Skip to main content

social security card

The Nation has a fantastic exclusive demonstrating the depths of Charles Koch's hypocrisy. To set the scene: It's 1973, and Koch is the newly-appointed president of the Institute for Humane Studies, a libertarian think tank that was sort of a precursor to Koch's Cato Institute. He's trying to lure Friedrich Hayek, "the leading laissez-faire economist of the twentieth century," from his home in Austria to the Institute as "distinguished senior scholar." Hayek originally refuses, on the basis of having had some serious health concerns, and wanting to be in his home country—with its generous social benefits and health protections.

Eager to have Hayek come to the Institute, staff there began researching options for his health coverage, finding out that he had paid into Social Security when he had lived in the U.S. and taught at the University of Chicago in the 1950s. From there it gets really fun.

On August 10, 1973, Koch wrote a letter appealing to Hayek to accept a shorter stay at the IHS, hard-selling Hayek on Social Security’s retirement benefits, which Koch encouraged Hayek to draw on even outside America. He also assured Hayek that Medicare, which had been created in 1965 by the Social Security amendments as part of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs, would cover his medical needs.

Koch writes: “You may be interested in the information that we uncovered on the insurance and other benefits that would be available to you in this country. Since you have paid into the United States Social Security Program for a full forty quarters, you are entitled to Social Security payments while living anywhere in the Free World. Also, at any time you are in the United States, you are automatically entitled to hospital coverage.”

Then, taking on the unlikely role of Social Security Administration customer service rep, Koch adds, “In order to be eligible for medical coverage you must apply during the registration period which is anytime from January 1 to March 31. For your further information, I am enclosing a pamphlet on Social Security.”[...]

Publicly, in academia and in politics, in the media and in propaganda, these two major figures—one the sponsor, the other the mandarin—have been pushing Americans to do away with Social Security and Medicare for our own good: we will become freer, richer, healthier and better people.

But the exchange between Koch and Hayek exposes the bad-faith nature of their public arguments. In private, Koch expresses confidence in Social Security’s ability to care for a clearly worried Hayek. He and his fellow IHS libertarians repeatedly assure Hayek that his government-funded coverage in the United States would be adequate for his medical needs.None of them—not Koch, Hayek or the other libertarians at the IHS—express anything remotely resembling shame or unease at such a betrayal of their public ideals and writings. Nowhere do they worry that by opting into and taking advantage of Social Security programs they might be hastening a socialist takeover of America. It’s simply a given that Social Security and Medicare work, and therefore should be used.[...]

This is a grand swindle played on a trusting, gullible public, a scam whose goal is to con America's dying middle class into handing over their retirement money to the richest 0.1 percent, convincing them that in doing so, they’re “empowering” themselves and protecting their “individual liberty.”

Hayek did end up, in 1974 and again in 1977, as a resident scholar at IHS. The Nation has filed FOIA requests to find out if he took Koch's advice and took advantage of the Social Security and Medicare benefits to which he was entitled, but hasn't yet received a response. But the entire story, very much worth the read, really demonstrates the basic hypocrisy of the libertarian underpinnings from which the tea party, and modern Republican party, have grown: "[E]very man for himself; selfishness is a virtue."

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 12:52 PM PDT.

Also republished by Social Security Defenders, Exposing ALEC, ClassWarfare Newsletter: WallStreet VS Working Class Global Occupy movement, and Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  A Movement For Which Lying is a Core Value. (22+ / 0-)

    Even the term "libertarian" is just a word taken for propaganda value.

    These are noblists if that's a word, or the economic royalists of FDR's framing.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 12:59:46 PM PDT

  •  Your title reminds me irresistably (5+ / 0-)

    of the classic anti-apartheid song by Ewan MacColl:

    If you want to see the lyrics, at a nice clean folkie site instead of a pop-up-infested commercial site, The Digitial Tradition at Mudcat.org is your place.

