Remember during the Bush presidency when dissent was the highest form of patriotism? We didn’t hear much from the left about “cooperation” when it came to the Patriot Act or the war in Iraq. And when Congress stopped Bush’s Social Security reform cold, there were no complaints about “obstructionism.”
The idea of forming a movement around “cooperation” is a gimmick to help the Democrats succeed with their socialist agenda, particularly health care reform.
The Tea Party, at least what’s best about it, is founded on timeless principles: limited government, individual rights. I have held these principles for 33 years, since I first read Atlas Shrugged.
The left has gimmicks that hide their true agenda; the free market right has immutable principles.
By Bill Brown · February 27th, 2010 5:00 am · 3 Comments
As a historian, it irritates me when people cite historical evidence after a superficial Internet search (or, worse yet, treat Wikipedia as a primary source). Matthew Yglesias—I know, I know, I may as well be reading Krugman—today argues that opposition to mass transit stems at its root from jingoism. This is a familiar refrain and fallback position for the left when they can detect no traces of racism. To support his notion that publicly-funded mass transit is American, he looks to our history in an attempt to showcase his straw men’s hypocrisy.
He discovers that the biggest subways are in non-European cities and that most of the prominent rapid transit systems are domestic. A commenter helpfully added further support:
Here’s a postcard from live free or die New Hampshire, circa 1877. And, oh no — Socialism!
By Myrhaf · February 26th, 2010 6:12 pm · 6 Comments
It had to happen. The left has reacted to the Tea Party movement with its own version, the Coffee Party USA. Their statement of principles, if that’s what they are, is remarkably vague. The movement’s main point is that they are for “cooperation,” whereas the Tea Party movement is about “obstructionism.”
This is not a political platform. Its thinly disguised purpose is to hector and shame Republicans into letting the Democrats in Washington, D.C. do what they want. The Dems are not getting things done fast enough for the left, so it’s time to pressure the Republicans to get out of the way. I guarantee that if the Republicans won back the presidency, Senate and House , and if they began to dismantle big government — I know, this is a fantasy — these same people would be shrieking for the Democrats to stop the right. You would hear everywhere, “They stopped the Democrats, now the Democrats must stop them!” The dream of “cooperation” would be conveniently forgotten.
And The New York Times is trying to smear the Tea Party movement by linking it to the militia movement of the ’90s.
Robert Tracinski comments on the Times’ smear job in TIA Daily:
The real story here is not about the Tea Party movement; it’s about the left. The ruling political clique in Washington has suffered a catastrophic loss of moral legitimacy—just at the point when they have been seeking a rapid and far-reaching expansion of their power over our lives. This has led a significant portion of the public to conclude that the real essence of the left’s agenda is a lust for power and control. And so a whole series of ideological groups—from Bilderberg conspiracy theorists to students of Ayn Rand and the Federalist Papers—have risen up in response to this dangerous vacuum of moral legitimacy.
And so the left has to seize on the existence of one of these groups, the racists and conspiracy theorists, in order to deny the existence of the real intellectual alternative: the Ayn-Rand-Federalist-Papers wing of the Tea Party phenomenon.
Atlanta Progressive News has parted ways with long-serving senior staff writer Jonathan Springston. Apparently, Springston’s affinity for fact-based reporting clashed with Cardinale’s vision.
And, no, that’s not sarcasm.
In an e-mail statement, editor Matthew Cardinale says Springston was asked to leave APN last week “because he held on to the notion that there was an objective reality that could be reported objectively, despite the fact that that was not our editorial policy at Atlanta Progressive News.”
By Embedded I · February 18th, 2010 2:02 pm · 12 Comments
Over at The Rational Capitalist, a sympathetic commenter, using the moniker C.W., wrote, “we are exporting inflation, in the form of our trade deficit.
“What is a trade deficit? How does it export inflation?
Surely the idea of a trade deficit disregards the principle of value-for-value trading, regardless of national borders?
By Jim May · February 15th, 2010 1:02 am · 6 Comments
In the past, I have illustrated how pragmatism cripples the intellect, especially among conservatives. Today’s case, however, is not one of the Internet pundits that we’ve seen before, but is one of conservatism’s stars, one of its best pretenders to the intellectual mantle: Anthony Daniels, perhaps better known as Theodore Dalrymple.
I believe that Audi intended it as a caricature: the only difference is that there is not yet an actual police force dedicated to environmental law enforcement at such a visible level. The absurd, petty laws from the commercial actuallyexist and the intrusiveness of the movement is incredible. (Looks like I’m not the only one that’s noticed the parallels.)
By Mike N · February 8th, 2010 5:31 pm · 10 Comments
This last Wednesday I happened to flip channels (while the Mrs was on our only computer, which fact is going to change sometime this year) and caught the beginning of Geraldo At Large on Fox. He was covering a tea party convention where Sarah Palin was about to give the keynote speech. So I watched. (more…)
By Galileo Blogs · February 6th, 2010 6:57 am · No Comments
Healthcare is not a right. It is a good and service to be bought voluntarily from willing providers, like anything else. Do I tell my barber that a haircut is my right, and then force him to provide me with the haircut of my choice at the price that I dictate to him? That is what socialized medicine does to doctors.
If it is my right to that haircut, what has happened to the right of the barber to offer his service on terms agreeable to him? And if his rights are violated — if he is reduced to the status of an unwilling servant — imagine how lousy my haircuts will look, as he rushes them along to provide them at the price set by government.
