Paul Krugman: Are you serious?
In his blog post today Paul Krugman suggests that Libertarian philosophy isn’t serious. Paul Krugman isn’t a serious economist. He is a political propagandist. There is nothing wrong with being a political propagandist (um – some of my best friends are political propagandists?). Just admit it. Don’t try to pass yourself off as a serious analyst.
Krugman’s blog is called “The Conscience of a Liberal”. That would be a left-liberal – certainly not a classical liberal. One of his favorite tactics is to dismiss his opponents without actually addressing the issue at all. He is well-known for his refusal to debate Libertarians. His big government left liberalism is a matter of fact that he happily acknowledges, but does even he really believe the lame junk he writes? Or maybe he is just willing to run any con he thinks will persuade a few gullible readers.
He can’t be serious about what he writes in his post today when he says that the BP oil spill is proof Libertarianism doesn’t work. Is it possible his grasp of libertarian principles is really that bad? Is it possible he knows that little about what he is talking about? Or maybe he just thinks the people who read his blog are that simple-minded.
He correctly suggests that in a libertarian world
corporations know that if they do harm they’ll be sued.
That is, taking irresponsible risks is just bad business. But then he somehow confuses up with down and suggests that Libertarianism is somehow connected with the corrupt government that limited BP’s liability and gave them a pass on the regulations that existed. No Paul, that type of corruption can only exist in the type of big government that you love so dearly.
Then in a truly amazing bit of double-talk he says
And don’t say that we just need better politicians. If libertarianism requires incorruptible politicians to work, it’s not serious
Paul? Are you serious? Do even you beleive that? I’ll make is really simple so even you can understand it.
- Libertarians believe that individuals or businesses should not damage the property of other individuals or businesses. If they do they should pay 100% of the costs of that damage – 100%. That means every fisherman, every beach front hotel, every dive boat, every New York City seafood restaurant that can’t get shrimp for their scampi. 100% . No whining about the country needs oil. 100%
- Libertarians believe the legitimate purpose of government is to PROTECT citizens’ property (and lives). It’s NOT legitimate to take campaign contributions in return for granting businesses special favors like limited liability.
- Libertarians don’t believe in incorruptible politicians. We don’t believe in politicians at all. That’s why we trust free people and constitutional government and very definitely NOT politicians.
It was big government that made the laws limiting oil companies’ liability. It was big government who gave BP a pass on their own regulations. How many libertarians were there in the Congress that passed that bill? That would be ZERO. Since Krugman is a Democrat – how many Democrats? That would probably be 200 or 300 depending on when the law was passed. How many Libertarians waived the regulations? That would be ZERO again.
What kind of lame reasoning is Krugman running and who takes him seriously? It’s amazing what he gets away with. But what do you expect from the Grey Lady of Statism – the New York Times? I’m just amazed that even the New York Times will pay for shoddy analysis like Krugman’s that no serious person can take seriously.