On The Libertarian Concept of Giving To The Oligarchs Infinite & Unchecked Power

At the end of the Libertarian hero Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, a socialist dystopian government is overthrown and replaced with oligarchy. During the "transition" millions of non-rich folks (whom Rand refers to as parasites) are killed (or exterminated) when the selfish rich f*ckers "go on strike" and civilization collapses.

Proving that the Libertarian idea of "utopia" is mass death for all who are not wealthy (AKA "moochers"). Given this fact, I say we only entertain such nonsense at our peril, as going full Libertarian would surely involve counting the body-bags, coffins, mass-graves, etc.

The Ayn-Rand-worshipping Libertarian blogger Willis Hart, in typical Randian fashion, frequently extresses his hatred for democracy (WTNPH: "democracies have a penchant to devour themselves"). These screeds usually taking the form of condemnation as "teft" that people might vote for "free stuff" that increases taxes on wealthier people.

In a recent commentary, Willis clearly alludes to the Randian idea that democracy leads to totalitarianism.

Willis Hart: On the Concept of Giving to the Government Infinite and Unchecked Power... At one's peril, would be strong advice (that along with counting the body-bags, coffins, mass-graves, etc.) (7/2/2016 AT 3:13pm).

Yeah, his post is a little vague, but how else could one GIVE a government "infinite and unchecked power" if not by voting for it? Obviously, if he wasn't referring to democracy he'd have used the word TAKEN. You could argue that "giving" of such power could occur after a revolution, but I'm going with this being an anti-democracy screed, given his FREQUENT lamenting of people voting for "free stuff" (WTNPH: "people when given the choice will almost always vote for those who promise them the most while making others pay for it").

Hate of democracy and love of oligarchy is, in fact, a major theme in Atlas Shrugged (here, the author of the article I quote refers to Rand's defense of monopoly).

The way the villains of Atlas Shrugged accomplish their evil plan is [by] voting for it. One of the major plot elements of part I is a law called the Equalization of Opportunity Bill, which forces large companies to break themselves up, similarly to the way AT&T was split into the Baby Bells. It's passed by a majority of Congress, and Rand never implies that there's anything improper in the vote or that any dirty tricks were pulled. But because it forces her wealthy capitalist heroes to spin off some of their businesses, it's self-evident that this is the worst thing in the world and could only have been conceived of by evil socialists who hate success. (10 Things I Learned About the World from Ayn Rand's Insane Atlas Shrugged by Adam Lee. AlterNet 4/23/2014).

Although deluded Libertarians like Hart deny they favor monopoly. They actually blame monopoly on government intervention and say (without it) monopolies would never form because "companies are always trying to undercut each other but in those rare instances in which a monopoly does occur, the prices never shoot up because that would just invite new entrants to the market". (see the WTNPH post Monopoly Mythology).

Although this idea is false.

Despite what free market advocates believe, there are ways companies maintain their monopolies without governments' help. One of them is "economies of scale", where it is less costly to be big than to be small, as making a product on a massive scale is more efficient than producing just a few. This makes it almost impossible for new companies to challenge a monopoly. Those favoring the American Airlines-US Airways merger boast that airline mergers will increase economies of scale to make airfare cheaper. But if this trend continues, it is possible that we reach a point where this leads to only one remaining player in the game, having acquired all the rest. Another danger... is that the presence of only a small number of companies would lead to price collusion, where large firms agree to maintain the price higher than the efficient price. In 1993, Kim and Singa, in a study in the American Economic Review, found that airline mergers caused prices to spike, likely due to collusion. (Free Market Supporters Always Get This One Thing Wrong by Wi Wu. Policy Mic 8/19/2013).

This fantastical idea (that free markets self regulate) is one of the primary delusions that form the basis of Libertarianism. They believe it because it justifies giving the oligarchs infinite and unchecked power. The imaginary free market will check their power, Libertarians say.

This despite the fact that "the market" wouldn't exist without governmental rules and regulations governing how it should operate. Fact is, Libertarianism is nothing but a series of nonsensical proposals used to justify the handing off of power to the oligarchs. Because if The People don't decide on these things democratically, then those with the most money will decide.

This is why, if any country ever decided to go full Libertarian, the result would SURELY be a granting of infinite and unchecked power to the oligarchs. A VERY bad concept, most people agree (explaining why Libertarian potus candidate Gary Johnson received less than 1% of the popular vote in the 2012 election).

OST #154

On the Fact that Willis Hart Is 94 Years Old and Still Believes in Libertarianism

So much for putting childish things aside.

Libertarians believe they're rebels, but they are really political children who scream through tears. Christopher Hitchens, in typical blunt force fashion, undressed Rand and her libertarian followers, exposing their obsequiousness toward the operational standards of a selfish society: "I have always found it quaint, and rather touching, that there is a movement in the US that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough". The rejection of all rules and regulations, and the belief that everyone should have the ability to do whatever they want, is not rebellion or dissent. It is infantile naïveté. (You're Not the Boss of Me! Why Libertarianism Is a Childish Sham by David Masciotra. AlterNet 6/5/2015).

Also...

Hardcore libertarianism is a fantasy. It's a fantasy where the strongest and most self-reliant folks end up at the top of the heap, and a fair number of men share the fantasy that they are these folks. They believe they've been held back by rules and regulations designed to help the weak, and in a libertarian culture their talents would be obvious and they'd naturally rise to positions of power and influence. (Here's Why Libertarians Are Mostly Men by Kevin Drum. Mother Jones 6/5/2015).

So, despite being 94, Willis is but a childish little boy. Whereas Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders embraces the fact that we're all in this together.

The denial of the collective interest and communal bond, as much as libertarians like to pose as trailblazers, is not the road less traveled, but the highway in gridlock. Competitive individualism, and the perversion of personal responsibility to mean social irresponsibility, is what allows for America to limp behind the rest of the developed world in providing for the poor and creating social services for the general population. (You're Not the Boss of Me! Why Libertarianism Is a Childish Sham).

That Willis is 94 is just a guess, btw. Although I do know that he isn't a young man. Also known is that Willis previously considered himself to be a "Moderate Democrat" (Willis: "I like to refer to myself, Lista, as a Rockefeller Republican/Boren Democrat").

His path to Libertarianism has been an evolution. Although I'd call it a devolution, given the fact that most people (males, mainly) abandon Libertarianism when they grow up.

8/9/2016 Update: "I'm 54 years old" WTNPH wrote on 8/29/2011, meaning that he was 59 or 60 when this post was published. (this factoid added 2 months after post publication because I just ran across it).

OST #150

Government Passed Laws Should Only Be Suggestions & Absolutely Not Enforced Libertarian Sez

What explains this is the fact that Libertarians (such as Willis Hart) believe in Kingdom and hate democracy. The Liberty and Freedom they subscribe to depends on how much money a person has. The more money someone has, the more liberty and freedom they are deserving of. Everything being a commodity under their worldview (DSB #44).

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Whenever You Go to Bottom of the Rabbit-Hole with Groups Like Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, the Bernie Sanders Crowd, etc. and Ask These Folks How They're Going to Implement Their Agenda, They Always Have to Confess that it Will Only Be Obtained Through Coercion, Force, the Threat of Violence, and Violence Itself... Via the full force of the state, in other words. But relax, it's for our own good, they say. (5/27/2016 AT 4:34pm)

Willis Hart, like many on the Right, frame their hatred for democracy as a love of republicanism. Our country is a republic and not a democracy because our Founders recognized that the rights rich people needed to be protected from the masses. The danger being the rabble voting to steal from rich people so they can loaf (i.e. the "Makers vs Takers" meme).

This Randian argument says that "since the takers don't pay taxes - they just take government benefits - they are endlessly incentivized to support politicians who keep their Ponzi scheme going" (Makers, Takers, and YOYOs). This is a false/divisive meme that Hart subscribes to (strongly).

Willis Hart: ...people when given the choice will almost always vote for those who promise them the most while making others pay for it) and why the Founding Fathers created a Republic instead. (4/2/206 AT 3:21pm).

