What's with the Collectivist Church of Libertarianism

What's with the Collectivist Church of Libertarianism

So what is wrong with the libertarian case for extremely limited government? Economics 101 teaches some of the basic justifications for government interference in the economy. Some things, such as the cost of national defense, are "public goods." We can't each decide for ourselves how much defense we want. We have to decide that together. Then there are "externalities," which are costs (or, sometimes, benefits) that your decisions impose on me. Pollution is the classic example. Without government involvement of some sort to override our individual judgments, we will produce more pollution than most of us want.

There are "market-oriented" solutions to this problem, but there is a difference --often forgotten, especially by Republicans -- between using market forces and leaving something to the market. The point of principle is whether the government should intervene at all. How it chooses to intervene is purely pragmatic.

Libertarians have a fondness for complex arrangements to make markets work in situations where the textbooks say they can't. Hey, let's issue stamps, y'see, and use the revenues to form a corporation that sells stock to buy military equipment, then the government leases the equipment and the stockholders vote on whether to user it -- and so on. The point becomes proving a point, not economic or government efficiency.

Libertarians also have a tendency to see too many issues in terms of property rights (just as liberals, they would counter, tend to see everything in terms of discrimination and equal protection). Pollution, libertarians say, is simply theft: you are stealing my clean air. Settle it in court. This is a really terrible idea: inexpert judges, lawyers and juries using the most elaborate and expensive decision-making process known to humankind -- litigation -- to make inconsistent decisions in different cases. And usually there is no one "right" answer: There is a spectrum of acceptable answers, involving tradeoffs (dirty air versus fewer jobs, etc.) that ought to be made democratically -- that is, through government.

Sometimes libertarians end up reinventing the wheel. My favorite example is an article I read years ago advocating privatization of highways. This is a classic libertarian fantasy: government auctions off the land, private enterprise pays for construction and maintenance, tolls cover the cost, competition with other routes keeps it all efficient. And what about, um, intersections? Well, markets would recognize that it is more efficient for one company to own both roads at major intersections, and when that happened the company would have an incentive to strike the right balance between customers on each highway. And stoplights? Ultimately, the author had worked his way up to a giant monopoly that would build, own, and maintain all the roads, and charge an annual fee to people who wanted to use them. None dare call it government.

Something similar goes on when the government forbids or requires people to do something for their own good. Why shouldn't people, at least adult people, have the right to decide for themselves? Libertarian thinking has been useful, for example, in making it easier to get prescription drugs through the maze at the FDA. The Terry Shiavo case of 2005 was libertarianism's greatest moment so far, as the entire nation rose up in defense of her right to die.

The trouble here is that libertarians tend to analogize everything to a right to die. If you have the right to end your own life, you must have the right to do anything else you wish, short of that. If you're allowed to shoot yourself through the head, why aren't you allowed to drive without a seat belt?

The answer is that it's a bad analogy. When you drive without a seat belt, you are not motivated by a desire to die, or even a desire to take a small risk of dying. Why should your motive matter? Because your death -- especially your death in a car crash -- does impose externalities on others. I would pay good money not to have to see your bloody carcass lying beside the highway, or endure the traffic jam, or pay the emergency room costs. A serious right like the right to die may be worth the cost, while a right to be careless or irresponsible is not.

Llibertarians are quick to see hidden costs of ignoring libertarian principles and slow to see such costs in adhering to them. For example, Tucker Carlson reports in the Dec. 31 New Republic that Ron Paul wants to end the federal ban on unpasteurized milk. No one should want to drink unpasteurized milk, and almost no one does. Paul himself doesn't. But it bothers him that the government tells people they cannot do something they shouldn't do.Libertarians would say that if most people want pasteurized milk, the market will supply it. Firms will emerge to certify that milk has been pasteurized. These firms will compete, keeping them honest.

So yes, a Rube Goldberg contraption of capitalism could replace a straightforward government regulation. But what if you aren't interested in turning your grocery shopping into an ideological adventure? All that is lost by letting the government take care of it is the right of a few idiots to be idiots. That right deserves respect. But not much.

A similar flaw affects libertarian thinking about government-mandated redistribution. Extreme libertarians believe this is immoral or even unconstitutional, and even more moderate libertarians disapprove of government social welfare programs as an infringement on the freedom of taxpayers. But freedom is only one of the two core values our nation was built on. The other is equality. Defining equality, libertarians tend to take a narrow view, believing that it means only political equality with no financial aspects. Defining freedom, by contrast, they take a broad view, and see a violation in every nickel a citizen must spend.

