Tag: mailvox

Mailvox: Why I am not a Libertarian

This is only one of the many reasons. The Libertarian Party is the only one that can make the Republican Party look smart. With a number of massive issues where both major parties diverge from the mainstream consensus, such as the banks, health care, and immigration, naturally the Libertarian Party ticket is determined to commit suicide on the issue of “gay marriage” according to the email I received from the Johnson-Gray campaign.

Gray said, “Unlike Mitt Romney or President Obama, Governor Johnson and I believe the right to marry who we choose is a constitutionally protected right. People of different faiths and different beliefs are free to follow those beliefs when it comes to embracing or opposing same-sex marriage within those faiths and beliefs. However, it should not be the purview of government to impose one set of beliefs over another. And government absolutely should not sanction discrimination against gay Americans who choose to marry.

This is a Libertarian Party that can’t even win the support of influential libertarians. And that is a sign of a party that is going absolutely nowhere. Where, I wonder, is the right to marriage found in the Constitution? And how could it be in there given that the Constitution predates marriage licenses?

Mailvox: atheist debate

TS appears to have learned his formidable debating skillz from the late Christopher Hitchens. He wrote, apropos of nothing, and without so much as a subject matter:

I don’t recall Hitchens ever arguing a point solely by explaining how he “feels” about it. I fear that while your vocabulary may display the results of some kind of education, your ability to reason indicates a resolute refusal to truly learn or listen.

To which I responded: Assuming your memory isn’t flawed, you’re either a complete moron or you haven’t actually read any of Christopher Hitchens’s books. In fact, I would be very interested to know what you feel is the substantive and non-emotional metric by which Hitchens argued God is not great. But considering the possibility that it is your recollection that is the problem, precisely what point do you believe I have argued on the sole basis of my feelings? Deflation vs inflation? Ricardian comparative advantage?

TS responded:

I never claimed that you argue with emotion. I was responding to your message that accompanied the “demotivator” on your website that showed, for some reason, Hitchens with no shirt on. My “feelings” on matters of science are irrelevant, since science is not bridled with emotion. Hitchens is very emotional. What I wrote was that he, from my recollection, does not argue solely based on his emotions. If he did that, you could certainly lump him into the same category as the philsopher, “Dr.” Craig or indeed the televangelists you see on TV. But, he does not. Name calling is not necessary but, unfortunately, it is not surprising. Faith, one could argue, is strictly emotional, if you consider that by it’s very definition, is the belief in something for which there is no evidence, or in spite of compelling evidence to the contrary. I would submit that a rational person could only have strong faith in something, for which there is no evidence or overwhelming evidence to the contrary, only if they have been compelled to do so from an early age or have some other emotional revelation about that something. While I have the disadvantage of being as you put it a “moron” (that was the only possible conclusion, since I have read Hitchens), I “feel” no need to be angered by an email. Settle the fuck down.

Dude, it’s a demotivator! Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris all ran around acting like complete assholes and more than merited such contempt. But the idea that someone’s “ability to reason” is determined by a demotivator – which, in that particular case, I didn’t even create – is deeply and profoundly stupid. And no, one cannot reasonably argue that faith is “strictly emotional”.

Mailvox: an alternative theory

As my prediction of Obama’s decision to refuse the Democratic nomination and retire to the global equivalent of the rubber chicken circuit looks less and less likely, a deep government insider emails me his outline of future events:

Sometime in the next four to six weeks (no less than four but no more than eight at the absolute outside):

1. VP Joe Biden announces that for health reasons, he is leaving the ticket — not leaving office immediately, but to leave office at the end of his term.

2. After a huge, agonizing, public display of, “Oh God no! What ever will we do?” milked for at least a week of prime time and front-page media coverage and a whole lot of talking head blathering about the looming “Constitutional Crisis,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reluctantly agrees to take the VP slot on the ticket.

3. Mitt Romney — ah, who gives a shit what he does? Whatever it is, it will be pathetically ineffective, irrelevant, and a day late and a dollar short.

4. On November 6, 2012, propelled by the overwhelming power of the stupid black, white bitch, dumb college kid, and pussified liberal male vote, the Obama-Clinton ticket absolutely fucking steamrolls the Republicans, and brings along with it filibuster proof Democratic majorities in the Senate, House, and most state government assemblies.

5. Sometime between November 6, 2012, and January 20, 2013, some horrible truth about Obama is revealed — pick one, it doesn’t matter — and all the built-up scandals finally come to a head and erupt in a massive public denunciation of the man. Eric Holder ends up being indicted and arrested by his own people. Team Obama goes to the mattresses in the White House but in the end, in mid-January, as Meet the Press is seriously discussing whether the Secret Service has the authority to arrest the President, the outcry becomes so massive that he must step down — and turn the office over to VP Joe Biden.

6. Biden immediately does a “Night of the Long Knives” thing, purging all those corrupt Obamunists who were the cause of everything that’s wrong with the country.

7. On January 20, 2013, with his place in history as America’s 45th President assured, Biden is downright honored to turn the office over to the new President, Hillary Clinton, and the media rejoice at this triumph of the American electoral system, that our long national nightmare is behind us, and that freedom and justice have been restored.

8. Only much later do honest historians, if any still exist, realize that this was in fact a brilliantly executed Stalinist coup of the first order.

Color me dubious. Among other things, I don’t see Democrats doing well in the state-wide elections. But if it is Biden who steps down, rather than Obama, we’ll know the theory is in play. Also, the total ineptitude of Team Clinton during the 2008 campaign makes me doubt that they can pull off anything that is even more complicated than simply knowing what the rules of the nomination are. They might have the ruthlessness, but they don’t have the necessary eye for detail.

Mailvox: Aussie logic

Freddy suggests that America should follow Australia’s example in fighting crime by banning guns:

Australia has very strict gun laws following several mass shootings. People get shot but mainly as a result of gangs who fight their vendettas out between themselves. It is rare for people to shot in domestic violence or random attacks. Most people don’t carry or own guns. Americans would do well to consider that many non Americans think it is insane to be able to buy a firearm off the counter.

Actually, if the Australian Bureau of Criminology can be believed, Americans would be insane to concern themselves with what non-Americans think about American gun rights.

In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

Moreover, Australia and the United States — where no gun-ban exists — both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

So, if the USA follows Australia’s lead in banning guns, it should expect a 42 percent increase in violent crime, a higher percentage of murders committed with a gun, and three times more rape. One wonders if Freddy even bothered to look up the relative crime statistics.

The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations. Twenty-six percent of English citizens — roughly one-quarter of the population — have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized. The United States didn’t even make the “top 10” list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.

I wonder why that might be?

Mailvox: a correction on Hazlitt

I finally banned the highly unpleasant Unger a few days ago, after first forcing him to back up his claim about my supposed errors on the subject of free trade, then examining those claims and determining them to be almost entirely false. I don’t mind being criticized in the slightest, but the mistakes have to be genuine and the corrections not only correct, but substantive, otherwise the criticism is actually worse than worthless because it reduces the amount of attention that can be paid to more significant matters.

I value substantive criticism, which is why I am willing to tolerate highly critical jerks so long as their criticism is dialectical and correct, or at least reasonably founded. On the other hand, I’m not the least bit interested in rhetorical critics or permitting dogmatic ideologues to litter the comments with their emotional incontinence here on a regular basis.

That being said, Unger did point out one legitimate mistake when I wrote “Here Hazlitt ironically forgets that as a champion of free trade, he cannot assume an increased tariff of $5 on sweaters means five cents less spent on 100 other American products.” I should have written “an increased price of $5 on sweaters”. Of course, he promptly revealed his customary intellectual dishonesty by making the ludicrous claim that this mistake not only rendered Hazlitt’s original point correct – it did not – but somehow invalidated everything I had written about the flaws in Hazlitt’s chapter on free trade.

In which I demonstrate a gross misreading and consequent misrepresentation of Hazlitt, which you’ve ignored for the better part of a week now, because I’m unarguably right and the point is critical enough to where the whole essay now needs to be scrapped.

The essay was more crap, and proof that Vox is singularly incapable of understanding an argument. I haven’t the time to go point by point, but Vox’s reasoning, or lack thereof, with regard to point 3, is typical of the piece, and since most of the other points depend in one way or another on the validity of that point’s reasoning, it make an excellent target. And since Vox didn’t even bother reading what Hazlitt actually said, it makes a very easy target.

