Reasonable people debate how best to regulate or how government can most effectively do its work -- not whether to regulate at all or whether government should even exist. Nick Hanauer & Nick Liu"Reasonable people" of course believe in governmental infallibility sort of like Catholics have a doctrine of papal infallibility. Those in the know know that the pope is only considered infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, or as the voice of the church, which he does on occasion. The rest of the time he's a priest like all the others, with a fancy hat who can make mistakes just like everybody else.
The article is a fine example of the reducto ad absurdum argument in that it takes the Libertarin viewpoint about the competence of government to perform any task at all and runs to the assumption that a real Libertarian is no different from an anarchist.
Remember that the only thing standing between us and efficient government is cantankerous citizens. Just try not to think about how many of them will need liquidation to get there from here.
10 comments:
Notice....nothing the Troll wrote disputed the fact that Nick Hanauer is a statist.
Businessmen LOVE the government.
To some people there is no difference between Mercantilism and Capitalism. After all, the businesses front men do not directly draw a government paycheck.
Nothing Billll wrote demonstrates that Hanauer is a statist. This blog post was simply a right-wing knee-jerk reaction when he was told to bark on command.
I'm sure that you know things about business and capitalism that Nick needs to hear.
Pop quiz: Who do you think will be invited to Galt's Gulch? You or Nick Hanauer?
"Nothing Billll wrote demonstrates that Hanauer is a statist."
Um, didn't have to "write" it.
Simply quote it.
English comprehension and all that.
What is the accepted time line in exposing "old" stuff deemed idiocy. I see "some" folks citing
Bush, Reagan, "antics" ALL THE TIME. (Well, Wilson/Cleveland too, in "certain" circles.)
"Reasonable people debate how best to regulate or how government can most effectively do its work -- not whether to regulate at all or whether government should even exist."
What in that quote indicates that Messrs. Hanauer and Liu are "hard line statists", as Billll claims?
The quote is his assumption that reasonable people DO NOT debate "whether to regulate at all or whether government should even exist."
Government regulation is not necessary for all things and can be harmful.
Hanauer is assuming that all gov't regulation is positive. His statement that it is unreasonable to assume that debating this is the proof of his statism.
So he's not an anarchist, and believes that "reasonable people" don't advocate anarchy. That's hardly the trademark of a "hard line statist" -- except to anarchists. And Billll.
When the lawyers trained us, they taught us:
About 5 lighters per year explode. Sometimes when being used to light a cigarette, sometimes in a pocket. Some of those explosions burn somebody. America is not going to crack down on lighters, because 5 per year is "de minimus non curat lex" [the law does not concern itself with trifles].
A few toddlers drown each year in 5 gallon buckets, usually left outside in the rain. Many buckets have a printed warning, but it is not required. The danger from 5 gallon buckets isn't something the government can fix.
Billll is a hard line moderate. Just ask him.
"Billll is a hard line moderate. Just ask him."
So you're a glibertarian.
Like gliberals Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert and Bill Maher, you desire to be taken seriously, but when called out, play the part of the jester.
The difference is that they do it so much better. And unlike you, but like Michael Bloomberg and George Soros, they will also be dining with John Galt in the Gulch when the world goes to shit.
Post a Comment