Available Now! (click cover)

America's Counter-Revolution
The Constitution Revisited

From the back cover:

This book challenges the assumption that the Constitution was a landmark in the struggle for liberty. Instead, Sheldon Richman argues, it was the product of a counter-revolution, a setback for the radicalism represented by America’s break with the British empire. Drawing on careful, credible historical scholarship and contemporary political analysis, Richman suggests that this counter-revolution was the work of conservatives who sought a nation of “power, consequence, and grandeur.” America’s Counter-Revolution makes a persuasive case that the Constitution was a victory not for liberty but for the agendas and interests of a militaristic, aristocratic, privilege-seeking ruling class.

Saturday, March 08, 2008

A Little Symmetry

Whenever some spectacular example of corruption or incompetence occurs in the more-or-less private sector, the usual cast of government enthusiasts declare that the time has come to severely restrict the "free market."

I demand symmetry.

The current economic slowd0wn is another spectacular example of government corruption and incompetence. Time to severely restrict -- no, abolish -- the government's power to interfere with our consensual activities.


John V said...

good luck getting people to understand that.

Fear and contempt of fellow man in a business setting is as old as man himself. The same does not hold true for government. People simply assume rhetoric is action.

David Johnson said...

Amen! Government apologists can find market "failures" in the slightest of price fluctuations, but are unable to recognize government incompetance even when standing in a bread line.

steven said...

That's because they've been indoctrinated into thinking that the government is there to serve the people. The government only acts in the best interest of those who control it (not you and I).

Government apologists = useful idiots.

Edward said...

"Government apologists can find market "failures" in the slightest of price fluctuations, but are unable to recognize government incompetance even when standing in a bread line."

I posted about this recently. The interventionists often finds market failures. They are not hard do find; we don't live in the neoclassicalists world. The test the use for interventionism is: If market failure, then regulate. It should be If market failure AND government can do better, then regulate. It might not ever be possible to pass the second test.

"Government apologists = useful idiots."
Is this an allusion to "useful innocents"?

steven said...

No, Edward. I meant useful idiots. Though they may be innocents as well.

Wikipedia has an entry for useful idiots, and under the modern usage section it says: "The term is also used by anarchists and other radicals to describe groups and individuals whose ideology is alleged to be excessively deferential to a government or authoritarian political movement."

steven said...

Edward, if you are talking about the general public, who are generally uninformed about basic economic and political subjects, then I would consider useful idiot to be an unfair and harsh term. But if you are talking about the people out there pounding their fists for more government control over the "evil" free market, then I would consider useful idiot to be an appropriate term.

Jimi G said...

Any libertarian who is not an anarchist is a "useful idiot" because they are a proponent of government in some form, no matter how miniscule. Their thoughts can then be co-opted by the State to demonstrate that even libertarians believe in government. Sadly, some otherwise brilliant thinkers fall into this category. I'll leave it to you to determine who they are.