The American Spectator : Utopia

Print Email

The most intelligent person I have ever met was the late Robert Nozick, formerly the Chairman of the Harvard Philosophy Department. When he lectured, his mind seemed to race with the energy of a champion thoroughbred.

Following the wisdom of Churchill, Nozick was committed to Marxist revolution at the age of 20. But continuing his study with the intense pursuit of truth, he became a capitalist libertarian long before the age of 40.

He wrote one of the greatest books of political philosophy of all time, Anarchy, State and Utopia. That book rivaled, refined and extended the great works of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, and those that followed. Among the features of that book is the definitive rebuttal of the modern A Theory of Justice, by John Rawls, which argued for a quasi-socialist theory of social justice and income redistribution. Nozick argued that the ownership of goods and wealth resulting from the free and voluntary exchanges of the marketplace was the fairest and freest outcome.

Reading the book as a younger man, I was most interested in the parts dealing with anarchy and state, and his moral arguments for limiting the powers of government to those necessary to stop and punish the use of force and fraud, all of which I still find true and correct. But having argued and debated the Left for almost 40 years, since I was a teenager writing for my high school newspaper, I am most interested now in what he had to say about utopia.

After demonstrating the moral and practical superiority of free-market capitalism, Nozick went on to argue later in the book that the ideal society would involve numerous local powers that would adopt a wide variety of different governing philosophies, from the freest of markets to the most thoroughly centrally controlled socialism. Each individual would then be free to choose to live in the locality that best reflected his or her preferred views.

When I was younger, I thought he had just showed why free-market capitalism is the fairest, freest and most productive, why would he allow any scope for anything else? Now I realize why.

What nearly 40 years of intellectual debate on these issues has taught me is that the Left's adherents are not interested in reason or truth. They fight instead with a religious fervor that reflects blind faith in socialism, and what they are after is nothing other than total power to implement their catechism. They are not the slightest bit interested in facts or logic or any counterarguments. They are busy implementing the Inquisition, and the Salem witch trials, and refuse to consider any new ideas, thoughts, or real world results.

As a young idealist, I didn't want people to suffer from the follies of left-liberalism. But now, after seeing that I am not in an intellectual battle with the Left, but a religious war, my view on this has changed. Now I do want liberals to suffer under the follies of liberalism. Because I see now that this the only way that they are going to recognize their foolishness. But just liberals. I want to keep the rest of us free of their insanity.

NOZICK'S VISION of utopia is the answer here. We can implement his vision by delegating as much power as possible back to state governments. They each should have maximum feasible control over economic policy, taxation, environmental policy, education, welfare, health policy, crime, even entitlements. If only we could figure out a way to give them each control over their own policies on immigration, terrorism, and foreign policy as well.

Let Vermont, which has the cheek to send an open Socialist to Washington as one of its senators, go ahead and have the state own and run the businesses, and maybe own the property too. They can't learn from the experience of other countries or history with such policies. So let them experience it first hand. That will then be a good close-up lesson for the rest of the country as well.

Or maybe it will turn out that the loudmouths in Vermont don't really want to walk the walk. Maybe they just want to talk the talk. That would also be a lesson for the rest of the country.

What the liberals really want on welfare is a system where the government would just provide free money, and goods and services such as housing and health care, to whoever needs it, and in whatever amounts needed, no questions asked. That is what the hard-core liberals in New York City actually advocate, and at least in regard to housing that is what they achieved on homeless policy through the courts and one liberal nutcase judge, at least for a while.

There is no concept in the world of left-liberalism of incentives and possible resulting adverse consequences for those in need, as well as for the rest of us. Any notion of incentives and their operation is an evil plot concocted by mean people, and as we know from the bumper sticker, mean people suck. People won't shirk work if their needs are provided for (as numerous real world studies and experiments show), and they won't trash housing provided to them for free (as they have with public housing).

On health care, let some states have full-blown socialized medicine. The liberal left refuses to recognize that with no incentives to control costs, the system will be swamped by demand. And with no incentives of high compensation and profits for doctors, surgeons, drug companies, or other health-care providers, the supply of quality health care will dry up as well. Who is going to invest in developing the human capital, or the physical capital of modern health-care technology, to be controlled by government bureaucrats, strictly limited in compensation, and vilified as profiteers if they complain?

This is exactly what has happened in every country that has adopted socialized medicine. But there is no reasoning with the members of the High Church of Socialized Medicine, the real establishment of religion in liberal precincts in America. So let them experience it first hand, and go to the free capitalist states to get their health care when they are really sick, like the Canadians do.

Page: 1 2 >

Letter to the Editor

Deborah| 12.24.08 @ 6:52AM

Yes, let them have what they want. The only problem is that they want to impose their policies nation wide. They want everyone to live by their rules. Yes, people are leaving the states and cities that are dysfunctional for the more functional states and cities, but they seem to be bringing their wacko liberal ideas with them -- which bring the same problems to those areas (witness North Carolina with its invasion from Northeastern liberal enclaves). When New York and California ask for federal bailouts, the rest of the states should tell them to get lost -- they wanted their ridiculous policies, so live with them. Liberal policies=the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. God help us.

Pecos Pete| 12.24.08 @ 8:07AM

Seems like the only way to resolve forced federal socialism is for states to secede from the union. And, it would be nice if localities could secede from their city/state to form their own city or state.

blackelkspeaks| 12.24.08 @ 9:03AM

The people who value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in this country had better get ready for Civil War 2.0 if they want to see the usurpation of their freedom stopped. And you better believe that nothing less than armed conflict will stop the relentless advance of the liberal-left. We have seen the liberal-left in action and its onslaught against American freedom proceed unabated for generations. But conservatives who loudly bitch, yet meekly roll over for the latest governmental atrocity will only see this continue until freedom is gone altogether.

After this last election, though, I wonder if there are enough freedom-loving people left in America to matter.

Melvin| 12.24.08 @ 9:52AM

My fellow Americans there are many of us who foresaw this plaque that is descending upon or nation a long time ago and began preparing for it.
You need to seek out other like thinkers and organize against the growing Nemesis who wishes to contain us under the Liberal socialist Jackboot.
There is a coming conflict, that will start with food shortages and or food riots brought on by the EPA's draconian environmental rules that will be implemented by Obama's appointees. The government will respond by declaring martial law to contain the hungry masses.
Certain Senators have already declared that martial law would be one of the tools that the government would use to contain any form of dissent that would arise.
Is the ramblings of a vast right wing conspiracy? Not likely, I'm just merely echoing observations that have already happened or been uttered by the political elite.
Our government is totally unresponsive to the will of the people, what other options to we have left?

frost| 12.24.08 @ 10:35AM

Great column! And Deborah's, and Blackell's additional comments were certainly well taken. It may be futile, but it's nice to know that there are still some honest-to-God thinkers around. Too bad we're so severely outnumbered. Merry Christmas from Costa Rica where the weather's magnificent (heh-heh-heh)...

