Glenn Greenwald’s new book is now available for pre-order. The book is called A Tragic Legacy – How a Good Vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency. Anyone who’s ever read Greenwald’s fantastic blog knows that he’s one of the sharpest critics of the Bush Administration, and this book appears to be aimed right at the heart of why this band of fools has done so much damage to the country. From his post today:
The central purpose of the book is to examine what has happened to the United States for the last six years under the Bush presidency. That is the “Bush legacy” — our national character and national identity have been fundamentally degraded, our moral standing and credibility in the world eroded to previously unthinkable depths, our government engaged in the very behavior which, for decades, we have collectively deplored, our trust in America’s governmental and journalistic institutions reduced virtually to zero, and our country placed on a plainly unsustainable course as a result of the militarized, imperial role we are choosing to play in the world.
At the heart of this process lies a binary moralistic view of the world, one which seeks to define every conflict and political challenge, both foreign and domestic, as a battle of Good versus Evil. The crux of this mindset is the continuous identification of an Enemy, one which embodies Evil and which must be stopped, typically destroyed, at all costs. No competing considerations, no rational arguments, no counter-balancing objectives, not even constraints of reality or resources, can compete with the moral imperative of this mission. The mission of destroying Evil trumps all.
In support of this ideology, they’ve been masters of using fear to rally support for their particular causes, regardless of whether that fear is valid. They used 9/11 to get us to fear Saddam and support the most boneheaded military excursion in U.S. history. They use the fear of drugs to fill our jails with minorities and strip away our 4th Amendment rights. They use a fear of “socialism” to try to dismantle government safety nets. They’ve won elections by using the fear of immigrants and gays to rally a nativist base that identifies with the Good vs. Evil mentality. But it’s finally backfiring as the administration is forced to deal with the nuances of the immigration problem and the high percentages of younger voters who are appalled by homophobia and sick of neverending wars. I’m looking forward to seeing how Greenwald put together this narrative.
And, if you haven’t read How Would a Patriot Act?, you should do so ASAP. Anyone who cares about the rule of law and other American values should have a copy on his/her shelf.
If A Tragic Legacy is half as good, it will be well worth the price.
KOMO 4 TV’s noon news had a story about how counterfeit Colgate toothpaste is making kids sick. The toxic ingredient? The stuff used in antifreeze for cars.
This story isn’t posted on KOMO’s web site yet (look for it later). Basically it says local stores are flooded with counterfeit goods — and 81% of them come from China.
Why? Because there’s no FDA oversight.
Brought to you by the inept Bush administration and the we-hate-government-regulation Republican Party. Letting crooks make kids sick with toxic fake products … that’s what the anti-government, anti-regulation, pirate-capitalism creed leads to.
The GOP and the rightwing ideologues have been discredited for all time. Now they need to just goooo awaaaaaay.
The KOMO news staff displayed a table full of fake products they bought in Seattle area stores.
So, if you’ve been sick unusually frequently lately — especially with stomach disorders — chances are you’re being poisoned (while being robbed). Brought to you by the anti-regulation freaks of the Republican Party USA.
We Democrats have a LOT of work to do after we retake our government.
Starting with a thorough housecleaning at the FDA.
Why? Because there’s no FDA oversight.
They’re too concerned with trying to fight ‘evil’ medical marijuana.
Roger, did the article say which stores in the Seattle area they bought the goods at? It makes a difference whether it’s at one of the major chains like Safeway/QFC/Albertsons/Walgreens/RiteAid/Bartells (giving Bartells the benefit of the doubt as to their status as a “major” chain), or whether we’re talking about dollar stores, or whether we’re talking about China’s chief retail outlet in the US. (Or their competitor Walmart.)
Also, did they include information on how we consumers can spot counterfeits? I’m sure “price too good to be true” is one, but I’m sure there are other tells (flimsy or not-quite-right packaging, for instance).
@8 They mentioned discount stores but I can’t give you any more information right now. My suggestion is watch for a replay of that segment on their evening news and/or watch for the story to appear on their web site. It usually takes a little while for broadcast stories to make it onto the web — I guess they want you to watch their news show.
