Controlling the argument

Libertarians control the argument. That's the problem.

We would have a very tolerable level of unemployment right now if libertarians in state governments stopped slashing the public sector workforce and allowed it to grow at a Reagan-era level. With lower unemployment across the board, there would be upward pressure on wages, greater buying power, greater demand, and a growing economy. Capitalism, in short, would be in better shape. But we can't have that world, because libertarians control the argument.

The problem is especially acute in "red" states that elected a lot of tea partiers. These states are shedding public workers, and they won't stop until the government no longer has the ability to do much of anything. See here and here and here.

As Digby puts it:

And it's a vicious circle. The more the the right cuts government the worse government works and the more people want to cut it.

To illustrate the depths of libertarian thought control, check out the commentary on any general-interest site. Take note of the way Randroids and Friedmanites seek every conceivable pretext to get a foot in the door. Here's an example from Gizmag. The story is about an improved solar panel design, three times cheaper than current types:

The technology was originally developed at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) and will be commercially produced by a spinoff company called Technique Solar.

Keep the RMIT connection in mind. Toward the end comes that foot-in-door moment:

Technique Solar doesn’t plan to sell its system as an off the shelf purchase to consumers. Rather it intends the modules to be rolled out as infrastructure complementing existing energy supplies from the grid. The modules will be owned/leased by a Power Utility (or in some instances/countries by local councils, government or large corporations) who will then arrange for installation onto residential, commercial, industrial as well as school premises to complement or substitute existing energy supply.

Oy. You can guess what the commenters are gonna do with that. Take it away, Ayn-holes!

Because the green movement isn't about helping humanity, it's about making billions at the expense of the human race.

there's more money to be made for less effort using government contracts, as there is a lot of corruption there.

the quicker we burn the oil that is left, the more expensive the rest of it becomes, the quicker solar energy technologies get developed and INDUSTRIALIZED (adopted) .

if we don't do this soon, ---burn as much oil as we can----it's possible the price of oil stays relatively stable for years. and this is not good for the prospects of solar energy.

so really, if you want to advance the adoption of solar, you can invest in burning oil as well as invest in solar energy. don't worry about coal. just burn as much oil as you can.

has government really helped usher in solar power? a little yea, but government is not the ultimate answer, free enterprise is. and remember any power you cede to your government in an effort to constrain coal will no doubt be used to constrain solar energy.

so the market solution is burn as much oil as you can, invest in solar, make the cost of electricity higher.

Okay. Let's step back a little. Who was it, again, that created this breakthrough design?

The Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. Funded by the Australian government.

The evil, evil gummint.