Marc Jeric| 12.24.08 @ 11:31AM

For this refugee from a communist country the future of this country is clear - socialism enforced by the armed forces of the governing elite. Just as it happened in all other communist regimes it is not the "idealists", "progressives", or liberals" who will acquire absolute power; after a while they will be replaced by murderous thugs and all those "leftist" intellectuals will be shot dead. The thugs will live a life of luxury in confiscated villas (aka "dachas") and penthouses, while the 99.9% of population will try to survive in utter poverty.
Lying and stealing will be the one and only way of surviving. Well, there might be in all that some consolation for us normal people in contemplating such future for our "inteligentsia" so hell-bent on achieving "social justice".

Louis Jenkins| 12.24.08 @ 12:04PM

Armed revolt? Civil War 2.0? Decreased healthcare? Overt taxation? Ghost cities? Martial Law? Starvation? Ladies and Gentlemen, I hope you realize the full extent of your predictions. How has the US come to such a brink of catastrophic porportions? Partly because the US citizen, those with the inborn values that made this nation great, sit at home during the campaign season and watch their TVs with the curtains drawn and the doors locked. (I remember when you didn't have to lock your doors.) They (we) have become complacent, and allowed their interests and brains to atrophy. And a great majority refuse to step out side the info box and find out for themselves what the candidates really stand for. A ten minute speech or a 2 minute sound bite is what is used to form an opinions on candidates, and then they vote accordingly. This only lends to the downward spiral of our country. Most who comment on this forum are informed and understand the implication before us. Some may not. In two years this nation will undergo another fit of campaign promises, super biased reporting, and media mayhem. Do not allow your friends and family to be misled. E-mail your senators and representatives, state and local representatives too, whenever the issue mandates your input.

Consideration of armed resistance, even if the cause is right, is dangerous. Does anyone, in their right mind, think that a citizen soldier militia type can stand against a modern fighting force or even the well equipped local PD? Does anyone think the powers that be would hesitate to use overwhelming force to put down open armed resistance? Yes, our current government is no longer responsive for the good of our nation, but we have helped it to be that way. We have become a nation of whiners. It is always some one else' s fault. We do not look to ourselves for the solutions. Nothing would suit me better than to run those brigands and thieves (our elected representatives) out of DC and put our home in order, but the real options are precarious.

Bob| 12.24.08 @ 12:30PM

Peter, there are no pure left or right working societal examples. There is no such thing as a free market. All societies are balances between such principles. Should we be willing to live in a society where healthcare is only available to the wealthy? Should we be willing to live in a society where you don't get the benefit of your labors as an incentive?

Your use of liberal/conservative state comparisons is also intellectually flawed. States with poor populations tend to be more liberal and have higher tax rates to provide services to a poorer population. The recent move from higher tax states to lower tax states has a great deal to do with boomer retirement statistics. Your use of "facts" is not analytically correct -- but I see a great deal of that on both the right and the left.

The question, then, is not what is right or wrong, but how a balance can be achieved to reach the best results for the majority of the populous. Limited government as a working theory seems to make some sense as government, not being part of a competitive marketplace, is never challenged to be tremendously efficient. On the other hand, the fact that we have, by far, the most expensive and ineffective healthcare system on a per capita basis shows that the free market nature of our current system does not work either.

So the trick here is to continually strive for limited government, but not be afraid to use government in places where national efficiency can be established. For example, when Reagan took the federal government out of the infrastructure business and sent it back down to the states, it caused our infrastructure to crumble. National government was more efficient at infrastructure as state governments lacked the expertise to do a good job.

I believe the liberal/conservative labels do us an injustice and is just part of the political red meat that you and others engender. We should be pragmatic, find the best and most cost effective solutions, test them, and then roll them out. This is something I call "pragmatic conservatism".

The greatest threat to our country today is the decline of the middle class. This is primarily a function of the increased productivity of our country as it morphs from a manufacturing base to a services base. Fully 40% of our national private income goes towards financial services of some kind. That means a lesser demand for education and lower salaries. Since 2/3rds of our economy is based on consumption, it is the greatest contributor to the decline of our country from an economic basis.

We must find ways to increase the disposable income of the middle class. Rightest ideologues like yourself often talk about progressive taxation as a problem. But that's where Grover and you are wrong. My wallet does not care where the tax comes from, only that it needs to be paid. Social security, medicare, sales taxes, property taxes, disability taxes, and capital gains taxes are all REGRESSIVE taxes. When you look at the total tax burden by income level, our system is not as progressive as you and others make it seem. Personally, I'd get rid of ALL of these taxes and have one flat tax rate which would neither be progressive or regressive. After all, there is no such thing really as a social security trust fund. We also need to peg social security and medicare to the life expectancy of our nation to keep them solvent.

Let's see if we can get away from the labels here and move towards a solution and efficiency oriented society that can compete with other countries in the future.

Terry| 12.24.08 @ 12:50PM

Bob, it hurts, but I am forced to agree. We polarize ourselves constantly by being narrowly focused. We all speak philosophically, while being forced to live realistically. The balance to be found resides in the interstices between our philosophical preferences and the bills due.

Mary| 12.24.08 @ 1:25PM

Mr. Ferrara, how about Thomas More's Utopia: 'no place' and 'good place?'

When Erasmus and Luther were duking it out in their Bondage of the Will disputation, Erasmus may have "brought a rapier against a blunderbuss," but in my view he won the argument when he proclaimed Luther's doctrine an enigma absurdum.

And here we are perhaps approaching 'no place.' The New Total Society gaining tremendously, as the last vestiges of the Church fade away. Retaining and even augmenting all defects while simultaneously incapable of replicating any of the beauty.

I'm with you.

Buon Natale!

Mike Roush| 12.24.08 @ 1:32PM

Peter Ferrara writes: "What nearly 40 years of intellectual debate on these issues has taught me is that the Left's adherents are not interested in reason or truth. They fight instead with a religious fervor that reflects blind faith in socialism, and what they are after is nothing other than total power to implement their catechism. They are not the slightest bit interested in facts or logic or any counterarguments. They are busy implementing the Inquisition, and the Salem witch trials, and refuse to consider any new ideas, thoughts, or real world results." Religous fevor. Blind faith. Inquisition. Salem witch trials. This is quite an indictment of the left, Peter. I suppose it has never occurred to you that many people view you and the extreme right in the same light. Why? Consider the following:

Pecos Pete writes: "Seems like the only way to resolve forced federal socialism is for states to secede from the union. And, it would be nice if localities could secede from their city/state to form their own city or state."

According to blackelkspeaks, "The people who value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in this country had better get ready for Civil War 2.0 if they want to see the usurpation of their freedom stopped. And you better believe that nothing less than armed conflict will stop the relentless advance of the liberal-left."

So, Mr. Ferrara, you inspire secessionist sentiment and and desire for armed conflict in the defense liberty. Right wing jihad, anybody?

Paul| 12.24.08 @ 1:34PM

For liberals, when you're saving the planet, everything is allowed. I always want to ask liberals, "But what will they do when the find out the truth?"

