Cafe Hayek: We Should Expect No More

« What's the Buzz? | Main | Celebrate Commerce» Don Boudreaux

March 02, 2008

We Should Expect No More

Don Boudreaux

I sent this letter today to the Washington Post:

Each campaign season I catalog the countless instances of politicians being held to ethical standards comparable to those to which people hold their household pets. Case in point: the usually wise Sebastian Mallaby - exposing Sen. Clinton's and Sen. Obama's deceits about NAFTA - sighs that "Quite a lot of trade populism can be forgiven, even if it is intellectually dishonest. Like it or not, trade liberalization has stalled, so mild populism makes no practical difference" ("Democrats, Off Course On Trade," March 2).

In other words, aspirants to what is typically called the highest office in the land are forgiven when they intentionally deceive voters as long as these deceptions make "no practical difference." I don't much care if my dog deceives me under such circumstances, but I surely teach my son that such dishonesty and lack of integrity is intolerable in himself and in other human beings.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

(My apologies to dogs, cats, hamsters, and goldfish everywhere.)

Posted by Don Boudreaux in Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834518ccc69e200e550a5972b8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference We Should Expect No More:

Comments

Why can trade populism be forgiven?

Because it works with voters.

Candidates aren't there to educate and lead, they are there to get elected.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 2, 2008 11:19:44 AM

Thank you for beaning the voice of reason..and...stay on there case.

Posted by: Dan Murray | Mar 2, 2008 11:34:20 AM

Unfortunately most people just don't seem to be interested in the truth. But thanks for trying.

Posted by: Dan Murray | Mar 2, 2008 11:36:06 AM

I have a question for our esteemed economists.

We are, of course, familiar with historical time lines.

Is there such a time line for economic growth as related to historical events such as enactment of government policies, laws, tariffs, trade agreements, and other economic, uh, manipulations?

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 2, 2008 11:50:56 AM

I don't think their are any absolutes on trade policy and what is in the best interest of the American public. I think the simple claim that free trade is good is itself decietful. What does one mean by free trade and how does that relate to the thousands of pages of legal documents defining our current trade policy?

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 2, 2008 1:37:29 PM

What does one mean by free trade and how does that relate to the thousands of pages of legal documents defining our current trade policy?

The only relation between free trade and manage trade is that there is trade under both which is better than to prohibit trade.

Free trade is better than managed trade.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 2, 2008 2:03:51 PM

I read the article a little better and at least he does offer a solution that I and democratic leaders could agree to: >>" Manufacturing employment has fallen not because of trade but because of technological progress, and there's no mystery about the policies needed to assist losers: wage insurance, a more progressive tax structure and better access to health care."

Went to a lecture by a Nationally renowned Medical Economist from Princeton yesterday for my groups annual meeting. His name was Uwe Reinhardt and he made a great point that the Health Care industry will be one of the biggest growth sectors of our economy over the next half century as baby boomers age. Natioanl Health insurance (and it can still be done competitivly) will fuel that growth and the jobs and wages to go with it along with the benifits of having a fully insured more healthy and more productive population.

The downside inevibilites of even a good trade policy can be lessoned by retraining people from manufactoring jobs to good paying jobs in the health care sector where a lot of work needs to be done.

Our country is plenty wealthy enough to pay for the system he said ~ $110 billion per year in addition to what we already spend. He basically said taking the money that goes to the war and into subsidizing people who make subprime loans and other subsidized useless financial products could easily make the difference.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 2, 2008 2:39:49 PM

$110 billion per year in addition to what we already spend

The cost ALWAYS exceeds the estimates.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 2, 2008 2:58:34 PM

If I'm having a political discussion with someone who shares virtually none of my political views, I know we can always share a laugh about how untrustworthy politicians are in general. This cynicism runs very deep. Not Europe deep. Not anything like Russia deep. But I think most people have given up on honesty in the political realm.

If anything, the cynicism seems higher on the leftist side. I think it's because liberals have significantly higher expectations in terms of the change they want to see (e.g., socialism), and much greater barriers to achieving their visions (i.e., the self-interest of those they want to pay for their socialism).

Posted by: M. Hodak | Mar 2, 2008 3:18:02 PM

muirgeo, you'd have a lot more credibility on health care if you recognized my fundamental right to conduct my business with whomever I want. You're just a garden variety control freak with a penchant for using the state to exert control. For your worldview to be complete, you need to explain how you will penalize those who do not comply. Will it be jail time for a widget maker who lowers his costs and increases profits for his investors by having Elbonians do mindless work that Ohioans feel entitled to? How about the 20 something who purchases a high deductible health insurance plan because he's healthy and doesn't feel like subsidizing old sick people? Shall we garnish his wages? Or maybe we should use waterboarding to convince him. Either way, sans punishment, your statist plans can't be fully evaluated and appreciated. Please be sure to enlighten us every time you tell us how we should run our lives.