9
Well, I might if I wasn’t commuting or asleep when it happens. I seldom watch TV news, but for something like this I might make an exception.
Maybe I’ll just set the TiVo to record tonight’s KOMO news broadcasts and hope for the best.
Mostly I’m curious about how deeply entrenched these products are. I can believe they’d make their way to dollar store shelves. I think Walmart would also be possible, but less likely — they’re bigger so they’d come in for more scrutiny. If the products are showing up on the shelves at QFC or Walgreens, it makes you wonder whether anything is really safe anymore.
Unfortunately, Dems are equally complicit in the War Against Some Drugs.
85% of I-960’s financial support has come directly from Michael Dunmire. For a complete picture of the I-960 campaign’s donations and expenditures see http://www.horsesass.org/?p=3054.
Posted #12 in the wrong thread. Oh what the hell, you can never have too many Roger Rabbit comments, just like you can’t have too many CARROTS!!! Yummy!!! I LOVE CARROTS!!!
(crunch) (crunch)
@11 blatherswoggle
Unfortunately, Dems are equally complicit in the War Against Some Drugs.
It’s true. *Sigh*
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thebl.....suici.html
EXCLUSIVE: SUICIDE BOMB TEAMS SENT TO U.S., EUROPE
June 18, 2007 4:45 PM
Brian Ross Reports:
“Large teams of newly trained suicide bombers are being sent to the United States and Europe, according to evidence contained on a new videotape obtained by the Blotter on ABCNews.com.
Teams assigned to carry out attacks in the United States, Canada, Great Britain and Germany were introduced at an al Qaeda/Taliban training camp graduation ceremony held June 9. “
Hm, better look around. If they’re
crying wolfplaying the Terrorist Card again the misadministration must be in trouble.You can read more of Glenn Greenwald’s columns here:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
He’s one of the best and worthy of the support of everyone who cares about true American values.
The reason the left generally has such a hard time with the concept of “evil” is that a lot of them don’t even believe there is such a thing as “evil”, unless of course you are George Bush.
I’d like to hear someone on the left make the case that the enemy we are fighting is anything other than the pure embodiment of evil. al Qaeda cannot be bargained with or reasoned with. These people claim to hear voices from “Allah” ordering them to kill “infidels”. These people are deranged, demonic, and share an almost orgasmic blood lust for death and destruction. They also believe there are virgins in heaven waiting for them upon them detonating bombs and killing innocent people. If this is not evil, you tell me what is?
19
The point of the Adam and Eve/Garden of Eden story, and the following one of Cain and Abel, is that all humans, every single one of us, are capable of evil. The “embodiment of evil” is a meaningless phrase. You, my friend, could very well, given the right circumstances, commit atrocious acts.
The KOMO glycerin story is spun off from a NY Times story about how the same thing that happened ten years ago in Haiti has happened again in Panama:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06.....ref=slogin
The result wasn’t just sick kids, it was dead kids, perhaps hundreds.
It’s a pretty intense read, worth reading it all.
Invisible hand my ass! The “free marketers” always forget that a market only exists in the context of law enforcement, and that actual currency is a contract with society (therefore carries certain obligations). Fucking idiots.
The Bush-haters will tell us that the supreme head of our government and his minions are supremely sinister and fiendish liars (albeit also moronic bumpkins). Then they turn around and tell us that only government can be trusted to vet what we put in our mouths and bodies. I don’t get it….
The Bush-haters will tell us that the supreme head of our government and his minions are supremely sinister and fiendish liars (albeit also moronic bumpkins). Then they turn around and tell us that only government can be trusted to vet what we put in our mouths and bodies. I don’t get it….
You don’t get it because you’re making it up. “They” (as in Bush-haters) don’t think that the government should be trusted to vet what we put in our mouths in bodies.
But winning arguments against strawmen is fun!!
Lee: perhaps I need to explain my comment better. Goldstein & other cite the case of the poisoned toothpaste as evidence that government regulation is needed, and that greedy capitalists cannot be trusted to sell us safe food and drugs. Yet at the same time they view the people currently running the government as the epitome of untrustworthiness. Is this not contradictory?