A great column! Yes, reauthorize the 10th Amendment! Let the liberal states do what they want and let the conservative states prosper and flourish.

But this would work only if the Feds spent an equal amount of money per state/person.

Comments above reflect my frustrations....

> The size and scope of the Executive and Legislature are increasing beyond our constitutionalist imaginations and I feel powerless to stop this.

> Judges routinely change laws to suit their personal views on political issues taking away my
right to change laws thru legislation.

> The national news media are becoming even more blatantly anti-conservative and pro-liberal -- and I have friends and co-workers who catch only the headlines.

> Much of the younger generation seems to be incredibly mis-educated, mis-informed and awfully gullible.

In time, the truth will come out, though at a great cost. Socialism has never worked and never will.

Bob| 12.24.08 @ 2:21PM

Paul, consider this:

- Republicans have expanded the government and increased the debt more than Democrats ever since Reagan was elected to office.

- Judges use personal ideologies on both sides of the agenda.

- The national news media includes Rush, Hannity, Fox News, Washington Times, etc. Increasingly, the internet is a major source of biased news on both sides. When there is a bias towards facts, it favors Democrats. When there is a bias towards belief it favors Republicans.

- The young take their cue from those who lead the nation in terms of education. When you promote the least knowledgeable VP candidate (Palin) in recent history, you don't promote an under educated electorate.

Republicans should promote educated and knowledgeable conservatives if they want to regain the high ground, and not candidates who did poorly in school or just don't know much about our country.

Bryan St. James| 12.24.08 @ 2:49PM

It took 70 years for the Soviet Union to collapse under the weight of it's idealogical flaws.

We are seeing the result of 40-50 years of the denial, hollowing out, and deconstruction of American ideals. Individual values, economic freedoms, and property rights have been slowly leached or obscured with the anti-values of the 60's and 70's.

This is why I now Blog. We individualists need to create websites, write letters to editors, talk to friends, challenge the scourge of Leftism WHERE EVER you see it. This world will be what good men and women make of it.

If you'd like to enjoy art/literature that imitates life, try Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged". It's about exactly the scenario Ferrara describes, except, enjoyably, the flinty-eyed, capable individualists 'shrug' or ditch the Leftists and the inevitable consequences of their flawed ideas.

David Govett| 12.24.08 @ 3:41PM

Liberals should set up and inhabit an online virtual utopia. Call it Follystan.

Jeremiah| 12.24.08 @ 7:47PM

This was a great article until Ferrara came to this: "What nearly 40 years of intellectual debate on these issues has taught me is that the Left's adherents are not interested in reason or truth. They fight instead with a religious fervor that reflects blind faith in socialism...."

If that's all you've learned in 40 years of studying politics, it was time wasted, sir.

The idea that everyone on the left is not interested in truth is foolish and mentally impotent. When was the last time you were on a college campus?

You should try to adopt the capacity for doubt that all good philosophers have -- including the author you write about.

Oregonian| 12.24.08 @ 9:20PM

Bob

Thanks for the posts! You have proven Peter Ferrara's point much better than he could in the abstract. Ronald Reagan is responsible for all of the problems we face in America today because he cut taxes? He was responsible for the growth of government spending, even though it is Congress that enacts laws? He was responsible for the infrastructure crumbling, even though it was congressional government at the federal, state and local levels that determined spending levels on infrastructure and diverted money to social engineering, which generated far more votes to keep the politicians in their place at the trough? You use the same argument in defense of creeping socialism that I get from my son-in-law: we no longer have a true free market, so the only decision we have to make is how much more socialism we should accept. In other words, the camel already has his nose under the tent!!

I agree with Peter Ferrara that you should be able to move to a place (Massachusetts?, California?) where your ideas could be fully implemented and where you could realize your dream - and then live with the unintended consequences. As a former Californian, I can attest to the fact that they are well along the road to your Utopia!

Perhaps you overlooked the initial paragraphs of the piece, where Peter Ferrara attributed the ideas behind his argument to Robert Nozick, a former Chairman of the Philosophy Department at Harvard (hardly a right-wing institution!) Perhaps you overlooked the fact that Mr. Nozick was a Marxist at age 20, but "progressed" to be a capitalist libertarian before age 40. I would prefer to live in a state where people were more curious about the "path less traveled" followed by Robert Nozick that led him to his conclusion: free-market capitalism is the fairest, freest and most productive philosophy.

Ted| 12.24.08 @ 10:40PM

To Mr. Ferrara's point that all the "[left is] after is nothing other than total power to implement their catechism. They are not the slightest bit interested in facts or logic or any counterarguments," I recall Charles Gibson asking Barack Obama during a Democrat debate why he wanted to raise capital gains taxes when history shows that lowering gains rates increases revenue to the treasury. Obama acknowledged this fact but insisted that these "taxes should be raised anyway." This aptly illustrates the "catechism" of socialism. So long as everyone is equally miserable, the world will be a better place.

Bob| 12.25.08 @ 9:07AM

Oregonian -- Believe it or not, I was a Reagan supporter and voter. I believe his did far more good than harm to our country. That does not mean he was infallible. He did not make government smaller, and he had the veto power to do so. He did contribute to the decay of our infrastructure. But he also lowered tax rates and stimulated business and also, probably his crowning achievement, buried the Soviet Union.

The problem with you and other ideologues here, is that you think your heroes are infallible and don't like to hear the truth. I am much more libertarian than most here and believe that government should be smaller. Reagan failed at that goal -- and so did Bush. I also believe that "lower taxes" is not the answer, but the result of balanced budgets, decreased debt, and reduced spending. Lowering taxes without also lowering spending is a killer. And as we have proven, lowering taxes does not "force" lower spending -- it only increases debt. I think we should make people pay completely for their services. Then they might think twice about whether they really want them.

doctorsam| 12.25.08 @ 3:23PM

There was a time when I couldn't understand how anyone could actually embrace the liberal point of view. Then one day I learned the defination of insanity......So for those of you who, like me, do not know I will supply you with that definition. I trust that upon learning said defination you will have a better understanding as to why people actually embrace the socialistic doctrine (with some exceptions)
Insanity: When a person or persons do the exact same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome.

pete| 12.25.08 @ 4:43PM

Several years ago, here in Nebraska, the city of Lincoln passed a no smoking ordinance. Two years later their state legislators pushed the uni-cam to pass a state wide smonking ban. The reasoning was that Lincoln merchants were being unfairly penalized by the ordinance that the Lincoln liberals had passed. Therefore the only "fair" thing to do was to level the playing field by making the ban statewide.

