Cafe Hayek

« Ikenson on Obama | Main | Hooray for America's Trade Deficit» Don Boudreaux

March 06, 2008

The Practicality of Free Trade

Don Boudreaux

One of the most intellectually shallow arguments against free trade is the one that motivates this op-ed in today's New York Times by Robert E. Lighthizer.  In short, the argument is that free traders are impractically principled; a better policy (the argument implies) is one that recognizes that trade is sometimes good and sometimes not so good.  Here are two letters that I sent to the NYT in response.

Robert Lighthizer dismisses principled free-traders as dogmatists who impractically stick to their guns "no matter how many jobs are lost, how high the trade deficit rises or how low the dollar falls" ("Grand Old Protectionists," March 6).  Alas, the impractical dogmatists are Mr. Lighthizer and his fellow trade "pragmatists."

There is no credible evidence - none, nada - that free trade causes net job losses.  Moreover, far from being undesirable, a higher U.S. trade deficit means increased foreign investment in the American economy.  And a falling dollar generally reflects worsening U.S. domestic policies, such as inflationary money-supply growth, the likelihood of higher taxes or more command-and-control regulations, and, indeed, an increased probability of U.S. protectionism - protectionism that, by stifling entrepreneurial dynamism, makes America a less attractive place for foreigners to do business.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

My second letter:

Among Robert Lighthizer's objections to principled free-traders is their opposition to protectionism "no matter how many jobs are lost" ("Grand Old Protectionists," March 6).

If Mr. Lighthizer is referring to overall employment, his facts are wrong.  Free trade does not reduce net employment.  But perhaps he's talking about specific jobs, such as those lost in Carolina textile mills when Americans buy more textiles from abroad.  The argument seems to be that practical statecraft often justifies protecting such jobs even if doing so prevents the creation of other jobs in their place.  If this is Mr. Lighthizer's point, he's too modest when calling for trade policies that allow for "practicality, nuance or flexibility."  Because technology destroys far more jobs than does trade, Mr. Lighthizer should endorse also a "pragmatic" approach to innovation - empowering government with the flexibly and nuance to block firms' introduction of efficiency-enhancing production techniques that displace workers.  Surely, according to Mr. Lighthizer's practical logic, we must reject the "dogma" that tolerates "unbridled" improvements in firms' operating efficiencies.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

Posted by Don Boudreaux in Balance of Payments, Myths and Fallacies, Trade | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/23120/26858732

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Practicality of Free Trade:

Comments

Lighthizer's arguments were rebutted by Bastiat 150 years ago. Bastiat specifically rebutted those who said supporters of free trade favored principles over real facts. It's hard to take someone seriously who hasn't read any of the relevant literature.

Posted by: Jams Hanley | Mar 6, 2008 6:10:14 PM

Well, I not only wanted to correct my misspelling of my own name in the previous post, but I pulled this quote from Lighthizer's article.

"Free trade has long been popular with liberals, and it remains so with liberal elites today."

Funny, I know a whole lot of liberals, and I have yet to meet one who's in favor of free trade. What's this guy been smokin'? Free trade reefer?

Posted by: James Hanley | Mar 6, 2008 6:13:28 PM

Good response, Don. But, I doubt seriously if he will even begin to understand your point.

Rational thinking is in such short supply these days particularly on the left.

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 6, 2008 6:36:20 PM

Jams,

Perhaps you don't know enough "liberal elites". But like your experience, the liberal faculty that I worked with sure thought they were elite but didn't like free trade.

Jams is a pretty cool typo, you have to admit.

Posted by: Python | Mar 6, 2008 6:58:16 PM

Waiting...waiting.
When is the next straw man coming?

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 6, 2008 7:10:00 PM

Let's see, some trade is good and some is not good. Might there be a mirrored set of circumstances in other countries? Wouldn't this stop all trade between countries?

People like Lighthizer would be happy if every country put their exports on boats that sunk in the ocean in a typhoon on their way to other countries. All exports and no imports! What a wonderful world that would be. Every politician is wondering how they can make this happen.

Posted by: MU78 | Mar 6, 2008 7:43:34 PM

On second thought, if Congress passes alaw requiring all exports, even those to Mexico and Canada, be shipped on boats, then I'll know they think they have reached the first level to political nirvana.

Posted by: MU78 | Mar 6, 2008 7:49:26 PM

"Funny, I know a whole lot of liberals, and I have yet to meet one who's in favor of free trade. What's this guy been smokin'? Free trade reefer?"
- James Hanley

Hello, my name is Brian and I am a liberal, a flaming smoking on fire out of control liberal, and I am for free trade, it is my pleasure to meet you.

Posted by: Brian-NJ | Mar 6, 2008 8:14:52 PM

Nice to make your acquaintance, Brian.
What do you think about Clinton's and Obama's rhetoric on NAFTA?

Posted by: sanjiv | Mar 6, 2008 8:23:48 PM

"Good response, Don. But, I doubt seriously if he will even begin to understand your point.

Rational thinking is in such short supply these days particularly on the left."

The guy worked for Ronald Reagan and Bob Dole. Apparently rational thinking is in short supply in the Cafe Hayek comment section.

As a future Obama/Clinton voter, I don't believe that either candidate will actually do much to hurt free trade. Bill signed NAFTA. Barack's a smart guy, and he'll hire smart economic advisers (hopefully). While McCain will be better in principle for free trade, in reality I doubt the future president will do much to affect free trade.

Personally, I'm more concerned about what the future president will do to the Supreme Court. Four religious conservatives on the bench is already too many. McCain ('America is a Christian nation') would tip the balance too far to the right, for my tastes.

Posted by: Corey | Mar 6, 2008 8:37:06 PM

When might the next Supreme Court justice retire?

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 6, 2008 9:54:34 PM

This guy shows his utter stupidity when he uses Ted Kennedy as an example of a democrat for "free" trade. Wasn't Kennedy one of the most emotional supporters of a bill that forbids me from trading my labor in return for $5.50/hour in this country?

I think the problem might be that Lighthizer defines the "free" in free trade the same way that Michael Moore defines "free" in free healthcare.

Posted by: Jay | Mar 6, 2008 10:07:37 PM

Corey,

Do you think that everyone who worked for Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale should be held up as a gold standard for all liberal bloggers to follow?

And it's not like he wrote policy for either gentelemen...

"Robert E. Lighthizer, a trade lawyer, was a deputy trade representative in the Reagan administration and the treasurer of Bob Dole’s 1996 presidential campaign."

Posted by: Python | Mar 6, 2008 10:11:11 PM

"Nice to make your acquaintance, Brian.
What do you think about Clinton's and Obama's rhetoric on NAFTA?"
-Sanjiv

I think its politics at its finest. To my knowledge, (medium awareness to the campaign trail) neither has said specifically that they want to dissolve it or change it in such a way that would be detrimental, the beauty of politics, they said nothing but said it all. Hillary said she wanted to change it to make it work better for the people who were ill effected by it, but what does that mean? She won't do anything to it, maybe set up a job training adjustment program, but individuals will have to prove they lost a job due to free trade. The dems are not idiots, just ramping up the rhetoric like the conservative right does with their fear campaign on terrorism, xenophobic fight on immigrants, or the revolving d/war on drugs. I will be shocked if Hillary makes drastic measures, slight reform maybe. Remember however, I said I was a liberal, not a democrat! (well I vote for them sometimes) So in conclusion I am not worried about the next democrat president shaking up NAFTA because it is not going to happen.

Posted by: Brian-NJ | Mar 6, 2008 10:18:57 PM

Oops. Jams dropped an 'e', and I added two - 'gentelemen' = 'gentleman'

Posted by: Python | Mar 6, 2008 10:20:06 PM

Well, I guess I'll vote for Obama. After all, according to Brian, he is only lying about his position on trade. Brian knows Obama will be good inspite of what Obama says his position is LOL!

Posted by: jpm | Mar 6, 2008 10:31:39 PM

"The guy worked for Ronald Reagan and Bob Dole.
Posted by: Corey | Mar 6, 2008 8:37:06 PM"

Does this prove he is capable of rational thinking; or, does it prove he worked for Ronald Reagan and Bob Dole?

The latter does not rationally prove the former.

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 6, 2008 10:32:44 PM

To vidyohs:

I didn't claim he (the author of the nytimes piece) was capable of rational thinking. Quite the opposite. Of course he's wrong about free trade. The point was that you used this person (a conservative) to attack rational thinking in politics, but the way you worded it - "Rational thinking is in such short supply these days particularly on the left" - made it sound like you were attacking this person for being on the left. He's clearly not on the left. That was the point I was making.

