July 31, 2008

Home Run!

Megan McArdle, my favorite libertarian Obama supporter, hits one out of the park. The text below is formatted as a quote and I am not certain of its origins. But somebody is taking a marvelous whack at the University of Chicago professors who are protesting the Milton Friedman Institute:

"Many would argue that they have been negative for much of
the world's population... weakening ... struggling local economies"

I can think of lots of words to describe what's going on in, say, China and India, as well as what happened previously to countries that adopted the "neoliberal global order" like Japan, Hong Kong, and South Korea. Billions of people are leading dramatically freer, healthier, longer and more prosperous lives than they were a generation ago.

Of course, we all face plenty of problems. I worry about environmental catastrophes, and their political, social and economic aftermath. Many people are suffering, primarily in pockets of kleptocracy and anarchy. Life's pretty bleak about 5 blocks west of the University of Chicago. In my professional life, I worry about inflation, chaotic markets, and their possible death by regulation. There is a lot for thoughtful economists and social scientists to do. But honestly, do we really yearn to send a billion Chinese back to their "local economies," trying to eke a meager living out of a quarter acre of rice paddy, under the iron grip of some local bureaucrat? I mean, the Mao caps and Che shirts are cool and all, but millions of people starved to death.

This is just the big lie theory at work. Say something often enough and people will start to believe it. It helps especially if what you say is vague and meaningless.


Read the whole (very short) thing. Hat-tip: Instapundit

Economics and Markets Posted by jk at July 31, 2008 4:01 PM

"libertarian Obama supporter"

Oxymoron.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at August 1, 2008 1:28 PM

Sure seems that way to me, but McArdle is the real deal.

Posted by: jk at August 1, 2008 2:30 PM

Not if she supports Obama, and it takes only one thing to destroy your credibility.

It's one thing to like someone as a *person*, but no true libertarian could possibly support the candidacy of a raving socialist who wants to hike taxes and redistribute wealth, someone who not just believes in big government but *worships* it and wants to make it *the* driving force in our economy.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at August 1, 2008 4:39 PM

I agree that it strains credulity -- the Obama-libertarian overlap is pretty thin. At the same time, Reason Magazine is 80% filled with articles bashing McCain and I almost never hear the Junior Senator from Illinois mentioned.

I plan to vote for McCain who has committed multiple sins against liberty and promises more every day on the campaign trail. McArdle doesn't swoon or get shivers up her leg, and she has taken some mighty whacks at him.

I think she's crazy -- why I bring it up -- but if you're committed to gay marriage or unrestricted abortion rights, oppose the Iraq War and want us out yesterday, you can most definitely call yourself a libertarian -- and Senator Obama's your guy!

Prosperitarians, in contrast, cannot be seen in the Democratic Camp, even for free food.

Posted by: jk at August 1, 2008 4:57 PM

The overlap is thin indeed -- it's just about *only* the issues you listed. Even if you say, "Well, I'll vote for so-and-so who's pretty close but not exactly what I'd like," Obama's state-worshipping, his stance on economic freedom from taxation to envirowhorism, simply means no genuine libertarian could possibly support him.

Once someone says he or she supports Obama, I know the person's a liberal and/or deluded. With his desire to "talk" to Iran and Syria, and disarm the U.S. of its nuclear weaons, we may well regret that we didn't take Bruce Bartlett's advice and support Hillary.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at August 3, 2008 11:53 PM | What do you think? [5]