Libertarians ask: By what justification does the government concern itself with inequality -- financial or otherwise -- in the first place? They are nearly alone in asking this question. Even conservatives claim a great concern for equality of opportunity, while opposing opportunity of result. And the reasons seem obvious: some degree of material equality as a necessary basis for political equality; the huge role of luck in getting each of us to our relative stations in life; etc.

These Anti-American Twits - The Tea Party, Conservatives, Republicans - Consider Violent Rhetoric Entertainment

Following Fox's violent rhetoric, mother blames network for son's alleged Pelosi threats

Following the arrest of Gregory Giusti for allegedly threatening Speaker Nancy Pelosi's life over health care reform, Giusti's mother stated that Fox News was a factor in her son's alleged actions. In the wake of this incident, Media Matters for America takes a look back at Fox News' recent history of violent rhetoric and the apocalyptic language the network's employees used to describe the then-impending passage of health care reform.

But isn't Fox providing wise and informed insights to the American public so we can all make better decisions about the future of the United States. Not really, Beck admits he doesn’t give ‘a flying crap about the political process. … We’re an entertainment company.’

Fox News host Glenn Beck’s media “empire” is the cover story of the newest issue of Forbes Magazine. In the story, Beck reveals that his media company Glenn Beck Inc. made $32 million in revenue in the period between March 2009 and March 2010. The host also explains that he sees himself much more as an entertainer than a political activist, saying that he doesn’t “give a flying crap about the political process”

[ ]...This isn’t the first time Beck has suggested he isn’t as radically conservative as he seems. In February he told USA Weekend that “you’d have to be an idiot” to “not notice the temperature change” caused by global warming, and that he thinks mankind may play a signficant role in the phenomenon. Beck has previously described himself as “a rodeo clown” and conceded, “If you take what I say as gospel, you’re an idiot.”

Whatever Beck really believes he is right about one thing - the people that listen to him and act on his opinions are idiots.

Dear Republicans and Their Conservative Guru of Economics - Thanks for the Great Recession

Conservative Alan Greenspan: Not Me, Not Me!

Andy Kroll says The Oracle Rewrites History:

Alan Greenspan, the economic sage and former chair of the Federal Reserve, has been on a mission to set the record straight on the financial crisis—not least his own role in it. In March, the Brookings Institution published a detailed, 66-page paper [pdf], he authored on the crisis’ origins. Most recently, he used a three-hour hearing on Wednesday by the congressionally-chartered Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) to discuss how subprime mortgages and securitization fueled the meltdown. Except Greenspan hasn't been describing recent history so much as rewriting it.

Greenspan, who chaired the Fed from 1987 to 2006, has received plenty of blame and opprobrium for the central bank's role in the subprime meltdown and broader economic crisis. The Fed, critics say, failed to rein in abusive practices by subprime lenders by choosing not to flex its regulatory muscle. For a time, it let credit card companies off the hook with a 2004 ruling that overdraft fees weren’t loans, and thus not subject to fair lending law. Consumer advocates also say Greenspan’s policy of keeping interest rates low during the 2000s paved the way for the housing bubble.

But reading Greenspan's testimony before the FCIC, you'd think the Fed was the Lone Ranger of regulators, a vigilant crusader on behalf of homeowners raising red flags about toxic mortgage products and the looming housing bubble. He touted the Fed's actions under a 1994 law called the Homeownership Equity Protection Act (HOEPA) that gave the Fed the power to prohibit "unfair," "abusive," and "deceptive" mortgage lending practices. "My colleagues at the Federal Reserve were aware of their responsibilities under HOEPA," Greenspan said, "and took significant steps to ensure that its consumer protections were faithfully implemented."

Carolyn Baum says Greenspan’s Delusions Get Much Worse With Age:

As for Greenspan’s claim that only a few predicted the post-bubble fallout, "that’s preposterous," says Bill Fleckenstein, president of Fleckenstein Capital in Seattle. "I had time to write a book about it."

The book, aptly named "Greenspan’s Bubbles," was written in 2007 and published in January 2008.

Greenspan told Bloomberg TV neither he, nor anyone at the Fed, heard about problems brewing in the banking system.

That’s patently false. I know for a fact that regulation and supervision division staff at some of the Federal Reserve District Banks reported risks and irregularities to the Board in Washington.

And why didn't Mr. Masters of Business Administration - George W. Bush see that Republican centric economic policies and anti-regulation zealotry were disastrous. One could easily think that Bush and his Republican hand maidens in Congress did, and still do, hate America and democracy.

