Dr. Murphy,

Keeping in mind the signaling (i.e. Hansonian) model of human behavior, I'm not to worried about stuff like this. Most likely it means that she wanted to signal loyalty to socialist values (which are generally recognized as good things). She may not be dumb enough to really be a socialist.

...I hope? Either way, its probably better than her being a self-labeled neoconservative, as post-USSR socialists at least don't condone murder outside of their country.
 

LOL. Goran Persson - our old minister of state! How we hated him, the entire nation of sweden got so tired of his rantings. Sheesh, socialists. Didn't know he was an international bigwig though.
 

Whoa whoa whoa, now I'm confused.

1) Believing that atmospheric resources are scarce, and scarce resourced should privately owned, means I'm a socialist.

2) The appointee is a socialist. (No, no, don't bother Bob_Murphy about stuff like "equivocation" -- he doesn't want to hear it.)

3) So, shouldn't I support this appointment?
 

Grant, I would rather a socialist be in charge of the DoD than a neoconservative, since that is probably a better way to limit further government power. But I would prefer a neoconservative in charge of the nation's energy markets for the same reason. It's true, the neocon "energy czar" might do stuff like impose tariffs on oil from "rogue" regimes etc., but s/he wouldn't impose cap & trade because it would "weaken" the country vis-a-vis Red China, etc.

Silas, what are you talking about? I'm not directing my posts at people whom I think are (on some issues) favoring Big Government. You have somehow taken my criticism of you as evidence of another contradiction on my part?
 

You said in the comment section of the post about coal, and which involved Kathryn, that she had "good reason" to call me a socialist. (As usual, no substantiation for such a claim.) By email, I told you that a system in which people benefit from shifting costs onto others is bad, and you said (simplifying) that that's just the socialist position.

No, no links for any of this -- that would be stalking. But you asked about the context, so there you go. Your position, as best you will disambiguate it, is: "If you think there should be clear, well, defined property rights in the atmosphere, that makes you a socialist. Remember, it's expensive gas we need to worry about, not lack of property rights."
 

Dr. Murphy,

Given that Mises and Smith state that humans advance themselves only for their own benefit and the economics behind political thought brought up by Buchanan state that it is not the politician but the game that is to blame. How is it possible to have a Democracy (Republican or not) that does not go sour. Given human nature, it is inevitable for a government lead by men to ever work. Given that man is selfish, how can you ever trust a selfish man with complete coercive power?

Also, I always wondered Marx theory behind socialism. Now, I know that Marx was lacking in his economic knowledge and he was more of a philosopher then an economist, I am leaning towards his belief that capitalism (a smear term by socialists) must of necessity lead to socialism. However, it is not that capitalism leads to socialism, but the never ending wants of man coupled with the selfishness of all powerful all coercive leaders must lead to socialism. Capitalism (free market) can only produce and provide for those willing to work in a peaceful and truthful manner. Now given that man by nature without our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is far from truthful and peaceful, I find it heard to believe that politicians was having tasted the fruits of capitalism would relinquish their power over to the invisible hand. I find it more agreeable that they would foster that coercive power multiplying it to feed their never ending desires of self want. Conglomerated with this politicians selfishness is the wants of the masses and there ability under a distributing government to take from their neighbors. Given that Humans view present consumption more then future consumption so much so that they are willing to go bankrupt on everything. How is it possible to teach and not only teach but persuade these types of individuals that the money you have now, will cost you even more years from now. You can’t, or Mises, Hyaek, and Rothbard are wrong. The populace will not view the future distress as even feasible because the immediate is so satisfying. They will discount the future distress to such a level that it does not register on their ordinal set of wants.

I believe that a king is the best form of government. When something is not going right, the king can be viewed. Under our system, the Republicans and Democrats have fogged the lens of the populace to the extent that we think the Republicans and Democrats are not working together. If you and I were in charge of a group of a million, and we both wanted to steal money form the million, I find it easier to work together and specialize (division of labor) in a certain field and in hence split the million down the middle. When the house is divided amongst itself, it will not stand. Either the Republicans and Democrats are divided or the people are divided. Given that the R & D work in the same house and vote their own raises, I would say the people are divided. It is simple, divide and conquer. There is no other system of economics aside from capitalism that has fed the great Leviathan so well. The government is trying to capture the invisible hand, an impossibility that will only cause the material to become non-existent. The government, not the invisible hand was made needed to be restrained. You can’t capture what you cannot see, “ you are just groping in the dark”.

Please comment




Please comment
 

Bob, this is mostly just nonsense and you do yourself no credit by catering to the right's nutroots who dig it up.

Browner was a member of a committee of SI for about a year; more context here: http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/01/12/socialist-czar-conspiracy/

The commission first convened in November 2007 to “articulate from the world of progressive politics a way forward to address global environmental concerns, climate change and the issues of governance required to deal with these common challenges” at 10 Downing Street, hosted by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Leader of the British Labour Party.

The Socialist International is “the worldwide organisation of social democratic, socialist and labour parties” from Albania to Zimbabwe. Its members include the center-left New Democratic Party of Canada, the center-left Israeli Labor Party, and the ruling Labour Party in Great Britain. The National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, founded by the U.S. government to support democracy in developing nations, works with Socialist International and other political parties “to help foster open, accountable and responsive political systems.
 

Tom,

What are you talking about? Are you saying they chose the wrong title for their organization? They weren't aware that other groups were already using the word "socialist"?

It's not like she attended a conference in 1983 and we can see her name on an attendance sheet. On a Monday she was listed as one of a dozen "members of the commission," and then she was taken down when her name was in the spotlight.

What exactly is "nutty" in my post?
 

Bob, I didn`t describe your post as "nutty" - but I did use "nutjob" to refer to some of the hypocritical right-wing lovers of the state who are making so much fuss over this.

It`s rather clear that SI is simply a collection of left-wing parties from the major democracies - hardly a big deal. And joining a committee of that group hardly makes Browner any more socialist than George Bush, Paulson or a host of neocons. SO what does it really tell us?

I`d much prefer to seen policies criticized than to see any particular person attacked via a political label.
 

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands..."

The U.S. is a Republic, not a 'democracy' nor a socialist or a communist state.

Those who are not concerned are blind.