We have been discussing how Democratic leaders like Hillary Clinton called on foreign countries to pass censorship laws to prevent Elon Musk from restoring free speech protections on Twitter. The EU has responded aggressively to warn Musk not to allow greater free speech or face crippling fines and even potential criminal enforcement. After years of using censorship-by-surrogates in social media companies, Democratic leaders seem to have rediscovered good old-fashioned state censorship.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) declared Musk’s pledge to restore free speech values on social media as threatening Democracy itself. She has promised that “there are going to be rules” to block such changes. She is not alone. Former President Obama has declared “regulation has to be part of the answer” to disinformation.
For her part, Hillary Clinton is looking to Europe to fill the vacuum and called upon her European counterparts to pass a massive censorship law to “bolster global democracy before it’s too late.”
New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern recently repeated this call for global censorship at the United Nations to the applause of diplomats and media alike.
EU censors have assured Democratic leaders that they will not allow free speech to break out on Twitter regardless of the wishes of its owner and customers.
One of the most anti-free speech figures in the West, EU’s Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton has been raising the alarm that Twitter users might be able to read uncensored material or hear unauthorized views.
Breton himself threatened that Twitter must “fly by [the European Union’s] rules” in censoring views deemed misleading or harmful by EU bureaucrats. Breton has been moving publicly to warn Musk not to try to reintroduce protections that go beyond the tolerance of the EU for free speech. Musk is planning to meet with the EU censors and has conceded that he may not be able resist such mandatory censorship rules.
The hope of leaders like Clinton is the anti-free speech measure recently passed by EU countries, the Digital Services Act. The DSA contains mandatory “disinformation” rules for censoring “harmful” thoughts or views.
Breton has made no secret that he views free speech as a danger coming from the United States that needs to be walled off from the Internet. He previously declared that, with the DSA, the EU is now able to prevent the Internet from again becoming a place for largely unregulated free speech, which he referred to as the “Wild West” period of the Internet.
It is a telling reference because the EU views free speech itself as an existential danger. They reject the notion of free speech as its own protection where good speech can overcome bad speech. That is viewed as the “Wild West.”
Many of us are far more fearful of global censors than some whack job spewing hateful thoughts from his basement. That is why I have described myself as an Internet Originalist:
The alternative is “internet originalism” — no censorship. If social media companies returned to their original roles, there would be no slippery slope of political bias or opportunism; they would assume the same status as telephone companies. We do not need companies to protect us from harmful or “misleading” thoughts. The solution to bad speech is more speech, not approved speech.
If Pelosi demanded that Verizon or Sprint interrupt calls to stop people saying false or misleading things, the public would be outraged. Twitter serves the same communicative function between consenting parties; it simply allows thousands of people to participate in such digital exchanges. Those people do not sign up to exchange thoughts only to have Dorsey or some other internet overlords monitor their conversations and “protect” them from errant or harmful thoughts.
The danger of the rising levels of censorship is far greater than the dangers of such absurd claims of the law or science — or in this case both. What we can do is to maximize the free discourse and expression on the Internet to allow free speech itself to be the ultimate disinfectant of disinformation.
Professor Turley,
Debating degrees of censorship is reasonable, but advocating for “no censorship” is a complete fantasy.
If I took over your blog, posting the word, “DO NOT CENSOR ME” every second 24 hours a day, what would you do? Allow me to ruin the comments section of your blog by making any meaningful communication between commenters too difficult to navigate?
If you believe that stopping this action a necessary step to “preserving free speech” on this blog, your argument is exactly the same (though to a different degree) as those made by Democrats (and other world leaders) with respect to Twitter.
So, please stop with this absolutist farce.
Under our Constitution, there are not ‘degrees’ of censorship. You are an idiot. I do not like to say such things here, but a spade is spade. Thankfully our laws are still valid in spite of whatever your personal brain is concocting at present.
“ Under our Constitution, there are not ‘degrees’ of censorship. ”
Our constitution’s 1st amendment prohibitions do not apply to private entities or individuals.
This is just blatantly untrue. Obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, fighting words, true threats, speech integral to criminal conduct, child pornography,
If there is a compelling government interest, then speech may be censored by a narrowly tailored law. That is the basis of First Amendment jurisprudence. There are nuances, of course (the Clear and Present Danger Test, prurient interest for obscenity, etc.), but to state that there are no degrees of censorship in the Constitution is simply inccorect.
Morse v. Frederick, the Bong Hits for Jesus case, is one of my favorites.
@Anonymous
*ahem*
Not a single example you cited is in our Constitution. If you’d like to parse laws (incidentally, infractions of which are taken on a case by case basis by the courts at varying levels) that is another matter, and has nothing to do with the 1st amendment, and nothing to do with the Constitution but for how it plays in the system of law BASED on the Constitution. I do not expect one as obtuse as you or your fellow trolls to grasp the nuance, or perhaps you do, but must deflect to collect your pay check. Pfft.
You’ll be grateful this all is the case should, heaven forbid, you ever find yourself in the hot seat.
James, the First Amendment does not prevent Congress from imposing any restrictions on speech. It says only that Congress cannot “abridge the freedom of” speech or the press.
Your namesake, James Madison, notes during the drafting of the First Amendment that that speech is among the “natural rights, retained.” Rather than a “positive right” (such as the right to trial by jury), the understanding was that governmental restrictions on natural rights, such as speech, must be made for the “public good.” This natural rights vs positive rights concept was derived from social contract theory (i.e., John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, etc.)
(Also, as an aside, the Treason clause of the Constitution clearly includes restrictions on speech, as speech to an enemy of state secrets would constitute giving our “Enemies . . . Aid and Comfort.”)
The courts have long distinguished between pure speech and speech that constitutes an ACT.
The courts have allowed very very very little restriction on pure speech.
While providing a foreign enemy the departure times for military convoy’s is both speech and an ACT and can be sanctioned.
A mafiosi instructing a lieutenant to murder an opponent is both speech and an ACT.
Most speech the left seeks to ban or censor is NOT also an ACT.
It is therefore protected.
Political speech is an must be the most protected from of all.
This is the most succinct rebuttal to the “Yelling “fire” in a theater canard I have encountered. Probably because I live under a large rock.
One of the problems with the modern debate over free speech is that the debate over free speech has been going on for 250+ years.
The arguments for free speech, the way the law looks at free speech are not NEW. They are old.
We have just forgotten them.
The White House press secretary and much of this administration – including DHS thinks that it is within the governments power to try to supress – cancel speech that questions their policies.
That is litterally just about the most unconstitutional act that government can perform – and they are doing so honestly and openly.
The only legitimate way Government can combat disinformation and misinformation is with more speech.
It may not in anyway participate in silencing people or views it does not approve of.
The US has 250 years of experience within our laws seeking to learn the boundaries of free speech.
That debate, that knowledge is available to anyone who wishes to become familiar with it.
In the past the efforts to supress unwanted speech have mostly come from the right.
The supression of information regarding birth control.
The suppression of most everything sexual.
the supression of the political expression of communists.
In just the past decade the left has changed from the champions of free speech to possibly the worst enemy ever.
We took free speech for granted, we quit studying, and teaching its importance, we quit debating the limits of speech,
and now we face the broadest threat to free speech ever.
And too many do not have the tools to defend free speech.
Tools that we have refined for centuries and then misplaced.
.Debating degrees of censorship is reasonable, but advocating for “no censorship” is a complete fantasy.”
You are well known for your hideous debating tactics and now hide behind a lie. Professor Turley recognizes that some degree of censorship always occurs. You wish to prove leftist autocratic control is necessary by focusing on outliers that no one can prevent. Professor Turley has provided his thoughts and a plan of minimal censorship. You will always find an outlier exception because you are not interested in free speech. You are interested in abolishing all speech except the left.
Turley can’t call himself a free speech absolutist and then agree there’s reason to have some degree of censorship. To be an absolutist is to have no censorship whatsoever. Otherwise using the term “absolutist” is a farce. You’re either absolute or not.
There is no such thing as absolute speech in the context of the discussion, so your comment demonstrates a stupid mind when Professor Turley states what he believes a free speech absolutist is. You don’t even have the intellect to recognize how foolish you sound. That is why others are here to inform you of your foolishness.
Turley writes:
The alternative is “internet originalism” — no censorship. If social media companies returned to their original roles, there would be no slippery slope of political bias or opportunism; they would assume the same status as telephone companies. We do not need companies to protect us from harmful or “misleading” thoughts. The solution to bad speech is more speech, not approved speech.
This is what I am responding to. If you agree that stopping someone’s takeover of a blog benefits free speech, then the solution is certainly not “more speech.” Choosing when to curtail one’s overusage of speech absolutely may be a political decision. Do you stop someone who overposts “ABORTION IS MURDER” as much as someone who overposts “ABORTION IS A HUMAN RIGHT”? How would that not be a political decision?
Also, Verizon literally has a Call Filter to prevent spam and robo-calls, so to say that Verizon doesn’t play a part in stopping the free flow of communication is simply untrue.
His post literally says “no censorship.” This is the point to which i am directly responding. “No censorship” is an absolutist farce.
Once you acknowledge that some censorship is necessary for promoting “free speech,” then repeated attack on others for precisely this falls apart. Instead of attacking the concept, stick to the critique of the degree to which censorship is necessary for promotion of free speech ideals. That becomes a very different argument.
I don’t disagree with his opinion with respect to his critique of Ardern and others because they go too far. But, I have an issue with his framing that any censorship is a bad thing for free speech.
His post literally says “no censorship.” This is the point to which i am directly responding
You cannot help yourself. Whipping your pedantic mule, attempting to become relative.
You are unable to deal with context. That is a sign of a small or ignorant mind. Turley has repeatedly discussed what he means and how he would handle censorship. You want the person with the brain to descend to your level. It isn’t going to happen, so you can criticize him as much as you want. In the end, you will know nothing more than you knew before and you will continue to look like the fool you are.
“You are well known for your hideous debating tactics and now hide behind a lie. Professor Turley recognizes that some degree of censorship always occurs. You wish to prove leftist autocratic control is necessary by focusing on outliers that no one can prevent. Professor Turley has provided his thoughts and a plan of minimal censorship. You will always find an outlier exception because you are not interested in free speech. You are interested in abolishing all speech except the left.”
As everyone knows, democracy is when Democrats hold unlimited power, and today that sacred foundation of our country is under attack from free speech,” said Mayorkas from a massive television screen being played in the town square before an assembly of glassy-eyed citizens in identical grey jumpsuits. “We will not tire of protecting our country from violent threats such as speech, opinions, people saying stuff, and bad inward thoughts that poison the mind against your benevolent overlords. I love democracy! Mayorkas
https://babylonbee.com/news/DHS-announces-they-will-suppress-as-much-speech-as-it-takes-to-preserve-democracy
“…called on foreign companies to pass censorship laws”
Foreign companies? I know the larger corps tend to write the laws but…
Is there a way, technically, to wall off people linking to the Twitter site from the EU from content that is impermissible there?
Back in the day only the BBC would broadcast in the UK. So people listened to the Beatles, Stones, etc. from off shore Pirate Radio stations. All Musk has to do is shut down all his EU infrastrucutre (putting who knows how many on the overly generous EU dole) and let Europeans who want freedom use the pirate satellites in space owned by Musk
That is an option. I wonder how significant EU-oriented advertising revenue is?
Britain no longer is in EU territory.
There are some countries that might refuse to follow EU commands.
Hungary is number one and a whole bunch of eastern European nations might follow. Then there are the Baltic nations and nations outside of central Europe.
AS the US moves away from Democrat leftist autocracy, whatever is left will likely move away as well.
Shutting off the Nordstream Pipeline is much easier than shutting off Twitter.
@Daniel
That’s kinda the whole thing: no, there isn’t. They have zero jurisdiction over our laws, but they would sure like you to believe they do (globalists, that is, we do not have national autonomy under their auspices in their opinion) that the court of Twitter opinion somehow carries some weight, and people that are addicted to their phones (which honestly, at this point, is most people) and to ‘likes’ would likely agree. The bottom will drop out at some point, and people will have to contend with realty. That is likely to be a very ugly day. People do not ‘calmly’ give up heroin.
Daniel
There are several ways restricting access to a website or service based on geographic or political location. The most common is to check the address from which the user originates and compare this against known lists of addresses’ physical locations. (It can also be “tracerouted” back, but this is a rather time consuming process in terms of processing the connection.) There are other ways to determine location but I won’t get into those since it is rather complicated and less frequent.
Jurisdictions such as the EU are one of the reasons these checks are used by various websites. Probably around a decade ago the EU was making punishing rules where they were assuming extra-territorial jurisdication claims against U.S. based websites mandating compliance with EU Privacy laws. Simply put, they were applying EU laws to American websites despite the fact that the American websites were not soliciting directly foreign citizens. So if an EU citizen accessed the site, the US website could be punished for not following EU data security, security, and privacy laws. What followed in many cases was these websites chose to simply not bother with Europeans so they banned access to all website requests from EU nations.
Incidents such as these, along with other nations that practice state sponsored censorship caused the IETF enact an RFC to standardize a proposed new hypertext transfer protocol error message— HTTP 451 Unavailable For Legal Reasons (which was named after the book Fahrenheit 451) If you are unfamiliar with these kinds of error messages, it is the same type of mechanism that applies to the more familiar 404 error you see when trying to access a website resource that no longer exists.
So in our example if the EU or other political entity made life so difficult for Twitter Inc to engage with European citizens located within the EU area, Twitter could config its servers to return a 451 or other error message back to the user and ban all access to their site. While not a completely effective response, it might be simply good enough to avoid EU / politician drama. Check out the link above, it might give some more info that will be helpful in knowing the background.
Having personally lived through what may be among the most intensive slander, defamation and derision campaigns of the COVIDcrisis, none of what was described in this article surprised me. I think that I can probably guess the names of some of the interviewed physicians and medical scientists discussed in the article, as so many have shared their own experiences with me. But seeing it written out in a dry academic style and published like a case series study of global corporate, organizational and governmental psychopathology and greed is another thing altogether. I expected the article to bring a tear of relief at being heard and validated, but instead it just left me numb.
https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/censorship-and-defamation-weapons?
Hillary, and Bill, is what happens when crooks don’t go to jail.
Speakup……..Yours is a perfect description!
Hear, hear!
“When crooks don’t go to jail.”
…B & H, the Biden Crime Family, millions of criminal illegal alien enemy invaders, the non-“natural born citizen” son of a foreign citizen and ineligible president Barack Hussein Obama, most of the democrat (communist) party, et al.
OT,
Seniors are getting the biggest increase in their Social Security checks in 10 years through President Biden’s leadership.
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) November 1, 2022
“Seniors will receive a large Social Security benefit increase due to the annual cost of living adjustment, which is based on the inflation rate. President Nixon in 1972 signed into law automatic benefit adjustments tied to the Consumer Price Index.”
The community notes feature is awesome.
Our goal is to make Twitter the most accurate source of information on Earth, without regard to political affiliation.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 2, 2022
“Seniors are getting the biggest increase in their Social Security checks in 10 years through President Biden’s leadership.”
It’s true! Biden caused the inflation we are facing, and the SS takes into account that inflation with the cost of living adjustment. However, all fixed assets and fixed earnings do not rise, so expect many seniors to face a downward turn in their standard of living. Some of those seniors are likely on this blog. I wonder how many of those seniors that voted for Biden know it.
I think the Farmer was being sarcastic and/or pointing out the Birdwatch fact check feature on Twitter https://techcrunch.com/2021/01/25/twitters-birdwatch-fights-misinformation-with-community-notes/
Dennis B, I don’t use FB, Twitter, etc.
Your statement is correct about the article pointing out Birdwatch. My point was to make sure people recognized that the rise in SS payments had nothing to do with Biden being generous, but rather it had to do with prior law and Biden’s terrible management of our economy. I also hoped those on SS who voted for Biden recognize why their standard of living is falling.
I still think you are missing the original point. If you don’t use FB or Twitter, why would you even care. Here’s what happened
1. Biden (or obviously some twenty something dweeb who works in the white house) tweeted out that statement about SS rising thanks to Biden
2. The Twitter process Birdwatch almost immediately called Biden on it for the reasons you are stating above
3. The White House removed Biden’s tweet
That’s what the Farmer was referring to (I think)
Honestly I do not want Twitter flagging ANYONE.
I expect SM to publish our posts. NOT comment on them.
There are millions of SM users capable of calling BS on BS posts.
Biden’s post is obvious BS. But it is not Twitters place to say that.
Put differently – Congress can exempt SM from liability for the posts of users.
It can not exempt SM from liability for its own actions and words.
If Twitter fact checks something – they are liable for the accuracy of the fact check.
If they ban, deplatform, suspend, shadow ban, ….. a post – that constitutes a derogatory statement by Twitter and it is responsible for that.
When Twitter speaks for itself it speaks with disproportionate authority – it MUST be disproportionately accountable.
Therefor the wise course for SM would be NOT to editorialize on others content.
Dennis B, I accepted the facts Upstate provided. I don’t know for sure if he was being sarcastic. I commented without sarcasm.
I don’t follow Twitter or FB, but why should that mean I am not interested in what is happening?
IMO Twitter shouldn’t be editorializing or have an official opinion. Once it does it could open the business to all sorts of legal problems. Of course, there is always some amount of censorship that cannot be avoided, but that is based on things pretty standard and is not directly involved in the political process.
No, S Meyer, the inflation we have is the direct and proximate result of the utter incompetence of Donald J. Trump, who can’t even manage his own money. What did Trump inherit from Obama? He inherited a booming economy that he proceeded to trash by: 1. incompetent handling of COVID, refusing to honor the expertise of scientists, downplaying and lying about the seriousness of COVID, refusing to wear a mask, pushing quack cures like Hydroxychloroquine and horse de-wormer, all of which caused COVID to flourish, resulting in unnecessary deaths and the country and schools shut down for about 2 years; school kids still haven’t caught up to where they should be; 2. trade war with China he started, which resulted in shortages of computer chips and consumer goods; now that Biden has turned things around and demand is up, supply is lagging. Low supply with high demand causes prices to rise; Biden has gotten the CHIPS ACT passed, which will create jobs and address the supply issues, but that will take time; 3. fuel: because of prolonged COVID shutdowns, schools were closed, buses weren’t running, people were either laid off or working from home and couldn’t take vacations, all of which artificially depressed demand for fuel, causing the price to be depressed and refineries to close down. Supply has not ramped up to meet demand, plus there are sanctions against Russia, so fuel prices are high; 3. War in Ukraine: Trump’s trashing of our EU and NATO allies emboldened Putin, who thought he could just move in and take over Ukraine because US leadership wasn’t there to pull together a coordinated opposition. Biden has healed these rifts with our allies, Ukraine has successfully fought off Russia, and now Ukraine, Sweden and Finland have petitioned to join NATO, something Trump could never have done; Trump intended to pull the US out of NATO, which would have been disasterous and have led to WW III; 4. Trump’s tax cuts that mostly benefitted the ultra-wealthy resulted in an historic national debt. Interest on this debt helps fuel inflation. Biden has gotten the national debt reduced by multiple trillions of dollars. Plus, since Biden reversed Trump’s 10% unemployment, the economy is growing which will help reduce the debt over time. Democrats are addressing inflation with an inflation-reduction package.
