This expression is doubtless familiar to many, having appeared first, I believe, during post-Watergate days when Tricky Dick (“I am not a crook”) Nixon began peddling his memoirs. Well, ladies and gents, with George W. Bush’s latest ghostwritten tome now hitting the Web and the bookstores, its time to renew that noble cry. Only it should be something like “Don’t Buy Books By International War Criminals.”
The losers in World War II, for example, were tried—and many convicted—for having waged aggressive war in defiance of their obligations under the (admittedly toothless) Kellogg-Briand Treaty. These trials, conducted in Nuremberg, were unique in developing the legal doctrine that individuals are personally liable to criminal prosecution for crimes against international law. Such crimes included illegal resort to war as well as violations of accepted restraints concerning appropriate conduct during war.
Telford Taylor, the chief Allied prosecutor at Nuremberg wrote that “war consists largely of acts that would be criminal if performed in time of peace—killing, wounding, kidnapping, destroying or carrying off other people’s property. Such conduct is not regarded as criminal if it takes place in the course of war, because the state of war lays a blanket of immunity over the warriors. … But the area of immunity is not unlimited and its boundaries are marked by the laws of war.”
Some critics objected to these proceedings, claiming that the Nuremberg Trials were simply examples of “victors’ justice” and not real international law. Nevertheless, the so-called Nuremberg Principles have served as a benchmark in efforts to introduce humane and reasoned limits to acceptable international behavior. Thus, the international military tribunal that convened in Nuremberg specified a series of war crimes. Most Americans, when they know anything at all about the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, assume that the Nazis therein convicted were punished for their involvement in the Holocaust. Not so. The great majority were convicted for violations of Article 6, Part 1 of the Nuremberg Charter:
“Crimes against the peace, namely planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing.”
Worth noting, in addition: Article 7 specified that “the official position of defendants, whether as Heads of State or responsible officials of Government departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from their responsibility or mitigating their punishment.”
Although I am generally against capital punishment, I make exceptions in two cases: serial killers and international war criminals. At the same time, I realize that it is hopeless to expect George W. Bush to be called to account for his particular war crimes. After all, there is a long history of Americans avoiding justice in this regard (see, e.g., “Kissinger, Henry” and “McNamara, Robert”). And I don’t object to people—even the most despicable criminals—writing about their misdeeds. …
I just wish that in Bush’s case, it had been while awaiting trial in The Hague.
36 Responses to Don’t Buy Books by Crooks
jffoster - November 17, 2010 at 7:57 am
You almost convince me to buy his book.
I regard the Nurnberg War Crimes Tribunal as a Kangaroo Court, which is also how I regard the Hague court today. If you want a different perspective from Professor Barash’ on that, read what then Ohio Senator A P Taft had to say about it and American participation therein, and then read John F Kennedy’s chapter on Senator Taft in his _Profiles in Courage_ .
jffoster - November 17, 2010 at 8:08 am
Sorry, should have drunk a little more coffee. It was Senator Robert Alphonso Taft (Sr.) whom the above should have referred to.
livefreeordie2 - November 17, 2010 at 9:23 am
I think that my absolute dislike of leftists is probably readily apparent. There are lots of good reasons, but the above brainless diatribe is a fine example. In my opinion, not shared I’m sure by many of you, there’s nothing worse than the Stalinist tendencies that are the natural progression of progressivism/socialism. As a general rule (with exceptions), for conservatives (classical liberals), adults can disagree on public policy. The disagreements can be emotional, even strident, but at the end, the opponent is simply wrong about public policy. For progressives (welfare liberals), anyone who disagrees is the enemy (and you can quote Barry Obama on that. . .)! They invariably seek to criminalize their enemy’s behavior and ultimately, embrace attitudes that would have stood well with Uncle Joe. Apparently, that’s the level to which Barash has sunk. He’s against capital punishment (it would be cruel to execute child murderers, wouldn’t it?), but would like to see a former president executed because they disagree on public policy. What a class act! What’s next? Putting purges in the Democrat Platform?
Hey Davey boy! What about Barry Obama? Do you want to see him tried as well? He was going to close Gitmo in a year – it’s been two. He was going to bring the troops home from Iraq, but he’s following the schedule Bush arranged. He’s put tens of thousands more troops into Afghanistan and he using drones to murder families in their sleep. Or does your righteous indignation only apply to Republicans? No need to answer. . . I don’t think it’s really a question.
goxewu - November 17, 2010 at 9:47 am
In a funny way, I’m glad to see that a certain commenter is back. For a while there, I was worried that maybe some tainted hash browns in the Early Bird Special in the Denny’s in Nashua had permanently absented him from the mesh gimme-caps (and a few tricorns) spit ‘n’ argue club and these threads. He seems to have gotten his energy back, but still tends toward repetition from post to post thread. In the interest of his health, I might suggest his composing a template comment–something along the lines of how the very inception of Social Security is leading us right to the Gulag, and how pinko/pansy/mendacious/envious/lazy/parasitic liberals are always paving that road–and then just copying and pasting it each time. T’would save him effort and us time.
livefreeordie2 - November 17, 2010 at 10:12 am
Hi Gox! Thanks for worrying about me! Like you, I find that sometimes it’s necessary to walk away from places like this for a while. I thought of you, actually, as I went back and inserted Barry before Obama, and felt a little guilty. But even though it was gratuitous, when addressing an essay that advocates the trial and execution of a former president for what boils down to the crime of not being a leftist, it increases my desire to be expressive. And with apologies to AUH2O, repetition in the defense of liberty is no vice.