Posted by: Brad Hutchings | Mar 2, 2008 4:35:54 PM

Brad Hutchings: "You're just a garden variety control freak with a penchant for using the state to exert control."

I have never met a socialist liberal who believes the individual is capable of controlling his own life. Every single one condescendingly argues the masses are incapable of making their own decisions. I'm certain they believe they would prefer to allow individual liberty. But they sadly realize only the intellectual elites - a group of which they enjoy membership - are endowed with sound judgment.

Posted by: John Dewey | Mar 2, 2008 7:07:08 PM

Brad,

If you want to do business and have a country stand behind you to defend your right to do business there has to be rules. The people make the rules (ideally) in this country. Are you of any greater rule making authority then any other one of us?

I'm sure there are some rules you may like that I don't. So does that justify me with the same complaints you cast towards me?

There are already a tons of rules regarding health care and universal care ideally could involve far fewer rules, less bureaucracy and ideally include the competitive market forces.

Brad, we can either have a society that is elitist with a small aristocratic ruling class, a small middle class and a huge under class or we can have communism/socialism. Or we can admit that neither is great and we need to organize for something in the middle. Kinda like we already have. Setting up the rules so that those who are fortunate enough to make it big have to pay back a share to keep the whole thing working isn't that bad is it?

In fact great economist of the liberal bent like Joseph Schumpeter admitted their was no other way unless you just want to cycle through periods of elitism, revolution and rebuilding.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 2, 2008 7:26:28 PM

"But they sadly realize only the intellectual elites - a group of which they enjoy membership - are endowed with sound judgment."

John Dewey,

Great post. I don't know if pointing out the irony that Murthaduck considers itself an intellectual elite was intentional or not, but it still made me laugh :p

Posted by: brotio | Mar 2, 2008 7:27:49 PM

"For your worldview to be complete, you need to explain how you will penalize those who do not comply." - Brad Hutchings

Brad, please note that Murthaduck replied to your post but didn't respond to your request, which is typical of Murthaduck ("the children they've killed in cold blood").

Posted by: brotio | Mar 2, 2008 7:42:09 PM

Posted by: John Dewey

John,

The masses ARE capable of making their own decisions and they want universal health care provided buy the government. So why are you wanting to take that away from them? They agree with me on the issues of what they want provided by the government. They understand the natural order of unregulated economies to lead to economic oppression by a wealthy elite. When the hell are people like you gonna figure out that the hard working individual who IS capable of making decisions for himself and in this case wants to insure a right to health care for all members of our "club".

Your stupid ass attitude that , "I got mine you get yours" is not what this countries about. Great you're successful... guess what I'm pretty successful too the difference being I realize my success was dependent on those who paved the road before me and those who set up rules that made it more likely that the average Joe could succeed. You are not a self-made man and the baby born in the ghetto will not be a self made man under your elitist society. You're a selfish short-sighted individual with no regard for the social contracts this country was founded on that allowed for the more likely success of your hard work. There's a lot of hardworking people out there and they are getting screwed left and right and they deserve a right to health care.

1% of this country's population owns far and enough wealth to be easily able to help pay for health care for all its citizen. It BS that doing so would kill our economy and in fact there are many good arguements to be made that it wold help are ecoomy and the wealthy could keep right on being wealthy.

At some point John you have to realize there's an issue of practicality out there and that the decisions we make really effect people. No one dies or starves when we ask those who succeeded to pay back to the society they so benefitted from but people really do die and starve and go uneducated when we don't allow them access to the basic needs of life. The human mind IS the ultimate resource and we need to nourish a society where every mind has a chance to contribute rather then decay in hopeless poverty or the endless grind just to stay n the middle class.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 2, 2008 7:51:38 PM

"For your worldview to be complete, you need to explain how you will penalize those who do not comply." - Brad Hutchings

Posted by: brotio

In my favored scenario if you pay your taxes you've complied. If not then what ever the penalty for not paying your taxes is now.... then THAT will be the penalty. No big deal.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 2, 2008 8:20:00 PM

But muirgeo,
Will your system not be totalitarian?

It's OK if the great masses want the government to manage their health care, so will they require universal participation?