Biden was left with a mess due to Trump’s incompetency. Seniors should vote for Biden, who has gotten a bill passed that allows Medicare to negotiate prescription prices. Insulin will not cost more than $35 per month, and other prescription drug prices will go down, all of which will benefit seniors. All Republicans know how to do is pass tax cuts to benefit wealthy individuals and corporations. Tell me: what is the Republicans’ plan to address inflation? You can’t answer this question because they don’t have one. All they do is lie about Biden being the cause of inflation, hoping Americans are stupid and don’t see cause and effect.
“No, S Meyer, the inflation we have is the direct and proximate result of the utter incompetence of Donald J. Trump”
All one has to do is read the first line, skipping the rest, to know that one is dealing with a nutcase.
Trump is out of office and Biden kept spending (or as John says, the money supply was increased). Will Natasha discuss the causes of inflation? No. Will she recognize that monetary policy (increasing the money supply) causes inflation? No. Does she know who Milton Friedman is? No. Does she know anything about economics? No.
Natasha knows nothing. Her rantings are worthless.
Just to be clear I am many other economists would attribute about 1/3 of current inflation to Trump.
Trump’s economic response to Covid was POOR – that is missed because Biden’s has been so much worse.
But when we attribute 1/3 of inflation to Trump – what would things be like today with inflation at 3% instead of 1% ?
Not nearly as good as it shoudl have or could have been but also not nearly as bad as we face now.
The Fed just pushed interest rates up another .75%. While I think they are acting too slowly. It is still clear that they grasp that they MUST kill inflation. And they WILL cause a recesion if needed, and potentially a severe one if needed.
Powell is actually pretty clear on that.
I do not consider Power a hero – and doing the right thing now does not excuse the fact that had he done the right thing previously this would have been avoided.
Powell needed to cease monetizing US debt pretty much the moment he took the helm.
Had he done that then – Neither Trump nor Biden would have been able to spend as they did – because no one would have loaned them the money.
So while Powell is NOW doing the right thing – he bears the largest share of the blame for this – not Trump, not Biden.
Though that does not mean that politicians shoudl be allowed to beleive they can spend without cost.
John Say,
I would argue it was not Trump’s actions or inactions, but the COVID lockdowns themselves that put us in our current situation.
Tax cuts keeps existing money in the system and in people’s pockets.
Injecting trillions of dollars of money out of thin air, that creates inflation.
Here is an article with a few left leaning economists and four from the San Fran Fed said something along similar lines: https://dailycaller.com/2022/11/01/fetterman-inflation-tax-cuts-cause-pennsylvania-democrat-midterms-issues-economy/?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=offthepress&utm_campaign=home
Also of note, the so called economic recovery the Biden admin is taking credit for, was lead by Red states that re-opened their economies. Blue states like CA and NY were dead last.
All those “new” jobs are not actually new. They are jobs that were forced closed by the lockdowns now reopened/available. And IIRC the Aug jobs report came in at 525,000, almost 250,000 more than expected. Sounds great right? Except when you drill down into the Home Household Survey, it was people taking second jobs to make ends meet aka beat inflation.
I agree with you about Powell and The Fed: If they want to kill inflation, they have to raise rates. And that will cause a recession (if we are not in one already). As you point out, Powell is trying to walk a tightrope between killing inflation and a recession. I think we are going to get both until the food and energy crisis are resolved. But there is going to be a whole lot of pain felt by millions and some of it may result in civil unrest.
John Say,
“I would argue it was not Trump’s actions or inactions, but the COVID lockdowns themselves that put us in our current situation.”
Which parts of our current situation ?
The direct cause of inflation is the Federal resevre printing money (buying US debt)
The indirect cause is massive government spending – mostly on Covid – 2T of that was by Trump. But the largest and most damaging was by Biden.
The indirect cause of the spending was the lock downs. While Trump did not lock down the county – he capitulated in April Briefly to lock downs,
and that was a huge mistake.
“Tax cuts keeps existing money in the system and in people’s pockets.”
I was not tying Tax cuts to inflation. Our tax regime is very close to the revenue optimizing maximum. That means we are on a very flat part of the curve – small increases and decreases in taxes have no effect on revenue.
The GOP tax cuts WOULD have been a factor – if that were not true. Contra people who try to pretend that tax revenue is linear with tax rates.
What is necessary today is SPENDING cuts. Government is getting as much revenue as it can from the economy without the economy growing significantly. Again contra they left it is likely that the GOP tax cuts DECREASED deficits – they obviously increased economic growth.
“Injecting trillions of dollars of money out of thin air, that creates inflation.”
Yup.
“Also of note, the so called economic recovery the Biden admin is taking credit for, was lead by Red states that re-opened their economies. Blue states like CA and NY were dead last.”
Yup, the recovery Biden had in 2021 was inevitable. But the inflation we now have was NOT.
I would note that without the massive spending we would not have inflation – BUT recovery would have been weaker too.
Spending is a drug – it does actually stimulate the economy – highly inefficiently, but it creates more problems than benefits.
“All those “new” jobs are not actually new. They are jobs that were forced closed by the lockdowns now reopened/available. And IIRC the Aug jobs report came in at 525,000, almost 250,000 more than expected. Sounds great right? Except when you drill down into the Home Household Survey, it was people taking second jobs to make ends meet aka beat inflation.”
Covid – and worse still our response to Covid is changing the country and the world in ways that are pretty radical.
It is near certain that but for Covid Trump would have obliterated Biden in 2020. But it is also true that a substantial portion of the political re-alignment we are in the middle of was either cased by or accelerated by Covid and our response to it.
I watch Polls and I am having serious trouble reconciling different polls.
Republicans are up 15pts with white women, 20pts with black men. 21pts in swing districts, 20+pts with hispanics.
Yet, they are only up +3 on the generic ballot ? We are not going to be sure which until the election – but it is obvious the polls are WAY OFF.
I do beleive the media is correct the number 1-5 issues for voters are “its the economy stupid”
But I also think that is just the short term immediate rationalization.
We are in the midst of a massive political re-alignment. Democrats screwed up big time in 2016, Trump’s election SHOULD have resulted in a Tack to the center. But it did not, in fact the balance of power in the democratic party has gotten more and more left radical since that election.
I am surprised it has taken the centrists this long to revolt.
I read an interesting substack article by a pro-choice democrat mother who was red pilled who said “F#$K this – women have plenty of options for controling reproduction – even a GOP led nationwide ban on abortion would have little real effect on the actual freedom of women today – it is NOT 1972 anymore. But those who screwed over my kids for the past 3 years can not be trusted, can not ever have power again, and need to pay”
Covid – or more specifically the institutions response to Covid has destroyed trust in institutions. Even if people are not explicitly saying that as the driving factor in voting, it is, and it is probably much more important and certainly much more durable an impact than the economy.
Or put differently there is not any good news coming for the left any time soon. Not regarding Covid, not regarding the economy.
There is almost no need for Republicans to get their messaging right – all they have to do to win is not stomp on their D#$K.
I would note that Democrats conspired (with republican voters) to create an election where huge numbers of candidates are very MAGA,
the hope was they would be easier to defeat. That is not playing out.
It is increasingly looking like MAGA republicans are going to take office in very blue places.
There is some good advice to them in a recent federalist article.
The advice was simple – come january – don’t audition for the next permanent guest spot on Fox. GO TO WORK, Solve problems, demonstrate competence.
There is likely a large swing in governors. These people can make real meaningful changes in their states. We need another Dozen DeSantis’s.
There will be large swings in state legislatures. Use that to accomplish things – make your state better.
That does not mean do not give the base what they want. But it does mean much more – it means govern competently.
Solve problems – often that is accomplished by REDUCING government and regulation.
I beleive the global economy is going to h311 and not recovering soon. I hope I am wrong. I know that the US will be least hit, but still hard hit.
The “red wave” will not change that and mostly republicans will not get blamed. But recovery will come – likely by 2024,
And republicans can get credit for that. Just doing nothing will likely get them credit.
“I agree with you about Powell and The Fed: If they want to kill inflation, they have to raise rates. And that will cause a recession (if we are not in one already). As you point out, Powell is trying to walk a tightrope between killing inflation and a recession. I think we are going to get both until the food and energy crisis are resolved.”
Food and energy are just where the inflation showed up first. The laws of supply and demand work with or without inflation.
You can have high food and energy prices without inflation – but print too much money and you get both – and more.
“But there is going to be a whole lot of pain felt by millions and some of it may result in civil unrest.”
There is no “may” here – even without global inflation and global recession – spike food prices and you get global unrest.
Through in economic mess and you get war.
I am very very very worried abut China right now. There is alot going on in China, we only see the tip of the iceberg, but it is bad.
We just do not know how bad.
Putin starts wars to distract from Russia’s economic problems
Xi has done the same in the past.
And Biden and his people do not have 1/10th the skills needed to deal with PREVENTING beligerance.
MOSTLY I do nto think Biden has handled the Russian invasion of Ukraine badly.
But he did not prevent it, and it WAS within his power to do so. Just not by Feb 2022. The global mistakes started on Day one.
Those on the left do not understand how interconnected all policies are with global effects
It is very odd to say that Trump may well have been one of the BEST US presidents on Foreign policy.
“The direct cause of inflation is the Federal resevre printing money (buying US debt)”
True, but if the money grows the economy, the effects of that spending or printing of money are lessened. If economic activity is curtailed it makes the situation worse.
Though Trump participated mildly in the shutdowns, it was very mild compared to the Biden administration’s shutdown. The spending package of the Trump years wasn’t as bad economically as that of Biden’s years. If one takes your figures for the cause of inflation ⅓ on Trump and ⅔ on Biden that provides the wrong message. We have to account for Trump’s actual policies and Biden’s actual policies where they promoted such policies. When we do that the ⅓ figure for Trump drastically falls and the ⅔ figure for Biden rises a lot. That demonstrates a more accurate portrayal of Trump’s economic policies and rates him better than you have in the past.
“True, but if the money grows the economy, the effects of that spending or printing of money are lessened. ”
Backwards. Government spending money NEVER stimulates on net.
Generally the benefit for each $1 government spends is $.25-$.35 while the cost is $1.
So if government spends $1T the economy grows by $250B – but we OWE in one form or another $1T which will eventually have to be paid.
“Backwards. Government spending money NEVER stimulates on net.”
Wrong. Change backwards to relative and then whatever comment you wish to make.
“True, but if the money grows the economy, the effects of that spending or printing of money are lessened. If economic activity is curtailed it makes the situation worse.”
Sorry, but what I stated is correct. Government spending NEVER has NET positive impact on the economy.
With certainty it can stimulate some parts of the economy – but the positive stimulation ALWAYS comes at an expense somewhere else
Robert Barro #4 Ideas Respec economist in the world for a long time maintains a database of global government spending and efficiency.
He has never found any government spending that reaches an efficiency of 1 – i.e. neutral.
The norm is 0.25-0.35 – that is significant NET loss.
“Sorry, but what I stated is correct. Government spending NEVER has NET positive impact on the economy.”
No. I made it clear that your word backward was wrong and I introduced the word relative. In other words, my comment did not deal with the net positive impact. It dealt with the net negative impact which varies and the effects of the net negative is relative to the absolute numbers involved.
Relative does not change net negative to net positive.
The performance of various formed of government spending is relative – some is bad, others are worse
All are net negative.
Again – Robert Barro.
“Relative does not change net negative to net positive.“
I didn’t say anything contradicting, but I do like the way you framed the ideas
The harm of inflation increases exponentially with its size.
9% inflation is more than 3 times as bad as 3%.
Specify the nature of the harm and to whom.
Damage to standard of living.
John, now that you have provided your metric, are you saying 9% inflation leads to ⅓ the standard of living, or that the rate of increase in the standard of living will be ⅓? The latter is a reasonable assumption for discussion.
“John, now that you have provided your metric, are you saying 9% inflation leads to ⅓ the standard of living, or that the rate of increase in the standard of living will be ⅓? The latter is a reasonable assumption for discussion.”
I have not made apecific claim regarding the impact of inflation on standard of living – only a general one.
I have said that the effect is non-linear.
Trump is responsible for 1/3 of the inflation. But 9% inflation does much more than 3 times as much damage as 3%.
“Trump is responsible for 1/3 of the inflation. But 9% inflation does much more than 3 times as much damage as 3%.”
I previously asked for your metric for the damage and you responded:
“Damage to standard of living.”
The difference between a drop in the standard of living, and a drop in the rate of in the standard of living improvement is important. I thought you were dealing with rates rather than absolutes because of your mention of exponential change.
Your answer: “I have not made apecific claim regarding the impact of inflation” isn’t direct. You already responded to “Specify the nature of the harm and to whom.” You answered “Damage to standard of living.”
Perhaps you want to clarify the issues in one paragraph utilizing the example of Trump and Biden economics. Absent any real numbers, I think I might agree.
When I say I am not making a specific claim – what I mean is I am not offering the precise calculus that you are demanding.
Inflation damages standard of living – so long as we avoid hyper inflation the damage is small.
But it is a marginal change and it is ALWAYS changes at the margins that are most important.
All economic changes occur at the margins.
US families have lost about 4500/yr in standard of living under Biden. But when you consider that they MUST pay for food, shelter, ….
That 4500 means many have lost 100% – or MORE of their discretionary income.
That means no movies, no eating out, no sports events, and it may mean falling short on the rent.
That is a SMALL change, it is also a DISASTEROUS change. While it may take away none of the necescities, it takes away all of the wants.
It takes away all that gives joy and meaning.
Regardless, I am sticking with my claim that Trump is responsible for about 1/3 of inflation. Yes, many many others – democrats and republicans were complicit in that. But Trump was not yelling STOP, he was as active a participant as everyone else.
I was ALONE yelling STOP.
Biden is responsible for 2/3 of inflation.
That breakdown is an estimate – but Even Larry Summers agrees with it. (not a Summers fan, but occasionally he gets things right) as does Tyler Cowan (more of a fan than Summers, but he is still just barely inside the envelope of the economists I respect).
As to the claim that the effects of inflation increase exponentially with linear increases in inflation – are we debating that ?
I am not offering a specific formula.
I am absolutely committed – and facts back it up to the assertions I have made. Just not the details.
I do not care alot if 25% or 40% of current inflation is Trumps.
I do not care if the what the specific “formula” tying the inflation rate to damage to standard of living is.
My claim which is correct is that the higer the rate the greater the damage and the damage does not increase linearly with the rate.
You want to delve into specifics I do not have and do not feel compelled to work out. Feel free.
Regardless, I am STRONGLY behind what I have claimed. I am just not going to try to convert it into a formula.
That could be useful – but it is not necescary to understand the damage done and the reasons driving the red wave.
Nor why it is not likely to improve soon.
” I am not offering the precise calculus that you are demanding.”
I demand very little, but when numbers are thrown out, I need to be advised as to how hard or soft the numbers are.
“I was ALONE yelling STOP.
You were not alone. His final year involved more of the politics of throwing money that he may have had more control over. In my estimation that lowered his grade by a bit, but IMO overall his economic management was good.
“You want to delve into specifics “
I don’t but you seem to do so. I am more than happy with the following statement of yours. “the higer the rate the greater the damage and the damage does not increase linearly with the rate.”
“” I am not offering the precise calculus that you are demanding.”
I demand very little, but when numbers are thrown out, I need to be advised as to how hard or soft the numbers are.”
I provided you with my basis and sources.
I will be happy to consider further information.
I would note that some parts of the current inflation are driven by the Fed policies post Great Recession that were continued for atleast a decade too long. The Fed was monetizing spending long before Trump was elected. Doing so meant they had no ability to respond to Covid.
Regardless, in a portioning blame – The Fed comes first – both current and past decisions.
But politicians KNEW what the Fed was doing and either KNEW the risk of inflation, or were too stupid to hold office.
Therefore some blame for current inflation belongs to Obama, More to Trump, and the lion Share to Biden.
You can debate specific percentages, but not the rough allocation.
“”I was ALONE yelling STOP.
You were not alone. His final year involved more of the politics of throwing money that he may have had more control over. In my estimation that lowered his grade by a bit, but IMO overall his economic management was good.”
One is never truly alone, but frankly the voices yelling STOP were few, far between censored, suppressed, and ignored.
Trump could not have missed those voices
And they were RIGHT,
Nearly everyone – including Trump ignored them.
That was a major failure.
“That was a major failure.”
Major but small when compared to his accomplishments. Obama was not a direct cause of inflation, but things that cause inflation are not the only things that matter. Obama weakened the nation, and provided a weak economy when it could have been strong. That strength was seen under Trump who didn’t have time to break through into another era of prosperity.
The fed monetized the deficit under Obama. I expected it would take longer than this for that to fail.
But it was going to fail.
And the failure was going to be inflation.
I understand what you are saying but I don’t get your point in relationship to mine. I was pointing out that a growing economy could lessen the mistakes of government spending.
“I was pointing out that a growing economy could lessen the mistakes of government spending.”
Finally something I can agree with.
Growing government means LESS freedom.
But a growing economy – more accurately rising standard of living means MORE freedom.
Over the past 60+ years (and longer).
We have on NET gained more freedom than we have lost.
That does not make the loss good.
Nor does it change that we would be better off still – more free and more prosperous if government did not grow at all.
Binary thinking meant more government intrusion. That is one of the problems of democracy. The people might vote for things that disagree with your economics. To prevent such thinking one can’t rely on #1, yes, and #3, no. One has to search for that #2 solution where both the buyer and the seller are satisfied.
That is negotiation. One always hopes that the negotiators on their side have the intellect to find a satisfactory answer. When all the odds are against you and what you don’t want is going to occur it is your problem to find such a solution to relieve enough pressure that what you don’t want, doesn’t occur.
This is not binary thinking – it is an actual binary.
They are rare. But this is one.
Something is private and governed by the free markets – or it is not.
In the later instance it will grown and fail, and grow and fail until the failure is total disaster.
There are places to compromise – this is not one.
You are trying to trade a hypothetical that did not exist and if it had would at best be a delaying action,
against the only thing that works – free Markets.
You are using a lot of words to make the same repetitive argument.
Government even had control over private hospital insurance in many ways, so your argument fails at the start.
“There are places to compromise – this is not one.”
Why not? All things involving government are subject to the same forces.
Your purity arguments fail.
Everything is not a negotiation.
And in fact it is often better to LOSE, than to compromise.
I like Justice O’Connor, but she is responsible for some of the worst supreme court compromises in history.
And SHE regets most of them.
It is often easier to fix big failure than little failure.
“Everything is not a negotiation.”
So?
“And in fact it is often better to LOSE, than to compromise.”
Do you believe avoiding the Medicare program with a better solution is a failure?
