I'm not sure, but I seem to have gotten myself banned from commenting on a blog - I think that this is a first for me.
The blog is Lounsbury's subblog at Aquol. I usually don't read his stuff that much, since the things that he writes about don't usually interest me and he employs the "if you disagree with me, you are an idiot". (Well actually it is almost always a "f***ing idiot".) I have no problem with strong opinions, but that sort of argumentation is just very unpersuasive to me. Those with that attitude are unwilling to listen to those who disagree with them. So I don't think that I've ever commented there before.
But on the 2nd I noticed his latest post about the Chrysler bankruptcy negotiations, and I was interested. He condemned the institutional investors as dumb for rejecting President Obama's proposed reorganization plan. Several people submitted comments disagreeing with his position, explaining points to the conflict that he had not addressed, including that fact that the institutions, who represent many people, have an obligation to safeguard as much of their investors money as possible. I submitted one as well but it was held for moderation and still hasn't cleared moderation as of now. He responded by calling us "f***ing morons" with "idiotic and incoherent" libertarian ideas. He stated that since this is a crisis, the normal rules don't apply.
So in response I wrote "You do realize that your 'To hell with the law, this is an emergency' is exactly the same justification that the Bush Administration used for most of their unpopular policies don't you?"
He replied telling me I was "reading comprehension impaired" for not understanding "Moral hazard" and a "hypocritical knee jerking git".
I tried to place two comments in response and they both seem to have disappeared down the bit bucket - not even the warning that they were being held for moderation like my first. So I'm going to try to summarize them here:
You do realize that explaining the concept of moral hazard to libertarians is like explaining the concept of snow to Inuits, right? I mean, you are so much smarter than us, you must know this. But then again, you do not seem to grasp that sticking to one's principles is the exact opposite of hypocrisy, so maybe you don't realize that. I mean, here is an article from Mises.org explaining the concept. You do know who Ludwig von Mises was right and what he means to libertarians? Or do I need to explain that too?If it turns out that I'm not really banned, then I'll update this to reflect that. And if I am, that is fine too; I've always taken the position that one is allowed to do as one pleases.
There is a moral hazard at play here, but it is the exact opposite of what you are arguing. The UAW has run the American auto manufacturers into the ground. This is not a controversial or even libertarian position - just scroll through Mickey Kaus's blog (Kaus is moderate to liberal Democrat, whose plan to save the car industry is to institute national health care to free the companies crushing financial burden to their retirees). Yet they are the ones being rewarded and bailed out by President Obama's plan. At best his plan is only going to buy them a few more years. And they don't want to go to bankruptcy court because the judge can void their contracts. Maybe that is fair, and maybe it isn't but the situation is a heck of a lot more complicated than you think it is. Heck, even us idiots on this side can see it. How come you can't?