malm| 12.26.08 @ 9:41AM

Before we go to guns Blackelk, we could bring this NEMESIS a strong blow by not participating in their Utopian schemes in ways that hurt their pocketbook. The Media Machine they control is their major advantage in the soundbite, two minute media story method of the mass of us learning about anything. But, do not ignore longer formats like the movies, where the George Clooneys Mikey Moores, and Ben Afflecks of the world get to define truth, or else rake in such huge sums of money for producing garbage that they fund the rancid NGO's that do alot of the leftish dirty work. If ten million of us just canceled our cable, and gave up the movies, and whatever else , they would be deeply wounded. As for guns, do not believe all the cops and soldiers would wage war upon us who are just trying to escape the madness. Watch the Obama crowd try to brainwash the military however to their way of thinking. Watch the red blooded Americans leave the military. What fills their shoes we can meet on the field of battle and defeat, of this I am certain. By the way Bob of " facts", California is a rich state and is loaded with taxes and is broke. many other states, look South,are in many ways poor in comparison, but have lower taxes and less government, and are not forced to beg for bailout money. This is factual.

malm| 12.26.08 @ 10:11AM

Bob, you also label our healthcare system as ineffective and too expensive. Question number one who has a better system ? Who else provides world class care to anyone who sneaks inside their borders ? Who is screwing up healthcare really Bob ? Try the tort system we must endure for openers. And, then bring on the government and its loony ways as a further burden to endure. Who is so overpaid from a labor standpoint? Doctors, and nurses ? Who in big Pharma is overpaid, besides a few CEO types ? Really Bob, where is all this wasted Money ? Where ? Administrative costs as dame Hillary blathered on about ? We had that debate and your kind lost. I mean she had to produce real numbers and facts, and it all flopped. Also Bob you say the Feds have no roll in infrastucture policy anymore ? Are you serious ? What can you expect from a guy who thinks network tv reports are accurate only when they favor democrats. Did you ever notice Bob that they only favor democrats.

Bob| 12.26.08 @ 11:03AM

Malm -- again, you present information devoid of analysis. California, and most high population urban states, are places where services need to be provided to relatively segregated, poor, urban areas. You can stop these services like water and sewer, telephone, power, etc., and regress into a third world area or provide basic services. This requires taxation levels higher than in the more rural South. You can certainly live at a lower income in the South than in most major cities. These areas should have lower taxes and less government. The problem with your logic is a chicken and egg comparison and is an analytical mistake many intellectually challenged conservatives make. If the South were more urban with concentrations of people that exists in Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, etc., you would see a population that wanted more government services and thus would be more liberal by definition. This is NOT proof that lower taxes and less government would be better for them. These types of comparisons are not intellectually consistent.

That said, I also believe we should have less government and lower taxes. But I disagree with the notion that you do that with just tax cuts. The theory has been that if you cut taxes, cuts in spending will follow. That hasn't happened. With both Reagan and Bush, the debt has increased substantially and so has the size of government. I'm beginning to believe that cutting taxes is actually bad as it separates taxes from spending. In other words, people don't believe that you need to pay for what you spend. This is the same type of credit mentality that has now gotten many people in trouble. I think we should perhaps try the reverse. That is, if you want to spend money, you need to pay for it. Perhaps if we had to pay for the spending we'd be more apt to make decisions on what to cut. However, what is clear, is that low taxes as a strategy doesn't work.

Robert| 12.26.08 @ 12:01PM

--Consideration of armed resistance, even if the cause is right, is dangerous. Does anyone, in their right mind, think that a citizen soldier militia type can stand against a modern fighting force or even the well equipped local PD? Does anyone think the powers that be would hesitate to use overwhelming force to put down open armed resistance? --

The powers that be might not hesitate to try to use overwhelming force to put down armed resistance, but it is doubtful that the overwhelming force would go along. Here is why:

There is no example anywhere in recent history of an ORDINARY army or police, whose members are drawn from the ordinary citizenry, successfuly using force against a citzen uprising. Those nations which use brute force against their own citizens always have an "internal security force", allied to the ruling political party, to keep the citizenry inline. The MVD in the Soviet Union, the Securitate in Romania, the 27th Army in China, the ZOMO in Poland are all classic examples. The United States does not--as yet--have such internal armies. Here is a classic example of what happens when a government tries to use an ordinary police force or regular Army to put down a civilian uprising:

Novocherkassk, Russia, 1962. Bread riots erupted in the summer of that year, following food price increases. The local police were called in, but were ineffective. CPSU headquarters were even trashed. Regular army units were called in, but the soliders and officers alike SYMPATHIZED WITH THE RIOTERS. Finally, MVD troops (mostly ethnic Kazakhs who disliked Russians) were called in to put the uprising down.

A well-equiped police force even of a large city, would consist of a few thousand people at most, hardly enough to contain a widespread uprising. Note that the LAPD retreated in the early stage of the April 1992 riots! And American soldiers and (especially) officers are, by the very nature conservative, and would be extremly reluctant to fire on fellow citizens with whom they agreed. Thus, an uprising is not out of the question.

Bob| 12.26.08 @ 12:12PM

This article, and the supportive comments, really shines a light on the intellectual bankruptcy of the "conservative movement" (quotes because it never really was either conservative OR a
movement) spearheaded by the anticlinonists.

I mean think about it - while they liked the man in the federal top job, they were all about expanding federal executive power (and boy didn't THAT work out well over the last 8 years).

Now that they dislike the man in the top federal spot (or the one who will soon be, anyway) suddenly federal power is awful and needs to be diminished as much as possible.

No theory, no consistency - why do these people want the world and our country run along the same principles as a clique of particularly bratty and bitchy junior high school girls?

Stephen Harris| 12.26.08 @ 12:39PM

A problem that I see is that very often immigrants to other more conservative states from liberal states often continue voting for the same liberal policies that contributed to the social and economic decline that caused them to emigrate in the first place. Two examples come to mind. The state of New Hampshire has seen a large influx of people from Massachusetts over the last few years which I believe may contribute to their seeming tilt leftward recently. Mexican immigrants leaving the state controlled economy of Mexico tend to vote for politicians who lean toward more state control of the US economy. There seems to be a disconnect in people's minds
regarding their choices in the voting booth and its results. How do you fix that problem?

jose goldfinger| 12.26.08 @ 12:48PM

Bob
Just two comments for Bob.
1. Reduced tax rates have resulted in major revenue increases to the government under both Reagan and Bush. Isn't revenue what taxes are about?
2. Palin = bad, by implication, Biden = good. Just a friendly tip Bob - all of your other looney comments pale by comparison. Palin is a successful governor; Biden isn't qualified to run a WaWa.
2.

Bob| 12.26.08 @ 1:00PM

Jose, you need to stop drinking the KoolAid. Revenue is NOT what taxes are all about. In all financial systems, you have revenues and spending. Taxes are a form of revenues. The end result is whether you make a profit or a loss. If you raise revenues but increase spending at a faster rate, then you have not done anything "right". There is not necessarily cause and effect with taxation. If you increase spending, you also increase revenues by providing more jobs and paying more businesses. The real measure of a successful tax policy is what occurs with the bottom line, not the revenue. With both Reagan and Bush, the debt increased geometrically which means that lower taxes did not work.

Palin is not yet a successful governor. Any bozo could manage an economy dependent on oil prices when the prices are high. She is also the recipient of more government largess on a per capita basis than any other governor. You are a successful governor when you can navigate a crisis and have served for at least one term. She is a good politician, however. That only takes getting elected. I happen to agree with you about Biden and running a WaWa might even be challenging for him.

