About two weeks ago I was forwarded a particularly obnoxious article by the LOLbertarian Richard Hanania. I considered writing a piece in response, before scrapping it. However, his opening line, combined with his obnoxious midwit bloviation, prompted me to write a quick response.
Some people are naturally tribal and don’t like immigration. So they’ll use whatever justifications they can come up with to argue against it.
You hear that you fuckin’ dumb dumb tribalists? Richard Hanania gets why you don’t like migrants. It’s because you’re dumb and tribal, instead of intelligent and individualist like him. Because of your stupid tribalism, you resort to making any argument in favour of your position. Richard would never stoop so low as to do exactly that multiple times in this very same piece…
This argument that immigrants will make the country more liberal is straightforward and has a surface plausibility, but I think it sort of misunderstands why some countries have pro-market policies and others don’t in the first place. Restrictionists imply that America is relatively capitalist because it has a population that supports markets, which manifests itself in voting Republican. People who want to redistribute wealth support Democrats, and if you import more Democrat voters you’ll get more left-wing economic policies.
The bad news is that it’s true that in general, Hispanics and Asians do express more support for various forms of government spending than whites. Yet if the existence of markets depended on the state of public opinion, we would’ve become a social democracy a long time ago.
Hanania makes the astonishing point that Weimerica is a fake democracy. Well, in and of itself, that isn’t astonishing. However, he argues that this is a good thing, because the dumb dumb peasants want more SoCIaLisM, while the parasite class elites want mUh FrEE mArKEtS.
Here’s one poll of many showing that, when it comes to basically everything government does, the vast majority of the population wants to either increase spending or spend the same amount. There is no substantial constituency for small government.
Here’s where Hanania starts being objectively full of shit, as opposed to being an obnoxious bug creature. It’s true that average everyday people support increases to spending for all the items that Hanania shows in the graphic below. Veterans should get more money, infrastructure projects should be increased, America should have fully socialist healthcare, etcetera. I support increases to spending those areas as well.
Unfortunately for Hanania, there are plenty of topics where the dumb dumb peasants support much smaller taxpayer spending than the (((Democracy Class))). For example:
WASHINGTON, March 15 (Reuters) – A bipartisan majority of Americans oppose U.S. taxpayers footing the bill when bad management causes a bank to fail, though Republican opposition to bank bailouts has softened over the last decade, a Reuters/Ipsos poll completed on Wednesday found.
The two-day Reuters/Ipsos poll found 84% of respondents – including strong majorities of Republicans and Democrats – think taxpayers should not have to pay to resolve problems caused by irresponsible bank management.
Okay, but that’s just one bailout. I’m sure all the other ones that our (((Democracy Class))) rammed down our throats were super popular.
The survey, released on Tuesday, shows 48 percent of Americans strongly or somewhat strongly oppose any legislative effort to reward corporate lobbying groups with coronavirus stimulus money, versus 34 percent who support the measure.
By the way, that was just a very small part of the bailout that big businesses got at the start of Covid-19. Their $6 trillion bailout, peasants need not apply, was never even put to polling to the best of my knowledge. I’ve searched for results on that and come up empty handed.
Let’s check out the Auto Bailout of 2008. That must have been popular, right?
PRINCETON, NJ — A slight majority of 51% of Americans say they oppose the federal government’s giving major financial assistance to the Big Three U.S. automotive companies, while 43% favor it — representing a slight decrease in support compared to three weeks ago. However, if it is stressed that one of the Big Three companies were certain to fail without government assistance, support rises to the majority level of 52% and opposition falls to 42%.
B-b-b-but what about the bank bailouts from the same time?
PRINCETON, NJ — A new Gallup Poll, conducted March 24-27, shows that 6 in 10 Americans oppose the federal government taking steps to help prevent major Wall Street investment companies from failing.
That’s so odd. I was informed by the super duper smart LOLbertarians that the
parasite class elites were doing a commendable job of overriding the filthy stupid peasants desire for socialist spending programs. And yet here we see that the peasants are the ones who want less government spending, while the (((Democracy Class))) wants more.
In a shocking twist, the US Federal Government does what the Democracy Class wants instead of what the peasants want, despite this going against the totally sacred free market beliefs of our elected representatives that they tell us about when not giving us socialist healthcare.
BTW, there is also massive propaganda from the WMD Liars before every bailout, desperately trying to get the peasants to support their own robbery. It’s not that the fake democracy necessarily cares about what people want, it’s just that they want the polling numbers on public opinion to be good enough for fewer people to realize that they live in a fake democracy. Even with that, the majority of people oppose bailouts, because they aren’t in their interests.
