Parsing Political Language: Is Obama an Inveterate Liar?

Democracy, Taxation, Vulgar Politics
By / / 2 Comments / 2 minutes of reading
Share

With the news breaking today that “Obama suggests value-added tax may be an option,” many of my fellow libertarians are going to pat themselves on the back while (cynically) claiming that the President has broken yet another campaign promise and is, therefore, a liar. They’re wrong, of course. Politicians don’t lie. They speak precisely. Libertarians need to pay closer attention to what politicians actually say instead of misinterpreting what was said. Remember too that all language is metaphorical and definitions can vary for any word. Here’s master-linguist William Jefferson Clinton explaining it much more concisely than I:

Eat your heart out, Derrida.

Libertarians will tell you that Obama made a firm pledge not to raise taxes on any family making less than $250,000 per year. This is false. Here is the actual video:

He chose his words precisely.

Transcription: “And I can make a firm pledge: under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase, not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

Let’s take a look at the language there: “He can make a pledge” that no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.” Note that he didn’t make a pledge; rather, he said he can make a pledge. Simple statement of fact. I believe him. It’s not difficult to make a pledge. All he has to do is say, “I pledge…” followed by the pledge. He didn’t say that. If that’s not enough to settle the issue for you, he said “no family”. Well, what’s a family? Don’t even try to define family. I could present you with 40 different definitions for family off the top of my head. It’s impossible, therefore, precisely to know whom he was referring to in this non-pledge. Not convinced yet? Well, he said “making less than $250,000 a year.” But, see, my father (a brilliant economist) taught me when I was a child that it’s imprecise to talk about “making money”. You know who makes money? The Treasury Department’s Bureau of Engraving and Printing and other counterfeiters. What productive people do is “earn money”. Understand the difference? Finally, the non-defined families which counterfeit “less than $250,000 a year” that he’s describing in his non-pledge won’t “see” any form of tax increase. They might “experience” it. They’ll certainly pay it. They just won’t “see” it.

Parsing Political Language: Is Obama an Inveterate Liar? Read Post »

Branded as Misesian

(Austrian) Economics, Vulgar Politics
By / / 1 minute of reading
Share

RECENT DEVELOPMENT: Friends to both my right and my left latch onto my admiration for Ludwig von Mises as a way to avoid using the word “libertarian.”

Today I was invited to help out on a political campaign, a run for office by a man thinking of using the “Tea Party” rubric. To get my support, he said that his campaign organizers were all “Misesians.” And a neighbor of mine, a famous rock musician, has repeatedly brought up Mises as an indicator of my political and social thought and orientation.

This interests me, in part, because it seems something new. “Mises” is becoming a brand, “Misesian” a respectable label.

It also interests me that the Hayek Brand appears to be receding in importance. Twenty years ago, I am sure Hayek would have been chosen as the hero corresponding with my ideology. Though “Hayek” still soars in academia, in America at large “Mises” has gained ground, and perhaps even surpassed “Hayek.”

Further, none of my friends and interlocutors really want to dredge up the one thinker with whom I most readily identify: Herbert Spencer. His brand is still in the proverbial toilet.

Branded as Misesian Read Post »

The NOPD Is “Troubled”

Anti-Statism, Police Statism, Political Correctness, Vulgar Politics
By / / 1 minute of reading
Share

Federal assistant AG Thomas Perez is considering filing a “pattern or practice” lawsuit against the New Orleans Police Department as a result of all the killings and coverups perpetrated by that department since Katrina.  Due to niceties in federal law, such a suit, if won by the feds, would effectively allow the Justice Department to determine how the NOPD runs for a while.

What I find most interesting in the coverage of the story, though, is this:  Even though Perez wants to take over the NOPD because of a lengthy and recent record of police killings of innocent people and ensuing cover-ups, Perez still can’t bring himself to call the NOPD “corrupt,” “malignant,” “evil,” or even “dangerous.”  Perez and a New Orleans defense attorney (!) refer to the NOPD as “troubled,” which moniker the rest of us use to describe a rebellious and unhappy, but otherwise harmless, teenager.

