“We have forgotten that the first purpose of government is not the economy, it is not health care, it is defending the country from attack.”
was a smarter-than-one-would-have-guessed response to 9/11. Had anyone forgotten to hire soldiers and fund the secret services before 9/11? Why was preventing 9/11 more important than reducing the number of traffic fatalities by, say, 30% (and thereby saving about 10000 lives per year)? Or preventing 30% of the 45,000 yearly deaths due to lack of health insurance? What am I missing?
It feels to be written from a libertarian point of view.
You might argue that the FDA causes a lot more then 45,000 yearly deaths by not allowing valuable medicines to be brought to market. It’s debatable whether or not a more government interference or less government interference would be helpful. The same goes for government interventions in the economy. On the other hand there’s no other party that might defend the country from attack then the government.
Before the tea party when this was written libertarian slogans were less of an applause light.
So I would interpret the post as saying, immediately afterwards the politicians responding by saying libertarian things but then they overreacted instead of engaging policies that would pass libertarian standards.
I’m not sure EY meant to imply that the response is factually correct. Smarter-than-expected could just mean “not a totally vapid applause light.” A wrong but genuine response could meet that standard.
I don’t understand how
was a smarter-than-one-would-have-guessed response to 9/11. Had anyone forgotten to hire soldiers and fund the secret services before 9/11? Why was preventing 9/11 more important than reducing the number of traffic fatalities by, say, 30% (and thereby saving about 10000 lives per year)? Or preventing 30% of the 45,000 yearly deaths due to lack of health insurance? What am I missing?
It feels to be written from a libertarian point of view.
You might argue that the FDA causes a lot more then 45,000 yearly deaths by not allowing valuable medicines to be brought to market. It’s debatable whether or not a more government interference or less government interference would be helpful. The same goes for government interventions in the economy. On the other hand there’s no other party that might defend the country from attack then the government.
Before the tea party when this was written libertarian slogans were less of an applause light.
So I would interpret the post as saying, immediately afterwards the politicians responding by saying libertarian things but then they overreacted instead of engaging policies that would pass libertarian standards.
(that said I don’t agree with the point)
I’m not sure EY meant to imply that the response is factually correct. Smarter-than-expected could just mean “not a totally vapid applause light.” A wrong but genuine response could meet that standard.