Russell
You miss the point. Bushism is based on a blief that the purpose pf gpovernement is to minimize itself. At least that is THEIR purpose.
In and of itself this is no more silly an idea than the Soviet idea of a beneficient oligarchy running the government in the name of the people. In fact Jefferson himself believed in minimal governemtn UNTIL as President he had to actually solve problems.
Unfortunatley for us all, “I knew Jefferson and Mr. Bush is no Jefferson.” There are aspets of Bush’s rpogram that might be worth exploring … single taxation on dividends, indivisual investment accounts, charter schools .. these are all conservative ideas worth some discussion. BUT … thes eideas require bright folks to be developed … anf the Bushies are poorly illuminated.
Fuzzy Rabbit and The Him on the FDA
Potshpts at the FDA are all too easy to make. The same agency that limits access to newly developed drugs because they are so cautious (bad?) does little to regulate heath foods (good?) and apprarently is nto checking on trademark enforcement to support American businesses (good?).
Celebrex, a pretty useful drug, was banned by the FDA because it is overly cautious.
I do not think the FDA is the bad guy inregard to pot. The FDA has to enforce the laws our politicians make.
russell garrard
Read the fucking article in the fucking New York Times you fucking moron.
Blah blah blah government regulation blah blah blah liberals hate capitalism. What a bunch of instant shit that spews from your simple mind.
Russell:
You make a good point there about the contradiction inherent in a hopelessly corrupt ind inept administration attempting to regulate what is brought into this country. The Bushies couldn’t regulate their own potty breaks, let alone food safety.
But we cannot necessarily say that this is the fault of what we were taught in history (at least I was) as the classical conservative mindset. Or Republican, for that matter. Recent history shows us that the terms ‘conservative’ and ‘Republican’, in the terms of American politics, no longer necessarily mean the same thing. Remember, the root of all food-safety regulations in America was established under the auspices of a Republican president, that being Teddy Roosevelt, with the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906.
What we have today in tainted glutens, toothpaste, etc., reaching our shores and sickening our people and animals is not the doing of conservatives. Nor is it the work of Republicans. This is the work of Corporatists. To make a bad pun, wolves in elephant’s clothing. All that matters to these people is profit. Lives, homes, families be damned if there’s money to be made. This current administration of criminals, toadies, yes-men, and Holy Joe Lieberman (snark) really couldn’t give a damn about Americans dying in our streets, or in foreign lands on quixotic quests, just as long as juicy no-bid contracts land in the laps of the companies they control.
Sadly, the truth is that corruption in government is endemic, and no administration is truly immune from temptation, be it large or small. But the last six-and-a-half years have shown us just how deep the corruption can go when it is not only allowed to take root, but desired by its creators and benefactors. It will take decades for this administration’s successors to repair the damage.
19
I’d like to hear someone on the
leftright make the case thatthe enemy we are fightingthe Bush administration is anything other than the pure embodiment of evil.al QaedaThe Bush administration cannot be bargained with or reasoned with. These people claim to hear voices from“Allah”“God” ordering them to kill“infidels”Muslimspeople who stand between them and a source of oil. These people are deranged, demonic, and share an almost orgasmic blood lust for death and destruction. They also believe thereare virgins in heaven waiting for themis a place at the foot of God’s throne for them upon them detonating bombs and killing innocent people. If this is not evil, you tell me what is?@29
Stupidity
nuff said
And here’s Glenn’s latest:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/g...../19/cohen/
He’s been on a tear lately re the disgusting Beltway press.
Aaron: thank you sir for your post #27. You have brilliantly provided a summation of the current state of liberal-left thought.
30
Sorry, but stupidity is not always evil, and there are plenty of evil smart people out there. The worst mistake we can make is misunderestimating our enemies.
@ 32
Aaron’s comment wasn’t any less intelligent than yours. I suggest you get your own shit together before you start complaining about the offal of others.
@ 33
Stupidity and ignorance are, most definitely, evil. Indeed, there is no better corollary to evil than ignorance–ignorance being the absence of knowledge. What is darkness? Of course, evilness implies neither ignorance nor stupidity.
