This was quite gratifying to watch. I love the fact that she has to deal with this. And I love that email reaches them instantly, and that it’s incredibly easy to send one and it costs the sender nothing.
The only thing that could have made it better is if someone actually responded to her constant "thank you"s with something like:
Voter: Oh you’re welcome! I’m so glad you appreciate it. You know in that case I actually have some more advice…
Bash: Okay, that’s great thank you.
Voter: Oh don’t mention it! I have plenty of more. [touches Bashes arm and gets in close in a tell-you-a-secret kind of manner] You know, can I be honest with you? Before meeting you I just thought you were gonna be this total bitch. I mean all hifalutin, and “I’m so great” and “oink oink oink” Miss Piggy kind of thing. But you’re not like that at all! I mean you come off like that on the news all the time, but you’re such a sweetheart in person. Is that like a news strategy for TV or something? Does that help get ratings, like the Jersey Shore? Are you like the Snooki of CNN?
I haven’t confimed all the factual statements made here, but this is a pretty interesting piece. Uploaded 4 years ago…
bonus: catch the McCain gaff where he says something that makes absolutely no sense, and has to be corrected by the people who happen to be standing next to him at the microphone. Obviously he hasn’t gotten any sharper as time has gone on.
And he is talking to us in a thread on the Ron Paul Forums about his book. He replied to my review. I asked him how a Fed economist ends up writing a book like that. Interesting stuff.
Edit: Adding a link should have been obvious lol. I just woke up…
He’s quite an interesting host if he wasn’t so wrong. But you immediately notice the fallacies. Zero-sum fallacy, objective price fallacy… Typical folklore economics. He says rich people are “wasting money”, as if lack of money was the reason there’s scarcity. If only Peter Thiel wasn’t allowed to have so much money, then more goods for poor kids would be available! And then he doesn’t seem to consider effects of spontaneous order at all; how could blacks possibly find restaurants that serve them if the government didn’t force everyone to accept them as customers? Hmmm… Someone would have to, like, be willing to exchange their money for services? I mean, seriously, does he think that blacks would somehow be excluded from the civil economy? Everyone would have to refuse to serve them, at a staggering cost to them and their business. Reminds me of the people who think that food would be poisonous without government regulation. Apparently we would all just happily buy that poisoned food every day and no businessman would get the idea to get rich by offering safe food. You have to wonder how humanity made it into the computer age with the broad public that unaware of how simple monetary allocation mechanisms work.
The funny thing is that I can see where he comes from. Libertarianism, at least in the form it is advocated by most supporters today, is rather unpolished and must seem arbitrary and inconsistent. That’s, I think, a symptom of it’s near extinction in the Progressive era and recent revival, the arguments are just being formulated and most supporters didn’t have the time to memorize all the right responses yet. One shouldn’t confuse lack of articulateness with ideological inconsistency. The entire reason there is statist mythology is that it is easy to articulate and understand. Accurate explanations are usually not as simplistic and plausible as the false ones.
He’s right that Seasteading is an unsound idea but he comes to this conclusion for all the wrong reasons (he barely gives any reasons at all, in fact). If he’d bothered to read even the introductory Seasteading FAQ, he would have found that all his trite objections are, in fact, thoughtfully rebutted. And I didn’t find him interesting… I found his demeanor to be affected.
Vermin Supreme comes across to me as an agent provocateur. If this is what anarchy is, who could possibly want it? In my view, putting sparkles on someone in a context where they can reasonably expect not to be so molested (i.e. not walking down an open street in NOLA during Mardis Gras) must be some form of legal violation of the person’s integrity.
…as if spending money made it more scarce. And as if he knew better about what someone “should” be doing with their own property than the own himself does.
I’d be willing to bet money he’d think that was a term libertarians made up to describe some aspect of their ridiculous ideas.
I’ve heard it said a few different ways, but “when the government controls the education system, don’t be surprised when everyone comes out thinking the government is the solution to everything.”
Never underestimate the power of indoctrination.
Yeah that’s because in reality things are a lot more subtle and sophisticated than people tend to have the time (or mental capacity) to consider. I spoke a little on this here.
