Libertarian Times

Regarding Up with Chris Hayes this morning I won't even attempt to remember or look up the guests because none were significant -- just a bunch of like-minded Leftists with small differences . There was an author, a chef, a food stamp recipient a NY government official, a farmer and a Lizard Man from some bayou circus they called Carville.

The first part was about Romney and Bain, then they talked about the evil Republican effort to take food stamps from hungry children and old people. Then they talked about farm subsidies, and then they talked more about Romney and Bain, then about Bain and Romney, then about Bain by itself, then about Romney leaving Bain when he didn't really leave Bain, but because he said he did it could be a felony, then about Bain as it relates to Democrat supporters who do what Bain does, then about how Romney is really just a Bain creature who thinks with a Bain mind and wants Bain control over a Bain-influenced market.

Out of all this nonsense, the greatest nonsense was at the end of the tirade against evil Republicans who want to take food stamps from starving children and old people, right before going to a break, when Chris teased the audience by announcing that he returned he would talk about farm subsidies, then said snarkily "You gotta love the free market." Hayes is calling subsidies to farmers and reduction in food stamps the free market, while subsidies to give food stamps is statist compassion. Chris, you ignorant slut, you can't be that dumb. There's no way, unless it's really true that universities are effectively brainwashing people with statist propaganda. Hayes is exceptionally smart, so I can't believe he thinks that either Democratic Party or Republican Party policies have anything to do with a free market.

One of the points Hayes was making is that Republicans talk about small government, but they support large subsidies to large agriculture corporations while working to reduce food stamps. Chris said that it's not really about small government and less government involvement in the economy, but how government is used to achieve the goals of the respective parties. No shit. It's one thing, though, to talk about "small" government and reducing government interventions -- both parties have called for this -- Clinton said the era of Big Government is over, and Obama has said that government shouldn't do everything and that he wants the private sector to thrive, yada, yada, yada -- then both parties say "but...". Yes, Republicans have framed themselves as the party for "small" government, but when pressed, every politician, except maybe Ron Paul, will say the truly needy must be helped by government, and that government has to intervene in the economy at times -- to paraphrase Bush, they have to violate free enterise principles to save free enterprise. Who has heard any Republican with power claim libertarian principles and call for, not "small" government, but limited government and a truly free market?

Maybe Chris is so accustomed to our statist system that he mistakes the cute Republican game of framing themselves as the protectors of liberty as libertarian rhetoric -- no, Chris, it's not even close. Both parties say that government plays a role in the economy, and the GOP, even if they could repeal PPACA, would attempt to replace it with a mixed economy solution -- they wouldn't release healthcare to the market. Government interventions in the economy have convoluted the market (presently they have seized-up the market), and it can't be called a free market -- it's not free. Regardless of what you think would happen if we allowed a free market, good or bad, you have to know it would be much different than what we have now. What we have now, in the food stamp program, the welfare state, agriculture, and so forth, is the result of government interventions in the market. If the welfare state is not working, it's because government interventions have caused negative consequences that haven't been addressed. You can say that Republican resistance to the welfare state has prevented Democrats from creating the welfare state that will work, but Democrats have had plenty of opportunity to get policies through with majorities in congress, and I can't think of much resistance coming from the GOP regarding welfare -- Bush advanced the welfare state.

If your argument is that we need one party rule by Democrats, then make that case, but don't blame a non-existent free market for the failures of statism. The farmer on the program was the only honest guest, and he was basically making the case that government should completely control agriculture and centrally plan the use of farm land, the prices and gaurantee outcomes, because large corporations are controlling agriculture presently. Why are large corporations controlling agriculture? It's the result of our statist system and the battle for political power. It looks like we need to limit government power and create a free market or perfect a fascist system of government coordinated with chosen corporations to manage the economy -- this mixed system with two parties battling for power is not working so well.