Which brings me to a broader point. I don’t think the issue with the Bush administration and its apologists arises from a belief in their inherent goodness. Rather, the problem lies in forgetting one’s own fallibility.
And, in this regard, the only significant difference between right-wing apologists, who would sacrifice the rule of law for their ends, and terrorists, who would sacrifice their lives and the lives of others for their ends, is strictly a matter of degree. Both have managed to convince themselves of the correctness of their particular points of view despite whatever evidence and reasoning might exist to the contrary.
Has anyone else noticed how, among the right-wing commenters on this blog, “truth” isn’t so much a matter of what’s being said as it is a matter of who is saying it?
TJ,
I posted this morning about the Cohen post as well. Outstanding.
34
I think we’re coming at the definition of “evil” from two different directions — evil as a noun vs. evil as an adjective. I can appreciate that ignorance is an evil, just as poverty is an evil, that those of us who see it as an evil seek to mitigate or eliminate. (Stupidity, IMO, is more of a natural talent, and not to be confused with willful ignorance. Robert Heinlein once wrote, “Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation.”)
There are those who do evil in the world, however, by perpetuating evils like violence, ignorance, poverty and oppression; that’s the kind of evil I’m talking about.
Has anyone else noticed how, among the right-wing commenters on this blog, “truth” isn’t so much a matter of what’s being said as it is a matter of who is saying it?
Ayup. They won’t admit that anything a liberal or a Democrat does could possibly be good. I on the other hand have often stated that traditional Republicans (as opposed to the Christianist dominionist Mammon-worshiping kind we have now) had good ideas, and there may someday be enough fo them to bring good ideas to the front again; and when that day happens, I hope Democrats aren’t hesitant about stealing those good ideas just because of the Not Invented Here syndrome.
30
Thank you for proving my point exactly. You are Exhibit A of what I was referring to.
Lee: perhaps I need to explain my comment better. Goldstein & other cite the case of the poisoned toothpaste as evidence that government regulation is needed, and that greedy capitalists cannot be trusted to sell us safe food and drugs. Yet at the same time they view the people currently running the government as the epitome of untrustworthiness. Is this not contradictory?
Ok, that’s clearer. There’s a fine line here that you’re glossing over. The government absolutely should not be regulating the moral choices that we make. This goes for the foods that we eat and the drugs that we take. However, the government should be pro-active in making sure that people have the information they need when they make those choices.
Good examples of this are forcing food manufacturers to divulge the ingredients of their products on the label. In fact, this simple rule, when it was first created in the 19th century, was extremely effective because it forced a number of companies to admit that their product contained the highly addictive morphine, something that they’d kept a secret until then. This is not an example of government “vetting” what we put in our bodies, it’s a matter of making sure that people have the information they need when it comes to making those choices.
We do have a problem today in that the people who are running the government believe that private industry will regulate itself without government interference. This is causing a lot of our government agencies to fail at what they’re supposed to do (it’s hard to do a job when you don’t believe it’s necessary in the first place). But history has shown that for-profit entities will rarely be more concerned with public safety over their bottom line. The morphine tonics of the 19th century is just one of the many examples. We need government for these matters, and we need people in our government who take this role seriously.
TJ,
I posted this morning about the Cohen post as well. Outstanding.
Lee, thanks for the headsup. I don’t get over to your other haunt as often as I should.
36
There is certainly a difference in our approaches, but I don’t think “noun” vs. “adjective” captures the essence of that difference. If evil, or goodness for that matter, is an adjective, then it’s a property of things. The problem with thinking in those terms is that are situations where things can be thought of as both good and evil at the same time.
If, however, we think of evil, or goodness, as a relationship between different things, then a large number of logical problems fade away (including the problem of theodicy, by the way). A thing can be both “evil” and “good” in relationship to different things, and thinking of good and evil as relative terms leads to a common moral resolution of a problem in terms of the “lesser of two evils.”
But, we can take this a step further. If “good” and “evil” are relationships, then they don’t have an independent existence in their own right. Another way of thinking about this is to consider that “good” is really just the reverse of the “evil” relationship. In other words, “evil” is the absence of “good,” hence my question, what is darkness? The answer, of course, is that it is the absence of light.
Stupidity can be understood, in a similar way, as the absence of wisdom–wisdom itself arising from the confluence between knowledge and experience. Thus, Heinlein’s notion that you cannot cure stupidity with money, education or legislation. It’s cure requires both knowledge and experience.
But, all of this, I think, takes away from the central point–that Cohen’s assessment of the situation fails to capture the salient issue. Bush’s problem isn’t that he’s convinced of his inherent goodness (as logically unsound a proposition that might be). Bush’s problem is that he’s convinced of his own correctness. He is infallible.
This is very much a central aspect of the current right-wing mindset. It’s inherent, for example, in any belief that the Bible is literally true, which is really nothing more than a belief in the infallibility of one’s own interpretation of Scripture. It’s also inherent in the notion that something is “true” based on who is saying it. All of these issues are inextricably intertwined within this basic mindset about what constitutes “truth”.
It’s unfortunate, but these folks never really learned some of the rudimentary concepts of epistemology. And that is the problem at it very core.
@ 37
I wasn’t aware you had a point other than demonstrating that you really don’t understand the concepts of “good” and “evil.”
Why, for example, would you suggest that liberals argue that al Qaeda are anything other than the embodiment of absolute evil? They want to kill us. Does it matter whether we think they’re the embodiment of absolute evil–as if arriving at that conclusion will, somehow, induce them to stop trying to kill us?
The only thing you want to do is subject liberals to the fallacy of the excluded middle–that if we don’t argue that al Qaeda are the embodiment of absolute evil we, somehow, think they’re OK people to have living next door. Take that sophomoric bullshit back to uSP where it actually has a chance of gaining some traction, but don’t bother trying to make it fly here. Over here, you’ll find people who actually think critically about what’s being said.
29
Attention advertisers, you too can reach this prime demographic. Unbelievable.
Ok, I’ll take this one on in a serious manner.
The disconnect here comes from forgetting that Al Qaeda is not the Muslim community, and that the Muslim community is not Al Queda.
Simply killing Arabs or Muslims does not hurt Al Qaeda. It helps them.
Breaking down the doors of peaceful Muslim families and subjecting them to humiliating searches does not hurt Al Qaeda. It helps them.
Attacking and subjugating a country previously hostile to Al Qaeda does not hurt Al Qaeda. It helps them.
When you use the words “these people” it is vitally important to remember that you are talking about a group that is no more Muslim than the Irish Republican Army was Christian.
I hear about people complaining that they “don’t hear about Muslims condemning the violence“. The correct answer to that is “when was the last time you read an Arab newspaper?”
American newspapers have covered Muslim and Arab condemnation of the violence as well. It has gotten to the point where those statements are no longer news, not because they aren’t important but because the statements are made so regularly. “Plane lands safely” isn’t news.
Everyone agrees that Al Qaeda is evil, just as the IRA was before it. They are a small, radical bunch that is making use of some real problems in order to promote a radical agenda.
That doesn’t mean that the problems aren’t real, nor does it mean that we shouldn’t actively work on them. Quite the contrary, in fact. We should be working to take those issues away from the radicals by solving them.
Why does Hezbollah do so well in Lebanon? Because they have portrayed themselves as effective people solving real problems. This allows them to gain popular support, or at least acceptance of their radical agenda.
Now we’re doing the same thing for Al Qaeda through our actions and policies. It isn’t that we somehow think that Al Qaeda is not the bunch of evil radicals that they are. It’s that we think that our policies and practices are making them stronger and helping them.
Simply reducing them to the status of criminals and using effective law enforcement methods to deal with them would be the biggest blow to their agenda we could make.
Don Joe,
Thanks for the great comments. One aspect of the good vs. evil debate that is completely lost on much of the pro-war faction is that if you want to identify everything as being “good” or “evil”, you must also concede that war itself is “evil”. I don’t necessarily think it’s a problem to look at the ideology of Al Qaeda and call it evil, but it is a problem to allow that to dull your ability to make complex decisions based upon numerous factors.
