Thoughts on economics and liberty

Three cheers for Romney! This man is CRUCIAL to the advance of liberty in the world.

Steve Kates has reported an extract from Romney's recent speech. India needs this vision more than any other nation on earth.

[A]long with the genius of our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, and our Bill of Rights, is the equal genius of our economic system. Our Founding Fathers endeavored to create a moral and just society like no other in history, and out of that grew a moral and just economic system the likes of which the world had never seen. Our freedom, what it means to be an American, has been defined and sustained by the liberating power of the free enterprise system.

That same system has helped lift more people out of poverty across the globe than any government program or competing economic system. The success of America’s free enterprise system has been a bright beacon of freedom for the world. It has signaled to oppressed people to rise up against their oppressors, and given hope to the once hopeless.

It is called the Free Enterprise System because we are both free to engage in enterprises and through those enterprises we ensure our freedom.

But sadly, ... government at all levels consumes 37 percent of the total economy or G.D.P. If Obamacare is allowed to stand, government will reach half of the American economy. And through the increasing controls government has imposed on industries like energy, financial services and automobiles, it will soon effectively control the majority of our economic activity.

America is on the cusp of having a government-run economy. President Obama is transforming America into something very different than the land of the free and the land of opportunity.

We know where that transformation leads. There are other nations that have chosen that path. It leads to chronic high unemployment, crushing debt, and stagnant wages.

I don’t want to transform America; I want to restore the values of economic freedom.

In a free-enterprise system, we don’t measure our success in equal outcomes, but instead in how well we preserve and promote the equality of opportunity. And this system has resulted in unrivaled prosperity and made America the greatest nation in history.

President Obama’s vision is very different – and deeply flawed. Where my vision believes in the ingenuity of the American people, his vision trusts the wisdom of political appointees and boards, commissions and czars. It’s one in which ordinary Americans must get permission from people in Washington before they can buy, build, invest or hire.

Please follow and like us:
Pin Share

Sanjeev Sabhlok

View more posts from this author
10 thoughts on “Three cheers for Romney! This man is CRUCIAL to the advance of liberty in the world.
  1. Sunil

    Romney and liberty, please no. This guy would say anything necessary based on the available audience just to get elected. He is worse than a chameleon. Please find lot of videos on Romney on youtube and you will realize there is no difference between his & Obama’s policies. In fact Obama care is inspired by Romney care introduced in Massachusetts when Romney was the Governor. The persons (among politicians) crucial for advancement of liberty are Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.

  2. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Sunil

    I don’t really care what someone said or did 20 years ago. People change. I care for what he is saying now. And what he is saying is really good. I trust his policies will be consistent with what he says.

    And while Ron Paul was interesting, he was unfit to lead America. America has rejected him, rightly.


  3. Sunil

    Sanjeev, certainly you are not following American politics/news closely. Ron Paul is unfit to lead America because he did not get support from christian conservatives who form a bulk of Republicans. I have no problem with people changing their opinions but not every 20 mins intervals. Also when they change they have acknowledge their previous position was wrong and provide why they changed. FYI, Romney was governor till 2007 i.e 5 years ago and Romenycare was touted as his biggest achievement. He is pro-choice (i.e pro abortion) in the morning and pro-life (i.e. anti abortion) in the evening. He is against crony capitalism, but supports TARP bail outs for banks & auto industry. He says he supports liberty, but supports law that authorizes police to arrest people indefinitely with out trial. He would wage (preemtive) wars without authorization from US congress. If this is the kind of person who you think is crucial for advancement of liberty, please count me out of your liberty utopia.

  4. Sanjeev Sabhlok


    I’m making assertions based on Matt Romney’s theory and Ron Paul’s theory. Ron Paul is not classical liberal but libertarian – an EXTREMIST who wants a make-believe world where America should not react when attacked.

    Yes, he has valuable points re: how America’s behaviour may have prompted certain reactions. That’s true, but in the world of real politics, things change rapidly, and you have to take a practical approach to your national self-interest. You can’t be responsible for changing the ENTIRE world. You deal with whoever is in power and make the best of it.

    There is a big difference between liberty and license. When a President is PAID to ensure the defence of USA, he can’t balk at the use of force when the DEFENSIVE purpose is clear. Obama has lost sight of the purpose. Ron Paul did not even understand the purpose.

    There is a level of common sense involved in classical liberal interpretation of liberty which libertarians are simply unable to understand, since they believe humanity works ONLY on reason. That is not true. There are reasons deeper than even reason can understand (pl. read Kahneman re: System 1/System 2 thinking). Most of these evolutionary reasons relate to our evolutionary “sensibilities” for survival. survival is crucial. Liberty comes next.

    America (and the world) needs a man who can take hard and difficult decisions. If Romney: “supports law that authorizes police to arrest people indefinitely with out trial. He would wage (preemtive) wars without authorization from US congress”, note that the American President DOES NOT MAKE LAWS. The HR and Senate make them. He enforces laws. Let the HR and Senate chain him. They don’t, for good reason.

    And so he has the power to wage preemptive war/hold people without trial (the laws must have their own natural justice clause – I’m sure you are simplifying). I AGREE with the concept of pre-emptive war – where evidence is overwhelming. Such war by UK/USA would have prevented the calamities of World War II.

    Note that the defence of my liberty requires my government to ENSURE that enemies SIMPLY CAN’T attack me. That means the government must have all options to ensure this – options which do not violate natural liberty.

    There are trade-offs, and the laws must ensure liberty for all. But that doesn’t involve being a soft utopian.

    My liberty is NOT utopian. Ron Paul’s is.


  5. Sunil

    Sanjeev, I’m basing my assertions based on the long (& recent) history of Romney. Dr. Paul is constitutionalist and Dr. Paul. Romney is an opportunist. Its really funny that you choose to me a pragmatist in your above argument and when i made a similar argument w.r.t NaMo you chose the more idealistic (non-existent) option. I really do not want to get in to the subtle differences between conservatives, classic liberals, libertarians, anarchists etc, but i can certainly state that Romney is not any of them, he is just Bush Version 2.1
    FYI, Dr. Paul is neither isolationist nor pacifist as media projects, he is for defending the USA & its interests only with explicit approval from congress since that is what US constitution says. I’m all for pre-emptive wars if they are for defending the liberty of my country (eg. India has every right to wage one against Pakistan) but only if approved by people/legislature and not unilateral like Iraq war.

  6. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Iraq War was approved by the US representatives. People, including Obama, voted. The data was deceptive/bad, so the war was inappropriate. I supported it based on the data, but when the data went missing, its rationale disappeared. Similarly, in Afghanistan, the rationale no longer exists after Osama’s death.

    I’m NOT giving anyone a blanket cheque. But Romney’s current views (I really don’t care about his past) are perfectly acceptable. Ron Paul is NOT an option, Republicans won’t propose him as candidate, and Americans won’t vote for him so why this fuss about him? He is history.


Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial