WUWT reader M. Paul writes: Sometimes a new word emerges that neatly encapsulates a set of complex ideas. We have recently seen such a word enter the lexicon: Grubering.
For those of you who missed it, an MIT Professor named Jonathan Gruber has been caught on video describing all the various ways that he helped the Obama Administration to deceive the public regarding the true nature of Obamacare.
People are now referring to what the Obamacare campaigners did as “Grubering”. Grubering is when politicians or their segregates engage in a campaign of exaggeration and outright lies in order to “sell” the public on a particular policy initiative. The justification for Grubering is that the public is too “stupid” to understand the topic and, should they be exposed to the true facts, would likely come to the “wrong” conclusion. Grubering is based on the idea that only the erudite academics can possibly know what’s best of the little people. Jefferson would be turning in his grave.
I think that no other word describes what we have seen in the climate debate quite as well as Grubering. The Climategate emails are full of discussions about how to “sell” the public on CAGW through a campaign of lies and exaggerations. There are many discussion about how the public could not possibly understand such a complex subject.
The late Steven Schneider puts it succinctly:
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.
Our critics sometimes dismiss skeptics as “conspiracy theorists” noting how unlikely it would be that thousands of scientists would collude. They miss the point. We now know that Grubering takes place — we see it laid bare in the Obamacare campaign. It was not strictly a “conspiracy”. Rather it was an arrogant belief that lying was necessary to persuade a “stupid” public to adopt the policy preferences of the politicians and the academics in their employ. Its Noble Cause Corruption, not conspiracy, that is at the root of this behavior.
“Climate Grubering” — its a powerful new word that can help us to describe what’s been going on.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Surfer Dave,
Try that Noble Lie in a cattle or horse trade in Texas surfer dave, we know it is the California way, but you better ready to hit the floor on your back hard here in Texas.
Just saying, we are not smart enough to know how to do it like Plato.
From a book summarizing “Parkinson’s Law”:
Having travelled back and forwards by [..] splattered ferry for school I can assure you the tunnel is better.
It sounds like a much better experience for people using it. Maybe not so much for people not using it, or using it but do not feel it worth the cost.
Budgets for projects are always a best guess, especially if it is for something not attempted before. The issue however is deliberate distortions in order to get a desired outcome.
Dishonesty as a virtue is what is coming out of governments these days. Can’t they just admit their dishonesty or at least continue to lie about their dishonesty like the good old days.
“We now know that Grubering takes place — we see it laid bare in the Obamacare campaign. It was not strictly a “conspiracy”. Rather it was an arrogant belief that lying was necessary to persuade a “stupid” public to adopt the policy preferences of the politicians and the academics in their employ. ”
No, now we know they are still actually this stupid.
But this straight out lefty doctrine- it’s nothing “new”.
So Lefties have been in control of Dem party for couple decades. Reagan quit being Democrat
because of transformation from liberal party to a shrieking Lefty party, and and Dem leadership are all Lefties.
And of course, Obama was socialist, which is anyone, stupid enough to actually believe the Lefties are vaguely rational. Or worse, that their psychopathic behavior is not something to worry about or it’s “human advancement” as compare normal or rational behavior.
Now some may wonder whether Obama is Stalinist Lefty- but doesn’t really matter, the point is, he is surrounded by these psychopaths.
Well, since we on the topic of very stupid people who probably should not be working anywhere
near anything important. Like so maybe they should picking trash on freeways or something.
“Chris Matthews was going on about how Obama needed to meet with John Boehner and really pressure him, ask him — “in public… on television” — “What is your opposition to this immigration bill?”
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2014/11/iran-is-not-your-ally-iran-is-not-your.html
This same Matthews who got tingle in his leg. Now wants the President of the United State to do his [Chris Matthews] job as someone who works in the media.
In other words Matthews is such a loser, that he can’t interview John Boehner.
And thinks he need the tingle to do it for him.
Isn’t this just a US political slogan being used by one of your crazy political parties to beat up on the other crazy political party?
Governments will always devolve into Guberments because absolute power always, always, always corrupts absolutely; it’s the nature of the beast.
As long as Guberment power ultimately relies on the barrel of a gun to keep the ruled class under submission, we’ll always have Guberments instead of limited governments constrained under a Constitution.