This despite the fact that we're talking about making investments that will be economically beneficial. The higher the level of education attained, the more the individual in question pays in taxes over their lifetime. Also, those with more education draw less from social support programs (How Taxpayers Benefit When Students Attain Higher Levels of Education). Which is why the proposals of Bernie Sanders (for free college) and Hillary Clinton (for debt free college) would more than pay for itself.

None-the-less Willis opposes free college.

Willis Hart: Oh, free college education now! Do you have ANY idea how expensive that would be? And do you even care? We'll pay for it by taxing the rich, right? (7/3/2011 AT 9:00pm)

His primary concern here (as it is ALWAYS) is how much the rich will pay in taxes. Which explains his anger at the Occupy Wall Street movement and "the Bernie Sanders Crowd". With Black Lives Matter, his outrage concerns cops who shoot unarmed suspects. Apparently be believes cops should should continue to be allowed to shoot Black people indiscriminately.

Bottom line, though, is that addressing these issue via LAWS is what the Hartster is objecting to in his rant. And, if people refuse to follow the law, he thinks nothing should be done? Should the authorities representing the State say "OK, it was really more of a suggestion"?

Of COURSE, if you're going to have laws (any laws), ultimately the threat of force is necessary to back them up. As a last resort, of course. There are other ways to persuade people to follow the rules. But, ultimately, if they refuse, then what choice is there but to back up those laws with force?

Is he saying he believes in Libertarian anarchism, or just the (democratic) passage of laws he disagrees with? In which case (if he doesn't believe there should be NO laws), then I say (if you go to the bottom of his rabbit hole) HE HAS TO CONFESS that the State powers he agrees with can only be enforced through coercion, force, the threat of violence, and violence itself.

But I doubt he will, as he is clearly an enormous hypocrite.

OST #147

What To Do Regarding Black Rioters? Libertarian Racist Says "Shoot To Kill"

Personally, I file comments such as the following from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart under the heading of "racism".

Willis Hart: I still like the first Mayor Daley of Chicago 'cause when that dude said, "shoot to kill", he meant it. (5/24/2015 AT 9:04am)

Seriously, shoot to kill? Yeah, property destruction and theft via looting are crimes, but are they crimes worthy of an instant death penalty? Also, I suppose a defense of Hart's comments could be that he's a believer in law and order and the "shoot to kill order" would include White rioters (if any).

However, as far as such a sentiment (kill looters) goes, Willis' buddy Rusty Shackelford (in a very similar comment regarding killing rioters) makes his racism quite clear.

Rusty Shackelford: Fuck the tear gas... Fuck the rubber bullets... Fuck the bean bag's.... Load up with live ammo and chop about 100 of these animals down... this shit would end in a hurry... (4/27/2015 AT 7:06pm).

Perhaps you doubt that when Rusty uses the term "animals" he's talking about Black people? Even though this Rusty comment immediately follows two by Radical Redneck in which he writes "The negroes are revolting again *sigh*" and "We shoulda picked our own damn cotton *sigh*". Then Rusty's comment follows, but not for almost 3 hours latter. I know that if I wasn't referring to Black people as "animals" I'd sure as hell want to make that clear (especially following such an obviously racist pair of comments).

And, it was on this same blog ("Who's Your Daddy") that Shackelford (in another discussion thread) referred to Al Sharpon as a "spook" (and, as the dictionary says "when referring to a black person, the term spook dates back to the 1940s. It is used with disparaging intent and is perceived as highly insulting").

So I think we can confidently conclude that by "animals" Shackelford meant BLACK rioters. And, given the fact that the discussion (multiple discussions, actually) on Hart's blog about rioting ALL concerned LARGELY Black folks rioting (in response to police killings of Black males such as Michael Brown and Freddie Gray) that it's Black rioters who would be shot and killed under the policy that Willis obviously favors.

Which, like I said, I believe is motivated by racism. I mean, in the most recent commentary on Hart's blog he refers to The Swash Zone's Octopus as a demagogue and a race-hustler because (when Willis spoke in favor of racial profiling) Octopus said "racial profiling is the same as RACISM, and Will-the-Shill has demonstrated both". And, in response Les Carpenter of RNUSA said "comments such as ones addressed by Octopus in this comment thread do nothing to move the needed discussion forward and in fact works against improving dialogue on the issue".

This exchange taking place in a discussion concerning the murderer Dylann Roof. Willis attempting to argue that Roof's racist terrorist act was an "anecdote" and that there is no problem with racism in the US. Fact is (according to Hart) it's the Blacks who are the violent ones.

Which I believe explains why Willis thinks African Americans should be lethally targeted when they break the law. Because he agrees with his buddy Shackelford that the appropriate response is to "load up with live ammo and chop about 100 of these animals down".

Incidentally, I find Willis' admiration of Mayor Daley of Chicago not unsurprising.

In Chicago Mayor Daley's police were famous for their brutality. Mayor Daley, while he was a Democrat in name, was an autocrat in reality. An absolute authoritarian. (Thom Hartmann on the 5/20/2016 airing of his eponymous program).

This would be the Richard J. Daley who said (in regards to rioting that took place after Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination) "I said to him [police superintendent James B. Conlisk] very emphatically and very definitely that an order be issued by him immediately to shoot to kill any arsonist or anyone with a Molotov cocktail in his hand, because they're potential murderers, and to shoot to maim or cripple anyone looting".

Now, it might seem out of character for a Libertarian to admire an authoritarian, but I say no. Remember that the Libertarian Republican Randal Paul believes that people have a "right to discriminate", and (for that reason) he would have opposed Civil Rights Legislation (the part that says businesses must serve all customers). And, in a Time op-ed about Ferguson Randal said that in order for Black folks to escape poverty they need some "character reform".

From victim blaming (or "personal responsibility", in the view of Repubs and Libertarians) the road to harsh treatment for those who break the law is a natural progression. As exemplified by the Hartster's admiration for Mayor Daley and killing rioters. Black rioters, specifically. And, don't forget the Libertarian's strong belief that Black labor is not as valuable as White labor. This explains why they go on and on about getting rid of the minimum wage (for Black youths, specifically) because it will benefit the plutocrats (DSB #2).

Although Libertarianism is largely fraudulent, IMO. With their calls for "freedom" and "Liberty" what Libertarians are really referring to is freedom and liberty for the wealthy (DSB #44). Freedom from taxation (taxing rich people to fund government programs that benefit us all being "morally untenable" according to WTNPH) and the Liberty to exploit workers (by not having to pay a minimum wage and by being able to offshore labor to low wage countries... and not be hit with tariffs when importing goods manufactured in overseas sweatshops).

OST #146

Thoughts On Libertarian Blogger's Butt-Hurt Re Film Script 4 "Reagan Alzheimer's Comedy"

This commentary was prompted a post from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart in which he speculated that a potential upcoming movie would prompt LOLs from yours truly. A post in which he expresses his hate for a progressive president while defending a Conservative one (hating on Progressives/defending Conservatives while laughably claiming to be "Moderate" being something he is a maestro at).

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Hollywood Is Apparently Kicking Around the "Idea" of a Reagan Alzheimer's Comedy... Yeah, and if you get enough of these brain-dead progressive bloggers (Tao, Octopus, wd, etc.) to screen the thing, you won't even need a laugh-track. P.S. Of course the truly offensive part in my book is the fact that they would never do such a thing like to a liberal Democrat (even the loathsome ones like FDR) 'cause they're so in the tank for them. You gotta be even-handed. You gotta be. (5/10/2016 AT 5:28pm).

I have heard of this movie. It was supposed to star Will Ferrell, but he pulled out. Likely because the premise might be considered offensive by some. Not that Reagan wasn't suffering from Alzheimer's while president, because he likely was. Three years into his 1st term, according to his son Ron Reagan's book.

But there are people who think Reagan was a good president (for reasons that baffle me, given the fact that I consider him one of the absolute worst presidents. Unlike FDR, who was one the best). They likely would be upset and whine about such a project. Or even issue threats (Producer Adam McKay: "There were scary messages left at our office. Stuff like, How dare you say anything bad about Ronald Reagan, you better watch your back").