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 01:03:06 PM PDT

  •  put your Whig hat on your head (18+ / 0-)
    Hayek wrote an essay titled "Why I Am Not a Conservative" (included as an appendix to The Constitution of Liberty), in which he disparaged conservatism for its inability to adapt to changing human realities or to offer a positive political program, remarking that "Conservatism is only as good as what it conserves". Although he noted that modern day conservatism shares many opinions on economics with classic liberals, particularly a belief in the free market, he believed it's because conservatism wants to "stand still," whereas liberalism embraces the free market because it "wants to go somewhere." Hayek identified himself as a classical liberal, but noted that in the United States it had become almost impossible to use "liberal" in its original definition, and the term "libertarian" has been used instead. However, for his part Hayek found this term "singularly unattractive" and offered the term "Old Whig" (a phrase borrowed from Edmund Burke) instead. In his later life he said: "I am becoming a Burkean Whig."
    A common term in much of the world for what Hayek espoused is "neoliberalism". British scholar Samuel Brittan concluded in 2010 that, "Hayek's book [The Constitution of Liberty] is still probably the most comprehensive statement of the underlying ideas of the moderate free market philosophy espoused by neoliberals."

    I am off my metas! Präsidentenelf-maßschach; Warning-Some Snark Above"Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03)

    by annieli on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 01:05:43 PM PDT

    •  From Hayek's "Why I Am Not A Conservative" (8+ / 0-)

      Essentially he calls them cowardly power mad hypocrites who lack any instinctive respect for liberty.

      But the admiration of the conservatives for free growth generally applies only to the past. They typically lack the courage to welcome the same undesigned change from which new tools of human endeavors will emerge.

      This brings me to the first point on which the conservative and the liberal dispositions differ radically. As has often been acknowledged by conservative writers, one of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a fear of change, a timid distrust of the new as such, while the liberal position is based on courage and confidence, on a preparedness to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead......

      This fear of trusting uncontrolled social forces is closely related to two other characteristics of conservatism: its fondness for authority and its lack of understanding of economic forces. Since it distrusts both abstract theories and general principles, it neither understands those spontaneous forces on which a policy of freedom relies nor possesses a basis for formulating principles of policy. Order appears to the conservative as the result of the continuous attention of authority, which, for this purpose, must be allowed to do what is required by the particular circumstances and not be tied to rigid rule.

      Let me return, however, to the main point, which is the characteristic complacency of the conservative toward the action of established authority and his prime concern that this authority be not weakened rather than that its power be kept within bounds. This is difficult to reconcile with the preservation of liberty. In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power .......Like the socialist, he is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people.

      There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

      by bernardpliers on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 04:23:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Ayn Rand received social security (30+ / 0-)

    ...and we still teach our kids "Atlas Shrugged"?

    Good old Ayn couldn't refuse ss herself when she became "old and feeble" tsk..tsk..Poor "Atlas" couldn't overcome old age and death...

    Oh humanity...

    "Corruptio Optimi Pessima" (Corruption of the best is the worst)

    by zenox on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 01:14:23 PM PDT

  •  Well, my Goddess! (10+ / 0-)

    So the Koch-heads believe in Social Security when it suits them, eh?

    I don't know why we don't sneak into town halls dressed as Republicans (navy blue blazers, neatly brushed short blond hair, spare tire around the middle), and ask Rethug Congress critters what old people will do in the absence of Social Security. We could ask, "Can I move in with you when I'm 66? How many bedrooms and bathrooms have you in your house?"

    Right-wing rad "Republics" are such dirtbags I'm surprised they can get dressed in clean clothes in the morning.

    "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

    by Diana in NoVa on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 01:20:05 PM PDT

    •  Only if someone lays out their clothes (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bronte17, maggiejean, msmacgyver, Dave925

      for them.

      Conservatives are self-centered and insecure because they need someone to do for them and make up for their practical incompetence.  Generally, they have verbal acuity that grows out of being consistently demanding.  I am fairly convinced that the "demand" factor as the primary mover of the economy grows out of personal experience of having to be demanding to have their incessant needs satisfied.  Conservatives are people who, if they were weaned, did not wean themselves.  Which is why they continue to suckle at the public teat.

      How it happens that conservatives can ascribe to others their own characteristics, which they apparently don't recognize in themselves is a puzzlement. In any event, Simpson's remark about 300 million teats was telling.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuzZQ8LTE2c

      by hannah on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 01:29:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I know (4+ / 0-)

      what a shock.

      Not that far-right hypocrisy is any great, breaking story, but the irony dripping from this one was too much to resist.

      "There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning." —Warren Buffett

      by Joan McCarter on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 02:14:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Just when you think these craven, selfish (8+ / 0-)

    a$$hats couldn't get any MORE hypocritical, something like this comes out. The question is, how does the information get out to a wide audience when the MSM has no interest in muzzling the Kochs?