Instead, much of our Middle East policy (and Jon Stewart beautifully skewered this the other day) is based upon trying to figure out who the “good guys” are. Instead, we have to understand that we’re dealing with people who can be good or bad, depending on the circumstance. When we approach a problem in the Middle East with the mindset that side A is good and side B is bad, we ignore the evils of side A and we belittle the complaints of side B when they point out those evils.
I highly recommend Dan Skinner’s article, Calling Bush’s Views Manichean Is an Insult to the Manicheans. It’s fascinating and incisive (and educational, for those of us who didn’t major in philosophy). Here’s one particularly revealing paragraph:
Chilling.
Lee: thanks for post #38, and for addressing the issue rather than frothing at the mouth like some others. It remains a contradiction to hold that govt can be trusted to regulate food/drugs, while those running gov’t for the last 6 years are a gang of absolute criminals and liars.
Getting back to the toothpaste example, I buy mine from a large company that would stand to lose millions if it were found to be selling tainted product. Or I buy from a smaller co. like Bartells that I trust. Or from a Mom & Pop where I know & trust the owners. In other words I trust market forces. This is not perfect, but if I end up with tainted paste–hey we all die from something. In any case I don’t need to send my money to D.C. to make sure that my paste is ok. By the way, the truth-in-labeling type law is less objectionable to me than full-blown regulation. Truth in labeling is arguably just an attempt to enforce the contract, i.e. to make sure that the consumer gets what he thinks he is getting.
It remains a contradiction to hold that govt can be trusted to regulate food/drugs, while those running gov’t for the last 6 years are a gang of absolute criminals and liars.
It’s not a contradiction at all if you present what’s being said accuratly. What I believe (and I’m sure Goldy agrees with me) is that government should be trusted to regulate food/drugs, but those who are running the government now are too incapable of doing this properly. Government is an establishment of the people and this is exactly what it exists for, to protect the people from the powerful.
Getting back to the toothpaste example, I buy mine from a large company that would stand to lose millions if it were found to be selling tainted product. Or I buy from a smaller co. like Bartells that I trust. Or from a Mom & Pop where I know & trust the owners. In other words I trust market forces.
But as we’ve seen, these market forces didn’t prevent certain items we consume from being contaminated. That’s why you need government to step in and establish a baseline for how companies should operate. The role isn’t to make it difficult for people to do business, instead to be an advocate for the average consumer. You can trust market forces all you want, but not everyone does, and market forces affect everyone.
In any case I don’t need to send my money to D.C. to make sure that my paste is ok.
But enough people do so that the people they’ve elected into our government have done that. These government programs exist because there’s demand for them, not because government is swindling you.
By the way, the truth-in-labeling type law is less objectionable to me than full-blown regulation. Truth in labeling is arguably just an attempt to enforce the contract, i.e. to make sure that the consumer gets what he thinks he is getting.
Sure, but how is this any different from the toothpaste example? If a company isn’t afraid of losing profits by being secretive about its ingredients, why would it be afraid of losing profits by allowing contaminants in its product (which is often a sign of cost-cutting that a company may feel outweighs the negatives)? I want to see as little government regulation as possible, but I recognize that the line needs to be drawn based upon what the reality of the need is. If companies can’t be trusted to keep contaminants out of their products, the government needs to step in.
I’m planning to post up about this on the front page tomorrow sometime…
SeattleJew: thanks also for your post #25 addressing the issue. Bush is not, nor has ever been of the minimal gov’t school. Bush once said (I paraphrase) “When somebody is hurting, gov’t has got to move.” Look at the anti-drug ads, and even now “clickit/ticket” ads courtesy of the fed DOT, we are bombarded with under Bush. This is about as far from minimalist gov’t as it gets. This aspect of Bush has dissapointed many R’s.
>In other words I trust market forces.
Why don’t you try reading that article I linked to then tell us all exactly what the breakdown was in the “market” that killed many innocent children.
Idiot.
Or maybe now the consumers in the “market” should have all the information that they need to safely navigate the apparent hazards.