“I like Justice O’Connor, but she is responsible for some of the worst supreme court compromises in history. And SHE regets most of them.”
Was she involved with the passage of Medicare? No. Why bring her up? We are not even talking about a Supreme Court decision. This statement is a distraction.
“It is often easier to fix big failure than little failure.”
The solution for stopping Medicare was a lot easier than reversing Medicare unless you think this failure is easy to reverse. Do you?
What I do not want is government to get its nose into the tent.
One nostril or two, it makes little difference.
“What I do not want is government to get its nose into the tent.
One nostril or two, it makes little difference.”
I like to keep the doors locked to government intrusion, perhaps diverting them to places outside of the actual living space. You seem to leave the door wide open.
You are discussing everything but the merits of my argument.
“That means we are on a very flat part of the curve – small increases and decreases in taxes have no effect on revenue.”
There is a difference between corporate and personal taxes and their effects.
There is. There should be no corporate or business taxes – they are net harmful.
Regardless. Obama’s CEA Christine Romer did excellent work on the impact of various forms of taxes and the break even.
The revenue optimizing max for income taxes is 35% – that is total state federal, local and it is the highest bracket.
I would note that is NOT the optimal tax rate which is lower.
Our tax system should not exist as it is. It is quite regressive if that matters to anyone. There are many ways of taxing people that would be better.
The optimal tax rate varies with the system.
Taxes should be low and if they were we wouldn’t have to spend so much money on the IRS.
I think overall Trump improved the tax system, but he cost me a lot of money.
“MOSTLY I do nto think Biden has handled the Russian invasion of Ukraine badly.
But he did not prevent it, and it WAS within his power to do so. Just not by Feb 2022. The global mistakes started on Day one.”
Though the global mistakes started even earlier I would not discount the effect the Dems had by playing the Russia Hoax card. For four years that hoax prevented Trump from moving Russia closer to our side while the hoax pushed Russia over to China. It showed the left had no sane policies and was only seeking power without concern for American security.
The collusion delusion was unbeleivably damaging in myriads of ways.
It should be far easir for the west to come to a workable relationship with Russia than with Saudi Arabia.
We share far more culture and values.
I don’t know if that is true.
When Russia broke apart a “peace dividend” was announced. At the time I thought that was crazy, and we might have to spend even more money on security. There is an advantage to a bipolar world. I remember reading how the world could be divided based on race rather than country and politics so I always thought Russia and its western satellites could be natural friends. I am not sure where I read that but it could have been from John Gunther or earlier.
I agree with you about the impact of the hoax. Trump campaigned on a policy towards Russia that recognised its security concerns. The hoax prevented him from acting on that, particularly after the take down of Flynn. The politics of policy towards Russia and Ukraine became toxic. Indeed, Trump was impeached over Ukraine policy for not being sufficiently anti-Russian when he held up arms deliveries to the new Zelensky regime for a short time.
Biden brought back the neocons who had promoted NATO expansion and the 2014 coup in Ukraine. His administration immediately moved to integrate Ukraine into NATO defence planning and reinvigorated the push to bring Ukraine into NATO. They rejected all Russian initiatives through the autumn and into the winter of 2021/2022 to reach an accommodation over Ukraine, thus ensuring war. And now they resist diplomatic options that likely are still available.
One of the threads of opposition to Trump that is not given sufficient weight is the threat he posed to the foreign policy consensus — the blob — through his advocacy of a realist foreign policy with limited scope for adventurism.
People interested in foreign policy should recognize how the Russians think. They have been attacked from the west many times, and what protected its interior was large stretches of land that caused fatigue and supply chain problems. Whether their mindset is correct doesn’t matter because the Russians plan based on their mindset.
Next, people should look at geography. From the border of Ukraine, it is 300 miles from Moscow. Like we didn’t want missiles in Cuba, they don’t want an enemy on the border. Ukraine should never have been considered for membership in NATO. We could have easily worked toward a mutual agreement with Moscow based on economics and recognition of their place in the world.
A decade after WW2, Austria, divided by the major powers, was reunited as a neutral state.
“But when we attribute 1/3 of inflation to Trump.”
It would be preferable if you said things that happened during the Trump administration. Otherwise, you are assuming he had total dictatorial control of the nation when the power of the purse was clearly in the hands of the left.
I think Trump had less power over the spending than your comment implies. He is very much the opposite of that implication. All one has to do is look at how Trump managed the costs of Airforce One and the Jerusalem embassy. If he had the power, I do not think he would have permitted such spending but attempted to curtail much of it. I am sure I can find places where he was too extravagant for my tastes, but those instances would be penny ante compared to the budgets we saw.
EVERYONE was gung ho about spending 2T on Covid.
There was some spittle exchanged on precisely how to spend that money.
Trump had the power to stop it if he wanted.
Regardless, it is likely we could have dealt with 3% inflation without a recession.
Further the causes of inflation predate Trump. The tipping poiny for bad monetary policy merely started during Trump.
But there is parking ticket bad.
And there is assault with a deadly weapon bad.
Trump was the former Biden the latter.
Inflation is not monetary because Friedman said it is.
Friedman said it was monetary because it is.
Those on the left do not understand the difference.
It is not the fact that Friedman was a credentialed expert that makes what he says important.
It is because he has been RIGHT over and over.
I cite many people – the giants of the past, who have often far more eloquently than I can stated the Truth that they observed.
What they say is important because it is true.
What matters is not that Adam Smith said something, but that it was True.
Dr. Fauxi has said many many things. He is unarguably an expert. He has also been near universally wrong.
No one will be quoting him unsarcastically in 20 years – much less 250.
@UpstateFarmer
And that’s why it’s a mortal threat. I have no doubt that Elon is now in possession of evidence that damns the lot of them. We are watching a longstanding cabal unravel right in public view, and that empire is the leftists and globalists, period. We’re talking about dynasties, here. We ALL have to stand our ground. no amount of propaganda is going to reverse this.
Well said James!
I think you and Upstate understand what we are facing and that what we face is dangerous to our survival as free people.
We, or at least I, favor free trade and globalism that accepts trading between nations as a normal economic function. However, globalism, as practiced by our leaders and many billionaires is bad and should be prevented.
I am afraid John Say and I will get into a tiff over my statement so let me say again free trade is good. Globalism as practiced (I think John agrees), is bad. Sometimes free trade and national security diverge. I stand on the side of national security where China is concerned, but that support is not unlimited. I think John and I might have divergent ideas here, but I doubt the divergence is significant.
No tiff – your just focused on the wrong problem.
You are constantly making the common mistake of the left and equating the advantage that the affluent get in many things with themselves.
The root cause of nearly every instance you find of some favoritism to the wealthy – to billionaires is GOVERNMENT.
I am entirely supportive of globalization. By that I mean the gloabl spread of actual free markets, the globalization of an actually free economy.
Many on the right rant negatively about “globalization” – but what they – like you are actually ranting about are the elites efforts to take control of the global economy.
I actively oppose pretty much anything the Davos crowd wants to do.
One of the problems with anything successful is that it nearly always drives special interests to either oppose and contain it, or to coopt it and bring it under their control.
Increasingly the term globalization does not mean the development of a global free market.
It means the top down statist world government control of the global economy – and then everything else.
I do not want balkanized national economies isoltated from the world.
But even less I want the global economy controled by our purported betters.
I trust billionaires to serve my interest, when they are serving theirs inside a free market.
I do not trust them at all when they are renting government power.
The purpose of gloablization was to disempower governments. To shift power to free markets.
But as is always true – dominant free market actors seek protection from the discipline of free markets and they seek that from government.
And government with the power to control the economy – has too much power.
“You are constantly making the common mistake of the left and equating the advantage that the affluent get in many things with themselves.”
John, maybe I got which tiff wrong, but it is still a tiff. 🙂 I do not see your point. Maybe you can change the wording a bit and define ” the common mistake of the left “
I agree with your ideas about favoritism, government, and billionaires. That I differ in some ways from your ideas doesn’t mean I discount that favoritism.
“globalization of an actually free economy.”
That is what I implied using other words.
“you are actually ranting about are the elites efforts to take control of the global economy.”
I think that is pretty clear when I said: ” We, or at least I, favor free trade and globalism that accepts trading between nations as a normal economic function. However, globalism, as practiced by our leaders and many billionaires is bad and should be prevented.” In your arguments, you try to win points by labeling the other person. That is fine as long as your label is accurate. It is not accurate here or on many other occasions.
“special interests” is part of a free economy until those special interests get special treatment from the government.
“The purpose of gloablization was to disempower governments. “
I think not, but here the definitions might cause the difference in opinion. Globalization is a natural development. It has been perverted.
So long as you have the fundimental rule of law – just the minimal core of government that is necescary and NO MORE.
You need not EVER fear the “rich”. The markets will constrain them, or force them to succeed in ways that massively benefit everyone.
The rich do not go off the rails until there is government power they can rent to their advantage.
This is just the flip side of Public Choice theory which in very simple forms is
The very human attributes and incentives that make free markets work well, make government work badly.
Self-interest constrained by the rule of law and market forces is a powerful force for good.
But the slightest self interest in any context involving government always works out badly.
Even more simply – you, like the left try to blame on the rich, the problems of excess government power.
Blaming the rich for the things you do, is like blaming bears for liking honey.
“So long as you have the fundimental rule of law – just the minimal core of government that is necescary and NO MORE.”
The minimal core is open to personal interpretation. I permit expansion in the way Hayek suggests though that doesn’t mean I support such expansion.
“The rich do not go off the rails until there is government power they can rent to their advantage.”
Since their access to government can be easy, there is reason to fear, but not berate the idea of being rich. Berate only the idea of buying government for personal advantage.
” you, like the left try to blame on the rich, the problems of excess government power.”
Are you talking to me in that comment? If so provide an example. I like rich. I’m not sure what rich is.
The minimum is not really open to interpretation.
That you or others desire more is something different.
There is a difference between what we need and what we want.
“The minimum is not really open to interpretation.”
Sure it is. But I will listen to you. Provide me a dollar figure.
The minimum is what is necescary for:
The criminal law system – and its enforcement
The civil law system – and its enforcement
Tort law and its enforcement.
Sufficient military for national defense.
And control of borders.
During the US civil War the peak Government spending state-local and federal was about 8% of GDP. The 19th century norm was 3% of GDP.
Regardless, the minimum is not defined by an amount, it is defined by the legitimate roll of government.
And that is those few tasks necescary for the social contract that can not be performed withour government – that require the use of force.
Their access to government is irrelevant if government has no power they wish to rent.
Limited government mean No corporatism. No priviledges for the rich, because there is nothing to rent.
You are assuming everyone is pure.
I am trying to deal in the real word.
“You are assuming everyone is pure.
I am trying to deal in the real word.”
Quite the opposite.
I do not care whether those in business are pure. I do not need to. So long as government is restrained to its minimal legitimate roll, powerful business interests can not evade market discipline. Markets are relentless, whatever your past success it can all disapear quickly is you make a big enough mistake, or if you sit on your hands and do not continuously seek to improve. Market forces are heaviest for those who have succeeded the most. Those are the ones in the most volatile parts of the market.
Musk has bought twitter – it would be very easy for him to lose all $44B if he missteps.
While the local grocery store owner does not have $1m but has to make more substantial mistakes over a longer period to lose everything.
Government that is actually limited has no power that is worth buying. That is the most importent impediment to public corruption.
I ASSUME – correctly – that those in government are less pure than those in business. And deprive them of all but the barest minimum of power.
Regardless, whatever power you give government you must maintain ever the greater vigilance as it will be abused.
Wile the vigiliance you need over the wealthy is limited to the basic elements of the rule of law, Criminal, civil and torts law enforcement
“I do not care whether those in business are pure.”
There is more known about the business one deals with than the unknown randomness the rest of the world has to offer, which interferes with your plans. We are not a video game where each move is based on a numerical entry. You are talking about perfection, which is the enemy of good.
“The minimum is what is necescary for: The criminal law system – and its enforcement The civil law system – and its enforcement Tort law and its enforcement….”
The minimum is based on personal perspective and opinion. It is not a fixed number.
Yopu keep offering this fallacious perfection argument.
NO I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT PERFECTION.
With minimal constraints – to fundimentals of the rule of law free markets are self regulating.
Bad conduct occurs and one way or another markets punish it.
Historically the only means big business has ever had of protecting itself from the disciplining force of markets has been to rent power from GOVERNMENT.
Limit that and problems go away.
I would note that starting in SOME countries in the last half of the 20th century and starting in many more in the last 1/4 free markets increased dramatically all over the world. To be clear I am talking about a rapid transition of half the world from less free markets to more free markets.
The consequence doubled the standard of living of the world.
Nothing like this has ever happened before in human history.
And this happened in countries that have little government economic regulation – or countries like China and india where government regulation might as well be non-existant.
“Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.”
Adam Smith
This is not perfectionism – it is WHAT ACTUALLY WORKS.
John, we do not disagree on theory. We disagree on human nature, perception and recognition that theory is only a small part of human interactions.
Nope, I think we agree completely on human nature.
It is theory and practice that we are at odds on.
Free markets constraint lightly by the minimal requirements of the rule of law, provide little opportunity for the worst of human nature – better still they channel it to everyone’s benefit.
Sociopaths make up only about 3% of the population – but they are significantly disproportionately represented in some positions.
CEO’s are significantly disproportionately sociopaths. So long as they are confined by the rule of law, their malignant narcism is still channeled to the benefit of all. They can be difficult to work with brutal to compete with. But their success is success for all.
But if you empower government, they WILL find a way to leverage that power to protect themselves from the discipline of the market and to disadvantage competitors.
Most of the worst attributes of humans are redirected towards the benefit of all by free markets,
But those very same attributes are incredibly destructive at any point of intersection with government.
I would suggest reading Walter Block’s “Defending the undefendable”.
Block goes through pretty much all of the most vile things we think that private actors can do in free markets and demonstrates how their actual effects are positive.
The people Block is defending ARE the many of the worst of the worst.
https://cdn.mises.org/Defending_the_Undefendable_2018.pdf
“The minimum is based on personal perspective and opinion.”
No it is based on what works, and what has worked historically.
I have cited the negative impact on standard of living from growing government.
Big government has atleast TWO negative impacts on standard of living.
It takes productive resources from the economy and wastes them.
Bigger government means more regulation and economic interferance – which is a large cost.
“It is not a fixed number.” Correct, it is a fixed set of government powers.
“No it is based on what works,”
One doesn’t know what works in advance. Quantifying what works in a sense is gambling. Assessing what worked historically is based on one’s perspective.
I generally agree with your theory involving growth of government and the standard of living.
““It is not a fixed number.” Correct,”
That is the point and that is where human nature and perspective enters the picture.
“One doesn’t know what works in advance. Quantifying what works in a sense is gambling. Assessing what worked historically is based on one’s perspective.”
No everything is not a matter of perspective.
Or more accurately, we have common agreement on perspective.
You are highlighting and echoing an argument of the modern left.
Leftists today have a self contradictory set of values. Regardless, of the self contradictions – they would as an example accept that standard of living was much lower if that achieved Equity.
But the vast majority of people want to be better off more than they want what the left is selling.
Hayek included this “perspective” idiocy in one or two paragraphs in The Road To Serfdom – essentially saying that as a society we could chose to have a broad social safety net – so long as we understood that would be a sub-optimal choice economically.
That “perspective” can appeal to people – so long as they think it is someone else who will be less well off economically.
Hayek momentarily forget one of the most important things about free market economics.
The free exchanges we fixated on tend to be purely economic.
But all free exchanges are part of chains, and the tails of those chains are ALWAYS non-economic.
A higher standard of living is not just about having more money.
It is about better educating your kids, eating better, living better, having more time for your family or spouse, having quality time with your family or spouse.
Economics does not judge our values, But rising standard of living allows us all to better acheive those values – whatever they are.
“I generally agree with your theory involving growth of government and the standard of living.”
It is not a theory, it is measurable fact.
“You are highlighting and echoing an argument of the modern left.”
There is more than one side to a story, an idea held by most people. Therefore it is an argument on almost any side.
“Hayek included this “perspective” idiocy in one or two paragraphs in The Road To Serfdom – essentially saying that as a society we could chose to have a broad social safety net – so long as we understood that would be a sub-optimal choice economically.”
Yes, I remember. I used Hayek in the argument providing the reference and the page number.
Hayek was attempting to blend perceived needs and prevent excesses. The important thing in that quote was not that his statement represented idiocy, as you say. It didn’t. It was intelligent. He provided a way of veering off course if there was a common need and desire. In democracies, that common need can lead to vast upsets in the marketplace.
He advised that one should not go wild, but rather restrain themselves by doing those things necessary and least interfering with the marketplace. (Much better than Marxist Revolution.)
History abounds with examples, so I will pick one that occurred in 1965 with the passage of Medicare. There were multiple voices heard pushing for change and a healthcare safety net. That led to three voices: 1) Absolutely no 2) restraint with a Medicaid-type solution that wouldn’t affect the marketplace, and 3) Medicare or something more extreme.
#1 and #3 fought against #2 and #3 prevailed.
Hayek’s advice was taken by #2. There were already distortions in the marketplace because of the problem. Since Hayek’s restraint preserved the marketplace, it was likely self-correcting while servicing existing needs at constrained costs while solving a need.
We now see Medicare for what it is. It’s great for those that have their costs paid for by others, but it is not the best program and is gradually heading toward bankruptcy. It inhibited certain developments in Medicine, never restrained costs while taking more from the young, and negatively impacted our standard of living.
The alternative not chosen attempted to keep the healthcare marketplace intact. The voices that fought against any change didn’t help preserve the healthcare marketplace.
You call Hayek’s position idiocy, but the position of those on your extreme did nothing to promote a better system that didn’t significantly interfere with the free marketplace. To make things worse, what was faced already distorted the healthcare system. Trying to remove distortions is a good thing. Attempting to preserve the free marketplace is a second good thing.
““You are highlighting and echoing an argument of the modern left.”
There is more than one side to a story, an idea held by most people. Therefore it is an argument on almost any side.”
There is, but truth is dependent on facts not which side you are on.
I try very hard not to make arguments that I know are wrong.
Others will do that.
Legitimate debate with two sides does not alter the fact that in nearly all instances one side is far more right than the other.
“Hayek was attempting to blend perceived needs and prevent excesses.”
In these two paragraphs Hayek was politically right, but in all other ways wrong.
We are free to make choices for reasons other than economics.
But only as individuals. Government shoices on the basis of non-economic values – fail both economically and with respect to the values they seek. Ultimately economics is the MEANS by which we get what we want and need.
“The important thing in that quote was not that his statement represented idiocy, as you say. It didn’t. It was intelligent. He provided a way of veering off course if there was a common need and desire. In democracies, that common need can lead to vast upsets in the marketplace.
He advised that one should not go wild, but rather restrain themselves by doing those things necessary and least interfering with the marketplace. (Much better than Marxist Revolution.)”
Nope, he was wrong. Further he knew or should have know he was wrong.
