Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Thanks Rand Paul, Spitzer is Promoting Romney as Libertarian

Eliot Spitzer writes:
At a more theoretical level, think of this tension as Keynes vs. Hayek and Rawls vs. Nozick.  What do I mean by that? The worldviews of Obama and Romney are really proxies for the theoretical debate about Keynesian economics vs. the more libertarian views of Frederick Hayek.  Obama's support for a government stimulus and expenditures to invest are traditional Keynesian; Romney's shrink-government-at-all-costs view is akin to the hands-off approach of Hayek and the Chicago school. Keynes won, as well he should have. Likewise, John Rawls' view of a government that is concerned about the well-being of the least well-off member of society is akin to Obama's interest in a progressive income tax where the wealthier pay more, and ensuring access to health care and food stamps for those who are needy.  Romney's statements about the 47 percent—even if one credits that he is more compassionate than those words might suggest—are more akin to the libertarian world of Nozick, where one eats what one kills, and if there are shortfalls, private charity not government should fill the void. When the choice was made, Rawls won over Nozick. As well he should have.
First, of all, Romney is as Keynesian as Obama. Second, putting Hayek and the Chicago School next to each other in the same sentence, suggests there is a link between the two. The truth is that Hayek, because of his views, was blocked from teaching in the economics department at the University of Chicago.

Further, "Obama's interest in a progressive income tax where the wealthier pay more, and ensuring access to health care and food stamps for those who are needy," sure sounds a lot like Milton Friedman's negative income tax.

Here's Jacob Levy on Spitzer's confusion with regard to Rawls and Nozick:

Wow. Where does one even begin? 
Rawls’ “property-owning democracy” is not the American-style tax-and-redistribute welfare state, even if the latter were greatly expanded.
“One eats what one kills,” apart from being a singularly bizarre way to talk about someone with Nozick’s views on animal rights. is not even loosely a reasonable way to talk about Nozick’s views on cooperation in the market. 
Rawls endorsed the inviolability of the basic liberties and the lexical priority of liberty; and Nozick, using different language, agreed with both thoughts. Their views on individual human liberty found not the faintest echo in a presidential election between two candidates competing to see who could expand the security state and the police powers brought to bear on the drug war the fastest.
Bottom line: Spitzer's analysis is complete confusion that suggests a surface understanding of what is going on, perhaps created by such things as Rand Paul's endorsement of Romney. This is one of the great dangers when libertarians believe they can cozy up to the elitists. The libertarian message gets twisted and distorted to make it appear that the central planning, crony, war mongering elitist is a libertarian. Thanks, Rand Paul.

26 comments:

  1. Being "libertarian" is starting to become a little chic.

    Usually people that aren't so, but claim they are, use a qualifier though in self description. (I'm a "little", or libertarian in this "area")

    Others are so ignorant of its meaning and/or philosophy's that they make no attempt. For instance, Mark Cuban considers himself such. Bill Maher too for example.

    I think the word "libertarian" is going to have to be re-claimed/fought over. Then again...that fight could go all the way to the minarchist/anarchist divide. :)

    Either way...the distoration of words of meaning is very important to the establishment in trying to sway the sheeple.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As an ancap, I actually have zero problem with minarchists calling themselves libertarians, as long as when asked what 'libertarianism' means, they state it means 'compliance with the non-aggression principle.'

      So while I might believe they're not -full- libertarians, I wouldn't have any problem with them calling themselves members of that philosophy.

      Now, if it's spreads to people beyond that range, people who clearly do not accept the non-aggression principle in a majority of their views, I'll have a serious problem.

      Delete
    2. Don't be another "ancap" d-bag, where you think that somehow your philosophy is the only enlightened one.

      Delete
    3. Since coercive government is based on aggression, AnCaps are the only legitimate standard bearers.

      Delete
  2. We get it....Rand Paul is the devil because of his "endorsement." Time to move on maybe?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You really don't pay attention, do you, troll?

      Delete
  3. I'm blaming Rand for my broken-down car, my low-paying job, and just for good measure, I think I'm going to blame him for global warming and rising sea levels too :/ I'd blame him for WWII as well, but I don't think he was alive then. But don't let that stop you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No.
      We blame him for riding his father's coattails and ingratiating himself with the "liberty movement", and then subsequently endorsing Romney, so that ignoramuses like Elliot Spitzer can paint the likes of Romney as libertarian through association.

      That is EXACTLY why Rand Paul needs to have his false image as a "libertarian" broken down to the ground.
      That's not going to stop, as well it shouldn't, so long as other people continue to pretend he is part of a liberty movement.
      Through association with Rand, among others, Romney is being called libertarian. We have Rand and his apologists to thank for that.