If you wanted to attack the lack of rationality on the left, you could have done it in the comments section of numerous other posts, just not this one. This was a conservative attacking free trade, not a liberal.

I'm not sure if 'liberal' is the best term for me, but I tend to vote Democratic (mainly for social and church/state separation reasons). Like Brian, I also whole-heartedly support free trade, and I doubt either Barack or Hillary will do much to harm free trade.

Posted by: Corey | Mar 6, 2008 11:05:41 PM

@ Python:

The point I was trying to make was that this NYTimes article was being held up as another example of irrational thinking on the left, when it was clearly written by someone on the right. That's all.

On a broader note- I think it's narrow minded to think that good economic policy is an inherently 'liberal' or 'conservative' thing. Nearly all thinking people can agree that free trade is beneficial for nearly all parties involved (in fact, in the long run, everyone benefits from trade). I don't get why this should be considered the intellectual property of one party or another. This is why I get disgusted with our political system. I'm convinced Barack Obama is an intelligent person, and as an intelligent person he probably sees the benefits of free trade.

What's depressing is that he has to go to Ohio and say that trade has devastated that state, when all economic data says otherwise.

I find it a bit depressing to be 21 and already disillusioned about our political process. Please, someone give me something to be hopeful about.

Posted by: Corey | Mar 6, 2008 11:13:56 PM

I find it a bit depressing to be 21 and already disillusioned about our political process. Please, someone give me something to be hopeful about.

Disillusionment is a good thing. You're discarding your illusions. You could be hopeful about becoming even more disillusioned.

I wish when I was twenty-one I had been as disillusioned as you are.

Posted by: Hans Luftner | Mar 6, 2008 11:30:56 PM

I was disillusioned by 18. Now I'm downright cranky and crotchety at 31. For me the default position is that any politician is an utter scumbag until 100% proven otherwise.

Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 7, 2008 12:06:10 AM

"Please, someone give me something to be hopeful about."

The future will have many wonderful innovations, you will have the opportunity to learn many more things after the age of 21 than you did before, you will probably have a much better life than your ancestors, etc.

Disillusionment in politicians doesn't mean disillusionment in your future or mankind. Power corrupts, we have corrupt leaders, it's natural.

If you hang around this site enough, you'll see most of us don't talk in terms of liberal or conservative. There are many more dimensions of politics.

Posted by: Python | Mar 7, 2008 12:58:58 AM

Disillusioned or enlightened?
It's all in how you look at it.
Better to be disillusioned than 'illusioned'.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 7, 2008 1:00:53 AM

Maybe a problem here is that free trade can have two meanings:

1. Laissez-faire markets.

2. International trade where there are little to no tariffs in the way. I'm remember reading in one book that reckoned that tariffs under 5% per good was considered close enough to be free trading.

Still, is Utilitarianism a good thing or bad thing? Does it matter if people who lost their jobs from outsourcing and automated machines can't find jobs anyway? It's not the owners' problem, their problem is to maximise revenues and minimise expenses and keep investors happy. A good historical example is that of equine unemployment thanks to the introduction of motor vehicles. The unemployment was such that horses couldn't find employment and as such the horse population dwindled to the number required for horse racing, pets and occasional rural workers. But we wouldn't listen to horses complain that they'd be out of a job thanks to motor vehicles, let alone withhold progress, would we? So even if workers can't find jobs or jobs as well paying as the ones they lost then so what? Isn't their problem after all?

Posted by: Gil | Mar 7, 2008 1:56:25 AM

I read somewhere that there's more horses now than ever. So thanks to a rising standard of living, horse unemployment is way down, & I'll bet they work less & frolic more & are much better cared for.

Posted by: Hans Luftner | Mar 7, 2008 5:59:51 AM

Corey,

"If you wanted to attack the lack of rationality on the left, you could have done it in the comments section of numerous other posts, just not this one. This was a conservative attacking free trade, not a liberal.
Posted by: Corey | Mar 6, 2008 11:05:41 PM"
---

Look up the words assumption, presumption, and supposition in the dictionary, please.

"Rational thinking is in such short supply these days particularly on the left."

You make the assumption I am accusing Lighthizer of being a lefty, when in fact my statement about rational thinking being in short supply is a general statement applicable to all of any persuasion(Lighthizer) and I then specifically target a group (lefties).

I do not like to automatically insult people so I make the assumption that everyone can read and comprehend, sadly enough 'tis not so.

"I find it a bit depressing to be 21 and already disillusioned about our political process. Please, someone give me something to be hopeful about.
Posted by: Corey | Mar 6, 2008 11:13:56 PM"

Corey,
You'll be stuck, mired, wallow, in lefty thinking until you learn to turn this kind of "thinking" around. "Someone 'give' me somthing to be hopeful about.

Why do you have to be given anything? Go make your own hope, Barack isn't going to 'give' you hope. No politician is. You generate your own hope based on what you see and think.

Let's put it this way, if you are waiting for someone to 'give' you hope, then you aren't ever going to have hope.

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 7, 2008 6:26:32 AM

Funny, I know a whole lot of liberals, and I have yet to meet one who's in favor of free trade. What's this guy been smokin'? Free trade reefer?

Hi, I'm Brian (different Brian from Brian-NJ), I'm a liberal utilitarian, and I'm also wholeheartedly in support of free trade.

As for Obama rhetoric, I'll direct you to the Goolsbee comment. As for Clinton, I don't particularly like her, but I don't expect her to dismantle NAFTA in any real way.

By the way, if you're interested in meeting more of us free-trade liberal, I'd also like to refer you to a strong majority of the economics mainstream establishment. From Bryan Caplan's paper:

"economists [are] slightly more left-leaning and likely to be Democrats or independents than average" (p. 17-18)

and on a table on the same page (p. 18) he shows that, even controlling for ideology, economists show strong support for free trade, much moreso than the general public.

There you have it. The median economist is liberal who support free trade, according to Bryan Caplan.

Posted by: brian | Mar 7, 2008 6:42:27 AM

I don't know vidyohs, it seemed obvious to me that you were calling the author a "lefty," since you were talking about him lacking rationality, then bemoaned this lack of rationality among people like him.

Posted by: brian | Mar 7, 2008 6:44:57 AM

Brian,

You've identified yourself as a liberal, so I make the obvious observation that nothing is obvious to you. If things were obvious to you then obviously you wouldn't be a lefty.

Thank you very much.

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 7, 2008 7:04:33 AM

BTW Brian,

Which takes precedence in the crunch the utilitarian or the liberal.

It's like a politician saying, "I am a social liberal, and a fiscal conservative."

Oxymoron, you can't have it both ways. When the crunch comes the poltician will inevitiably reveal himself to be a social liberal and a fiscal liberal.

Thank you very much.

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 7, 2008 7:08:16 AM

Corey,

I hope you are still browsing the blog, because my response above was not complete and I'd like to helpfully expand.

(Just a week ago I was downloading some music and I pulled down the Eagle's hit "Git over it", and it is just as appropriate today as it was when it was released. You should look it up and listen to the lyrics.)

You're looking for hope, that is a good thing. I suggest you conduct your search in the objective mode.

Liberals, socialist, communists, democrats, progressives et. al. are guilty of what I was taught is "stinkin' thinkin'" If you were taught by 'stinker thinkers' then you are going to likely be a 'stinker thinker'. As long as you move mentally and physically in those circles it will be near impossible to straighten out your head and get rid of that stinkin' thinkin'.

Stay away from negative people who always talk in terms of victimization and need.

By reading this blog you're making a good objective move, albeit a small one. When reading this blog, don't fixate on the lefty trolls and their stinkin' thinkin', concentrate on the smart ones whose expressed ideas parallel the host's if not duplicate.

But you need to do more to get rid of that "I can't do it on my own" internal rhetoric and replace it with some "Get out of the goddamn way and let me do it" type thinking.

How?

There is no stinkin' thinkin' in the mind of a good successful salesman. Even if a career in sales is the fartherest thing from your mind and your dreams (it was in mine), what the saleman knows and how he thinks about each day, each incident, each situtation, and how to handle those is the most important thing you'll ever learn.

What you learn from those masters at sales is attitudes and techniques you can take to any field and brighten your life while propelling your success.

So begin your objective search for hope by either enrolling in a good sales course, or do it on your own by going to your library and looking for material, books and audio tapes, by the master Zig Ziglar. Follow up with people like Brian Tracy, Napoleon Hill, and a vast array of others. Yes they all do or did motivational speaking and teaching their hard gained knowledge, and it is not cheap rhetoric that they give out it is sound ideas and practices.