Also people who think that making a "comedy" based on someone suffering from a horrible disease would be in extremely bad taste. Me, I'm inclined to agree about such a film being in bad taste. But, heck, I'd be willing to give it a shot (not by watching, but by monitoring reviews before deciding if it might be something I'd like to see). Because, like I said, I think Reagan was a terrible president, and no, I do not think "you gotta be even-handed".

So, who knows if I would have LOLed as much as Willis speculates that I would. I'm thinking probably not, however, as I usually don't care for lowbrow comedies (which many of Will Ferrell's films are). In any case, I think Willis is totally full of shit with the implication that he is even-handed (despite him saying "you gotta be").

First, everyone has their biases. Second, the Hart's biases are more intense than the average persons. Take, for example, his hatred of the "loathsome" FDR. A president who was (and still is) quite popular.

FDR was the best-loved and most hated U.S. President of the 20th century. He was loved because, though patrician by birth, upbringing and style, he believed in and fought for plain people - for the "forgotten man" (and woman), for the "third of the nation, ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished". He was loved because he radiated personal charm, joy in his work, optimism for the future. But he was hated too - hated because he called for change, and the changes he proposed reduced the power, status, income and self-esteem of those who profited most from the old order. (The 20 Most Influential Americans of All Time by Time Staff. 7/24/2012).

I acknowledge that FDR was responsible for some loathsome things. Things WTNPH discusses ad nausea on his blog (internment of Japanese Americans, bombing of Dresden); while NEVER discussing the "warts" of Republican presidents (or discussing them infrequently at least). And, even if he does, it's usually in the context of downplaying them (gwb's Iraq war was "ham-handed and ultimately tragic").

In any case, I think it's abundantly clear that Willis hates FDR so much because "the changes he proposed reduced the power, status, income and self-esteem of those who profited most from the old order". This has got to be the most loathsome thing that FDR did. At least in the mind of a wealth-worshiping Libertarian like Hart. Remember that FDR said "they are unanimous in their hate for me - and I welcome their hatred". Clearly that hatred persists to this day.

The oligarchs and wealth-worshipers (people like WTNPH) wish to ramp up the dismantling of FDR's New Deal because it's policies built the (now disappearing) Middle Class.

The creation of the world's largest middle class is the legacy of FDR, and explains his popularity (during his presidency and to this day).

It's not uncommon for presidents to leave office less popular than when they entered. In fact, very few achieve the opposite. Presidential approval rating polls go back to FDR's second term, and only two of the 13 presidents since then have left office with higher ratings than when they came in: FDR and WJC. ... [The most popular president, FDR, had an] approval rating when he left office [of] 70%. [His] average approval rating [was] 64%. (Presidential Approval Ratings Ranked From First To Worst Benzinga article, 11/22/2014).

Ronald Reagan comes in 5th place with an average approval rating of 52%, while Richard Nixon (whom WTNPH calls brilliant in a recent commentary) earns last place with a 25% approval rating (average 49%).

Note that Nixon's brilliance (as per WTNPH) concerned something Tricky Dick wrote in a book AFTER leaving the presidency regarding US democracy spreading. He said he was against it post-presidency, even though he acted contrary to that credo BIG TIME while president. Only "brilliant" if you think hypocrisy is a quality to be praised.

Or, if you don't want to term it "hypocrisy" but "evolving"? Surely Nixon evolved when it no longer mattered (whereas it would have mattered GREATLY) if he had reached the same conclusion before sabotaging the Vietnam peace talks. Or even while president, when he could have broken precedence by rejecting the idea that the US should spread democracy. Perhaps this precedence breaking would have made it harder for gwb to go to war in Iraq? (Who knows). But he didn't.

Anyway, the Reagan Alzheimer's movie will likely NOT be made now, so there will be no test screening during which my LOLing for a laugh track could be recorded. Nor the laughs of Tao and Octopus. As for the truly offensive part in the brain-diseased Hartster's book being the "fact" that they would never do such a thing to a liberal Democrat... I seriously do not give a crap that this movie was (or might still be) kicking around Hollywood causes Willis great "butt-hurt" (to use a Willisism).

Actually, that is the truly hilarious part, IMO. That this script "kicking around Hollywood" re a very bad Republican president causes Willis such enormous butt-hurt. As well as eliciting some totally unbelievable "gotta be even-handed" bullplop. Although, like I said, he's a maestro at it. Deluding himself into believing he's "Moderate", that is.

OST #143

They're All Neocons Now

So now even the Republicans who some say are "seemingly sensible fellows" (John Kasich and Chris Christie) are spouting all sorts of crazy buffoonery about arming this group and shooting down planes from that group. I mean, it's almost as if the Republican party as a whole is under this spell and with the biggest case of amnesia ever (the fact that Iraq was one of the top two or three foreign policy blunders in U.S. history with these bozos seemingly not learning a thing).

Even Donald Trump, who is correct that going into Iraq was a huge strategic blunder says he's going to "bomb the shit" out of ISIS. As if that isn't what Obama HAS been doing. In any case - what to do? The blogger Willis Hart suggests voting Libertarian. I say no.

First of all, the Libertarian running for president, Gary Johnson, has ZERO chance of getting elected president. If you want to prevent the most hawkish candidate from getting elected, then I say there is ONLY one choice, and that choice is Bernie Sanders (SWTD #323).

The following is an excerpt from Senator Sanders' campaign website...

Bernie Sanders: I opposed the first Gulf War... because I believed that there was a way to achieve our goals without bloodshed, through sanctions and concerted diplomatic action. ...in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001, I supported the use of force in Afghanistan to hunt down the terrorists who attacked us. I regret that President Bush did not use that authority properly, and that American combat troops remained there too long. I voted against the war in Iraq, and knew it was the right vote then, and most people recognize it was the right vote today. The only mission President Bush and his neo-conservative friends accomplished was to destabilize an entire region, and create the environment for al-Qaeda and ISIS to flourish. While we must be relentless in combating terrorists who would do us harm, we cannot and should not be policeman of the world, nor bear the burden of fighting terrorism alone. The United States should be part of an international coalition, led and sustained by nations in the region that have the means to protect themselves. That is the only way to defeat ISIS and to begin the process of creating the conditions for a lasting peace in the region. (Issues: War & Peace. Excerpted from the Bernie 2016 website).

Sounds reasonable to me. I don't know what Gary Johnson would do differently, if by some miracle he was elected president (God forbid). And, while Sanders has a real chance of getting elected to the presidency, there is actually no chance at all of a president Johnson. I know I sure as hell would never consider voting for him, given the fact that Libertarians don't believe the government should be doing shit to provide for the General Welfare.

And they're solidly on the side of the wealthy and corporations. Because, if you shrink government, you diminish the power of The People, leaving an opening for the wealthy and corporations to step in and fill the power vacuum (Exposing Libertarianism: The Belief That We Should Give More Power to Those Who Are Corrupting Government).

Yes, we currently have a huge problem with the wealthy bribing our elected officials to do their bidding. But the solution is to reform the system, not jettison it! Our elected officials are supposed to do our bidding, not the will of the donors and special interests. Yet folks like Willis think the solution is to shrink government so it can't do anyone's bidding. Talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater!

That Libertarians profess not to believe this would be the result leads me to think they're either incredibly naive or lying. As for Willis Hart? It appears to me that he's a genuinely duped true believing ignoramus.

As for the Harster and Senator Sanders, Willis has said on more than one occasion that ALL politicians are "mixed bags" (quote: "basically every politician who's ever frigging lived... are quintessentially of a mixed nature"), so given the fact that "by far, the biggest category of [federal government] discretionary spending is spending on the Pentagon and related military programs" you'd think that Willis wouldn't be as hostile to the idea of Sanders winning the democratic nomination as he has been (quote: why can't "Hillary... put this guy... away?").

"This guy" being Senator Sanders and "put away" meaning end his presidential campaign easily). This "wish" (or expectation) that Hillary Clinton should be beating Sanders even though she is clearly considerably more hawkish (Hillary Clinton's Hawkish Record).