But enough about me. . . I’m interested to hear your opinion about the actual issue at hand. should Bush be tried as a war criminal? And if convicted, should he be sharing a cell with Obama?
mavprof - November 17, 2010 at 11:02 am
Sounds as if Mr Barash has reversed customary juridical procedure: first the verdict–in this case execution, then the trial.
goxewu - November 17, 2010 at 11:12 am
1. Repetition is always a vice. (I shouldn’t have to repeat this.)
2. For practical, not philosophical reasons, I don’t think George W. Bush should be tried as a war criminal. But if he were, I don’t think he should be sentenced to death, but rather to wander on foot in the Mojave Desert, looking for WMDs.
3. Tea Partier guilt? A whole new universe!
4. Bludgeon me with (1), above, but I still think the template comment on Social Security >> welfare >> socialism >> “The Road to Serfdom” >> an American Gulag with forced abortions and gay guards is a good idea. After a few, er, repetitions, in fact, the comment itself could be dispensed with and just the title (e.g., “Liberals: Stalin ‘R’ Us”) posted. By then, we could all recite LFOD2′s post rote. It’d save us reading time, and LFOD2 could spend all day with the dittoheads at Denny’s talking about how ol’ Mr Welch was spot on about Eisenhower being a “conscious agent of the Communist Party.”
marktropolis - November 17, 2010 at 12:08 pm
goxewu – see, I was just going to say that given livefree’s “absolute dislike of leftists” maybe he should stop working so hard trying to convince CHE bloggers/commentors and go back and join his comrades at RedState.org. Or better yet, Stormfront.org.
Livefree, I think you may need to go back to figuring out what “liberal” means, seeing as you think that conservatives are “classic” liberals. I have no idea what a “welfare” liberal is.
As for “anyone who disagrees is the enemy” in reference to so-called progressives (again, how are you defining these terms!?!) I suggest you see what was going on during the Bush years when anyone who criticized the GWOT was labeled a traitor.
Back to the subject at hand: Yes, I think Bush and Cheney should be tried. And if Obama has done anything even close to what Bush & Co. are alleged to do, yes, he and his should be tried as well.
But that’s a big IF. As for Obama closing Guantanamo, last I checked, he’s been trying, but the Repubs and the Blue Dogs (which together could pull off a fillibuster) wouldn’t let him.
So I guess the moral is: check your definitions, and check your facts. A few weeks back we got a few thousand pages of documents regarding the GWOT courtesy of WikiLeaks. Should something similar come out about Obama, yes, I think there should be follow up.
stinkcat - November 17, 2010 at 1:05 pm
“Or better yet, Stormfront.org. ”
Yes, once again we have the tired old tale of if you are conservative you must be racist.
marktropolis - November 17, 2010 at 1:18 pm
stinkcat – And Obama is a Stalinist. You have a problem with Stormfront, but not with RedState?
I’ll admit the Stormfront line was a reach. But much of the rhetoric that Livefree uses is right in line with what you find there (perhaps without the racism). Then again, I supposed jbs.org would have been a better fit.
fizmath - November 17, 2010 at 2:14 pm
FWIW, Chomsky said that every US president since FDR could be hanged by the principles of the Nuremberg Trials.
Until 1944 the Uniform Code of Military Justice stated that a soldier could not be punished for following orders.
livefreeordie2 - November 17, 2010 at 5:10 pm
Marktropolis – I’m a member of the NRA. Other than that, I’m not much of a joiner. And I’ve got to tell you that to associate someone with a racist organization without any facts, simply as a rhetorical flourish, tells me pretty much all I need to know.
In my original comment, I did not say that Obama was a Stalinist. I reserved that for the writer of the post, though I was pretty clear that most progressives could easily end up there. Why? When you publicly write that you think someone you disagree with politically should be killed, you’re walking arm and arm with Uncle Joe. He was, after all, the master, was he not?
As for the rest of what you wrote, you should a. keep up with current events – Obama used the word enemies and he gets to live with it, b. If you don’t know what classical liberalism is, you should google it, and c. Obama spend a good part of his first two years with a filibuster proof majority – trying to blame anything on the GOP is as lame as. . .well. . .being a leftist.
trendisnotdestiny - November 17, 2010 at 10:38 pm
Mandatory reading here should include these works before words like “Stalinist’s or :
Naomi Klein: Shock Doctrine
Noam Chomsky: Manufacturing Consent
Matt Taibbi: Griftopia
Paolo Freire: Pedagogies of the Oppressed
Chris Hedges: Death of the Liberal Class
William Blum: Killing Hope
William K Black: The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One
Feel free to add your two cents here, but so much of the recycled and inbred definitions being bandied about (as Gox correctly refers to)could be avoided in what is already a noisy amplification of difference…..
Read, Write, Edit, Re-write and Repeat!
trendisnotdestiny - November 17, 2010 at 10:40 pm
meant to say
“words like Stalinist’s and other pejorative words for the non-dominant class of thinking individuals….
marktropolis - November 18, 2010 at 9:14 am
livefree
a) we’re not talking about Obama, we’re talking about Bush. Perhaps sticking to the subject would help (and yes, I know I’m guilty of going off-topic, and will cop to that when necessary).
b) According to Webster, Liberal “(1) one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways. Liberalism “(1) a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity …. and (3) a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class)”
c) See (a) above. But since you brought it up, I think you’re forgetting about the Blue Dogs. They kind of make that whole filibuster-proof majority thing kind of nonexistent. As in a fantasy. I don’t blame everything on the GOP. Just the stuff they’re responsible for. Like the war in Iraq. And the tax cuts for the rich. And gutting the regulation of Wall Street and the banking industry. And privatizing federal student loans. Well, just the stuff they did. With some significant support from the Blue Dogs (or as they’re often called by those of us from the Marxist wing of the Democratic Party, DINOs).
It’s curious to me that while you’re not a “joiner” the one org you DO belong to is the NRA. Now, I will say I’ve actually got nothing against gun-owners per se. But I also know the NRA has spent a God awful amount of money on things that have *nothing* to do with guns. And while I find it curious, I’m going to do everything in my power to not make assumptions based on your singular membership in one of the most well-funded lobbying operations in the country. Since I’m assuming you joined because you want to maintain your 2nd Amendment Right, I’m wondering about your feeling related to all the other “stuff” the NRA engages in.
In addition, regarding all this business about Stalin… “When you publicly write that you think someone you disagree with politically should be killed, you’re walking arm and arm with Uncle Joe.” I think if you actually read the entry at the top, the issue isn’t that Barash disagrees with Bush, but there may in fact be a case to be made that he violated international law. If you’re so sure of his innocence, I would think you’d want this hearing, if only to ensure for history that Bush is free and clear.
But I think the line that really took me over the edge in this discussion was jffoster’s line about Nuremberg being a kangaroo court. I had to let that one sit for a while. But for jffoster: how did you feel about the hearing that Saddam Hussein got just prior to being hanged? Did you cheer? Did you watch the video?
goxewu - November 18, 2010 at 10:03 am
One advisedly hestiates to step into the morass of reckless charges, overheated rhetoric, sweeping generalities, and good ol-fashioned guilt-by-association that is the stock-in-trade of LFOD2′s commentary. But once in a while, someone has to pound the gavel, so:
* “I think that my absolute dislike of leftists is probably readily apparent.” Notice that he doesn’t say, pace his subsequent remark, “the public policy of leftists.” He apparently means leftists (anybody from Joe Biden to those who disagree with him on this thread) personally and, again, absolutely. Hardly a great introduction to credibility.
* For conservatives, LFOD2 says, “the disagreements can be emotional, even strident, but at the end, the opponent is simply wrong about public policy.” First, this supposed Marquis of Queensbury-style disagreement, when it occurs, is not more common to conservatives than it is to liberals. Second, there have been and still are disagreements among political conservatives that have become and still become quite vituperative and personal. Those concerning libertarian stances on drugs, gay rights, and abortion, for example.
* This Beavis-and-Butthead, junior-high, snuk-snuk name business–”Barry,” “Barash,” “Skinny” (LFOD2 tried that one out during the campaign,) “Davey boy”–may give the writer a giggle or two while he types, but it really comes off as petulant, causes no wincing on the part of Obama supporters such as I (only a rolling of the eyes), and adds nothing to the discussion. But if the gambit gives LFOD2 a feeling of, to use a word progressives like, empowerment, I guess we’ll not soon see the end of it.
* “[Liberals] invariably seek to criminalize their enemy’s behavior and ultimately, embrace attitudes that would have stood well with Uncle Joe.” This one’s particularly rich. First, there’s “invariably,” i.e., without variation, without exception. Really? Then there’s what constitutes “criminalize” and “enemy’s behavior.” Are we talking increased regulation of Wall Street’s derivatives, or does LFOD2 mean that liberals want to make attending a Tea Party rally a jailable offense? Finally, the classic (“classical liberal”?) smear tactic: speculating that something that some people do today “would have” been embraced by a horrid figure from history. In favor of single-payer health care? You’re a Stalinist.
* Apparently it’s OK by LFOD2 to tar liberals with the brush of Stalinism because their attitudes “would have stood well” with Stalin, but he’s somehow exempt from the same kind of guilt-by-association: “And I’ve got to tell you that to associate someone with a racist organization without any facts, simply as a rhetorical flourish, tells me pretty much all I need to know.” I don’t know whether LFOD2 is a racist or not (I doubt that he is), and it is unfair of commenters to imply that he is. On the other hand, he’s at least as closely associated with racist organizations as liberals are with Stalinism, and I doubt (even more strongly than I doubt LFOD2 is a racist) that he’s got any facts about particular liberals being Stalinists.
* “Classical liberalism” is a much more complex entity than LFOD2, who seems like like simplistic labels, probably realizes. The French part of it, for example, included Jean-Jacques Rousseau and a few others who ridiculed religion and tradition, and thought that humankind could reason its way to a better world. Some “classical liberals” rejected total laissez-faire and thought the government could, and should, regulate such as child labor. Others supported government-run school systems. The world has changed, however, and what was “liberal” in the face of European monarchical (and Church!) power trying desperately to hang on, isn’t so “liberal” anymore in the face of a plutocracy in which zillion-dollar corporations are considered “persons” in regard to political speech. But the greater point regarding LFOD2 and other conservatives is why they so poignantly hanker after deserving the term “liberal” in some form, modified to suit their conservative beliefs. I don’t hear liberals/progressives running around saying, “I’m actually a ‘classical conservative’ because I want to conserve the dignity of all people, rich and poor alike.”
My reasonable, specific (“reckless charges,” “overheated rhetoric” “sweeping generalities” and “guilt-by-association” are all substantiated), temperate (compare my language to LFOD2′s) comment here will no doubt get the typical blowback from LFOD2 (maybe he’ll up the ante and accuse me of having attitudes that Pol Pot would have approved, or refer to me as “Goxy-Poo”), but such is the lot of the politically virtuous, like me.
marktropolis - November 18, 2010 at 10:50 am
goxewu – it’s not so much the accusations of being left. It’s the notion that being left is equivalent to being wrong. All the time. Now, I know I could get (and have been) in trouble for making sweeping statements about those on the right end of conservatives.
But I actually think I have evidence on my side. What irks my so much about so many of these conversations that it becomes a he-said/she-said shouting match, and no one actually wants to look at the video. There is in fact evidence to suggest that Bush & Co. actually lied to get us into Iraq. That is actually a actionable offense, whether you take it to the Hague, or do what the GOP did to Clinton in the 90s. In this instance, we’re not talking about shades of gray. Clinton lied about getting some in the oval office. In Bush’s instance, there are still people dying because of what he and his cohorts did.
mavprof - November 18, 2010 at 11:50 am
I think this thread’s discussion has too often descended into a melee’ of taunting verbiage (to which goxewu himself has made no small contribution, despite his ironic “clean-hands” claims of rhetorical and political virtue).
Despite goxewu’s denials (after his throat-clearing “[o]ne advisedly hesitates to step into the morass . . .” and opera buffa gavel-rapping), the terms “classical liberalism” or “neo-liberalism” are widely-recognized as referring to the ideas of advocates of free market capitalism and individual liberty such as F von Hayek.
marktropolis - November 18, 2010 at 12:26 pm
mavprof
“the terms “classical liberalism” or “neo-liberalism” are widely-recognized as referring to the ideas of advocates of free market capitalism and individual liberty such as F von Hayek.”
Kind of like how cooperation with the GOP has always meant, “our way or nothing.” Or how “centrist” is now synonymous with “moderate Republican.”
You folks on the right have this uncanny knack of changing the definitions of things to fit your time or agenda. Hayek is now a classic liberal? And it’s called “neo” liberalism for a reason.
mavprof - November 18, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Try a Wiki search, m-t; until then, ignorance shall be your punishment.
goxewu - November 18, 2010 at 2:13 pm
Re mavprof:
* I’m not quite sure how my verbiage is “taunting,” any more so than say, opining that Professor Barash has reversed judicial prodecure.
* Nothing that mavprof says rebuts, or even mitigates, any of my specific criticisms of LFOD2′s comments.
* If my claim of political virtue is indeed ironic (which it was), then something counter to that claim can’t be “in spite of it” (i.e., disprove it). If I said, ironically, “Well, I guess that makes me the Queen of Sheba,” it’s pointless for somebody to counter that “in spite of” my claim I’m not. (Think about it.)
* If memory serves (and it may not), ’twas Friedrich Hayek (I think he dropped the “von” in England) himself who pointed out the differences between the French school of classical liberalism (all reason all the time in all things) and the English school (restricted, more or less, to economic matters). Just as there are “cafeteria Christians” who pick and choose what they want from a large menu of Christian tenets, there are, apparently, “cafeteria classical liberals” who pick and choose what they want from the history and development of “classical liberalism.” I’ve no brief either way with “cafeteria Christians” as a Christian bone of contention; it only cheeses me off when it spills over into certain segments of Christianity claiming that this is a “Christian nation” and trying to run it as one. But “classical liberalism” pertains to economic policy that effects everyone, so when CLs adopt the nice-sounding label (who doesn’t want to be “classical”? and apparently even conservatives want to be some specifies of “liberal”) without really knowing fully what it means (mavprof might; LFOD2 doesn’t), ’tis legitimately part of this debate.
* Throat-clearing and opera buffa are fun. I try to pattern mine–pale in comparison, I suppose–after the late William Buckley’s.
mavprof - November 18, 2010 at 2:52 pm
goxewu:
Mr Barash definitively referred several times to former President Bush’s “war crimes,” not “alleged war crimes.” It’s not a taunt to point this out. I own your disappointment at others on this thread who may have forgotten your ipse dixit on this issue.
I didn’t refer specifically to any other remarks other than yours.
Your remarks about liberalism I didn’t take as ironical, just your faux-pompous beginning of your posting.