America’s Constitution was perhaps the closest model to create a limited government Republic, but since the Constitution is no longer adhered to, it now only exists as a historic relic in a hermitically sealed case in the National Archives in Washington DC…
Various government systems have been devised to prevent this Gubernization process, but they always eventually fail through: Judicial Review, bureaucratic mission creep, unconstitutional Guberment largess programs, voter apathy, and appeal to authority.
Perhaps a State-sponsored Constitutional Convention could be organized to pass amendments that would restore adherence to the Constitution, but failing that I see little recourse.
My ideas on the required Constitutional Amendments include:
1) A balanced budget amendment limiting Guberment spending to a Maximum of 10% of GDP.
2) Term limits for Senators and Congressmen: 2 terms and 3 terms respectively.
3) Rescinding the 17th Amendment and restore States appointing Senators.
4) Rescinding the 16th Amendment and establishing ONE national sales tax under the restrictions outlined in the balanced budget amendment and shutting down the IRS.
5) Abolishing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and letting the market determine interest rates.
6) Each new law put to vote and Federal Department or Agency that exists must have a preamble clearly showing where specifically in the Constitution it’s power to exist is derived. If now such authorization exists, it must be shutdown or a Constitutional Amendment must be passed to allow its existence. Failing that, the power resides under State authority under Amendments 9 and 10.
7) Restoring a gold/silver monetary system and making fiat currencies unconstitutional.
Failing the above, I really don’t see Gubernization ever being corrected.
The telling thing is that Jonathan Gruber is being attacked and shunned by his fellow Democrats for speaking the truth when he said, “lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.” But Nancy Pelosi is not being shunned for saying, “There has never been a more open process for any legislation.” Neither is Barack Obama for saying, “this has been the most transparent government, most transparent administration, that we have seen in a very, very long time … But seriously, we very much believe in transparency and accountability.”
The fact that the truth-teller is the one who is embarrassed and shunned just goes to show that, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
Grubering is alive and well down under. But I will back the ordinary bloke to see through them and to see who they are and what they really stand for every time.
Conspiracy, contrary to popular perception, does not require that the conspirators all know and have met each other. It is possible to have wheel, chain and web conspiracies where most of the participants have never met or directly communicated. The essence is the agreement to participate in an unlawful, or in this case immoral, act.
or their segregates engage
Surrogates?
Yes, its a typo on my part. I can’t fix it on my end.
Mods, can you correct this “segregares” –> should be “surrogates”
What is obvious is that the Left has *always* wished for central government — with Democrats in charge of it.
As opposed to the Right which has only wished for central government for about 70 years – with Republicans in charge of it.
M Simon suggests “As opposed to the Right which has only wished for central government for about 70 years – with Republicans in charge of it.”
I wish I knew more about the Right so I could argue it with you, but I believe no such thing exists. The left is well defined and has had dozens of philosophers creating it; a type of secular religion, it even has a name: Humanism. It also contains more than its share of narcissists each imagining himself to be superior to everyone else and thus duty bound to impose his greatness on everyone else. (Plato, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and so on).
What does the right have? Everything else. That is why Republicans are struggling to define what the word means. Right now it means “Not a Democrat” and that’s good enough for now.
Strictly speaking it ought to mean what the word says it means — people that prefer a “republic”, divided government, decisions for Wyoming made in Wyoming, almost no central government beyond national defense and interstate commerce (in other words, the original and only assuredly true purpose of central government).
Anyway, try again, use some big words, go for two sentences (or more).
For help with a theme, perhaps you could revisit the Parable of the Ant and the Grashopper from a leftwing perspective. It’s been done and is hilarious (but scary and tragic at the same time).
https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/the-fable-of-the-ant-and-the-grasshopper-the-pc-version/
“The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.”
Follow the link to read the rest of the story.
M Simon,
Wrong. What you call the “Right” are statists. The real right are libertarians — the ‘leave us alone’ types. Small government types.
Don’t just parrot the nonsense that the media tries to colonize your mind with; think for yourself.
===================Next:
Another grubering.
This is very reminiscent of how the European Union (EU) was born (Lisbon Treaty, 2007):
http://www.eunow.eu/EU_leaders_spill_beans.html
“The Treaty of Lisbon was all about avoiding referendums on the Constitution, avoiding dealing with legitimate complaints against the Constitution, confusing the electorate, excluding ordinary citizens from understanding the new documents and so excluding us from any ability to criticise what EU leaders were planning. It was about keeping the substance of the Constitution and moves towards further integration whilst pretending the Constitution has disappeared. [The] plan [of the EU leaders] was a move against democracy in the EU and therefore contrary to the declared policy of the European Union.”