    The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. Plato

    by manneckdesign on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 01:30:39 PM PDT

    •  Can't be too surprised (6+ / 0-)

      This is what it is for them.  Control, power, domination; they're just very small people with huge egos who enjoy inflicting pain on people.  The question is why do so many people repeatedly vote to have this pain inflicted on them?

      •  Well if that isn't the ongoing $64K question. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mike RinRI

        As many say here in the posts: the stupid, it burns!

        The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. Plato

        by manneckdesign on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 02:33:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  A Lot of Those Who Vote (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mike RinRI, bartcopfan

        Against their own interests do so because they hate us.

        DFH's are a clear and persistent threat to them in their own minds of course and right wingnutism promises to put the pain to those they perceive as DFH's.

        Look at some of the "humor" they send around among themselves. The theme of the "Dirty Hippie" is a continuing and persistent one, just as if it were still 1968. It's rather astonishing.

        The fact is though, they believe DFH's are ruining the country and Democrats, Liberals, whatever that is not exactly like them are responsible. Voting Puke makes them happy because it makes us unhappy.

        And that is the level of intelligence and maturity we're dealing with. Personally, I say ignore their stupid asses and let's go after the 50% of the country that has completely divorced themselves from the process.

        •  Their hate runs deep (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dave925

          And the fact remains that in 2010 a majority of American voters felt compelled to vote for a party that promised, PROMISED, to destroy the American dream.  Over 50% decided that there was a message in that; very troubling.
          I'm just afraid that 40+ years of social de-evolution, failing educational systems and the failure of young people to develop critical thinking skills has locked us into a Democracy death spiral.  
          In the late 60's we, as students, were in the forefront of the movement to improve the social contract but today's students seem oblivious to what is going on around them.
          We have our work cut out for us because conservatives have planned for this transition for a long time and have a lot invested in it.  
          Ironically, the DFH's haven't run the country since colonial times.  

          •  Not "a majority of American voters" but (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bartcopfan
            a majority of those American voters who voted in 2010.
            Important distinction, which the Thugs are quite conversant with (witness the lengths they go to to prevent or dissuade people from registering or voting).

            snarcolepsy, n: a condition in which the sufferer responds to any comment with a smartass comeback.

            by Uncle Cosmo on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 09:35:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  If they didn't vote they ain't voters (0+ / 0-)

              Not trying to be a smart aleck but if people don't vote they can't be voters.  They can be registered to vote but unless they're engaged enough to complete a ballot they don't count.
              We can go into the reasons that Dem voters stayed home and rep voters left their fox news and went to vote but the only way to win an election is to have more actual votes than the other side.
              The challenge for us next year is to get more registered voters to understand that their lives will be forever altered for the worse if republicans get more votes and turn those registered to vote into voters.

    •  Saying these guys are hypocrites is HUGE (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      manneckdesign

      understatement.
         They are cheats, scam-artists, bringing in the suckers to play at their rigged game, rigging the game ever more whenever they can get away with it.
        I'd call them snakes, but even venemous snakes bite only to protect themselves, not just for the Hell of it.

      "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

      by elwior on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 02:37:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'd call them (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        OleHippieChick, JeffW

        m$%&er  f*%(ing a$$hats but I'm a lady.

        The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. Plato

        by manneckdesign on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 02:44:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  There's a simple word for them (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bartcopfan

        Sociopaths. Incapable of feeling anything for others, they are dedicated to feeding their completely out of control Id driven needs and wants.

        Just a wild guess but I'd say the vast majority of leading right wingers and "libertarians" are Sociopaths. Hell, this society actively selects for this personality as it makes the accumulation of power and wealth the supreme goal, those whose needs are focused on such things and lack any moral compass whatsoever (morals are not a Sociopath's strong suit), Sociopaths have a huge advantage achieving wealth and power and they do it in business, politics, just about every institution, public and private is vulnerable to the Sociopath's predations.

    •  this was found out in the open (5+ / 0-)

      in heritage foundation's hayek collection. they didn't even attempt to hide it. makes you wonder what other dirt is lurking in obscurity, waiting to be uncovered.

      smash the chair, bust the needle !

      by stolen water on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 04:38:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Let me know if there's another version (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    divineorder, Dave925

    Maybe if there'd be the same information written to appeal to Libertarians and Republican voters, I could circulate it to them.