“Classical liberal,” “liberal,” and “neo-liberal” positions are varied, as a quick perusal of the Wiki entries on these show for those whose knowledge of Hayek’s work is thin. Your own interest in these ideas seems passing, however, as you move quickly on to your tendentious remarks on “plutocracy” and political speech, later “Cafeteria Christians” and the like.
Nothing wrong with exercising one’s ludic esprit, and I think the initial posting by Mr Barash well deserves it, though I don’t think he’d agree.
goxewu - November 18, 2010 at 3:27 pm
* Of course my intro was faux-pompous. Emphasis: FAUX. So? It wasn’t funny? To someone who uses “ludic esprit” and “ipse dixit” for no apparent reason, probably not.
* I didn’t bring up “taunt;” mavprof did, and accused me of making no small contribution to the “taunting verbiage” on this thread. I didn’t accuse him of having anything to do with taunting. Now mavprof defends himself against mavprof’s charge of there being taunting on this thread. mavprof, meet mavprof.
* Of course my interest in Hayek’s ideas is “passing.” (So are LFOD2′s and many other conservative commenters on these threads.) I’m not a member of the classical liberal club, nor am I an economist or political science. But this stuff affects other people, too, so I try to know at least something about it. This is a blogsite, not a peer-reviewed journal.
* The idea that the United States of America is in large part (maybe as a whole) a plutocracy is hardly tendentious. The last time I looked Presidential election victories (yes, Obama’s, too) were directly tied to the amount of money in campaign war chests. The old saying might have to be amended to “Money talks, democracy walks.” And neither is the idea of “cafeteria Christians”–terminology used more by conservatives than liberals–tendentious. They exist. If mavprof wants to assert that “cafeteria classical liberals” don’t exist, he’s welcome to try.
marktropolis - November 18, 2010 at 4:17 pm
mavprof – November 18, 2010 at 12:53 pm
“Try a Wiki search, m-t; until then, ignorance shall be your punishment.”
As it turns out, in a post above (November 18, 2010 at 9:14 am) I actually went to Merriam-Webster. Since we were talking definitions. But since I’m always open to discovering new things I just journeyed over the all glorious Wiki. The entry there takes an extended quote from Alan Wolfe in which he’s referring to somewhat of an evolution of the term from Adam Smith to John Maynard Keynes (who he posits are actually on the same side). And I pulled this nugget:
“For Smith, mercantilism was the enemy of human liberty. For Keynes, monopolies were. It makes perfect sense for an eighteenth century thinker to conclude that humanity would flourish under the market. For a twentieth century thinker committed to the same ideal, government was an essential tool to the same end.” And “According to William J. Novak, however, liberalism in the United States shifted, ‘between 1877 and 1937…from laissez-faire constitutionalism to New Deal statism, from classical liberalism to democratic social-welfarism.’”
Ahh, ignorance is bliss [and in the interests of not getting spanked like goxewu I mean that as SARCASM].
goxewu - November 21, 2010 at 12:44 pm
American plutocracy:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/opinion/18kristof.html?ref=nicholasdkristof
livefreeordie2 - November 22, 2010 at 8:31 am
So. . . what’s your preoccupation with plutocracy? (And btw, while it’s typical for a liberal to use an opinion piece as a supposed factual corroboration for their own opinion, I’m kind of disappointed to see you engage in that kind of charade.) I mean, if wealth could actually purchase power, why isn’t “the Donald” president? Why didn’t that gazillionaire in Florida beat the Democrat Meeks? Here’s the problem. . .
Although Bill Buckley famously said that he would, “rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University” (something I completely agree with in principle and would extend to anyone who is now or ever has bee a faculty member anywhere), the truth is that most of us would prefer to have people who are smart and accomplished in positions of leadership. While that arguably might still exclude faculty, the point is that those without means are generally neither smart nor accomplished. When was the last time you sought economic advice from an unemployed wino living in a cardboard box under a highway overpass? I mean, there is a correlation in a free society between accomplishment and wealth. (Warning – if you bring up inherited wealth, I will bring up the name Kennedy.)
So I guess I don’t get your point about a supposed Plutocracy. Of the 60 plus Dems that were swept out of office 3 weeks ago, I’d be willing to bet that over half were millionaires. And I’ll be that some of them were swept out be folks who weren’t millionaires. And Donald Trump may run, but even his billions will never overcome that hair. . .
goxewu - November 22, 2010 at 10:17 am
* Claiming that the US is a plutocracy and then citing some evidence doesn’t amount to a “preoccupation” with the fact. If it does, then LFOD2′s comment on my comment amounts to a “preoccupation” with my comment. (Should I be flattered?)
* I cited Kristof’s column for the facts in it, not because I think that Kristof’s imprimateur itself is proof of anything. And it’s no more “typical” of a liberal to use (the evidence in) an opinion piece as corroboration, than it is of conservatives to do the same thing. Had I the time, I could furnish LFOD2 with a few hundred examples of cross-aisle equity in the citing of opinion pieces, but I suspect he knows that what I say is true. He probably knew it when he typed his silly assertion.