Like Everything Else Republicans Wrong on Torture

Like Everything Else Republicans Wrong on Torture

Michael Sulick, head of the CIA’s National Clandestine Service, told a student audience last week that the spy agency has seen no fall-off in intelligence since waterboarding was banned by the Obama administration.

"I don’t think we’ve suffered at all from an intelligence standpoint," Sulick told students and some faculty members at Fordham University, his alma mater, on March 25. "But I don’t want to talk about [it from] a legal, moral or ethical standpoint."

According to the university’s news service, Sulick said it was tough for any U.S. agencies dealing with terrorism to balance security and civil liberties.

"If you're a civil servant in any agency dealing with national security issues, you have to grapple with these conflicts," said Sulick, who earned bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Fordham in Russian studies and a Ph.D. from the City University of New York. He joined the CIA in 1980.

"It’s not easy,” Sulick said. “You’re faced with defending the public trust and are often faced with difficult decisions that affect the public good. Sometimes there are merits on both sides."

"We have to find some way to achieve that balance," he added. "We have to find the common ground between maintaining our values and safeguarding Americans."

Sulick’s National Clandestine Service employs the CIA’s spy handlers, counterspies and covert action specialists -- the so-called “dirty tricks” people- -- along with some elements of the FBI and Defense Intelligence Agency.

But the career operative said he’s no James Bond.

"I do not drive a Jaguar or a Bentley with special gadgets. My watch does not have a laser or a microphone."

"At the same time …” he added, “there is an enormous thrill when you’re out meeting a spy and he or she gives you that one piece of information that answers some critical question the United States government needs to know. I can’t think of any nobler public service than that, and I guess that’s why I’ve been doing it for three decades."

Sulick received a standing ovation, according to Debra Sweet, and antiwar activist who attended the event.

Also attending the event was Fordham graduate Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst and founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, an organization critical of the CIA.

“After a lengthy prologue, McGovern, who was not scheduled to speak, pointed out the disconnect between the Catholic faith and the CIA’s killing of innocents around the world in pursuit of terrorists,” the university’s public relations office reported.

“McGovern claimed that the CIA arbitrarily distinguishes between what he labeled ‘good terrorists and bad terrorists.’”

Thiessen's Disaster -- Wash. Post columnist's anti-Obama book filled with falsehoods

In his book, Courting Disaster, Washington Post's Marc Thiessen relies on numerous falsehoods to make his case that "America is in greater danger" than it had been during the Bush administration because of President Obama's anti-terrorism policies. Thiessen's falsehoods repeatedly overstate the effectiveness of Bush administration's interrogation and detention policies and downplay the abuses that took place.

Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) - Price expands GOP repeal campaign: We should repeal all of TARP, the stimulus, and ‘the bailout philosophy.’

Price, who first said that the GOP would run on a policy of repeal in Sept. 2009, did not explain how he would repeal the stimulus and TARP money that has already been doled out, including the $134,148,933 that has been sent to Price’s district as of Dec. 31, 2009.

Price is typical of most conservatives: He does not stand for anything, have any real values or care about America's future. He does care about pandering and spinning reality and anything that enriches him personally. We used to call people like that con-men. Now they're just called Republicans.

Beware Scam Artists Exploiting New Health Care Reform

The Real Swindlers

NPR has a good story about how swindlers are already trying to take advantage of the confusion over the Affordable Care Act to run health-care scams:

Days after President Obama signed the $938 billion bill into law, a cable television advertisement exhorted viewers to call an 800-number so they wouldn't miss a "limited enrollment" period to obtain coverage available "now that historic health-care legislation has passed."

And there have already been reports of door-to-door salespeople peddling "Obamacare" insurance policies.

There is, of course, no limited enrollment period for any coverage, and no such thing as a new federal insurance policy named after the president.

As NPR notes, the "bitter and divisive" debate over health reform has been a boon for the scam market, which has sought to exploit the public misconceptions about the bill. Given how quickly the "death panel" meme caught on -- and how long such fabrications have persisted in the political discourse -- the idea of purchasing an "Obamacare" insurance policy might not seem so far-fetched.

The new health law does commit millions of dollars to beefing up anti-fraud enforcement and oversight, as insurance fraud has a long history of plaguing the health-care system, and the system's upcoming expansion will create new opportunities for exploitation. In the Medicare and Medicaid programs, for example, fraudsters have long perpetrated billing scams that prey upon the elderly and the poor -- and their schemes have become increasingly complex, as I explained in the New Republic last year. The biggest scam artists aren't going to be door-to-door hucksters, but sophisticated white-collar criminals who are likely to try to exploit new changes like the conversion to electronic health records to defraud the system on a large scale. And these schemes make dispelling the myths about the new health law -- and clarifying the real changes that are afoot -- all the more important.