“..Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?” (Jean Claude Juncker – former Prime Minister of Luxembourg and current President of the European Commission).
“The aim of the Constitutional treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable…The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success.” (Karel de Gucht, former Belgian Foreign Minister and European Commissioner)
“[It is] dangerous talk [to want] too much transparency and clarity [in the EU]”
“The paper [the Reform Treaty] is incomprehensible. Good! We need incomprehensible papers if we are to make progress . . . We have to be realistic.” (Jean-Luc Dehaene, former Prime Minister of Belgium and co-author of the Treaty)
“[EU leaders] decided that the document should be unreadable. . . In order to make our citizens happy, to produce a document that they will never understand!“ (Giuliano Amato – former Prime Minister of Italy)
…and so on ….
We really didn’t need Gruber over here. Deceit has many names in the EU.
It acquired the name EU in 1994. It later gave itself the Lisbon treaty. It is approximately 90 years old. It was conceived by Coudenhouve-Kalergi in 1925. Its developmental stages were carefully preplanned.
We are familiar with the history of the development of the EU.
I should have added “in its current form” (meaning: since the Lisbon Treaty, 2007).
But that’s beside the point.
“Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” – Steven Schneider
Who knew being effective required dishonesty.
Maybe we should teach this to our kids in school,”If you want to be effective, if you want to be successful, it requires a certain degree of dishonesty.”
I thought that was what we were teaching them.
Just on the point of ‘alarmism’, what constitutes an ‘alarmist’?
In the case of global surface temperatures, is any projection that forecasts future temperature change ‘alarmist’ or is there some threshold value?
The temperature, like the climate, is always changing. It’s only when a projection of global temperatures includes a forecast of “catastrophic” effects resulting from future temperature change that it becomes “alarmist.” Predicting that a modest increase in a trace gas will result in “runaway global warming” that will make the “oceans boil” or turn Earth into Venus are examples of alarmism. The Earth has been warmer in the past at times when life flourished. Saying that temperatures will change in the future is not necessarily alarmist. But saying that such changes will be harmful, when they could just as likely be beneficial, is where it crosses over into alarmism.
I hope simply to become clear on your intent. It seems to me you are allowing for the possibility that CO2 may contribute to a general warming of the climate but claim it is unclear that the result would be harmful rather than beneficial.
If your intent is simply to set a reasonable limit on the damage that might ensue, I agree with you. I think it totally unreasonable to claim the oceans will boil. Perhaps all here can come together on that one.
A climate alarmist would be anyone who believes that we have to “do something” to head off climate change, by which they mean “manmade climate change”. They have drunk the Klimate Koolade, in other words.
Do a Google search “Jonathan Gruber $5.9 million” you will find it enlightening and infuriating.
Obama says he got his ideas from Gruber [25 seconds].
Sounds like the good old ‘agitprop’ 😉
Don’t know if anyone’s mentioned this, yet, but it’s not hard for any professional to obfuscate field-text so that non-professionals can’t understand it.
Being unable to understand a deliberately obscurantist professional has nothing to do with stupidity. It has only to do with lack of training in that particular field.
Gruber has triply offended. First, he betrayed his profession by deliberately obscuring his meaning. This shows a lack of integrity. To my mind, he deserves to be drummed out of his professional ranks.
Second, he has unfairly maligned ordinary people for being unable to decompose his obscurantist text.
Third, he has engaged a lie of commission. Deliberate obscurantism in order to mislead is a form of lying.
Apart from all that Gruber has displayed an insufferable arrogance by laughing at, and disparaging, his blameless victims.
And Gruber has displayed to all that he himself suffers from a profound social stupidity. He has publicly demonstrated that he entirely lacks the capacity to recognize his offenses. It seems a bit sociopathic.
Grubering, noble lie, consequentialism….doesn’t matter what you call it. It’s not how things are supposed to be in this country.
Correct. Today Obama said he is furious with a low level bureaucrat [Gruber] ‘mis-stating’ what he and his Administration were discussing, as if he didn’t know anything about it.
As if. Obama lies like a child. Unfortunately, too many people still believe him.
Gruber with Obama:
http://americandigest.org/gruber-obama.jpg
Grubering? What is sad about all this is the fact that Obama was quite happy to deceive the American people. He is supposed to be working in the best interests of the American people not deceiving them. But then again, that’s been Obama throughout his presidency… lies, more lies and even more damn lies!
