It's time for a Ted Cruz thread.

Ziggurat said:
I didn't say it was a good idea. But if you think that one big-business corporate-friendly act constitutes libertarianism, you really don't understand what the word means.

We are not ruled by libertarians, and have not been at any point within the past 30 years. We frequently get corporatists in power, but that's not at all the same thing.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to Gramm-Leach-Bliley here? As far as I can tell, it basically only served to remove barriers previously imposed, i.e., reduce government intervention. On the face of it, that's pretty libertarian - I don't recall many libertarians arguing that government should actively intervene to prevent consolidation, so removing that intervention seems like a move in the direction of libertarianism.

So I suppose you must be arguing that passing that act was not libertarian because of other regulations that still exist, thus making it "corporatist" rather than "libertarian"? But then you kind of get into the issue that few things if any would constitute moves toward libertarianism, because in the current business climate, whatever the cause, big business holds a tremendous amount of power, and just about any de-regulation would allow them to exercise more of that power.

It seems to me then that it would be hard to make a more libertarian society, by this line of reasoning, with anything short of some kind of "revolution from above" to even out the playing field, but that in itself would be pretty un-libertarian.

Whatever that analysis brings, as far as I can tell, the GLBA was passed based on the belief that it would increase competition and "modernize" finance by removing government barriers.
 
TubbaBlubba said:
It seems to me then that it would be hard to make a more libertarian society, by this line of reasoning, with anything short of some kind of "revolution from above" to even out the playing field, but that in itself would be pretty un-libertarian.
Click to expand...

Well, yes. The majority of people are not libertarians, and are not likely to be any time soon. And by the very nature of the ideology, that minority can't seize power and impose its will by force like communism can.

But regardless of this analysis of hypotheticals, we are not ruled by libertarians. Even if libertarians manage to score one or two political victories, on balance they have lost most fights. So it doesn't really matter if you can find a few of these lonely victories. Whether that's a good or a bad thing that libertarians haven't gotten their way very much is beside the point at the moment, but the fact that libertarians are not and have not been in charge is pretty much indisputable.
 
Ladewig said:
The article seems accurate. Does no one in Washington like this man? Is no one in his own party willing to work with him?
Click to expand...

Many people seem to think the fact that the establishment hates Cruz is somehow a negative. To me, it's rather positive.
 
Ziggurat said:
Well, yes. The majority of people are not libertarians, and are not likely to be any time soon. And by the very nature of the ideology, that minority can't seize power and impose its will by force like communism can.
Click to expand...
Well, I'd question if even a majority could do that in accordance with libertarian ideology - that is, if you could actually deregulate your way to this hypothetical society, or whether you'd need to use government force against consolidated businesses to get the proper competition. That's, of course, assuming libertarianism can work in the first place.

But regardless of this analysis of hypotheticals, we are not ruled by libertarians. Even if libertarians manage to score one or two political victories, on balance they have lost most fights. So it doesn't really matter if you can find a few of these lonely victories. Whether that's a good or a bad thing that libertarians haven't gotten their way very much is beside the point at the moment, but the fact that libertarians are not and have not been in charge is pretty much indisputable.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that a lot of "libertarian" ideas simply happen to be in the interest of big business at the moment. Arguably, that's always the case, but it will of course be mixed up with a desire for decidedly un-libertarian handouts and regulatory capture.

Regardless I'd agree that there are few libertarians in actual seats of power. They do have influence as advisers, lobbyists, and so on, though.
 
Ziggurat said:
Many people seem to think the fact that the establishment hates Cruz is somehow a negative. To me, it's rather positive.
Click to expand...

You missed the point. Even people who agree with his policies have found him to be an arrogant dick who can't work on a team. Character flaws like this hardly recommend one for high office.
 
Ziggurat said:
Many people seem to think the fact that the establishment hates Cruz is somehow a negative. To me, it's rather positive.
Click to expand...

Depends on what you mean by "the establishment". I think there are basically two republican establishments at this point - currently elected republicans, and the Koch Brothers/Freedomworks/etc network.
 
eerok said:
You missed the point. Even people who agree with his policies have found him to be an arrogant dick who can't work on a team.
Click to expand...

You're assuming that they actually agree with his policies. I do not think this is a safe assumption.
 
Ziggurat said:
But regardless of this analysis of hypotheticals, we are not ruled by libertarians. Even if libertarians manage to score one or two political victories, on balance they have lost most fights. So it doesn't really matter if you can find a few of these lonely victories. Whether that's a good or a bad thing that libertarians haven't gotten their way very much is beside the point at the moment, but the fact that libertarians are not and have not been in charge is pretty much indisputable.
Click to expand...