Free markets are essentially a massive integrating function – taking as inputs the specific values, wants and needs of each of us,
factoring EVERYTHING and producing the best possible output.
A free market is like a gigantic pure democracy in which each of us gets to vote – by our choices in life, about absolutely everything.
When Hayek says we can chose to deviate, he is inherently saying through political power some of use can cancel the choices others have made.
I would further note that free markets to an enormous extent do NOT involve binary results. It takes all our values and their strengths – as expressed by our market choices are inputs and the output is rarely Binary. A free market optimizes meeting each of our needs relative to the weight of those needs in proportion to the market as a whole.
This is what is so stupid about Bernie Sanders saying everything would be better if we had one deoderant, one Sneaker.
Free markets provide us with a grocery aisle of different breakfast options – proportionate to the weight of the choices of all of us.
When Hayek says we can collectively choose to deviate from the economic results, he was fundamentally misunderstanding the function of free markets. He either knew or should have known better.
“History abounds with examples, so I will pick one that occurred in 1965 with the passage of Medicare. There were multiple voices heard pushing for change and a healthcare safety net. That led to three voices: 1) Absolutely no 2) restraint with a Medicaid-type solution that wouldn’t affect the marketplace, and 3) Medicare or something more extreme.
#1 and #3 fought against #2 and #3 prevailed.”
Actually false #2 prevailed – to our detriment as we slowly drift to the worst possible choice M4A.
You can fight if you wish about how what happened fit into your catagories.
But the FACT is we made a bad choice and we are worse off for it.
Worse still, that bad choice has had a cascade effect driving more bad choices.
As is typical – Government intervenined in the market, made things worse, blamed the failure on the market and used that to justify more intervention and greater failure.
Medicare is not great for what it is or for anyone. There are a tiny number of actual net beneficiaries and nearly all of us lose.
Worse it distorts the broader market.
We can look accross the world and even undeveloped countries are very near our life expectance.
Why ? Because the fundimentals of modern healthcare are of very small cost and provide 99% of the benefit in terms of life expectancy.
99% of healthcare is a luxury good – it is something we WANT not something we NEED.
Nor is healthcare the only place we have erred like this.
We have done so massively in education.
The two worst failures since the 60’s have been education and healthcare – the two biggest government intrusions into free markets.
“to keep the healthcare marketplace intact.”
Nonsense the slow destruction fo something is not keeping it intact.
“The voices that fought against any change didn’t help preserve the healthcare marketplace.”
And the compromisers destroyed it. And the date of destruction was passing medicare. Everything from then forward was only a question of time.
“You call Hayek’s position idiocy, but the position of those on your extreme did nothing to promote a better system that didn’t significantly interfere with the free marketplace. ”
You miss the point entirely THERE IS NO BETTER SYSTEM than what arises from the free market.
You can not on net do better, and you can not eve get close. Interfering ALWAYS results in a FEW short term winners with everyone losing in the
long term.
“To make things worse, what was faced already distorted the healthcare system.”
Nope
“Trying to remove distortions is a good thing.”
Actual free markets do not distort – their defining FEATURE is that more accurately than anything else they reflect the integrated wants and needs of all proportionate to the extent they are valued by each of us.
“Attempting to preserve the free marketplace is a second good thing.”
But medicare did not preserve free markets – it spelled their inevitable doom for something inferior.
John, a problem you create in your debate is calling ideas that dispute your own, arguments “of the modern left”. That permits you to call Hayek’s idea of preserving the free market idiocy. Using that type of argument, you can say every great economist’s argument for less rigidity based on circumstances, idiocy without recognizing the contrary forces facing a nation. Iron breaks, steel bends.
Economics is one part of life. It doesn’t survive in isolation. The doors of the Marxist Revolution are opened by those that are rigid supporters of freedom as well as those that are despotic.
“Legitimate debate with two sides does not alter the fact that in nearly all instances one side is far more right than the other.”
Once again, you exclude all else but economics. Economically it might be better for that old person to die, however, our morality and glances into our own futures might cause us to look toward life even though the economic value no longer exists.
Who is right? Should we destroy all life in the present for a higher standard of living in the future, or spend some of that standard of living on life itself, in the present?
“In these two paragraphs Hayek was politically right, but in all other ways wrong.”
Forgetting the error of your statement, “but in all other ways wrong.”, because the word all should be changed to some or many. Once again, you assume the purity of economic actions dominates all of life. That is counterbalanced by your following statement, “We are free to make choices for reasons other than economics.” Perhaps you have some recognition that life survives based on many things, not just economics.
“Government shoices on the basis of non-economic values – fail both economically and with respect to the values they seek.”
Yes, and that is a reason for the government to be small, and an additional reason for our federalist system which can accommodate values the federal government cannot. However, these things are not all or none as you suggest. That is what Hayek recognizes and you don’t.
“Ultimately economics is the MEANS by which we get what we want and need.”
It is only part of life even though there is a basic truth in that statement.
“Nope, he was wrong. Further he knew or should have know he was wrong.”
That is an easy statement to make, but I note you only focus on the economic portion of life and society with inputs and values, all in economic terms. Yes, we vote with our dollars and that is of extreme importance, but does not provide the satisfaction you believe. How much is your child worth economically? How much is your child worth to you?
“When Hayek says we can chose to deviate, he is inherently saying through political power some of use can cancel the choices others have made.”
Choices can be good and bad, but you are wrong if you think certain choices made by the government cannot be better than the choices of the marketplace. I will grant that in the long run, you might be correct, but the long run can be 100, or 1,000 years in the future while man only survives for 80+ years if he is lucky.
Go ahead John, and tell everyone in the country alive today that they have a choice, a good economic future in 100 years with a dismal life today, or Marxist Revolution. I think the people will choose Marxist Revolution.
You return to promoting the glories of the free market that I firmly agree with, “A free market optimizes meeting each of our needs relative to the weight of those needs in proportion to the market as a whole.”. However, I don’t always agree that those ideas always are the best.
“When Hayek says we can collectively choose to deviate from the economic results, he was fundamentally misunderstanding the function of free markets. He either knew or should have known better.”
No, he was not just being intelligent as you are. He was also wise in recognizing life, and our existence as a whole.
SM – when you parrot an argument from the left, I am going to note that.
You and I disagree on a few points. SOME of your arguments are the broken arguments of the left.
Find better arguments.
I am not interested in class warfare by the back door.
I do not presume that someone has good interntions because they are rich,
In fact I presume some will do everything they can to seek lawless advantage.
Actual free markets with the rule of law do not allow that.
it should be obvious from the fact that those who you are worried about ALWAYS gain advantage by renting government power, that the problem is with government.
“SM – when you parrot an argument from the left, I am going to note that.”
Outrageous John. Totally outrageous, and lacks foresight. I’ll respond in kind.
When you parrot such a rigid argument that the population rejects and turns toward Marxist Revolution, I will note that. Your methodology is all or none, and when you are on the losing side of the argument, it leads to disaster. My argument kept the free market. Yours tossed it away. Medicare exists in its present form today because of your type of rigidity.
“Find better arguments.”
Then perhaps you need to respond better to my argument. To date, I haven’t seen a cogent argument from you about Medicare.
When you are at a loss, making empty claims doesn’t help you. You need to debate the example provided.
I will look elsewhere for your arguement.
As I have demonstrated repeatedly – my argument here is based in FACTS, reality.
The public is free to reject reality – that does not change the outcome.
You are free to call my argument and reality “rigid” – reality is often rigid. Get over it.
The FACT is all government intervention in the economy reduces standard of living.
The greater the intervention the worse the harm.
Medicare is failing exactly as predicted. That failure can be delayed by bandages, it can not be avoided.
Reverting back to markets is only expensive and diffficult – because of the idiotic mistakes we have made.
Ultimately someone gets screwed no matter what.
All “middle ways” at best delay the inevtiable, – and may even make the failure WORSE.
Rigid ? Possibly. True, certainly. Popular ? no.
We do not get to vote on whether the sun will rise tomorow.
John, in this response, we are mostly in agreement. However, your statement: “All “middle ways” at best delay the inevtiable, – and may even make the failure WORSE.” doesn’t make sense.
Let us know how the alternative would have made things worse. It solved a perceived problem by wiping out a good portion of the difficulty without wiping out private medicine and private insurance. Private insurance for older people was rapidly increasing based on the buyer-seller principle. A person interested in the free market would want that to survive, especially since that could self-correct things.
You chose government healthcare for seniors. I prefer a private marketplace.
I do not know how to answer you.
Your replies are all over.
You have variously claimed that Medicare was driven by a real problem – it was not. No democratic social safetynet legislation has ever been driven by a real problem.
The world is not and never will be perfect. Medicare did not change that. But it did create many many other problems.
I have no idea what you think this “middle way” alternative was.
Regardless, the argument – the FACTS are simple. If it involved government, it would fail and lead to the same place. Government failure leads to more government. If it did not – then government was unnecessary.
Government does not solve problems outside its legitimate domain – it creates them.
The left ALWAYS takes the fact that the world is not perfect and uses that as an excuse to take over some part, and make it worse still.
Regardless, I am not debating vague hypotheticals with you.
I can not tell you have the free market will solve any problem – because thousands of different ways will be tried, most will fail, those that do not will compete, and one or perhaps many, will succeed, and the whole process with repeat endlessly.
While ANY government solution with be imposed by FORCE – it will drive out alternatives, it will with certainty fail, because success is quite hard.
In the real world success is not the product of the consensus of the experts, it is a result of competition.
Consensus always misses something “unseen”, competition and iterative refinement always find and resolve the unseen.
“I do not know how to answer you. Your replies are all over.”
If that is true, then you can show me where. My ideas haven’t changed, so I don’t know how you came up with the above statement. The only thing I can think of is that you believe any disagreement means ideas are all over the place. They weren’t, but since I am a nice guy, I will permit you to live with that fantasy.
The choice was Medicare or a free market. You chose Medicare because you think in a binary manner and do not know how to negotiate. The history of what happened is clear. Seniors were buying private hospital insurance. If the legislature voted for Medicare, they would be insured by the government The alternative to Medicare was to encourage private hospital insurance.
Why, by default, you select Medicare as the solution is difficult to understand.
“You have variously claimed that Medicare was driven by a real problem – it was not.”
You haven’t carefully read what I wrote. Whether it be perception or reality didn’t matter. The passage of Medicare would occur with either one. However, if it was a perception problem, the remedy was easier to achieve and would be self-correcting and self-limiting.
Why would anyone want Medicare with such an easy solution?
You are unable to negotiate and deal with various solutions. You are pure binary. The theory goes out the door when it faces reality. You believe the problem was something as easy to solve as perception and would do nothing to stop Medicare. Wow!
SM – your “ideas” are not “ideas” they are one simple proposition.
That compromise is always better than risking losing.
Often inside of Free markets that is true.
In matters that involve the expansion of government powers that is NEVER true.
That is the gist of this entire debate.
We have both jumped all over around that – but it is the core and really only issue.
You say that is binary thinking – the issue is binary, therefore binary thinking is appropriate.
I am surprised that you have not raised your common “over generalization” trope.
Regardless, I would ask you can you name any ACTUAL instance in which giving a little to government, did not result inevitably in giving more.
I would ask you for an example of government actually succeeding as an actor in the economic sphere ?
I can not think of ONE.
But lets assume you are correct and I have “overgenralized” – Barro’s work assures me that I have not, but lets assume you can find one or two examples.
Out of hundreds of thousands of acts of government – it should be possible to find more than 1 or two that succeeded.
There is no reason to compromise with government, when that is ALWAYS failure and at best just failing more slowly.
You keep saying the alternative to some government program was something.
If the alterantive to a government program is an actual free market – then the alternative is many things dynamically changing.
That is how markets work. AGAIN – go look in the grocery aisle – and that does not include the choices that are NOT in the grocery store.
Free markets do not offer A solution – they offer an ever changing plethora of solutions. Changing because some fail. Changing because better ones are found, changing because our wants and needs change, changing because as standards of living arrise we can afford choices we could not before.
And THAT is the binary – freedom, which means constant change, and constant improvement, or less freedom, which even if it actually were better for an instant – which it never is, could never be better in the long run.
Government solutions of ANY kind in the market ALWAYS mean – less freedom, failure, replacement, even less freedom, even greater failure.
Endlessly.
This mythical intermediate choice of yours does not exist.
To paraphrase John Roberts “the way to preserve free markets, is to preserve free markets”
There is no halfway solution that saves them.
Once government enters a domain:
It inevitably fails.
It inevitably blames that failure on others – usually free markets – the wealthy, corporations, ….
it does not tolerate competition.
There is an entire field of study – “Public Choice Theory”
that explores exactly how the same things about humans that drive markets towards improvement, drive government towards failure.
“That compromise is always better than risking losing.”
John, in a losing argument, it is not proper to take another person’s statements out of context.
Compromise is not always better. In the Medicare example which is real, I skipped the theory. Better ways of handling the problem existed and I wanted to push for a solution other than Medicare so that the private health insurance of seniors could remain private. You didn’t want any compromise so you chose Medicare.
“I am surprised that you have not raised your common “over generalization” trope.”
Because you didn’t generalize. You accepted Medicare rather than attempting to keep private hospital insurance for seniors.
“Regardless, I would ask you can you name any ACTUAL instance in which giving a little to government, did not result inevitably in giving more.”
Your way doesn’t result in inevitably giving more, it gives everything all at once.
Your medicare argument is NOT real.
It has already been dispatched.
If your option #2 does not involve govenrment at all – then it is #1, if it does then it is #3.
There is no ACTUAL #2. You are manufacturing a state that does not exist.
You are repeating yourself. What I am saying is historically documented and you treat all of it like fiction.
“You are repeating yourself.”
Of course I am. You are not listening.
“What I am saying is historically documented and you treat all of it like fiction.”
Because it is litterally NOT historically documented – the OPPOSITE is, and it litterally IS fiction.
I have asked you for examples. Your hypothetical is ahistorical and proves my point.
Every example you come up with will prove my point.
In the earlier discussion I already replied to you said the discussion was over. I guess Book One ended and now we are on Book Two.
“Because it is litterally NOT historically documented – the OPPOSITE is, and it litterally IS fiction.”
What have I said that is not documented? I am patiently waiting. I provided some history and some quotes. You have to be more specific.
You are completely off topic. We are not talking about what one can buy in a grocery store. We are talking about Medicare and providing an alternative. Can you stay on the subject?
We are not talking about theory, we are talking about the choice between Medicare and a program that could maintain private hospital insurance for the elderly. You chose to destroy the marketplace in senior healthcare. Now you are trying to link things together because your choice doesn’t make sense to those looking from the real world into your theoretical world.
Deal with the issue. Do you choose #1, #2, or #3?
There is no fundimental difference between free markets in breakfast cereals and free markets in medical services.
If you actually have free markets you will always have many choices dynamically changing. Regardless of the specific market.
Assuming you to be correct. So?
You said one did not apply to the other.
In correct.
Markets are markets.
“Markets are markets.”
They might be but the perception of others might be different. You are not dealing with yourself. You are dealing with other people. Perception counts,
I am not at all talking about theory – you are the one dealing with hypotheticals.
I am however absolutely GENERALIZING with respect to REALITY – not theory.
You have yet to provide real world evidence that generalization is wrong – ever.
Regardless, I am not dealing with theory, or hypotheticals.
I am however dealing with Generalizations that are true.
” am not at all talking about theory – you are the one dealing with hypotheticals.”
I am dealing with the history of Medicare.
You are dealing with philosophy while making statements that sometimes don’t make complete sense.
“I am however absolutely GENERALIZING with respect to REALITY – not theory.
You have yet to provide real world evidence that generalization is wrong “
p#2 was promoted to stop Medicare and the socialization of healthcare. That is what I am doing. What you are doing is trying to prove feelings that you have and cannot verbalize. If you verbalize them you might be the first to object to them.
Philosophy and reality often concur.
Regardless, your on the wrong side of reality.
“Philosophy and reality often concur.”
…and often they do not.
“#2 was promoted to stop Medicare and the socialization of healthcare. ”
And it would not, and you know that. At very best it might delay it.
Worse still it would make Medicare Redeaux even worse.
“That is what I am doing.”
But it is not.
“What you are doing is trying to prove feelings that you have and cannot verbalize. If you verbalize them you might be the first to object to them.”
This is just over the top nonsense.
Not a feeling in site.
Facts, reality
You are correct though – philosopy and reality converge.
Some 250 year old philosophy AND fact.
“Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.”
Adam Smith
Your argument has deteriorated to ‘he said, she said’.
“Some 250 year old philosophy AND fact.”
There are many facts and many philosophies. Your’s do not reign supreme. To do so you have to have a better argument. You don’t.
“Some 250 year old philosophy AND fact. “…” Adam Smith
You have to read both books concurrently. You are lost. I have no objection to Adam Smith. I have an objection to those that can only think on one plane.
“My argument kept the free market. ”
False, we have not had a free market in healthcare since Medicare was created.
Further Medicare destroyed and demanded subsidization from what parts of the free market remained, creating failures – actually driven by medicare – not free markets, and ultimately increasing market failure, resulting in more demands for government to take over the market.
Finally your argument accomplished nothing beyond choosing government failure at a slower rate.
That is not keeping the free market.
“False, we have not had a free market in healthcare since Medicare was created.”
John, you are incorrect. Obviously, you didn’t adequately read what I wrote before. The first major attack on the free market in healthcare was after WW2. Medicare was the second major attack. Your attitude of all-or-nothing led to Medicare, and it seems you never attacked the first assault. Perhaps you are not in tune with all the nuances in the healthcare market. That could explain why your attitude supports Medicare over anything else.
Medicare was on its way to passage under JFK. Those fighting against Medicare pushed hard and rented out Madison Square Garden the day after JFK’s speech. The bill didn’t pass then, but there wasn’t adequate support to stop Medicare. The all-or-nothing crowd did nothing to prevent Medicare. The other group provided a bill that only minimally interfered with the healthcare marketplace. That was the only chance to prevent the passage of Medicare in 1965 under LBJ.
The proof that the bill would pass exists, it did pass. Surprisingly you choose that route today rather than a minimally invasive route meant to keep the private insurance marketplace for the elderly. Why you prefer Medicare to a self-limiting program that preserved the private marketplace is astounding, but you do. Blame being stubborn and the all-or-none on the passage of Medicare. I choose to keep healthcare in the private market.
“Finally your argument accomplished nothing beyond choosing government failure at a slower rate.
That is not keeping the free market.”
No. You are choosing Medicare which socialized senior healthcare. I chose to keep the free market by not permitting the government to control the insurance market for seniors.
Why even knowing what would happen, you stick to all-or-none, doesn’t make sense. That attitude produced Medicare. The other permitted the free market to flourish.
Going back further in the past does not help your argument – it makes mine.
When the government camel gets its nose under the tent flap – the rest will follow.
I do not need to be in tune with the nuances of any market.
Markets are beyond the ability of any human. or any computer to understand.
And that problem gets worse as our standard of living rises.