Why should those 1% stay here if most of their wealth is confiscated?

In fact, why should anyone bother to get wealthy if they can enjoy the same benefits without getting wealthy?

All you'll eventually end up with is masses of people who think that health and medical care is created by legislative fiat and they will wonder why they get cut off when they're too old to contribute to the system.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 2, 2008 8:28:51 PM

Well, I'm already in that 1040 filing mode. Have to fulfill my "civic duty" and be a "good citizen" and comply to my totalitarian masters or else go to an IRS prison. Thanks muir-poop.

Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 2, 2008 8:43:56 PM

Muirgeo,

"...we need to nourish a society where every mind has a chance to contribute rather then decay in hopeless poverty or the endless grind just to stay n the middle class."

Your people have taken more than enough money to bring every single person in the US into the middle class. They haven't done it. And what you call "the endless grind to stay in the middle class", is just normal life for 90% of the people in this country. What do you expect? - that someone will wave a magic wand and make everyone wealthy enough to retire? We've done our part. Your people haven't done theirs. So again, I have no idea why you're here. Why don't you go sell your sanctimonious bullshit somewhere where it might do some good?

Posted by: Randy | Mar 2, 2008 8:59:57 PM

I will give muirgeo credit for answering my question. All undesirable behavior will be taxed. Those who refuse to pay will be imprisoned. So what happens to those who refuse to invest in American companies that have to pay Ohio wages for tasks that Elbonians can do for far less money? Shall the investors have to pay a special "foreign investment tax"?

Now that we have your answer for everything muirgeo, you can simply specify which taxes would have to be raised or implemented to achieve the control over us you desire. That'll go over well.

Posted by: Brad Hutchings | Mar 2, 2008 10:08:09 PM

"... they deserve a right to health care."

I just re-read the US Constitution and I find no mention of such a right, much less such a right that others are obliged to pay for.

Murthaduck, let's see how many rights you're willing to pay for that the Constitution DOES recognize?

I want a Thompson auto-loading carbine. The Constitution recognizes that I have a right to keep and bear arms. Give it to me.

I want to start a newspaper. The Constitution recognizes the right to a free press. Give me my free printing press.

I know that the Ninth Amendment states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed
to deny or disparage others retained by the people." But you would think that a right that is SO important that it compels me to provide it to complete strangers would get a mention of its own.

When you have delivered my gun and my press, then we'll discuss your "right" to healthcare-paid-for-by-me.

Posted by: brotio | Mar 2, 2008 10:15:54 PM

Please everyone watch 60 minutes tonight if you get a chance. It features RAM (Remote Area Medical- volunteer corps) . They were set up to go to third world nations to deliver health care now they are finding an incredible need right in the US of A. What do you all expect people who make $40,000 a year to do? Health care can cost $10,000 for a family of 4. We're not talking about lazy slobs. We're talking about working class (hardworking) Americans and on the show they look like paupers. It's pathetic and people of means like myself and others even more so HAVE to buck up.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 2, 2008 10:30:18 PM

Health care can cost $10,000 for a family of 4.

Maybe if doctors and nurses weren't taxed so heavily, health care wouldn't cost so much.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 2, 2008 10:34:16 PM

Sam give me a break. Talk about Straw-man arguments!!!

"But muirgeo,
Will your system not be totalitarian?"

How intellectually dishonest. EVERY OTHER developed nation in the world has universal heath care. Do you think the Canadians or the Germans feel as if they live under a totalitarian society?
My German exchange student can't even conceptualize a society that doesn't provide health care. And he is no socialist or lackey. He puts most of our students to shame in his intellect, his curiosity and his drive to compete and succeed.

"Why should those 1% stay here if most of their wealth is confiscated?"

Oh Jeez Sam....maybe they shouldn't. Maybe they should all move to Liberaltopia. If they instead of having $100,000,000 they only have $90,000,000 million they'll still be ahead of the average rich person in most other countries which are far more egalitarian.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 2, 2008 10:49:41 PM

When you have delivered my gun and my press, then we'll discuss your "right" to healthcare-paid-for-by-me.

Posted by: brotio

I think you're right we should give you and every "self made" independent Liberal minded person along with the wealthiest 0.01% of the population a Thompson machine gun. Then we take you and cash out all that you own and we'll even give you twice what your net worth is. We'll just print up a bunch more bills. Then we move you all to the island of Kahoolawe and let your self made persons take care of yourself. Because of course you don't need these scabs of society.

