Libertarian snark of the day

And the award goes to…

…Nick Gillespie for this gem:

Here’s Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) talking with Conservative News Service (CNS) who, like the Canadian Mounties, always seem to get their man when it comes interview:

“I would let people gamble on the Internet,” Frank said. “I would let adults smoke marijuana; I would let adults do a lot of things, if they choose.”

He added: “But allowing them total freedom to take on economic obligations that spill over into the broader society? The individual is not the only one impacted here, when bad decisions get made in the economic sphere, it causes problems.”

As Meatloaf documented so long ago, two out of three ain’t bad (baby), but in this case, it really hurts worse than Phil Rizzuto’s play-by-play in “Paradise By The Dashboard Light.”

FacebookGoogle+RedditStumbleUponEmailWordPressShare
  • http://yes390.org AB390

    If you live in California and favor legalizing marijuana for adults, YOU can make a difference. Tell your state representatives to support California Assembly Bill 390. It’s easy. Visit yes390.org

  • http://www.libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com Eric Dondero

    Actually, one out of three. Frank didn’t mention foreign policy. But we all know he’s a Pro-Fascist: Never met a foreign dictator he didn’t luuuuuuv – Saddam Hussein, Hugo Chavez, Castro, Achmadenejad, et.al.

  • Peter

    Normally in a capitalist society the economic decisions of a single person do not have much effect on the broader society. It is the influence of governments, giving special powers to corporations and allowing monopolies that causes a select few people to have power to ruin the economy for everybody.

  • Akston

    Good point Peter.

    Frank’s quote is an example of the mindset that Social Freedom is fine, but Economic Freedom is not to be tolerated – especially the freedom to fail. Freedom is freedom.

    Absent the initiated force of government, all interactions are entered voluntarily with the perception that they serve the party involved. These parties can make mistakes and fail (like investing in securities you don’t understand, or getting hooked on drugs, or gambling addictively). All these activities have built-in regulators if the effect is not divorced from the cause. You do something stupid, you get bad results.

    The initiated force of government mandate can break this cause and effect and perpetuate activity which would have more quickly ground to extinction in a free market.

    Even the tone of Representative Frank’s simple folksy comment betrays the underlying assumptions. He speaks about what he’d “let people do”. How are fellow citizens perceived when one holds this mindset? Is this the mindset which preserves a free country?