Jew World Order

I don’t
know what to make of this.

Ken
Connor, of something called The Center for a Just Society,
writes as follows:

Thanks
to a renewed interest in the works of Ayn Rand and high-profile
figures like John Stossel, Glenn Beck, and Rand Paul, libertarianism
is enjoying a moment in the political sun. And just like America’s
two major parties, libertarians can often be blind to faulty
logic and flaws within their own ideology.

Not the first
names that would have occurred to me as representatives of the
libertarian position, but that’s not the point. Connor is
telling us that libertarians, like anyone else, can be blind to
faulty logic and flaws within their ideology. For examples, he
points to a recent column by Tim Carney on the use of government
power by private firms in order to benefit themselves.

Is there
a libertarian who supports this? Of course not.

Is it a strike
against libertarianism or the free market to note that business
firms are willing to use the coercive arm of the state in order
to benefit themselves? Again, of course not. This is one of the
very arguments libertarians themselves use against the state.
In a libertarian society this option would not be available to
businesses, so it seems a little strange to blame us for it, or
pretend that this is some kind of “blind spot” in
our philosophy. Blind spot? We denounce it constantly.

A century
and a half ago, Frederic Bastiat noted in The
Law that the state made possible all manner of mutual
plunder, which could not occur without the state. Bastiat’s
book is one of the classic libertarian texts.

Again Connor:

Regardless
of where your political sympathies lie, it’s undeniable
that there is an unhealthy and unholy alliance between well-heeled
special interests and politicians and policymakers. It’s
all well and good to embrace Ms. Rand’s philosophy of
self-seeking individualism in theory, but when this mentality
insinuates itself into the markets unchecked by moral and ethical
principles, the results are antithetical to freedom and fairness.

This is incoherent.
Connor begins by pointing out the alliance that exists between
government and special interests, an alliance that runs completely
counter to libertarianism and which could not exist were libertarianism
triumphant. He then conflates this non-libertarian situation with
“Ms. Rand’s philosophy of self-seeking individualism.”
Ayn Rand was very clear in setting out a philosophy of man’s
rights, which are of course violated by the very practices Connor
is trying to blame her for, and which he pretends she promoted.
She promoted the very opposite.

He goes on:

Basically,
the special interests invest in political campaigns as a cost
of doing business, and they expect a handsome return on their
investments. As Mr. Carney explains, that usually comes in the
form of pet legislation, subsidies, tax breaks, limitations
on liability, preferential treatment . . . the list goes on
and on. Of course, politicians are only too happy to accommodate
these special interests in exchange for political contributions
that help cement and perpetuate their power. As a result, the
free market is stymied; it can’t do what it’s designed
by nature to do, which is to sift good companies from bad ones,
reward efficiency and innovation, and empower consumers with
authentic choice in the marketplace. In effect, crony capitalism
is a form of central planning, something that libertarians and
conservatives historically eschew.

Is there
someone out there Connor thinks he is rebuking? What libertarian
would disagree with him here? That last sentence takes the cake:
he’s speaking as if libertarians need to be told crony capitalism
is bad, when it is they themselves who have been its greatest
and most consistent opponents.

More:

The lack
of accountability of the cronies is particularly damaging. Defenders
of free-market capitalism generally maintain that accountability
and responsibility must run hand in hand in order for markets
to operate effectively. If wrongdoers are not held accountable,
their wrongdoing will multiply and the whole system will be
corrupted. Unfortunately, many free-market apologists in the
political arena are only too ready to offer a double standard
to their corporate benefactors. Consequently, we wind up with
the excesses that characterized firms like AIG, Fannie Mae,
and Enron.

AIG’s
problems, while serious, could have been handled in bankruptcy;
the number of firms that would have suffered from its CDS issues
was about one or two dozen. These firms held $20 trillion in assets,
against the $60 billion they would have lost because of their
exposure to AIG. They could easily have absorbed these losses.
So while the market was punishing AIG, the government, which Connor
thinks should protect us from institutions like this, was busy
arranging for bailouts.