I'm sure you rugged individuals would be just fine and I'm even more sure we here in mainland America would be great. wouldn't miss ya a lick. We probably would embargo your island of course because we wouldn't want to in any way interfere with your perfect culture. Of course if you ran out of bullets we'd probably get you more of those but I bet being so self reliant you'd be making those on your own out of pineapples or whatever was available on the island.

Anyway Bro how much do you spend a year on health care?

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 2, 2008 11:05:48 PM

Folks, personally I lose a lot of interest in the comments section when it gets hijacked by trolls. It simply doesn't pay to feed them. Someone like muirgeo is clearly here for the attention that comes from lobbing grenades, not the edification that comes from a real discussion.

Posted by: M. Hodak | Mar 2, 2008 11:19:46 PM

Will your system not be totalitarian?"

By which I mean: all are required to participate in gov't health whether they want to or not.
Not the straw man you assumed.

Do you think the Canadians or the Germans feel as if they live under a totalitarian society?

Don't most Americans feel they live in a free society? What does it matter what they feel? What is the fact of the matter?
It is much easier to get into a socialist system than to get out of it.

My German exchange student can't even conceptualize a society that doesn't provide health care.

I knew 'communist' woman who couldn't conceive of the idea of 'capital'.
I knew a woman from Sweden who couldn't imagine how who could've had her baby without the government.

You've proven that a student from Germany can't conceive of medical care without the government providing it. What does that say about his intellect?

Hey, instead of calling it 'universal medical care', we can call it 'totalitarian medical care'.

And you said you weren't socialist. That's intellectually dishonest.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 2, 2008 11:32:08 PM

You said somewhere that the masses of people want gov't health care?
So what?
Most people want the impossible, to consume without the effort of production.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 2, 2008 11:35:05 PM

Muirgeo,

I predict that soon, everyone will be paying $1 per meter for health care. What do you think?

Posted by: Python | Mar 2, 2008 11:43:08 PM

"Anyway Bro how much do you spend a year on health care?"

None of your business.

"Then we take you and cash out all that you own and we'll even give you twice what your net worth is. We'll just print up a bunch more bills. Then we move you all to the island of Kahoolawe and let your self made persons take care of yourself. Because of course you don't need these scabs of society."

Brother Duck, you've got a deal! I didn't realize you'd read 'Atlas Shrugged'.

"We probably would embargo your island of course because we wouldn't want to in any way interfere with your perfect culture."

You'll embargo us, because like every other dictatorship of the proletariat that's been tried, you won't be able to compete with us. You might want to think twice about that, though: Who are you going to buy guns, printing presses, MRI machines, CAT scan machines, or even sphygmomanometers when the people who know how to make them will all be living on Kahoolawe?

"Of course if you ran out of bullets we'd probably get you more of those but I bet being so self reliant you'd be making those on your own out of pineapples or whatever was available on the island."

I think we self-made, liberal-minded, rugged individuals will still have bullets long after you socialist piglets-sucking-at-the teat-of-Mother Government have run out, because we'll know how to MAKE bullets!

BTW: I didn't ask for the machine gun, but if you insist...

Posted by: brotio | Mar 2, 2008 11:43:39 PM

we can either have a society that is elitist with a small aristocratic ruling class, a small middle class and a huge under class or we can have communism/socialism. Or we can admit that neither is great and we need to organize for something in the middle.

What makes you think the only options are quasi-fascism, communist/socialist, or some point in between?

Posted by: Hans Luftner | Mar 2, 2008 11:56:21 PM

I recall when everyone wanted government health care under Bill Clinton. Everyone thought is was great idea until they learned some of the details. Then that campaign went down.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 2, 2008 11:57:29 PM

What makes you think the only options are quasi-fascism, communist/socialist, or some point in between?

Because muirgeo operates on the premises of mercantilism.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 2, 2008 11:58:47 PM

No doubt he thinks if all the money was taken from all the wealthy people and distributed amongst everyone else, why they could then afford anything they wanted.

BTW, I am not among the wealthy.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 3, 2008 12:00:21 AM

What makes you think the only options are quasi-fascism, communist/socialist, or some point in between?

Posted by: Hans Luftner | Mar 2, 2008 11:56:21 PM

Because that's all little Muir-poop's mind is capable of. The littlest boxes.

Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 3, 2008 12:10:56 AM

Sam:

Even if you were wealthy, so what? The wealthy should have just as much freedom to keep their wealth as anyone poorer.

Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 3, 2008 12:14:10 AM

Even if you were wealthy, so what? The wealthy should have just as much freedom to keep their wealth as anyone poorer.

