….naw democrats wouldn’t play dirty would they.
As to drawing out that line of argument, DK, I realize the point, I was pointing out that Anon seems not to, evidently expected no one here to see his slant to the proposition, and you were in agreement.
Are we being duplicitous again?
Of course not, but the same questions could be raised of ANY violent protesters. I don’t think at all that it’s beyond democrats to impersonate republicans for this kind of behavior (in fact, we know for a fact this has been happening). If you haven’t gotten the picture by now, I’m not exactly an apologist for the Democrats.
We’ve also gotten very similar to news reports of a McCain supporter accusing an anonymous black man of assaulting her and carving a “B” in her cheek for supporting McCain. Nope – turns out she did it to herself.
But this is the whole point. My point in talking about the Moran rally wasn’t to say “here is one definitive, irrefutable instance”. My point was just to say you are being ridiculous if you think the left has some monopoly on bad behavior. That’s absurd.
RE: “As to drawing out that line of argument, DK, I realize the point, I was pointing out that Anon seems not to, evidently expected no one here to see his slant to the proposition, and you were in agreement.”
I don’t understand exactly what you’re saying here. Needless to say, don’t assume that because I didn’t contradict anon that I agree with everything he said. If you’re interested in what I’m “in agreement” on, just read what I wrote.
No Krugman calls anyone that disagrees with him “crazy.” A real mature and civilized discussion no?
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/26/all-out-of-shrill/
Holy $h-it! Either you are willfully missing my point, or you just enjoy going off on completely unrelated tangents of your own flights of fancy. You frequently assume I’m doing/saying/thinking things that have no connection to my comments and then you seem to relentlessly cling to your conclusion no matter what. (You do this to others also, it’s not just me.)
For just one of many examples, you said, “How about “by claiming that the burden of proof is on them, you are assuming that everybody has to start the discussion by agreeing with all your foundational assumptions”.
Which of course is a goofy thing to assume, which is my whole point.”
Not even Superman could have made that leap! I’m assuming no such thing – that assumption is pure nonsense from your imagination. As a result, your “whole point” is, well, … pointless.
“If you haven’t gotten the picture by now, I’m not exactly an apologist for the Democrats.”
That above is the reason that I have decided that Duplicitous fits you better than Disingenuous. Because, no, I have not got that picture of you. Why? Because every time a left looney is criticized here you manage to write in defense of the critter.
You say you don’t, yet you do. Duplicitous.
Left loonies do not have a monopoly on violence they just by far and away dominate the field, foreign and domestic, in its use. Conservatives respect property and hard work, therefore in majority shy away from random and wanton destruction and vandalism, where the left does not believe in property and has no inhibitions about destroying others’ property or coercing opposition to make a political point.
Re “comparing thoughtful moderates to the extremes. I believe just the other day Don compared Ted Kennedy to the Soviets”
Am I reading this right? Are you describing Ted Kennedy as a thoughtful moderate?
“make the case that taxes=stealing”
What case needs to be made? Are you saying taxes are NOT stealing? Why? By decree? Taking without the owner’s consent is stealing–unless done legally? Then how about the statement “taxing would be stealing if taxing were not legal”? Can we agree on that? I don’t personally think that illegality is always a necessary part of the definition of the word “stealing” as used in our language, but I’m trying to figure out how someone cannot think that taxing is stealing.
It really shouldn’t matter to you if the whole world thinks it is nutty to say “large is big”, if it is true.
You are quite wrong. The default position for war is “no war”, and the burden of proof is on those that want war. The default position for policy is “liberty”, and those that set out to limit liberty have the burden of proof as well.
I’ve had this same discussion numerous times. Taxes are “legal” theft. Legal only in the sense that you can’t go to court to get them back. Legal only in the sense that Congress had to change the law (Constitution) in order to start collecting income taxes, before that amendment it was illegal. This goes right to the heart of Law vs Legislation talk that Russ had on a previous post.
What I can’t get over is how far some (the Left) is willing to let the State take, of course unless it’s from them. Do they not realize why the Founding Fathers revolted against the Crown? One word, 3 letters starts with a T and ends with ax.
I think this is one of the reasons Lefties don’t get the Tea party protesters. They think it’s patriotic to force other to pay taxes to fund their pet projects. Of course, they don’t want their taxes raise, only everyone else, which is hypocrisy.
“Then how about the statement “taxing would be stealing if taxing were not legal”? Can we agree on that?”