Yet there have been ZERO commentaries from Willis lauding or acknowledging Senator Sanders for his anti-war (or at least considerably less hawkish) voting record/positions (President Bernie Sanders Will Save America From Endless Counterinsurgency Wars and Protect Our Nation's Veterans).

Whereas the Harster HAS praised Trump for saying going into Iraq was a strategic mistake and for not being a neocon (or listening to them).

So, while the Hartster does signal Trump out for praise as compared to the rest of the Republican field (in regards to his claims of being against the Iraq war and being less neocon), he has authored no commentaries even acknowledging that Bernie Sanders is considerably less hawkish than Hillary Clinton. Proof that Hart's claims of being "moderate" and "centrist" are similar to Fox Nooz's assertion that it's "fair and balanced".

OST #123

On People Who Worry That "One World Government" Is Coming

Apparently this is a worry that concerns the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart.

Willis Hart: On the Notion that World Government Would Eliminate the Need for War... Total horse-shit. a) There would still be the possibility of a civil war (and, boy, would it ever be a dandy) and b) even if there wasn't a war, we all know for a fact that governments worldwide have slaughtered far more of their own people (democide - Google it) than they've ever killed through warfare, and that if we ever decided to give these fiends ultimate power they would more than happy to up the ante. Please, wake up, folks. (3/19/2016 AT 2:54pm).

Frankly, I find it "horse-shit" that anyone would author such a post. One world government? Does Willis REALLY think that is something he needs to worry about? What's next? A series of commentaries about how the Illuminati and Freemasons are planning the New World Order at the Bilderberg conference?

BTW, as far as "democide" goes, as per the person who "revived and redefined" the term "democratic institutions—even partial ones - reduce the likelihood of armed conflict and all but eliminate the risk that it will lead to geno/politicide" ("demo" being ancient Greek for "people").

As Wikipedia points out, examples include "the Great Purges carried out by Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union, the deaths from the colonial policy in the Congo Free State, and Mao Zedong's Great Leap Forward, which resulted in a famine killing millions of people". So what we should be fearing are totalitarian dictatorships (if a "one world government" were ever to come about it isn't guaranteed that it would not be a democracy).

However, I think that "democide" is really Libertarian code for "government bad". ANY kind of government. Even democracy. Which Libertarians also hate, btw. Because (Libertarians believe in kingdom rather than democracy.

Not kingdom in the traditional sense of the word, where the progeny of the King inherits rulership, but a system under which corporations are kingdoms and the CEO rules. This is the kind of organization Libertarians prefer. A "meritocracy" of the wealthy (wealth being proof of a person's right to rule). Although most of us refer to this as plutocracy.

And you think the plutocrats don't kill people? I'm more worried about what would happen if these fiends gained more power (via further deregulation and by "allowing them to keep more of their own money"). I'm positive they would more than happy to up the ante. And here I think is something that is well within the realm of possibility, unlike with the Hartster's one world government delusions.

OST #122

On A Person Referring To Government Taxing To Fund Social Safety Net Programs As "Confiscation" & Implying Someone Who Votes For A Candidate Who Favors This Because They'd Personally Benefit As Lacking Morals

I would direct this individual to the Constitution, which reads as follows...

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; (Wikipedia/Taxing and Spending Clause).

Yes, this person (Willis Hart of the blog "Contra O'Reilly") is a Libertarian; and Libertarians don't believe that the Constitution gives Congress the power to tax to pay for "general welfare" items, but THEY ARE WRONG!

[Libertarians believe] Section 8 of the Constitution forbids the spending of tax money in order to help people, but if you actually read Article 1, Section 8 instead of just accepting [a Libertarian's] word for it, you'll see that [they are] just plain wrong. Article 1, Section 8 begins: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States". The meaning of this clause is very clear: If a legislative action can be justified as providing for the general welfare of the United States, then Congress has the power to do it (other provisions providing some limitations, such as the guarantees of free speech and so on in the Bill of Rights). There's no provision anywhere else in the Constitution that forbids Congress from engaging in secular charitable action. (A Libertarian Ignorance of General Welfare Challenges Jared Polis by Congress Watcher. That's My Congress 12/22/2009).

The Supreme Court specifically rebuked the Libertarian interpretation with their 1/6/1936 decision in United States v. Butler, in which the majority opinion was that the clause granted "a substantive power... to appropriate", which is not subject to the limitations imposed by the other enumerated powers of Congress (source).

So, the Supreme Court has ruled that government DOES have the power to levy taxes in order to pay for the "general welfare". There is also, btw, no restriction on voters that says they can't cast their ballot for a candidate that promises some "general welfare" spending that might personally benefit the voter. In spite of what Willis might think.

Willis Hart: On Voting for Somebody Because They Promised to Confiscate Property from One Person and Give it to You... Has it really come down to that? I mean, are we that desperate and pitiful now? (1/31/2016 AT 8:40).

So, no. It hasn't "come down to this". This, I would figure, has ALWAYS been a factor for many voters. Voters who would not describe their motivations for selecting a candidate as either "desperate" or "pitiful" (or morally lacking). I would say they are acting in their rational self interest... and isn't this something Libertarians consider a virtue?

Secondly, I'd remind this person that the United States *is* a social democracy. The US isn't as strong a social democracy as the European social democracies, but we do have Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and other socialist programs... and these programs have entire voting blocks for which these programs play a prominent role (in regards to who these blocks vote for). Seniors on Social Security might be "desperate" and their situation might be "pitiful"... but are these voters "pitiful"?

Obviously Willis believes so (and looks down his nose at these people). Which reminds me of (as Media Matters described it) "Matthew Vadum's vicious diatribe against poor people".

Media Matters: What is a news network to do when an author compares poor Americans to criminals and says it's "un-American" to help them vote? If that network is Fox - the home of class warfare against the poor - the decision is to give that author a spot on TV the next day. The day after publishing an article titled, "Registering the Poor to Vote is Un-American", which contained such abhorrent statements as "[r]egistering [the poor] to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals" and repeatedly called the poor "nonproductive segments of the population", right-wing author Matthew Vadum appeared on Eric Bolling's Fox Business show to rail against President Obama's voter outreach plan. (9/3/2011 article by Zachary Pleat).

What I find pitiful is this kind of demonization of the poor (from the likes of Hart and Vadum. I bet the Hartster would love Vadum's article). I can absolutely see Willis agreeing that "encouraging those who burden society to participate in elections isn't about helping the poor. It's about helping the poor to help themselves to others' money".

BTW, I'd like to point out that this commentary from Willis (in which he calls voters acting in their own economic self-interest desperate and pitiful) lies in stark contrast with his previously stated support for the negative income tax.

Willis Hart: Yes, we do away with the minimum wage, completely. But then we replace it with a form of negative income tax, possibly along the lines of what Milton Friedman first suggested. [excerpt from "Thinking Outside the Wage"] (6/4/2012 AT 7:13pm).

Doing away with the minimum wage is an idea that Conservatives love because it is (in essence) a subsidy to Big Business, in that it allows companies to underpay labor (Walmart being a HUGE offender here) and have the taxpayer make up the difference (SWTD #222).

Willis claims that we should "allow the market to set the true value of labor" but (if you get rid of the MW and institute a NIT) the result would be an EVEN GREATER undervaluing of labor (as he says, when you subsidize something you get more of it. Here the thing you'd get more of is low wage jobs... and they wouldn't be newly created jobs, they'd be existing jobs that employers could significantly drop the wages for).

But, setting that argument aside, where the hell does Willis think the government is going to get the money to pay a negative income tax? This would, of course, require more EVIL "confiscation" (of "other people's money"). Perhaps he's changed his mind on this and now thinks we should just let poor people die? I don't know.

In either case I say these views (government taxation as authorized by the Constitution is "confiscation" or "theft") prove the Hartster is a total moron as well as a stoogish true-believing plutocrat lover.

