Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Paul Ryan, from the "libertarian branch" of Friedrich Hayek

Excerpted, Mapping Paul Ryan, Lawrence Rosenthal, The Berkley Blog:
Paul Ryan represents one of two branches of the Tea Party. Let’s call it the libertarian branch. These are people who are single-minded and absolutist about “free-market economics”. Theirs is a passion that leads to across-the-board opposition to taxes and government regulation of economic life, to bemoaning public debt, and to the aim of whittling down the American welfare state to extinction. It is a strain of extreme American conservatism that has been with us since its fierce opposition, generally among highly placed corporate leaders, to the New Deal. It fought for decades for dominance in the Republican Party. Once having achieved it with the presidency of Ronald Reagan—and having put American liberalism on the defensive for a generation—it has been consistently dissatisfied with the compromises of conservative politicians in power and has maintained its sense of itself as an insurgent force. This is the Koch brothers Tea Party, the Dick Armey Tea Party.

The libertarians, of whom Ryan is very much the exemplar, are grounded in the economic theory of the Austrian school of economics, thinkers like Friedrich Hayek, whose seminal title, The Road to Serfdom, sums up their view of the Keynesian economics they have sought to displace for the past seven decades.


M. Simon said...

More likely he is from the Money Laundry branch.

Running The Laundry

or maybe the Sinaloa Cartel branch.

A Market Correction

Well there is always the Muslim terrorist branch.

Terrorists Dealing Drugs

M. Simon said...

You might also be interested in the origins of the War against Japan.

Look up - Japan Manchuria opium

And for fun - Japan French Indochina

M. Simon said...

Now what does all the above tell you about the War in Afghanistan?

The Muslims are a threat to be sure. So why are we funding them with Drug Prohibition?

Eric Dondero said...

That's a cause of concern M. Simon, for sure. But it's not the main concern. The main concern is why the fuck aren't we battling these mother-fuckers with our American culture? Why aren't we sending DVDs of American movies into these Islamist lands? CDs of American music. Posters of hot American chics in bikinis. Why aren't we building pizza parlors throughout the Arab world? Ice Cream shops? Why aren't we promoting liquor, and beer? Hell, why aren't we sending a bunch of pot smoking ambassadors to the Muslim lands?

This is a cultural war, and libertarians outside of this website need to recognize that, instead of blaming their hatred for us, on side issues.

Chuck said...

No, it isn't a cause for concern. It's trumped up, leftist horse shit. The only thing demented assholes like msimon care about is dope. All dope all the time. There's nothing else there. Just an overwhelming appetite for dope.

Gary said...

Libertarian branch . . . . Bullshit.

The Ryan budget does not cut one penny from the Federal budget. NOT ONE CENT. Under Ryan Big Government simply grows more slowly than Democrats.


Eric Dondero said...

Gary, is everyone else in the world - all of them calling Ryan a "libertarian" - wrong, and you're the only one who is right?

The name Don Quixote ring a bell?

Gary said...

**** Gary, is everyone else in the world - all of them calling Ryan a "libertarian" - wrong, and you're the only one who is right? ****

YES and double YES.

Eric, show me where the budget DECREASES by one cent.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - - - John Adams

Ran / SVP said...

That's not the whole point, Gary. It is Libertarian to want to push the ball in the right direction - which Romney's signal clarifies.

"The budget." We don't HAVE a Republican budget yet. OOOPS. We do have a Republican House proposal, but nothing from the Senate and only one proposal from the Administration - that was defeated with zero support from either party.

You talk about "facts" ... so please stand back and observe the whole picture?

Gary said...

**** "The budget." We don't HAVE a Republican budget yet. ****

Ran, don't argue with me. Argue with Ryan.

I am speaking of the Ryan budget which has been passed by twice by the House. Under the Ryan budget Federal spending INCREASES to $4.2 Trillion by 2019.

Yes, spending increases under Ryan.

Ran / SVP said...

Yes. We agree.

Note, spending increases AND so does growth and revenue to offset spending.

It's not a zero-sum game, is it?

Eric Dondero said...

Gary, replace that Buffalo Soldier graph in your signature with one of the guy tilting at windmills. More appropriate.

