A Question for All Liberals

This is really good. Russ Roberts explores whether liberals really believe in Keynesianism, or if perhaps it's just something they say they believe in because it rationalizes their predisposition toward growing government.

My Challenge to Paul Krugman

Roberts also explores whether he could be persuaded to believe in Keynes, but I'm not sure that's an equivalency argument. You can prove Keynes wrong and everything else we think we know is still right. But proving Keynes right means overcoming all the economics that disagree with it. Tall hurdle.

I'm thinking it's anything they can use to justify giving <cough> themselves more power is fine.

Being doctrinaire about something as ephemeral as economic philosophy is as much a fool's paradise as ludicrous superstitions.

But have fun with your schoolyard game of labeling people you'll never meet with "-isms".

Hope it fills the yawning emptiness for you for a few minutes.

No.

And stop pretending the exact same thing doesn't apply to you as well.

I don't pretend it doesn't apply to me. Liberty is my priority whether the economics support it or not.

I'm just glad I don't have to cling to bullshit like Keynes in order to convince myself that the economics supports my views.

And I like having views that I could defend even if the economics didn't support it.

It would be a bigger problem if my ideology was so indefensible and repulsive that I had to rely on nonsense like Keynes to justify it.

You are the epitome of "one who clings to ideological indefensible bullshit".

How do you look yourself in a mirror? Oh. Wait. you are. My bad. Thought you were talking to ... anyone else.

You know when that's gonna work? When people stop rallying behind -isms.

You see liberals stop being liberals? You'll have a point. Until then, you're just DD&Bing. And nobody but you thinks you're doing it subtly, or well.

Show us how it's done.

Right. Because "free will" is "ideological indefensible bullshit."

The truth is that the real world is complicated, and isn't some simplistic model where X will always do good and Y will always do bad.

In the US it seems fairly obvious that for a variety of reasons the stimulus didn't work as it was intended to, a key reason being that the economy is so deeply screwed that it's the equivalent of an engine with a blown cylinder, no matter how hard you push on the gas pedal, it's still not gonna work properly.

On the other hand the Australian government stimulus is widely accepted as having been an enormous success for the domestic economy.

The real world is complicated, that's true. But it's not so complicated that tyranny, no matter how deeply couched in superficially good intentions, will ever be anything other than tyranny, and that's what the Left specializes in -- always has. Tyranny of good intentions, Suffocation by Mary fuckin' Poppins.

But don't worry your tiny, pointy heads, Leftforge -- soon enough, the generation that remembers freedom will have died out, leaving only your programmed drones, with their bland, politically correct, inoffensive sameness and their infantile dependence on the state.

At least awhile.

At least until one, then a few, then a dozen, then a million of them realize that your utopia is anti-human. And then may the God you disbelieve in have mercy on your souls.

Hey, you make that into a script and snag Kirk Cameron and you've got yourself a Cloud Ten production! Go for it! You can charge $34 for the DVD!

Not this shit again. The stimulus spending barely made up for the reduction in spending by state governments. If it had resulted in a significant net increase, you might have a point.

Also, Keynesianism does not always equate to high government spending. It advocates running a surplus in "the good times". This is something that was not done by western governments - and not something that they were really pressed to do either.

But, only for Conservatives, right? Because if a liberal does it, well, then they have to convince themselves that the economics supports their views and that their ideology is so indefensible and repulsive that they have to rely on nonsense like Keynes to justify it.

Moron.

Pretty much. If liberalism was about free will, then they wouldn't need all of that government. Liberalism counts on government specifically because liberals don't like the results that free will produces. Liberal government exists to supersede free will, with the will of an elite imposed by government. Liberals are just stupid enough to believe that as long as the government is polite the whole arrangement is "voluntary."

You're about as smart as a stump, aren't you, Jenee?

For chrissakes. That's just as intellectually vapid as saying "conservatism comes from enjoying the thought of poor people dying."

Hey, now. Don't knock the expert. I mean, like, he's read about economic theory.

No, nothing could be as vapid as what liberals think they know about conservatism.

How can you be so stupid, yet walk and talk and function like a normal human being?

Well, presuming you do walk and talk and function like a normal human being.

Now, now. Most of us know you aren't really the caricatures you promulgate online.

This was really fantastic melodrama. Shakesperian even. No, really, you should webcast yourself saying this with a strong, deep voice. I have no doubt it will be Oscar worthy.
I say this as one who is known for loving drama.
Well done, sir.

This is the thread that keeps on giving...

"A Question for All Liberals"...posted on a predominantly libertarian/conservative board.

And the first response is from Mr. Conservative Himself.

But wait...there's more!

We should hire zombie Peter Ustinov for this.

No, you aren't. What you are is a coward who's afraid to post because he might get neg-repped.

Might want to be careful there. Someone might get the impression you're only purpose here is to troll with rep rather than participate in discussion and take your toy away.

Res ipsa loquitur. Coward.

Strong, deep voice, huh? You got a mic and a little time?

To be a coward one needs to have free will. Jamey has yet to exhibit any evidence of free will or even consistency therewith.

Can any of you actually answer this question? It would be far more interesting that the usual