      Delete
    2. I see. So we [i]are[/i] blaming Rand for WWII? Awesome.

      Delete
    3. Wenzel has been warning that Rand would cause this sort of confusion forever. It's not as if he suddenly pulled it out of nowhere.

      Delete
    4. I think Spitzer and people like him would be portraying Romney this way whether Rand Paul existed or not. They always portray republicans as being for the free market and all of that. What do you expect them to say, "Oh Romney is a Keynesian just like us?" Of course they're not going admit that. The blow the 10% of things that they disagree on up to a ridiculous proportion to make it look like a real debate.

      Delete
  4. And Government spending is NOT an investment!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's why GDP is such a misleading fiction. Until non government assessment of actual productivity and unemployment (like shadowstats

      Delete
    2. Damned iPad. Until shadow stats or something like it is the measure, these numbers- inflation, unemployment, productivity, etc. are meaningless. The government LIES. All the time.

      An unbiased comparison of stats from the 1930s and today would show that we are in a "Greater Depression" but the government and corporate controlled media will never admit it.

      Delete
  5. Roddis's Law, Special case, strikes again.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I find it sad but somewhat entertaining that any media outlet even gives the time of day to Eliot Spitzer. Nevermind his statist views he championed on that ridiculous left v. right CNN debacle of a "news/opinion show".

    If I want to listen to that kind of ivy league hypocritical crap (jail for you; for me no legal consequences", I'd move to Boston and suck the government teat ad infinitum. Oh wait... maybe that might work after all.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I just happened to watch a show on the Lifetime channel called "My Life is A Lifetime Movie" where they interviewed the woman who ran a call girl ring in NYC. She said they ended up kicking out Eliot Spitzer and stopped allowing him to see the prostitutes because he was very violent and mean to the girls. He would tell them to pretend they were in a self defense class and then choke and strangle them, scaring them to death. When the head callgirl expressed concerns, Eliot blew up on the phone and screamed and ranted and raved.

    He is a true sicko and borderline abusive to women, not to mention being a huge hypocrite who threw people in prison for going to prostitutes while going to them on his own at the same time.

    ReplyDelete
  8. That woman is the same one who ran for governor of NY. Her name is Kristin Davis, and I think she might make for a great guest of the Wenzel podcast or interview of some sort. She really said Spitzer was a creep with how he got abusive to the prostitutes and wanted to choke them and beat them up. What a sick little creepy perv he is. I think this info should be more widely distributed considering what a hypocrite Spitzer is for throwing people in prison for the same stuff.

    On another interesting note, Roger Stone was her advisor and they showed him on the tv show.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.mylifetime.com/shows/my-life-is-a-lifetime-movie/video/season-1/episode-5/escort-madam

      The funny thing is she basically decided to go into prostitution after reading about Eliot arresting a lot of them, knowing that there would be room in the market for her. She really goes off about what a perv creep and abusive guy Spitzer is in the show.

      Delete
  9. Rand Paul is no more libertarian than Romney.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It might be time to get your head examined again. Really, if you people can see no difference between those two, I question either your integrity or your intellect.

      Delete
  10. Rand Paul shot both JR and Mr. Burns. Rand Paul is a statist pig who advocates for things like synthetic drug decriminalization when he could introduce bills like legalizing heroin which would certainly pass if not for statists like Rand Paul. Rand Paul is so awful he probably thinks school choice is an acceptable option when he could advocate for no public schools. Rand Paul argues for military spending cuts when he could argue for no military and private militias. Public funded military? What a loser statist. He's sold out to the Rothchild's and Zionists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice use of hyperbole!(seriously!)

      Anyway, I suppose in an ethical world Rand could at least say something like *I am not for any drug laws but the interest of moving in that direction I would like to at least introduce this bill to decriminalize synthetics*

      Thing is my friend, despite your hyperbole, Rand has left the question of his implicit support for statism not just open...but relatively clear. So it is really all a matter of degrees...which is precisely why the country is where it is today. Even if we started moving the other direction(and did so year after year...good luck with that) it would take just as long to unwind the present dysfunction in a *reasonable* manner as it took to become unreasonable.

      We as a nation simply do not have that long.

      Delete
  11. Eliot Spitzer writes a stupid article.

    "It's Rand Pauls fault!!"

    Seriously, did Rand Paul sleep with your wife or something? This sort of irrational obsession is unhealthy.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Its Rand Paul's fault that Spitzer slept with a hooker!

    ReplyDelete
  13. OMG! Its Rand's fault that Abe Lincoln was elected!!! And he probably helped Spielberg make his movie! ARRGGGH!!!

    ReplyDelete