Image: The cartoon below was one of the results returned when I did an image search on "Negative Income Tax". Obviously the cartoonist does not have a positive view of it. BTW, notice that the stick figures who are non-payers are smiling... why the f*ck would people who are so poor that they don't have to pay income taxes be smiling?! F*cking ridiculous. Reminds me of the sitcom about happy homeless people (because they had no responsibilities) that was pitched to the Jack Lucas character in the movie The Fisher King.

OST #103

Libertarian Free Trading Buffoons On How To Turn A Huge Fortune Into An Even Larger One

Destroy American jobs via outsourcing to low-wage third-world countries. Then blame the workers whose jobs were outsourced for being unemployed. They didn't "skill up", improve their "human capital", etc. This criticism even though workers with skills have also lost their jobs. Many White collar jobs were lost when India "liberalized" their economy, which enabled the corporate plutocrats to eliminate skilled US positions (SWTD #221), for example.

But these Libertarian free trade advocating buffoons believe the fortunes of the world's plutocrats will go from being huge to even larger via the destruction of American jobs. Which they are correct about. The buffoonery is found in their short sightedness. Eventually the continual flow of jobs (blue and white collar) to low wage countries will decimate the middle class. We know this because it is already in the process of happening (America's Incredible Shrinking Middle Class).

It is due to intended stoogery (in that they actually WANT the plutocrats to grow even wealthier at the expense of everyone else) or unintended stoogery (in that these fools actually believe Libertarianism will benefit everyone) - that posts like the following are produced by indoctrinated chumps like Willis Hart.

Willis Hart: Socialist Buffoons on How to Amass a Small Fortune... Start with a large fortune and prune away at it. (6/25/2015 AT 4:11pm).

I presume the Hartster is referring to high taxation, such as in countries like Sweden. A democratic socialist nation Willis learns an incorrect lesson from. The dumb-dumb thinks that because Sweden dialed back the percentage of their GDP that is government spending, that somehow validates his Libertarian "free market" less government worldview. Further proof that Willis V. Hart is indeed a total moron? I think YES.

OST #84

The Rank Fallacies of Willis Hart #3: Bernie Sanders Doesn't Acknowledge The "Fact" That High Tax Rates On The Wealthy Have Negative Consequences

This commentary concerns an 8/22/2015 post by the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart in which he calls out Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders for a number of supposed "fallacies" that aren't fallacies.

The first of these bogus claims by Hart was that Bernie Sanders said "the economy is a fixed pie and that the only real question is how to divvy it up". I debunked this "fallacy" with OST #68 by pointing out that Bernie Sanders talks about income inequality, not divvying up pies.

Next, I proved that Willis was BSing his readers (as well as himself) when he said Senator Sanders was lying about Bernie saying "the poor and middle class are worse off than they were decades ago" (with OST #70). I showed that, by and large, they ARE worse off.

The third of Willis' phony "rank fallacies" I will debunk as follows.

Willis Hart: The Rank Fallacies of Bernie Sanders... c) That high tax rates on the wealthy don't have negative consequences (mainly that the rich will simply alter their behavior). (8/22/2015 AT 3:13pm).

The wealthy will alter their behavior, of course, but the benefits of raising taxes outweighs the negatives... as per an article by Chye-Ching Huang, a Senior Tax Policy Analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Opponents of raising the taxes that high-income households face often point to findings that high-income taxpayers respond to tax-rate increases by reporting less income to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as evidence that high marginal tax rates impose significant costs on the economy. However, an important study by tax economists Joel Slemrod and Alan Auerbach found that such reductions in reported income largely reflect timing and other tax avoidance strategies that taxpayers adopt to minimize their taxable income, not changes in real work, savings, and investment behavior. While such strategies entail some economic costs, these costs are relatively modest. (Recent Studies Find Raising Taxes on High-Income Households Would Not Harm the Economy by Chye-Ching Huang. CBPP 4/24/2012).

OK, so the negative consequences of high tax rates on the wealthy are actually only "relatively modest". But, beyond those "relavively modest" negative consequences, we have the fact that it is actually a lot more harmful to the economy for tax rates to be TO LOW, as David Cay Johnston, an investigative journalist and author who specializes in economics and tax issues, speaks to in the following article (excerpt).

...while tax rate cuts can stimulate the economy immediately and, if well designed, encourage the savings and investment to support long-term growth, they can also do harm. When cuts are financed with borrowing, as they have in the post–Ronald Reagan tax-cutting era, it just pushes tax, plus interest, into the future. How taxes are cut matters too. Tax cuts can discourage work, create windfalls for existing investments without encouraging new investment and tilt the playing field in ways that produce unproductive investments. (Tax cuts can do more harm than good by David Cay Johnston. al Jazeera America 9/18/2014).

As opposed to high tax rates discouraging work because high wage earners don't like it that the government takes so much, the reverse is actually closer to reality... high wage earners may be likely to work less if they are taxed less. Because why work as hard as you did (pre-tax cut) when you can work less and net the same money?

By the way, yes, this applies to high wage earners, because these are the kind of workers who have the ability to set their own hours. At least more often than middle and lower income wage earners, who ususlly can only work the hours they are given by their employers.

In regards to tax rate cuts that stimulate, these would be tax cuts on middle and lower income wage earners, because most working people spend all that they earn. With more money in their pockets, these workers are spending more (and thus stimulating the economy more).

Rich people, on the other hand, are more likely to stash that money in a (possibly offshore) bank account, or look for an investment they can put their tax cut money into... which, might sound like it would be economically stimulative, but could actually be economically harmful. Very harmful, in fact.

[Author] Larry Beinhart... looked over the history of tax cuts and economic bubbles, and found a clear relationship between the two. High top marginal tax rates (generally well above 60%) on rich people actually stabilize the economy, prevent economic bubbles from forming, prevent economic crashes, and lead to steady and sustained economic growth (and steady and sustained wage growth for working people). On the other hand, when top marginal rates drop below 50 percent, the opposite happens. As Beinhart noted in a November 17, 2008 article on the Huffington Post, the massive Republican tax cuts of the 1920s (from 73% to 25%) led directly to the Roaring '20s stock market bubble, temporary boom, and then the crash and Republican Great Depression of 1929. (The Great Tax Con Job by Thom Hartmann. Huff Post Politics 5/25/2011).

According to Larry Beinhart's 2008 article (the one Thom Hartmann references)...

Large income tax cuts are followed by a bubble and then a crash. High income taxes correlate with economic growth. Income tax increases are followed by economic growth. Moderate income tax cuts are followed by a flat economy. (Tax Cuts: Theology, Facts & Totally F**ked by Larry Beinhart. Huff Post Politics 12/18/2008).

george w. bush, aside from totally f*cking us by creating ISIS when he ordered the invasion of Iraq, also f*cked us by lowering taxes on the wealthy, which (along with the deregulation of Wall Street) lead to the housing bubble that crashed the economy.

Tax cuts on high income earners historically lead to bubbles and crashes, as Beinhart shows in his article. His examples are Hoover, Reagan and bush the lesser... all presidents whose tax cuts were followed by recessions. (The Bush Tax cuts CAUSED the economic crisis).

Given these facts, why the hell would anyone argue against raising taxes on wealthy individuals as Willis Hart does, saying there are "negative consequences"? The consequences are CLEARLY negative when taxes are too low and POSITIVE when they are higher. And because tax rates have been too low since the Reagan presidency is why middle class wages have been largely stagnant for the past 30-plus years... and why lower-income workers are losing ground (see chart below).

Bernie Sanders knows this. Instead of being a "rank fallacy", Bernie Sanders, in advocating for higher marginal tax rates, is an economic truth-teller. And Senator Sanders' truth-telling on this matter strongly illustrates why this man should be our next president. Hillary Clinton, while she might be in favor of a small increase, isn't a Progressive.

I'd say it's doubtful Hillary would support the Congressional Progressive Caucus' (CPC) People's Budget which "creates fair tax rates for millionaires and provides needed relief to low- and middle-income families". (The People's Budget "returns to Clinton-era tax rates for households making over $250,000 and implements new brackets for those making over $1 million"... the top rate, for people making more than $1 billion, is 49 percent).