No one in their right mind should expect government left or right to manage any market.
You are veering off of the topic. There was a choice. Let Medicare pass or provide enough satisfaction that the free market could survive in healthcare. You chose Medicare.
There was a choice – leave the markets alone. Or F#$k things up.
That is ALWAYS the only choice.
Yes, that might be true and depends on what you are talking about when you say the marketplace. Eventually such thoughts are theoretical and lead nowhere.
“Yes, that might be true”
No it is.
“and depends on what you are talking about when you say the marketplace.”
I have no idea where you think you are going here.
The marketplace – all freedoms outside the domain of govenrment.
” Eventually such thoughts are theoretical and lead nowhere.”
NOPE, very real, and ignoring them is “the road to serfdom”
The government has involvement in almost all elements of the marketplace. To believe otherwise is foolish. I want to limit its involvement but you won’t take a loaf of bred with one slice missing. You prefer to starve.
“The government has involvement in almost all elements of the marketplace. To believe otherwise is foolish.”
Government has SPECIFIC narrow involvement – everything beyond that ends badly.
“I want to limit its involvement”
Then you would not be arguing as you do.
“but you won’t take a loaf of bred with one slice missing. You prefer to starve.”
because next week it will be two, and then 4.
Starting with one slice rather than two at best delays starvation a bit.
“Government has SPECIFIC narrow involvement – everything beyond that ends badly.
Let me correct the statement since things are not always what we think they should be.
Government should have SPECIFIC narrow involvement – everything beyond that ends badly.
>>”“but you won’t take a loaf of bred with one slice missing. You prefer to starve.”
>because next week it will be two, and then 4.
Starting with one slice rather than two at best delays starvation a bit.”
In other words, you wish to starve earlier rather than surviving so you can figure out a solution.
Your argument is easily corrected.
History has REPEATEDLY proven the “all or nothing” crowd is correct.
It has also proven that those seeking a “middle way” – accomplished little beyond MAYBE slowing the process fo failure down.
They have NEVER accomplished anything more than slight delay.
Had THEY stuck to principles we might still have free markets in places where today we do not.
“History has REPEATEDLY proven the “all or nothing” crowd is correct.”
History has proven entropy correct. Your statement is meaningless.
“It has also proven that those seeking a “middle way” – accomplished little beyond MAYBE slowing the process fo failure down.”
Negotiation is not your strong suit, yet negotiation is the way to manage most disputes.
“Had THEY stuck to principles we might still have free markets in places where today we do not.”
When the sun burns out, human life on earth is gone. I do not wish to wait that long.
““History has REPEATEDLY proven the “all or nothing” crowd is correct.”
History has proven entropy correct. ”
Interesting observation – but tangential.
“Your statement is meaningless.”
Nope
““It has also proven that those seeking a “middle way” – accomplished little beyond MAYBE slowing the process fo failure down.”
Negotiation is not your strong suit, yet negotiation is the way to manage most disputes.”
Please do not try to make assessments of me relative to things you do not know.
In the real world I negotiate all the time.
Just principles, nor do I cede ground where the results will be disaster.
Again you actually prove the merits of the free market.
I would also note that negotiate and compromise are NOT the same thing.
Regardless, arrangements in the free market are fluid ever changing.
Bad deals fail or end.
That is nearly never true in the sphere of government.
I have on rare occasions completely screwed myself in a business deal.
I still honored the terms, took the losses and the deal eventually came to an end.
In the future I was wiser.
Nothing involving government works that way.
““Had THEY stuck to principles we might still have free markets in places where today we do not.”
When the sun burns out, human life on earth is gone. I do not wish to wait that long.”
That argument favors me not you.
Regardless, what is it you are waiting for ?
I oppose expanding government in absolutely every way I can. When I succeed the rewards are IMMEDIATE.
When I fail – the only question is how long will it take government to fail and how bad will that failure be.
Whether you like it or not, most of history is filled with compromise. The all-or-none theory you profess isn’t true, nor can you prove it.
Take the example under discussion.
#1 Your solution. Do nothing. No compromise
#2 Propose another solution that doesn’t significantly affect the marketplace.
#3 Medicare
You chose to do nothing and got Medicare.
I chose #2, which could have avoided Medicare yet solved the problems. Yet you say don’t even consider #2… be as pure as snow.
Snow melts.
“In the real world I negotiate all the time.”
Thank you for proving my case. You argue in the theoretical world, but in the real world, you use #2.
“I would also note that negotiate and compromise are NOT the same thing.”
I have used both words, but #2 that you disdain was negotiation and finding another way, which in the real world is essentially a compromise. (Adam Smith Book 1 &2.)
“Whether you like it or not, most of history is filled with compromise.”
Of course it is.
Beat that straw man to death.
We are not talking about the compromises that are part of ordinary everyday PRIVATE life.
Compromises that are dynamic, temporary, revocable or at the most short lived.
We are talking about compromises over individual liberty and govenrment power.
Those are permanent, close to irrevocable and always end in failure.
“The all-or-none theory you profess isn’t true, nor can you prove it.”
Not a theory – already poroven by YOUR medicare example.
“Take the example under discussion.
#1 Your solution. Do nothing. No compromise
#2 Propose another solution that doesn’t significantly affect the marketplace.
#3 Medicare”
This not a real example it is YOUR hypothetical.
YOU are falsely assuming that Option #2 exists, that it is not the same as or just a stepping stone to #3.
Further YOU example is not part of the real world. It did not actually happen.
“You chose to do nothing and got Medicare.”
Choose anything but #1 and you ultimately get medicare or something worse.
“I chose #2, which could have avoided Medicare yet solved the problems.”
An assumption about something that not only did not occur, but which historically either never occurs or always ultimately results in #3 or something similar.
Just look at medicare itself, We are way past medicare as passed in the 60’s, it has been expanded and expanded and expanded.
AGAIN let the camels nose under the tent flap – and the camel always follows.
That is history. Not some vague pretend hypothetical.
““In the real world I negotiate all the time.”
Thank you for proving my case.”
Quit being disengenuous.
“You argue in the theoretical world, but in the real world, you use #2.”
Not ever involving government
You and I BOTH know how that always ends – and you are DUCKING that entirely.
““I would also note that negotiate and compromise are NOT the same thing.”
I have used both words, but #2 that you disdain was negotiation and finding another way, which in the real world is essentially a compromise.”
Compromises of freedom with government are ALWAYS permanent, and nearly always first steps to larger infringements on freedom.
I would note that in EVERY private negotiation or compromise there are several elements that NEVER exist when government is involved.
If I negotiate a fee, if I compromise over terms in an agreement – I ALWAYS have the choice of saying NO! STOP!
I will not go forward.
If I negotiate or compromise in the free market – those terms are temporary.
They apply only until the contract is complete.
Further no negotiation or compromis in the free market inevitably leads to further surrender.
You keep ignoring the FACT that dealing with Government is NOT at all like dealing in the free market.
You KNOW this is true – but you keep pretending it is the same.
Whether you like it or not EVERYTHING functions RADICALLY different in a free market than in anything involving government.
In your hypothetical #2 and #3 are ALWAYS essentially the same. Yet, you keep trying to pretend they are different.
If as you clam #2 preserved a free market – then #2 is the same as #1 and does not involve government at all.
If on the other hand #2 involves government – then it does NOT preserve the free market and it is the same as #3.
Put simply issues of freedom with government are ALWAYS binary.
“#1 Your solution. Do nothing. No compromise
#2 Propose another solution that doesn’t significantly affect the marketplace.
#3 Medicare”
This not a real example it is YOUR hypothetical.”
This is validated historically.
“YOU are falsely assuming that Option #2 exists, that it is not the same as or just a stepping stone to #3.”
Those pushing option 2 wanted to prevent interference in the healthcare marketplace. You are wrong.
“Further YOU example is not part of the real world. It did not actually happen.”
That is correct. Medicare passed. Too many like yourself were unable to compromise. They held Medicare off under the JFK administration when it looked like passage was assured. Unfortunately, Medicare won. That is history. You were silent trying to protect the free market in healthcare while they passed Medicare.
“Choose anything but #1 and you ultimately get medicare or something worse.”
That is why you chose Medicare. But as you say “YOU are falsely assuming” that a vote for #2 would lead to Medicare or worse. That is not true. Like many things, time frequently changes the dynamics and bad ideas fade away. That is why on the most important issues things generally go slow.
You are making storylines up as you go along.
“Just look at medicare itself, We are way past medicare as passed in the 60’s, it has been expanded and expanded and expanded.”
Right, that is why the #2 group wanted to preserve private hospital insurance for the elderly. You didn’t like the fact that the plan didn’t interfere so much with the marketplace, it interfered minimally. You voted for Medicare and all the expansions that came afterward.
““In the real world I negotiate all the time.”
Thank you for proving my case.”
Quit being disengenuous.”
I am not being disingenuous, but thank you for proving my case again.
“You and I BOTH know how that always ends – and you are DUCKING that entirely.”
I do. I don’t know about you. I voted for #2 hoping that would solve the problem while keeping private hospital insurance for seniors. You voted for Medicare and all the expansions.
“Compromises of freedom with government are ALWAYS permanent”
Even assuming you are correct, we always compromise freedom to some degree. You compromised freedom 100%. I tried something different and compromised less than 5%. I wanted to provide private hospital insurance time to develop so Medicare would never be a necessity.
“You keep ignoring the FACT that dealing with Government is NOT at all like dealing in the free market.”
You don’t recognize that the healthcare market wasn’t free at the time. The government needs to be severely restrained, but what I think you are promoting is ridiculous, When you paid your doctor he had to report that as income and keep a set of books satisfactory to the government. When you drive to your doctor’s office you are supposed to follow loads of government regulations such as traffic rules, car registration, etc.
“You KNOW this is true – but you keep pretending it is the same.”
I don’t pretend anything. You are unable to verbalize your feelings in a way that makes sense. I understand what you are saying and I agree with much of it, but you are walking off the edge.
“In your hypothetical #2 and #3 are ALWAYS essentially the same. Yet, you keep trying to pretend they are different.”
They are two different choices. One leads directly to Medicare. The other can lead to private care or Medicare. I can’t predict the future l I will bet on the thing that has a chance rather than vote for failure.
“If as you clam #2 preserved a free market – then #2 is the same as #1 and does not involve government at all.”
No, #2 had a tiny bit of government intervention to protect the free market. Your choice #1 accepted Medicare without trying anything else. That means your choice, #! and #3 lead to the same outcome.
There is no such thing as a pure free market in a social society. Even libertarians advocate some government, but to you, some government is all government. You are contradicting yourself.
“This is validated historically.”
Nope
We are getting nowhere and your arguments are degrading and comparing you to Gigi or Svelaz is not going to end well.
You are wrong.
You are obviously wrong.
I have more than proven it.
I have no idea how you can read history which absolutely rejects your position as favoring. it.
And you keep ignoring the fact that there is no actual difference between your option # and your option #3.
Binaries do exist.
This is one.
Pummeling you further is pointless,
and you are not Svelaz or Gigi – I usually have respect for your arguments.
But not this one.
As I have said – you keep channeling the left.
It is not a good fit.
Regardless, I am done this debate.
You are not paying attention.
Adn nothing is served by repetition.
>>” This is validated historically.”
>Nope”
OK, then tell me, what is not historically correct?
“We are getting nowhere and your arguments are degrading and comparing you to Gigi or Svelaz is not going to end well.”
It will not because if that is your last resort, you lose, and it would demonstrate an inability to defend your ideas honestly.
“I have more than proven it.”
Your repetition of theory and proof shows that you have nothing further to say because that is the problem when one invests everything in theory that lacks practicality. While your understanding of the theory could be the best on the blog, there is a difference between theory and real life.
“I have no idea how you can read history which absolutely rejects your position as favoring. it.”
I don’t know what you are saying. Are you making things up?
“And you keep ignoring the fact that there is no actual difference between your option # and your option #3. Binaries do exist.”
#2 is what I do for a living. In fact, #2 is what people, legislatures, and governments do all the time. Your #1 is your theory which leads you to vote no on #3. #3 is Medicare passage that will happen if there is no counter. I choose #2 to prevent #3 while getting as close to #1 as possible.
Your argument is in the wrong place. It should be in #2 where there is a spectrum of choices, and you can argue for the one closest to your position. This doesn’t mean you don’t believe in your theory. It means not giving up when the vote is against it.
“And you keep ignoring the fact that there is no actual difference between your option # and your option #3.”
Take note, you cannot put this statement in words that explain your point. You can’t because you are wrong.
“Pummeling you further is pointless,”
Of course, it is, because when you think you are pummeling me, what you are doing is pummeling yourself. I have the facts on my side. You only have a theory that doesn’t pertain based on your own notions. You have said this is a binary, and “Binaries do exist. This is one.” Unfortunately for you, this discussion has nothing to do with binaries. You are wrong.
“and you are not Svelaz or Gigi – I usually have respect for your arguments.”
Thank you, and I have respect for your arguments also, and a lot of respect for your theory.
“As I have said – you keep channeling the left.”
After being complimentary, you throw a barb wrapped in cuddly tissue paper. The statement is meaningless because it is overused. Anything outside of what you believe is the truth is “channeling the left,” You have to do better.
“Regardless, I am done this debate.”
You should have realized it after the first response.
Since the discussion is over, I will add a bit of history.
After JFK’s speech at Madison Square Garden, Edward Annis spoke the next day to empty chairs at the same venue. I will quote him.
“This is not health care insurance … It will put government smack into your hospitals … deciding who gets in, who gets out, what they get, and what they don’t get. … This King-Anderson Bill is a cruel hoax and a delusion. … It will stand between the patient and his doctor. And it will serve as a forerunner of a different system of medicine for all Americans.”
The bill was defeated 52 to 48 and passed as Medicare three years later by LBJ. The cause was noble, but the program was destined to bankruptcy without continuous transfusions of taxpayer money. Edward Annis predicted that as would anyone who understood economics and read the bill.
Later, Edward Annis was asked how he knew Medicare would go bankrupt. He read the bill and knew where healthcare was heading. It is doubtful that the legislators read the bill. Annis’ direct answer to how he knew was “Cost-plus financing. It was a license to steal.”
In about two decades, after tremendous spending, Annis was proven correct.
The argument that government – outside of core limited government functions is necessary to reign in greedy corporations is both factually false and commonly made by the left. it is one of the central arguments by Marx.
There are many not on the left that argument appeals to.
It is still both false, danagerous and following a theme “the road to serfdom”
“The argument that government – outside of core limited government functions is necessary to reign in greedy corporations is both factually false and commonly made by the left. it is one of the central arguments by Marx.”
That is not what is under discussion. We are discussing binary thinking that could only lead to a Medicare solution. I wanted the private hospital insurance market for seniors to continue growing. Your binary actions didn’t permit a method to do that. It was all or nothing to you, so you didn’t appreciate the #2 solution, which was a bit of a compromise but permitted the free market to prevail.
““The argument that government – outside of core limited government functions is necessary to reign in greedy corporations is both factually false and commonly made by the left. it is one of the central arguments by Marx.”
That is not what is under discussion. ”
It is literally where this thread started.
This portion of the thread started with your statement, ““Hayek included this “perspective” idiocy in one or two paragraphs in The Road To Serfdom “
You were wrong and have been proven wrong.
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/11/02/eu-moves-against-twitter-to-block-free-speech-protections-after-calls-from-clinton-and-other-democratic-leaders/comment-page-2/#comment-2236180
“We are discussing binary thinking that could only lead to a Medicare solution. I wanted the private hospital insurance market for seniors to continue growing. Your binary actions didn’t permit a method to do that. It was all or nothing to you, so you didn’t appreciate the #2 solution, which was a bit of a compromise but permitted the free market to prevail.”
We are not – you are off trying to reframe the discussion in your way.
This is a real binary. Government ALWAYS fails when it intrudes into the economy.
I do not actually care what you want here.
AGAIN you channel the left.
You are free to want whatever you wish. You are NOT free to impose it through government on others.
This is why Free markets work.
Your desire – for whatever you want WILL be given weight and factored in a free market.
You may get what you want. You may not. You may get part of what you want.
You may get what you want later.
Whatever the outcome YOUR wants, needs, preferences will be weighed in with everyone else’s to produce one or many free market outcomes.
You may get what you want – but NOT by using force against others.
A govenrment mandated private market is no more moral than any other government solution.
And all lead inevitably the same place.
The only saving grace is that government mandated solutions ALWAYS fail eventually.
Sometimes fast, sometimes slow, sometimes small sometimes enormous.
But always eventually they fail.
I did little more than explain why when you called Hayek’s sentence idiocy, it was wrong. You have continuously broadened the discussion with theory that was a distraction. You mistakenly assume that anything disagreeing with your theory, like REALITY, is a part of leftist thinking. Nonsense.
Your choice of a dangerous socialistic program over a third idea meant to prevent that program’s existence, maintaining a private hospital insurance marketplace, was wrong. Your methodology was going to fail, and it did.
“You are free to want whatever you wish. You are NOT free to impose it through government on others.”
Since I didn’t want Medicare imposed, you must not be looking at things rationally. You didn’t want to do anything except express theory. That type of action led to the passage of Medicare which imposed a program that has caused economic harm to the nation when minimal support of the private healthcare insurance market would have been self-limiting and self-correcting. Your inability to compromise and negotiate led to a greater imposition on others. You don’t realize it because you focus your eyes on theory, not reality.
Do you honestly believe maintaining a free market hospital program would be worse than Medicare?
I do not think there is a dispute over which position each of us is holding.
If I am wrong – enlighten me.
As to the argument against medicare – simple
First is was not necescary – there was no real problem it sought to solve.
Next it has driven 1/3 to 2/3 of all medical cost increases since enacted – depending on which govenrment data you use.
Regardless, the cost impact has been staggering.
As you have noted Medicare is bankrupt.
In fact it NEVER has been truly solvent.
It is a ponzi scheme. Those NEVER end well.
Which of those do you disagree with ?
Any ONE should be sufficient that it NEVER should have happened.
I would further note that Medicare itself is responsible for all the subsequent infringements that have followed – verious medicare expansions,
as well as PPACA.
Your “middle way” was just a slower route to the extreme way.
Which of these claims do you think is false ?
Hayek is brilliant.
I can live with two paragraphs of error in an otherwise incredible book.
That does not make those paragraphs correct.
Your Medicare argument makes my case.
Medicare is a failure. In myriads of ways it is destroying healthcare.
“Your Medicare argument makes my case. Medicare is a failure. In myriads of ways it is destroying healthcare.”
In your dreams, John Those pushing the alternative solution to solve the immediate problem wanted to prevent Medicare, and they correctly predicted what would happen if Medicare passed. They advocated alternatives that solved the immediate problem and the rush for a Medicare type of solution. Their solutions would have permitted the rapidly developing private insurance for the elderly to grow, eventually eliminating most of the problems. In that fashion, the plan offered was self-correcting and allowed the private senior insurance market to thrive without government intervention.