Ummm… how about the fact that if taxing were not legal it would cease to be taxing and it would be stealing. Yes – if you don’t have some social contract sort of framework of understanding then I can understand why you would think it’s stealing. Your fallacy isn’t that that’s what you think – it’s that you assume that the framework that leads you to draw that conclusion is self-evident and that everyone should share it.
“Do they not realize why the Founding Fathers revolted against the Crown? One word, 3 letters starts with a T and ends with ax. ”
No. One word – starts with an “R”, ends with a “epresentation”.
The Tea Party protesters don’t get their own damned history. Taxation was not considered stealing by the founders. This hyper-libertarian philosophy was not what drove the founders. Taxes were legitimate to them – particularly the taxes being levied on them to pay for the French and Indian War. What was illegitimate to them was that they had no say in levying the taxes. It was dictated to them by the Crown. That is why they revolted. Not that the tea partiers shouldn’t be protesting – that’s fine, and they should be. But they need to realize that they are petitioning their representatives for a redress of perceived grievances – they are NOT lacking representation. This “Democracy, the God that Failed” perspective of hyper-libertarianism bears no resemblance to the mission of the founding fathers.
OK, this is obviously very, very challenging for you. I’ll keep it simple this time:
You said: “So, logically, opponents of ObamaCare have no obligation to provide evidence.”
I say: “Logically, they do have the exact same obligation to provide evidence”
Is that clear? You are quite clear – and quite relentless in repeating – WHY you think that. But delving into that seems to be hopeless, so I’ll just keep it as simple as I can. You need evidence (and I know you also said that you’re perfectly happy to furnish it, even though you’re under no logical obligation).
Well, I’m not sure about “anyone that disagrees with him”, but everyone seems to be agreeing that Krugman is partisan and that he’s very cutting. What’s your point? Krugman furnishes arguments and then goes off the deep end and says you’re crazy if you don’t see that. Not the ideal way to get the word out there, I agree, but is that not what we read here every day? And I think this blog is perfectly civilized. As I said before – recently Don gave a very detailed argument against Ted Kennedy, and then he compared him to the USSR. Not the ideal way I would have framed the blog post, but it’s more or less mature and it’s civilized. Do you propose we sanitize discussion of all emotion, and reject it if we find any. If so, then you better stop reading Cafe Hayek.Look Justin – Paul Krugman delves into the issues and provides very detailed arguments in favor of his position. A lot of people don’t like him because of how partisan he is. I can understand that. But I think your concern with ettiquite here is clouding the waters.
Haha – no, you are not reading it right. I did notice that but didn’t know how else to write it concisely.
On the Don Boudreaux -> Kennedy -> USSR spectrum, Kennedy is the “moderate” point, and he is closer to Don than he is to the USSR. That was my point.
OK, but in that sense there’s a “death panel” at Kaiser and Blue Cross too.
Nobody has denied that insurers make these decisions already or that the IMAC would, have they? After all, these QALY decision making systems that Emanuel wrote about are ALREADY USED in hospitals.
The provision was removed because ideologues destroyed the prospect of any reasonable understanding of it. It’s a freaking living will. Yes, congratulations. Now doctors aren’t going to be encouraged to get their patients to make living wills. What fantastic progress we’ve made!
Your right I didn’t put the representation part. One thing you didn’t mention is that we are essentially being taxed without representation. The whole debate over health care and the town halls are evidence. The people oppose Obamacare, yet their “representatives” have said they will pass it regardless of what their constituents want. Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) said recently: “I will vote adamantly against the interests and opinions of my district if I actually think what I’m doing will be helpful. I will vote against their opinion if I actually believe it will help them.” Translation: “I don’t care what the people of my constituencies want. I don’t care about what will actually be in their interest. Their interests mean nothing to me.
Now please tell me how that still constitutes taxation with representation?
I’m not sure what to say to that except that representation is not the same thing as a referendum, and that’s what elections are for. You don’t think there are people voting against it who realize they are voting against the interests and opinions of their constituents? 51% of the population is represented by something like 26 Democratic Senators who support the bill. If 51 Senators vote for it in reconciliation, substantially more than half of the population’s representatives will be supporting it.
This isn’t a new way of doing things, Justin. This is representation, not necessarily democracy.
Well considering most of the people that disagree with him are republicans and libertarians, both of whom he constantly derides in his blog and columns, I think it’s safe to say that anyone that doesn’t bow to the alter of the Krug is considered crazy, insane…anything name you want…read his blog he uses a lot of different names to describe his opponents. You even admitted this above.