Bernie Sanders, given that he's he is one of six Progressives who established the CPC in 1991, absolutely would support the People's Budget (or some variant of it that raised taxes on higher-income earners up to around 50 percent). A president Sanders would push a budget that would stop the very negative consequences of bubble-and-bust caused by taxes that are too low. Frankly I'd call ignoring this consequence is "rank fallacy" of the Hartster, not Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders acknowledges this truth, while Willis embraces Libertarian/Conservative lies about it/pretends the opposite is true.

Image: This chart shows that in recent decades the rich are getting richer, the middle class and poor got richer, then poorer... with the poor worse off in 2010 than they were in 1983... so poor households are worse off than they were decades ago, both in relative and absolute terms. (Chart source: The Lost Decade of the Middle Class. Pew Research Center 8/22/2012).

OST #72

Willis Hart Sez I Am A Jackass With A Minuscule Mind B/C I Said Libertarianism Has Infected The Republican Party

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart sez, in a 7/27/2015 commentary from his blog, that I am a jackass with a minuscule mind because I said "Libertarianism has infected the Republican party".

Willis Hart: On the Idiotic Claim that Libertarianism Has "Infected" the Republican Party... The jackass who made this claim has said a myriad of stupid things in the past but this one takes the cake... (7/27/2015 AT 9:12pm).

I was speaking of Libertarian economics, but Willis slams me because the infection does not include being "opposed to war and foreign entanglements, mostly pro-choice on abortion, mostly pro immigrant, mostly in favor of marriage equality, mostly opposed to warrantless wiretaps, mostly opposed to the drug war, etc".

Mostly pro-choice? Perhaps, but two of our nation's most prominent Libertarians, Ron and Randal Paul, both ran as Republicans and both oppose abortion. Randal Paul, a Libertarian, believes in "fetal personhood" and introduced a bill to outlaw abortion.

What about the fact that THREE Libertarians - Ronald Paul, Gary Johnson and Jon Huntsman - all ran in the 2012 Republican presidential primaries? Also, Ronald's son Randal (who calls himself "Rand" in honor of Ayn Rand) is running in the 2016 primaries as a Republican. Yet Willis argues that Libertarians are vastly different than Republicans??

"I'm basically a libertarian", Koch brother David said (on 12/14/2014). Although Dave the Libertarian "cares much more about fiscal issues and the economy than about social issues"... which explains why the Kochs are enthusiastically supporting the Republican Scott Walker for prez (infecting our political process with 1 BILLION in campaign spending to support their puppet).

Obviously Libertarianism and Republicanism align STRONGLY when it comes to fiscal matters. So much so that the Kochs can overlook the social regressiveness of Scott Walker, who "opposes abortion, even in cases of rape and incest [and] swore an oath to uphold the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage [and supports] marriage between one man and one woman".

Regarding war and foreign entanglements, the Libertarian Koch man Scott Walker says "American troops should play a larger role in the fight against [ISIS] and that... for political reasons, President Obama isn't willing to expand the role of American troops...".

The Libertarian Randal Paul describes himself as a "social conservative" and sez he does not endorse same-sex marriage... although he supports marriage contracts for same-sex couples. "I'm an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage... that being said, I'm not for eliminating contracts between adults" Randal sez. So he favors a second class status for same-sex couples (so that would be NO on marriage equality).

Regarding war and foreign entanglements, the Libertarian Randal Paul sez he supported the war in Afghanistan and opposed rapid withdrawal from Iraq (although he says he would have voted against the invasion of Iraq to begin with). According to the Huffington Post, unlike his more stridently non-interventionist father, Paul sees a role for American armed forces abroad, including in permanent foreign military bases (so YES, on foreign entanglements).

In regards to being "pro immigrant", Randal supports granting legal status in the form of temporary visas to illegal immigrants but opposes a "special" path to citizenship.

Conclusion? The only reason "this one takes the cake" is because I dared to tell the truth about Libertarianism, which is that the greed of the oligarchs takes center stage with this ideology. Everything else is secondary, and can be easily set aside in pursuance of the primary goal.

The fact is that "Libertarianism" was created by the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), which is the very first Libertarian think tank. FEE itself was put together as a big business PR project by GM, Ford, Chrysler, US Steel, Gulf Oil, Standard Oil, Dupont, Monsanto, Con Ed, BF Goodrich, Eli Lilly, Merrill Lynch, General Electric and other fortune 500 companies to lobby for special governmental favors.

FEE and the MANY other "think tanks" (actually plutocrat-funded propaganda machines) exist to serve the interests of big business and the uber wealthy. Yes, they attempt to influence public perceptions, but they also lobby government for special favors, belying their stated opposition to crony capitalism.

According to Mark Ames of NSFWCORP (article via AlterNet) if you "pull up libertarianism's floorboards, look beneath the surface... you'll start to get a sense of its purpose"... which is to serve the interests of the billionaire class.

In this regard Libertarianism ABSOLUTELY has infected our political process. Although, concerning the objectives of both the Republican party and Libertarianism... perhaps it is more of an alignment of objectives as opposed to an "infection".

Regardless, I stand by my characterization. The proliferation of "think tanks" has most certainly had a HUGE impact on the Republican Party. Willis Hart deludes himself when he sez "how can libertarians be pro big business when they are opposed to ALL bailouts and ALL corporate welfare?".

What Willis doesn't realize is that the plutos are playing both sides! So what if it's hypocritical to SAY they're opposed to bailouts or welfare via their "think tanks" but send lobbyists to the Hill to bribe the politicos in exchange for these gifts?

Willis is being fooled by the plutos who are speaking out of both sides of their mouth! They'll tell the true-believers and dupes what they like to hear (via their "think tanks") while doing what is best for their bottom lines (via their lobbyists).

How Koch Industries Makes Billions By Demanding Bailouts And Taxpayer Subsidies (excerpt from a 3/1/2011 ThinkProgress article by Lee Fang) Koch Industries, the international conglomerate owned by Charles and David Koch, is not only the second largest private company in America, it is the most politically active. ...over the last three years, Koch groups have spent tens of millions to influence government policy — from financing the Tea Parties, to funding junk academic studies... to a large network of state-based and national think tanks. Charles portrays himself as simply an ideological advocate, and says his money to political groups is only meant to "enhance true economic freedom". He chides special interests that have "successfully lobbied for special favors", claiming "crony capitalism is much easier than competing in an open market". But in reality, the focus of the Koch political machine is geared toward crony capitalism - corrupting government to make Charles and his brother David Koch richer. Koch's Tea Party libertarianism is actually a thin veneer for the company's long running history of winning special deals from the government and manipulating the market to pad Koch profits...

Dupes like Willis (a jackass who has said a myriad of stupid things in the past and continues to say stupid things) have been totally fooled by this "Libertarian" BS. So, yeah, in that regard Libertarianism ABSOLUTELY is an infection. An infection I suspect is responsible for his Libertarian brain disease.

OST #61

On People Who Insist That Anyone Advocates For "Make Work" Given The Fact That There Is Actual Work That Needs To Be Done

These people are total morons/idiots and/or liars. Will "Take No Prisoners" Hart is one such person. In a recent commentary on his blog the Libertarian said "make-work advocacy... is only advocated by those who fail to understand the text".

So, WTF is "the text"? Damned if I know. I do know, however, that make work is really just a phrase used to push the concept of the government putting people to work when jobs are scarce. You've heard of it. Supposedly Person A digs a hole and Person B fills it. But there is actual work that needs doing (and this idiotic hole digging and filling scenario has never actually happened).

Yet the Willises of the world who hate the idea of Government stepping in and (in order to put money in people's pockets and jumpstart the economy) hiring unemployed folks to participate in worthwhile and needed public works projects (etc), vilify it. And lie, or buy into the fable that anyone has actually ever been hired to dig a hole and another person hired to fill it (or other similar pointless work).

Although the Hartster may actually be stupid enough to think this has ever actually happened. Or is a huge liar and spinning another of the strawmen he loves so much. I suspect he falls somewhere in between the two (he's a stupid liar).