Ric| 12.26.08 @ 1:03PM

Great article. I really don't care how they do it in New York or Boston, but I would like the opportunity to live in a freer system somewhere. Isn't it interesting that the liberal shill on this thread (Bob) is so unwilling to acknowledge that differences are due to ideology. It's all urban concentrations, minorities and poor that "require" states like California to bankrupt themselves.

One might ask "why does California have so many poor minorities? The answer would be the aggressive liberal policies, including the judicial coup that ended the last attempt by the native citizens to man the walls, Prop 187.

I read recently that 43% of millionaires in California have left in the last 10 years. Gee, think the forced exodus of your most productive tax payers has anything to do with the deficit Bob?

To hear you talk you would think there are no cities outside your liberal super-states. Ever hear of Atlanta, Dallas, San Antonio, Houston, Kansas City, Tampa Bay. Try watching more sports, it will help familiarize you with the rest of America, Bob. "Red America" has lots of cities. None of them look like Detroit, Compton, Cleveland, or Flint either.

Of course I'm sure I'm suffering from the "analytical mistake many intellectually challenged conservatives make." What a pretentious little piece of work you are.

You seem to have missed the 'supply side 101" class, despite your arrogant put-downs. The claim was that lower tax rates would increase tax revenues. (Look up "the Laffer Curve"). This did in fact occur under Reagan, and again under Bush2.

No one ever said that increasing revenue would balance the budget in the face of sustained increases in spending.

Of course the low tax strategy works - to provide LOW TAXES. This is, in itself, the good that justifies the program. Of course coupled with low taxes one needs low government spending, which can and should be accomplished by cutting of huge swaths of government spending. Who ever said that Government should run most Universities in America. Or bus lines. Or insurance companies.

You are the one who is being intellecutually inconsistent.

VinceP1974| 12.26.08 @ 1:11PM

Why "discussing" things with Leftists is usually a waste of time:

Bob/before
"Let's see if we can get away from the labels here and move towards a solution and efficiency oriented society that can compete with other countries in the future. "

Bob/after
"This article, and the supportive comments, really shines a light on the intellectual bankruptcy of the "conservative movement" (quotes because it never really was either conservative OR a
movement) spearheaded by the anticlinonists. "

Remember.. a Leftist will never stick to any principle he claims to value .. this is evidenced by their own shameless violation of those principles.

Ric| 12.26.08 @ 1:20PM

Bob,
Check your facts man! You said: "She (Palin) is also the recipient of more government largess on a per capita basis than any other governor. "

The latest Tax Foundation Special Report "Federal Tax Burdens and Expenditures by State", the source of all these claims, shows that New Mexico ($2.00 per dollar collected) outpaced Alaska ($1.87). Of course both are completely eclipsed by Washington D.C. ($6.64).

Bob| 12.26.08 @ 1:21PM

Ric -- again, you seem to be factually challenged. First of all, most large urban populations vote Democrat even in non-coastal areas. It is primarily the rural areas that vote Republican. Take a look at the district vote totals for this last election.

Secondly, poor communities in large urban areas were in existence long before today's tax policies. To believe that these tax policies caused these area to be more blighted is historically unsubstantiated.

Regarding supply side economics. Arthur Laffer was recently interviewed and agrees more with Obama's theories than supply side advocates. Again, an increase in revenues does not indicate a successful tax policy. A successful tax policy will reduce or maintain debt levels. The greatest threat to our democracy right now is our debt levels and what we owe to countries like China. During both the Reagan and Bush2 administrations, we increased the debt more than any other presidents. You need to learn something about economics beyond the rudimentary verbage.

We do agree on the spending side. However, lowering taxes has not led to decreased spending. In fact, I'm beginning to believe that it actually promotes increased spending because revenue and spending are decoupled. I think a better strategy might be to force people to pay for their services and raise taxes if people want more services. By coupling these two, we might get people to commit to cutting something.

Bob| 12.26.08 @ 1:31PM

Vince -- the other "Bob" is not me. You are comparing statements from two different people.

Ric -- here is the source showing the highest per capita federal spending by state:

http://www.nemw.org/taxburd.htm

At $13,788 per person, it is, by far, the highest. Washington DC is not a state and thus is not comparable because it also includes things like police, fire, education, etc. But then again, you didn't really understand the numbers, did you? You were looking at the tax burden, not expenditures.

jose goldfinger| 12.26.08 @ 1:34PM

Bob, I'm giving you an opportunity to claim a typo. You wrote: "Revenue is NOT what taxes are all about." Talk about voodo economics.

Here's the deal Bob. You can have a sound tax policy (the revenue side) and irresponsible spending that exceeds revenue. Just one example was Mr. Bush's decison to offer a huge new medicare entitlement. That was irresponsible in the extreme but that doesn't mean that his tax policy was flawed.
Lower taxes do work. "It's the spending, stupid."

VinceP1974| 12.26.08 @ 1:37PM

Oh there are mulitple Bobs. Ok. that makes a little snese.

"Arthur Laffer was recently interviewed and agrees more with Obama's theories than supply side advocates"

Laffer might have been onto something with his curve, but his other ideas I'm not impressed by. Did you ever see the video of his appearance with Peter Schiff in the mid 00's when Schiff predicted the economic collapse and Laffer said teh economy is the best it has ever been? Sorry, but Laffer is a poor choice for looking for appproval of economic ideas today. If you're going to take anyone's advice, then you should start with the question: "Did you predict the economic collapse".

Of the people who did predict it... none of them are supporting Obama's plan.

Here is some reality.. the US Dollar is on the verge of devastating collapse and with it, the collapse of the Federal Govt.

Ric| 12.26.08 @ 1:38PM

Getting back to the basic ideas in the article ...

Revitalizing the 10th Ammendment would be a great thing to do, but I don't see it happening. The statist/socialists have control of FedGov. They are not going to loosen their grip on us, their fingers will need to be pried off.

So the real question for liberty lovers is how do we pry them off?

Realize that even if you live in a low overhead state you are subsidizing FedGov Socialism via forced participation in ponzi schemes like Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.

And, as recent events have shown, the Federal Reserve system is the largest ponzi scheme of all and a huge mechanism for forced subsidies to the New York region. (Why is Connecticut perenially the richest state in the USA? Their vast oil output? The quality of their large base of manufacturing? Nope, it is the illgotten gain of the rich financial con-men who live there.)

I would gladly move to a state that offered to protect me from the depredations of Washington and New York. To date none seem to have the balls to stand up to them. Pehaps the recent scalping of America by the bankers will wake some state up and the sage-grass rebellion can begin in ernest.

Freedom writer Boston T. Party has suggested that, for a variety of well thought out reasons, Wyoming would be a good state for freedom lovers to assemble in.

A state *could* force a number of issues. Such as decreeing that SSI is not required in their state, etc.

As long as we agree with the right of FedGov to tax us, deduct directly for mandatory programs, force state participation in various schemes, the delta between a high tax state and a low tax state just isn't that great.