My point was only to show some evidence of that.
No I don’t think we should sanitize anything. That kind of rhetoric usually comes from the Left anyway…
Al Sharpton: http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/al-sharpton-tells-callers-critical-obama-shut
Obama: “I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way…”
You wrote “Beck and Palin and their ilk are the types that are drowning the meaningful points out”
By bringing up “death panels” which is over the top, but at the same time they are bringing out a point of contention. Judging by how fast that language was struck from the Bill, there was a lot of truth in Palin’s comment.
Yes there is a “death panel” at Kaiser too, that should have been the counterpoint to Palin’s post but it wasn’t. Libs went over the top ad hominum on her. Do you think Conservatives are the only ones destroying any prospects of reasonable debate?
We have Dem Senators calling their constituents “Un-American” (Blanche Lincoln), accusing citizens engaging in their Constitutional rights to petition their representatives of trying to “sabotage the Democratic process” (Reid), Reps accusing protestors of being “Nazis” (Pelosi)….but of course that is reasonable debate right?
“Nobody has denied that insurers make these decisions already”
Then I will. Insurance companies make decisions about what they think they are contractually obliged to pay for–not the value of some person’s life.
The “death panels” refer to the government deciding how much the government values a person–regardless of what arrangements or contributions that person had made for his future care. And with the clear intention of eventually morphing into a government monopoly (or monopsony) single payer system, patients face the additional horror of being without choices and without recourse.
And the idea of the “death panel” is not one that can go away. If the government is paying, the government will be allocating scarce resources. Unless they apply those allocations randomly, there will be reasoned decisions about how to allocate. Those decisions are, by necessity, based upon the value system of the government. And that is ultimately influenced by the anticipation of future tax revenue and outlays.
In short, with insurance companies you can negotiate YOUR values into your future care. With the government, your values will be trumped by those of the state.
“That kind of rhetoric usually comes from the Left anyway…”
You too, huh? Vidyohs was saying this recently as well. I don’t understand this at all. Do you really think that the left is somehow unique in this problem?
No they aren’t unique to it, just more vocal about it especially when it’s politically convenient.
Same thing with the Nazi theme. Liberals loved to equate W and Cheney as fascists and Nazis. Yet somehow they are aghast that anyone would have the indecency to say the same about Obama.
This is just getting weird.
Look, Barney Frank was aghast at a Nazi comment (actually, dismissive is more accurate). But Barney Frank never called Bush Hitler, Justin. You have the crazies on the left calling Bush Hitler, and the vast majority of conservatives who are rightfully aghast. Now you have the crazies on the right calling Obama Hitler, and the vast majority of liberals are rightfully aghast.
You’re acting like everyone that is bothered by this carried around Bush=Hitler signs from 2000-2008. We didn’t. Just like I’m sure you’re not making Obama=Hitler comparisons now.
Apparently threats on the president’s life have quadrupled since Obama took office – 400% increase over threats on Bush’s life. I’m not trying to whitewash the left, but don’t act like this is more anomolous to the right than it is to the left.
Let me throw this at you then before I go to bed (work nights)…most of the assassination attempts in the past 50 years were done by lefties.
“if taxing were not legal it would cease to be taxing and it would be stealing”
So you realize taxing is legalized stealing. Fine. Until the following:
“if you don’t have some social contract sort of framework of understanding then I can understand why you would think it’s stealing.”
Unless I was really drunk at the time, I agreed to no social contract, nor do I know of anyone who did. The “social contract” is an indefensible myth. BUT EVEN IF THAT FANTASY EXISTED, there is nothing I have ever encountered in any definition of “stealing” that made any reference to any “social contract”.
“Your fallacy isn’t that that’s what you think – it’s that you assume that the framework that leads you to draw that conclusion is self-evident and that everyone should share it.”
Tell me, what “framework” am I using? Define stealing. Define taxing. Do the two match? That’s the “framework”. What possible “framework”, however fantastic, vague, or elaborate, could possibly get you to persuade your way around a glaring contradiction?
And since when is it a “fallacy” to expect people to not be contradictory? That is the very antithesis of fallacy.
“Unless I was really drunk at the time, I agreed to no social contract, nor do I know of anyone who did.”
