I’m Not The Only One

I’ve been working on some other things lately, but I just had to blog when I came across this New York Times blog by Paul Krugman titled, “Why Libertarianism Doesn’t Work“.  Normally, I don’t find Paul Krugman to be such a moron but reading this particular piece is precisely why columnists, commentators and bloggers get such a bad rap.

First the moron bashes the late great Milton Friedman in a quote in which Mr. Friedman stated that there is no need for product safety regulation, because corporations know that if they do harm they’ll be sued.  Paul then twists this concept around to draw from what he calls a “real world” example, implying that Friedman and/or libertarianism are inherently flawed and not realistic.

The example describes a “moderate Republican” from Alaska named Lisa Murkowski who recently opposed a bill that would have raised the liability cap from $75 million to $10 billion on the claim that it “would have unfairly hurt smaller oil companies by raising the costs of oil production.”

In his column titled, “Conscience of a Liberal” (apparently that conscience does not involve telling the truth), Krugman  smugly concludes:

“And don’t say that we just need better politicians. If libertarianism requires incorruptible politicians to work, it’s not serious.”

WTF?!?!

Wow, where do I even begin?

1. Is Krugman implying that this Murkowski person is some sort of libertarian?  I Googled her and she is considered a “moderate Republican” because she is pro-choice and supports ObamaCare as well as stem cell research.   Moderate does not equal libertarian.  A libertarian is not a person who simply picks and chooses a garden variety of liberal and conservative values.  A libertarian is a person who favors any value, regardless of what end of the political spectrum from which they may come, that increases freedom and civil liberties for individuals as well as organizations like nonprofiits and businesses.  Krugman is either a moron who has not done his homework on libertarianism or a complete bullshit artist for twisting Mr. Friedman’s quotes into something that on the surface appears unrealistic and foolish when inaccurately and inappropriately applied to a situation which is not even remotely libertarian.  I also found Rep. Murkowski opposed a bill that would have given Washington D.C. residents (many of whom are black) the electoral vote and Congressional representation they lack because D.C. is a federal district and not part of the 50 states. This “libertarian” also voted against a bill which would have made the Army Corps of Engineers more accountable for the environmental and economic impacts of their projects.  Wow, denying equal representation to millions of U.S. citizens and residents?  Giving a federal agency carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want with U.S. tax money without fear of repercussion if they screw up in a way that will cost more tax dollars to correct (If you’re dumb enough to give a government agency power and money, at least pretend to want to hold them accountable for what they do with said money and power!)? Murkowski is a libertarian in the same sense that Paul Krugman is honest or intelligent, which is a big NOT on both accounts.
2. Contrary to Paul’s asinine interpretation, libertarianism does NOT require ” incorruptible politicians to work”.  Most libertarians are quite aware that an incorruptible politician (if you think about it, the term is really an oxymoron) is as real as the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus.  All humans are corruptible, and that includes politicians.  This is why libertarians desire a limited government where politicians have limited power because you cannot abuse what you do not have.  As English historian and accidental libertarian Lord Acton once famously said:

“Power corrupts, and absolute power absolutely corrupts.”

But there’s another huge red flag here, one that Krugman brought to peoples’ attention: the liability cap for oil companies.  Only a government as corrupt as the United States could possibly think limiting how much for which a corporation could held responsible for their screw ups would be for the greater good.  Raising the lawsuit limit to $10 billion is ridiculous.  Consider the following scenario: If an oil company CEO was tempted to make a risky decision that if, executed with no problems would greatly increase their bottom line but would cost the company $8 billion in liabilities if their decision resulted in an accident/environmental disaster they would just increase the magnitude and scope of their decision to increase the potential liability to $20 billion and only have to pay out the first $10 billion, resulting in a 50 percent discount on their liabilities!  Great business planning if the company stands to make ten times that amount in said decision, because the more damage your company causes the less it has to pay out. I’m so glad I live in Nigeria!  Oh wait, I forgot.  I live in the United States.

In a libertarian government, there would be NO cap on how much any organization or individual could be sued for.  If you cause $10 billion in damages, you should be held responsible for $10 billion.  As for Murkowski’s nonsense about the bill’s potential to increase cost of oil production, a company’s costs won’t go up if they’re not liable for anything, and they won’t be liable for anything if they don’t screw up in the first place.  Only government could make corporate irresponsibility profitable.  Apparently Krugman thinks libertarianism equals corporate welfare.  Paul Krugman equals moron.

Of course, this whole piece was made topical because of the recent and massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico by British Petroleum.  What Krugman fails to take note of, either because he’s a moron or a liar (or both), is that Washington gives BP huge tax breaks (more corporate welfare) which probably made the company’s actions even more profitable even though they would’ve amassed huge profits without the tax break, but figured since they’re making so much money, why not take a few risks that at the worst, could cost a measly $75 million in liabilities in the face of tens of billions of dollars in profit?  Obama says he wants to end energy subsidies such as these.  You mean like how you pulled the troops out of Iraq?  Sure, I’ll hold my breath.

Thanks, Paul Krugman, for showing us one more reason why government should be stripped of their power (in this case, over the judicial system) and for showing us one more reason no one should pay attention to liberal columnists.

This entry was posted on Sunday, May 16th, 2010 at 5:18 am and is filed under Media, Government Incompetence, New Yawk, Government Corruption, Economics, Government Interference. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.