First, Hazlitt said nothing about a $5 tariff on anything at all, least of all sweaters. Hazlitt wrote – emphasis added for the benefit of the semiliterate: “We can perhaps make this last point clearer by an exaggerated example. Suppose we make our tariff wall so high that it becomes absolutely prohibitive, and no imports come in from the outside world at all. Suppose, as a result of this, that the price of sweaters in America goes up only $5.”

Just to make absolutely sure that there’s no excuse for anyone to misunderstand what Hazlitt wrote – not that there was any excuse before, and not that it will stop some of you publik-skuled clowns from continuing to misunderstand: Hazlitt presents an hypothetical example of America isolating itself from the world. It once traded; henceforth it will not import anything. The country is not imposing a $5 tariff on sweaters or any other doodads. The actual tariff amount is left unspecified. It could be ten gazillion dollars per item for all anyone cares. The point is that it is prohibitive and completely effective. And the $5 figure Hazlitt gives is something else entirely – namely, the effect of this prohibition is to raise the price of sweaters $5.

Now you should see, immediately, that historical data like ‘imports presently represent 17.3 percent of GDP’ are irrelevant. If you do not, you’re a walking argument for eugenics, and I address myself solely to your intellectual betters. Under Hazlitt’s hypothetical example, imports represent precisely 0% of GDP, along with 0% of every other possible economic metric, and, while I don’t want to spoil anyone’s fun with any complicated math shit, I have to say that this likely has something to do with them not existing.

Shit. I said I was going to limit myself to (point) 3, but I can’t help but poke some fun at (point) 6, too. Yes, tariffs and the lack thereof are totally irrelevant to the question of employment. Barring legal restrictions, former steel workers can flip burgers, do laundry, or even sell their affectionate manly embraces for coin, and whether they will do any of those things or hold out for other employment has nothing whatsoever to do with trade theory. Any evidence purporting to show a link between trade policy and long-term unemployment is nonsensical, for the same reason any evidence purporting to show a link between trade policy and Martian ice cap expansion is nonsensical: the causes are elsewhere.

First, let me admit to my misreading. Unger was correct to point out that Hazlitt does not, as I had said, postulate the imposition of a $5 tariff on imported sweaters, but rather a complete ban on imports that has the effect of raising the prices of domestic sweaters by $5. So far, so good. Mea culpa.

However, Unger is completely wrong to claim that this mistake invalidated, or even altered in the slightest, my correction of Hazlitt and that this additional $5 now spent on sweaters means that 100 other domestic producers are not robbed of 5 cents each, but rather 4.14 cents apiece. His claim about the irrelevance of previous imports is not only incorrect, but underlines how his ability to reason is demonstrably lower than that of those he asserted were “a walking argument for eugenics”.

Unger himself admits that the tariff wall did not previously exist, but is a change from the previous situation. He writes of the nation-state: “It once traded; henceforth it will not import anything.” This means that of the additional $5 now being spent on the sweaters due to the unspecified tariff wall, 17.3 percent of it was previously being spent abroad, just as stated in the case of the erroneous $5 sweater tariff. The 100 other domestic producers cannot be losing the entire $5 amount to the sweater manufacturers because they were only receiving a maximum of the $4.14 cents that was being spent domestically anyway.

So, despite the misreading, my correction of Hazlitt stands. Moreoever, it should be readily apparent that because the erroneous substitution of a specific $5 tariff for an unspecified tariff wall with a $5 effect didn’t alter the correctness of my critique on that point, it is not critical enough to require the scrapping of the other 22 identifications of Hazlitt’s errors. This is little more than wishful thinking and blatant dishonesty on Unger’s part.

While I genuinely value honest criticism, this sort of exaggerated rhetoric is simply ridiculous, adds nothing to the debate, and in fact detracts significantly from it by wasting time on nonexistent and insubstantial matters rather than genuine ones. It would have been perfectly reasonable to simply point out the misreading without attempting to use the mistake as a foundation upon which to build a fictitious case in defense of Hazlitt. Some mistakes are critical, others are not, and the honest critic will always be careful to distinguish between the two. Note that I did not claim that Hazlitt’s 86-cent error in any way invalidated his entire case for free trade, it merely happened to be a minor mistake which tends to illustrate the careless and outdated nature of his reasoning.

UPDATE: Just to underline Unger’s unusual combination of ineptitude and dishonesty, he popped up here to complain about how I initially omitted the part now seen above in italics.