Which is exactly why I phrased it “some sort of” social contract framework. We’ve beat around the bush a million times about how inadequate we all agree the “contract” language is associated with that idea. How about this – for it to be stealing you have to accept an atomized view of human individualism. Maybe the alternative to that is “social contract”, maybe it’s something else. But the point is if you find that a lot of people don’t agree with you on taxes, examine your priors. I’m an individualist too, but I don’t have this artificial atomized conception of individualism that eviscerates all understanding of community or society that isn’t contractual or voluntary.
“And since when is it a “fallacy” to expect people to not be contradictory?”
It’s NOT. The fallacy is to expect everyone to accept your assumptions. And based on my assumptions YOU’RE being contradictory. But I don’t expect you to accept that prima facie because I understand that you are coming from a different understanding of contracts, the individual, and the community than I am.
“That above is the reason that I have decided that Duplicitous fits you better than Disingenuous. “I did notice that change and was curious about it. Please don’t call me duplicitous.”Because every time a left looney is criticized here you manage to write in defense of the critter.”It MIGHT have escaped your attention, but liberals are some of the only people that get criticized here. I rarely have the opportunity to defend conservatives. And when I do, everyone agrees with me so it doesn’t piss you off. What about Mackey at Whole Foods? I defended him. But everyone but muirgeo did too, so you didn’t notice.Watch and see what happens if Don writes a post criticizing Milton Friedman’s research on the causes of the Depression. I’ll definitely be there defending Friedman because I agree with most of his interpretation.As I’ve told people numerous times, I’m center-left with some substantial libertarian sympathies. The only reason why you think I’m a socialist is because the extreme slant of this blog (1.) doesn’t give me a chance to defend the many conservatives and libertarians I agree with, and (2.) highlights when I defend the state, but considers me “disingenuous” when I defend the market – which I do ALL THE FREAKING TIME on here. You just can’t hold it in your brain that someone that’s pro-market might not hate the state.
DK, what are you talking about? “Some sort”? Is it possible for you to be specific, or is your vagueness your way of avoiding the obvious? What are my assumptions, exactly? Define “stealing”. Define “taxing”. Is the definition of the latter included in the former? If not, then why? This is purely an elementary exercise in definitions.
“I understand that you are coming from a different understanding of contracts, the individual, and the community”
This has NOTHING to do with understanding of contracts blah blah blah. This is quite simply about definitions of terms. Really really basic stuff.
Now if you want to say that stealing is acceptable under certain conditions–like when the government of a republic does so legally–then you might be able to make a rational case. But asserting that 1>2, because of some personal view of society and the individual, is unbelievably absurd.
You have no need to make it simple, your thoughts are not even slightly challenging for me. In fact, I understood you clearly the first, second, third,… time. The only thing that’s challenging is wondering how you can think as you do.
You are either simply wrong or just mentally incapable of comprehension. Either way, no amount of explaining will ever help, so I’ll stop wasting my time.
What exactly do you suppose you’ve said that I’m mentally incapable of comprehending? That’s a pretty inflated opinion of yourself.
“Is it possible for you to be specific, or is your vagueness your way of avoiding the obvious?”Maybe I should brush up on my Amartya Sen and John Rawls. I don’t do philosophy. I don’t know the vagaries of the history of thought on the “social contract”. I’m glad you feel capable of getting specific about everything. Some of us are more comfortable being clear about what we don’t know exactly. What I do know is that your understanding of the individual, society, and community is not gospel truth.”What are my assumptions, exactly? Define “stealing”. Define “taxing”.”Your definition of both is founded on an atomized understanding of property rights, with no allowance for the independent reality of community or society. Day in and day out, that doesn’t prevent you from using a definition of “steal” and “tax” the same way anyone else would. When you get specific like this it does.”This has NOTHING to do with understanding of contracts blah blah blah.”Are you shitting me? How can you talk meaningfully about contracts if you don’t have an agreed upon understanding of the parties to a contract or those who exercise rights to property or anything else? It’s absolutely fundamental.
“Your definition of both is founded on an atomized understanding of property rights,”
HUH?! Did you get that from the Oxford English Dictionary? Why do you keep bringing total irrelevancies into this? This really smacks of someone trying to avoid the bloody obvious–denial for some emotional reason. Don’t be afraid of plain reason, DK. It will set you free.
This is WAY simple. Let’s start over–
1. Give me YOUR definition of the word “stealing”.
2. Give me YOUR definition of the word “taxing”.
Are you kidding me? Of course they make these decisions. And if you think contractual obligations of HMOs are a nice discussions with no way for the HMO to game the system you need to review the literature on incomplete contract theory.