You can make your own hope.

I can't help but sound preachy here, but i sincerely believe this. Corey, there are at least two things you can not escape in life.
First is self responsibility, and the second is self interest.

Every single one of us does what we do for our own self and no one else. If the reward for your action is not felt by yourself then you will lose motivation to do it.

No one can compel you to move or act, each action you take under any circumstance is done through your own control. You can not escape responsibility for the results of your actions or your lack of action.

While in uniform I learned the hard way that some one can assume your duty, but never your responsibility. What does that mean?

Say, a task is assigned to you and clearly made your responsibility, one for which, the completion of, you will have to ultimately answer for. A situation may arise where you have conflicting schedules or desires so you ask another of your group who is capable of performing the task to do it for you, and he expresses willingness to do so. You go fulfill your other desire and your substitute who has assumed your duty for the task, screws it up.

Your superiors are not going to be looking at your substitute for answers, it will be you that has to answer. He took your duty but never your responsibility.

If you understand this, then you will erase the word 'excuse' from your head forever. There are no excuses, there are only reasons.

How does this apply to liberal vs conservative (not neocon - true conservative capitalist thought)? Corey it is simple, if you are honest and objectively think over liberal ideas you will find that they are all built on the foundation of 'excuse', denial of self responsibility, and denial of self interest.

Ayn Rand, in response to a question about how best to help the poor, said, "Don't be one".

Some may think that that was a toss-off answer and they would be dead wrong. It is actually very profound however brief.

Say you are isolated in a group of ten men, eight of whom or reasonably prosperous and two who are poor and need help. You are one of the two. Okay, two men living off the charity of eight.

You, as one of the two, become ashamed of taking charity and begin to redouble your efforts to prosper. You watch all of the eight and begin to think like them, work like them, talk like them, and in short order you find yourself like them in that you are now able to be self sufficient, and even able to contribute to the charity going to the last one, 'the poor'.

By taking Ayn Rand's advice what have you done for the 'poor'?

You've removed yourself from the list, you are no longer a burden to your fellow man, and last you are even able to contribute to the possible salvation of the last in that he can see your example and possibly feel enough shame that he too begins the upward climb out of poverty.

Her answer was possibly the best advice one could give.

Corey, you can make your own hope. Just get away from the hopeless and start hanging out with the makers and doers of humanity.

Okay, down off the soapbox I go. Got to go add to my cash box of hope.

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 7, 2008 7:57:52 AM

Long live the Luddites!

Posted by: Matt C. | Mar 7, 2008 9:24:58 AM

Oh yeah this "free trade" is just working wonders along with Reaganomics and generalized deregulation of our financial institutions things are just looking GREAAAAT!!!.

Some of todays headlines; (All but one from todays FT)

Fed expands auctions to tackle liquidity pressures

US household wealth declines

Muirgeo's portfolio down 10%

Surprise fall in jobs fuels US recession fears

Dollar sinks lower after US payrolls number

Despite Fed Assurances, Stagflation Fears Grow

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 7, 2008 9:38:57 AM

Ayn Rand, in response to a question about how best to help the poor, said, "Don't be one".

Some may think that that was a toss-off answer and they would be dead wrong. It is actually very profound however brief.

Posted by: vidyohs

It's not profound, its' idiotic. Tell that to the newborn ghetto baby. Yeah, what a stupid mistake on his part. What the hell was he thinking.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 7, 2008 9:41:57 AM

Whatever it seems silly to discuss what conservatives and liberals of gone times would do in times when conservatives and liberals are not what they used to be, among other because they live in a different time… and their opponent has moved.

No matter how much some get a kick of dressing up to the occasion this is not about some unmovable First World War trenches.

As I have too often found a reason to say in my own country (Venezuela) if anyone wants to get out of a mess he is much better of looking at where he wants to be than to where he has been; and there is not even a single comma about that in the article.

Posted by: Per Kurowski | Mar 7, 2008 10:22:49 AM

muirgeo,

It is an unfortunate fact that not everyone born into this world can be so in equally fortunate circumstances. There are some who are born to poor parents, suffer physical disabilities, mental deficits, or are even, perhaps, not born with a set of genes condusive to the development of intelligence, attractiveness, or a likable personality. However, it does not follow from this fact that a third-party (so often "the forgotten man" in politics), should be obligated--forced by government thugs, and the voters who sponser them, to equalise these circumstances, which third-parties like yourself find unpalatible.

Moreover, muirgeo, and I want you to pay extra special close attention here: it does not follow, that because someone opposes the particular policies that you prefer, that they therefore must not care about inequality and poverty. I really want you to read that over and over again until it sinks in, so that you can recite it on command, because it is so important.

The issue is not whether inequality and poverty are good or bad, but rather, what is the best method of dealing with inequality and poverty? The majority of people who post here would argue against your preferred policies as a means of remedying these problems, because they do not consider the abrogation of liberty, the expansion of state powers, and the subsidisation of self-destructive attitudes and behaviours, to do anything but perpetuate the problems. It is not just a matter of choosing policies which sound good and making them reality, because reality, in the words of Thomas Sowell, is not optional.

In more cynical moods, I half suspect that you are more concered with that "ghetto baby" understanding how much you care, than their actual well-being.

Posted by: Lee Kelly | Mar 7, 2008 10:31:42 AM

Academic economists do not need to be practical or pragmatic because they can sit in their offices reading papers and pontificiating.

This is why I compare academic economists to sports writers - all talk, no game. They let somebody else do the working and sweating.

Posted by: save_the_rustbelt | Mar 7, 2008 10:41:29 AM

save_the_rustbelt:

Do you have anything useful to say other the the usual left-wing spew? Too bad union jobs are going down the drain.

Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 7, 2008 11:20:21 AM

So far, all rustbelt and muirgeo seem to be capable of is spew. In rustbelt's words - all talk no game.

I'm still waiting for rustbelt's definition of "wall street" and how it benefits if the rest of the economy doesn't. I suspect that I'll be waiting as long as Python will wait for muirduck to explain the one meter per person claim - an eternity.

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 7, 2008 11:25:38 AM

What is too bad is that rustbelt and muirgeo confuse government interference with "free market failures."

Most of muirgeo's headlines of the day were caused by the Fed interference in the supply of money. Last time I checked they were a government entity, with the supposed cloak of independence.

Posted by: Matt C. | Mar 7, 2008 11:36:57 AM

Behold, the straw man slayer has arrived.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 7, 2008 11:40:02 AM

Read this on my flight yesterday and was hoping you'd comment on it. This was my favorite:

"Modern free traders, on the other hand, embrace their ideal with a passion that makes Robespierre seem prudent. They allow no room for practicality, nuance or flexibility. They embrace unbridled free trade, even as it helps China become a superpower."

Yes, modern free traders are just like Roberspierre, except without that whole Reign of Terror thing. Nice equivocation, though.

Also, regardless of one's feelings about China, Lighthizer clearly believes that American trade policy should actively prevent China from becoming a superpower. Never mind about the benefits American consumers can take advantage of because of trade with China, and certianly ignore whatever increasing standards of living millions of poor Chinese receive through trade with us.

Posted by: Stretch | Mar 7, 2008 12:27:05 PM

@ vidyohs:

While I’d like to give you the benefit of the doubt, you insult me and my intelligence while making the very same mistakes you wrongly criticize me of making.

First:

“I find it a bit depressing to be 21 and already disillusioned about our political process. Please, someone give me something to be hopeful about.”

Let me clarify: I meant to say that I have little faith in our political system. That’s it. That’s it. There are many other areas (specifically science and economics) that I put my faith (of course, faith that is based in reason and empirically sound, not religious faith) in.

Also, that was more of a throwaway line at the end of a rant about how depressing it is that politicians have to lie and be intellectually dishonest just to get elected. I did not intend to actually ask someone to give me hope (although some of the answers in the subsequent posts were insightful).

Second:

When you make a post that especially attacked liberals, the implication is that you’re attacking the author for being a liberal. Whether or not you actually meant to do that is irrelevant. In my initial post in response to you, I did not make the assumption (thanks for telling me to look up those big words, my tiny, independent (not liberal) mind didn’t know what they meant) that you were in fact insulting the NYTimes piece author for being liberal, only that this comments section was not the appropriate forum for doing so, since the author was clearly a conservative.

Posted by: Corey | Mar 7, 2008 12:31:33 PM

Corey,
Vidyohs is a bit of a pontificating crank with whom I, nonetheless, generally agree.