“How nice of you to ‘selectively quote’ (read: lie about) what I wrote. You left out a paragraph, which explained what Hazlitt said and why he was right. I said a few days ago that you weren’t a fraud, but it looks like I was wrong.”

Of course, I omitted it because it was irrelevant, neither helping his case nor hindering mine. In fact, I probably should have left it in, since “most of the other points depend in one way or another on the validity of that point’s reasoning” is obviously a false assertion. This sort of thing is precisely why I ban incompetent but energetic critics like Unger; it doesn’t matter how many times you show them to be wrong, they will just keep swinging wildly and ineffectively at you. Leaving out irrelevant elements of an argument is selectively quoting, but it is most certainly not lying about anything. Selective quoting can be dishonest but it is not, in itself, an indication of dishonesty by the person quoting.

Mailvox: improving RGD

PR has a suggestion or two:

I just got done with Return of the Great Depression. Great read. Thanks for the Nook version. I thought you did a pretty good job of dumbing things down enough that I could make sense of what you were saying, but you managed to do it in a way that it didn’t seem like you were talking down to me at all. I really appreciated that dictionary since I was reading it in a location where I didn’t have web access and therefore couldn’t use any outside references to help me out.

If you care for any criticism on it, here’s my effort:

1. You made me laugh about the apocalypse scenario. But I would’ve also appreciated a little more of an explanation as to why you think it’s not likely at all. Something a little more than telling me that no serious economists take that scenario seriously. So what! I want(ed) to know why YOU think it’s unlikely.

2. I would suggest maybe even a little bit more of a dictionary at the end. I’ll show a little bit of my ignorance here and confess that I wasn’t really sure what a “sub-prime” loan was and why it was a crisis. I did figure it out. But I started off thinking that “sub-prime” meant something like “below the ‘prime’ interest rate”. That sounds like some loan that would be given to only the best risks. I am certainly more knowledgeable now that I realize it’s quite the opposite. But a quick dictionary note would’ve helped me.

Anyway, I’m not even sure you care about feedback like this. But I thought it only right that since you gave me such a bargain, that I would give you my best critique. I’m looking forward to your next economics book.

In answer to (1), my reasoning is that despite the expectations of those anticipating the Eschaton, it never arrives. Societies seldom perish in blood and fire except at the hands of an implacable and merciless enemy; the fact that it is hard to think of many such societies besides some of the Slavic ones overrun by the Mongol hordes and the Carthaginian society wiped out by Rome is an indicator that when the global economy collapses, it will reduce living standards without ending civilization.

I’ve been reading Vanished Kingdoms, by Norman Davies, and one of the things that becomes eminently clear is that for the most part, societies are absorbed and replaced by larger societies that overwhelm them, either by invasion, immigration, or political amalgamation. So, America is much more likely to either devolve into a Brazilian-style second world country or break apart into a Europe of sovereign American states than to shatter into some sort of post-apocalyptic chaos out of Robert Adams or Walter Miller. Even a hypothetical Round 2 isn’t likely to be particularly apocalyptic, although it would certainly be interesting to see the South rise again once Aztlan separatism draws the primary focus of the American Unionists.

The big thing that is missing from the scenarios drawn up by those prophesying apocalypse is the Aztlan factor. Most people are thinking in Red/Blue, urban/rural, black/white terms, but possibly the most important question is whether the Hispanics simply return to Mexico once the flow of benefits end or if they stay to carve out their own state. I would tend to assume the latter, but no one actually knows.

I digress. In response to number two, if I do an updated RGD, I will certainly consider expanding the appendix to include the various non-economic terms that may be unfamiliar to some readers. It’s a good idea that simply had never occurred to me.

I should point out that although I’m not currently planning to write the economics book that melds Keensian Post-Keynesian economics with modified Austrian theory that some suggested yesterday, I do plan to begin working on an economics-related project after I finish the current novel in October.

Mailvox: the best defense

In which the self-appointed champion of free trade doctrine, Unger, demonstrates that he literally does not know what he is defending:

Free trade does not require the free movement of labor, dumbass. If I buy a hamburger, I don’t have to move in with the cook, or vice versa. Maybe it works differently on Planet Stupid, where the Superintelligent natives can’t so much as buy a stick of gum without inviting comparisons to U-haul-driving lesbians; here on Earth, it thankfully ain’t so.