Out of work Americans could be work on needed infrastructure projects right now, if not for the obstruction of the Republican Congress (which got worse after the last midterm). These would not be pointless hole digging and filling jobs, but needed work, given the state of this country's infrastructure.

Infrastructure is vital to our country's economic growth and development. It's the fundamental system we rely on to move people, goods, and services. Every business, large and small, depends on it... Infrastructure includes the essential pieces of our transportation network like roads, rails, and ports, and it also includes water facilities, our electrical grid, and high-speed broadband networks. There is no part of the economy that infrastructure does not touch. World-class, state-of-the-art infrastructure can boost growth, create opportunities, and spark innovation. Crumbling, outdated and inefficient infrastructure can be a serious drag on the economy, creating barriers to success and mobility. Unfortunately, whereas once the US could easily boast of having the most sophisticated, modern infrastructure in the world, today we are rapidly falling behind. We simply have not been making the kinds of investments that are required to even maintain the system we have now, let alone improve and update it. Instead of maintaining and investing in a more efficient and effective system, our infrastructure has deteriorated because of insufficient funding... (Repairing Our Infrastructure Senate Budget Committee. Bernie Sanders, Ranking Member).

And as economist Robert Reich points out...

Robert Reich: ...it's cheaper than ever for the United States to borrow. Deferred maintenance is taking a huge toll. ... Now connect the dots. Anyone with half a brain will see this is the ideal time to borrow money from the rest of the world to put Americans to work rebuilding the nation's infrastructure. (Why This is Exactly the Time to Rebuild America's Infrastructure 9/26/2011).

There is no need to "make" work. Work that needs to be done exists, which is why nobody is advocating we "make" any, you idiot Willis! But it's entirely possible that Willis is one of those who does NOT have "half a brain", which might explain why the deluded fool buys into Libertarian nonsense as strongly as he does.

OST #47

Consistent bush Apologist Despicable Defense of Torture

I refer to Willis Hart, of course... an individual who has been VERY consistent in his defense of former preznit George W bush in regards to war criminality.

Willis Hart: "On What to Do When You Accuse George W. Bush of Being a War Criminal and Then Ultimately Discover that Your Progressive Icon, FDR, Perpetrated Some of the Most Despicable War Crimes in All of Human History (the Targeting and Murder of Hundreds of Thousands of Civilians and in a Manner that Had No Strategic Value Whatsoever)"... Hm, let's see, a sane and responsible person would probably either modify the charges against Bush or have the power of his or her convictions and hold Mr. Roosevelt to the same standards... Of course I'm obviously not referring to a sane individual here (12/16/2014 AT 7:23pm).

So the argument Willis is making is that since FDR was never charged with war crimes, presidents can do whatever they damn well please. Treaties, international law, US law, and societal norms concerning right and wrong be damned.

Of course Willis jumping to the defense of GWb when it comes to the war crimes he approved is nothing new. He's done it many many times previously. Usually by bringing up FDR and WWII.

By the way, it is impossible to charge someone with a crime after they die, which FDR did... quite awhile ago. GWb is still alive and still chargeable for his war crimes, which CLEARLY Willis does not want to see happen.

And, for the record, I have not discovered that my progressive icon, FDR, perpetrated some of the most despicable war crimes in all of human history (the targeting and murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians and in a manner that had no strategic value whatsoever).

Regarding "strategic value", John Keegan, author of an October 2005 Telegraph article titled "Necessary or Not, Dresden Remains a Topic of Anguish", writes...

In the circumstances of early 1945 there were pressing reasons for persisting in the bombing. The Germans were still hitting London with pilotless weapons, the prospect of victory, apparently so close at hand in the autumn of 1944, had sharply receded after Hitler's great December offensive in the Ardennes, the Battle of the Bulge, which had caused more American casualties than any other battle in the west. Moreover, it was strongly believed - and not only by the bomber barons - that bombing severely damaged and might soon break German morale (source).

Whether this course of action was a war crime is not an opinion I am offering, as, admittedly I am not extremely well read when it comes to this subject. It may very well have been. I do know, however, that we were at war. A war Germany started.

Unlike the war we were engaged in when GWb authorized torture. Not only did GWb start that war, he started it by lying to the American people about WMD he KNEW Iraq did not have (SWTD #154). And, as we all know, torture does not work. It only gets those tortured to admit to whatever the torturer wants them to admit to (to get the torturer to stop).

This argument, IMO, has more to do with Willis hating FDR... which he does. A LOT. Willis, in opposition to what a sane and responsible person would do, allows his hatred of Progressives to excuse and defend a president who approved torture.

Frankly I find his defense of torture especially repugnant given recent BS from the arrogant Willis regarding him perhaps being "TOO anti-war" and that possibly being his "ultimate downfall".

Yeah... RIGHT... if by "anti-war" the Hartster means too anti-progressive and too much having his head up his ass when it comes to his belief in lies peddled by Libertarian "luminaries".

OST #32

Willis Hart LOL-able Narcissism & Oligarchy Worship

Another dig at a blogger the small "L" Libertarian Willis Hart does not like.

Willis Hart: If Obama Ever Came Out For a Flat-Tax and a Doubling of the Pentagon Budget... [blogger I don't like and view as an extreme partisan] would still support him, Hannity would still oppose him, and I'd still be banging my head against the wall... Rise above it, people. (10/14/2014 AT 4:37pm).

Note that I removed the name of the blogger Willis believes he has "risen above" (follow the link if you want to know who Willis refers to). This isn't a commentary about that blogger (who is not me in this instance). It's a commentary about the narcissism of Willis. He's beating his head against the wall because (in his mind) he "gets it", while many others do not.

This despite the fact that Libertarianism is a fringe ideology that most people recognize for the hogwash it is. It's purpose, in economic terms, is to funnel money upwards. Case in point, another commentary from Willis in which he praises the extreme tax cutting that directly lead to the Great Depression.

Willis Hart: More Unimpeachable Evidence that Lower Top Marginal Tax Rates Actually INCREASE the Amount of Taxes that are Paid By these Individuals... As you can plainly see from these charts... the amount of revenue that was collected at the 24% rate was significantly greater than the amount which was secured at the 73% rate (a 122% increase; $321 million versus $714 million) AND the share of the income tax burden for those making over $100,000 a year also soared, from 29.9% to 61.3%; a 105% increase! Yes, it took a year or two for the tax cuts to kick in but once in fact they did, tax revenues skyrocketed... (10/8/2014 AT 2:56pm).

Here the foolish Hartster presents a bubble as AWESOME and desirable. This particular bubble he points to (The Roaring Twenties) being the one the preceded the Great Depression. Seeing stupidity like this is enough to cause halfway intelligent people to bang their heads against the wall, you dope Willis!

And the Flat Tax is a Conservative/Libertarian idea. If adopted by Obama he might as well switch parties. The blogger who he thinks would still support him - would not. I know I would not. And a DOUBLING of the military budget? That's something not even the most neo-connish Republican would propose. It's outside the realm of possibility and reality.

Although Willis does add that this might be "a bit hyperbolic... But not a lot, I fear".

No, it is a LOT hyperbolic. And delusional as well... the thinking that Willis has risen above it but "people" have not. I assume he's talking about a majority of people (non-Libertarians) he thinks he's better than. Better than because he buys into economic policies that enrich the already wealthy while wreaking the economy.

LOL.

OST #31

Willis Hart Whines About Protests Concerning History Rewriting Libertarians

Lincoln was a power hungry and greedy dude who didn't give a damn about the evil of slavery. His only concern was squeezing the South for all the money he could (in the form of tariffs) to pay off his cronies... and THAT is why the Civil War was fought. Because the tyrant Lincoln would not let the Southern states leave the Union, as he should have! Slavery actually had very little to do with it.

Or, that is the rewriting of history supported by one delusional self-indoctrinated Libertarian named Willis Hart. The latest delusion? That there is a conspiracy among scholars of history to rewrite ALL OF IT in a manner that benefits the Left.

Commentary disclosing this conspiracy from Willis as follows...