Read
the rest of the article

I don’t
know what to make of this.

Ken
Connor, of something called The Center for a Just Society,
writes as follows:

Thanks
to a renewed interest in the works of Ayn Rand and high-profile
figures like John Stossel, Glenn Beck, and Rand Paul, libertarianism
is enjoying a moment in the political sun. And just like America’s
two major parties, libertarians can often be blind to faulty
logic and flaws within their own ideology.

Not the first
names that would have occurred to me as representatives of the
libertarian position, but that’s not the point. Connor is
telling us that libertarians, like anyone else, can be blind to
faulty logic and flaws within their ideology. For examples, he
points to a recent column by Tim Carney on the use of government
power by private firms in order to benefit themselves.

Is there
a libertarian who supports this? Of course not.

Is it a strike
against libertarianism or the free market to note that business
firms are willing to use the coercive arm of the state in order
to benefit themselves? Again, of course not. This is one of the
very arguments libertarians themselves use against the state.
In a libertarian society this option would not be available to
businesses, so it seems a little strange to blame us for it, or
pretend that this is some kind of “blind spot” in
our philosophy. Blind spot? We denounce it constantly.

A century
and a half ago, Frederic Bastiat noted in The
Law that the state made possible all manner of mutual
plunder, which could not occur without the state. Bastiat’s
book is one of the classic libertarian texts.

Again Connor:

Regardless
of where your political sympathies lie, it’s undeniable
that there is an unhealthy and unholy alliance between well-heeled
special interests and politicians and policymakers. It’s
all well and good to embrace Ms. Rand’s philosophy of
self-seeking individualism in theory, but when this mentality
insinuates itself into the markets unchecked by moral and ethical
principles, the results are antithetical to freedom and fairness.

This is incoherent.
Connor begins by pointing out the alliance that exists between
government and special interests, an alliance that runs completely
counter to libertarianism and which could not exist were libertarianism
triumphant. He then conflates this non-libertarian situation with
“Ms. Rand’s philosophy of self-seeking individualism.”
Ayn Rand was very clear in setting out a philosophy of man’s
rights, which are of course violated by the very practices Connor
is trying to blame her for, and which he pretends she promoted.
She promoted the very opposite.

He goes on:

Basically,
the special interests invest in political campaigns as a cost
of doing business, and they expect a handsome return on their
investments. As Mr. Carney explains, that usually comes in the
form of pet legislation, subsidies, tax breaks, limitations
on liability, preferential treatment . . . the list goes on
and on. Of course, politicians are only too happy to accommodate
these special interests in exchange for political contributions
that help cement and perpetuate their power. As a result, the
free market is stymied; it can’t do what it’s designed
by nature to do, which is to sift good companies from bad ones,
reward efficiency and innovation, and empower consumers with
authentic choice in the marketplace. In effect, crony capitalism
is a form of central planning, something that libertarians and
conservatives historically eschew.

Is there
someone out there Connor thinks he is rebuking? What libertarian
would disagree with him here? That last sentence takes the cake:
he’s speaking as if libertarians need to be told crony capitalism
is bad, when it is they themselves who have been its greatest
and most consistent opponents.

More:

The lack
of accountability of the cronies is particularly damaging. Defenders
of free-market capitalism generally maintain that accountability
and responsibility must run hand in hand in order for markets
to operate effectively. If wrongdoers are not held accountable,
their wrongdoing will multiply and the whole system will be
corrupted. Unfortunately, many free-market apologists in the
political arena are only too ready to offer a double standard
to their corporate benefactors. Consequently, we wind up with
the excesses that characterized firms like AIG, Fannie Mae,
and Enron.

AIG’s
problems, while serious, could have been handled in bankruptcy;
the number of firms that would have suffered from its CDS issues
was about one or two dozen. These firms held $20 trillion in assets,
against the $60 billion they would have lost because of their
exposure to AIG. They could easily have absorbed these losses.
So while the market was punishing AIG, the government, which Connor
thinks should protect us from institutions like this, was busy
arranging for bailouts.

Read
the rest of the article