* LFOD2′s second paragraph, above, is borderline incoherent. But, picking through the rhetorical detritus…
William F. Buckley was smart and clever, but not necessarily profound, and, while his quote about the first 400 people in the Boston telephone director might elicit yuks at a Cato Institute dinner and reverential citations from the likes of LFOD2, it’s hardly Tocqueville.I seem to recall that LFOD2 said he has a sibling who’s an English professor. (Hmmm.) I’ve never sought economic advice from an unemployed wino (which of those is cause, and which effect?), but, then again, I’ve never sought economic advice from Bernie Madoff, Ken Lay, or Lehman Brothers, either. Of course there’s a general correlation between accomplishment and wealth, but it’s not direct (i.e., the wealthiest person is not the most accomplished, the least wealthiest person is not the least accomplished), unless we’re talking making money as the only eligible accomplishment. Of course I’ll bring up inherited wealth in the sense that a person will a billion bucks of inherited wealth obviously didn’t “accomplish” anything to get it except to outlive his/her benefactor. JFK’s accomplishment was becoming President, not his bank account. (I’ve always thought that if red-meat conservatives of the LFOD2 variety really believed what they spout about wealth and “accomplishment,” they’d be in favor of–with exceptions for medical care for severe disabilities and a few other emergencies–nobody at all being able to inherit more than first and last month’s rent on a modest apartment. That way, everybody would start at the same starting line on a level playing field in the race to acquiring wealth, and any wealth they acquired would indeed represent an “accomplishment.”)
LFOD2 obviously “gets” my point about plutocracy. (Pretending to not quite get a point is a more plainspoken equivalent of an academic’s “I’m not quite sure that…” It’s a rhetorical device more often used, I think, by liberals than conservatives. Strange that LFOD2 would adopt the pose.) It’s not a matter of Democrats not being plutocrats (lower-case “p”; I’m not talking about the former planet); it’s a matter of money (including Obama’s Presidential campaign funds) overdetermining politics in this country. LFOD2 helps prove that point by noticing that even a lot of the Democratic losers in the recent election were probably millionaire; sure, and they were defeated by other millionaires, which means that being a millionaire is practically a necessity for running for office. If that’s not plutocracy, what is? And elections and government aren’t the only ways a plutocracy runs a country. Really, need I specify?
Note: A while back, I said on another thread that I wouldn’t directly address LFOD2′s comments because he was over-the-top wacko (e.g., ALL liberals lie ALL the time) in too many of them. While he’s still somewhere to the right of Jay Gould, his “Brainstorm” comments have lately evidenced a quality that might, by only a small stretch, be called civility. If he keeps up his good behavior, I’ll argue with him. If he doesn’t, he’ll have to be content with trendisnotdestiny and marktropolis. They’re no slouches, so maybe that’s all he can reasonably be expected to handle.
livefreeordie2 - November 23, 2010 at 11:33 am
Goxewu – I’m not sure how you could equate conservative views with a desire to deprive someone of their property after death? For a true conservative, property rights are the single most important aspect of liberty. It is from that one thing that everything else grows. And it is the one thing that liberals cannot stand, well, of course, unless they actually have something to pass along to their heirs.
The Kennedys are a prime example. Old Teddy loved estate taxes, but when his mom Rose finally bought the farm, her estate was probated in estate friendly Florida where she had a house, not in tax heavy Massachusetts where she lived for 104 years. I mention this only because it points to the hypocrisy of liberals who want to tax the rest of us to pay for their unsustainable socialist schemes. The attempt to evade property taxes on his yacht shows John Kerry for who he really is. . . but I digress.
I could care less that others have more than I do. I’m not envious and besides, what others have is none of my business. And what I have should be no one’s business. Perhaps if politicians in general and liberals in particular spent less time worrying about what others have and how they can use government to steal it, this country would be in better shape.
Here’s a question for you, Gox. . . and I’m assuming here. . . you don’t approve of discrimination based on race, you don’t approve of discrimination based on sexual orientation, you don’t approve of discrimination based creed or ethnicity, how can you approve of discrimination based upon property or income? What moral rationale says it’s okay to treat people differently based upon how much they have? How do people like you even imagine that it’s okay to say to Farmer John that when he croaks, we’re taking your farm and all your assets away from your kids and putting them on the street. Or Mr. Choe, we’re taking your successful Asian Grocery and all your assets – let your kids start from the beginning. Is it because you have nothing to take that you can imagine this is okay? And remember, even if the rate is 55% rather than the 100% you seem to think is a really good idea, if land on which the family farm sits is assessed at 4 million, unless the family can come up with the money to pay 2 million to the Feds, the property gets sold. You’re okay with that? Really? Ah. . . let me guess. Taking people’s property – their inheritance – is so much more socially just, eh?
marktropolis - November 23, 2010 at 4:13 pm
livefree –
“For a true conservative, property rights are the single most important aspect of liberty. It is from that one thing that everything else grows.”
Which I think is why some of us get so passionately irked when you happen to open your mouth. Once upon a time, property rights were so important to conservatives, that you had to own property to vote. But in this day and age, it sounds like in theory you support that concept. So what happens to the folks who don’t happen to own property (or they didn’t inherit it from their rich daddy)? Everything grows from property rights? Wow, I guess you missed the whole concept behind the Declaration of Independence – I don’t know, something about escaping the feudal nature of England (and France, etc.) where everything revolved solely around those who owned wealth. You couldn’t even own anything without the crown saying it was OK?
On the upside, the more you write, the better I begin to understand you.