Free trade most certainly does require the free movement of labor. This is self-evident because it does so by its very definition. An immigration limitation is, quite obviously, a restraint on trade every bit as restrictive as a tariff or a control on capital. Unger here demonstrates that he knows absolutely nothing about the doctrine he is so dogmatically and so ineptly defending. I don’t mind being called childish names by such an interlocutor, indeed, I would be more concerned if anyone so intellectually hapless claimed to follow my reasoning, let alone agree with it.

Contra his illogical and incorrect insistence that free trade does not require open immigration, I cite Ludwig von Mises in Liberalism: “Under a system of completely free trade, capital and labor would be employed wherever conditions are most favorable for production…. Capital and labor tend to move from areas where conditions are less favorable for production to those in which they are more favorable. But the migration of capital and labor presupposes not only complete freedom of trade, but also the complete absence of obstacles to their movement from one country to another.”

Once more, we see that the defenders of free trade aren’t merely anti-American, they are either ignorant of their own doctrine or astonishingly intellectually dishonest. And it is beyond irony to see a free trader present an appeal to how things work on Earth in the real world.

Mailvox: rethinking Paterno

Adognameop asks about the Vox, What do you make of the recent FBI report regarding Penn State? It seems to reveal what everybody already knew; that Paterno was an accomplice to child rape. Does it affect your opinion of Paterno?

First, I would note that Paterno’s actions did not, in any way, make him “an accomplice to child rape”. An an accomplice is a person who is present at the scene of the crime, actively participates in its commission, and has the same degree of guilt as the person he or she is assisting, is subject to prosecution for the same crime, and faces the same criminal penalties. None of this applies to Paterno.

So, let’s take a look at what Paterno actually did, as opposed to the rhetorical exaggerations of the preening moralists who are presently in competition to see who can feign the most outrage:

Louis J. Freeh, the former federal judge and director of the F.B.I. who spent the last seven months examining the Sandusky scandal at Penn State, issued a damning conclusion Thursday: The most senior officials at Penn State had shown a “total and consistent disregard” for the welfare of children, had worked together to actively conceal Mr. Sandusky’s assaults, and had done so for one central reason: fear of bad publicity. That publicity, Mr. Freeh said Thursday, would have hurt the nationally ranked football program, Mr. Paterno’s reputation as a coach of high principles, the Penn State “brand” and the university’s ability to raise money as one of the most respected public institutions in the country….

Mr. Freeh’s investigation makes clear it was Mr. Paterno, long regarded as the single most powerful official at the university, who persuaded the university president and others not to report Mr. Sandusky to the authorities in 2001 after he had violently assaulted another boy in the football showers.

What is new here is that whereas before we knew that Paterno had reported Sandusky’s actions to the correct authorities, now we know that he was the one primarily responsible for matters not going any further. Whereas before it appeared that his only failing was the excusable moral one of doing no more than his legally defined duty, now we know that he was the main instigator of the coverup. This is a very different thing, and I note that it is actually considerably worse than anything Paterno’s most vehement critics accused him of doing previously.

And yes, it does change my opinion to a certain extent. In light of the latest revelations, I think it would be appropriate for the Penn State football program to receive the death sentence for three or four years from the NCAA. That would send the most unmistakable message to everyone, and would be the one punishment that Paterno would have felt most deeply. How Penn State chooses to respond is really no concern of mine, but as a general rule, I don’t favor whitewashing history. If I were the responsible individual at Penn State, I would not remove Paterno’s name from the various buildings he funded and tear down his statue, but rather seek to use him as an example to teach about the dangers that hubris poses to even the most upstanding and successful.

All men are fallen. I still think Paterno was, for the most part, a good man who made a very foolish and counterproductive attempt to protect his reputation and his football program. Was it wrong? Certainly. Did it have evil consequences? Most likely. Does it merit a harsh punishment? Definitely. But was it indicative of an evil or malevolent intent? I don’t believe so, and to conflate the moral failings of a Paterno with the overt and predatory evil of a Sandusky is a fundamental mistake. It is important to remember that this is not simply a Joe Paterno scandal, but rather a Penn State scandal.

