On Heinlein. In one of his novels (I want to say Podkayne of Mars, but its wiki page makes me think not. Anyhoo, I read whatever book it was a long time ago.), the young heroine is talking to her uncle about the city-state in which they live. The city-state is based on pure libertarianism. The uncle says that it's either the most free society ever or the most despotic. I think Heinlein, unlike the libertarians who worship at his altar, was aware of the dangers of egoism unleashed. He would, of course, come down on the side to the individual, but his thinking on libertarianism was more subtle and nuanced than most folks think.
Posted by sam | February 11, 2009 | 08:00 am | Permalink

He might be. I'm not sure. Haven't read a biography of the guy, just 5 or 6 of his novels. I just mention him because when I run into a really naive libertarian type, it usually turns out that they read and were *deeply* affected by Rand and Heinlein, and never grew out of it.

People who believe in the Libertarian Utopia are just as blinkered and naive as the Marxists.

In any case, the F-22 is the best air-superiority/interceptor fighter on the market (certainly better than the F-35, which will probably end up being more costly), and it is available for production. Hell, we need to make more of them anyways, since the current production line is too small - it's not profitable for the manufacturers to make the various parts it will need.

Or we could just sell the F-22, which plenty of nations are currently on their knees begging for.

Eneils, next you're going to say "Think of the children!" Tell me one scenario in which we need MORE F-22's to keep us safe.

But many, many, which would be far better.

Sheesh.

If you’re trying to trim the defense budget and focus on the wars we’re actually fighting, spending as much money as we have spent on the F-22 is embarrassing.

OK, so spending trillions on welfare and social programs has kept our nation safe?

The defense budget has always been the "bad boy" of the National Budget while fostering irresponsibility and slothfulness has been treated as a National virtue.

the only irony is watching all these free market, fiscal conservatives suddenly find their inner Karl Marx and go all command economy on us when it comes to big defense programs.

When have "free market, fiscal conservatives" ever systematically opposed big defense programs? I must have missed that plank in the Reagan / Gingrich / Delay / Bush platform. Maybe they wrote it in very tiny print.

Grover Norquist partially included defense spending in the government that he wanted to "drown in a bathtub," except he meant "cut it in half" instead of "drown" in the case of defense spending. But even Norquist's view was not the majority view of politicians who generally espoused free-marketesque positions.

Exhibit #1: missile defense.

Unless you want to make Ron Paul the standard-bearer for free market conservatives, there is no irony here. Actually existing free-market ideology is just more subtle; defense spending is a conscious blind spot.

The F-22 is one way to help maintain air superiority, not the way.

I'd hate for you to get a copy of The Fountainhead or a Robert Heinlein novel thrown at your noggin.

On Heinlein. In one of his novels (I want to say Podkayne of Mars, but its wiki page makes me think not. Anyhoo, I read whatever book it was a long time ago.), the young heroine is talking to her uncle about the city-state in which they live. The city-state is based on pure libertarianism. The uncle says that it's either the most free society ever or the most despotic. I think Heinlein, unlike the libertarians who worship at his altar, was aware of the dangers of egoism unleashed. He would, of course, come down on the side to the individual, but his thinking on libertarianism was more subtle and nuanced than most folks think.

Well, if you’re going to spend tons of your grandchildren’s tax dollars, you might as well 1) bring jobs to the district

Be careful James! One of your lesser cobloggers was just screaming at the tv that ain't no gummint create no job. I'd hate for you to get a copy of The Fountainhead or a Robert Heinlein novel thrown at your noggin.

Since defense employs a relatively smaller number of people who are relatively well compensated, it would provide relatively less stimulus. Relatively speaking.

I'm not entirely opposed to the F-22, but anyone jumping on the "stimulus" bandwagon as a rationale for funding it should get beaten with a stick.