It would be fascinating to watch liberals be confronted with a State demanding defacto seperation from the FedGov beast. Their own ideology (pacificst, localist, supporting autonomy of groups) would seemingly require them to support such a move.

One suspects though, that they would find their "Lincoln" soon enough - a wolf in sheeps clothing.

Interesting times lie ahead.

Ric| 12.26.08 @ 1:39PM

GOOD! The sooner the better so we can start to rebuild on a better foundation.

VinceP1974| 12.26.08 @ 1:41PM

The only way of regaining control over the Federal Govt is to start with repealing the XVII Amendment.

Almost all the Progeressive Era amendments have been disasters. An omen for the current resurgence of "Progressives".

Ric| 12.26.08 @ 1:59PM

Bob2:

The site you list:

http://www.nemw.org/taxburd.htm is a group dedicated to extracting money from FedGov. How ironic! The table you link to has listed in its footnote the source for their data, which is the organization I mentioned. (That version is more recent as well).

Here is the the link to the original work which provides a lot more useful context: http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/62.html

Yes, DC's not a state. But they sure do get a lot of money from FedGov!! LOL. I'm pretty sure Alaska has Police and Fire departments, but you are right they aren't using my taxes to pay for them.

DC is, but that is "different" because ... ?? They are incapable of taxing themselves enough to pay for their own city because ... ???

BTW: The per-capita figure for DC is $66,622 !!

Bob| 12.26.08 @ 2:09PM

Jose, you cannot segregate taxes from spending -- that is a fallacy. People are willing to pay more taxes if they receive value for their money. Spending is simply how your tax dollars are spent. Both taxation AND spending stimulate revenues. When we pay Halliburton to fight the conflict in Iraq, they pay taxes on that revenue. If you decrease taxes AND increase spending, then revenues will increase. The increased revenues of Reagan and Bush2 did not offset the increased spending and thus the debt increased. We don't know how much revenue would have increased without the increased spending, do we?

Economics is more complicated and more interactive than your simple model. Even supply side economists would agree with me. But supply side and other theories are based upon consumer behavior and the beta factors applied to these elements. Consumer behavior changes with time. For example, with the outsourcing of manufacturing, reduced taxes today provide less of a benefit to the U.S. today than in Reagan's time. Why? Most of the benefit to businesses back then was spent domestically -- now most of it is spent internationally.

You really need to study economics to understand the reality of these theories. Simplistic explanations are just not appropriate. You want a sound byte in something that is highly complex. It doesn't work that way.

Bob| 12.26.08 @ 2:14PM

Ric -- I see you agree with me on the Federal largess in Alaska. That's a start. With regard to D.C., you can't be serious that it is comparable to any state, can you? D.C. must also pay for security for governmental facilities, the security for any activities like inaugurations, and lots of other non-comparable expenses. Please drop that line before you lose any more credibility.

VinceP1974| 12.26.08 @ 2:22PM

Anyone who keeps ignoring that the Fed Govt's budget problem is one of spending not taxing has no business judging the credibility of others.

malm| 12.26.08 @ 3:10PM

Bob, California is perhaps the most economically blessed place on earth. Agriculture, high tech, medical, entertainment., the shoreline, energy reserves, on and on and on. Yet, they are broke. and why ? Liberalism and democrat party control. Other places have poverty as well, but they function. Why ? The cost of water and sewers to the poor ? Is that why the Golden State is broke ? Money spent wisely(hardy ha ha) on essential services for the poor ? By the way, this per capita by state business is a dubious enterprise. Often the federal government has compelling interest in and area, such as national security, thatneed a greater outlay. I doubt if the average citizen be it in Alaska or Ohio get any extra basic needs and services money. It might be worth looking at states like New york and California where many of the super rich live, and the corporate headquarters are located. This is the super rich scenario. They pay huge taxes and make unlimited huge incomes. They become ultra tax collectors for the state, but still make out greatly with their massive incomes. Meanwhile regular folks in the hinterlands pay higher prices for the things they produce with none of the benefit of having ultra rich folks in your area helping out with tax revenues and job creation. I'd really like an honest debate on who the super rich are in this country, and a debate on who is overpaid. It would also like to see some brainstorming on a maximum wage, just kick the idea around. I doubt if our national, liberal democrat media would do this kind of reporting, because any objective study would conclude that they are the most overpaid and over rated people in the country. No just go on stirring hatred about overpaid CEOS, and nobody else. Just put the masses to sleep on the entire nature over the overpaid and unworthy super rich. Baaaaaaaaaa, baaaaaaaaaaaa, be a good little sheep.

Bob| 12.26.08 @ 3:56PM

Malm, your argument is ridiculous. Alaska is the most economically blessed state because of it's oil and gas reserves. It isn't even close. Coal in many of the Appalachian states also is more blessed. These are not even close to countries like Saudi Arabia, Russia, Qatar, etc. Agriculture in California is under attack because of the water issues. You need to get a grip on the facts.

The average citizen in Alaska receives more government largess than any other state by the way. The ultra rich in California do not create a lot of jobs in California. Most of the high tech production is done in Asia and that is where the jobs are created.

iowavette| 12.26.08 @ 4:13PM

Good post and resulting comments all around.

I, too, was raised in northern California, living and working in San Francisco for 13 years before leaving for, literally, greener pastures. The lack of critical thinking not to mention good governance turned the city into a cesspool. It is definitely a nice place to visit, but I would never live there again. When one cannot get the groceries from the store to the car without being hassled for hand outs, there is a problem. At least in the fly over states the weather filters the riffraff.

Bob, don't stereotype conservatives. It is an extremely diverse group but typically anticipates reduced government, spending and some modicum of respect for the traditions and culture that formed the basis of the founding of the country. The party itself is indeed in some disarray but grass roots conservatives are not.

malm| 12.26.08 @ 6:37PM

Appalachia and Alaska more economically blessed because of energy reserves? Energy is just one part of the California GNP picture. And that they have plenty of that offshore. Really Bob a smart management team could have that golden state shining again. The liberal political fools have ruined the place. Hell the porno industry is more wealth producing than anything they have in Alaska after energy. Agriculture having some water issues, that's always the case, but it is still a massive exporter of product to every state and nation. The ports, the military bases, and the intellectual property and the universities, on and on and on, only liberal idiots could create an economic basketcase out of such richness and potential. And do Alaskans get more in food stamps and all the rest of it what are you talking about ? No doubt a road project in Alaska math wise costs more than one in a densley populated area. It is not thickly populated. Like Maine you drive miles on a highway and its deadville but you still need the road. Does that make a Mainer in Washington County better off than a Californian. Bob admit it, California needs new management, top to bottom.

malm| 12.26.08 @ 6:47PM

One more thing Bob. All that energy in Alaska can't be produced by Alaska because a Congress of idiots from California like Pelosi, and Boxer won't let them produce. They dance to the tune of enviromaniacs who have choke leases on their poodle necks. The California pols would rather the trillions go to Hugo Chavez, and the middle east producer and other creeps than our own people. Thus not only does their liberal nuttines ruin California but it wrecks the prospects of other American States.

