Blog powered by Typepad

« Oh no, war just broke out! | Main | Your Monday Funnies: 24.2.20 »

Sunday, 23 February 2020


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The Dems on going inbred attempts at socialism are going the decorative "democratic" socialism route. Decoration aside, it's just the socialism.

What's your problem with women boxing, David? There are women out there I wouldn't have taken on in my best days no matter how drunk I'd been. Liberté, égalité, fraternité, and all that.

"Weirdly eccentric" is a bit euphemistic, don't you think? Trump has left an opening big enough to let anyone through. While he's pardoning other criminals, I hope he gets around to posthumous acquittals for Al Capone and John Dillinger. They would make Chicago proud.

To be fair our own Labour party managed to put our own JC into first place.
Since I can't see Bernie supporters doing much for any other candidate, and neither can I see other candidate's supporters doing much for Bernie I don't see how they win the general.
Perhaps they should scrub this year and focus on something more positive than Orange Man Bad for 2024?

Pat, in our 2020 election, Trump is the only 'moderate' candidate running. Odd isn't it?

"What's your problem with women boxing, David?"

It's ugly, stupid and demeaning!

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, David, and I might even be sympathetic, but it just might be a tiny bit antique.

And what's wrong with that?

Nothing at all. I happen to like art deco, but not many new art deco works are being produced. My favorite Brit, besides you of course, puts it best:


Do a quick google of presidential pardons and you will find that Obama is miles in the lead.

Wigner’s Friend,

Currently 14 Trump associates have been indicted or convicted including Roger Stone, who Trump is now considering pardoning. Roger is one of Trump's oldest pals and knows where all the bodies are buried (that's an American idiom, don't take it literally). There are more, including Rudy Giuliani and a couple of Ukrainian thugs, currently under investigation. He just pardoned 11 felons with suspicious timing, very likely to make the point his jailbird pals shouldn't sing, 'cause he'll spring 'em.

Read about Obama's pardons for yourself:

If Obama had done one ten-thousandth the morally repulsive and criminal things Trump has pulled, y'all would be in a terrible snit.

Look at this splitter ...

I've been whingeing on about the departure of Libertarianism from right wing politics for years, and that splitter goes and rubs it in and even encourages it.

Now that Libertarianism has officially parted company from the right, is there anything to distinguish right from left anymore? Even Communist China is more right wing than the US apparently?! ...

So now we know why the US right hates China so badly, it's coz China is showing them up! MCGA trumps MAGA!

And how true it is that left and right become indistinguishable as they are squeezed together in the authoritarian pointy bottom corner of Nolan's chart.

The new dark age is all around us. One's only hope is that the darkest hour is the one before the dawn.


Labels based on ideology are largely irrelevant, since most voters and other actors in democracies are not ideologues; definitely not in America. Libertarians have always been a sort of boutique intellectual elite over here, though they have had some influence on Republicans.

The larger problem is that the experiment has been run since about 1980, and wild west capitalism and lack of government oversight has resulted in record wealth inequality and a crumbling social and physical infrastructure. That is obvious to a majority of Americans, and it's a big reason Trump is president and Bernie Sanders is doing well.

Also, SoD, the lack of government controls let businesses do what they always do when they can; create monopolies:

Libertarianism here has produced exactly the reverse of its promises.

"boutique intellectual elite" - thank you, Dahling! I'll remember that when I'm mincing down City Road with my skinny jeans, latte and Surface Duo in hand, forced back into the big smoke by lefties taxing my nuts off!

Libertarianism abhors private monopoly in the market sector as much as licensed monopoly in the state sector. Libertarianism adores markets, and a private monopoly or cartel is de facto not a market any more, so monopolies and cartels are persona non grata.

Therefore Libertarianism acknowledges that in some cases state action against monopolies and cartels is justified. It's not a clear-cut ideology as you ascribe it.

I've got nothing to back this up, but I feel in my water that when Libertarianism returns it will be on the left.

Brits are sick of the shear incompetence, negligence and abuse of Blighty's welfare state monopolies. Low state / no state social solutions, like UBI, vouchers, "no medical history supplied" block purchase private insurance, meet the profile for the younger, more savy, globalised, Brit shopper.