    I really appreciate the investigative reporting but if I circulate what is here, and linked, I'm sure the answer will be something about George Soros being worse.

  •  thxs Joan. These repugs of today are assholes. nt (0+ / 0-)

    Republicans only care about themselves, their money, & their power.

    by jdmorg on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 03:56:52 PM PDT

  •  self entitled assholes are assholish (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave925

    Yet another born on third thinking they hit a triple who feels it absolutlely necessary to do something great to please daddy. He obviously has never faced his adolesent fears and is stuck at that level of engagment in societal attachments. or maybe he's just a sociopath

  •  Libertard demi-god loves his socialist healthcare! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave925

    Why is Kock so stingy anyways? Couldn't he afford to pay for Hayek's health insurance?

  •  The last thing conservatives believe in is a free (0+ / 0-)

    market.  Conservatives believe in maintaining at least the status quo in favor of the wealthy.  The bank bailouts represent  the greatest redistribution of wealth in our history.  All approved by a democratic administration.

    Remember the London trader who said the other day:  "Goldman Sachs runs the world."?

    He was right.

    The Dude abides, now get off my lawn.

    by Boris49 on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 05:17:07 PM PDT

  •  Ayn Rand used SS and Medicare, too (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Quasimodal, annieli

    Consistency with their own teachings not a strong suit of libertarians.

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 05:25:19 PM PDT

  •  This Friedrich Hayek story has more (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli

    angles and curves than Salma Hayek

    So it's The Why do you hate this country You're Obsessed with misquoting me out of context while I was in the process of misspeaking with the sun in my eyes while chowing down and bashing Sharia law God Bless America defense.......

    by JML9999 on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 05:29:09 PM PDT

  •  While this is funny, (0+ / 0-)

    Social Security is a good thing.  We have an endless supply of reasons for making the case for it, and the vast majority of people, including even Republicans and Tea Partiers, are already strong supporters.  It seems odd to me how much focus the hypocrisy of individuals like Rand or Koch get rather than the positive case.

    Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

    by David Kaib on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 05:45:07 PM PDT

  •  Did anyone see Maxine Waters on KO tonight? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Floande, bartcopfan

    I love that woman. She was saying that Democratic reps should fan out into the districts that sent Republicans and Teaturds to Congress, and talk to them about how the Republicans and Teturds distract them with social issues, then take away their home heating assistance and Pell grants.

    I think it's a great idea.

  •  This story made me howl with laughter (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Floande

    Even though I'm completely unsurprised that yet another libertarian takes with one hand, while decrying any giving with the other.

    Rick Perry executed a man ... just to watch him die

    by ItsSimpleSimon on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 06:17:35 PM PDT

  •  I don't get the point (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Uncle Cosmo

    So...you are criticizing someone for taking a benefit that is owed to him and someone else for encouraging that person to take the benefit.  Frankly, I don't think it matters that both of them would be advocating for a change in that benefit and don't find that hypocrisy.  

    If I was currently receiving a benefit (perhaps garbage disposal from my city) which I think is poorly designed and delivered (the garbarge is never picked up on time or a day late) and I advocated reforming that benefit (outsourcing the garbage delivery to a private company that would do a better job -- or even letting me keep an extra $5 per week so I can choose my own garbage company), would it be hypocritical for me to continue to use the city's garbage pick-up while I called for reform?  I don't think so.

    •  The libertarian end justifies the socialist means (0+ / 0-)

      Hypocrisy isn't wrong, it's just a difference of opinion.
      Values don't mean anything.

      Why do you support civil liberty?

      Because it lets you do whatever you want to, right?

      “We do not know what we want and yet we are responsible for what we are - that is the fact”

  •  Republished to Exposing ALEC. nt (0+ / 0-)

    Republicans are like alligators. All mouth and no ears.

    by Ohiodem1 on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 07:40:42 PM PDT

  •  Bum rap, nth time (0+ / 0-)

    Really pitiful that over and over again, this kind of 'gotcha' crap passes for political discourse. If the government offer you a tax break that you think they should not offer, you break no moral law and commit no hypocrisy if you avail yourself of it. And if you are taxed for Social Security, even if you oppose it, you'd be a fool not to take advantage of it. We play by the rules in effect, not by the ones that haven't been enacted. The only requirement of consistency is that we all play by the same rules. And just out of curiosity, do any of us know any well-off liberals who have refused Social Security money on the grounds that they were inadequately taxed in the first place? I don't.

