I recently read an article by Tom Woods where he hit on a point that I have brought up in the past. I think it deserves attention because it can really help in showing the contradictory beliefs of others. It may help bring clarity to others.
In Woods' article, he was discussing the Greenbackers. Early in his piece, Woods points out their contradictory beliefs in regards to conspiracies. He says the following:
"This naivete on the part of the Greenbackers is especially hard to believe since so many of them are 9/11 Truthers. That means their position is this: we believe the U.S. government conspired to kill thousands of its own citizens in the interest of furthering its imperial ambitions, but we think they are the best people to trust with the creation of money."
Of course, in the comments section, some guy says, "Did antiestablishmentarian Tom Woods just call the position of 911 truthers (the negation of the official establishment account) terminally naive?" I don't know if the person who made this comment was trying to be deceptive, just didn't read carefully, or is truly dumb.
Woods was not at all arguing for or against a position of whether 9/11 was a conspiracy or an inside job. He was simply pointing out the contradictory position of some Greenbackers.
While Woods' article is specifically talking about Greenbackers, I think this contradiction holds with many, particularly on the radical left. There are many on the left who just didn't like George W. Bush and the way he did things. They think the key is to have the "right" guy in office, such as Obama. While this position is incomprehensible to me, it is not the group I am referring to in this discussion.
There are some on the more radical left who think the government was involved in 9/11. There are others who just think that the government's wars and drone bombings are immoral. They consider this murder, and rightly so. In this regard, many on the radical left find common ground with libertarians.
But there is a severe contradiction here, just as Woods pointed out with the Greenbackers. Many on the left will accuse their own government of murdering innocent civilians, yet they want the very same people to provide free healthcare and better education. Do you see a problem with this?
Can you imagine a Jewish person escaping a concentration camp in the early 1940's in Germany and saying that he just wants Hitler to provide a social safety net with better healthcare for his citizens?
It doesn't matter whether the leftist thinks that healthcare is a right. It doesn't matter if he thinks that the state should run the education system. If he thinks that the politicians in charge are a bunch of murderers, why would he put them in charge of education and healthcare? Does he think they all of a sudden turn into good people?
This is an absurd position and I believe it is important to point it out when you come across it. While it may not teach a hardcore Democrat any economics, maybe it will at least let him see the major moral contradiction in his position. Maybe it will show him that a little common sense needs to be followed.