William| 12.27.08 @ 12:08AM

Bob, you are obviously a highly educated fella. I'd say you did undergraduate work at an Ivy League University, or perhaps a high level state run school like Cal.

Oregonian| 12.27.08 @ 3:57AM

Bob,

Of course you know enough about the three branches of government to know who passed the spending bills that increased the size of government under President Reagan: the Democrat-led Congress. And you also know that Reagan had a deal with Tip O'Neill that Congress (the House) would pass spending cuts to balance the tax cuts, and they reneged. Apparently that doesn't fit the template of your argument, so you conveniently ignored it.

And no, I don't believe that Reagan was infallable. I do believe that he was the best President in my experience, that is since Eisenhower and probably since Roosevelt. He was human and he made mistakes like any human, even libertarians. I do believe that the supply side economic policy he championed led to the greatest peacetime economic expansion since World War II. And I do believe that he was a successful leader because he had a positive vision for America and a set of strongly-held principles to achieve those ends that he maintained throughout his term in office. Apparently, your definition of an idealogue is someone who doesn't agree with you; and someone who doesn't buy your interpretation of economic theory is simplistic and intellectually bankrupt. I've read all the posts here, and there are a number of well written posts which indicate as much or more grasp of economic theory as do yours. The only difference is that they disagree with you.

Bob, you profess to be a libertarian, but your tendency to resort to name calling and self-proclaimed intellectual superiority is more like the response of a liberal elitist. And of course you know that Obama has no economic theories of his own: only those formulated for him to deliver by the Clinton retreads surrounding him. You know them, Bob, the same crew that brought us "affordable housing" and the subprime mortgage fiasco enabled by Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac. How is Robert Rubin doing at Citibank lately? We will see how the supply side economists who "agree with you" will feel about the policies of the Obama team after the first 100 days of interaction with the legislation passed by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. And I suspect that there will be a lot of real libertarians that will also be unpleasantly surprised.

Roy| 12.27.08 @ 4:06AM

The article's proposal would be nice but it won't happen. Liberals think that if one state is doing well and another poorly this is an "inequality" that must be addressed. So they are not about to agree to a system where each state bears the burden of its own decisions.

A GM bankruptcy would have been as close as possible a thing to a government bankruptcy - an acknowledgement that endless self-indulgent bureaucro-blather imposed on a company will sooner or later destroy that company. So they didn't let it happen - they bailed themselves out with your money. And that's what they'll do, again and again, forever.

When LA first elected Villaraigosa his slogan was.."Yes We Can"(often spoken in Spanish). I heard that as "Yes we can take your money" and left. I hear it that way now too, coming from Obama.

Bob| 12.27.08 @ 7:37AM

Oregonian -- let's deal with facts rather than ideology. Here is a graph of GDP that shows that no president did significantly better than any other in terms of the growth of our economy. Certainly, there was no bump during the time of Reagan.

http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=230

Secondly, you will find that Reagan was among the worst in terms of putting this country into debt:

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

In terms of "elitism", if that means I actually look at the data and use logic rather than believe all of the talking heads and ideologues, I plead guilty. In terms of being libertarian leaning (I am not a true libertarian), I believe in limited government, balanced budgets, pay as you go spending, non-intervention into personal matters like abortion or gay marriage, was against the bailouts, and believe in pragmatic solutions not related to any ideology. You tell me what that means.

By the way, I also believe and informed and educated public makes a better republic/democracy. I am a big supporter of education and have a significant bias against those that did not do well in school or lack knowledge. I admit on this last point I am out of the mainstream of Republicans since that rules out people like McCain and Palin.

jose goldfinger| 12.27.08 @ 10:28AM

Oregonian - excellent points made in your commentary but Bob is not buying it. Bob is smarter than you and me (and everyone else on this site) and especially smarter than Sarah Palin.
Bob's economic theories are from the Robert Mugabe school of economics (no relation between tax policy and revenue) and he apparently was on the star ship Enterprise during the Reagan years since he appears to be unaware of the differences in the Carter vs Reagan economies.
I think we are now ready to hear Bob's views on global warming and visitors from other planets.

T the D | 12.27.08 @ 10:36AM

I don't think it has been said better. I had never thought to liken this Liberal ideology to religious zealotism - but the description fits like a glove.

~T the D
http://thedrunkelephant.blogspot.com/

Bob| 12.27.08 @ 10:57AM

So, Jose, didn't they teach you how to read graphs in school? Reagan did not have the "greatest economic expansion" if you actually look at the data for GDP and debt levels. As I've said before, I did vote for Reagan and thought he was one of the better presidents because of his stance on a strong military and fighting the cold war. But on economics and supply side theory, the numbers just don't bear the mythology that surrounds him. And yes, Carter was a disaster.

And if you don't believe there is a relationship between tax policy and spending, then I can't do anything for you....

stmichrick| 12.27.08 @ 12:54PM

Dear St. Bob the Condescender'
There is a clear example of left/right economic solutions in history. In fact, it is so clear you will call it simplistic.

Read the (complete) story of the Pilgrims in Massachusetts. What did collective/centrally planned economics do for them?

Nothing. They junked it in favor of an incentive- based system.

And yes, supply-siders do the easy work by leading the electorate to lower taxes on investment which DOES increase revenues to the government. However, they often fail when it comes to restraining Congress on spending.

Problem is, the leftists don't get ANY of it right!

Bob| 12.27.08 @ 1:46PM

Dear Stmichrick the non-listener,

What makes you think that I don't believe in an incentive based economic vehicles? What I'm against is the laziness of our electorate who simplifies things down to supply side, low tax only, big government, socialism, etc., oversimplifications of economic policy. Supply side economics has not worked as a total economic solution. Neither has Keynesian principles. There are weaknesses and strengths of each. Saying that Reagan's supply side principles worked when he grew the debt more than any other president and the GDP did not grow greater than any other president is the height of ideological fools that have hurt this economy. On the other hand, the mismanagement of FDR of the economy also shows the disaster of implementing too many social programs and raising taxes. THERE IS NO LEFT OR RIGHT solutions -- there are just things that work and things that don't work -- it's called pragmatism. I believe we must have pressure to limit the growth of government because it is not a competitive environment -- i.e., we can always print money. On the other hand, carefully selected stimulus programs can help grow the economy. The increase in defense spending of Reagan's time did help the economy, but it was offset by the vast creation of debt.

My point is that these simplistic sound byte solutions you see here and on left wing sites are both false solutions. The real problem is that netiher the leftists or rightists get ALL of it right. The more we can get Republicans to look for real, non-ideological, pragmatic solutions, the more the Republican party can regain influence and win elections.

By the way, the belief you have that lower cap gains taxes always increases revenues to the government is just not true. First, the return on cap gains today is less than in the past due to globalization and job creation outside of this country, and secondly, the fact that there is an offsetting reduction in tax revenues as well. Most economists on both sides believe there is a balance that stimulates revenues but also holds the debt in line. When supply side ideological administrations in the name of Reagan and Bush2 took hold, the debt increased substantially. There may be some short term gain but all you have really done is make it so our children will pay the piper.