Please, let's not get into who said/meant what.

As I said earlier, disillusionment is merely a negative view of enlightenment.
It's a bit like finding out the truth about Santa Claus. It's not what you learn, but that you had spent so much time believing wrongly that gives one a sense of betrayal.

'They lied to me!'

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 7, 2008 12:54:14 PM

"However, it does not follow from this fact that a third-party (so often "the forgotten man" in politics), should be obligated--forced by government thugs, and the voters who sponser them, to equalise these circumstances, which third-parties like yourself find unpalatible."
Lee Kelly

Lee,

Of all the stuff your side throws at me this is the hardest one for me to resolve or dispute.

The fact is we live in an enlightened society. No matter how much guys like you won't admit it we MUST have a social contract. Starting with ideas of using a common currency, to establishing a military and to having a patent office and roads.

Your argument above fails because you have to choose between anarchy or a social contract. Assuming you don't want anarchy then I or some one else can use your argument above against things like a treasury or a patent office. Welfare is no different except in your eyes.

If the purpose of society is to maximally benefit its members then the best way to decide how to do so is by letting its members decide. Or at least that's what we've decided via our constitution as well as general societal consent.

You come down against representative democracy in favor of what I still can not tell. I presume people like you favor Corporate Oligarchy... I'm just not sure what.

Finally, there's some truth to your claims of my interest in the poor. My concerns for them are at least partly out of self interest. The idea is that if the rest of society does better so will I. But if you claim that humans really have no capacity for empathy and everything we do is simply out of self-interest then nothing really matters does it?

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 7, 2008 1:21:16 PM

muigeo,

What is the social contract?

After you answer, then we'll ask 9 others to state what they think the social contract is, then see if there is any unanimity.

If the purpose of society is to maximally benefit its members then the best way to decide how to do so is by letting its members decide.

The question is: how do they make the decision?

Collectively, with all forced to go along with the decision, no matter how stupid or unjust, or via market action.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 7, 2008 1:44:53 PM

Here is the text of NAFTA. Could one of you classic liberals tell me how this 1,000+ page document defines "Free trade". What is the definition of free trade?

Further, could any one of you assure me that the complete text represents the best interest of the US citizens and absolutely needs no revisions as Barak might suggest.

http://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/DefaultSite/index_e.aspx?DetailID=78

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 7, 2008 1:57:59 PM

If the purpose of society is to maximally benefit its members

"If", muirduck. But you're operating under a false premise - society has no pre-specified purpose. You are certainly not qualified to define the purpose of society for me or anyone else. You seem to be pretty ill-equipped to define it for yourself, in fact. Incidentally, the only way to "maximally benefit" the "members" of a society is to let them individually decide what what benefits them and what doesn't and to have the freedom to act in their own best interest. that's the optimal "social contract".

My guess is that while you claim to have a vast interest in the poor, you actually have no interest in anything but massaging your own ego. If you truly had a deep interest in the poor, you would be volunteering to teach inner-city kids skills with which they can become more successful without your pathetic handouts. Of course, your interest in the poor ends with insisting on robbing productive members of society on behalf of the "poor" while taking a hefty chunk for yourself - just like the rest of your ilk. Theft is the socialist definition of "empathy".

You're now free descend into your usual incoherent rants about Bush, Oligarchies, Laissez-faire, and claiming that you're not a communist because you don't know what a communist is.

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 7, 2008 1:58:44 PM

"No matter how much guys like you won't admit it we MUST have a social contract."

Shall we assume God exists while we are at it? The prior sentence sounds like it might have been ripped from the Bible.

"The fact is we live in an enlightened society."

Posted by: Jay | Mar 7, 2008 2:01:21 PM

Could one of you classic liberals tell me how this 1,000+ page document defines "Free trade". What is the definition of free trade?

Yes, I'm sure someone could. But you would never in a million years understand the answer. So, why bother?

Why don't you explain one of the million questions you've been asked and which you've completely ignored?

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 7, 2008 2:04:33 PM

If the purpose of society is to maximally benefit its members then the best way to decide how to do so is by letting its members decide.

Here's something I think we can all agree on. The best way to maximize societal welfare is ABSOLUTELY to let the members of that society decide how to proceed. Individually, wherever possible.

Collective decisions obliterate the the minority's decisions, even if those decisions would be net beneficial to society and could co-exist with the majority's decisions. 49% may benefit more from and therefore prefer A, but those benefits are not realized by society because 51% imposed B on the others. Individual decisions allow each person to optimize his situation, leading to more overall benefit to society. 49% benefit more from and therefore pursue A, realizing the benefits of A, while 51% realize the benefits of B, just as they would have under a collective decision. Under the collective decision, 49% of the people are worse off than, and the other 51% in the same position as, they would have been had they simply been left alone to pursue the option most beneficial to them. That's why those of us with whom you argue daily want to maximize individual decisionmaking, which necessarily requires limiting government power, even in a pure democracy.

Posted by: Billy | Mar 7, 2008 2:11:51 PM

"Further, could any one of you assure me that the complete text represents the best interest of the US citizens and absolutely needs no revisions as Barak might suggest."

Can you assure me that Barack and Hillary are not playing to general anti-Mexican sentiment?

Posted by: The Dirty Mac | Mar 7, 2008 2:34:34 PM

Billy:

Whoever is in the current majority group loves mobocracy and the minority loves republicanism and vice/versa. It will always be thus.

Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 7, 2008 2:54:14 PM

Corey,

While it is true that I could have placed a comma in my original post to make it more clear, I still challenge your assumption that because a man (Lighthizer) with opinions expressed above worked for a conservative he must therefore be a conservative. Clearly his ideas are more liberal.

I have worked for more liberals than I'd like to remember, and I assure you I was never to share in their iedas or actions.

And, yes even social and political conservatives are guilty of non rational thinking on some minor and highly personal subjects, football, beer, BBQ, girls, etc.; however, simply to be liberal/socialist/communist/democrat/progressive you must be irrational on social and political subjects. I think the common accepted definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over in the same way and each time expecting different results.

That is liberalism/socialism/communism/democracy,progressiveism.

I don't insult your intelligence, not when you post and announce that you're a liberal, you do that.

Thank you very much.

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 7, 2008 3:07:04 PM

Only if you assume nobody takes principled positions anymore, FL, but either way, it's beside the point. Hopelessly idealistic optimist that I can be at times, I thought for a brief moment that a sliver of common ground might open the door a crack to some of the learning muirgeo claims to be here for. I may be proven wrong, but the expected value far outweighs the minimal cost of making the post.

Posted by: Billy | Mar 7, 2008 3:11:07 PM

Thank you Sam,

"Corey,
Vidyohs is a bit of a pontificating crank with whom I, nonetheless, generally agree."

If this is indeed true, or were it to be true, I would/will have to get an updated dictionary.

A pontiff always speaks with final authority, brooks no argument, and does not ask for your agreement. A pontiff's word is from God (he says). The pontiff uses no words such as, I think, I believe, my opinion is, maybe, possibly, probably, and other qualifiers.

Outside of speaking with certainty on the lack of intelligence in muirduck and frequently martinduck, everything I say is marked with the use of qualifiers.

But, that is okay about the crank, hey in any common group of society today, I am proud to be the crank or kook.

I gave up beating the dead horse long ago and moved on to practical action. I have tried to suggest to the patrons of this Cafe that there is action possible; as opposed to just simply day in and day out beating this horse of right Vs left, Thiefs Vs captialist, freedom or slavery, etc.

What has flogging the poor dead beastie got, what does it get? Muirduck is still dumb as a box of rocks, still dedicated to stealing. Pope martinduck is still convinced the Coinage Act of 1792, never cancelled or replaced, written by people infintely more intelligent and educated than he and I, is nullified by his belief that it didn't properly address the copper coin the way he would like to see it; and he is happy to beat you to death over every single word you use until you give up and go away.

Oh well, I know, however pointless, it is entertaining and can be addictive, so here take my whip and flog the beast some more.

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 7, 2008 3:34:49 PM

Muirduck, NAFTA is not a free-trade agreement. No agreement is needed for free trade -- one simply trades freely. If your trade partners refuse to trade freely, they hurt themselves first and hardest.

No, NAFTA is a free-er trade pact, necessary only to mollify idiots like you.

Posted by: Russ Nelson | Mar 7, 2008 3:42:30 PM

Billy,

I like your approach, but I think it is way optimistic to assume that the political types have any real interest in maximizing the benefits to society. Their objective is to collect rents. All the talk of social benefit is just part of the con.

