Insults, Stupid Arguments, and Lies
As the 9/11 massacre underscored the failure of the left’s multicultural worldview, so the current debt crisis highlights the failure of leftist redistributionism.
In fact, leftism has failed utterly. It has failed everywhere and it has never done anything else but fail. From the murderous, leftist tyrannies of the Soviet Union and China to the soft but nonetheless oppressive and stagnant socialism of a moribund Europe, the relativist, wealth-crushing, overweening state has revealed itself to be an engine of misery and collapse.
This is a disappointment to many. To those who feel they are entitled to the fruits of other people’s labor, to those who feel their good intentions can be brought to fruition by the government, and to those, most of all, who fancy themselves elite, who fancy themselves better able to make moral and economic decisions on your behalf from on high than you, the citizen, can do on your own — to all of these, the failure of leftism is a trauma so great it has yet to be accepted. Rather, in order to distract both their followers and their opponents — and maybe themselves — from the gathering facts on the ground, leftists routinely rely on three well-worn techniques: insults, stupid arguments and lies.
The insults we all know. Disagree with the left and you’re a racist, a sexist, an Islamophobe — whatever. What do such insults even mean, really? Let’s say you oppose Barack Obama — and let’s say you really are a racist — does that mean his share-the-wealth ideology works? Of course not. If you’re a sexist, does that make women less interested in babies or more interested in trucks? If you’re Islamophobic, does that change the odds that the man who murders you will be named Mohammad? We are what we are and the world is what it is regardless of our personal merits and failings. The insults — for the information of all you teabagging terrorists out there — are just the sound of the left indulging in base intimidation, hoping they can keep you from spreading the word that their philosophy has failed — failed always and everywhere.
As for the stupid arguments, they usually involve citing bad individual actions in order to obscure bad underlying principles. Thus when you note the disaster wrought on our economy by Obama’s governing philosophy, leftists counter that, well, George W. Bush spent too much money too. Yes, he did — because, in those moments, W. was operating under the same misguided redistributionist principles as Obama. It’s the principles that are wrong, no matter who holds them.
Likewise, when you point out that Islamism is an evil and oppressive idea, leftists counter that Americans have done many bad things as well. And yes, we have — all nations have — but the liberty we stand for is a good, just as shariah law is a bad, not for some people in some places but for everyone all over.
Andrew, I think I think being a novelist and screenwriter makes you a better writer whatever the venue. Your concepts are clear, concise, and so easy to read and understand. The same is true of Roger Simon, also a noveist and screenwriter.
This column is one of the best for aa short but profound description of the left not working and how they resond to that fact. Also love your Klavan on the Culture videos and often send link to friends and family.
Thanks, Mom!
“You need to cover yourself up, honey, your cynicism is showing.” -Mom.
But he forgot to mention their ultimate desire “POWER”.
Fin de siècle? We can only hope but as some wag recently put it, leftism isn’t dead, it’s “undead”. Welcome to Klavan on the Zombie Culture Wars!
Ahhhh… a cup of Klavan and reading some coffee in the morning….
I have confounded many a leftist in the course of argument by observing, “just because I’m prejudiced doesn’t mean I’m wrong.”
Buzz, that’s a keeper!
I like it too. It’s at least as good as the one about Paranoia.
“Just because we are paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get us.”
That applies to anyone who is politically conservative regarding the liberals and their actions.
I am often told by liberals that their ideology is best because it is supported by the elite in academia. I always answer: But what if what they were taught is wrong?
R Cook,
Your comment, “I am often told by liberals that their ideology is best because it is supported by the elite in academia. I always answer: But what if what they were taught is wrong?”
Tell them that as the elite academia is so apparently knowledgeable on all subjects, why not have them build your house for you, or design a bridge. If they know better how business works than business people do, then they obviously must know these things better than architects and engineers.
Yes, that is called MISTAKEN CERTAINTY. It is a liberal gene.
You could also point out that they are engaging in a well known logical fallicy called the appeal to authority. What it basically amounts to is saying that the following presigious people support my argument, therefore it must be right, regardless of what actual facts presented by the other side may indicate. The real truth is expert opinion is better from an evidentiary point of view than regular opinion, but is still trumped by actual fact or logic.
Also, in science, where actual experiment and observation can definitely settle an issue, there have been numerous instances of one lone scientist being opposed by most of the other scientists, but being proven right in the end, because the actual facts turned out to be on their side.
Absolutely correct…many times we use prejudice in everyday life, if you touch a burning fire, stove (or range) you will most likely suffer either minor or perhaps third degree burns…most people learn from bad experience to know that if you do anything such a consequence will be the result, however liberal (progressives, socialist, communists) see, to think somehow that the policies they endeavor to apply to the world will somehow work and have yet to be proven to do so…it is true insanity or magical thinking that apparently guides them to do the things that they do over and over, an endless cycle of shear stupidity…THEY are not enlightened they are Retarded and should be put in a special place, please help achieve that in 2012!
“As the 9/11 massacre underscored the failure of the left’s multicultural worldview….”
Nope, it just underscored W’s complete lack of vigilance in the face of warnings.
“As the 9/11 massacre underscored the failure of the left’s multicultural worldview….”
“Nope, it just underscored W’s complete lack of vigilance in the face of warnings.”
Klavan, I see what you meant by lies. A general warning that Osama “might do something bad” is interpreted by the Left to mean that Bush should have had fighter jets flying top cover over the WTC, to protect against a type of suicide attack that had never taken place before – and never will again. Of course the fact that the terrorists entered the US, and trained for the mission, during the Clinton Administration is conveniently overlooked in their haste to lay the entire blame on Bush.
The Clintons ended our relationship with Pakistan due to their “human rights record” and left Afghanistan to twist in the wind and decay into anarchy. The Taliban sprang up during Clinton, and OBL sprang up too. In the first month of office, Bush re-established relationships with Pakistan. We would not have been able to fight in Afghanistan without that country.
AK, the inspiration for this writing was put into well and capable hands. An outstanding essay on the culture.
don’t look now Andreww, but you’ve already been downgraded to aa.
I wish I had something to add, but you covered it all Mr. Klaven. Bravo.
To you Thomas_L; undead? Ha! perfect.
I can’t actually take credit for it but it is very apt.
Having our credit rating lowered is a historic event, and an awful one.
Another historic situation is the level of flat-out corruption of the U.S. media. When it comes to political stories, the majority of our media is now centrally controlled and coordinated. Lies-of-the-day are regularly distributed to media outlets across the country, to be mindlessly and endlessly repeated by hard-left talking heads and op-ed writers. They are told what to say (down to the exact phrasing), and they are also told what issues, events and people to blacklist.
Truth, fairness, and even common sense mean absolutely nothing to any of these people. They stopped being journalists years ago. We have witnessed the successful rise of Pravda in America. And unlike in the old Soviet Union, no American “journalists” have to be threatened with torture, prison or death if they do not repeat each day’s approved list of lies. Today’s American “journalists” volunteer to sell their souls, for free.