Furthermore, if you want a simplistic argument you should realize that supply side economics has been used for the past eight years with lowered tax and cap gains rates. Look where it lead...

Oregonian| 12.27.08 @ 4:26PM

"Elitism" means that you apparently think that your opinions are superior to those of the other posters to this thread.

"Pragmatic solutions not related to ideology" means that you have no core principles. "He who believes in nothing will fall for everything!"

"I am a big supporter of education and have a significant bias against those that did not do well in school or lack knowledge" means this:
"I am an elitist - the worst kind since I am willing to put down the educational level of people I don't even know, based only on the fact that they don't agree with me!'

Get over yourself!!

j.m.farrell| 12.27.08 @ 4:47PM

I, too, was enthralled with Nozick`s "Anarchy, State & Utopia" which a liberal, socialist professor of political science gave to me as an undergraduate. He sensed that I was incapable of being brainwashed by the blather we were forced to endure under his auspices and was kind enough to hand me his tattered copy of the book, which I
have read over and over for the past 17 years.

To a rather small degree Nozick's suggested experiment with Utopia has been playing out among the individual United States, particularly, and with noticeable downside effects, in the West.
Cailfornia socialists have rendered large swaths of that once great state virtually uninhabitable. The problem is that when socialist utopians destroy a place they don`t stay put...they move somewhere else and repeat the process. Oregon and Washington have been overrun by Golden State socialists and brought to the threshold of doom. Arizona and Nevada are similarly being invaded, albeit in the early stages.

Utopians always take the view that their desires have not been properly implemented, much the way that Soviet Union sympathizers claim it failed because the version of Marxism deployed there was incomplete or otherwise corrupted.

Utopians will NEVER admit to failed ideas and they will often be among the first to flee the disastrous consequences which flow from them. Nozick`s noble experiment only works if those who willingly construct the utopia are barred from fleeing when its collapses.

Would that this were possible.....

Bob| 12.28.08 @ 8:07AM

Oregonian -- let me reply:

""Elitism" means that you apparently think that your opinions are superior to those of the other posters to this thread."

I guess that means you are an elitist as well. Right?

""Pragmatic solutions not related to ideology" means that you have no core principles. "He who believes in nothing will fall for everything!" "

Ideological solutions means you do not look at facts to make decisions. You never check whether your ideology is right. It means never using the scientific method. I believe in facts and logic. I believe in listening to all sides and taking those things that check out.

There is a realm of public policy that does not relate heavily to religion. For example, it may be the right thing to do to kick out all undocumented aliens. Most of us believe that they are here illegally and should be sent back. However, the cost to find and send back 15 million people in all parts of the country would be staggering and I'd rather have the government spend that money elsewhere or return it in tax cuts. That's pragmatism.

Regarding education, I am clearly an admitted elitist for those who did well in school. I know what it was like to grow up poor and then be educated at some of the best schools America has to offer. I know what it's like to work and go to school and not get much sleep. I know what it's like to support a family while going to school. So yes, I am an education elitist. That does not mean I don't recognize smart people without a formal education. I believe in knowledge much more than I believe in ideology. So yes, I am a proud education elitist.

Roy| 12.28.08 @ 4:22PM

>>Get over yourself!!

That's going to need a mighty big ladder.

Anybody who resorts to "well I'm better educated than you" should be regarded as having conceded the substantive argument.

Roy| 12.28.08 @ 4:34PM

Re: California socialists: Only part of the problem is immigrants from one state to another. It stands to reason(though I have absolutely no evidence but the personal) that the more conservative residents of California would be the ones leaving.

The real problem is that California will now dig in its heels and kick and scream and howl for a federal bailout and in all probability get it.

Roy| 12.28.08 @ 4:49PM

>>Certain Senators have already declared that martial law would be one of the tools that the government would use to contain any form of dissent that would arise.

Really? Who? Evidence please.

James Hovland| 12.28.08 @ 9:15PM

Peter,
Your view of the world makes it clear thatexperience is not about the time you spend, but what you're able to gain from it. I don't think you'll ever get it regardless of how long you try.

Nobody want a Socialist take over. The FEAR and disinformation you are trying to spread will fail like all of the propaganda has lately. Free Market Doctors and Hospitals are good, insurance is not. This isn't about blind ideology like you're trying to make it out to be. The 'Left' does not want Uncle Sam making their shoes for them . Your accusations are completely ridiculous and your fear of a Socialist take-over has gone out of style.

Fear is of the unknown, there is no other kind. Fear requires the absence of knowledge. How much longer do you think fear will be effective considering the era in which we live? I would suggest you find a new strategy, propaganda is losing all of it's power, and the Right is falling hard because of it.

The emotional overload spread on the Right is undermining your goals. Look at how fear effects what people say, and how that might effect some of your goals. Gun control is an important issue on the right. Don't be afraid, the Democrats are not going to take your guns. The real threat comes from the radical right. Read this comment and imagine how it might be used to take you guns as a critical matter of security.

blackelkspeaks | 12.24.08 @ 8:03AM

"The people who value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in this country had better get ready for Civil War 2.0 if they want to see the usurpation of their freedom stopped. And you better believe that nothing less than armed conflict will stop the relentless advance of the liberal-left. We have seen the liberal-left in action and its onslaught against American freedom proceed unabated for generations. ..."

Enjoy your freedom of speech and remember, if you're not in control of your emotions, someone else might be.

James Hovland, a product of freedom

Michael Dugas| 12.29.08 @ 8:28AM

This is in response to Bobs statements about our healthare system being so expensive and not serving the poor. It is that way because of government interference and a severs lack of tort reform. And that is the truth.

Bob| 12.29.08 @ 8:40AM

Michael, please stop with the ideology and deal with reality. Aside from politics, the big problem with healthcare in the U.S. is that the poor have no preventative care. When they get sick, they go to the emergency room which is the most expensive part of the hospital system. Close to 20% of the population of our country does that. That raises the costs for ALL people because eventually we all pay for their healthcare. Am I a supporter of tort reform? Absolutely. However, because my wife works in a hospital, I have seen the financials. The most expensive part of hospital care is life support for older/sicker Americans who are in their last year of life. We should be letting people who are terminally ill and whose quality of life is nil, to die of natural causes. Both preventative care for the poor and services provided to the terminally ill are, by far, the two most costly attributes of our healthcare system. Legal costs are small in comparison.

So please, Micheal, stop with the ideology and look at the facts.

Bozena| 12.30.08 @ 7:49AM

Great article! We should actually have the "liberal states" closed their borders (like all communist countries did) and "keep" their citizens within their borders, so once they have enough of their liberalism, socialism and communism they could rebel and vote them out of the office.

matthew| 1.7.09 @ 11:03AM

It only took three comments for someone to advocate military action on a portion of the American population. Poorly written polemic stupidity on either side of the ideological spectrum produces a lot of residual stupidity - take note, Peter.