Tell you what, why don’t you take your laissez-faire bullshit to someplace where you can get some validation, like μSP, and I’ll stop calling you names.
Moron.
@ 45
Fascinating stuff. The last paragraph is well worth a second look, and dovetails with the comments I’ve made about infallibility:
The other thought I’d had is how Bush’s distortion of Manichaen dualism parallels the way ben Laden and his ilk have distorted the concept of Jihad. Both of the original concepts involve a personal struggle, a battle over the “insistent self,” if you will. Both distortions turn the struggle outward rather than inward. It’s probably worth noting how both Bush and bin Laden are equally convinced of their own correctness.
So we have fanatics who are mirror images of each other duelling with their own shadows. The problem is the number of innocent people who, literally, get in the way. What do we do to fix this other than talking about it?
Russell @ several.
If you can’t bother yourself to accurately restate someone else’s position, then why should we bother ourselves to engage you in some discussion?
And if you really are at all surprised with Aaron’s reacton to your comments, reflect on the fact that several children trusted these “market forces” that you so blithely trust. These children are now dead because of it.
That’s the problem when simplistic theories come into conflict with reality. People die. Innocent people die. Why do such events not cause you to re-evaluate your theories?
Please, let’s not sacrifice humanity on the alter of your theories.
Don Joe: I am not convinced by your point about “theories.” We all have our theories–you have yours; I have mine. I am just convinced that, on balance, children would be better off under a laissez-faire system. Consider this example: at the park where I go there are signs warning not to feed the ducks. The city wildlife experts no doubt have a ‘theory’ as to how ducks are, in the long run, better off if visitors don’t feed them and I suspect they are right. On the other hand the little girl with the bag of bread might say “Because of your theory, this duck will go hungry tonight.”
By the way, I’m not surprised by the Michael-Savage-like venom–I expect it. But it’s not very productive or enjoyable. Also, I am always willing to re-evaluate. Although I’m of the free-market persuation, I recognize that it’s nothing more than a man-made theory and is not the ‘road to paradise.’
Russell,
I am just convinced that, on balance, children would be better off under a laissez-faire system.
How much evidence to the contrary is required before you revise that belief? Why, for example, do you suppose we have child labor laws?
For those still interested, Salon has published an excerpt from Glenn Greenwald’s book:
http://salon.com/books/feature.....greenwald/
It is not exactly a question of “how much evidence.” It is evidence plus explanation of the evidence–i.e. a model. Consider one more example. I’m guessing by the ‘Drinking Liberally’ theme that most users of this site would not support a return to prohibition. Yet a prohibitionist could cite millions of deaths from alcohol, including children killed by drunk drivers, homes broken, lives ruined, etc. All that evidence would not convince me, and I’m guessing wouldn’t convince you, to support a return to prohibition.
It is not exactly a question of “how much evidence.” It is evidence plus explanation of the evidence–i.e. a model. Consider one more example. I’m guessing by the ‘Drinking Liberally’ theme that most users of this site would not support a return to prohibition. Yet a prohibitionist could cite millions of deaths from alcohol, including children killed by drunk drivers, homes broken, lives ruined, etc. All that evidence would not convince me, and I’m guessing wouldn’t convince you, to support a return to prohibition.
Well, there’s a difference between citing evidence that matters and evidence that doesn’t matter. Believe me, I blog about drug policy so I’m well aware of how many progressives do, in fact, cite evidence that doesn’t matter in order to support policies that don’t work. But that’s very far from saying that government can never work. There are mountains of evidence that demonstrate that it can and does. The key is understanding the limits of government.
The reason that prohibitions don’t work is because they are an attempt by government to make choices for people (i.e. one can’t drink). Any time government does that, the result is inherently inefficient. However, the particular example we’re talking about with contaminated toothpaste is one in which government is not making choices for people, but instead laying out rules for a company. Throughout history, governments have been able to do this efficiently. What’s the difference? The difference has to do with human behavior. Government can be effective when regulating what people do in pursuit of profit, but is completely ineffective when trying to regulate what people do in pursuit of pleasure or peace of mind. Why? Because the former pursuit tends be a calculated, rational act, while the latter tends be an impulsive, irrational act. You can ‘fix’ the former, but you can’t ‘fix’ the latter, nor should you even try.