Another historic situation is the level of flat-out corruption of the U.S. media.
The Press have their heads so far up Obama’s rear that if he farted, he blow out half of their eardrums.
I doubt they have functioning eardrums.
or if he turned a sharp corner he’d break their necks,
Obama needs a glass stomach so the press can see where they are going….
Larry, thanks for my first good laugh this morning.
There is no truth in Pravda and no news in Investia. As well in our own MSM.
“I hate Communism most for its cold-blooded murder of the truth! Pravda doesn’t mean truth. Pravda means whatever serves the world Communist revolution.”
-Robert A. Heinlein
I would to this comment by quoting another Robert Heinlein observation, “How can the attitudes of 200 million people be switched on and off like a light bulb? By complete control of all communications from the cradle to the grave.” Mr. Heinlein goes on to observe that the two ways communist ideology is fomented and spread is through COMPLETE CONTROL (emphasis mine) of all media and all education. What the child hears, the adult believes.
Or do they just play the game to keep their own jobs?
A good essay Mr. Klaven, but for those on the left your words will bounce off like a gnat running into a fighter plane. It is essentially a secular religion. No amount of evidence can break their faith in it. And no, its not just idealism. I think that many of them realize at some level, conscious or otherwise, that if their ideas are shown and accepted to be trash their social and economic status will plummet down to a level of the very type of folks they claim to champion. That is what scares them the most and that is why they will fight tooth and nail to occupy the highest decks of the Titanic until the very end, and to hell with all the other passengers.
Its like IowaHawk described: out of work bureaucrats on the street corners holding up cardboard signs reading “Will Regulate for Food.”
What great irony it is. When you talk about reducing the pay or benefits of “public servants” shrill screams erupt of “MINE! MINE! DO NOT TOUCH” which is an attitude that they hurl contempt at when its displayed by private sector folks who object to having their taxes raised.
There is nothing like a double standard, and no outrage can be so vehement as when it comes from those who benefit from one when it is shown to be what it is. Like vampires and bad dreams, double standards tend to die in the light. That’s why they prefer the darkness and hate the light with a violent passion.
Yes,because they live in an ideological fantasyland.Just as the MSM does.You can site 200 facts,gov stats and give them criminal confessions and they still refuse to believe the truth.
Just look how democrats saved poor,abused former slaves.
Ghettos,welfare,housing projects,free food,education and medical care.The evolution of slavery by democrats 1960′s style.Notice how black people are so thankful for being treated as ignorant,helpless dependents? To solve the problem the democrats listened carefully to complaints and spent more money on the failed programs,then added illegal immigrants to the dole.48% of the population are now poor,helpness,ignorant and unemployable.They have few goals,drive,hope,education and their English is barely comphrehensible.Rap stars,basketball player and drug dealer are their best options.
Mention this nightmare created by Democrats and they scream racist.Then vote to throw more money at their socialist horror show,deny the fact that 51% of citizens support the rest of society and blame elderly white people on SS for financial problems.Obama wants more money for “education” despite the factual failures of Atlanta,CA,Universities,Pell grants etcetc.3 generations of welfare failure,crime,anger and economic disater told the democrats we neeeeed Mexican immigrants to do the jobs that people on welfare are above doing.
Democrats and socialist depend on a high birth rate and the rich to finance their communist dreams.
European birth rates are barely above zero for white ppl and America’s has decreased alot,they tax the employed-middle to upper class heavily from birth-death to support the social systems which pays peopl to reproduce.Hence the importation of foreign workers/breeders/muslims.
To combat the persistent crime,resentment and complaints created by this psychosis they pass more ineffective laws.
While Obama,democrats,congress,religious fanatics and MSM ignore the facts and live happily in their fantasy democracy – hard working citizens are crushed under the weight of debt,taxes,a crumbling society,crime,liberal blame and resentment created by thses sociopaths with superiority complexes.
Obama claims we need to redistribute the wealth,raise taxes and people like him can afford to give more.May i suggest he starts by repaying the gov all the welfare,free education and SS collected by him and his family? And i will match him tax $ for tax $ after i receive the same benefits he has,earn the same amount and receive the same medical care,security,education for my child and vacations he does.
I seriously doubt the founding fathers invited immigrants here to become democratic slave laborers and businesses to succeede to finance and create a society of dependence ,imagined debts,ignorance,anger and crime.
Sigh,sorry for the rant.
Lydia you just expressed the fealings of thousands of us. thank you very much,
Vagabond, She expressed the feelings of at least a 100 million plus…
Thanks Lydia
Lydia,
Guess what. All blacks aren’t on welfare or otherwise on the Government dime. Tired of hearing that bullshit. Just as I’m tired of blacks alone being blamed for Affirmative Action, when everybody and their brother is getting some kind of preference and/or special treatment – like women for example. Pacific Islanders, Hispanics, Native Americans, women, are all escorted to the head of the line – and then everybody turns around, points the finger at and starts screaming about blacks.
“Obama claims we need to redistribute the wealth,raise taxes and people like him can afford to give more.May i suggest he starts by repaying the gov all the welfare,free education and SS collected by him and his family?”
What makes you think – besides the color of his skin – That Obungler ever collected any of these things. He was raised by his foreign stepparents and well to do white grandparents. Can’t get past that dark skin, equal welfare picture in your mind can you. By The F-ing Way, last I checked all sorts of AMERICANS collected welfare, and a free education, and Social Security. The usage of which isn’t confined to minorities. That’s the problem with way too many conservatives, every problem in this country is the product of the minority portion of the population. Got some bad news for you, all portions of the people have had a hand in creating the problems we have now; it is only a question of greater and lesser extent. No ones hands are completely clean.
Wow Mike, you sure read a lot of stuff into Lydia’s post that isn’t there.
If you are tired of Hearing it, then tell the voices in your head to stop Saying it.
She never said (or implied) All blacks. In fact, your reply is littered with so much bile it isn’t worth reacting to.
Read the article. Remove the emotion and react rationally, without name-calling. Use facts.
Saying it more often (or louder) doesn’t make it True.
Chris, Steve,
Point well made, but don’t be so hard on Mike. He’s right about one thing–everyones hands are dirty. For instance, S.S., an illegal, socialist, pyramid scheme. Are you ready to do without it? I’ve paid in for 30 years and can collect in 20. I say leave me out of S.S. But also leave me to my own!! A realistic return to our founding principles would be a hard pill to swallow for alot of us as we rely on the nanny government more than we might care to admit.
Right on Lydia!!
nice essay. Several good arguments presented I hadn’t seen before. Well done.
Can we even imagine what life would be like if the majority of Lefties came to their senses and admitted Leftism was a crock? For a hundred years there has been broad, unceasing pressure from the Left towards socialism, political correctness and all the other things that would move us further away from America and closer to Europe. What would it be like for that pressure to suddenly cease?
To just be left alone, to not have to deal with political correctness, to have my kids taught actual history, to keep and use my property as I see fit, to not be constantly harangued by big Gov nanny’s…
I can only think it would be like a man who has suffered chronic pain his whole life waking up one morning feeling normal and well.
Very good article but still not as genius as was the Shutup video. Man, that thing still rules.
“Disagree with the left and you’re a racist, a sexist, an Islamophobe — whatever.”
Yes, terrible how the left resorts to name-calling, says the man whose blog is festooned with a Soviet hammer and sickle to represent those that disagree with him.
You don’t like the imagery. But you also didn’t bother to deny the truth of Klavan’s article. The Left’s fake, self-serving call for “civility” simply doesn’t stand up to the reality of the Left’s intellectually vacant, non-stop demonization of those who disagree with them. The hypocrisy is yours. And the fact is that there are plenty of those on the Left who still think it’s chic to flash Communist and Soviet imagery. But then, why wouldn’t they? Lenin properly identified them as “useful idiots” and they’re as idiotic now as they were then. Among the many ways they confirm their own idiocy is there pathetic compulsion to spew insults, stupid arguments and lies.
I figure the “Coffee Party USA” was invented as a response to the Tea Party because the Communist Party USA had some leftover T-Shirts.
If you don’t like the Hammer and Sickle image, then oppose what it stands for, give us your reasons why you think it doesn’t apply.
Or admit that, once again, you know in your heart that AK is right.
Did you miss the entire gist of the article? You and your ideology have failed miserably. You have always failed miserably. All that matters is Andrew is right in his assessment of your dismal results. That’s the only important point.
You can nitpick. You can criticize. You can find fault. None of it will hide the fact Obama, his cabinet, his toadies, and his ideology have failed. You and your ilk need to accept that fact and step aside to let someone with superior ideas pick up the pieces.
It’s not name-callin; it’s truth-tellin.
Just because he’s a “hypocrite”, doesn’t mean he’s wrong.
The hammer and sickle is accurate. It is not an insult, but rather, a simple statement of fact. Communists are far-Left. So are Democrats. Their policies always fail, because they are not trying to make things work. They are in it for the Power.
When the policies fail, they resort to insults, stupid arguments, and lies. Just like schoolkids.
so very true Marc,
“…a Soviet hammer and sickle to represent those that disagree with him.
”
Yeah, I agree that that’s not really appropriate when talking about “liberal” Democrats.
A swastika would be better.
Or, better yet, the Eye of Sauron.
“…a Soviet hammer and sickle to represent those that disagree with him.”
Yeah, I agree that that’s not really appropriate when talking about “liberal” Democrats.
A swastika would be better.”
As someone once noted the only difference between the state run by Hitler and the one run by Stalin, was that Stalin had a bigger moustache.
Hey Joe,
Ever BEEN to a rally full of leftest assholes?
Next time a “pro-education funding” rally sponsored by your garden variety Democrat comes around, grab a camera.
Lots of red stars, hammer and sickles, marx and lenin T-shirts all over the place…they dont hide it.
In Trenton bitching about Christie, in Wisconsin, wherever the lefties appear, you’ll find pleny of it in spades.
That, and lots of insults, stupid arguments, and lies.
Do you get out much, or just troll?
Using a hammer and sickle to represent today’s left is not a gratuitous insult. It’s an observation.
Mr. Klavan,
With all due respect, I believe that you’re missing the forest for the single tree that you’ve decided to fixate on.
Yes the USSR (and all of their copycats) proved that communism/socialism does not work. But Mexico proves that libertarianism does not work either.
Furthermore, the success of Canada and Germany prove that Keynesian based capitalism is superior to both collectivism and libertarianism.
Mexico is a haven of Libertariansim? What’s that you’re smoking and would you send me some?
garrettc,
I was clearly referring to the economy of Mexico (excluding its energy sector).
Webster’s Dictionary defines libertarianism as “the belief that people should be allowed to do and say what they want without any interference from the government”.
The Mexico’s regulation of its economy is either non-existent or a joke.
That’s economic libertarianism.
Would Your economic model include the cartels?
jerry g kulyk,
It’s not my economic model; it’s Mexico’s. Which is what Republicans and Libertarians are advocating for.
Sir–if you think Mexico is an example of an economically libertarian state you are either lying or incredibly ignorant. It is only libertarian until the point where you start to succeed, at which point the powers that be (and functionally speaking, crony capitalism and socialism are the same thing) will come and take what you have built away from you.
Tcobb,
You are mistaken. The issues that you mentioned in your last post are an inevitable result of economic libertarianism.
In what way is Mexico libertarian ?
To the extent the latest email from Soros told him to say it.
Rob Crawford,
Actually I think for myself. You on the other hand seem incapable of writing anything that isn’t a quote from some clown on Fox “News” or MSNBC.
mr. burns,
The economy of Mexico (excluding its energy sector) is libertarian in that the governments’ regulation of their economy is either non-existent or a joke.
Mexico is a racist oligarchy without a shred of rights that are not instantly revocable based on the whims of the local officials.
There is no more corrupt nation in the W. Hemisphere.
Mexico is a sewer, filled with hopeless peasants and entitled Castillians.
Ever wonder why the Mexican politicians on their worthless currency look nothing like the Mexicans mowing lawns in your neighborhood?
Using Mexico as anything but an example of a failed racist hell negates any words that may follow.
Any nation that, as policy, ships 10-20% of their population to their neighbors house, is on the verge of collapse.
Get a clue, and stop making a fool of yourself.
skippy,
Mexico might very well be a racist oligarchy but that’s irrelevant to want my comments are about. The issue that I’m discussing is why Mexico’s economy is in the condition that it is. Mexico has a tiny fraction of the laws and regulators of the U.S. The elimination of those regulations is economic libertarianism. The failure of the Mexican economy to produce prosperity for its people is a failure of economic libertarianism.
Judging by the childish comments at the end of your post, it sounds like you’re a believer Fox in “News” or MSNBC. If you’d take a moment to learn something for yourself, instead of just repeating the talking points you’ve head on TV, you would know that what I’ve written is correct.
Finally, don’t feel too embraced about me making a fool of you. Any believer in Fox “News” or MSNBC is bound to have that happen to them.
Thats not true at all. mexico ‘economy’ is based of corruption and drug lords. far closer to a dictatorship that liberterianism. Im liberterian and we DONOT advocate for such things at all. we advocate for a limited constitutional govt, not a corrupt govt run by drug cartels. SUre we may want the ‘war on drugs’ to enf, but thats not because we want to be like mexico. its because it it expensive and and has not worked. lazze fair capitialism is not what we want either. there is nothing wrong and we want busineeses to provide the consumer with information and accurate information regarding their products and services. we dont want the govt telling us what we can and cannot eat. We want and end to the dept of education. the reasons for that should be self explanitory and very obvious as well as the limiting of unions and especially the public sector unions. We want people to be responsible for their own healthcare, housing, retirement and children. not ecpect tax payers to fund corrupt and overpriced entitlements that people never get off. safety netas should be privately based and funded. again the reasons should be painfully obvious. we do not want the govt liv or conserv telling us who we can and cannot have sex with(no i dont mean kids or animals). we want a flat tax with the loopholes out as a 60000+ pg tax code that NOBODY (even geithner) can understand completly. the things we want the govt in and out are obvious and again the reasons are clear. everything the govt touches it destroys. while the govt can be useful, its power MUST be strickly limited and managed. remember the power you give the govt you like, stays with the govt you hate. we are just for common sence and free markets….in other words NOTHING LIKE MEXICO!
jmz,
Actually, Mexico’s economy is based on consumption and exports. Just like the U.S.
Webster’s Dictionary defines libertarianism as “the belief that people should be allowed to do and say what they want without any interference from the government”.
The U.S. has over 1.4 Million regulators at the local, state and federal level. Mexico has less than 40,000. Additionally, Mexico has a tiny fraction of the laws governing their economy. Excluding their energy sector, Mexico has one of the most libertarian economies in the world.
What you and other misguided people on the right just do not seem to understand, is that there is a role that government must play in the economy. It must not macro-manage it like the Soviets did and it must not ignore it like Mexico does.
The USSR proved that collectivism does NOT work. Mexico proves the economic libertarianism does NOT work either.
Save that both Germany and Canada are seeking to shed their welfare State apparatus as it is too costly and restraining growth. Germany has never completed the surveys required of EU Nations to find out if their people actually LIKE and are SATISFIED by their State sponsored medical care. In Canada rationing has been the norm for decades and their backstop has been the US.
Canada has been blessed with natural resources that their government actually lets them USE with Provinces trying to cut off the siphoning of money to Ottowa so that there can be some prosperity in those areas with viable resources, and Germany has imported so many low skill, low wage workers from Turkey they are now finding their very culture being liquidated and are desperately trying to enforce some sort of concept that German citizens should speak German.
In what way are these ‘successes’?
Governments that don’t want to see if their citizens actually LIKE what they are getting? And having to import workers who see no reason to assimilate and, indeed, wish to deteriorate the very culture that brought them there?
Depending on natural resources and having Provinces do their best to cut off the National government from getting the lion’s share of the tax revenue? And then having to depend on their wealthy neighbor to the south when the medical system can’t actually offer services on a timely basis?
These are ‘successes’? Good luck on peddling that, I tellya.
ajacksonian,
Actually Canada and Germany are strengthening their welfare systems. You may consider raising the retirement age or slightly increasing taxes to be a form of “shedding their welfare State apparatus” but in reality they are in fact taking the necessary steps to ensure that their social safety nets will be secure for future generations. However, I should have stated that Canada and Germany are models of Keynesian economic systems excluding their health-care systems.
Any Nation that does not allow their citizens to be armed so as to protect home, family and neighborhood is in no way ‘libertarian’. The word you are looking for is ‘authoritarian’ on the road to ‘totalitarian’.
ajacksonian,
As I’ve stated in previous posts and articles; I was referring economic libertarianism in reference to Mexico’s economy.
Furthermore, the success of Canada and Germany prove that Keynesian based capitalism is superior to both collectivism and libertarianism.
The success of Canada and Germany proves that when a nation doesn’t have to spend on national defense, it can dump vast sums of money into the economy.
Besides, the Canadians haven’t practiced Keynesian economics since the mid-1970s, and Germany has cut way back on attempts at economic stimulus.
Llarry
Your comments on defense spending are irrelevant to this discussion. I’m not commenting on any countries defense budget. What I am commenting on is the superiority of Keynesian based capitalism over libertarianism or socialism.
Also, Canada and Germany haven’t stopped practicing Keynesian economics at all.
Canada has not had a Keynesian government since our very own Obama – Pierre Trudeau in the 70′s. My keen insight tells me that you are keen on Keynes and go keening after some delusions that do not amount in any way to keen-edged thinking. Your uncivilized and generally low-down assertion provides no stimulus to this Canadian.
westerncanadian,
Spoken like a typical Fox “News” or MSNBC viewer. I noticed that you didn’t address any of the specific comments I made. I’m sure it was an oversight on your part.
Additionally, Keynesian economics is an ECONOMIC system, not a form of government.
Finally, if Canada’s embrace of Keynesian economics ended with “Pierre Trudeau in the 70′s”; could you provide links to Canadian government websites, that demonstrate Canada’s embrace of deregulation and outlaw of economic stimulus?
I was stopped once he said “…Keynesian based capitalism is superior…”. I didn’t know there was anyone left that still subscribed to Keyne’s discredited foolishness who was also literate enough to type. But then I recovered and went back and read about this supposedly libertarian Mexico and Keynesian Canada and realized he must surely just be randomly smacking the keyboard.
ScottLC,
Your lack of reading is probably responsible for your ignorance. On the substance of your post; are you really trying to suggest that Mexico’s libertarian economy is superior to Canada’s and Germany’s Keynesian capitalist economy? If you are, I’m not sure if I should laugh at you or cry for you.
“But Mexico proves that libertarianism does not work either. ”
Yep, libertarian to the hilt. That’s why there’s socialised health care, socialized oil and railroad industries, Land distributions to peasants, massive moves towards social democracy since the 60s, and the govt heavily subsidizes corn so their people can feed themselves.
You know nothing about Mexico.
uhh wrong,
Actually, Mexico does NOT have socialized health care. The balance of public and private health care facilities is roughly equal to that of the U.S. So that’s your first mistake.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1276627/
I’ve stated in previous posts and articles that “excluding it’s energy sector Mexico has one of the most libertarian economies in the world”. So your comment about Mexico’s oil industry is ignorant at best and dishonest at worst.
Mexico’s railroad industry is privately owned. That’s your second mistake.
http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/single-view/view/a-record-half.html
On your comment that “land is distributed to peasants”, what specifically to you have as proof of that? I suspect you have none, so that’s your third mistake.
Finally, since the 70’s Mexico has been on a path towards economic libertarianism not social democracy. Since that time Mexico has sold almost all state enterprises (excluding their energy sector) and gone on a deregulation orgy. What they have now is economic libertarianism. If you’re keeping count that means you’ve been wrong on almost everything.
If appears it is you who knows nothing about Mexico. But ignorance is a natural consequence of watching and believing in Fox “News” or MSNBC.
Law and order to protect life and property is one important tenet of libertarianism. Mexico is kinda having trouble with that, if you haven’t noticed.
eddyfiction,
Law and order is an important necessity for prosperity; which is why government must regulate the economy. That’s a core tenet of Keynesian Capitalism.
Mexico’s reject of governance and embrace of economic libertarianism is the reason why its economy is such a failure.
Heh. Mexico is Libertarian. Do you stay awake at night figuring out ways to prove the points made by assorted writers? I haven’t seen such a Stupid Argument in some time.
Points for originality though. Most lefties just download their Stupid Arguments from the lefty hive-mind. Even Daily Kos hasn’t tried this one.
cfm,
Actually, I wrote that the Mexican economy (excluding its energy sector) is libertarian. I realize lying is second-nature to believers in Fox “News” or MSNBC, but you should try to be honest with your comments. If I may make an assumption (if you can prove me wrong with evidence, please do); I think the you reason you feel my description about the Mexico is stupid, is because if it’s true, (which it is) then that makes people who support economic libertarianism look very stupid.
Finally, if you think that I’m a leftist then you really have been listening to the mouthpieces of Koch and Soros too much. Seriously, you really need to learn to think for yourself.
Seriously indeed. From the putz who took months to learn how to spell “independent”. Your pitiful attempts to reply to numerous posters here predictably contain the author’s three points – insults, stupid arguments, and lies. You really do not have the most remote clue what “libertarian” means, do you?
As for the tediously inevitable junior high debate class demand for “proof”. Get a grip, junior. I’m not your special-needs teacher. Learn to read.
Here are your instructions: Spend the next two hours typing yet another nonsensical screed in reply. Delude yourself all you like that you’ve said anything of substance. I promise I’ll return to this three day old thread no one is viewing any more, and see your reply. Really. Heh.
Go on . . . where is your “last word”?
cfm,
I’ve always found it so entertaining the way the fools on the left and right seem to constantly contradict themselves in a single line of thought. You complain about “insults, stupid arguments, and lies” and yet engage in those very things in the same post.
But that’s not even the topic of this discussion. What I’m commenting on is the failure of economic libertarianism, as proven by Mexico. The Webster’s Dictionary defines libertarianism as “the belief that people should be allowed to do and say what they want without any interference from the government”. In economic terms, that means the less regulation of the economy, the more libertarian the economy. Or as Milton Friedman put it “the only good government regulation, is no government regulation”. While Mexico is not at the point of have zero regulation of its economy (namely in its energy sector), it is one of the most libertarian economies in the world. With only a tiny fraction of the number of laws and regulators as compared to the U.S.
You might find it useful to attempt to change the subject with childish remarks but that won’t change the fact that your wrong and you did not address any of the issues. Look I know it must be embarrassing to be made a fool of on a conservative website like PJM. But look at the bright side; now that you know you don’t know anything, maybe now you can try on learn something.
“Yes, terrible how the left resorts to name-calling, says the man whose blog is festooned with a Soviet hammer and sickle to represent those that disagree with him.”
—
“In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” – George Orwell
As the saying goes: “If the shoe fits…”
You Western Lefties ties to and support of the Soviet Union is just one of myriad “inconvenient truths” that you’ve tried to scrub from the pages of history. And more and more, the “enemy of the state” rhetoric the Western Left is starting to employ – in a hopeless effort at averting attention from the nightmare you’ve unleashed on Western Civilization – is beginning to eerily mirror the type you’d find in the old Soviet Union.
A short list of recent musings from the Left:
- William Yeomans, Politico: “Tea Party’s Terrorist Tactics”
- Paul Waldman, American Prospect: “Underestimating Right Wing Insanity”"
- Nicholas Kristof, NY Times: “GOP Zealots Threatening America’s Security
- Andrew Leonard, Salon: “New GOP Hostage Demand: Kill ObamaCare”
- E.J. Dionne, Washington Post: “Tea Party Extremism Endangering Nation”
- Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA): “Cult Fringe” Holding Up Debt Ceiling Increase”
- Gene Lyons, Salon: “A Republican Party Divorced From Sanity”
- Gary Younge, The Guardian: “Debt Ceiling Crisis Exposing GOP Madness”
- Bill Maher: Maher: “Where Were The “Teabaggers” Before “Blackie McBlackman?”
- Senator John Kerry (D-MA): Kerry: “Tea Party Republicans a “Group of Absolutists, Extremists”
- Robert Kuttner, American Prospect: “The Joys of Fanaticism”
- Paul Krugman, New York Times: “The GOP Went Insane Long Ago”
- Robert Reich, Huffington Post: “The Wrecking Ball Right”
- Joan Walsh, Salon: “GOP’s Extremist 2012 Field Helps Obama”
- Jonathan Chait, The New Republic: “The Republican Crazy Is Not an Act”
- Mike Littwin, Denver Post: “Tea Partier Crazies Want U.S. to Default”
- Tina Brown, MSNBC: “GOP Are Suicide Bombers in Debt Negotiations”
- Martin Frost, Politico: “The tea party Taliban”
Either way, I’m pretty sure that the 100+ million who were starved and murdered by your brethren over the past century wouldn’t find fault with the symbolism.
well rvastar you did a good job of listing most of the STUPID IDIOTS but their are far too many to list them all,
#13. Joseph
Yes, terrible how the left resorts to name-calling, says the man whose blog is festooned with a Soviet hammer and sickle to represent those that disagree with him.
As it is written: For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.
And where were you and what was your position when Bush was actively being declared the equivalent of Hitler?
Oh–dat wash chust funny? Well gosh little dude, I think equating “progressives” with the hammer and sickle is funny too. Sorry it hurts your tender little sensitive feelings.
But I lie a lot. I really don’t give a damn about your tender, pompous, little feelings at all.
The current Left today reminds me so much of a spoiled child crying to his mommy that the kid who he hit in the face had the utter gall to hit him back.
Nice piece Andrew, as usual a good job.
Now for the reality. We in flyover country no longer care what the left wingnuts call us. Stick and stones. We are correct, they are left. But, that does not mean that if one of them calls me a racist in public that I won’t break his nose! I will do it because I don’t reward bad behavior. Impune my dignity and pay the price lefties!
An arrogant leftist may impugn your dignity; and if so, when you hit him back, I hope you do so with impunity!
Ah the saintly, oh so smart of those on the LEFT. Don’t you just love their contradictions? They have the NAGS, so seem eerily silent as the Muslim women are repressed, genitals mutilated, and subjucated. The women can’t even drive a car by themselves in Saudi Arabia. Then their is the homosexuals who the Left adores. Just which part of Islam do they like? The hanging of homosexuals? Can’t you just imagaine how swell the openly homosexuals are going to be treated by the Muslims in the Military?
And if you keep taxing the millionaires and billionaires, just how long do you think these people will hang on in the U.S. as they are taxed to excess? When taxes get excessive, people start cheating, they stop working so hard, or t6hey leave. So you never collect the amount of taxes you think you are going to. What about fairness. What’s fair about someone sitting on their butt all day and taxing someone else into oblivion to pay for the lazy?
Great column but, for the record, let’s not forget that most of those labeled as “islamophobes” by the PC/MC/Left/Islamophilic unholy alliance would more accurately be described as islamo-realists.
Andrew,
As usual, you nailed it in fewer words than any – I would only add (as a former liberal) that what I learned on the road to conservatism is that the leftists will never admit that “its own enterprise has failed.” They can’t. The end game is control over every aspect of every citizen’s life. They will use whatever tactic it takes, and however long it takes, to gain this control.
Don’t like the concept of spreading the wealth around? Well we will call your bluff and say we are doing it in the name of the environment. Don’t like the massive costs of Medicaid, SSI or Social Security? Well, you must want Granny to die.
I am afraid the general population today is just as oblivious as I was five years ago. How else can you see it when you live in a college town where the most popular bumper sticker is “Zombies Unite?”
The modern left has no organizing principle other than opposing American and Western imperialism. This is defined broadly, to include the presence of McDonald’s restaurants in far away places. Cultural imperialism, meaning selling Western products to people who want to buy them, is put on the same level as invasion and colonization.
If you oppose America, then any abuse of power or oppression is fine. The Left is about putting the right people in power, not about limiting their use of power. Power isn’t a problem, despite how much they go on about it. They just want their guys in charge. If they have the right ideas it will be OK. Power is a means to an end, and the more they have the better.
There are no other principles. It’s not about freedom or human rights, because the biggest abusers are opposed to the United States. Pacifism is really an excuse to oppose America’s wars- wars against the US are fine. They use the term “resistance” a lot, but they mean violence.
Finally, all resistance to American imperialism is defined as a perfectly natural reaction. The Left denies agency to terrorists and freedom fighters. They are not responsible for their choice to kill people- it’s all our fault.
It’s all very dishonest. And it’s simple to see that they are simply on the other side.
Very well written Mr. Klavan, I agree with a previous commenter that your demonstrated commercial writing success allows you to bring a clarity to your articles.
As for Mr. Independant, I am Canadian and I would very much hesitate to deem us as a success, even in comparison to the current Obama led disaster in the US, I have much greated confidence in the work ethic and independance of the American people than I do in the population of our nanny state.
The New World Order: Changing The Conversation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLF_i8CbwHQ
“Happiness and moral duty are inseparably connected.” George Washington
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
-Winston Churchill
Today, if we insert ‘Progressivism’ into this quote it would be as true and as relavent as the day it was first uttered by Churchill.
But before the left can join in that enterprise, it must first admit that its own enterprise has failed.
A great article, but one undercut by a fatal error: you extend to the Left a goodwill they have never deserved.
What do you think their “enterprise” is? Where do you think their road goes? Here’s a big hint: we saw some of it on Wall Street today. Contrary to the discussion upthread, the hammer and sickle are not inaccurate symbols to apply to the Left, nor are they merely a caricature; that is the end of their road. The fatal error to make is to look at all those udeful idiots screaming “But I didn’t mean THIS!” and proceed to absolve them for their failure to look where they were taking us. That failure is what defines them as “idiots” for the purpose of that phrase.
Any Leftist that genuinely joined the American enterprise would cease to be Leftist, by definition. The Left has no place at the American table, anymore than a burglar has a place at your local neighborhood watch meeting.
If the road leads to hell, the intentions don’t matter.
Either Klavan has been reading the “Day by Day” cartoon, or the guy who writes “Day by Day” is reading Klavan’s columns.
Or both,
Progressivism is the political analog of the perpetual motion machine. Those never work because they can’t work but con men and women keep trying to sell them.
Leftism has failed, and it is by design immoral. Tell a liberal that, and he’ll attack without reason or sense. I think a better approach is to commend a liberal for his intent and then point out that the actions are not getting him what he wants. In other words, “Gee, I see you really care about helping the poor. It’s a shame that the government does such a poor job of it, wasting money and getting cheated. Plus, they are taxing you to give to the poor. Wouldn’t you rather just give your money to the poor directly? You could give way less than they take from you in taxes and you could help people a whole lot more.” Something like that.
I think you have to trick a liberal into seeing the truth. Trying to make a liberal see the truth without sheilding it is like asking him to stare directly into the sun.
Won’t work because leftists get off on the feeling of power they get from forcing others to “do good”. They are already convinced of their own moral superiority.
They don’t just get off on power, they’re also greedy/selfish. During the last “Don’t let greedy stupid Republicans kill NPR!” Facebook meme, I told several leftists that NPR claims they get less than 2% of their income from the federal government, so if they just increase their annual $50 contribution to $51 that would cover it. Not a single one of the bashers had given money to NPR in their lifetimes, let alone yearly. (Only one blocked me after I asked who was really the stupid greedy one here…the one demanding a service be paid for by others, or the one expecting users of the service to pay for it.)
I enjoy your videos and articles very much Mr. Klavan, they are in a word, FREAKIN AWSOME, and this article maintains this high standard. Thanks for your work, I drive some lefty types nuts on a martial arts website I post on by posting your thoughts. It may get me banned, but I still enjoy posting your work. I’m serious, there is talk there of banning me because several of the posters, don’t like the material I post or the way I post it. As someone who is not in the public eye, experiencing what you have written above is…interesting. Thanks again.
” … leftists counter that, well, George W. Bush spent too much money too.”
This damnable lie has much currency and zero credibility. Everyone from Glenn Beck to Walter Russell Mead to Tim Pawlenty has said a much with no evidence.
Contrary to the leftist narrative, the economy was well into freefall at the end of the Clinton Administration. The Dot.com Bubble and NASDAQ cracked one solid year before Clinton left office, and the NASDAQ was down $2.5 trillion when Bush took office. Any sufficiently large economic bubble will result in a depression or in a severe recession, and the Dot.com Bubble was the third largest bubble in history after the Great Depression and the Japanese bubble of 1991. Yet the Dot.com Recession was handily contained by the correct actions of President Bush. True, the Bubba Recession required things like Unemployment Comp, food stamps, and job trainig, but this is properly to Bubba’s account; Clinton was the one who allowed the Dot.com Bubble to get out of hand resulting in $3 trillion being added to the national debt. Similarly, the Democrats’ Unaffordable Housing Project Bubble crashed during the Bush Administration, but Republicans had zero contribution to this Democratic Party folly.
The Dot.com Crash and the Housing Crash were wholly the products of Democratic Party stupidity, and as president, Bush had to deal with the economic impact. But between these two bookends, the Bush economy, following the Bush economic program, performed superbly, with employment, government revenues, GDP, and markets hitting new highs from 2003 to 2007, with the deficit being steadily reduced. This even with 09/11 and Medicaid drug benefits.
Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.
For the fun of it, and with more than a little concern the following is dead on:
Ah, we are but in the briefest of interludes. As London Bridge is falling down so our cities have been drenched in the miserable failings of socialism, as if it were an arsonist’s fuel. “It’s too bad”, they mutter for now, “it should work”, not sensing their own greed, for the nature of man is deceiving even unto itself.
Take care right minded brethren. This beast is not undead, it is most foul and enraged with existentialist dread. Free choice has laid these current betters dreams in hellish shards. Our comfort in understanding the change brought by impotent hope is vapid. The terrible beast will bellow, it is certain, it is its nature.
On the seemingly casual words of our most esteemed POTUS our inner cities will begin to burn and in this will be the repudiation by the left of all things that are true. The lovers of the peace mantra unicorns and the holders of the sacred runic rainbows will bend on knee in admonishment of those pesky know it all teabagging libertarians.
Perhaps a new Sedition Act, without the Alien part but of course.
However; there is no doubt in my mind that the left will respond with violence, and in this violence they will demand that they are right. We teabaggers have caused the world to riot. We withhold the wealth that government needs to quell the depravity of those of beastly natures. The inner cities, after all, have an employment rate of less than half and the great part of those are women. How dare you try and keep some money.
Necessity compels when the devil drives.
Loved the article and a lot of the comments. One thing I do strongly disagree with is the term “reverse racism” as I feel there is no such thing…there is only racism. To provide it in the context of it being reverse gives credibility to the arguement that minorities cannot be racists because when they do, it is somehow now in reverse.
I believe the term Reverse Racism is useful. It describes a person who points out someone as a racist while three fingers are pointing at themselves.
Don’t hold your breath. For those of us who see political discourse as a field for argument of the traditional variety, admitting to error is only that. It’s rather different for folks on the Left, because of how intimately their politics is intertwined with their self-concept.
Michael Savage has been right for many years: there is no daylight between “Democrats” and “Republicans”: the American People are being played.
They are all globalist elites, now in the process of burning down the world.
Shame on the American people for doing nothing while it’s all burning down.
Thanks, Andrew. That was brilliant. Logical, rational, systematic.
I’m going to sound a little like a leftist for saying this, but this was actually a brave little article to write. It basically says to the other side, “So what if all of your assumptions about my character and motivations are correct. You ain’t got shit.” When it comes to a point like this, you know the left may as well hang up their frilly panties and go home. It’s over.
Those who are always wrong about everything have no valid arguments; therefore, they must resort to name-calling, lying, mudslinging, and threats.
Racist? I’m not the guy who spent twenty tears in a screaming racist’s church.
As for all the name calling, simple, apart from the failure staring them in the face, it’s hatred, pure & simple, given an outlet in politics but always near the surface.
Thank you Klavan for another ‘reach into the real’ – you are a gem!
I pulled this from a piece that I wrote on South Africa six months ago. As you will recall the Afrikaner government classified humans into three groups Whites – Blacks and Coloreds. With the defeat of ‘apartheid’ and the election of a black controlled Government – all of the people living in SA were in for a big change. I called it ‘pay back is hell’ and if you are a white or a colored person in South Africa today – you know exactly what I mean. I submit this excerpt here because since his anointment Obama has been sending off a vibration of “I will make you pay” – at least that’s the message I‘m getting!!
Call it ’pay back’ – call it ’reverse racism’ what ever – but I for one do not want to pay this poor excuse for leadership another dime – so what to do?
I know that many people pray for a new South Africa – but it will take more than prayer – it will take planning and resourcefulness and a full understanding of your history – learning the ’whys’ that have lead to the hatred that is being displayed by the power base toward the rest of the country ! (Metz I agree about the ‘reverse business’ – ‘pay back’ works.)
Hey – people prayed for a new Uganda – people prayed for a new Zimbabwe – up North people are praying in Egypt – Libya – Palestine – all hoping for a fresh beginning – a new ‘spring’ !
But agreeing in your own mind that it won’t happen next week – gives you an edge up on how to help the metamorphosis take place. Teach your young people (away from the twits that run the current government of course) teach them about honesty – honor – caring for friends and family – accepting responsibility for ones actions – never forgetting the old testament and an ’eye for an eye’ thing – a widespread underground educational movement that will in time offer up people who are color blind in the nicest sense – trained in many military disciplines – and mature enough to create the Nation of your dreams.
Hey Grandparents – now you can really do something for the kids – get them a copy of the Art Of War by Sun Tzu!
The current cretins must be removed and pushed aside – Rhodesway is involved in a similar program of learning – we have worries here in the US – we are plagued with Progressives and Socialists – half of our population pay no taxes at all – big unions and voters who get benefits for just being born. My feeling is ‘bad’ should be stopped where ever it sprouts!
My eleven year old nephew is doing pull ups – before his class in ranging trajectory on the belted 50 cal.!
My twenty year old Granddaughter bangs heads with her liberal college instructors during the day and still finds time to teach a class on the ‘Constitution’ in the neighborhood!
Remember a sense of humor helps!.
Rhodesway cares.
“However; there is no doubt in my mind that the left will respond with violence, and in this violence they will demand that they are right. We teabaggers have caused the world to riot. We withhold the wealth that government needs to quell the depravity of those of beastly natures. The inner cities, after all, have an employment rate of less than half and the great part of those are women. How dare you try and keep some money.
Necessity compels when the devil drives.” Jerry -you are so right.
This is exactly what is beginning to happen in USA and groups like Moslem Brotherhood are instigating violence- and we- of course-are the last to hear about it. It was announced back in May-but, did not really materialize.
Riots and attacks are coming, people. The Press is always late to inform.
Leftism, and its beneficiary Communism, is the low class approach to the solution of perceived problems. It is undertaken by many who do not understand how things really work. Thus, it embraces the misfortunes of the ignorant.
It also engenders the belief that the end justifies the means. The only goal of the leftist is power and control, and when they get it they don’t really know how to use it for the benefit of the people. Control and power is then maintained by the many forms of repression they use, and that can be virtually anything since the end justifies the means.
That’s why Obama’s administration is called the “gangster government,” and why its greater power base is the unions. That’s why we have Obamacare.
Some guy named Mr independent keeps constantly saying that Mexico is libertarian. They are not, they are a failed socialist state. They have plenty of rules, but since they are a failed state, those rules are never fairly enforced. He also confuses libertarianism with anarchy. Libertarianism does not mean no gov and no rules, it means limited gov. For example, libertarianism requires gov to enforce laws against violence, theft, fraud, slavery, breach of contract, and other crimes where one individual harms another. And libertarianism requires those laws be vigorously enforced. What libertarianism opposes is gov trying to perform charity by taking money from one person to give it to another, or gov regulating things that can already be handled by a free market, like wasting money trying to stimulate the economy, or saying we can’t buy a product because the gov does not think it is good for us.
If Mr independent wants to talk about libertarian governments, then talk about REAL libertarian governments, not Mexico. Talk about Hong Kong, TX, CA of the 40′s-50′s (before the leftists took over), and the US before 1914 (before Woodrow Wilson and the progressives).
The misinformed richard40,
Actually Mexico is a failing state with a libertarian economy (excluding its energy sector). The Webster’s Dictionary defines libertarianism as “the belief that people should be allowed to do and say what they want without any interference from the government”. In economic terms, that means the less regulation of the economy, the more libertarian the economy. That’s Mexico. It’s a failure and so are your “arguments”.
You put that definition in quotation marks but it’s not quoted from any Webster’s dictionary from what I can see. Where did you get this ‘definition’ from?
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/libertarian
Mr. Independent,
Ok, I’ll engage and I will not call you any names.
You use a definition of Libertarianism that is flawed. “the belief that people should be allowed to do and say what they want without any interference from the government” Would this include murder, theft, raping and pillaging? Please explain how this definition differs from anarchy.
Libertarianism in my understanding seeks to limit, not deny, a governmental role in regulating, making, and enforcing laws by binding all of these activities to the rule of law.
Danno,
Thank you for your post.
The definition of libertarianism that I use is the official definition of the word. I’ve stated earlier that eventual consequence of libertarianism is anarchy. However, I was speaking specifically of economic libertarianism. Put simply, economic libertarianism is the elimination of government regulation from the economy.
So the question is; what should the limit of government be in our economy? For me the overall answer to that question is simple. I believe that our government should not macro-manage the economy but must regulate it.
Mr Independent,
The official definition? Libertarianism is a philosophy not a “thing” I argue that the definition you use from Webster is inaccurate in the extreme, or at the very least incomplete. This causes argument in the wrong arena. You state that “according to the definition of libertarian” Mexico is operating in an economic libertarian system. What I am saying is the people of Webster do not have a complete enough knowledge of the philosophy to define it, and if they do it would take more than a sentence to adequately define. What they have defined is anarchy (the polar extreme although an admittedly a libertarian concept)as the whole of libertarian philosophy.
I think we agree? The role of government is not to mandate and/or manage, but rather to regulate. The question we both have is to what degree. The libertarian philosophy (short of anarchy) advocates regulating to the least degree possible; to provide protection for life liberty and property. This does not at all sound like Mexico
Mr. Independent,
Thank you for your contribution and opinion.
I was born in Mexico to American missionary parents. I’ve lived in Mexico. I’ve got friends in Mexico and love the Mexican people.
Mexico is NOT an economically libertarian state.
When the University of Mexico suggested students might need to start paying just a portion of tuition cost, there were huge protests in the streets.
There are plenty of preachers in pulpits espousing a modern neo-Marxist belief mixed with Christianity. The majority do not seem to believe in economic liberty. Land, while titled to individuals, technically still ‘belongs’ to the nation’s government. There’s a suspicion of private property rights, and the place gets trashed…the Tragedy of the Commons. There’s a hostility towards capitalism.
In the ’90′s we talked to lawyers about getting property ‘titled’ into our small church’s name. The process was HORRIBLE because of stupid regulations and we didn’t go through with it…reporting requirements, useless paperwork to send off to this bureaucrat in the capital city, then that paperwork, minimum offering income requirements, approval by so and so…SCREAM. We got around it all by remaining unregistered as a ‘House of Worship,’ not technically a church (kind of illegal).
THAT’S NOT A LIBERTARIAN SYSTEM.
Unions are very strong and proud there. Here’s an excerpt from an FEE article (1988):
“Unions have also been particularly fierce in their fight against the first McDonald’s in Mexico. This Mexico City McDonald’s was accused of “threatening national values” mostly because it wanted to use part-time nonunion workers. Protesters painted “Death to the Voracious Bosses” on the walls of the restaurant. The horrible crime of the nasty capitalist bosses? Paying non-union workers more in an hour than the union’s standard contract paid in a full day. Meanwhile, cars backed up in a mile-long line waiting to order their Big Macs.”
It goes both ways. Union workers could get beat up if they weren’t politically connected to the ruling party.
Mexico has long prohibited or frowned on foreign investment into the country. That’s not libertarian.
When I lived there 10 years ago, Mexico strongly discouraged through taxation used cars from entering from the US market, under the delusion it would hurt Mexican jobs, even though cheap used cars are exactly what they could’ve used.
They frowned on and sometimes confiscated the clothing and toiletries we would give out for free, as if free was somehow not a benefit for the people. Maddening.
That’s not libertarian.
On the border, there’s a huge number of cars in use with old Texas license plates because of the exorbitant government tax on getting Mexican plates for Texas cars. Most can’t afford it and hope they don’t have to bribe the cop.
That’s not economically libertarian. A just libertarian government would permit ‘car freedom,’ and only charge their cost for minimal paperwork affirming true ownership.
Again from FEE:
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/mexico-myths-and-reality/
“Despite the positive image conveyed abroad by official propaganda, Mexico is a mafia state; a poor, developing nation ruled by a corrupt political elite that denies its citizens the most basic rights and has saddled the nation with tens of billions of dollars in foreign debt. Mexicans lack civil liberties that Americans take for granted: freedom to speak without fear, freedom to select political representatives and labor leaders, due process and redress of grievances, and most importantly, FREEDOM TO LIVE OR BUILD A PRIVATE BUSINESS WITHOUT THREAT OF EXTORTION, INTIMIDATION, OR EVEN MURDER BY POLICE AND OTHER GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.” (emphasis mine)
Mexico’s economic system is definitely not libertarian.
Thank you for your reconsideration of your position.
Libertarian does not equal anarchy. Anarchy does not equal libertarian or classical liberal. The evangelicals should take over Mexico for 100 years, fix it, and give it back. But that would be colonialist, never mind.
Liberals are by nature liars. The nature of their beliefs drives and sustains this tendency.
The liberal philosophies exhibited by many disconsolate, deluded individuals in the U.S.A and around the world are not viable in reality. I truly wish these philosophies were innocuous in nature; however, they are quite detrimental to the well being of the various peoples of the world. There are three reasons that liberals persist in their delusions despite said philosophies obvious detriment to the people of the world: ignorance, apathy, and greed.
Many liberals are usually well meaning but highly analphabetic cretins who have been deluded into following unsound philosophies by their peers. The left is comprised of people of questionable intellect and little or no ability to elevate themselves above the mindless droning of the masses.
Liberals practice beliefs and behaviors that are harmful to themselves and others. They do this knowingly but they simply do not care that their actions are harmful as long as they are allowed instant gratification of whatever they are feeling at the moment.
The upper liberal echelon consists of malicious power seekers who prey on the weak and ignorant while spreading their destructive filth for the sole purposes of prolonging their pathetic grasp on political power.
Regardless of whether a leftist is driven by ignorance, apathy, or greed, they all have one thing in common: they lie. The ignorant liberal lies either out of ignorance or to preserve self-delusional beliefs; the apathetic leftist lies to excuse his lifestyle; and the malicious progressive leader lies to keep his power base apathetic and ignorant.
Mr Klavan’s essay is first class political writing. The insights are important and clearly expressed. It reminds me of V D Hanson in “There are no socialists”
http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/there-are-no-socialists/?singlepage=true
which pointed out that no socialist wants to live under socialism – it is only the corrupt means to an evil end. The goal of socialism is to allow socialists to dominate and plunder nations. Klavan shows they do that by lies, insults and stupid arguments.
I can’t find it now, but PJTV had an excellent interview with Herman Cain in which he said that the Left can only use two tactics in a debate, lies and insults, because their arguments and evidence are so weak.
Insults, stupid arguments and lies. Pretty much sums up the conservative worldview.