Now consider that this same scenario plays out right now with a far more vital service, one upon which all of our lives depend. Today about 50% of medical costs are paid for by the government under terms set by government. We have 50%-socialized medicine in the United States. The problems we have are due to this high level of socialism that already exists.
The solution is not to drink the whole bottle of poison and condemn all of us, doctors and their patients, to life-shortening medical “care” by rights-less doctors and their disgruntled, sick patients.
The solution is freedom. It has never really been tried. Abolish government funding of medical care. Eliminate the rules that bind insurance companies and doctors from offering the care that customers want. Respect the rights of doctors and their patients to freely contract with each other for medical services.
Healthcare is not a right, and our lives depend on acknowledging this fact.
Say “no” to any scheme to further entrench socialized medicine.
*****
Originally posted here on a website that is soliciting solutions for the problems in healthcare. Register your vote.
By Myrhaf · February 2nd, 2010 2:22 pm · 4 Comments
Free market supporters love to use the hypocrisy argument against statists. It’s been around a long time. To name a few examples of actions that are called hypocrisy:
The health care of Senators and Congressmen is better than what Americans would get in the plans of those politicians.
Al Gore’s house leaves a huge carbon footprint. Political leaders from around the world flew carbon-spewing jets to Copenhagen.
Nancy Pelosi’s relatives flew military jets instead of commercial airlines.
You can probably think of more examples. None of these is actually hypocrisy. The politicians involved all believe they are in a special class to which the rules do not apply. It’s not hypocrisy, it’s the prerogative of power.
By Chuck · February 1st, 2010 9:00 pm · 5 Comments
“And did we tell you the name of the game, boy?
We call it Riding the Gravy Train.” (Pink Floyd)
From the Guardian comes a story titled “The west owes Haiti a bailout. And it would be a hand-back, not a handout.” Yes, it’s all our fault. Our fault that they were poor, poorly governed, unprepared for natural disasters. Certainly, it wasn’t the fault of the Haitians themselves. Who could have foreseen the lack of economic progress in a nation that was more collectivist than capitalist? If the Haitian people were content to live under the bad government they had, rather than instituting a better one at any cost or risk, or emigrating to a better one, can we blame them? Inertia isn’t easy to overcome.
But the West, now, there is as selfish a collection of uncaring nations as can well be imagined. Billions upon billions of dollars for bailing out bankrupt financial institutions, but precious little for those that need it most—the Haitians:
The scale, urgency and determination with which western governments moved to salvage a broken [financial] system stands in stark contrast to their laggardly, inadequate and negligent approach when it comes to rescuing a broken society. I refer here not to the emergency aid operations in Haiti, which, given the logistical obstacles of operating in a crushed nation, have been impressive. Nor to the charitable donations from all over the world that prove that people are far more generous than the governments they elect. But to the resources and long-term systemic solutions that Haiti needs and the west could summon – if it so desired.
Haiti has needs. The West has means. One side of the equation neatly balances out the other.
And if simple need isn’t enough justification, there are also the sins of our fathers to account for:
Haiti gained its independence from France in 1804 through a slave rebellion – the first postcolonial, independent black-led nation in the world. For this audacity they would pay for generations . . .
The US refused to recognise the new country for more than half a century, and would then go on to occupy it for 20 years between the wars. The French burdened it with a punitive debt the country shouldered for over a century.
Both the US and France backed the Duvaliers’ brutal dictatorships and when democratic government did arrive it was hogtied by terms imposed by the IMF and the World Bank. Among other things, rigged trade agreements transformed Haiti from a self-sufficient rice producer to importing the bulk of its rice from subsidised growers in the US. When Haiti fined American rice merchants $1.4m in 2000 for allegedly evading customs duties, the US responded by freezing $30m in aid. With friends like these, Haiti does not need enemies.
So Haiti’s bailout would not be an act of charity, but reimbursement and reparation. This is not a hand out but a hand back. In terms of Haiti’s needs, it would be the beginning not the end. The country needs investment in its social and civic infrastructure so that it can shape its own future.
Is there a country on earth that couldn’t point to similar mistreatment from some other nation at some point in its past? Should we hold the British of today responsible for the expenses of the Revolutionary War? Or all the money our forefathers lost due to the anti-capitalist trade restrictions the British imposed upon us in the colonial era? These trade agreements with the IMF and the World Bank—they were agreements, right? Both sides agreed to the terms? These things cannot be imposed on any country by a bank. Only an occupying army can impose anything. I’m not aware of the IMF or the World Bank having a military wing. If Haiti now doesn’t like the terms of these agreements, is that too our fault, here in the West?
The actions of the IMF and the World Bank are not likely to be capitalist, in that their funds are presumably derived from taxation. The solution to that is the abolition of these institutions, not more collectivism. Does Haiti want investment in its infrastructure? On what terms: collectivist, or capitalist? If it wants them on capitalist terms, the way to get there is by instituting a capitalist government, not demanding tax money from foreign governments, that is, the citizens of foreign governments. If it wants it on collectivist terms, it wants what can never be justified. It wants the enslavement of others to themselves.
James Dobbins, a special envoy to Haiti under President Clinton and director of the International Security and Defence Policy Centre at the Rand Corporation, saw other possibilities. “This disaster is an opportunity to accelerate oft-delayed reforms,” he argued. The reforms included “breaking up or at least reorganising the government-controlled telephone monopoly”, and restructuring the ports. In other words, privatising what little is left of the country’s state enterprises.
Clearly, to the writer of the Guardian article, capitalism is the problem, not the solution.