So muirgeo wouldn't waste our time with another straw man that maybe I was worried about my vast fortune in opposing socialism.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 3, 2008 1:27:45 AM

M Hodak,

People die, people go bankrupt and people suffer dialy in large numbers in this country beause of a lack of access to healthcare. We are going to have/ we are having a national debate on health care. Much of it is centered around a universal heath care system as every other developed nation in the world has. And for suggesting I support the idea I'm a troll? I think the rest of the country and the world might argue just who is the troll here.

What is your solution? What is your brilliant solution other then to turn your back on the issue?

"Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individual in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provisions. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance-where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks- the case for the state's helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong."

F. A. Hayek
http://tinyurl.com/2c4ht7

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 3, 2008 2:31:08 AM

Muirgeo,

I predict that soon, everyone will be paying $1 per meter for health care. What do you think?

Posted by: Python

I think you are incapable of serious discussion of significant and complicated issues that threaten your simpletonian version of the world so you write crap like that.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 3, 2008 2:35:20 AM

I recall when everyone wanted government health care under Bill Clinton. Everyone thought is was great idea until they learned some of the details. Then that campaign went down.

Posted by: Sam Grove

They never heard the details Sam.
It went down not because it was a particularly bad idea but because people who make huge profits off of rationing care put some of their billions into preserving their golden egg laying goose by overwhelming the public with a one sided debate and a mass media misinformation campaign. And now Sam you're paying $6,000 for health care so they can stay rich when you could have been paying far less.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 3, 2008 2:51:40 AM

Muirgeo says: "I think you are incapable of serious discussion of significant and complicated issues that threaten your simpletonian version of the world so you write crap like that."

Yes, great comeback.

Do you still believe that people can fill the earth to 1 person per square mile or are you willing to concede you were running fast and loose with your keyboard?

Posted by: Python | Mar 3, 2008 2:52:31 AM

Muirgeo says: "1% of this country's population owns far and enough wealth to be easily able to help pay for health care for all its citizen."

I get it; the government takes in additional taxes for universal health care and instantly creates another revenue stream to splurge with.

Universal health care is not a right.

Who is the government to say how I spend my money that I earn though hard work?

What do you not understand? People are tired of having their money stolen. How about cleaning up health care making in more competitive for each and every dollar the consumer holds?

No, of course not. That would mean that people get to keep more dollars in their pockets to spend as they see fit.

Unfortunately, that freedom will never be granted by a government that has 'your' best interests in mind.

Posted by: babinich | Mar 3, 2008 6:00:41 AM

Muirgeo,

"What is your solution?"

I suggest that your people start spending the money they've already taken in accordance with the justification they gave for taking it. Only when I see that happen will I even consider jumping on the bandwagon to give them more. Of couse, 1) that will never happen because your people are the greediest bastards on the face of the planet, and 2) if by some miracle it did happen they wouldn't need to ask for more because they've already taken more than enough to easily accomplish everything they say they want to do.

Posted by: Randy | Mar 3, 2008 7:38:04 AM

Many did when Jarret Wollstein debated an administration staff member at the time on Dr. Dean Edell's radio program. Wollstein referred to the many references to restrictions, fines, and punishments which the Clinton staff member attempted to minimize or deny. Each time Wollstein went to the document and recited the actual text.

Typical government approach, treating citizens as so much cattle to be managed and prodded into place.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 3, 2008 10:10:40 AM

Did you folks notice muirgeo's brilliant response to my question? I'm not being facetious. It was extremely well calculated to elicit the semblance of a debate.

Step 1. Grab the moral high ground

"People die, people go bankrupt and people suffer dialy in large numbers in this country beause of a lack of access to healthcare."

This is designed to insult my humanity by implying that I don't care about other people's dying, suffering, etc. It's a powerful draw. One's first instinct on seeing that is to say "How dare you!" and to plunge into the debate to redeem oneself. But then the pre-frontal cortex takes over, and one can see this misdirection for what it is--an attempt to redirect the debate from one about social welfare in the economic sense to a subjective debate about who cares more. You can't win that kind of argument, so it's not worth beginning.

Step 2. Insult your opponent's intelligence

"We are going to have/ we are having a national debate on health care. Much of it is centered around a universal heath care system as every other developed nation in the world has."

This is all really code for, "Don't you get that everyone else thinks it's cool?" This would be a cultural insult if I were someone that muirgeo met on the street or in a bar, who may not have had much exposure to the detail of the healthcare debate, and would be expected to respond to such an assertion as, "Oh, gee. If everyone else is doing it, maybe we should give them the benefit of the doubt." We could then begin the conversation from there.

Step 3. Find your opponent's hot buttons

Alas, muirgeo did not meet us on the street. He met us on the comment board of a policy discussion where the posters come from an individualist/libertarian perspective. He knows that we know what he is asserting here. He also knows, if he's not a total moron, that telling an individualist/libertarian that "everyone else is doing it" is like waving red meat in front of a cougar. But I'm not a cougar. I know that this phrase is not a substantive argument to be rebutted, but just a red flag to draw me in.

The fact that he could find a few sentences to serve the dual purpose of Steps 2 and 3, I think, points out the particular brilliance of muirgeo's argumentation.

Step 4. Throw down the gauntlet

"What is your solution? What is your brilliant solution other then to turn your back on the issue?

Here is where muirgeo springs the trap. He's inviting me to give my side of the story. Everyone likes to give their side of the story, right? Especially the wonky types who inhabit a policy forum. How could I resist? He's laid out the red carpet! He didn't exactly do so graciously, as if he really wants to hear what I have to say, as if my words will be met with an open mind, but that is probably my fault for calling him a troll.

Note the final sentence, though. This "other than turn your back" phrase is particularly ingenious. It perfectly bookends the first insult, kindly waving me up from the valley of ignorance I inhabit towards his moral high ground, with the presumption that I would have given that up.

Step 5. Pretend that your hero has betrayed you

In the art of war, if you want to guarantee a fight, if you aren't sure that any insult or argument is enough to draw in your opponent, if you want to relieve all doubt about his engaging you on the field of battle, the ultimate trump card is to show his wife by your side.

Here, muirgeo selects a comment from Mr. Hayek, someone he correctly assumes I highly regard, and offers it up as if my general has gone over to the other side. My instant reaction is emotional, not rational. "How dare he! He's saying that Hayek is part of his treachery!"

Once again, the new brain picks up where the old brain leaves off. No, Hayek was not a socialist or collectivist. No selective reading of his many writings will change that. Besides, quoting someone you admire does not address the substance of what you're arguing. It's just another distraction.

So, what muirgeo is doing here is trying to provoke an argument, using phrases designed to elicit an emotional response.

"You're a moral defective."
"Everyone else is doing it."
"So, what do you think, you moral defective?"
"Your hero is on my side."

Note that none of these phrases contains an ounce of substance with regards to what is nominally being discussed. Nothing muirgeo has said here actually speaks to why socialized health care is better than a more market-based solution. I have to believe that this is intentional.

For those of you who insist on continuing your pointless parrying with muirgeo, have at it. I don't want to get in the way of your fun. But you can at least insist that muirgeo address your points substantively. Maybe you can use codes corresponding to these steps, like "Code 1" for "I will not give up the moral high ground simply based on your (often implicit) assertion that you're position is morally superior." Or "Code 2" for "didn't your mom tell you that just because everyone else is doing it doesn't make it right?" Like that. It might save a lot of time, and prevent you kind souls from being jerked around so much.

Posted by: M. Hodak | Mar 3, 2008 10:29:27 AM

M. Hodak,

"But you can at least insist that muirgeo address your points substantively."

He never does. But the thing is, Muirgeo is a fascist - an anti-liberal. Why else would he come to a libertarian site to spout his nonsense? He's not interested in accomplishing anything, he's just a brown shirt looking for a fight, and I think he should get one.

Posted by: Randy | Mar 3, 2008 10:50:13 AM

Muirgeo,

Are you of any greater rule making authority then any other one of us?

with this question and the context around it from the comment:

"Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 2, 2008 7:26:28 PM",

you show that you still totally miss the point.

You're an idiot.

Posted by: John V | Mar 3, 2008 11:04:51 AM

"The people", "the people", always with "the people". No, he's not socialist, he just talks that way and thinks that way.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 3, 2008 12:08:40 PM

Sam,

We the people......

You wanna change it? To what?... I the me...

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 3, 2008 12:32:12 PM

I understand that, muirgeo. But as long as your are referring to a founding document, look at the 9th and 10th amendments then tell me how the Federal government is authorized under the constitution to take over health care for the people.

Always with 'the people', you think we're a great big hive that can violate reality through sheer mass of wills.

Tell me, who are "the people"?

Will and Arial Durant:
"It may be true that you can't fool all the people all the time, but apparently you can fool enough of them to run a large country."

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 3, 2008 12:54:44 PM