You are too rigid to recognize that if they couldn’t get their plan across, it was inevitable that Medicare would pass. It almost passed under JFK, but for the efforts of those that chose #2 (minimal compromise).
If you recall history, JFK gave a speech in Madison Square Garden pushing for Medicare approval by congress, where a vote was going to take place. Those trying to stop Medicare had Albert Annis talk to an empty stadium the next day to prevent that version of Medicare from passing. His speech delayed passage until Johnson became President. At that time, many people like you wanted all or none. They got none when the alternative bill would have solved the problem and not significantly interfered with the free market.
You were proven wrong because Medicare passed in 1965 and destroyed the free market in healthcare. (I will withhold another event that assisted in destroying free market healthcare. It passed more than a decade earlier)
The proof of how very wrong you are is that your choice led to Medicare and the destruction of a marketplace. My choice had a high likelihood of creating a system where Medicare would never be necessary. If you were trying to protect the free marketplace in healthcare, you failed in that mission.
You talk about “alternate solutions”.
I have no interest – so long as those involve government
If people have a want or a need – free markets will not just seek to meet it.
But they will do so many different ways – until one succeeds.
The free market is not “the alternate” – it is EVERY POSSIBLE ALTERNATE that might work.
Most – like those of govenrment will fail. Unlike government failed alternates will die. And new ones arrise.
Are you actually going to disagree with that ?
I have little interest in “alternate solutions” to any problems involving legal private action that involve government.
ALL are “the road to serfdom” getting there slightly slower is still failure.
Often we are better off with big quick failure than with gradual incremental failure.
“You talk about “alternate solutions”.
I have no interest – so long as those involve government”
That is binary thinking. That is what led to the passage of Medicare.
As stated earlier, you don’t understand negotiation that can provide self-limiting agreements, that in a matter of time, might no longer be needed.
(see my earlier comment)
No, this is an actual binary.
I would note that there is nothing with binary thinking about actual binaries.
Bad ideas are bad ideas. There are less bad, and more bad, but they are all still bad.
John, let me give you some advice. If all the ideas are all, bad, pick the least bad idea and don’t leave it to someone else to choose for you. Better yet, look for a third option.
Within your own private life – you can take Hayek’s advice and make decisions divorced from economics.
In public life – Free market Outcomes ARE what each individual has expressed as their desire, scaled by their assigned importance.
One of the reasons governmnt should not meddle in the economy is the economy is essentially the results of an election.
An election that can not be defrauded, and properly manages to factor our wants, needs, our ability to acheive those and the strength of our desire.
No government can EVER get that right.
“Within your own private life”
You are skirting the issue. You have no answer to Medicare’s passage because of lack of support for a compromise that would eliminate its need, and permitted the marketplace to function relatively unhindered.
I am not even trying to have GOVERNMENT answers – there are NONE.
I am not interested in slightly slower failure.
I have ONE answer – free markets – where if there is a need or a want, there will be thousands of answers – ones I never dreamed of, until something works, and even after if something else works better – and over and over.
I know from history and from logic what works and what does not.
I keep trying to revert to free markets rather than economics,
One of the problems in this debate is you are making the same mistake Hayek did. Though I think Hayek was more aware.
Life and existance as a whole ARE reflected accurately in our choices in free markets.
I work to earn money to take my wife to dinner.
There is absolutely nothing that nature provides you for free.
You can enjoy a beautiful sunset – only if you have first earned your daily bread.
When we are saying even as individuals that we are making choices against our economic interests – that is FALSE.
All that means is that we have decided that something is a luxury good and we are willing to pay more for it.
When we choose to spend time with our children, or spouse. we are placing a value on that time above what we would receive from a different choice.
“I keep trying to revert to free markets rather than economics,… you are making the same mistake Hayek did. “
This problem is not mine or Hayek’s. It is yours. Not everything works according to plan or in the fashion you want. When faced with finding an answer, you revert to theory rather than a solution to best preserve the free market. That is why your answer didn’t offer an alternative to protect the marketplace.
We are both on the same page traveling in a straight line until we reach a wall. I try to go around the wall while you insist the wall doesn’t belong where it is. You stay put, and Medicare gets passed.
“This problem is not mine or Hayek’s. It is yours.”
Nope
” Not everything works according to plan or in the fashion you want.”
Correct,that is why pretty much all government solutions fail all the time.
Markets work because ultimately they continue to try and fail until they succeed.
I do not NEED to offer a working solution.
If there actually is a problem – and often there isn’t. If there is a want or a need.
The markets will provide. Failing many times until they succeed,
than failing to do better – until they succeed.
NO ONE is smart enough to determine in advance what works.
But markets will find an answer – if one exists.
“When faced with finding an answer, you revert to theory rather than a solution to best preserve the free market.”
All that is needed to preserve the free market is to leave it alone.
That is a tautology.
“That is why your answer didn’t offer an alternative to protect the marketplace.”
The only thing the market needs protected from – is government.
And they way to protect the market from government is to keep government out entirely.
Your smarter than this.
There are no walls that require government.
I am not trying to go around, over, or through the wall – because
if there is a need or a want – the market will find not just AN answer – but MANY answers, ones I can not guess.
Most will fail, but some will succeed.
And then the process repeats.
This is how free markets ALWAYS work.
They LITTERALLY maximize what each of us wants and needs in direct propotion to the extent we want and need it, and the current (and even future) capability of the real world to deliver.
NOTHING beats free markets EVER.
We depend on them for absolutely everything good in our lives.
While all failure is tied to government.
“I am not trying to go around, over, or through the wall – because
if there is a need or a want – the market will find not just AN answer”
Again, binary thinking that led to the passage Medicare.
(see my earlier note)
The idea that Government can competently do anything in the market lead to the passage of medicare and many other government programs
As I have noted repeatedly the efficiency of government at anything is .25-.35 that ALWAYS means we are worse off compared to free markets.
“The idea that Government can competently do anything in the market lead to the passage of medicare and many other government programs”
?
“As I have noted repeatedly the efficiency of government at anything is .25-.35 that ALWAYS means we are worse off compared to free markets.”
What does this have to do with my desire to solve problems so that Medicare doesn’t pass?
You passed Medicare and refused to entertain a third solution that didn’t effect the marketplace.
“I am not trying to go around, over, or through the wall – because
if there is a need or a want – the market will find not just AN answer”
The market or nothing.
Binary thinking.
I told you this is an actual binary.
And it is not the free market or nothing.
It is the free market – or endlessly growing government.
It does not matter how small the first step is.
Think of entropy.
The free market works best but sometimes to satisfy those alive at the time, you have to throw them a bone, so they will wait for the free market to outshine a market where there was an intervention. In other words, if five generations get no benefit and there is a big win for the sixth generation, you have a big problem. People don’t like dying before they see any returns.
Medicare & Medicaid, the three choices:
1) Absolutely no (John’s presumed choice) 2) restraint with a Medicaid-type solution that wouldn’t affect the marketplace, and 3) Medicare or something more extreme.
“You can fight if you wish about how what happened fit into your catagories.
But the FACT is we made a bad choice and we are worse off for it.”
Yes, we made a bad choice. rigidity persisted on your side and this is the result. #1(John) and #3 fought against #2. #3 prevailed (Medicare).”
To that you respond, “Actually false #2 prevailed”. No! It didn’t. You are wrong. Medicare DID NOT EXIST in the #2 solution. Even Medicaid, as we know it now, was not what was in #2. That occurred because the forces of #3 and #1 were too great for #2. We didn’t use steel that bends. Instead, #1 and #3 BOTH chose iron.
You are not delving into the alternate plan which would have preserved private insurance for seniors. That type of private insurance for seniors was rapidly growing at the time. You cut it off in the bud. Had the compromise occurred Medicare would not exist, but seniors would be insured through the marketplace, while a stripped-down safety net could have existed without affecting the marketplace.
WE ARE WORSE OFF TODAY BECAUSE SOME DIDN’T RESPOND TO RATIONAL ’NEEDS’ WHILE OTHERS WANTED SOCIALIST REFORM. That is what your type of rigidity helped to produce. Take note, I am very stringent when deviating from my preferred economic policy. Also, take note that once again federalism offered a way out along with a laboratory for experimentation. You have not proven your case.
“As is typical – Government intervenined in the market, made things worse, blamed the failure on the market and used that to justify more intervention and greater failure.”
No!. Some people think that way. Maybe you wish to believe that, but Hayek’s way was superior because it restrained government, permitted the free market to exist, and permitted the future to correct the slight impairment created. That impairment gave time for better solutions that occurred naturally.
“Medicare is not great…”
We agree but have to remember that it was #2 opting for the long-term market solution. #3 provided socialism and failure. #1 stood by the sidelines while #2 was fighting for the free marketplace. A lack of compromise doesn’t always lead to the desired result. Instead, it sometimes is additive to the results that aren’t desirable or wanted. You can hypothecate about healthcare all you wish, as you are doing, but you are not dealing with the failure of #1 lack of compromise.
I won’t deviate from the discussion at hand (moving on to education) because my position is not that we shouldn’t stand with #1 in most cases but that we shouldn’t be so rigid that we call Hayek’s statement idiocy.
There are only 2 choices – free markets, or a gradual government takeover.
Elsewhere you said that it would take a long time for free markets to – I do not know what.
All the disadvantages free markets have with regard to government programs are a combination of sunk cost fallacies and the fact that government runs pretty much everything as a ponzi scheme.
Between SS and Medicare government owes for trillions of dollars in future services that it has already taken payment for and spent the money.
Converting to a free market inherently means someone gets screwed.
But the crime is the governemnt ponzi scheme not the free market.
That is where we differ. When there are two choices and one is impossible and the other leads to bad results, I find a third. That is why your choice led directly to the choice you didn’t want.
The one you keep calling impossible isn;t.
One of your problems is that at the time medicare was passed – seniors were not dying from lack of care.
There was no REAL problem that medicare solved.
Just like ACA – Medicare was not followed by a disruptive increase in life expectance.
Prior trends continued uneffected.
Medicare did NOT fix a problem.
There was no Wall.
There was just the typical impatients of left wing nuts – and aparently some like you.
An unwillingness to wait for free markets to make our life better – in whatever ways WE deem most important.
“– seniors were not dying from lack of care.”
At the time Medicare was not addressing physician costs. It was limited to unaffordable hospital costs. A market for private hospital insurance was rapidly growing, even for the senior population. Time was needed to permit its growth. Medicare ended private hospital insurance coverage. Binary thinking prevailed and today there is no private hospital insurance for seniors and that spread to part B, C and then D.
Hospitals were not unaffordable.
At the time Medicare passed US healthcare was both better and cheaper than Europe.
It remains better. But it is now much more expensive.
I would further note – and we have had this debate before.
Health insurance has nothing to do with health outcomes.
All insurance is FINANCIAL.
“Hospitals were not unaffordable.”
If that was the case, then you should have been even more willing to negotiate.
“At the time Medicare passed US healthcare was both better and cheaper than Europe.”
What does this have to do with the discussion?
“It remains better. But it is now much more expensive.”
That is your fault. You refused a third option and we got Medicare. That is why your refusal to support a third option didn’t make sense.
“I would further note – and we have had this debate before.
Health insurance has nothing to do with health outcomes.
All insurance is FINANCIAL.”
I don’t care about those things, though we have some disagreement . I looked for a better alternative than passing Medicare.
Your own arguments make my point.
You say we needed to take a small step to avoid Medicare.
Yet, Medicare was just a slightly larger step that has lead to a long raft of subsequent costly and beneficial intrusions.
All you have done is prove that however much the Govenrment camel gets its nose under the tent flap – the rest of the camel will follow.
Contra left wing nut claims – there was no senior healthcare crisis prior to medicare.
Again we forget that the critical aspects of healthcare are not all that great and not all that expensive.
Fundamental healthcare in the US is little different from India.
There are a few areas in which we have dramatically better outcomes.
But for the most part the difference between the incredibly expensive healthcare in the US and the cheap healthcare of india – is in healthcare luxuries NOT outcomes.
I do not have a problem with Americans paying a small fortune for luxury healthcare. But that is a WANT, not a NEED.
Provide people with antiseptic, antibiotics, and plasma and life expectancy will reach the mid 70’s. We have seen that occur in the past 100 years throughout the world.
You want to debate three choices – there are NOT 3 choices.
There is free markets and incremental steps to socialism
And with few exceptions once the first step is taken – no matter how small sunk costs and the consequences of running a ponzi scheme – because almost everythign governemnt does is a ponzi scheme make it deamn near impossible to go back.
“Contra left wing nut claims – there was no senior healthcare crisis prior to medicare.”
There was enough of a crisis that congress passed Medicare. If the crisis didn’t exist then the #2 solution of 3 would have had no negative effects on the free market place. Your type of attitude helped pass Medicare exactly the opposite of what you desired.
“There was enough of a crisis that congress passed Medicare.”
The left is perfectly capable of manufacturing crisis.
Listen today – Biden and Democrats are ranting that tomorow if they do not win – democracy ends.
Obviously THEY think there is a crisis.
Biden just spent $1T fighting Climate change – again no actual crisis.
“If the crisis didn’t exist then the #2 solution of 3 would have had no negative effects on the free market place.”
FALSE, Crisis or NO, government intervention in the economy FAILS.
“Your type of attitude helped pass Medicare exactly the opposite of what you desired.”
Nope, There are not many things that are binary.
Government intervention int he economy is binary – it ALWAYS makes things WORSE on net.
The difference between Government door #2 and Government door #3 is just the rate of failure.
The only choice that improves standard of living – which BTW includes improving healthcare for seniors – if that is truly what we want.
is free markets.
John, you are providing more of the same theory.
The public perceived a need to help those of a certain age when the hospital costs exceeded their abilities. At the same time, the number of seniors carrying private hospital insurance was rapidly increasing. (We are not talking about Part B)
The problem faced was building, as it was around for a long time. Perception or not, addressing the public demands was necessary.
Solutions became a priority and a requirement.
Public demand was not new and continued building for the government to intervene so that relief of the pressure was essential.
Were the needs dire? You don’t believe they were, but your beliefs don’t matter because, right or wrong, the public had the power to push for the passage of Medicare. That puts you out of the picture because your thinking is binary #1 ‘no intervention’ NOT #3 ‘intervention with Medicare.’
There was no #2 in your mind, so you chose to walk away, leaving the road open to Medicare’s passage. #2 existed and was the right move at the right time.
You read a lot of economic textbooks, but it appears you don’t fully understand Adam Smith’s, “Wealth of Nations” and his other book, “The Theory of Moral Sentiments.” For that matter, I don’t think you satisfactorily understand Hayek or Friedman. I haven’t read enough of Coarse, but I bet the same occurred with his writings. In any event, Smith spells it out.
Smith had two parts to his thesis. The Butcher and Baker do their jobs to satisfy personal needs, but that is only 1/2 of Adam Smith. The other half is that for the buyer and seller to benefit, the seller has to know what the buyer wants to provide something of value for the buyer. Said differently, he has to satisfy the buyer’s needs.
That is the element behind negotiation, something I do continuously for my businesses to prosper. I cannot afford to think purely in binary terms, something you are presently doing.
We don’t want the government involved, so one needs to provide the buyer with something he desires without significantly interfering with the marketplace while making it self-limiting. Medicare and socialism were the buyer’s choice if no satisfactory solution existed. We have to relieve the pressure by providing enough but not too much.
We know that the private insurance market for seniors was growing then, and if it grew enough, it would make Medicare unnecessary. That tells us that we only have to deal with a portion of seniors, not all of them, and only part of their needs. Then we try to design a program satisfying those needs while being as self-limiting and self-correcting as possible.
The intention was to accomplish that desire with the growing private insurance market so that the soon-to-be seniors didn’t have to rely on Medicare. I must add that the seller needs to make the program work, or the same problem presents itself later down the road. It also has to be self-limiting.
The plan may work, or it may not. If it works, you preserve the free market. If not, you eventually get Medicare which is what occurred.
You are not good at negotiation, and that is your problem. That is why you don’t see how one can work these things out.
The THEORY is that government intrusions into the market work.
The FACT is they do not.
History teaches that small ones become large ones,
and government failure compounds.
“The THEORY is that government intrusions into the market work. The FACT is they do not.”
Let us assume that you are correct since for the most part I agree. We live in a democracy where people vote for things that in the long term are bad. You will stand there and let the worse happen instead of trying to ameliorate the problem and let something like Medicare pass when it could have been prevented and the senior hospital insurance market could have been preserved.
You are wrong because you lose on the only two sides you permit. #2 according to you is wrong therefore you settled with Medicare. Doesn’t make sense, but I hear you.
We do not live in a democracy, and voters are not entitled to vote away the rights of others.
I do not like having to constantly accuse you of channeling the left – so please do not.
You are literally arguing AGAINST limited government.
And with deeper analysis – against the rule of law – becuase you can not have the rule of law without limited government.
“We do not live in a democracy, and voters are not entitled to vote away the rights of others.”
When Medicare was passed, they did that. Is Medicare Constitutional? I don’t think so, but it was passed without a squeak from you except to pout libertarian philosophy. Nothing wrong with doing so, but when it comes to action, you do nothing.
“I do not like having to constantly accuse you of channeling the left – so please do not.”
Then don’t. All you are proving is that you don’t know the difference between leftist thinking and disagreement within the same philosophical movement. That type of thinking destroys and cannot reckon with actual differences from the left.
“You are literally arguing AGAINST limited government.”
By looking for a solution that preserves free markets? Are you kidding? You are a gift to the left.
“And with deeper analysis – against the rule of law – becuase you can not have the rule of law without limited government.”
I believe in limited government even though sometimes there is difficulty at the border of limited government and the marketplace. I try to put up intelligent safety fences while you believe in wide open borders.
“When Medicare was passed, they did that. Is Medicare Constitutional? I don’t think so, but it was passed without a squeak from you except to pout libertarian philosophy.”
Not constitutional.
I was 7 years old.
“Nothing wrong with doing so, but when it comes to action, you do nothing.”
I should not have to do anything to avoid having my rights infringed.
““I do not like having to constantly accuse you of channeling the left – so please do not.”
Then don’t. All you are proving is that you don’t know the difference between leftist thinking and disagreement within the same philosophical movement. That type of thinking destroys and cannot reckon with actual differences from the left.”
Please stop the fallacies.
Don;t make leftist arguments and I will not chastise you for it.
We share common ground but we are not in the same philosophical movement.
Not that, that is relevant. The thrust of my argument is government fails.
Or to quote Lord Acton.
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
““You are literally arguing AGAINST limited government.”
By looking for a solution that preserves free markets? Are you kidding? You are a gift to the left.”
The way to preserve free markets is for government to do nothing.
That is the only way. Everything else is just a question of how quickly you destroy them – at best.
““And with deeper analysis – against the rule of law – becuase you can not have the rule of law without limited government.”
I believe in limited government even though sometimes there is difficulty at the border of limited government and the marketplace. I try to put up intelligent safety fences while you believe in wide open borders.”