That said, re: estate taxes. Read a frickin book and stop taking all your talking points from Fox. Furthermore, if (for the sake of argument) you’re correct about this hypothetical $4M farm, whatever happened to those “fend for yourself” virtues. If my family has all of their wealth tied up in a $4M piece of property (no other savings, no other equities) than my family probably deserves to lose the farm. Come on! Hypotheticals aside, if you look at the effective tax rates, this hypothetical family would actually only be liable for taxes on $500K of the property. And that doesn’t even take into account the step-up rules. And that aside from the fact that only about 0.25% of the people who die this year will owe ANY estate taxes. According to the Tax Policy Center, that means in 2009, 80 (that’s eighty) small businesses or farms owed ANY taxes.
Long and short, if you’re sitting on a piece of property that’s worth over a $1M and you haven’t done any planning around that, you basically get what you deserve.
Some of this reminds me of the Joe the Plumber business from the elections. Here’s a guy, owns his own business (allegedly) and he’s complaining that the new Obama taxes will hit him because he makes more than $250k. Which is nuts. Because if he’s the OWNER, he can set his own salary. And expense the rest. But because he’s an idiot who shouldn’t be running his own business, if he does in fact get caught paying taxes on his salary of $250,001 he’s getting what comes to him.
Long and short, again assuming LFOD’s hypothetical can hold any water in reality, a family that has property worth $4M and no planning for what comes next, is no different from the Dad who dies with $150K in credit card debt. But then again, in neither one of those scenarios is the individual in question “fending for themselves.”
livefreeordie2 - November 23, 2010 at 11:23 pm
Marktropolis – You really don’t get it, do you? It’s about freedom. It’s not about how much you have, it’s that whatever you have belongs to you. It’s not about a piece of land or a house, it’s about the absolute right to take responsibility for who you are and what you are and what you do. It’s about working the rope without a net. It’s the right to succeed and own your success. It’s also the right to fail and own your failure.
What a horrible situation in which you and so many like you exist. You live in the most wonderful country imaginable, but you don’t really understand what makes it exceptional. Too smart and too smug and oh, so cynical. How sad. . .
trendisnotdestiny - November 24, 2010 at 1:56 am
livefreeordie2
QUOTE
“For a true conservative, property rights are the single most important aspect of liberty. It is from that one thing that everything else grows.”
Which is why I find it so disconcerting that so many on the right seem oblivious to the origins of the housing crisis. If your properties’ value is the one foundation from which everything else grows and we have a cataclysmic global-financial meltdown, wouldn’t you think there would be some real noise from the right around property rights considering what has happened:
A) Fraudulent vendors (countrywide, Indymac, subprime or mortgage lending documents mills, foreclosure-gate)
B) Rating Agencies on the take (Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s)
C) Investment Firms slicing and dicing these mortgages into tranches of securitized assets (Collaterized Debt Obligations)
D) AIG insuring(underwriting) these CDO’s with other major wall street firms without holding proper reserves creating massive pile ups between counterparties (and almost the collapse of the entire world market)
E) Alan Greenspan & Ben Bernanke publically stating that we do not have problems with both the housing markets or derivative regulation while promoting long periods of cheap money and little oversight….
F) CNBC selling us Rick Santelli as an angry hardworking professional who believes that our economy is being hurt by deadbeat homeowners instead of Wall Street CEO’s who during this crisis were busy securing a $700 Billion public bailout (TBTF)
G) Millions of properties were being rushed through the foreclosure process with 1 in 3 families experiencing at least two or more of these stages..
Step 1: Homeowners losing equity value
Step 2: Homeowners experience underwater mortgages
Step 3: Homeowners start become delinquent on their payments
Step 4: Homeowners risk of default increases (90 days)
Step 5: Short-sale’s, re-modifications and Walk Aways
Step 6: Some stage of Foreclosure has begun
For a true conservative, how come I do not read too much about how the financial crisis started, evolved, who benefited etc.? I mean this was an assault on property owners. But the only really loud narrative that I hear is that individual home owners made some bad decisions? Livefree, tell us about the liberty or the liberation of our property….
marktropolis - November 24, 2010 at 4:56 am
LFOD2, you’re right, I don’t get it. Because you seem to value individual property rights over a nation taking collective responsibility (in a democratic fashion, mind you) for those that (for whatever reason) *can’t* do for themselves. And I don’t get that.
But you are right about one thing: what a country!
livefreeordie2 - November 24, 2010 at 7:45 am
Marktropolis – Never said that. In fact, I’ve said many times that it is society’s obligation to take care of those who can’t care for themselves. However, perhaps my definition of “can’t” is less inclusive than yours. I’m speaking of physically or mentally unable to function independently without help (although you bet I believe the family has primary responsibility). That said. . .
You bet individual property rights take precedence over “collective” responsibility. Read the US Constitution. It lays out the original vision for individual liberty versus societal obligation. That liberty has been eroded over the years and dramatically in the last 22 months. Why do you think the American people showed 60 plus Dems the door a few weeks ago? The “collective”. . . the very word reminds me of the USSR and 5 year plans. We didn’t become the greatest country the world has ever seen by being a collective, rather, by bold individual action.