It’s simply not the role of government to make people act rationally, it’s only the role of government to protect greater society if someone’s irrationality causes them to harm others (for example, pedophilia). No matter what government does, it can never eliminate pedophilia. But government can curb rational behaviors in pursuit of profit that society as a whole believes is harmful (look at the regulations that banks and other financial institutions adhere to out of a very rational unwillingness to get fined).
Lee: Interesting distinction (“laying out rules for companies” versus “making choices for people”)–I’ll have to think about that one. If I were a prohibitionist I would argue that alcohol is a substance every bit as hazardous as the tainted toothpaste, with all these deaths linked to it, and the fact that people want to use it for pleasure is not germane, and the brewer must be stopped from selling his deadly wares just as the tainted toothpaste maker.
My main argument to the prohibitionist would be about unintended consequences–crime associated with the rise of a black market& the inevitable abusive law enforcement which in turn appears. And no matter how hard you crack down, you still don’t eliminate the problem.
The same applies to toothpaste regs. You may get benefits but there are unintended consequences. The regs make it tougher to enter business. The bureaucracy can be abusive, and can be misused by ill-intentioned politicians. There is a new book out called ‘The Big Ripoff’ which argues that big govt and big business are often in bed together, and that much regulation is intended to supress competition. Look at the car business versus the computer business. Cars have been heavily regulated, and now when we desparately need new ideas from that industry, there are only a few mega-companies who we have to hope will come up with solutions. What if the whole Middle East mess could have been avoided by some innovation that never happened due to over-regulation. That’s a lot of lives.
You really have your head up your ass.
This is not a story about tainted toothpaste bad for you in the sense that an intoxicant like alcohol (which people purchase on purpose) can be bad for you and the people around you. This is a story about how unscrupulous capitalists, in the absence of criminal accountability (and not just forcing them to re-brand) used cheap poison in place of actual ingredients rightfully assumed. You can’t solve this with “market forces” because the market is so fragmented, bifurcated, and obfuscated that such frat boy wet dream action will not come about. It is fiction.
And because asshole idiotic fantasizing morons like you continue to spew this so called “free market” bullshit, the political will to thwart these well healed killers is absent.
Stop spewing this crap, here in particular. If you really must continue with this garbage, your validation awaits you at μSP. Go there.
Aaron, buddy: You are at odds with Ron Sims on this–a few years ago there was a debate about regulating malt liquor sales, and Sims said that shops selling Mickey’s and such were selling poison to the ill.
In any case, let’s put your demand that I leave up to a vote. Would 3 people please post whether they want me to go. Majority rules. If 2 or more want me to stop posting, I will. By the way you have a lot of anger in you. Might I suggest that you buy a punching bag and work some of it off?
Russell,
It is not exactly a question of “how much evidence.” It is evidence plus explanation of the evidence–i.e. a model.
Um, sport, in this case we’re talking about evidence that directly contradicts the predicted results of the model with which you are so enamored. Frankly, I doubt your ability to discuss the model intelligently. Have you ever taken a good, solid look at some IS-LM curves? Why do you think Economists spend so much time coming up with policy ideas the sole purpose of which is to rehabilitate this model? Is it not because the model fails to accurately predict observed phenomena?
Why haven’t you answered my question about child labor laws?
And can the smug bullshit about Aaron’s indignation. When you act like an idiot, don’t get on about people who don’t suffer fools lightly. Bring something intelligent to the table. For a change.
Russell,
I’ve got a long post in the works about all of this right now (should be posted this evening if I don’t get held up at the office). Aaron already made the obvious point between alcohol/tainted toothpaste, but you’re right about there being regulations that benefit larger corporations at the expense of smaller ones. The problem (and this is why we find what you’re saying to be quite ridiculous) is that this is a creation of the free market, not a bastardization of it. If you begin with the mindset that government doesn’t have a role to play as an advocate for the people against corporations, you inevitably end up with that situation, where the corporations run the government, rather than the people.