Posted by: Randy | Mar 7, 2008 4:10:06 PM

"If", muirduck. But you're operating under a false premise - society has no pre-specified purpose. You are certainly not qualified to define the purpose of society for me or anyone else. You seem to be pretty ill-equipped to define it for yourself, in fact.

Posted by: Methinks

Oh OK so there is no constitution or laws or at least you claim yourself exempt from them? We the people....DUDE. That's the clubs motto. Don't like it complain like the whiny bitch you are or get the f out.
You ain't exempt from the rules of the country club or the country to which you are joined. And YOU don't get to make the rules neither do I. You don't get to pick and choose the ones you'll observe and neither do I.

I'm sure in your own little mind you are a big ruff rugged self made individual. But here in the real world and specifically in this country you are an interdependent individual bound by the rules and laws of our social contract. That you kick and scream and tantrum and choose not to recognize these facts is no problem of mine. In fact, I think it's kinda funny except that there are real oligarchs who do make the rules outside of the conventions agreed upon. But I don't expect you are one of them. Likely just one of their cult followers tooling for them while having a poor grasp of histories condemnation of your buffoonery.

Oh yeah LA DI DA DI DA I want to live in Liberaltopia where everyone just does their own thing and everything just works out fine LA DI DA DI DA!!

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 7, 2008 4:11:59 PM

Vidyohs, I did qualify pontificating crank by prefacing with "a bit of a".

muirgeo, your grasp of matters is truly astounding.

Counterpoint:

Oh yeah LA DI DA DI DA I want to live in democratopia where 'the people' can pretend they are in power and everything just works out fine LA DI DA DI DA!!

Tell us how that's working out Mr. straw man slayer.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 7, 2008 4:22:11 PM

It's not profound, its' idiotic. Tell that to the newborn ghetto baby. Yeah, what a stupid mistake on his part. What the hell was he thinking.

What was the mom thinking? Maybe our wretched public school's should have given her the "don't be one" lesson. The first step to not being one, is to not have babies you cannot afford or provide for.

Posted by: mcwop | Mar 7, 2008 4:22:12 PM

Muirgeo,

Your portfolio is down 10%? From what?

I question your ability to use numbers because you think soon the population density will be 1 person per square meter. You also misidentified Panama on a list. So, whatever is smaller than a grain - that is how much salt I think your posts that involve data are worth.

Posted by: Python | Mar 7, 2008 4:53:29 PM

Although Muirduck is no font of wisdom he/it is a font of ebonics. Peace out, BEYOOOOTCHES!

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 7, 2008 5:00:36 PM

Oh yeah LA DI DA DI DA I want to live in Liberaltopia where everyone just does their own thing and everything just works out fine LA DI DA DI DA!!

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 7, 2008 4:11:59 PM

That just about sums it up.

Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 7, 2008 5:36:35 PM

"We the People..."

Yes, and what follows that? A Constitution that limits the level of control some people can have over others.

Thanks for drawing attention to the strength of our argument.

Posted by: Python | Mar 7, 2008 6:08:46 PM

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/03/05/liberty_versus_socialism

A colleague of Don and Russ, Dr Williams has a contribution to our discussion.

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 7, 2008 6:24:00 PM

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/03/05/liberty_versus_socialism

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 7, 2008 6:25:58 PM

Ok I give up.

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 7, 2008 6:26:42 PM

vidyohs link. Yeah some rugged individualist you are.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 7, 2008 6:32:10 PM

Regarding his link. Haven't had time to read it yet but the first article is "Liberty vs Socialism". It should have a subtitle;

"because there is nothing in between...at least not for rigid concrete dogmatic egocentric type of thinkers"

Really why not just title it Anarchy versus Socialism. Gimme a break!

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 7, 2008 6:37:11 PM

Muirgeo,

Why do you think that libertarians think they are "rugged individualists" or "self made men"? Without referencing Ayn Rand can you answer my question. Would a self made man need trade at all?

Imagine if there were 1 Ayn Rand for every square meter. That would be trillions of Ayn Rands. Scary to think about.

Posted by: Python | Mar 7, 2008 7:19:38 PM

Yeah some rugged individualist you are.

Before you go clubbing vidyohs for not posting a hyperlink, you should be reminded that "rugged individualist" is your inane concoction, not his, you rugged communist you!

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 7, 2008 7:20:14 PM

"Well, I guess I'll vote for Obama. After all, according to Brian, he is only lying about his position on trade. Brian knows Obama will be good inspite of what Obama says his position is LOL!"
-JPM

This statement seems a bit reductio ad absurdum to me where as I never told anyone to vote for any particular candidate, and I don't claim to know what Obama is thinking. I will continue to state the obvious phenomenon that presidential candidates swerve closer to the polar ideals of their party and a level of populism is to be expected, it would be unreasonable to yield to every issue a candidate appears to be supporting. Judgment should be cast on the relative decision making history of the candidate. Obama and Hillary strike me as pragmatic enough to not make rash decisions on NAFTA, they will just institute programs to support those who feel disenfranchised by NAFTA or free trade in general.

Posted by: Brian-NJ | Mar 7, 2008 7:26:27 PM

Seriously Muirgeo, take a break. You're just stressing yourself out and making less sense with every attempt. I suggest you go practice on a blog where you feel more at home, then come back in a few months if you come up with something new.

Posted by: Randy | Mar 7, 2008 7:41:00 PM

I really enjoyed Don’s 2 (fruitless, but dead-on as usual) letters to the paper run by Jayson Blair.

But that’s not important here.

Muirgeo claims his “portfolio” is down 10%. This statement, on it's face, is unclear.

1) This could mean muirgeo dropped a folder or briefcase, approximately 10% of the height of its original location.

2) This could also mean muirgeo invests and dropped a folder. That presumes muirgeo has money, which is theoretically possible, but unlikely.

3) This could also mean muirgeo is a head of a British government ministry, and his power has diminished 10%.

4) This could also mean muirgeo has money, and he watches Jim Cramer, invests according to his “advice,” and underperforms all major market indices. Again, this presumes muirgeo has money, which is unlikely, especially if he watches Jim Cramer.

5) this could also mean muirgeo actually takes equity stakes in particular companies and other investment vehicles, and muirgeo's choices have not been exactly "smart," particularly of late, given current market conditions. Again, this presumes the highly unlikely condition that muirgeo has money.

My personal guess is #3.

Methinks was on an apparently caffeine-induced roll. Note to self: do not piss off (or front-run) Methinks.

Impressive performance.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 7, 2008 8:54:54 PM

Regarding his link. Haven't had time to read it yet but the first article is "Liberty vs Socialism". It should have a subtitle;

"because there is nothing in between...at least not for rigid concrete dogmatic egocentric type of thinkers"

Really why not just title it Anarchy versus Socialism. Gimme a break!

Because socialism is a slippery slope. It creates a constituency of entitlement, and, at the same time, causes economic problems that lead the economically superficial collectivist crying for more socialism.

The in between is the slippery slope. My advice: stay off it.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 7, 2008 9:02:17 PM

"and Hillary strike me as pragmatic enough to not make rash decisions on NAFTA"

Based on what?! Are you saying or only admitting, based on the original article posted for discussion here, that Obama and Hillary Obama are disguising who they really are and what they stand for by lying about their position of NAFTA and free trade? Brian you are the one that said you are a "liberal" but you never defined it. Are you blindly for bigger government and higher taxes? Do you always think govenment solves problems? Do you think we need more government now? (definition of insanity anyone?) We all have a "definition" of liberal and it is not a good one. You basically bragged about being stupid and dishonest, then appear to point out that Obama and Hillary are exactly that. Is that not some sort of tacit endorcement?

Vidyohs you are good enough to do talk radio!

Posted by: jpm | Mar 7, 2008 9:24:50 PM

Billary endorsed NAFTA.

NAFTA is good.

Cross-border trade agreements need to adhere to (at times) stringent and differing standards, but as long as the trade corridor is opened, it will function.

Circumvention of trade (and other) laws of participating nations undermines the effectiveness and purpose of all nations and economies; sovereign entities can remain so and still practice “free trade.”

Non-enforcement (especially at the federal level) of extant law can be detrimental to the free trade proposition.

Prosperity (like ours) has and will continue to dictate free trade, which is not uncompatible with enforcement of national laws.

Dissertation to follow……

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 7, 2008 9:44:18 PM

Because socialism is a slippery slope. It creates a constituency of entitlement, ....