FUD “fear, uncertainty and doubt” is a word in common currency for political dishonesty. When politicians want to bury an issue they throw “FUD” at it. Here is the wikipedia definition “Fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) is a tactic used in sales, marketing, public relations, politics and propaganda.”
Grubering: Being lied to by college professors, who then smugly tell their colleagues in video recorded lectures how well the lying went, and when the public finds out about the videos, the colleges start deleting the evidence.
http://twitchy.com/2014/11/17/gruber-gremlins-jonathan-gruber-videos-reportedly-disappearing-from-university-websites/
Meaning: Gruber acted with the knowledge and consent of his employers.
…there is no other reason why they would protect him.
Dbstealey, 11/17/2104, @ur momisugly 4:05 pm replied to M. Simon, saying: What you call the “Right” are statists. The real right are libertarians — the ‘leave us alone’ types. Small government types. [¶] Don’t just parrot the nonsense that the media tries to colonize your mind with; think for yourself.
Repeated dialog with Libertarians, and research into Libertarism, about their creed has been fruitless. When confronted with the definition given by the Libertarian Party, they disavowed it. The only conclusion was that their credo is “We won’t define Libertarianism, but we alone know it when we see it. We know the handshake.”
The only conclusion available is that Libertarianism is a two-pronged ideal: strict isolationist outside the US borders, and strict anarchist inside the borders. Totally, as Dbstealey says, “leave us alone”. But not “small government”, that’s Tea Party. Libertarian is “no government”. Libertarians are the “real right” because there’s no room to the right of Libertarianism.
If Libertarianism is less than this ideal, perhaps Dbstealey will step up to clarify the matter.
The lesson of two World Wars and a Cold war is lost on the Libertarians. It is: intervene to stop evil empires. Appeasement, letting them fester, is always far more costly and inhumane in the extreme. The Pauls’ foreign policy is noticeably quite close to Obama’s, differing only in Rand’s current Gruberish campaign propaganda as he makes a run for President. Rand Paul is trying to do what Gruber did — conflate moderate Republicans with the People.
Domestically, laws and taxpayer funded infrastructure each are optimum neither at the maximum (Democrats/Marxists/Gruber) nor the minimum (Libertarian), but somewhere to the right of the middle.
The modern crop of traditional Republicans, called Moderates, are me-too Democrat/populists. They don’t want to just repeal Obamacare; listen to them — they want to replace it! They still want nationalized healthcare. They don’t want to put science into climatology. They are unaware that warming causes CO2. They still think CO2 causes warming, just not quite so much. Moderate Republicans want not quite so much spending, taxes, government, regulations, secrecy. Both want to nationalize the energy sector. The two, Democrats and traditional Republicans, agree in full on at least on item: lifetime terms in office.
Once the Libertarians go public with a platform, and once the Tea Party completes its hostile takeover of the Republican Party, we can look forward to a constructive two party system: (TP) Republicans and (defined) Libertarians.
Jeff Glassman reheats a tired meme:
“Repeated dialog with Libertarians, and research into Libertarism, about their creed has been fruitless.”
Of course it is fruitless. It’s like studying the properties of “*” (the wild card). It has a single property — “liberty” in conjunction with pretty much every other property that is not directly rival with it, and sometimes even then. Libertarians otherwise come in all flavors and cannot reliably be predicted to vote Democrat or Republican — which ever one appears to have more “liberty” while not at the same time being stupid.
“Libertarian is ‘no government'”
Incorrect and it reveals you’ve been reading Huffington Post or some such thing which has been struggling to understand what is a libertarian, barely aware there is such a thing that is neither Democrat nor Republican and which may well be more numerous than either alone and maybe both together.
Anarchy is “no government”. Libertarian is “you choose for you, I choose for me” and together we may well choose a government so we don’t each personally have to be involved in such minutiae. Libertarian requires shared culture, intelligence and education or it becomes either anarchy or totalitarianism, usually both in that order (consider the French Revolution).
“The lesson of two World Wars and a Cold war is lost on the Libertarians. It is: intervene to stop evil empires.”
Wrong. The world wars were economic. All wars are economic. Sir Thomas More’ lays it out pretty well in “Utopia”. At any rate, WHY should I be involved in your desire to stop evil empires? All except our own of course. Please explain. Nothing in the United States Consitution (or that of any other nation so far as I know) appoints the United States to “stop evil empires”. It is a good thing to do of course but my military oath did not include “stopping evil empires”.
