This guy is a lunatic.
Heaven’s no, not a Keh-Keh-Keynesian!
About what do you think he’s wrong? He’s clearly not nuts or a lunatic - his opposition to the war and the drug war, and his consideration of Ron Paul for precisely those reasons (as opposed to many progressives who outright demonize Paul), make him more than tolerable in my book. His little discussion on taxation is a little weird (if they’re practically voluntary, why keep calling them taxes?), but I get what he’s trying to say.
Keynesianism has a 50 year record of failure, inflation and war. Why would anyone choose that over liberty?
Lack of education in liberty. What were you before you got educated? Or were you a magical prodigy?
Watch it again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ost_XupeObM&feature=related
@ 0:44:
Ridley: The main problem I have … you have certain policies that you favor that look to me like they would cost taxpayers some money. So -
Keynesian: There are. There are.
Ridley: Are you willing to use force to collect the money?
Keynesian: I think it’s a necessary evil basically. Or at least it’s a very, uh, there’s a lot of benefits that come with that.
OK he’s probably a good kid. But what does he mean by “benefits” coming from forced taxation?
Taxes do benefit people… but it also screws others…
In some cases I agree. But the ends don’t justify the means. There are way better ways to get things done then hold guns to people’s heads to extort tax dollars out of them.
I wish Ridley had asked him what exactly he thinks taxes could do better then the private sector.
I agree that there are better ways to do things besides taxation… but it does benefit some… what the Keynesian fails to see is the simple Bastiat/Hazlitt principle of ‘What is Seen and What is not seen’…
On a side note: the title of the video is misleading because this was not really a debate at all
it wasn’t a debate. He was just answering Ridley’s questions and Ridley was too easy on him.
If I had been in Ridley’s place I would have grilled him. Politely of course but nonetheless I don’t understand how anyone would give up on liberty and take up a failed economic ideology.
But that’s exactly what he’s disputing. A necessary evil is necessary; if there was a better way to get the good in question, the evil would not only be unnecessary, but it would also not be optimal.
Clearly, but all I am saying is that the title of the video on youtube is misleading because it says ‘debate’
He brings up a cigarette tax. That would just lead to cigs getting more popular on the black and gray markets.