Chuck said...

Anyone who thinks the budget is going to go DOWN is a fool. It doesn't need to. These things are all about direction.

Gary said...

Argue with Ryan please . . . not the messenger.

Ryan's own projections say that over the next ten years the Ryan budget will add $4 tp $6 Trillion to the current national debt.

But you "Conservatives" (just like Liberals) do not want to hear the facts. After all, this is just pretend monopoly money that springs by magic out of thin air.

Eric Dondero said...

Ain't no conservatives round here Gary. We're pro-drug legalization, prostitution, gambling, anti-smoking laws, pro-bikinis, pro-anything goes sexually so long as it doesn't scare the horses, ect...

Chuck said...

"Ryan's own projections say that over the next ten years the Ryan budget will add $4 tp $6 Trillion to the current national debt"

Ryan doesn't have projections. The CBO does. The problem with assholes like you is you'll only accept what will never happen. You're fucking useless.

Trajectory is all that matters right now. One leads to certain death and the other leads to survival and maybe even monumental prosperity. Douchebag fuckwads like you will only be a part of ruin...and you'll deserve no credit for anything good that ever happens going forward. I suppose that's the point, isn't it? If you don't commit, you can't lose.

Fucking coward.

M. Simon said...

I did a bit about the Japanese contesting the Brits/Americans for control of the Drug trade in WW2:

Dubious Sources.


OK. Not the most important thing. Maybe.

But look at it this way. He is against the advance of Islam and yet supports one of the tools Islam uses to advance.

Terrorists Dealing Drugs

What kind of game is he playing? Which side is he really on.

I'd say the same about the lovely Pam Geller. She rails against Islam (good for her) yet favors Prohibition. (last I checked - has she changed her mind?)

I can't find anyone who takes a unified approach on these issues. Everyone cancels out some part of one program with another program.

I'm having to work with a bunch of fn Progressives (and a smattering of libertarians) against prohibition. In fact I can see them using it to get back into office once the Rs go on their usual "Jesus told us" jihad.

If you keep in mind that the Progressives split into two parties - Democrats and Christian Democrats - it becomes some clearer - but not a lot.

I know we need to slow things down. I agree on that. But the idea that Republicans will save us is non-sense on stilts. Under the Rs we will still be losing ground.

On top of that our corrupt banking system is underpinned by Prohibition. Money man Ryan HAS to know that.

A comment I got here:

I can understand how many would not want to pull the plug on the bogus drug war, since it would be a dangerous shock to our economy. But I say go ahead and do it. What good is all our wealth (a big collective “our” there) if it is built on the continued suffering of millions of innocent people? I’d prefer to collapse back into the stone age and have a clear conscience.

Expresses my sentiments exactly. Profiting from the intention infliction of harm on others is EVIL.

Ryan knows. Which makes him a tool.

M. Simon said...


I favor an honest banking system. Not one based on laundering Drug Money.


M. Simon said...

And Chuck,

About 70% of female heroin users were sexually molested in childhood. Why do you object to them getting solace where they can find it?

What made your heart so hard?

M. Simon said...

And Chuck,

Why do I keep hitting the dope question? Because given the numbers:

50+% favor pot legalization
70+% favor med pot
80+% say prohibition is not working

the Dems will use the issue to get back in in 2016.

In laser work we call such a shift a "population" inversion". In politics it is a disaster in the making.

shaina said...

Gary is saying Ryan is not a true libertarian, however I do think he is leaning in that direction.

It would not be good politics to come in and make drastic, major changes. People are afraid of big change. This, I believe, is why Dr. Paul is having trouble gaining headway in this election. Big change isn't popular. This is why Ryans budget plan doesn't go as far as to make sufficient cuts to create a surplus rather than deficit. It is undeniably a big step in the right direction, you can't fault the man for that. True libertarian, no. But a possible compromise and a push in the right direction, yes. I think so. Ron Paul is what our country needs, but if he is simply not popular enough to be realistic, it makes perfect sense to let the masses 'test the waters' of libertarianism with Paul Ryan. Ron Paul may still get his day ...we just need to be patient.