    •  Hayek had a choice (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bartcopfan

      He choose to opt into social security instead of one of those miraculous private plans

    •  You're funny... (0+ / 0-)
      We play by the rules in effect, not by the ones that haven't been enacted.

      Even if we think those rules are a societal evil? Even if Hayek and Koch say that there are other, better and perfectly legal ways to meet the needs they're trying to address?

      You're a scream.

      Co-author of the first political biography of Michele Bachmann: Michele Bachmann's America

      by Bill Prendergast on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 08:55:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Two responses (0+ / 0-)

        @Igerard—if the choice is offered, there's nothing immoral or hypocritical about taking it. If you think, e.g., that the mortgage deduction is wrong-headed, so long as it exists, you are fully justified in making use of it. In any case, as the excerpts from Hayek's article on conservatism show, this is a strawman argument anyway.

        @Prendergast—get back to me when Al Gore downsizes his house and when Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, Sr. volunteer to pay more taxes by refusing to take deductions.

        •  Another response-- why do you (0+ / 0-)

          think that "because some liberals are hypocrites, too"--it's a "bum rap" to call conservatives hypocrites...when they're hypocrites? I don't understand how "there are hypocritical liberals, too" is a refutation of "Koch and Hayek are hypocrites."

          You must understand that there were prominent conservatives who refused to take medicare and social security, and did so publicly, to make a point. You say that such people are "fools," because they didn't take "advantage of it?" (see your initial comment.)

          I mean--you are really funny. You and Koch should be on the stage, portraying Hayek and Ayn Rand with this act: you get out on stage and tell everyone big government programs are a threat to freedom and will lead us into totalitarianism, and at the same time you guys can keep whipping out those cashed checks from those same big programs--other people's money, eventually more than you guys paid in yourselves, since you're portraying old people.

          Don't you see how funny that is? It's entirely of no consequence to me if the opening act for your act is "Al Gore talking about global warming in front of his big house." That doesn't make you and Rand and Hayek and Koch any less hypocritical or any less funny.

          Your comments indicate that you seem to think that hypocrisy is a "liberal v. conservative" issue. It isn't. In this case, hypocrisy is a "'great thinker' v. their own apocalyptic core principles" issue. "I'd be a fool not to advantage of this!" yells Hayek, dipping into other people's pockets as he trudges along that "Road to Serfdom..."

          Co-author of the first political biography of Michele Bachmann: Michele Bachmann's America

          by Bill Prendergast on Fri Sep 30, 2011 at 09:39:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's not my point (0+ / 0-)

            to claim that hypocrites on either side balance each other out. It's to claim that it is not hypocrisy to oppose a policy while at the same time to derive advantage from it.

            To pick a comparatively neutral instance, I may oppose a 65 mph speed limit and hope to see it reduced to 55, but it does not make me a hypocrite if I decline to disadvantage myself and I obey the law as it now exists. To pick a more extreme instance, I can believe that the present adversarial trial system is unjust to poor people who cannot afford a decent defense attorney—that does not make it hypocritical of me to hire the best attorney I can afford when it comes to my own trial.

            Another thing I dislike: encountering smear campaigns, as when someone dislikes a comment on something you've written and you decide that the only reason anyone could disagree with you must be because the commenter is allied with the Forces of Darkness—in this case Koch, Rand, and Hayek. But I'm guessing you don't see how funny that is.

    •  It's when he's making the choice for ME (0+ / 0-)

      that I have problems.  It's like when Caribou Barbie made her "abstinence-only" kid have the kid w/ Levi--that's not my business.  What IS my business, is when Pailin tries to impose that policy on the rest of us.

      Same here, Hayek was clearly entitled to (i.e. had earned) the benefits, but when people use his policies to advocate that (esp. less-financially/politically-connected) others shouldn't receive similar benefits...I've got big problems w/ that.

      "Push the button, Max!" Jack Lemmon as Professor Fate, The Great Race

      by bartcopfan on Fri Sep 30, 2011 at 09:48:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I going out on a limb (0+ / 0-)

        and will opine that anyone who puts together Palin and Hayek in the same bin may not be capable of making fine distinctions. I will further suggest that what you don't yet know about Hayek fills volumes—literally. You should read some of them before your next comment.