We have been through open borders before. You can not have open borders and entitlements. The latter is obviously unconstitutional.
To paraphrase Rand – difficulty at the border does not exist, when you think you have found that check your premises on of them is wrong.
“I was 7 years old.”
My comment was symbolic, placing you and your ideas in the 1960’’s
“I should not have to do anything to avoid having my rights infringed.”
I agree. Unfortunately, this world is not perfect.
The rest of your argument is rehashing old discussions and adding distractions.
Socialism is a seductive cancer. Once it gets a foot in the door – the rest will follow.
It is far easier to stop at the door than to push it our later – or even to stop it from growing.
“Socialism is a seductive cancer. Once it gets a foot in the door – the rest will follow.
It is far easier to stop at the door than to push it our later – or even to stop it from growing.”
Your method opened the door to socialism. Mine kept it shut but had a tiny hole to relieve the pressure while the market caught up.
“Mine kept it shut but had a tiny hole to relieve the pressure while the market caught up.”
You keep opening the door.
All holes – tiny or otherwise grow ever larger.
Two posts have grown into six. I will see what I can do in-between my company.
“You keep opening the door.
All holes – tiny or otherwise grow ever larger.”
I closed the door and left a little crack that perhaps I could seal at a later date. If that failed then I would have a wide open door which is what you opted for. I think the crack on my door could have been sealed. We might be in bankruptcy before you choose to close the door.
Whatever power you give government will grow.
“Whatever power you give government will grow.”
That is mostly true and why all bills should have strict limitations and perhaps time limits. This is something our legislators refuse to do. However, providing Medicare as the insurer for the elderly rather than private hospital insurance, means that there are no controls.
Your arguments on theory are good, but when theory hits reality, you are in trouble.
“Musk has bought twitter – it would be very easy for him to lose all $44B if he missteps.”
It is highly unlikely that the value of Twitter will go to zero. If it did, he would lose $24 Billion because the rest was from other entities with deep pockets. Twitter is bloated. Relief of the bloat should bring Twitter into a non-losing situation. His $20, now $8 fee, for the blue checkmark, should create positive cash flow. I think there are more ways to monetize Twitter for substantial profits than there are missteps in the midst.
Musk is more of a gambler than Trump. If Trump had Twitter, he would be selling off more. Musk’s nature permits him to take greater risks.
One investment I had, was in part of a patent. The rest of the patent was used by NASA and many different places. It failed because management didn’t have the appropriate vision. It cost me, and every time I see a place that could have successfully used that patent, I get indigestion because it should have led to huge profits. I paid more attention to the patent rather than the management. That was my biggest mistake. I think Musk has the visions the management team I dealt with didn’t have.
With specific reference to national security.
Free trade is ALWAYS the economic winner,
The side with the freest trade is the largest economic beneficiary.
But while Economics is USUALLY the determining factor,
It is not the sole value for all our decisions.
One of Trump’s accomplishments – that I did not expect. I am increasingly of the view that Trump is one of the best presidents we have ever had on foreign policy.
The shift from Russia focused to China focused was inevitable and Trump is not responsible for that.
However Trump is responsible for the US doing so rapidly – at a time when it should have been too late.
Trump incredibly successfully contained China. In 4 years he united nearly all of asia in containing china.
There is not at this point a formal asian NATO, But trump efectively created a defacto one – From india on the west all the way through to Japan and Tiawan, China is contained.
Further while Biden reversed and or botched nearly everything Trump did – he has not managed to botch this.
Atleast party because though Trump brought nearly all of asia together to contain China, he persuaded them to do so because it is in their interests.
Japan is continuing to take a strong stand with Tiawan – regardless of what Washington does.
Japan is rebuilding its navy and its military, and it is extending its committments beyond its home islands.
Japan today seems to understand that threats to Taiwan are threats to Japan itself – and has said so strongly and publicly.
And this is a HUGE deal – while the power disparity between the US and Japan is enormous – Japan is immediately adjacent to China.
A militarily strong Japan is nearly as big a threat to China as the US. Further the US may be fickle. Americans might not be willing to take losses to defend Taiwan. Japan likely will – they know that if they are not next, they are on the list of Chinese aspirations.
I do not have the answers as to exactly how trade and foreign policy SHOULD interact in each and every circumstance.
From a purely economic perspective Trump’s trade policies with China were a small failure.
From a foreign policy and national security perspective they may have proven important.
However I remain broadly skeptical of trade warfare. There is little evidence of its actually being effective – outside of an actual war.
Cuba remains despite 60 years of trade sanctions. Iran remains despite 40.
There are complexities – China has far more dependence on global trade.
“From a purely economic perspective Trump’s trade policies with China were a small failure.
From a foreign policy and national security perspective they may have proven important.”
Therefore, the economic perspective was appropriate and a big positive. Few things help the American economy more than restraining our enemies from attempting to negatively affect our legitimate economic power.
That is how I look at it. We seem to mostly agree on Trump’s foreign policy. The left can’t argue against the result. This policy was based on Trump’s gut along with the usual research and opinions that come from others. If one disagrees with this statement, all one has to do is listen to Trump’s ideas over the past 50 years.
“However I remain broadly skeptical of trade warfare. There is little evidence of its actually being effective – outside of an actual war.”
Few want trade warfare.
“Therefore, the economic perspective was appropriate and a big positive. Few things help the American economy more than restraining our enemies from attempting to negatively affect our legitimate economic power.”
Do not agree – or atleast do not agree in the short time frame. The more China establishes global hegemony – the greater danger to our economy. But that is not happening in 4 years.
During the time frame of Trump’s presidence the economic sanctions against china were ECONOMICALY Negative.
If you want a positive – you need other non-economic factors.
You are not clear. Policy requires thinking in terms of decades. Trump was starting things off for a better future and wasn’t, or I hope wasn’t going to use the tariffs as an additive to taxes. His overall policy was good both politically and economically.
I am not sure what your point is.
Not a fan of thinking in decades. The world changes far too fast.
Further most good “policy” is self evident.
I do not think Trump was especially brilliant in grasping the knock on effects of good energy policy.
What surprises me is how few others understand what is obvious.
Trump accomplished alot in a short period, because getting energy right changed the entire world dynamic.
“Not a fan of thinking in decades.”
Then you fail.
The world is too volatile to succeed at decade long thinking.
One problem in US foreign policy is that too often we think short term. Thinking long term doesn’t stop one from changing policy as things evolve, but it provides a firm picture of what the desires are.
The US Constitution involved long term thinking. Do you think the country was too volatile to “succeed at decade long thinking”? What could be more volatile than a revolution?
In business it is the same. My best business adventure demonstrated no cash flow for about a decade. Finally there was cash flow and then tremendous profit on its sale. That occurred over many decades. Your real estate business has a business plan, and from the way you describe it, your plan lasted more than a decade.
Both the country and the world are too volatile.
Yes, and that #%@# @$# all our calculations.
It does not screw them all up. But it does make nearly all multidecade planning impossible.
I can know for near certain that in 20 years the world will be better (if we do not anhilate ourselves tomorow).
But I can not foresee exactly how.
I knew 20+ years ago that Amazon would change everything.
That the internet would change everything.
I knew that their were fortunes to be made.
But about the only thing I could work out for certain was that investing in UPS and FEDEX would be wise in the short run.
Today the USPS is practically a capitive operation of Amazon, and in addition Amazon has its own package service that is larger than UPS.
But I could not predict too well exactly how the future would play out.
Despite the fact that in hindsight it all seems obvious.
What we have done with Russia since 2016, what we have done with Iran, what we have done with Cuba, and Venezuela is trade warfare and it has not worked.
Possibly Trump’s singular foreign policiy failure is not working out a better relationship with Russia.
And Obama and the left made even attempting that suicidal.
Byt everyone since the fall of the Berlin wall has sought to bring Russia into the west.
It is where they naturally belong. Obama Tried repeatedly – when Biden and Clinton were not trying to F#$k over Putin, to make things impossible.
I don’t know for a fact that trade restrictions on Iran were a failure. They certainly weren’t helped by some of our allies actions.
Iran could start a nuclear war if they have the financing and ability to complete their nuclear weapons and delivery systems. They are funding terror worldwide. i think closing them off economically is a good idea. Any reduction in their economy slows down nuclear weapon research and hinders them from supplying the various terrorist groups.
Russia is a different story and China is still different. The policy towards Russia was flubbed by the left. Russia doesn’t deal well or trust those that are weak.
It is 40+ years – the restrictions on Iran failed.
Your the one that wants to think decades in advance – if you have to use economic policies that orture ordinary people in a country for several decade – you failed.
Iran will eventually crumble – it might now. Sanctions will not have anything to do with that – or they would have succeeded decades ago.
“It is 40+ years – the restrictions on Iran failed.”
When one follows a policy, one must completely follow the policy. But for the lack of funding Iran could have the nuclear weapon yesterday and it surely would have funded its terrorism organizations more but they lacked cash.
Any nation that truly wants them can have nukes.
Israel has nuke, South Africa likely had them but abandoned the program when they foresaw the failure of the Apartheid regime.
North Korea has them. They appear to have 3rd generation devices – which means they are close to hyrdogen bombs, and probably have EMP weapons. India has them Pakistan has them. Argentina likely had a program. The UK has them France has them, China has them.
Iran could have funded a hell of alot more terrorists if they had skipped trying to get nukes.
There appears to be a deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia providing the Saudi’s with nuclear capabilities to match Iran.
Your trying to put the genie back in the bottle – you can’t.
North Korea is the most isolated country in the world. It lives in abject poverty. Yet it has the most advanced nuclear and ICBM program outside the Big 5.
“Any nation that truly wants them can have nukes. Israel has nuke,…”
We differ. Israel essentially has been at war with Iran for decades. Iranian missiles have continuously bombed Israeli civilian targets, and the terrorists are substantially funded by Iran. Iran has pledged to wipe Israel off the map (The US is the big satan), and when they have adequate missiles and delivery systems they will do just that.
Be prepared for a nuclear exchange if Iran gets nuclear weapons ready for deployment. Israel cannot wait until it is destroyed. Your philosophy is a sure way of guaranteeing a nuclear war.
S. Meyer, Dennis B. James, Olly,
My OT was multi-faceted:
1) To highlight the ongoing gaslighting from the Biden admin. Unless one of their flunkies actually did not know SS adjusts accordingly with the CPI as dictated by law.
UPDATE: The WH deleted the tweet after CNN fact checker Daniel Dale, posted, “That’s quite the spin. The size of Social Security checks is linked, by law, to inflation. This year’s increase is unusually big because the inflation rate is unusually big.”
2) To note the Elon Musk stating “Our goal is to make Twitter the most accurate source of information on Earth, without regard to political affiliation.”
3) Yeah, a little sarc!
4) How this is escalating, we may see a global Ministry of Truth sooner than anyone could expect. To the point, even the professors blog may get forced to take down articles, or canceled outright. I am sure that would be the pride of some commenters.
“2) To note the Elon Musk stating “Our goal is to make Twitter the most accurate source of information on Earth, without regard to political affiliation.”
“The Wisdom of Crowds” by James Surowiecki Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations
Paradoxically, the best way for a group to be smart is for each person in it to think and act as independently as possible. A quote from The Wisdom of Crowds.
There’s a fine line between a collective made up of people that think and act independently and a collective gaslit into believing they are thinking and acting independently. The former may perform better than the small group of “intelligent experts,” but the latter group will be manipulated by them. I believe the insanity on display since the 2016 election and exacerbated during the pandemic is a direct result of the manipulation of that latter group. As Mattias Desmet concluded, this is a worldwide demonstration of mass formation.
The scariest thing from this article.
“EU censors have assured Democratic leaders that they will not allow free speech to break out on Twitter regardless of the wishes of its owner and customers.
One of the most anti-free speech figures in the West, EU’s Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton has been raising the alarm that Twitter users might be able to read uncensored material or hear unauthorized views.”
Democrats oppose free speech, EU is afraid the people will hear unauthorized views? Who do they think they are?
Tony,
They are clearly fascists.
Fascists act out when their power, their control is threatened.
I fear how they will react if they lose badly in the mid terms and if in 2024 they even appear to be close to losing.
@UpstateFarmer
That’s my concern, too. I fully expect there will be riots this month, the bricks and fireworks that mysteriously appear in large piles in just the right places are probably already ordered. Prepare yourselves mentally, because this is likely. This is the fire we’re going to have to go through, IMO. I will be grateful we nipped it in the bud before it would require tanks and missiles. I never imagined in my wildest dreams that this would happen again in my lifetime, but here we are, and it is 110% the province of the American and global left. Period. Absurd is what it is, but it’s gone beyond conjecture and is now something serious. The Dems’ only recourse now is to actually initiate a very much out in the open coup, and I personally don’t want to see that happen. Everything was really ok before the covid lockdowns, and open Twitter is quite literally harmless; this tells you how far they and we have fallen. They have lost their friggin’ minds.
” I fully expect there will be riots this month, the bricks and fireworks that mysteriously appear in large piles in just the right places are probably already ordered.”
James, If the Republican win is large enough, I think your prediction will be reduced or not occur. The governors and state representatives might be able to read the writing on the wall and act instead of letting the riots spread.
@S. Meyer
I hope so, but 2020 and beyond showed me I have no reason to believe it. Nevertheless, my hope is that you are correct. That we are dealing with Patty Hearst level indoctrination at an exponentially larger scale, is the problem, it reminds me personally of nothing less than the Hitler Youth, and it isn’t an easy one to solve.
The governors and state representatives might be able to read the writing on the wall and act instead of letting the riots spread.
SM,
The “writing on wall” is the narrative being pumped out that if Republicans win, then “our Democracy is threatened.” The greater the win, then the greater the threat. That narrative stokes the fear of the hypnotized collective and they will respond accordingly. Everything Republicans will do to restore law and order, to do proper oversight of the federal bureaucracies, etc., will be characterized by the usual suspects as evidence of that narrative. The last thing the Democrats will allow is for Republicans to have any success in fulfilling campaign promises leading up to the 2024 general election. Because if the Republicans do succeed and “our Democracy” is preserved, Democrats may not see the White House or a Legislative majority for the foreseeable future.
I think some guy named Trimp or Tromp or Trump may have tried it in the misty past, but it didn’t work then so It may not work this time unless something very different is tried, perhaps with the education system. Maybe start with republics, democracies wolves, sheep, and what’s for dinner. Apologies for am
ny misspelling, can’t see what I’m typing in the comment bar.
James,
Pre-2020 Summer of Love, Fiery but Mostly Peaceful riots, various politicians seemingly encouraging the riots, some donating funds to bailout looters and arsonists. Then the very same politicians backing the defund the police movement, and now the ominous rhetoric of how “democracy is in danger!” if a populace votes in a free and fair election for opposition (yeah, show me the math on that one) it does seem they are trying to stroking the FUD and hate.
I am of the opinion this all started way before the lockdowns and even before Trump rode the escalator down. More like the begging of the SJW movement, and the MSM becoming biased. And, I thought MSM was biased long before Trump.
I noted to one of your prior posts about what outrageous narrative would they spin . . . Destroying Democracy to save it with one party rule! DING!DING!DING! I think we have a winner!
UpstateFarmer said…
“They are clearly fascists.” Who, the republicans and trump supporters that stormed the Capitol building on January 6, 2021 because they lost an election?
Republicans and trump supporters clearly fit your description in your next sentence…”Fascists act out when their power, their control is threatened.”
And I too fear how they will react in 2024.
You are clearly an idiot.
UpstateFarmer, you should read the Civility Rule for this blog.
Ok, Baby Trump appears to be very Ignorant it!
That’s Civil isn’t it.
David,
Enough with all those Pedo supporting freaks.
The Civility Rule doesn’t mean we have to say nothing about their supporting of Pedophilia, the rape, mutilation & killing of little kids inside the womb & out.
********
Demonic Bill Will Give Children Free Access to Puberty Blockers, Sex Hormones and Inoculations Without Parental Consent! GATEWAY PUNDIT WRITER Cara Castronuova NEEDS YOUR HELP to Fight EVIL BILLS! Videos!
By Assistant Editor
Published November 2, 2022 at 9:00am
105 Comments
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/11/not-ready-demonic-bill-will-give-children-right-consent-puberty-blockers-sex-hormones-inoculations-without-parental-consent-gateway-pundit-writer-cara-castronuova-needs-help-f/
I hear you David,
We should all play nice, civil & use no so called hate speech. I wouldn’t want to Offend any of Biden’s/Dim’s/Rino’s Precious little Illegal Wet Back Murders of US citizen, now would we.
*********
Illegal Alien Gets 25 Years In Prison After Stabbing Queens Woman 55 Times, Stuffing her In Duffel Bag in Plea Deal
By Cristina Laila
Published November 2, 2022 at 12:03pm
319 Comments
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/11/illegal-alien-gets-25-years-prison-stabbing-queens-woman-55-times-stuffing-duffel-bag-plea-deal/
Were these people fascists?
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/31/politics/trump-underground-bunker-white-house-protests/index.html
As long as you people bring up January 6th, I will bring up May 29th!
Wouldn’t the EU be in conflict with the UK’s Ofcom requirement of “Due Impartiality?” Or is that just for TV? … Meanwhile, Elon could thread his satellite’s Twitter feed through somebody’s smart refrigerator & avoid the EU’s supervision altogether!
The Dims should be treated like enemies to the Constitution that they so transparently have become. And don’t give me that “good faith” disagreement stuff. They are patently tyrannical. They espouse “reasons” for this oppression, but Hitler had “reasons” for invading Poland, too.
Mespo####, I think you’re confused. It was trump supporters that stormed the capitol and tried to hang Mike Pence when their guy lost an election, not Dims.
BT,
You’re confused, it was the FBI/CIA & underlings like Qanon/Antifa/BLM that mfg’ed all the trouble on 1/6, including killing 4 Trump supporters that day.
Now, about those 14000 hours of capital video & other exculpatory evidence, turn it over! You Commie Nazis are going to have to at some point.
Wow, take the tin foil off your head. It doesn’t help. I’m pretty sure there have been quite a few trials where those who entered the capitol and committed crimes have had their day in court. I don’t recall any of them being FBI/CIA, Antifa or BLM.
Why do you people keep supporting a bunch of baby murders & pedophiles?
*********
California Is Now Castrating Children From All 50 States
21,431 views
·
Nov 2, 2022
24
Share
Download
Greg Reese
Greg Reese
California law SB-107 allows access to destructive transgender surgeries for all American children without parental consent
https://banned.video/watch?id=636273483f5060081609c327
Oky1 – Grow up.
https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/verify/government-verify/california-law-does-not-allow-doctors-to-perform-gender-affirming-surgeries-without-parental-consent/536-d5dc6a3a-c4b1-4218-9dad-1505713253ef
BT:
The French peasant bakers (lots of women) stormed the Bastile to protest a corrupt, oppressive tyrant. Were they insurrections or were they patriots? One man’s insurrectionist is another man’s patriot. Now a hater of the US Constitution presents no such conundrum. It’s obvious in their words and deeds.