Health Care Reform Frequently Asked Questions. Probably not all the answers to every question, but a good start in plain language.

The Lowest of the Low in Integrity - Republican Pundits Hannity, North and Erick Erickson

What's Sean Hannity up to now?

Will fans of Sean Hannity and Oliver North feel reassured by the pair's denial of any wrongdoing in the operation of the Freedom Alliance, their multimillion-dollar charity? The Fox News personalities no doubt hope so, as they prepare for the annual series of fundraising "Freedom Concerts" tour that will kick off in New Jersey in August, headlined by Lynyrd Skynyrd and the Charlie Daniels Band.

..The CREW complaints, posted on the watchdog group's Web site, provide considerable detail about the facts uncovered in its investigation of Freedom Alliance. Among the documents cached on the site is a contract showing that proceeds from the concert tour are actually controlled by Premiere Marketing, a Tennessee speakers agency that represents Hannity and North, and its president, Duane Ward.

Hannity and North ( who was neck deep in the Iran-Contra scandal) have, like many conservatives, dedicated their lives to giving America the shaft and calling it patriotism.

Erick Erickson Is the New CNN Go-to Bigot, Misogynist and Homophobe

In this quote, unquote “post racial” age, CNN has hired a guy who is not just an apparent bigot, but a misogynist and avid homophobe. Erick Erickson, the editor of redstate.com. will begin working at CNN as a political commentaor opposite John King on John King USA.

Guess the brass at CNN haven’t entirely recovered from their rabid racist withdrawals since Glenn Beck left went to Fox News. Those withdrawals probably worsened when Lou Dobbs quit a few months back.

....Erickson claimed President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize because of “affirmative action quotas” (Think Progress, 10/9/09).

He suggested “feminazis were enraged” by an anti-abortion Super Bowl ad because “that’s what being too ugly to get a date does to your brain.”

He urged that “ugly feminists return to their kitchens” (Media Matters, 2/8/10).

He’s a homophobe who asserted that “the full gay rights agenda” means that “men and boys can have sexual relationships free of prudish moral people frowning” (Media Matters, 10/9/09).

Upon Justice David Souter’s retirement, Erickson called him “the only goat-fucking child molester to ever serve on the Supreme Court” (Crooks and Liars, 5/1/09).

He declared that White House spokesperson Linda Douglass “really is the Joseph Goebbels of the White House healthcare shop” (TPM, 10/12/09).

Meanwhile, he suggested that Obama might be worse than Hitler, writing, “Does it say more about the IOC or Obama that the IOC gave Hitler the Olympics, but not Obama?”??As if that weren’t enough, he’s also an advocate of political violence (Yglesias, 4/1/09):

Health Care Reform The Jungle Gym Myth

Is the right-wing conservative obsession with health care reform myths yet another example of conservatism as mental illness -

* Jungle gyms! Jason Mattera, a 26-year-old who was just named editor of the hard-right magazine Human Events, video-ambushed Al Franken on March 10 with the question, "Which portions of the health care bill will lower costs? Is it the provision giving $7 billion to fund jungle gyms or the provision mandating that employers provide time off for breast-feeding?" Franken asked Mattera to show him where in the bill he found jungle gyms. "Jungle gyms," Mattera said, "is on 1,184."

Need I mention that jungle gym is yet another phrase that appears nowhere in the bills (searchable text here, here, here, and here)? The page Mattera referred to concerned federal "Community Transformation Grants" to state and local governments and to private nonprofit organizations to promote preventive health. Grants would require approval from the Centers For Disease Control and "may focus on (but not be limited to)" seven specified goals, one of which is "creating healthier school environments, including increasing healthy food options, physical activity opportunities, promotion of healthy lifestyle, emotional wellness, and prevention curricula, and activities to prevent chronic diseases." The project may entail "a variety of programs, policies, and infrastructure improvements," which suggests it might possibly involve building something (though given the liability issues, I wouldn't bet that the result would be a jungle gym). Where Mattera got his $7 billion figure is anybody's guess. The health care bill authorizes "such sums as may be necessary," and the Congressional Budget Office estimated the Community Transformation Grants' cost at zero, which probably means it had no idea how much Congress would eventually choose to appropriate for the program. If the figure did happen to be $7 billion, that would pay for all the Community Transformation Grants, not just grants to schools. **


Mattera and Human Events are proof that we do need to spend some money promoting "emtional wellness".