Keep this in mind as Hanania’s bloviation continues.
If public opinion is so socialist, why do we have markets at all? Why don’t government spending and economic regulation increase indefinitely until we’re the Soviet Union? This is the question we need to ask before we get into the topic of the likely impacts of demographic change. There several reasons, but I want to highlight four that I think are particularly important.
- Experts have a disproportionate influence on public policy, and as Bryan Caplan points out in The Myth of the Rational Voter, economists, whether on the right or left, are more pro-market than the masses.
Economists are more pro-market than the masses… until it’s time to write those banks/corporations that huge Get Out Of Jail Free Cheque.
Economists are employed by the very same Corporate-State Complex that they shill for. They do not need to be looked at as individual actors separate from the power structure that writes their cheques.
- People vote on things other than their opinions on economic issues. Republican voters in particular choose politicians based on their tribal instincts and social values. Democrats in the 2020 primary may have agreed with Sanders more than Biden on some issues, but worried about electability and did not want to think of themselves as radicals.
- Rich individuals and corporations lobby on behalf of their own interests. Sometimes this will involve fighting for crony capitalism, but other times it means just trying to be left alone.
You hear that you heckin’ tribalinos? These trillion dollar multinational corporations don’t want anything other than to be left alone.
It’s almost like they want that, because they are the winners of winner-take-all-markets, and don’t face any competition from “muh free market.”
Having a Government come in and stop Google from mass censoring the Goyim might be what the little peasants want, but the “elites,” are smart enough to not believe in Government intervention… until it’s time for that bailout.
- Checks and balances. In some countries, the designers of system granted certain individual rights and made it very hard to change things. This places limits on what government can do, and sometimes hinders attempts at redistribution. The ghost of James Madison continues to frustrate the designs of the AOCs of the world.
Basically, one can understand democratic capitalism as elites continually having to run circles around citizens, who would destroy our standard of living if they ever truly got what they wanted.
I had no idea that not bailing out banks and big corporations would “destroy our standard of living.” Interesting argument for a LOLbertarian to make, no?
As stupid and repulsive as Hanania’s argument has been thus far, he’s not even consistent. Above he explicitly argues that “democratic capitalism,” is totally fake capitalism, and is really just oligarchy. This is undeniably true. He phrases this as if it’s a good thing, but later on, when what he wants is ostensibly popular with the masses, he argues that said popularity with the masses is the justification for said policy.
After the 1960s, it became impossible to get overwhelming majorities in favor of major additions to the welfare state. Republicans in particular went far to the right on economics, and they started winning more elections. This wasn’t because white Americans suddenly decided markets were good. Again, all populations hate markets, because it takes too high of an IQ to appreciate them, and even among those smart enough, you still have to be more interested in truth than supporting things that sound good in order to give capitalism its due.
You’re just not high enough IQ to understand that trillion dollar multinationals who are gigantic because they are monopolies should be able to do whatever they want to the peasants.
Rather, white Americans, particularly in the South, had a negative reaction to affirmative action, urban disorder, and other indications that the liberal establishment had turned against its own citizens.
Not that Republicans have actually cut spending. But I think the successes of the conservative movement have to be placed in their proper context. People dislike markets, and like government redistribution. For a democracy to go over half a century without any new massive government welfare programs at the level of Social Security, Medicaid, etc. is quite the accomplishment. I don’t think it would’ve happened without diversity. The biggest drivers of government spending are now the entitlement programs that an overwhelmingly white country supported in the 1930s and again in the 1960s.
None of this guarantees that we can expect immigration to always have a positive effect on our politics and make it more difficult to have a welfare state. Only that one can’t simply predict what our politics are going to be like decades from now by looking at how people vote today and then extrapolating into the future. When you have demographic change, you have a backlash to it, and no one can say what the end result of all this will be. If someone in the mid-1960s was told that the country was going to become much less white, and new arrivals would be much more likely to support government welfare programs, they would’ve likely predicted many more FDRs and LBJs. But we fortunately haven’t had one, thanks to the fact that Republicans were able to take advantage of the backlash to the 1960s, and libertarian orthodoxy became well represented within the party.
Here the LOLbert faggot openly praises racial incoherence and the destruction of society as being the main driver behind the destruction of social safety nets in America. In Hanania’s view, Americans don’t get to have socialist healthcare because of Diverse-Americans. He says that this is a good thing.
Hanania is so wrong on everything that I could write an entire book debunking almost every single paragraph of his schlock. However, I’ll simply point out that he’s contradicting himself. Earlier he admitted that “democratic capitalism,” is totally fake. Now he’s pretending that it’s real, that Republican voters truly do want cuts to social spending, and that the politicians are responding naturally to this demand from their constituents. And no, he doesn’t have any polling evidence that this is the case.