The Freeh report is somewhat ironic in that Louis Freeh would certainly know a coverup when he sees one, given his involvement in similar whitewashes of Ruby Ridge and Waco.

Mailvox: I couldn’t possibly say

JH makes a prediction:

Vox,

I know you love predictions, so I will predict that your views will more and more trend with Wilhelm Roepke over the coming years. While you got me started down the Austrian path years ago with the Mises AGD book study, the moralist and idealist (and perhaps wishful thinker) in me settled on Roepke. I have read a couple of his books, but I like the essay linked here, and it shares many of your recent themes:

Freedom, in other words, means being less dependent on the highly unstable modern economy as much as it does being less dependent on government. This is the point missed by many conservatives: they fail to see that decentralizing the economy is as vital as decentralizing the govern­ment. Dependency is indivisi­ble: dependency on an unstable market naturally leads to dependency on government when market difficulties arise (e.g., from the downside of the business cycle). Government is sought as a substitute, not simply for the market but more specifically for stability.

and

Roepke acknowledges that because the pursuit of self-interest does not always lead to harmony government intervention in the econo­my is sometimes needed. Here Roepke makes the important contribution of distinguishing between “compatible” and “incompatible” interventions. The former intervenes in the market in such a way as not to freeze the price mechanism and thus allows the forces of the market to adjust to the intervention. A protective tariff would be one example of such an intervention.

and

Roepke is not opposed to all forms of technical innovation. What he bemoans, however, is the indis­criminate application of these same tech­niques where they are inappropriate (as in agriculture) or where the social costs outweigh the immediate econom­ic benefits.

and finally

But Roepke is not a “dogmatic democratist,” recog­nizing not only that democracies have their weaknesses but can sometimes be the most despotic form of govern­ment. More important than the particu­lar form of government and narrow consideration of political rules is the (meta-governmental) spirit which informs and controls it. That spirit must be liberal in the properly understood sense. There is a distinction between a liberal order and its opposite, “collectivism.” The latter is the tendency to destroy those healthy forms of society and government identified above. It must recognize the proper spheres and limits of government, of the economy, and other institutions. It is entirely possible, and there are historical examples of this, for a government to be “democratic” but not “liberal.” … The opposite of collectivism is not democracy …

Me: Is it “pie in the sky” thinking to envision a hierarchical society where people have a sense of common purpose, have a physical connection to the land and production of their food, work in small to medium sized businesses producing high-quality or innovative items that fuel not just the spirit of consumption and competition but the (entrepreneurial) spirit of creativity and pride also? Sure, especially in our “multicultural wonderland,” as you (validly but too often) like to point out. But still, I like Roepke’s nuance, passion, conviction, and clarity. And as the cliche goes, you can’t hit a goal/target that you can’t see, Roepke’s vision of a “third way” would serve as a good goal.

Back to my prediction – I have seen you back off or fight the hard line libertarian dogma when you see its faults because you are great at reason and logic, and not wedded to ideology but right/wrong. As fragile as Roepke’s vision is, it seems to agree with you, albeit it may be too “nice” and “pretty” for you. 😉

I don’t know, since I’ve never actually read Roepke, although I remember Congressman McCotter speaking well of his ideas when I interviewed him the first time. But one thing that some people have a tough time grasping is that the libertarian goal of maximizing human liberty not only doesn’t necessarily mean embracing the principles of the American Libertarian Party, but also does not mean maximizing the permissible range of human behavior.

This concept should not be difficult if you understand that maximum tax revenues do not usually coincide with maximal tax rates. In the same way, maximal human liberty is unlikely to coincide with a complete absence of law… even though we acknowledge that the law, as it exists in the USA and most other states, is a transparent fiction to which the elite no longer even pretend to subscribe.

Mailvox: SAVE US CAPTAIN UNDEROOS

RC has a different perspective on the national priority:

You behave as authentic Anti-America. NO ONE, can be as EVIL as OBAMA. Romney may not be your choice. Althought, compare Romney to the EVIL Obama, shows your bias against Mitt Romney and your lack of love for this country. Any one is better than the INCOMPETENT/LIAR/MARXIST MUSLIM/FALSE/PHONY/CORRUPT OBAMA, and all the thugs without any principles, that is destroying this country, very fast.

And so Charlie Brown charged bravely, bravely, for the football. Surely THIS time Lucy won’t pull it away, he assured himself.