Post For Free To Choose Fans
Freidman states the obvious: united Republican government is horrible for freedom.
Progress in his goal of rolling back the role of government, he said, is "being greatly threatened, unfortunately, by this notion that the U.S. has a mission to promote democracy around the world," a big Bush objective.
"War is a friend of the state," Friedman said. It is always expensive, requiring higher taxes, and, "In time of war, government will take powers and do things that it would not ordinarily do."
...
"There's no question if we're holding down spending, a Democratic president and a Republican House and Senate is the proper combination."
posted by Miguel @ 1:07 PM
4 Comments:
Friedman is right.
Ivan, I reckon you would argue this:
(1) Bush is better than Kerry libertarian wise.
(2) Do you want another NINE-ELEVEN or what?
My response to (1) is: Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dumb, I voted 3rd party. Next time I might not vote.
My response to (2) is that I don't feel safer thanks to airport harrassment and men at Times Square with M16s.
Also, I have a gut feeling that Bush tax cuts weren't implemented to bring us closer to a sound and just libertarian utopia. If they were, he'd try to shrink government involvement in my life in other arenas. He has not. On the contrary. I also don't think this ballooning to prevent terrorrism justifies, for instance, the huge budget deficit.
I have more than enough to complain about. Not everything Bush does is good.
#1 is so completely true it's crazy. The opportunity cost of a Kerry vote leading to his victory was huge. In this regard, Friedman is wrong. It would be worse with Kerry.
#2 is true because of Kerry's bad foreign policy. The ignorance with his assertion he can change the situation on the ground in Iraq is dangerous. Being safe in America has nothing to do (unfortunately) with TSA or the rainbow of doom. It has to do with distracting Al Queda on their home turf long enough to eradicate the reason it exists. This is at least a decade long effort.
As for government spending, everyone knows it's bad. Something will need to be done. Unfortunately, I can't vote here in Mass in any meaningful way. I think I live in a town where you can't smell a thing, and you watch your feet for crack heads who voted Kerry 80-20.
p.s. how long will it take MS Word to incorporate “Al Queda” into the dictionary.
"if we're holding down spending..."
That is the key. There is nothing about searching every shipping container, merging the two americas, 'taking care' of seniors, universal health care, increasing corporate and environmental regulation, etc. that holds down spending.
The discussion around point 1 is either misreading or not reading the argument. The conservative (that is, resistant to change) nature of the US gov't structure is undermined by one party rule. Bush's ambitions to expand the size and power of the state are politically easy, while Kerry's (and Clinton's, as Freidman mentions) aren't, all other things being equal.
Point 2 seems to concede that colonization and statism are at odds with libertopia, but that it's worth it thanks to special circumstances. Freidamn has heard this type of bullshit before.
As far as Bush's supposed connection to preventing another Massacre, get real. 12,000 more are dead at the hands of al Qaeda-ish terrorists under President Bush's watch in Free Iraq. Meanwhile, in the actually important parts of the world: the dollar and US military are a laughingstock; and China and India presume China and India to be battling for global supremacy.
Post a Comment
<< Home