“Once the Libertarians go public with a platform”
Make it singular: Once a libertarian goes public with his platform you may notice that it is different than my platform.
“taxpayer funded infrastructure each are optimum neither at the maximum (Democrats/Marxists/Gruber) nor the minimum (Libertarian)”
In a perfect libertarian world there would be no taxes since I have no natural right to take the fruit of your labor, nor you mine. The Star Trek “Ferengi” culture seems to be a good-faith attempt to explore the functioning of such a thing. All infrastructure would be by subscription. It is nearly certain that no one would have stepped on the moon and GPS would not exist. Libertarian can be taken to an absurd extreme that hardly anyone wishes to see happen.
“They still want nationalized healthcare”
Some do, some don’t, but at least it would be Constitutional.
Michael 2, 11/18/14 @ur momisugly 8:42 pm
You’ve provided a fine example of the libertarian meme, the fruitless defense of their faith. Then you call it a tired meme! Confusing. Is the meme the fruitless libertarian defense, because it is tiresome, or is the calling of it fruitless the meme part? Either way, you agree: Of course it’s fruitless. You won’t get many converts with self-contradictory arguments.
You say, Libertarians otherwise come in all flavors and cannot reliably be predicted to vote Democrat or Republican. Want to place a wager? Where are the Ron and Rand Pauls of the left? The equivalent on the left of the throng of fresh-faced libertarian youngsters, barely in their 20s, who pack CPAC get-togethers? It may be the Libertarian strategy to belong to no political party, but it is the polar opposite of the Democrats.
You say,
“Libertarian is ‘no government’” … Anarchy is “no government”. Libertarian is “you choose for you, I choose for me” … .
So Libertarianism is not anarchy, not no government, it’s everyone do his own thing. A distinction without no difference.
You accuse me of reading Huffington, then write, The world wars were economic. Apparently having no strategy, Libertarians can copy freely from the Marxists. Apparently you believe that the problem with communism, the 3d Reich, and the Brotherhood is that the markets aren’t free enough.
You state and then rationalize that In a perfect libertarian world there would be no taxes. Even Gruber knows from his Harvard PhD in econ that no taxes yields no government. Ideally.
You say, Please explain. Nothing in the United States Constitution … appoints the United States to “stop evil empires”. It is a good thing to do of course but my military oath did not include “stopping evil empires”. And regarding “nationalized healthcare” … at least it would be Constitutional.”
Explanation: Conducting war is constitutional — Congress can declare it, the President can conduct it, and each State can too, if invaded, as in from Mexico. The Constitution places no constraints on the nature of the enemy, evil empire or a nasty virus, apparently.
The federal government can nationalize health care, but not under the Commerce clause. It can do so by its power to tax, according to Chief Justice Roberts> He found that the power to tax is the unlimited power to do anything, and not just what is expressly permitted by the Constitution. With a single stroke, CJ Roberts swept away the principle of a small federal government. And with it, not just libertarianism, that’s easy, but conservatism.
Your military oath was to defend and protect the Constitution, not to fantasize about what it says.
You say, Libertarian can be taken to an absurd extreme that hardly anyone wishes to see happen. Indeed! That absurdity typifies libertarians, nicely exemplified by your post. If you had a membership drive, you’d drive out members.
What Libertarianism frees mostly is the mind — from the tedium of being literal, consistent, logical, pragmatic, rational. Obama leans on tactics with no strategy; Libertarians have a strategy, but no tactics. Each libertarian is free silently to define whatever it is he think he joined.
Jeff Glassman writes:
“What Libertarianism frees mostly is the mind”
A free mind is already libertarian.
(Speaking of George Orwell’s “1984”): “Before that — throughout nearly the whole book — Winston was a victim of tyranny — but not, apparently, without all of his freedoms: he retained what might be called the final freedom, or (better, perhaps?) the first freedom: the one that resides inside — the freedom to think. The freedom that makes him human. For lovers of political freedom, this mental freedom is the most precious of all because it is the one that an individual must ultimately call upon in pursuit (or recovery) of all other freedoms. ”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/orthodoxy-libertys-other-_b_2659886.html
Freedom of mind is the antithesis of socialism. Even if you haven’t thought about it much, deep inside you *feel* it and shapes your entire argument: You FEAR people whose minds are free.
“Where are the Ron and Rand Pauls of the left?”
England and Germany for the most part.
