In this modern era where we’re all supposed to share our innermost thoughts, I’ve openly discussed my fantasies.
I confessed to the world, for instance, that I have a fantasy that involves about one-half of the adults in America. And I’ve also admitted to a fantasy involving Gov. Rick Perry of Texas.
Now I’m fantasizing about something new, and it’s all the fault of the Cato Institute. In a violation of the Constitution’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, I have to watch tonight’s presidential debate in order to add my two cents to Cato’s live-blogging of the clash between Obama and Romney.
That got me thinking about some of my least-favorite episodes from past debates, and this moment from 1992 is high on my list (I had to watch that debate because my then-wife worked for the Bush Administration and I had to offer some insincere moral support).
The clip is a bit over three minutes, but it will only take a minute or so to see why this was such an unpleasant segment.
Here’s my latest fantasy. If there’s a similar question tonight, I hope either Romney or Obama gives the following response:
I’m not your daddy and you’re not my child. I’m running to be the President of the United States in order to oversee the legitimate executive branch responsibilities of the federal government. And I hope to reduce the burden of government to give you opportunities, not to take care of your needs. You’re an able-bodied adult. Take responsibility for your own life and provide for your own needs.
But I don’t expect my fantasy to get fulfilled. If a question like this is asked, both Obama and Romney almost surely will express sympathy and support.
The good news is that there have been a few politicians in American’s history who have been willing to say the right thing. Here’s a quote from Barry Goldwater that warms my heart.
I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. …I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.
The bad news is that he got his you-know-what kicked in the 1964 election.
On the other hand, America did elect a President who said during his inauguration that “government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.”
And a 2011 poll showed that Americans – unlike their European counterparts – do not believe it is government’s job to guarantee that “nobody is in need.”
In other words, Julia, the fictional moocher woman created by the Obama campaign, is not representative of America. At least not yet.
[…] But maybe my nullification fantasy eventually will become a reality. Though I’ve noted that my fantasies (at least the ones involving public policy) never seem to happen. […]
[…] H.W. Bush telling someone to grow up and not expect the government to be his mommy and […]
[…] entrepreneurs avoid trade taxes. What’s not to love? And unlike the libertarian sex fantasy or my 1992 debate fantasy, it’s actually […]
[…] avoid trade taxes. What’s not to love? And unlike the libertarian sex fantasy or my 1992 debate fantasy, it’s actually […]
The comments here reveal how little the brains and how myopic their worlds. It appears they do not understand libertarianism. I know they don’t understand republicanism (small r); that is self-evident in every quarter every day.
I loathe to save the Nation for lousy citizens as these other commentators. They give credence to why, in lesser nations, political opponents are executed. That is certainly an expedient method to agreement … perhaps they should move to Eastern Europe or Africa where their views would get more prompt attention. ©2015
[…] P.P.P.P.S. And if you want to know one of my fantasies (which deals with the entitlement mindset), click here. […]
[…] shared a presidential debate fantasy in 2012 and a Texas sovereignty fantasy in 2011, and I even shared a fantasy two years ago involving […]
[…] simply state that I can’t be a squish if my policy heroes are people like Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and Margaret […]
[…] shared a presidential debate fantasy in 2012 and a Texas sovereignty fantasy in 2011, and I even shared a fantasy two years ago involving […]
[…] shared a presidential debate fantasy in 2012 and a Texas sovereignty fantasy in 2011, and I even shared a fantasy two years ago involving about […]
[…] shared two personal fantasies on this site, but I must be a policy wonk because they involved a vision of a politician telling a voter to grow up and an imagined interaction between the Governor of Texas and the United […]
[…] shared two personal fantasies on this site, but I must be a policy wonk because they involved a vision of a politician telling a voter to grow up and an imagined interaction between the Governor of Texas and the United […]
Our country has chosen Obama for another term because they want the goodies!!! Sad indeed.
Wow! That video clip makes me want to vomit….
Daniel when I saw this originally my thought he needed his ass kicked big time.
Libertarians who condemn government handouts should refrain from taking them when offered 🙂 just like people who advocate higher taxes volunteer to pay the higher taxes themselves, as the government will certainly let you do.
So when ObamaCare puts me over the threshold to enable me to retire ten years earlier than I otherwise would, I’ll refuse to cash in! See, I enjoy leaving my family every morning to work two hours for them, and then from 11am to about 3pm work for current year taxes and then from 3-5pm work for some sort of inheritance tax. See, if I personally refrain from joining the other moochers (some of them libertarians themselves) who will jump on the cart regardless of what I do, then the trajectory of the US will change. I mean really!
The bottom line is that I’m willing to sign up to a more self sufficient and less centrally planned society with higher compounding growth rates and tremendous accumulating wealth advantage over the mid-long term, if other people also refrain from the redistribution and central planning contract enough to make a difference in the country’s general trajectory. I’m unwilling to do so when my family and I will bear the consequences without changing the overall trajectory of the country. The symmetric argument can be made by people who believe that mandatory confiscation of wealth into a common pot managed by bureaucrats leads to prosperity, or at least growth rates that match the 5% world average and thus stave off decline. This is why people who advocate higher taxes don’t do so voluntarily themselves, even though, in the case of super wealthy people, like Warren Buffet, a voluntary 20-30% contribution increase would make a small, but measurable difference, so the symmetric argument weakens when Warren Buffet and other kiss @$$ (likely faux) liberals make it.
P.S. Apparently Americans gave something in the order of eight million dollars to the government in voluntary extra taxes. By contrast, they seem to be giving over three hundred billion to charities. Over thirty thousand times more. I urge you to check my sloppily gathered numbers but a change of even a couple of orders of magnitude would not change the argument.
Mike,
Here is Ayn Rands own position on accepting Medicare and Social Security benefits.
“It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration.”
Also, would you really charactarize an unabashed libertarian athiest as a “Guru for some in the Republican Party”? I think maybe an influence might be more accurate.
Nice try sir.
[…] A Dan Mitchell Debate Fantasy […]
“Americans secretly nurse a desire to be nursed”
As did the guru for some of the Republican party (Ayn Rand) when she claimed state benefits under her married name.
I agree with your comments; however I wonder if Americans are honest – either with questioners or with themselves.
In their public statements, a majority of Americans seem to favor self reliance – however recent election results seem to indicate that Americans secretly nurse a desire to be nursed.
Now we all have fantasies – most of mine require two willing participants of the opposite sex.
Many voters however seem to fantasize about millions of taxpayers being fleeced for their benefit – at least election results would suggest that – in spite of the public statements that voters make.
If I heard either one of those quotes, I’d be sold.