Here’s something on it: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/08/11/denial_of_care/
RE: “In short, with insurance companies you can negotiate YOUR values into your future care. With the government, your values will be trumped by those of the state.”
You seem to be largely arguing here against a single payer system where the government actually runs the health care providers as well as insurers, and there is no supplemental insurance recourse, and people don’t freely participate in the public options available to them. I agree with you completely on the problems with this sort of system. It seems a little irrelevant to me, though.
Since you missed it the first time, I will repeat myself:”Insurance companies make decisions about what they think they are contractually obliged to pay for–not the value of some person’s life.”That is NOT the implication of a “death panel”. Your concern is over the <5% of insurance company denials that are improper (meaning violated the contractual agreement), when the whole point of the "death panels" is to remove ALL concern for any contractual obligations and instead base all decisions on the government's valuation of the person.If you were sincere, then your outrage over the relatively small number of insurance contract breeches would be magnified MANY FOLD against the possibility of a true death panel monster–a government rationing board.”It seems a little irrelevant to me, though.”Need I send you a page of links to quotes and videos of Democrat party leaders, including the President, and left wing speakers who have said that they want a single payer system, who have said they want Canada style health care, who have said that the current proposals will lead to such a system?If you want a single payer system, that is one thing. For you to deny that the current policy makers are striving to bring us there, is extraordinarily naive.
It’s not an inflation of me.
But I will try one more thing. Let’s say I have a proposal I’d like you to fund. The burden of proof is on me to persuade you to come up with the money. You can accept or reject my proposal at your whim with no obligation to explain or defend your reasons. Why would you possibly have any obligation to explain your decision? I’m asking you to do something, not the other way around.
Now explain to me why that doesn’t apply, or why I have some hidden assumptions or whatever… (I’m kidding, please don’t)
Your father-in-law had an excellent point. I’d prefer solutions that were less government driven, but having the debate you suggest would be far more likely to improve health that the ObamaCare idiocy.
The other issue is the cost of health care when it is needed. On that issue government action has caused many things to be more expensive than they would be otherwise, but I have yet to hear any proposals from gov’t to undo the harm they’re causing.
Just one example: the FDA is charged with ensuring both safety and efficacy of medicines and medical devices. If we changed the role to safety only, market solutions for vetting efficacy would evolve and we’d see dramatic reductions in cost and time to market for new medicines. (Personally, I’d like to see the entire process left to the market, but politically that’s a total non-starter.) In addition, the FDA budget could be reduced significantly with the reduced scope of work. There are lots more areas where less government spending could reduce costs and improve quality/availability.
Why don’t the @$$holes in DC and their useful idiots think like that?
No reply?
Don’t worry – I definitely get your argument. Every single time I’ve gotten your argument. The difference is that the proposals funded by tax dollars are proposals developed by the legitimate, legally empowered agents of the entire tax base. You present your case as “this other guy wants to tax me” – indeed, in that case I’d imagine the burden of proof would be on him. The case at hand is “we want to tax ourselves”. A better example is a dual income family considering whether to spend money on an addition to their house. One spouse is more hesitant than the other – they have to come to an agreement and they both have to make their case.
Now, obviously we don’t have rights to everyone else’s income the way a dual income family does – it’s obviously not quite the same. But Congress is our legal, legitimate agent. And in any other area, legitimate agents are allowed to contract for us and make decisions that they’ve been empowered to make for us. It’s no different here. Nobody is taking something from you. Your agent and my agent are discussing the prospect of a joint project. You’re acting like our agents have no legitimacy and someone is just going around demanding money for whim. I’m sorry, but that’s not the situation here.
You, very frequently, defend the state. Those instances where you’re not, you’re being very tepid. So, you get called out for it; repeatedly. You, obviously intellegent, claim to come here for discussion, knowing full well that this is not the sort of blog where the typical contributor wants more of the state and its central-planning ways. So, what do you do: you defend the state almost always without fail! And then you expect not to be criticized for your positions?
You’re smart but you do not appear to be all that wise. Maybe you are smart and wise — like I’ve contended all along; that you know what you are doing and you are stirring things deliberately. When you defend the state on/for its further encroachments within society on a blog chock full of classical liberals, you really have to understand how much many of us feel personally wounded by the erosion of liberty — we value our liberty and are highly irritated at just how easily it can be surrendered by a simple majority. But it appears you do understand this and that, for you, it’s all about poking at many of us with a stick, expected it to get nasty, and then crying foul when it does.