        •  Disregarding your personal attack on me, (0+ / 0-)

          you seem to be denying that Hayek made a decision (to partake of a secure and whole Social Security system) that he and his supporters would deny me and other Americans.

          "Push the button, Max!" Jack Lemmon as Professor Fate, The Great Race

          by bartcopfan on Fri Sep 30, 2011 at 10:58:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I know enough not to let someone piss down my back (0+ / 0-)

          and try to convince me it's raining.

          "Push the button, Max!" Jack Lemmon as Professor Fate, The Great Race

          by bartcopfan on Fri Sep 30, 2011 at 11:06:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Perhaps not (0+ / 0-)

            But "Hayek and his supporters" means almost nothing, especially as I very strongly doubt you could tell us a blessed thing about Hayek beyond some vague sense that he may not have been a wholehearted supporter of government-run pension programs. OTOH, as you might have gleaned from the essay quoted in the comments, neither was he simply any cheerleader for conservatism. Instead, he was a serious economist doing complex, serious and valuable work, making complex, serious and valuable criticisms that, among others, Keynes took seriously and thought valuable. It's also worth mentioning Hayek's Nobel Prize as yet other evidence, as if it were necessary, that he and Palin aren't quite batting in the same league. I stand by my suggestion that you do some reading (more than the Wikipedia, I would hope, but even that would be a start).

            •  You STILL seem to be denying that Hayek (0+ / 0-)

              made a decision (to partake of a secure and whole Social Security system) that he would deny me and other Americans.

              "Push the button, Max!" Jack Lemmon as Professor Fate, The Great Race

              by bartcopfan on Fri Sep 30, 2011 at 01:51:10 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  As I said (0+ / 0-)

                you don't really understand anything at all about Hayek, do you. Sorry I wasted either of our time.

                •  I'm willing to confess my ignorance of Hayek (0+ / 0-)

                  if you'll admit Hayek apparently thought Social Security was good enough for him but not for me.

                  "Push the button, Max!" Jack Lemmon as Professor Fate, The Great Race

                  by bartcopfan on Fri Sep 30, 2011 at 02:19:18 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What Hayek really said (0+ / 0-)

                    Took awhile, but I turned up the page I wanted. The reason why I don't "admit" your thought is because, it's just plain wrong. In short, Hayek is not any sort of Tea Party or Palin fellow traveler, and ignorance makes for bad discourse and bum raps. Here is Mr. Hayek:

                    "There is, however, yet another class of common risks with regard to which the need for government has until recently not been generally admitted and where as the result of the dissolution of the ties of the local community, and of the development of a highly mobile open society, an increasing number of people are no longer closely associated with particular groups whose help and support they can count upon in the case of misfortune. The problem here is chiefly the fate of those who for various reasons cannot make their living in the market, such as the sick, the old, the physically or mentally defective, the widows and orphans—that is all people suffering from adverse conditions which may affect anyone and against which most individuals cannot alone make adequate provision but in which a society that has reached a certain level of wealth can afford to provide for all. The assurance of a certain minimum income for everyone, or a sort of floor below which nobody need fall even when he is unable to provide for himself, appears not only to be wholly legitimate protection against a risk common to all, but a necessary part of the Great Society in which the individual no longer has specific claims on the members of the particular small group into which he was born."

                    F.A. Hayek, Law, Legislation, and Liberty, vol. 3, pp. 54–55.

  •  this is an awesome story (0+ / 0-)

    I just hope someone gets a chance to "explain" the "context".

  •  Actually (0+ / 0-)

    I Have yet to read or hear of anyone, not one person of any political party ever advocate to not pay someone social security that they paid into and eanred.  Many argue privatization vs the status quo, or argue medicare versus is it economically viable in the future, argue what is the best return on investment for the money we put into both programs, but neither of these two guys ever said dont pay someone today that is currently due.....
    Nice try though...

  •  This story's priceless. Hayek and Koch, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bob Sloan

    trying to get Social Security benefits because they're concerned about Hayek's old age. I'm bookmarking this one.

    Co-author of the first political biography of Michele Bachmann: Michele Bachmann's America

    by Bill Prendergast on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 08:57:11 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site