Willis Hart: "On Partisan Scholarship"... The left has been peddling its wares in history for decades now (Eric Foner, James McPherson, Dean Sprague, Howard Zinn, Mark Neely, Arthur Schlesinger, Gary Wills, George Fletcher, Doris Kearns "I used to work for LBJ and vacationed with the Kennedys" Goodwin", etc.) and I have yet to hear a solitary clarion call to protest it. It was only when the libertarians started writing on historical subjects (ironic in that most of these writers has been every bit as tough on the Republicans as they've been on the Democrats) that the protesting started and it seems to be getting worse. My thoughts on the subject are clear; namely, that every damn side should be heard and what in the hell are we really worrying about here anyway? (Posted to the Contra O'Reilly blog on 7/29/2014 AT 7:48pm).

Yeah, sure, Willis. All sides should be heard. The side that believes in actual scholarship, which means accurately reporting on historical events, as well as other sides that believe rewriting history is an opportunity for them to validate their inane political beliefs. The liars, in other words.

Let both those who are reporting historical facts and those who are lying about the past be heard. Oh, wait, they ARE! This is just Willis whining about his side's rewriting of history being called out.

If you're going to lie and rewrite history, actual historians who strive for truth and accuracy have a Right, nay, an OBLIGATION to protest. But the Hartster says, "hey, shut up about the lying. How are Libertarians supposed to fool people into believing their garbage if actual historians protest these lies"?

And, just because Libertarian "historians" are peddling LIES that does not mean scholarship is "partisan". It only means the "scholarship" of the Libertarians is partisan!

This is the "both sides are equally guilty" canard that those who are WRONG have been peddling for some time now. Their bullshit is rightly met with skepticism by the public, so they attempt to muddy the waters by attempting to paint FACTS as partisan opinions.

"They present their opinions and we present ours" they'll say. That is fair, right? Except that they're LYING to further THEIR partisan agenda.

One of the latest examples of this... or one that I recently became aware of due to it's promotion on the "rAtional" nAtion blog, is the ahistorial meme that crony capitalism began with FDR. This would be the same FDR who welcomed the hatred of the economic royalists. (I refer to a blog post by the proprietor titled "Is the Republican Congress Likely To Continue New Deal Era Corporate Welfare").

So, I looked into it and found a reference to a new book by David Stockman on the Libertarian Misses website titled The Great Deformation (this lengthy tome of 770 pages is a rewriting of history that purports to expose the New Deal's "true legacy", which is "crony capitalism and fiscal demise").

As it turns out, this is another dishonest accounting of history that attempts to blame the recent economic downturn on Fannie and Freddie, etc. It was all the fault of poor people buying houses they couldn't afford, and the government forcing (via regulations) banks to make those (bad) loans. But, that is simply more history rewriting (it's utter bullplop, in other words).

Stockman even blames (among other FDR era laws) the Wagner Act, which was a law that allowed for workers more equal power with employers by allowing them to form unions. Sure, because employers not being able to screw workers is a BAD thing and is absolutely responsible for the rise of crony capitalism.

Because unions want to make sure their rights are protected and donate (in significantly lesser amounts than the plutocrats), I presume. But then the plutocrats might not have to spend so much bribing politicians if not for the dastardly unions. So Stockman's argument is that we should just let our corporate masters have their way (screw workers and poison the environment) and that will be economically beneficial? Beneficial to the plutocrats, that is.

And that is what all this history rewriting is all about, folks. Justifying policies that favor the wealthy. As far as making Lincoln out to be a tyrant, the reason behind that is so blame can be placed on a LIBERAL Republican for the sorry economic state of the (solidly Red) South today.

OST #27

Naive Stooge Willis Hart Endorses "Compromise" That Is Really A Plutocratic Trojan Horse

Want to concentrate wealth at the top to an even greater degree than it already is? Well, it so happens that one Libertarian "economist" has come up with just such a plan. And it is a plan he has deceptively labeled a "compromise".

And wouldn't you know it, but this "compromise" has fooled one naive stooge into raving about it on his blog.

Willis Hart: Economist, Charles Murray (a libertarian), has put forth what he considers to be a grand bargain to the progressives. He says that we, the libertarians (and, no, not every libertarian is completely on board with this), will give the left its big spending. But the left will have to give the libertarians much more economic freedom. His specific proposal (which is essentially a modified version of Friedman's negative income tax) would be to provide to every poor family a minimum monthly income (think of the Earned Income Tax Credit beefed up and spread out more) to which these folks could spend in the manner that THEY desire. The only catch here is that any help beyond this (say that a person spends their whole check in the first week on booze) would have to come from family, friends, charity, etc. It's a pretty darn good plan, I think, in that it a) empowers the individual citizen, b) at least partially puts the private sector in charge of charity/welfare (the assertion here being that the private sector would be much more adapt at determining who deserves the assistance as opposed to a swift kick in the pants), and c) radically reduces the size of the federal bureaucracy in that the bulk of the money will be going directly to those citizens who need it. I mean, I know that this is a radical approach to some folks but maybe a radical approach is exactly what the country needs at this point just to break the damned logjam. (7/21/2014 AT 7:56pm).

Yes, this a pretty darn good plan if your goal is to increase the gulf between the rich and poor. I'm positive it would do a GREAT job of accomplishing that goal. Which is why this Libertarian economist proposed it, of course.

"Economic freedom" is code for paying workers less (you KNOW an abolition of the minimum wage would be a part of this bogus "grand compromise") and destroying American jobs via outsourcing (although, with the minimum wage gone, the outsourcing might be less than you would think).

Another goal is shifting more of the tax burden onto the backs of the middle class... this includes new taxes to make up for the low low wages employers will be able to force workers to accept (workers who have no choice).

That said, I doubt this roadmap to plutocracy will fool many Progressives. And, make no mistake - that is what this is - a Trojan horse that would (if we were so stupid as to go along with it) concentrate wealth at the top to an even GREATER degree than it is currently concentrated. We're talking 3rd world like slums. THAT is what the Libertarians truly desire.

Finally, and this is a BIGGIE... what about doing away with Corporate Welfare? That ISN'T a part of the "compromise"?? It's just the negative income tax in exchange for more "economic freedom"?

Seriously, forget it. *If* Progressives were to agree to any "compromise" eliminating Corporate Welfare would need to be a PILLAR of that compromise. Yet Willis does not mention it.

Now, I did not Google for any info and am only going by what is in Willis' post. But if eliminating Corporate Welfare HAD been a part of Charles Murray's "compromise" I think Willis would have said so. So I assume that it isn't, and that is undoubtedly proof that this "compromise" is completely bogus, given the fact that our government subsidizes Corporations to the tune of almost double what we spend on Social Welfare (59 versus 92 billion in 2006).

So, even though Libertarians rail again "crony capitalism" (a component of corporate welfare) this "economist" doesn't make it a part of his "compromise". Sorry, dude, but if that really is the case any Progressive worth his salt would laugh and tell Mr. Murray to stuff his "compromise". They would not even sit down at the negotiating table.

As for the minimum wage, there is no way in hell any Progressive would agree to eliminating it completely. Nor would they agree to reducing regulations so Corporations could slack off on workplace safety and endanger the lives of a lot of workers. Given that, I'm pretty sure this "compromise" would be a no go from the get go.

BTW, notice that Willis is upfront about Charles Murray being a Libertarian. That is because his being a Libertarian is important to the post. He is a Libertarian proposing a "compromise" to the Progressives. But you KNOW that if Willis were only presenting the "sage" words of an economist (who is also a Libertarian), Willis would absolutely NOT mention his political leanings.

I know this because he does it constantly. He presents economic or scientific ideas from "scientists" and "economists"... while NEVER revealing their biases. And, usually these ideas are presented sans links. Willis does this because he wants his readers to accept what he says at face value. He doesn't want anyone looking into what he says and discovering the STRONG biases and corporate ties of the individuals whose ideas he presents. Heck, he often even fails to tell you where (or who) the idea came from!

The Hartster is a very good stooge in that respect. A VERY good one. No doubt this guy would be an excellent propagandist for the interests of the wealthy if he had a bigger platform.

OST #24