Watch Insurgence USA (ANTIFA) Founder Repeatedly Call For Burning Down DC Capitol.
75,800 views
·
Jan 14, 2021
2
Share
Download
Jan 6th Protest and Save America March
Jan 6th Protest and Save America March
John Sullivan who has admitted to wanting to burn down modern society, and drag President Trump out of office is on camera inciting people to storm the Capitol and makes many calls to burn it down. He is also the person that persuades the interior Capitol police to move in front of the doors where Ashli Babbit was murdered.
https://banned.video/watch?id=600094de6c4a9c413d69367e
Mespo– I agree. When we broke from England and the debate over the Constitution was raging, democrats should recall that the Constitution never would have been ratified without the First Amendment. That’s how important it was to the men who created this country and who were willing to die for it. I am not at all surprised that Europe is all for censorship– they always have been. So have tyrants and despots of all kinds. But for the democrat party detritus like Hillary Clinton who demand censorship of any views but their own, they truly are anti-American. Tragically, they have enough fellow travelers like the idiot Baby Trump and nearly all of the media cheering them on. All of the great empires and nations have been destroyed from within. I believe it was Pogo who said, “we have seen the enemy and it is us.”
“Tragically, they have enough fellow travelers like the idiot Baby Trump ”
I have never ever supported Hillary or Bill C. How many times have I said Hillary is a dweeb. I am merely pointing out it was trump supporters that stormed the capitol when he lost the election. How does my statement have anything to do with Hillary or anything else, other than who stormed the capitol when their guy lost?
Who stormed the capitol?
Who is intimidating voters with guns near voter drop boxes?
Who is proposing books be banned at school board meetings?
Why is the book that has a story about two daughters getting their father dunk so they can have sex with him is held in such reverence while a book that talks about two men or two women loving each other is banned? I guess in that religion daughters having sex with their drunk father is a better story than two men sleeping together.
Which end of the political spectrum is proposing all the book banning, otherwise known as censorship?
“I believe it was Pogo who said, “we have seen the enemy and it is us.””
Are you talking about all the trump supporters that stormed the capitol?
Are you talking about all the right wing people showing up at school board meetings demanding books be banned?
honestlawyermostly:
“All of the great empires and nations have been destroyed from within. I believe it was Pogo who said, “we have seen the enemy and it is us.”
***********************************************
Good stuff, HLM! Here’s Historian Will Durant’s take on demise of great civilizations:
“A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself within. The essential causes of Rome’s decline lay in her people, her morals, her class struggle, her failing trade, her bureaucratic despotism, her stifling taxes, her consuming wars.”
And, of course, Gibbons’ archetypal observation on a society spiraling into declension from an obsession with thanatos. A place he describes where “bizarreness masqueraded as creativity.” Can you think of a better description of the modern era?
Truer words have never been spoken!
– The severely restricted power to tax for ONLY debt, defense and infrastructure (general Welfare),
– The power to regulate ONLY money, commerce among States, and land and naval Forces,
– The absolute right of only the owner to “claim and exercise” dominion over private property (if the right to private property is not absolute, it does not exist – one can’t be half pregnant and if you’re half right, you’re half wrong, and if you’re half wrong, you’re all wrong).
All gone!
It their place, the despotic, pervasive, unconstitutional communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO, AINO) welfare state.
The EU & US Democrats have a new way of suppressing free speech. It’s censorship tactics involves hands on forced compliance.
Hillary is in violation of the Logan Act. But the dual justice system allows her to.
Jonathan: What is “free speech” going to look like on Musk’s privately owned Twitter? If Musk’s tweet on Sunday re the hammer attack on Paul Pelosi is any indication–a platform for all sorts of misinformation and false conspiracy theories. Apparently, Musk had second thoughts about his tweet because 2 hours later he deleted it. But the damage was already done and his conspiracy theory had been “freed”. It was picked up by other right-wing bloggers who provided an echo chamber for Musk’s false claim that Pelosi was attacked by a jealous male lover. Even Fox News, where you are employed, picked it up. Fox news anchor Megyn Kelly smelled a “rat”. She questioned the SF police explanation: “How do you have police officers on site and an 82-year-old gets attacked with a hammer in front of you when you have a gun as a police officer?” Even Donald Trump jumped in to support the false conspiracy theory about the attack on Pelosi. Birds of a feather!
The European Union’s DSA is one proposal to deal with on-line content moderation. That’s not good news for Musk. If he wants to do business in Europe he will have to adhere to DSA’s “safer digital space”–resembling the content moderation policies under Twitter’s previous ownership. Funny you would mention Germany’s governmental on-line regulations which you label “criminalizing speech”. Germans learned the lesson of the 1930s which saw the proliferation of Nazi racist and anti-semitic propaganda that led to Hitler coming to power. Germany has made it a crime for neo-Nazis to spread their hate filled propaganda on-line. Most Germans support such restrictions. So it is bizarre you would actually support the neo-Nazis in Germany! Which proves again the adage that those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it!
Denise- you do not understand the concept of free speech as practiced in the United States.
LOL. You can either have censorship or neo-nazis – that is your only choice.
You didn’t learn the lessons from the 1930s, did you – or are you gearing up for a repeat. How myopic can one be?
Oh no, someone will say something bad about jews…someone will say something challanging climate change, someone will say something about mask efficacy – how will we keep the sheep in the pen if they start thinking for themselves???
More like question the narrative there by questioning their control and power.
@Neil: Don’t forget that some of the sheep are more equal than others.
@Dennis: “What is ‘free speech’ going to look like?” I reckon it’ll look like people being able to express their own, original thoughts–and such thoughts will either stand on their own merits or not. The very Internet we’re communicating on was founded on such free expression and discussion of merits in the form of Request For Comments process. The presenter of an idea has no bearing on its adoption: no one has to bless it for it to be considered. Instead, participants review the idea and discuss it irrespective of whose it was.
Is that what you fear: Your expression stands or falls on its own? That you will have to defend and discuss your ideas rather than have to be exposed to thoughts you don’t approve of? That there will not be an Arbiter of Approved Thought(TM)??
If person A says something indefensible, then everyone else can either ignore it and move on or debate it. That puts the responsibility for filtering speech on the listener, not some outside authority. Is it this loss of control over others what you fear? How very apropos you would denounce “birds of a feather” and “echo chamber[s].”
If so, then you’re correct to bring up the lessons learned from Nazi propaganda. Indeed, it would appear you not only learned the same lessons but also see them as aspirations. Likewise with 1984, I would imagine: a roadmap rather than a warning.
Obviously, certain speech should be disallowed: planning/encouraging criminal behavior (support for riots and looting, drug sales, prostitution/human trafficking, commission of actual crimes, etc.), terrorism/terroristic threating, and the like. But these are all well defined in a civil society–and expressly do NOT include “things that Dennis McIntyre neither likes nor approves of.” Demanding that others not be allowed to say things in this last group is the very definition of authoritarianism.
“If Musk’s tweet on Sunday re the hammer attack on Paul Pelosi is any indication–a platform for all sorts of misinformation and false conspiracy theories. Apparently, Musk had second thoughts about his tweet because 2 hours later he deleted it.”
Dennis, you are smart enough to recognize that this proves your contentions wrong. Musk is said to have tweeted an error. Others probably saw it and told him he was wrong. Others probably had the same thought. Musk realized he had no proof of what he said, so he took down the Tweet. That shows “more speech” cures “bad speech”, and word gets around. I have heard what you say from several different sources already, so you are not the only one to repeat it.
In the process, Musk’s credibility is diminished. That is why he corrected his Tweet. He, like most people, recognizes that to be taken seriously, one has to be accurate and that when one makes a public mistake, he has to correct it, or he will have no credibility.
We see the same on this blog. Some base everything on ideology, so whether something is true or not doesn’t matter. Most listen to the evidence and judge the person’s credibility using that to judge the veracity of any further statements.
If one looks at the opposite, where free speech is not allowed, a lie goes unchecked and does far more damage. The liar doesn’t have to pay, and his credibility remains unchanged if this occurs within a sealed environment. Free speech can’t rectify everything, but no speech leads to a totalitarian rule where the truth doesn’t count.
“He, like most people, recognizes that to be taken seriously, one has to be accurate and that when one makes a public mistake, he has to correct it”
LOL. You have got to be kidding. I would argue that to be taken truly serious, you have to prove you can get away with the opposite. That is what power does.
” I would argue that to be taken truly serious, you have to prove you can get away with the opposite. That is what power does.”
Neil, I wouldn’t mistakenly think power and force are the same as credibility.
S. Meyer,
“If one looks at the opposite, where free speech is not allowed, a lie goes unchecked and does far more damage. The liar doesn’t have to pay, and his credibility remains unchanged if this occurs within a sealed environment. Free speech can’t rectify everything, but no speech leads to a totalitarian rule where the truth doesn’t count.”
That right there!
Take the recent Biden tweet on SS paychecks and it was his leadership.
In a ‘sealed environment’ the tweet would be allowed to stand, with no possible counter argument, like facts, the truth does not count. It will never see the light of day, and the people will be all the more ignorant.
There is no longer any difference between the fourth estate and the deep state. There may have been a separation at one point long ago, but it’s been long erased.
The backstabbing fifth column “journalists” will burn brightly in hell, right along side the viper accomplices in “government”.
Facts don’t matter, and ‘true’ and ‘false’ lose all importance and degrade into ‘belief’ – for most of humanity – the moment they are politicized, here’s why: https://tritorch.com/folly
OT; DOJ files charges against trump!
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fake-trump-pushes-conspiracy-theories-about-pelosi-attack-that-were-already-debunked/ar-AA13EPcC
@Svelaz
Good grief, are you serious? I used to think you, whoever you are, was just a bored and bitter (and possibly paid) human being; now I am beginning to think that you are actually sick. You have every right to post here, but come on. Either you are paid or the last number of years quite literally broke your brain. This all carries whole lot more gravitas than you appear to be capable of foreseeing or understanding, let alone caring about. You are not immune. Enough, already. We get it. We ignore it. We live our lives and make our own choices in spite of it. Talk about a wasted investment, sheesh. Please stop wasting our time, you aren’t convincing anybody.
Well you did go to the link. That’s your fault. Ironically that’s the kind of free speech Turley fully supports. Right?
@Svelaz: Finally, you’ve said something I can agree with!!
Free speech absolutely includes the right to babble like a blathering dolt. It includes the rights to: be wrong, challenged, and summarily dismissed; say idiotic things; say things that aren’t true; say things not everyone agrees with, and certainly does not like or want to hear; and to supported or ridiculed as the listener (reader, in this case) sees fit. The very fact that you are still able to post to Mr. Turley’s site is manifest proof of his full support for free speech.
OTOH, pearl-clutching fainting-couch leftists would seek to silence whomever they declare babbling idiots without the tedium of discussion of merits or facts. Do you see the difference between the right’s tolerance of diverse ideas vs. the left’s intolerance of and squelching of any and all thoughtcrime? Between the love of lively debate and the hatred of unapproved ideas???
Oh man, I’m not gonna vote for Trump, now…I hope kamala runs.
The left hasn’t had a damned thing worth voting for (except maybe “McCain??? Perhaps i’ll show them I’m not racist and vote for the well-spoken black/white fellow”) since 1960.
Enjoy your war/inflation/identitarianism/gaytheism/middle-class rotting. The dems have been serving up the same shit for 60+ years now and morons who can’t understand why things always turn-out the way they do will continue to blame everyone else except the true culprit – the clown in their mirror.
” might be able to read uncensored material or hear unauthorized views.” I’m sorry, but isn’t that what free speech is all about? How did the prog/left go so far down the road to fascism? And, more importantly, how do we educate citizens about this terrible trajectory that the progs are marching along? Have we tacitly allowed our education/media industries to so pollute generations of minds as to ensure the destruction of our nation?
Europe has never truly embraced the thought and reason behind our Constitution and Declaration of Independence. We had the American Revolution and birthed the Constitution. France, within a decade, had a revolution and birthed Napoleon. The only time that Europe really came close to having a real embrace of what we think of as freedom was after WW2 when American Troops were the greatest part of the liberation of Western Europe. Even then several western states nearly slipped into communism and authoritarian governments. Once the US left, major parts of Europe started sliding quickly back into the embrace of statism. We have looked liked Europeans, had the same religions, and many similar institutions but We Are Not Europeans. They almost invariably look to the state for relief. We still look to the individual. We need to crush those in the US who would have us do the same.
Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren. Seems like the opening of a really bad production of MacBeth.
Viva the Twitter Bird, may it fly unencumbered and free around the world.
GEB: Excellent summary of some of the historical differences between the U.S. and Europe.
@GEB
This is what I always say and no one under 45 can appreciate it anymore: this country was founded on fleeing all of that, and the fact that they are sharing their dissatisfaction freely on their freaking smartphones, from the comfort of a warm place, with plenty of food and Starbucks in their bellies, made by a corporation (and if they use Samsung, that is a *foreign*, corporation) only proves the point. These people quite literally have no idea how ridiculous they are. Sorry: but the pre-WWW generation are still alive, will be for another 40 years, and they are just going to have to deal with that, unless the left would like to actually stoop to mass murder, and I just don’t think the world writ large would accept that again. IOW, they are pretty much screwed, and they know it. I knew there would be off the charts histrionics the last week before our elections, and here we are. Only the gaslighting afterward will be more unprecedented.
For those with short memories:
“When it becomes serious, you have to lie.” – Jean-Claude Junker on ethics, evidently
Just pull out, Elon. Bill Gates should have done that when the same bureaucrats sued Microsoft. Instead he gave in and Microsoft went to hell in a handbasket. Europeans who yearn to be free can use your satellites and the Brussels bozos won’t be able to touch you legally
Hillary is, and always has been, even more dangerous than Trump. Not just for her totalitarian ideas, her warmongering, or her criminal activity, but because delusional liberals, especially stupid liberal women, still hold her in esteem.
Turley’s diatribe about “anti-free speech” is so full of hyperbole and inflated alarm over what has been necessary moderation on social media platforms. Twitter has been flooded with anti-Semitic and racist rhetoric by the right who want to test the veracity of Musk’s “restoration of free speech protections” on twitter. That includes the right flooding the site with anti-LGBTQ insults and bullying, name calling. Even encouraging millions more to do so at LGBTQ organizations and supporters.
Musk is going to end up realizing that his “absolutist” philosophy will not work if he is going to make twitter profitable. He’s already faced massive backlash over his idea of charging $20 to keep the blue check mark. It’s not going to work if you are just going to charge a fee to have “credibility” on twitter because one has been “verified”.
There’s a reason why many SM platforms don’t charge a fee on users. Content creators get paid and they in turn get thousands or millions of viewers who view ads on their content. When creators balk at $20 for a check mark they can go to another app and take their followers with them and that means no more people seeing the advertisements that twitter relies on. Musk doesn’t understand how the content creator economy works and he’s trying to upend it by doing something that did not work when these sites first started. That’s why they don’t do it. Must may be learning a had lesson on running a SM platform. Trump’s Truth social is failing because he can’t keep good advertisers on his site and there are NO content creators either.
@Svelaz
Just admit you support censorship and I would at least respect your honesty. And make no mistake, this IS censorship by a government actor. Even more so than the US government colluding with social media companies to block content.
And of course what you want to block only goes one way, basically anyone to the right of Comrade Stalin.
Of course, you won’t admit this, you’ll just call me a nazi or whatever is the latest s@@tlib slur of the month.
I have come to realize that s@@tlibs are going to call me names no matter my actions or intent.
I want a divorce and you’ll can stick “our democracy”(TM).
antonio
@antonio
I hear you, but I honestly believe a divorce would just result in another East/West Germany, and that is no help to anyone, they will never stop in their efforts to subjugate; we have what could be called a parabolic wall, rather than a literal one (good luck selling parabolic bricks when it comes down! Guess there’s always NFT) in this century in the West, IMO. There are still plenty of people alive that remember the last time this was all attempted. Realize that the majority of these online twits are spineless trust fund babies at least 20 years younger than you or I that would fall over if you went, ‘poof’ to them in real life. It’s the leaders we need to deal with, that is why we have a vote. Reality will come for the wealthy and the wealthy snowflakes, whether they like it or not. It is the elders indoctrinating them we need to dislodge, and for good, and though I personally still believe it is possible, it will not be easy. We have to be prepared for the challenge, and that is not with bullets or arms, but with ideas, again, IMO.
Antonio, you obviously don’t get it. I don’t support censorship. What I DO support is a company’s right to free speech just as I support anyone else’s. The right to free speech involves the right NOT to carry someone else’s speech. Twitter or facebook are NOT bound by the 1st amendment. The government is NOT forcing them or “colluding” with them to censor free speech.
The government CAN suggest, ask, or even encourage a private entities to censor certain things. Because the decision still rests solely on the private entity whether to censor or not. It’s an important distinction that too many can’t seem to grasp because it’s too nuanced and “not fair” in the face of the 1st amendment’s restrictions. The government can’t ORDER or make a law forcing twitter or facebook to censor content. The constitution does NOT say or prevent the government from suggesting or pointing out that certain things may need to be censored because strangely and paradoxically enough even the government HAS free speech rights too. Yes it’s weird or “not right” but it’s true.
It’s these complex nuances and distinctions that are too hard for most to grasp and most would prefer simpler black and white defined lines. Unfortunately with free speech there is no such thing. Even speech that incites violence has multiple nuances. Like rhetorical speech advocating harm and violence and speech directly advocating for harm and violence. There are very nuance distinctions and the nuance determines whether one form can be censored by government and one that cannot.
“ I have come to realize that s@@tlibs are going to call me names no matter my actions or intent.”
Well you first have to realize that YOU are calling them names first when you refer to them as s@@tlibs. If you end up being called names as a result its because you chose to call them names first. Nobody has called you anything at all today. Do you see the irony of your “realization”?
“The government CAN suggest, ask, or even encourage a private entities to censor certain things.”
Government is essentially its police powers — men with guns. Government “encourage” is a horse’s head in someone’s bed.
Svelaz, The irony of you attempting to school Elon Musk on how the “…content creator economy works…”, is laughable. You’re in waaaay over your head. Are you really too foolish to know that? Apparently so, as you continue to post the most inane nonsensical claptrap on this blog. But hey, I support your right to speak freely and reveal your ideas and have them dismantled by far wiser people. Keep posting!
Tootsiebug,
Well Just because Elon Musk is good at building rockets it doesn’t mean he’s good at everything. A lot of people in the industry it who. KNOW what they are doing are noting that Musk doesn’t understand what he’s getting himself into. There is a reason why many platforms are NOT doing what he want’s to do. They’ve been down that road before.
You didn’t “dismantle” my points either. What’s that saying…people who live in glass houses….something something?
Svelaz: Tootsiebug’s response is typical of a Trumpster; they can’t respond with facts or logic, so they resort to insults–just like Trump. This is why I can’t respect these people or take them seriously. They believe lies, and no matter how many times the lies are disproven, they just move onto the next lie.