The blocker on this short term is Blighty's unionised leftist party, Labour. They'll never give up on the authoritarian, socialist model of Blighty's welfare state. And the Lib-Dems are the public sector metro middle class, so neither will they.

It'll take a super-Tony Blair type person with the leadership and will of Nige Farage to wrench the Labour party in proper half leaving the Marxists behind and pull the Libertarian wing of the Tories together. Ironic set of qualities for a Libertarian, but Ronnie and Maggie did it by saying, "We, the pols, are the problem, not the solution. We are not in denial of our incompetence, negligence and abuse, any more. A vote for us means you really take back control - you as an individual, with the personal buying power to get what you need from the global market like a rich bloke would."

Blighty will have to wait for the inevitable decline and fall of this current resurgence of statism via DomBo and co. So I doubt we'll live to see that happy day.


Over here "boutique" only means a specialty and has nothing to do with sexual preference or affect, even in slang so far as I know.

I already mentioned I had a Libertarian friend in college, and after years of discussions found all his arguments were circular. So are yours in this case. If there's no contravening force such as the democratic process monitoring business, particularly corporations in America, they'll form monopolies or collude in other ways to fix prices. We don't have to wait for them to do it, it's a manifestation of human nature. Allowing them the process hurts their supposed customers and taxpayers, and usually the poorer they are the worse it hurts. Take a deep dive into the private part of our healthcare system to see a glaring example. Commercial airlines are another. I realize conditions here are different and that Libertarians here are different too. We could well be talking past each other.

Drawing the line between free markets and oppressive statism is never a perfect process, but to claim it's unneeded can't be supported by history. If I'm wrong I'd love to see the example.

Every monopoly falls naturally eventually. Here's some examples: -


The market will always "Down King, down court" at some point. Think of it as the invisible hand of God reaching down to jog the invisible hand of greed when it gets stuck and locked in a loop - "circular" as you call it.

But waiting is painful, so some, but not all, Libertarians see a role for the state in pre-empting God and doing the jog job before He does it.

"God(el), Greed and the Market". Thanks Bob, if I ever write a book about Libertarianism you just tickled the title out of me!

The degree of this state empowerment has been a hot topic for Libertarianism since before the Judean People's Front, the People's Front of Judea, and the Judean People's Popular Front (we Love him - he's over there!) did its thing - splitters!

Limiting pols to being poacher turned game-keepers is the trick we're missing. It'll come back some time, long after we're pushing daisies I suspect.


By circular I meant logically circular:

markets are always good
markets can make mistakes
markets are like gods that fix their own mistakes

If they're like gods they wouldn't make mistakes, would they?

Libertarianism reminds me of the old joke:

I say, sir, you have a banana in your ear.
What? I can't hear you, I have a banana in my ear!
I say, sir, you have a banana in your ear ...

The only BBC programme I trust as being unbiased and un-woke is Bells On Sunday. But I fully expect the quality will fall off because of Brexit, Warble Gloaming or a lack of diversity among the rope pullers. Trump and the Russians are having an adverse effect as well.

You have to be a certain age, but I suspect that Bob is not the full shilling.
Gods always make mistakes. That is why mythology is so fascinating.
And anon might have a banana in his ear but can still hear shite with the other.

Doonhamer is right on the facts. For example, in Christianity Yaweh regretted the great flood. If gods always make mistakes it's not a good defense to compare markets to them. Maybe a better tack would be market mistakes are better than democratic mistakes and claim the wisdom of crowds always sucks. Oh, wait, the market is a crowd. Well, maybe that markets are exchanges of goods. But exchanges don't happen without people. ??

Maybe a better tack would be market mistakes are better than democratic mistakes

Market mistakes are recovered from - as evidenced by IBM, Microsoft, and Ford. These "market mistakes" all got remedied by the market. They - monopolies and cartels - were all transient.

Just remind me Bob, which examples of the democratic ownership of the means of production and distribution EVER recovered from its "mistakes" while remaining as democratic ownership of the means of production and distribution? The former Soviet Union? The former Ost Bloc? Venezuela? North Korea? The NHS?


What you're describing are communism and authoritarianism. I don't like either even a little.