Posted by: Sam Grove

You mean like people who drive the public roads, drink clear water and breath clean air, crap in city sewage pipes and then complain they shouldn't have to pay for it? Are those the slippery slope entitled types you're talking about.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 7, 2008 9:49:40 PM

No, idiot, he’s talking about the usurpation of that “public good” catch-all to include midnight basketball, mandatory state-run preschool, and courses for state employees like “techniques of walking.”

[actual course for AZ state gov’t employees]

Moron.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 7, 2008 9:54:36 PM

Here is the text of NAFTA. Could one of you classic liberals tell me how this 1,000+ page document defines "Free trade". What is the definition of free trade?

Further, could any one of you assure me that the complete text represents the best interest of the US citizens and absolutely needs no revisions as Barak might suggest. ~ muirgeo

muirgeo,

There is no such thing as free trade and never will be. There will always be some things regarding trade that a representative government or dictatorship will try and manage about the goods or services that are imported or that are exported from the country that those government officials govern.

The 1000 plus pages of the NAFTA document is an example of how government manages the flow of these goods and services -- largely because of people, like yourself, who have a healthy disdain for the liberty of others to engage in commerce and because you also hold sway in voting for the government officials. But, know this: that document, as flawed as it is/was, does reduce the barriers to trade as they existed prior to its indtroduction.

If I am wrong regarding your distdain for economic liberty then please correct me. It would be great if you were to tell us the you instead favor completely free trade, absent 1000 page agreements...and that you further respect the economic choices other people make, free from government prohibitions, obstacles, barriers, taxes, fees, and with a minimal amount of qualifiers. Can you do that? Will you do that? Do you even think that economic liberty even "represents the best interest of the US citizens?" I already suspect the answer that Barak Obama might give.

Posted by: lowcountryjoe | Mar 7, 2008 9:56:35 PM

Corey:
On a broader note- I think it's narrow minded to think that good economic policy is an inherently 'liberal' or 'conservative' thing.

Free trade an inherently liberal - in the sense of favoring liberty - thing.

Which is why, in the US, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans can be relied on to support it. And why, when it IS supported, it is supported primarily for its benefit to exporters (who can, next year, be described as "greedy capitalists") and their employees ("special interests", "lackeys of the greedy capitalists"), where the greater benefit is to importers and everyone who uses the goods they import (i.e. everyone).

Posted by: Warrl | Mar 7, 2008 10:14:13 PM

You mean like people who drive the public roads, drink clear water and breath clean air, crap in city sewage pipes and then complain they shouldn't have to pay for it? Are those the slippery slope entitled types you're talking about.

And bills that make it illegal for restaurants to serve obese people? You still do not get it. I am glad to pay for roads via a gas tax, because I can choose not to drive, which means I pay less for it. I still pay for it through the costs of goods transported, but at least there is some level of choice. Sewers are cheap, our bloated military is not. Muirgeo, you do realize that $600 billion on the military is government? It's such a fine line between stupid government, and clever government. Mostly we get stupid.

Posted by: mcwop | Mar 7, 2008 10:31:21 PM

muirduck mistakes...I probably don't have to go any farther than that....but I will.

muirduck mistakes,.....but why bother because that really does say it all.

Whatever the subject, topic, point, muirduck mistakes and trumpets that misunderstanding to the world.

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 7, 2008 10:41:09 PM

George muirduck Balella,

Your picture certainly tells me that if you aren't the ugliest lesbo since Janet Reno then you are indeed actually a man, supposedly with balls, and not a little 14 year old girl.

Since I am not familiar with the L.A. area I have no idea if you have ever actually seen a ghetto child, much less laid healing hands on one. (BTW, I would take it easy on that 'ghetto' word, black folks don't like it). For all the world knows you are in a high rent district and treat only the children of filthy rich left coast liberals. But, that you say you "care" is enough to get you through your next cocktail party.

In other words, exploring your website and related sites I can pontificate (thank you Sam) that you are as phony as they come. All the answers to shoot down your devout socialism are staring you in the face, through your training, practice, and the colleagues you associate with; and, you are too stupid to see the answers, much less understand them.

To paraphrase an old wise saying, "None are so blind as those who pronounce themselves socialist." (nor as stupid).

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 7, 2008 10:55:44 PM

Regarding his link. Haven't had time to read it yet but the first article is "Liberty vs Socialism". It should have a subtitle;
"because there is nothing in between...at least not for rigid concrete dogmatic egocentric type of thinkers"
Really why not just title it Anarchy versus Socialism. Gimme a break!
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 7, 2008 6:37:11 PM

Sam says I am dogmatic, and I have to agree that on some subjects I am indeed. This is one of them.

George muirduck Balella, there is nothing in between liberty and socialism, for once you are right, even though you hate to be about this. I have never ever seen or read of a compromise that settled anything, all they have ever bought is a temporary cessation of hostilities, and my dogmatic approach tells me that in any compromise there is a right and a wrong; The right compromises for peace, and the wrong compromises to regroup for a fresh attack.

In a compromise between good (liberty) and evil (socialism) there is nothing that socialism (evil) can give up that will benefit liberty, and anything liberty (good) gives up is a gain for socialism (evil). My dogmatic attitude on this subject tells me it is infinitely stupid for good (liberty) to compromise with evil (socialism).

Am I dogmatic about never retreating or compromising with socialism, betchur' ass I am!

Liberty Vs Socialism, nothing in between except dead bodies and I don't intend for mine to be one of them.

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 7, 2008 11:11:55 PM

In a battle of wits…..

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 7, 2008 11:12:07 PM

Let me leave you good folks with this, if you haven't seen it.

Electile Dysfunction: The inability to become aroused over any candidate in any given race.

Perhaps the remedy to overcome that is Viaggun.

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 7, 2008 11:14:49 PM

Methinks & I will gladly sniper cover your & my father-in-law (ccw, regularly) ‘s asses.

Cheers.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 7, 2008 11:29:43 PM

You're a good man, M.E. glad you and I are on the same side.

It's past my bedtime, us O.Fs. need lots of sleep.

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 7, 2008 11:37:00 PM

It is pretty damned scary what people can find out about you through the internet.

I became a doctor mostly because I am a positive-thinking person. ~ muirgeo as a pediatrician.

So what about positive thinking as a particpant on a blog? And what about giving $270 to that pessimitic, ambulance chasing weasel, John Edwards -- the pandering politician who is always telling us how miserable life in America has become? Who are you freeking kidding here, muir"duck the questions"geo?

Posted by: lowcountryjoe | Mar 7, 2008 11:52:55 PM

Sam says I am dogmatic

Did I actually say that somewhere?

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 7, 2008 11:59:11 PM

Lowcountry, let’s not get this too personal.

That’s the beauty of this medium.

Muirgeo’s opinions are his own, misguided and misinformed as they are. He is free to post here as much as he wishes, and we’re free to insult him as much as we like as long as he does.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 8, 2008 12:05:49 AM

You mean like people who drive the public roads, drink clear water and breath clean air, crap in city sewage pipes and then complain they shouldn't have to pay for it?

Fairly good examples, but your premise is that only collective agency can provide those.

In the case of pollution, it was the government, in fact, that permitted pollution in the first place when government courts threw out the first lawsuits against polluters for causing damage to private property. Thus the unowned commons became a dumping ground.

Of course, then are the government built highways that put a lot of private mass transit out of business and brings no end of complaints from the left about all those automobiles.

Ah crap, well, it's hard to say what might have arisen in the market sans government taking care of that, but you have to expect that since cities are likely the birthplace of government.

OK muirgeo, lets have the local government continue taking care of shit, at least we actually pay bills for it and know how much it costs. But I think we can might take issue with municipal governments contracting for monopoly garbage service.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 8, 2008 12:30:23 AM

lease mind your goddamn language, assholes. This is a family website.

The goddamn economic concept you’re attempting to explain here is public vs. private.

It’s actually quite simple (Occam’s razor)

Modern liberals always confuse public and private.

Too much previously private stuff has now become public domain, and taxed/regulated/seized outright:

http://goldwaterinstitute.org/Common/Files/Multimedia/532.pdf

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 8, 2008 12:50:47 AM

Crap.

Here

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 8, 2008 12:54:21 AM

NAFTA? The Free Market? WTF?

NAFTA is using the dictionary defintion of 'free trade' - countries trading with one another without tariffs, quotas, etc., (or near enough so) not laissez-faire Capitalism as such.

The Social Contract?

Well even if muirgeo subscribes to a Liberal version of Club U.S.A., I'll subscribe to Thomas Hobbes version as it encompasses social contracts without left-wingers. But interestingly it has been pointed out (not just muirgeo), that, yes Minarcho-Libbers must have some sort of 'social contract' if they believe in some sort of guvmint. At least anarcho-Libbers are the most consistent ones on this issue.