If you’re looking for consistency you’ll have to take the meta approach. Hanania’s arguments are all over the place, but he remains a snarky, midwit, psuedo-intellectual throughout.
Some leftists think that emphasizing class is better, so will criticize wokeness for being a distraction, arguing that poor people of all backgrounds need to come together and fight the rich. From my perspective, class based politics is much worse. Affirmative action is a tax that market economies can afford to pay, while trade unionism, anti-competitive regulations, and redistributionist policies are fundamentally larger threats to systems that produce wealth.
Affirmative action is systemic anti-White racial discrimination. For all his bloviation about “standard of living,” Richard “big fag” Hanania never once considers that perhaps if you’ve been racially discriminated out of having a job your quality of life will diminish. However, the upside to that is that you get to live in a higher crime area, around people who don’t even speak your language, and… well that’s pretty much it. There are literally no benefits.
Furthermore, The Eternal Libertarian is using the argument that GDP is some sacred cow that the workers must be sacrificed at the altar of. Since 1970, GDP has continued to go up, while wages have stagnated. An increase in GDP is merely an increase in the wealth of billionaires and corporations. Anyone who argues otherwise is dishonest or idiotic.
Every single paragraph of Hanania’s piece deserves evisceration, but I’m skipping down to the comments section for his jab at White Nationalism.
Whether or not people want a policy, you still have to infringe upon their rights to enact it. That’s just a bit of LOLbertarian moralizing thrown in to attempt to justify the “destroy the nation,” policies that he supports. Furthermore he himself celebrated the parasite class deliberately trouncing over the opinions of the majority. Yet now he’s seething that someone might enact policy that *gasp* the average American doesn’t like.
It’s also bullshit anyway. Sure, people don’t like “White Nationalism.” People also don’t like “national socialism,” but they do like strong borders and socialist healthcare. So… like… nationalism and socialism. We can also see the revealed preferences of the shitlibs who
move to heavily non-White areas uproot their lives to go live around a bunch of White People. So spare me, faggot.
A great comment, and one that reminded me that there is only so much seriousness with which one can look at the arguments of someone like Richard Hanania.
[The Jew Bryan Caplan] is a regime libertarian. He does not support ending totalitarian policies like “civil rights” ’64.
These people exist so the regime can pretend to have “diverse perspectives” from leftists, CONseratives, and libertarians. “See, all sides are represented”. What is maintained is:
-endless turd world immigration
-endless corporate bailouts and money printing
(((Bryan Caplan))) is another one of these regime lolbertarians. His name came up a few times, and it’s worth mentioning that he’s entirely full of shit. He also wrote an essay titled “They Scare Me,” where he argued that America should be shoved full of non-Whites specifically because that would destroy social cohesion, and allow Jews to rule over the Goyim. Sure, he didn’t say that last part out loud, but he, in his own autistic way, didn’t leave much to the imagination.
It does remind us that the purpose of immigration is to destroy the nation.
A few other comments were worth repeating.
Commenter (Arabic name)
I was expecting a dumb and crazy article, but parts of this are quite smart, albeit crazy. The most important argument is that racial diversity in the U.S. is the reason it is less socialist in most respects than other advanced democracies. This is probably true.
It is important to emphasise, though, that this is *exactly the same reason* for most of the other salient differences between America and other advanced democracies, namely its very high violent crime rates, unlivable inner cities, total lack of decent urban planning, overreliance on the car (hence obesity), out of control suburban sprawl, declining life expectancy, and just all round s**tiness.
The question is whether the lower levels of socialism are enough to make all of the above worth it. They probably are if your goal is maximising taxable revenue for the military-industrial complex – but if you’re actually choosing a place to live? Doesn’t seem like much of a choice, unless you are just very invested in buying more consoomer goods.
To be a LOLbertarian in 2023 requires mental gymnastics the likes of which the world has never seen before. It demands the pretense of high IQ in order to support muh free market, except not when it comes time for the taxpayers to bail out bankers and multinational conglomerates. That the (((privileged class))) dictating to the real Americans what policy will be is a good thing, except for when LOLberts don’t agree, in which case how dare you try pushing ostensibly unpopular policies?
Jaime, can we pull up that quote from the beginning please?
Some people are naturally tribal and don’t like immigration. So they’ll use whatever justifications they can come up with to argue against it.
Some people are naturally soulless bugcreatures with an obedience complex, so they’ll use whatever justifications they can come up with to argue in favour of whatever agenda our (((Democracy Class))) is pushing. To engage with their premises is to privilege their arguments as worthy of discussion.