I’m guessing that Perez and the defense attorney avoid stronger language partly instinctively in the avoidance of incurring personal liability (a habit lawyers learn quickly), and partly to avoid shaking our faith in government itself — political correctness at its most transparent.  But it makes me wonder:  If killing the people they’ve sworn “to protect and serve” earns a police department the label “troubled,” what must it take for these folks to refer to a department as “corrupt”?

The NOPD Is “Troubled” Read Post »

I Do Not Support Peter Schiff For Senate

(Austrian) Economics, Democracy, Vulgar Politics
By / / 11 Comments / 2 minutes of reading
Share

Peter Schiff is an excellent economist and his appearances on various financial shows (and the corresponding Youtube clips and blog posts) have contributed to the economics education and financial health of thousands of people. Why on earth is he running for the Senate?  1 Does he really believe that the political process has even a remote chance of limiting the size and scope of government? Such a belief is truly absurd for two reasons:

  1. The inherent inertia of the political workings of Washington D.C. makes it nearly impossible to slow down the growth of government; actually shrinking the government from the inside borders on impossible.
  2. Even if I am wrong that it’s an impossibility to shrink government from the inside, what it would require is more than three libertarians. Were Schiff to win, and Ron Paul’s son Rand Paul to win also, that would make 3 libertarians in Congress (I’m generously calling Rand a libertarian, mind you) vs 532 socialists of varying degrees; worse, their forces would be split, as Schiff and Rand would be in the Senate (2 vs 98) and Ron would be in the House (1 vs 434). You’ve got to be kidding me.

I’d prefer to see Schiff save his money and that of all the people who would donate to his campaign (freedom-lovers) so they can use it to brace for the impact of this onsetting depression. Tossing so much into the political advertising money pit is a total waste. That’s an enormous amount to spend ($30 Million or so?) in the hopes that Peter can get elected and make great speeches on CSPAN, given that he already gets invited to speak on the financial circuit with little or no out-of-pocket expense on his part. In fact, Schiff has already had to cease appearing twice per week on one of the financial shows due to campaign laws, so now we’re back to all Keynes all the time. And even if he were to win, it’s doubtful the Republican leadership would seat Schiff on any of the important financial committees, so what would he really accomplish in the Senate? Maybe introduce a few bills which never make it out of committee?

Worst of all, I fear Schiff doesn’t really have a shot of winning since libertarianism doesn’t really resonate with the masses (yet), so all of that time and money campaigning will likely be wasted. (Yes, I know I just made an objective truth claim about others’ subjective evaluations which is an Austrian no-no.)

  1. Schiff’s campaign website has been taken down. ↩

I Do Not Support Peter Schiff For Senate Read Post »

The Hartford Capitol Flag Brouhaha

Anti-Statism, Vulgar Politics
By / / 3 minutes of reading
Share

Tea Party protestors in Hartford, Connecticut, wanted to fly the Gadsden Flag over the capitol, as part of a protest. From the ensuing coverage, it seems that Connecticut’s capitol building flies a number of flags, upon request. Odd things, that.

The police who draw flag duty at the state’s capitol initially assented to the request. But a politician protested and the police withdrew permission.

At first blush, the idea that a state capitol would co-operate with protestors to hoist a specialty flag up the state’s sacred pole seems nuts.

Gadsden Flag
Gadsden Flag

But the Gadsden Flag — a golden field featuring the figure of a coiled snake captioned with the simple command “Don’t Tread On Me” — has a respectable history . . . at least it does if you consider the founding of the United States of America respectable. Droll to think of one of the original 13 states as repudiating one of the union’s first real flags.

It was a Democratic pol who objected. He said it was a “partisan” flag. Tea-Partyers are partisan? This is not completely obvious to me, considering that I know registered Libertarians, Republicans, and Democrats in the movement. But, hey: The Democrat almost certainly knows what he’s talking about. If he feels threatened by the sentiment, I think we should take him at his word.

…

The Hartford Capitol Flag BrouhahaRead More »

The Hartford Capitol Flag Brouhaha Read Post »

Scroll to Top