"liberal/socialist/communist/democrat/progressive"

Well I hope yous don't mind if I lump a many philosophies together as though they were one even if yous can see a world between, say, Minarcho-Libertarianism, Anarcho-Libertarianism, Paleo-Conservativism, Neo-Conservatism, etc. Still I yawn when I hear the 'Socialism' as an antonym to Libertarianism.

On the other hand who are these guys?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

Posted by: Gil | Mar 8, 2008 2:01:46 AM

Sam:

You have to understand with muirduck, everything government is good and dandy and needs no defending. Whereas the free market is evil by default.

Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 8, 2008 3:19:46 AM

Sam,

:-) It's in the definition of pontificate.

Don't take it wrong, no hard feelings, I have a thick skin and like honest discussion. It is good for everyone to have a mirror held up for them to see themselves as others may see them, so thnak you for that.

And, as my last few brief posts indicate, yes I can be dogmatic on certain core issues. I am particularly (damn corey there goes that word again) dogmatic on things like theft and how to treat a thief and his helpers.

There are some things from which one never retreats, and to some people that belief equals dogma. I am not pointing the finger at you here, Sam.

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 8, 2008 8:51:38 AM

Pope martinduck is still convinced the Coinage Act of 1792, never cancelled or replaced, written by people infintely more intelligent and educated than he and I, is nullified by his belief that it didn't properly address the copper coin the way he would like to see it

The Act authorizes a mint to produce copper coins of unspecified purity unrelated to any storage of gold or silver, because despite your assertion, the Act does not simply define "money" as gold and silver. Like similar declarations of monetary policy, the Act only fixes the price of gold and silver. There was never a time in the U.S., or a time in human history, when all money was gold or "backed by" gold.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Mar 8, 2008 10:08:31 AM

"Thus the unowned commons became a dumping ground."

Actually isn't the Guvmint following Libertarian rules? A polluter isn't hurting anyone by dumping on unowned land? That the Guvmint would have to be listening to goshdarn hippies to be interfering with business that doesn't interfere with private property rights? And so what if dumping is in demand that private owners allow for dumping on their land because it's quite profitable? I'm not sure how the Guvmint interfered with the Market on that one.

Posted by: Gil | Mar 8, 2008 10:14:43 AM

Hey! Wait a tick!

"Of course, then are the government built highways that put a lot of private mass transit out of business and brings no end of complaints from the left about all those automobiles." - Sam Grove

From the blog of 'My Physcian Can't Bandage My Cut . . .' (24 Feb.)

=====

"Well I s'pose the only way to solve roads and bridges problems is privatise the infrastructure and disband the Guvmint. But Austrian types have wondered if the Guvmint wasn't involved in infrastructure (assuming there is such as thing) in the first place would the car have been the primary mode of transport? Or, on the other hand, was car travel heavily subsidised by the Guvmint? Some suggested that rail and public transport would have probably emerged instead of cars and, therefore, little in the way of required roads, highway and bridges . . ." - Me

-----

"Oh, sure. The fact that people through their elected representatives have continued for a century to demand better roads - and that the people through their dollars have continued for a century to demand better personal transport - means nothing. It's the fact that government built highways that's responsible for the widespread use of automobiles. Never mind that rail mass transit didn't stop the use of horses and buggies in all but a few very large cities. Never mind that public funding for mass transit in the first four decades of the 20th century did nothing to slow the acquisition of personal vehicles. Never mind that consumers overwhelmingly desire the freedom from congestion in suburbs, and that the sprawl of suburbs makes rail transit infeasible.

It wasn't the public financing for highways that induced consumers to purchase personal vehicles. That's completely backwards. It was the demand for personal vehicle transport - and the affordable supply of such transport by entrepreneurs - that induced politicians to build roads and highways." - John Dewey

-----

"Well, of course, who knows? But still, when people bought cars, demanded public bitumen roads and the government provided it, then there could have been a snowballing effect whereby the car take-up was faster then it perhaps would have been if bitumen roads were provided by private road-builders? It might be argued that car-owners who demanded the new fancy type of road were stealing from those who were quite comfortable with their horses and buggies weren't going to switch until a decade or two later. It's a similar argument to those who want the government to lay down the infrastructure that would allow for very-high-speed Internet. It could be said that those who want the very-high-speed Internet are stealing from those who have little to no need for newer infrastructure and if the demand was really that high then private operators could do the necessary work anyway.

But it's all history and speculation, duh!

BTW The 'public transport' I referred should have been better worded as 'private mass transit' as I meant private operators of, say, buses, taxi cabs, etc. . ." - Me again!

-----

"Why would those "who were quite comfortable with their horses and buggies" switch to cars at all? Once Henry Ford made personal vehicles affordable, every family - other than the misguided Amish - wanted one. Furthermore, mass transit was available in almost every city at the same time that automobile usage was exploding.

Gil, personal automobiles represent freedom and convenience. History clearly shows that's what is important to consumers. That's why mass transit - despite heavy subsidies today - continues to fail miserably.

And, duh!, it's not speculation, Gil. One only has to look at the empty seats on buses and trains traveling down HOV lanes and rails - and at the congested adjacent freeways - to see that freedom and convenience win out over collectivist planning every time consumers have the choice." - John Dewey again!

=====

Hmmm, a bit suss there? Oh well, it seems personal individual was the way of future then apparently.

Posted by: Gil | Mar 8, 2008 10:25:55 AM

Please, all, refrain from outing names as it is not cool. Thank you. Its not personal it is a comments section of a blog.

Posted by: mcwop | Mar 8, 2008 10:46:24 AM

Here is the text of NAFTA. Could one of you classic liberals tell me how this 1,000+ page document defines "Free trade". What is the definition of free trade?

NAFTA "frees" trade, because the armed men say it does, and you'd better say so too, if you know what's good for you.

Meanwhile, monopolies are only "monopolies" if statesmen choose not to call them "intellectual property" or some other exempt category of entitlement, and "business persons" permitted to cross borders are not persons busying themselves productively, as you might naively imagine. They're largely duly authorized persons entitled to negotiate entitlements that statesmen choose not to call "monopolies", regardless of how monopolistic an entitlement might seem to people who are not statesmen.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Mar 8, 2008 10:54:57 AM

I'm not sure how the Guvmint interfered with the Market on that one.

In the case I was referring to, an orchardist was suffering loss due to damages to his orchard from steam engine effluvium, when he sued the railroad in court, the judge ruled that we couldn't allow private property rights to impede progress.

The case of waterways is illustrated by comparison to Ireland where streams are privately owned where they pass through private property. No one downstream permits pollution from upstream.

Martin, do I detect a slightly cynical tone?

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 8, 2008 11:36:40 AM

Thought for the day.

The masses, the hosts of common men, do not conceive any ideas, sound or unsound. They only choose between the ideologies developed by the intellectual leaders of mankind. But their choice is final and determines the course of events. If they prefer bad doctrines, nothing can prevent disaster.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 8, 2008 11:55:23 AM

BTW, that's from Ludwig von Mises

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 8, 2008 11:56:33 AM

Oh, I see! "intellectual property" is an "entitlement"

Government does exist to protect property, but murduck sits here and reverses the definition to defend his commie state view, as usual.

Posted by: jpm | Mar 8, 2008 12:10:36 PM

Owning a house is a "Monopolistic entitlement" because it excludes the public from the occupied space to camp. Selfish recipients of state benefits, those homeowners!

Posted by: jpm | Mar 8, 2008 12:16:01 PM

Oh, I see! "intellectual property" is an "entitlement"

Of course, it is. All property rights are entitlements. That's why we say "title to property".

Patents specifically are highly centralized, global, monopolistic rights over broad categories of production everywhere, as opposed to a local proprietary right like the right to exclusive use of a small parcel of land.

The rights are "centralized", because the U.S. Patent Office issues them (less and less subject to judicial review).

The rights are "global", because they apply across the U.S. and now even across the globe.

The rights are "monopolistic", because they exclude competition in the production of specified goods and services.

Precisely, which of these assertions, if any, do you dispute?

Government does exist to protect property, but murduck sits here and reverses the definition to defend his commie state view, as usual.

Somehow, if I acknowledge the indisputable fact that a U.S. patent is an entitlement granted by the U.S. Patent Office and not a "natural right" somehow magically handed down by God on stone tablets to jpm and his gnostic comrades, I'm a "commie" proposing a "state view".