Jeez, listen to this tit ...

Who governs this country? It’s no longer Eurocrats in Brussels or judges in Luxembourg, which is a great relief. But who in Britain is taking back control? Will real power lie with the elected politicians, assisted by government employees who work for them and for the manifestos upon which they were elected? Or will it be hoarded by a shameless, self-satisfied Whitehall nomenklatura that has convinced itself that it is the true, permanent government of Britain?

Brexit isn’t enough: politicians need to take back control, to renew our democratic culture, reintroduce accountability and improve the quality of the state. They need to be forced to take responsibility even when they don’t want it. They must become their own masters, working on behalf of their electorate, not spokespersons for out-of-control departments. They need to relearn to be managers, moulding the system to their commands. They should hire their own people, not inherit hostile teams.

Another democratic centralist, blind to history, does the same thing over and over again with the same fail result and yet expects a different result this time round.

Why on earth does he think DomBo's "weirdos and misfits" will be anything different from the track record of the welfare state since 1948: Serial failure and decline for the money that goes in? These people have never owned and operated the means of production and distribution EVER let alone in a competitive market. Why would they all suddenly become Richard Branson, Alan Sugar, Bill Gates on his command?

If politicians cannot make their minds up on an issue, they ought to call referenda, not abdicate decision-making to mandarins or judges. Our system of government is no longer fit for purpose: the old Yes, Minister civil service and its jobs for life and gongs for failure has run out of time; but so has the more recent technocratic and juristocratic experiment.

Rule by plebiscite. Where has that ever even been tried, let alone tried and been successful? He's making it up as he goes along. Plus, if people's decision making is the way forward why not give them the ultimate plebiscite of all: Give them back their hard earned cash so they can vote with every penny they spend for what they need and want in the global market?

As to the Foreign Office, it has been wrong on all the big issues, appallingly so, and the Home Office is a joke. In the private sector, a new boss tasked with turning around a bankrupt conglomerate would fire layers of management, bring in their own teams, merge or shut subsidiaries and restructure massively. Ideally, the government would commission a new Northcote–Trevelyan report and replace the civil service with a completely new organisation. At the very least, major changes are required, with the PM as the government’s CEO.

That's unbeleivable. Every CEO will tell you, "If you give me a monopoly control over an entire industry it will NEVER perform as well as me and my CEO colleagues competing in the industry running as a competitive market".

The people who know how to own and operate the means of production and distribution know they shouldn't be in sole charge of it. It's only the idiots, under-achievers, and never-achievers, like Allister Heath, DomBo, the Civil Service, et al, who think that they, in spite of never having been a CEO and in fact no track record whatsoever, not even a whelk-stall in a village market, should still be in charge of the means of production and distribution with a monopoly.

It's truly gob-smacking. It's psychotic.



Churchill was right: "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Alan Greenspan was America's most highly accomplished Libertarian. He came from inside Ayn Rand's circle. He also crashed our economy twice and the world economy once:

"The easy-money policies of the Fed during Greenspan's tenure have been suggested by some to be a leading cause of the dotcom bubble, and the subprime mortgage crisis (occurring within a year of his leaving the Fed), which, said the Wall Street Journal, "tarnished his reputation." Yale economist Robert Shiller argues that "once stocks fell, real estate became the primary outlet for the speculative frenzy that the stock market had unleashed". Greenspan argues that the housing bubble was not a product of low-interest rates but rather a worldwide phenomenon caused by the precipitous decline in long term interest rates."

Be sure to read the section on Objectivism.

Your worship of billionaires makes you sound oligarchical. Perhaps you'd prefer Russia to Blighty.

I don't mind oligarchs so long as there's enough of them and they have to fight each other before they get to me. I stand a chance then.

It's when there's only one of them I get worried.

As for Greenspan and the crash: we recovered, right? We're still standing, back to where we were and onward and upward.

On the other hand, you never did answer: How's the former Soviet Union, Ost Bloc, Venezuela, North Korea, NHS? How'd that Democratic Centralism go for you?


You know better than to think democratic centralism has anything to do with democracy. Another thing I know about Libertarians is that they're impenetrable to logic. *Yawn*.

The comments to this entry are closed.