What could possibly be your motivation for doing this? You either really want to promote the supposed virtues of the state and do so while trying to subdue, as much as possible, the almost certain hostility to tyranny that we’re going to display or you want to play gotcha and you’re getting your fellow statists to read the blog waiting for Russ or Don to get involved and possibly slip up so that your like-minded comrades can pounce on their reputations. Because if you really were here for the discussion, you would have blown us away and brought us to symapathize with your positions or you would have come to sympathize with ours; and niether has happened yet. I think you’re a plant or an individual with very suspect intentions.
RE: “knowing full well that this is not the sort of blog where the typical contributor wants more of the state and its central-planning ways. So, what do you do: you defend the state almost always without fail! And then you expect not to be criticized for your positions?”
Yes, I often defend the state precisely because of how excessively against the state this blog is. And I expect that just like I expect to defend the market on other blogs I comment on. I don’t expect not to be criticized. I expect people who have been reading my posts for long enough now to realize that I am very pro-market, and that although I see an extremely important role for the state, I don’t consider it infallible or appropriate to every situation. I don’t expect people to like my position or even agree with it – but it says something about you if you can’t recognize that the only reason for the frequency of my defense of the state on here is the frequency and nature of the positions taken against the state. I don’t choose the topics or opening arguments!
I do understand the rarity of my position on here. Even the ones that are on “my side” (Gil, muirgeo) I often have HUGE problems with. I personally consider them too trusting of the state and too distrusting of the market. But the rarity of my position is sort of the point, LCJ. This is a blog run by two econ professors – I’ve always expected the point of it to be intellectually stimulating. There’s no purpose in talking about investment in public goods on a liberal blog because there’s no critical thought about those issues on a liberal blog. There is critical thought about other issues – like the value of the market. When I’m talking with a bunch of market skeptics it allows me to think more critically about why I support the market. When I’m talking with a bunch of state skeptics it allows me to think more critically about why (and when) I support the state. Besides, there’s are lots of instances where I’ve come out against the state on here: tariffs, quotas, the CARS program, national health care, skepticism (although not outright opposition to) a public option, health care mandates, academic tenure, teacher’s unions, etc. etc. I’m hardly a monotone pro-state/anti-market voice. You hear it that way because you can’t conceive of a classical liberal that’s not a libertarian, or a free market supporter that’s a Keynesian.
All I can say for your last paragraph there is that you’re REALLY paranoid. You ascribe far too much forethought and malice to me. And how is the fact that I haven’t convinced you or you haven’t convinced me proof that I don’t really come here for the discussion? Don’t you read things you disagree with, that are unconvincing to you but still make a good case?
“No reply”
Oh – I just thought it was getting thin, and I didn’t see the point of your statement so I thought it was a good time to end it. For one thing, I don’t know where you’re getting the statistic. I’m not even sure it’s true. If it’s restricted to the U.S. I imagine it could be true… but JFK, Bobby, MLK… it’s not like liberals have exactly been spared.
Regardless, the biggest reason I didn’t respond is that you’re not challenging my point at all. I’m not saying leftists aren’t violent. In fact, since in a lot of ways the state right now is more reactionary than radical you’d expect leftists to be MORE violent. But the point is they both do it. Violence as a way of solving problems is a human failure, not a failure of a particular ideology. If leftists take the cake for the last fifty years, that doesn’t exactly disprove what I’m saying. And since I’m not a leftist it doesn’t personally sway me that much.
There are times where I read something from someone whom I take the opposite view of and recognize that they’ve made a terrific point. This just has not happened with you as of yet. It is rare but it does happen.
I have not seen you make a good case with anything. Your ‘discussions’ border on the bi-polar — agreeing one minute so that you can later take the side of the statists. I highly doubt that you take the pro-market side in the other Internet blogs where you troll.
As for me being really paranoid: I try to call them as I see them. Perhaps I’m wrong about you but I REALLY think that I’ve pegged you accurately but am just unclear as to your motive for why you behave like you do. Now if you were to tackle that one [by being honest and not just giving some unbeliveable answer that suggests you scour the Internet looking to moderate the more extreme views of others] it may just make for an interesting discussion.
“This just has not happened with you as of yet. ”
Since you brought it up, I can say you are one of only two or three commenters on here of which I can legitimately say the same.