In reality, I'm a skeptic of the state's view, which jpm confuses with something outside the state.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Mar 8, 2008 12:28:40 PM

Owning a house is a "Monopolistic entitlement" because it excludes the public from the occupied space to camp.

Yes, it is.

Selfish recipients of state benefits, those homeowners!

They're indisputably recipients of state benefits, unless they refuse any enforcement of their ownership by statesmen, and I've never met the homeowner who does.

Again, for the record and to avoid the inevitable, simplistic generalizations, I'm not an anarchist, so I don't oppose statutory entitlements generally. I oppose some entitlements and support others. I'm most skeptical of the most centralized and most global entitlements.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Mar 8, 2008 12:33:35 PM

Martin, do I detect a slightly cynical tone?

Cynicism? In this forum?

Posted by: Martin Brock | Mar 8, 2008 12:39:00 PM

"I oppose some entitlements and support others"

Yeah got it! You support the individual advancement only if it involves the reduction of the fruits of other's productive efforts without a corresponding effort from the recepient.

"Somehow, if I acknowledge the indisputable fact that a U.S. patent is an entitlement granted by the U.S. Patent Office and not a "natural right" somehow magically handed down by God on stone tablets to jpm and his gnostic comrades, I'm a "commie" proposing a "state view"."

Murduck, you in the first breath you define "property" an entitlement and in the same paragraph slam freer trade as as an "entitlement", as though free trade is some sort of "welfare" for the productive. You have confused just about every definition of terms you use in your sentences to implicitly say action by the government to make trade less restrictive is "entitlement"

Murduck, it is hilarious the way you redefine everything!

Posted by: jpm | Mar 8, 2008 12:51:03 PM

Yeah got it! You support the individual advancement only if it involves the reduction of the fruits of other's productive efforts without a corresponding effort from the recepient.

I never write these words anywhere. Your straw man's opinion is your opinion attributed to me.

Murduck, you in the first breath you define "property" an entitlement and in the same paragraph slam freer trade as as an "entitlement", as though free trade is some sort of "welfare" for the productive.

I never slam free trade anywhere. I never call free trade any sort of "welfare" for anyone. Your words are your words. Mine are on the record.

You have confused just about every definition of terms you use in your sentences to implicitly say action by the government to make trade less restrictive is "entitlement"

No. My use of "title to property" is completely standard, and I nowhere ever say that action by the government to make trade less restrictive is "entitlement". You're the one throwing around terms loosely. You know little about NAFTA except that statesmen put the word "free" in the title.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Mar 8, 2008 1:53:29 PM

Look guys, you just need to shift a bit to see how Martin looks at things. Y'all talkin' past each other most of the time.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 8, 2008 2:36:22 PM

Thanks, Sam. It's just par for the course in forum-world.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Mar 8, 2008 2:45:14 PM

Please, all, refrain from outing names as it is not cool. Thank you. Its not personal it is a comments section of a blog.

Posted by: mcwop | Mar 8, 2008 10:46:24 AM

mcwop,

Hey thanks for that support. I had this happen on another blog. It was a very conservative blog and yes they hated me there as well in large numbers but when 1 or 2 or 3 lowlifes snooped into my private information and released it without consent the whole community rose up against THEM and scolded them severely in MY defense.

If I wanted that information out their I'd put it out there. My politics need to remain confidential with my patients as it's completely irrelevant to how I care for their kids. The anonymity of the blogosphere is what stimulates the good debate. And I personally can't imagine putting peoples personal information out there with out their consent.

I'll be honest if some one wants me to leave the blog go ahead and keep putting out my personal information. I will leave but I'll have the satisfaction of knowing the decent people on the opposite side of this debate will understand just what a low life you are.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 8, 2008 3:24:08 PM

Maybe a problem here is that free trade can have two meanings: . 1. Laissez-faire markets. . 2. International trade where there are little to no tariffs in the way.

I don't understand how these are two different things. International trade is just laissez-faire across political boundaries. Political boundaries that become economic boundaries mean you don't have true laissez faire markets.

Pardon me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be positing a fundamental difference between trade between Michigan-Ohio, and Michigan-Ontario, which I would reject as a false difference (economically that is--the fact that there's a real difference politically is exactly why politics is the wrong way to deal with trade).

Posted by: James Hanley | Mar 8, 2008 4:02:56 PM

I'll be honest if some one wants me to leave the blog go ahead and keep putting out my personal information.

I wouldn't reveal your personal information without your consent, but I don't think you have anything to fear by speaking openly either. I always use my real name in forums. If someone doesn't want to associate with me as a consequence, that's his business.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Mar 8, 2008 4:49:51 PM

If I wanted that information out their I'd put it out there.

From very early on you had stated that you were a pediatrician; so that was no surprise since most of us assume that particpant here are honest until proven otherwise. So, how in the world was you real name found out if you did not want it to be found out? What did you reveal that led to that?

My politics need to remain confidential with my patients as it's completely irrelevant to how I care for their kids.

I agree with this; it is irrelevant in your practice. However, if you were a Psychologist, it would be relevent. Same thing if you were a a manager of other people's funds. But in any case, no one here should use any information against you in order to cause harm to the way you earn your living...that's just juvenille and unbecoming. But do not expect to be givin a free pass for the contradictory statement that you make here and other places; if opinions are loony then they're loony and you should be called out for it in this forum.

The anonymity of the blogosphere is what stimulates the good debate.

Not true. Having rational opinions and using interegity while debating are what stimulate good debate. Anonymity is what is irrelevant. Anyone who gets e-mailed letters to the editor from Don Boudreaux's e-mail distribution list knows where he works and even knows his cell phone numer. Lesson here: hidding one's identity has nothing to do with the quality of the debate...how about being proud of your opinions, who you are and what you stand for. Although, personally, if I gave money to John Edwards -- who clearly needs it, right -- I'd what to keep it under wraps myself. Incidently, I saw a Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker while driving through the town I live in, Roswell GA. today. And my first and last name are in my e-mail address as I have nothing to hide.

I'll be honest if some one wants me to leave the blog go ahead and keep putting out my personal information.

I'll be honest, too. You're being thin skinned here and you may have caused at least some of this to happen by revealing too much that you did not want to reveal. But, do you really think that any so-called "low lifes" here are going to try and cause you harm? Seriously!? If you really think so litle of some of us then why in the world would you want to frequent this blog and get involved in discussions? And why would you have opened yourself up to indentity revelation if this were the case?

Posted by: lowcountryjoe | Mar 8, 2008 6:41:45 PM

Guys,

We knew with 100% conviction that Muirgeo was an ignoramus and troll without having to delve into his personal life. If he doesn't want his real name known we should respect his decision.

However, if he didn't want the world to know the level of his intellectual dishonesty or inability to follow simple arguments he shouldn't have posted anywhere to begin with. It was only a matter of time before his trollodytism lead somebody to step it up.

Posted by: Python | Mar 8, 2008 6:56:30 PM

Ahhhhhh God! I feel so dogmatic!

Muirduck, you sanctimonious thumbsucker.

What is the personal information on you that has been put out on this blog that you yourself did not provide, other than your actual name; which I might add just for clarity came from a gentleman who seemed to know you well from past experiences. As a matter of fact he seemed to be close enough to you to know your name and connect it to your blogging name of muirgeo. In further revelation he seemed to detest you and your sanctimonious bullshit. As a matter of fact he wrote as if he were a colleague of yours that knew you outside of blogging and as such would be more intimately knowledgeable of your screwed up brain than we are.

You're dealing with the world of Google and have been for years. It is further evidence of your ignorance that you think you can splatter yourself all over good people and not be revealed sooner or later.

Now what has been revealed by you? That you live and work in California. That you are a peditrician. That you are well into middle age. That you have no mental connection to the real world you live in, and exist in that fantastical world of magic wands and poof and say it and it shall be so, in other words, George, you are as stupid as the day is long and you prove it by posting at random times during the day with the same repetitive stupidity.

As for me, I made it clear countless times that my military speciality was communications intelligence. It is not something I turn off. When the clues keep coming it is easy to put them together. As for naming you, you had already been named, and the gentleman who named you laughed at you and your ideas. In addition you put up your own website and exposed yourself to the world. BTW in that website you skirt around your lefty leanings, so that is no surprise to your computer literate patients, is it now.

muirduck, when you (figuratively) gird your loins, strap on your shield and take up your sword and step into the controversial combat of blogging opinions be prepared to do battle without sucking your thumb and whining. Like I have told you countless times, muirchihuahua, if you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the freaking porch.

Now that I have had my fun, to the serious point.

<