TrendisnotDestiny – Like most of the other problems we face, the origins of the housing crisis was a misguided liberal idea – that it was “unfair” to deny people a mortgage based on high standards. The government forced banks to lower their standards. The bankers, sadly, went along with it merrily which is why we saw mortgage products for 125% of a home’s value. Can you imagine? Starting off dramatically under water? The point is, this was completely predictable and preventable. In 2002 and 2003, some were beginning to see the potential, but folks like Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer pushed to have Fannie and Freddie take on ever greater risk and pressured banking regulators to put less strict capital requirements in place. Put hundreds of billions worth of bad mortgages into the economy and the collapse was inevitable. And don’t forget. . . the people who took on mortgages they couldn’t afford share some of the blame.
And again, TinD, you are only thinking of property as a piece of land. Owning your own property that you worked to obtain – even if it’s only the shirt on your back – and knowing that the law prevents anyone, including the government from taking it away. . . that’s property rights. That’s freedom.
marktropolis - November 24, 2010 at 8:34 am
LFOD2:
You said, “Marktropolis – Never said that.” Prior to that you said, “For a true conservative, property rights are the single most important aspect of liberty. It is from that one thing that everything else grows.”
Which one is it?
“Read the US Constitution. It lays out the original vision for individual liberty versus societal obligation. That liberty has been eroded over the years and dramatically in the last 22 months.”
So… what’s your position on all those pesky amendments, seeing as they were put there to AMEND that “original vision”? How about the volumes of Supreme Court decisions?
“Why do you think the American people showed 60 plus Dems the door a few weeks ago?”
Because a critical mass of voters have spent the last 12 months getting whipped into a frenzy based on a misinformation campaign conducted by Fox News, designed to instill in the minds of mind people the fear of a socialist dystopia created solely by the hands of a Black president. That, and a bunch of folks decided they didn’t really want a Blue Dog in Congress, they wanted a real Republican. Not to mention the fact that this has happened numerous times in electoral history (e.g., 1994) – indicating that this is merely one of the usual patterns in elections.
And the success of that campaign is evidenced in your post allegedly pointing out the “truth” of the housing crisis – when in fact most of what you’re referring to has already been shown to be total bunk. But that hasn’t stopped Fox from continuing to push this revision of history. Perhaps you should spend a little more time researching the topics you’re writing on, and less time relying on Fox giving you all the answers.
trendisnotdestiny - November 24, 2010 at 8:52 am
Livefree,
“The government forced banks to lower their standards.”
Banks own the government, you have this backward….. (since to get re-elected they require something call money or frequently called political will)!
“The bankers, sadly, went along with it merrily which is why we saw mortgage products for 125% of a home’s value.”
The best narrative you can come up with is that the bankers were accomplices to an evil governmental scheme. Have you been paying attention to who profited here (not governmental officials but the financial services industry)….
I will come back to so more of these absurdities Livefree this afternoon.
livefreeordie2 - November 24, 2010 at 9:49 am
Marktropolis – You are not comprehending what I’m saying. I just don’t know if it’s intentional or not. You said, ” Because you seem to value individual property rights over a nation taking collective responsibility (in a democratic fashion, mind you) for those that (for whatever reason) *can’t* do for themselves. And I don’t get that.” And I never said that, as I explained. You are making it an either/or proposition. Just as one cannot yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater even with freedom of speech, one can have obligations to the government and to society without giving up one’s property rights and liberty. But when the government is confiscating a substantial portion of my income not just for defense, not just for roads and post offices, and not just to help those who *can’t* help themselves, but to give to others to spend as they see fit, that’s wrong.
You talk about the collective making decisions in a democratic fashion. So. . . fine. Can the collective decide that a certain race or ethnic group will become slaves as long we democratically determine that it’s in the best interests of the collective? How about if we use religion as the determining factor rather than race? Or maybe the collective will assert that everyone born in March will be slaves to serve the interest of the collective? If you are willing to sign up to any of those, then you are at least consistent when you suggest that the collective has the right to take from the individual any property the collective deems is “too much,” or that it deems that society needs more than the individual needs it.
Two people. Both earn an average of $60K annually throughout their working lives. One individual lives frugally and buys a home and pays off the mortgage, as well as preparing for health care expenses, kid’s education, and retirement and retires at 65 with a million bucks in the bank. The other spends every penny, goes into all kinds of debt, and hits 65 with little provision for retirement. Are you going to sit there with a straight face and tell me you think the first person has some kind of moral obligation to help the second? Sorry. I don’t buy it. People have to take responsibility for the decisions they make during their lives. Same scenario, but person #2 is mentally or physically disabled and therefore unable to earn a living. You bet. We all pitch in. Other than that, any help offered should be voluntary, not forced on people at the point of a government’s gun. I don’t wish to see anyone work until the day they die. But I’m busy saving for my retirement and I don’t make nearly enough to pay for someone else to live irresponsibly and then have a nice retirement on my dime.
Anyway. . .I’ve wasted too much time on this already. You are clearly locked into your liberal mindset and don’t wish to be confused by facts. Calling the source of the housing bubble “bunk” when the government hearings are available, the government policies and such are available, the words right from the mouth of Barney Frank are right there on youtube for you to see and hear, well, there’s not much else to say.