“It may be the Libertarian strategy to belong to no political party, but it is the polar opposite of the Democrats.”
Mostly correct. Democrats are the party of “Everything not forbidden is compulsory”. Libertarians, with their free minds, tend not to accept either forbiddings or compulsion.
“So Libertarianism is not anarchy, not no government, it’s everyone do his own thing. A distinction without no difference.”
A government of the people, by the people, IS everyone doing his own thing. I work where I wish (and where my employer also wishes it), I buy what I wish, I sell what I wish, I travel where I wish. In so doing, I I move the economic engine of this nation. Some government is necessary; I choose it. National defense is necessary, I choose that, too; and gave 20 years of my life to the defense of this nation. What have you done that is commendable and which you chose?
Jeff Glassman wrote: “Conducting war is constitutional — Congress can declare it, the President can conduct it”
Nothing in the Constitution compels “stopping evil empires”. That Democrats wish to do so, at the cost of millions of American lives, is indisputable (Vietnam war comes to mind).
Nothing in my oath compels “stopping evil empires”. My oath specifically states that I defend the Constitution of the United States. Evil empires are not my problem UNTIL they threaten the United States. The mere fact of being evil is insufficient to activate my military oath. Pol Pot was very evil (as I judge the matter anyway), but the United States did nothing. Likewise Rwanda. Likewise Chairman Mao.
“The federal government can nationalize health care, but not under the Commerce clause. It can do so by its power to tax, according to Chief Justice Roberts”
Agreed. What the feds probably cannot do is decree private healthcare illegal. However, if everyone paid tax and the feds produced a national health care system, the subsidy would drive all private healthcare out of business. Hillary Clinton’s version of Clintoncare actually did make private healthcare illegal with steep fines on doctors and patients for going outside the system.
“He found that the power to tax is the unlimited power to do anything”
Pretty much. That is why Democrats and tax go hand-in-hand.
“With a single stroke, CJ Roberts swept away the principle of a small federal government”
And you wonder why there’s been such a revival of Republicans.
“Your military oath was to defend and protect the Constitution, not to fantasize about what it says.”
Wrong. That oath includes a requirement to “obey lawful orders” — necessitating some “fantasizing” about what is lawful and what is not.
Jeff Glassman,
I’m not a libertarian [notice the small “l”]. So maybe I don’t understand everything about them.
I agree with a strong national defense, and for the U.S. to stand up for itself in the world. No isolationist here.
Aside from national defense, though, I still favor small gov’t. The smaller the better, because government is basically evil. The fire analogy is apt. Both can be used effectively, but they can also get out of control. I think we’re at that point now.
@dbstealey Libertarian can mean anything. For example, there are anarchists, agrarians, anarchist-agrarians, socialists, communists. It is a total catch-all. Wikipedia has a list of types of libertarians and it has every meaning you can imagine. So unless there is an honest adjective in front of the term, it is a slinking chameleon.
You CAN rely on Wikipedia!
Zeke,
Wow. A ‘slinking chameleon’. We don’t want no slinking chameleons around here.
I’m glad I’m just a run of the mill Ivan the Terrible, Attilla the Hun, and a ‘bomb ’em until the rubble bounces’ rightwing fanatic. Don’t wanna be no slinking chameleon. No, Ma’am. ☹
” So maybe I don’t understand everything about them.”
There is no “them”. You understand “them” one by one; each for what he or she is.
I appear to be very similar to you in many respects, gave 20 years of my life to the most non-libertarian organization imaginable (military service), but the act of doing so *is* libertarian — I chose it.
If you prefer to choose your own entertainments, your food, where you dwell and where you work, you are a libertarian. If you wish for someone else to tell you, or you wish to tell others, you are probably a Democrat.
It is possible to be both at the same time of course. The elite among socialists are the libertarian element of the socialist spectrum. The elite choose for themselves and for others, the proletariat choose nothing. But if there is such a thing as a “real libertarian”, he does not tell others what to do — he may suggest for their consideration things for them to do that will benefit him, and perhaps others, but coercion or compulsion which he resists upon himself he also does not impose upon others.
No surprise that Gruber is also a computer modeler. One of the many products he sells to governments is computer models. His faux economic chicanery has been as profitable as fake “climate science”. Taxpayers have been bilked out of millions by his scams:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/18/controversial-economist-gruber-has-earned-millions-from-taxpayers-at-federal/
We have met the enemy and it is our own Big Government.