I think the author was using somewhat sloppy language with "libertarians" there. There's a lot of folks in government and big business who use libertarian language and promote selective parts of Austrian economic theory to advocate what more "pure" libertarians" call "crony capitalism."
 
Ziggurat said:
You're assuming that they actually agree with his policies. I do not think this is a safe assumption.
Click to expand...

I think they agree with a lot of them, like Romney's "bring down rates, broaden the base" theory of tax reform, which is pretty obviously a euphemism for "tax the poor more, lower taxes on the rich and corporations."
 
Ziggurat said:
You're assuming that they actually agree with his policies. I do not think this is a safe assumption.
Click to expand...

Do you think Cruz' generic Tea Party crapola is dangerous or unpalatable enough to the GOP that so many of its members would attack him for it? On the contrary, I think it's safe enough to assume that when they say they don't like or trust him, they in fact mean it.
 
eerok said:
Do you think Cruz' generic Tea Party crapola is dangerous or unpalatable enough to the GOP that so many of its members would attack him for it?
Click to expand...

Yes.

On the contrary, I think it's safe enough to assume that when they say they don't like or trust him, they in fact mean it.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they do mean it. I just don't agree with you about why they mean it.
 
Ziggurat said:
Yes.



I'm sure they do mean it. I just don't agree with you about why they mean it.
Click to expand...
They hate him because he is willing to do crap like shutdown the government over Obamacare even though that "plan" had a 0% chance at working. And call the Senate majority leader a liar on the floor the Senate (well Mitch McConnell is a liar but that's the pot calling the kettle black).

And it isn't just his Senate colleagues that hate him, practically everybody that has ever known him hates him.
 
Being anti-establishment in whatever sense is not necessarily bad. It can mean you are a breath of fresh air in a corrupt or stagnant system.

However, Cruz is a foe of the establishment in the worst possible way - he is so by virtue of being willing to tear parliamentary procedures and orderly conduct in politics to pieces, to jeopardize stability and basic government function, just to demonstrate power and achieve short-term goals. He's anti-establishment in the same way fascists are anti-establishment - he wants to play by his own rules. And in politics, that is dangerous indeed.
 
Trebuchet said:
According to his father, Ted is an "annointed king" who will take control over all aspects of society. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com...r-my-son-anointed-to-take-control-of-society/

See also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Theology
Click to expand...
If I had to pick between Trump and Cruz, it would be Trump and it isn't even a hard question. For example, I can see Cruz vetoing bills that aren't 100% in his favor while Trump would probably at least try to work towards a deal. I suppose that Cruz could mostly be neutralized if 2/3 of both the Senate and House are against him, but I wouldn't count on that happening.
 
Tony Stark said:
If I had to pick between Trump and Cruz, it would be Trump and it isn't even a hard question. For example, I can see Cruz vetoing bills that aren't 100% in his favor while Trump would probably at least try to work towards a deal. I suppose that Cruz could mostly be neutralized if 2/3 of both the Senate and House are against him, but I wouldn't count on that happening.
Click to expand...

Not at first. But I have faith that Cruz could be crazy enough to create bipartisanship among strange bedfellows.

ETA although I do see your point. If Trump hit an impasse he could be flexible enough to try another approach. Cruz seems like a God-said-it-I-believe-it-so-get-out-of-my-way kind of guy. Doubling down no matter what the cost in time, money, or resources.
 
Last edited:
Trebuchet said:
According to his father, Ted is an "annointed king" who will take control over all aspects of society. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com...r-my-son-anointed-to-take-control-of-society/

See also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Theology
Click to expand...

Whatever his beliefs are, this is also relevant and frightening:

http://www.thedesertreview.com/sen-cruz-dad-speaks-out/

"Ever since he was a child, not only did he have that scriptural foundation, This was before the Tea Party — even before the Moral Majority. Our conversation around the dinner table was all about politics. And of course, this was a Christian movement. I was on the state board the Religious Roundtable. After Ted entered high school, through a client of mine, I introduced him to an organization called the Free Enterprise Institute. They had him reading, Adam Smith, Hayek, von Mises, Frederic Bastiat, The Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. So he had a great grounding in the foundational, philosophical books that were the basis of the Declaration and the Constitution. This organization created a group of five kids. They called them the Constitutional Corroborators. Each of these five kids, of which my son was one of them, memorized the entire Constitution. Then for the next four years they would go to Rotary Clubs. They would put easels in the front of the room and while people were having lunch these five kids would write the entire Constitution by memory on those easels. They gave about 80 speeches all over Texas on the free market and the Constitution. Before my son got out of high school, he was passionate about the Declaration, about the Constitution, about free markets, about limited government, about freedom — and it just became a passion in his life.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom