
The Zany Czars Continue to Babble
By Robert Ringer
Chairman Obama’s latest appointee to create a media stir is Ron Bloom (affectionately known to his detractors as “Butthead Bloom,” or just “BB” for short). BB is a rather nasty little weasel who sounds pretty much like every other communist czar BHO has appointed. You’ve probably seen the video of his 2008 speech to the sixth annual Distressed Investing Conference in which he said, among other things:
“Generally speaking, we get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense. We know that the whole point is to game the system, to beat the market, or at least find someone who will pay you a lot of money because they’re convinced that there is a free lunch. We know this is largely about power, that it’s an adults only, no-limit game. We kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun. And we get it that if you want a friend, you should get a dog.”
Whether BB says incoherent things like this out of ignorance (lack of knowledge), stupidity (lack of intelligence), guilt, or perhaps because his mother took his pacifier away from him prematurely is an unknown. Personally, I’ve grown tired of trying to figure out the psychological problems of every member of the angry, anti-liberty crowd.
But whatever the causes of their mental disorder, we must never forget that their goal is to control our lives — a.k.a. servitude. Which is more than enough reason to pay attention to what they say — no matter how crazy or irrational their statements may be — and be prepared to explain the fallacies of their arguments by employing facts and logic. That said, let’s take a closer look at some of BB’s angry comments.
For starters, he says that “the free market is nonsense.” Sorry, but the reality is that the free market is as pure as new-fallen cash. It is so pure, in fact, that if left to its own devices, it will never fail to mete out just rewards and punishments. The free market can never be wrong, because it is nothing more than a global arena where untold numbers of transactions between consenting adults occur around the clock.
BB makes the same mistake as all Marxist thinkers — confusing the free market with the colluded marketplace where government and big business work together to feather each others’ nests. Herbert Hoover is purported to have said that the only thing wrong with capitalism is capitalists. And he was right. Capitalism is freedom in its purist form. Problems arise only when some capitalists use that freedom to defraud or cheat others.
If BB wants to go after all the politicians and businessmen who intervene in the pure workings of the marketplace, I’m in lockstep with him on that. But, please BB, don’t confuse the free market with the soiled, artificial market brought about by politicians intervening on behalf of companies and special interest groups who repay them with votes and hidden treasure.
Honest entrepreneurs don’t try to “game” the system. Only crooked people do that, and they deserve to be — and often are — criminally prosecuted. Water boarding is too good for those who participate in marketplace aggression and fraud.
But when BB talks about gaming the system, he is not talking about how government and big business are in collusion with one another. He’s talking about people and companies that he believes make too much money — even if they make their money simply by providing people with products and services they actually want.
An even more amazing statement is BB’s assertion that the free market is about free lunches. Huh? Methinks BB has been hitting the Mao-Aid too hard. The free market is about companies earning as much money as possible by providing customers with the best possible products and services. Are companies like Google, Microsoft, and Amazon.com wildly successful because they’ve received “free lunches” — or led anyone to believe that there is such a thing as a free lunch?
The free lunch that most of us are familiar with is the one that results from our perverse tax system. It’s a system that has the top 20 percent of earners paying 91 percent of the income tax, while the bottom half of earners pays less than 3 percent. It is the people who are in this bottom half who are recipients of the free lunch.
Finally, I’m not surprised that BB agrees with Mao that political power comes from the barrel of a gun, given that the use of force is what progressivism/Marxism/communism/statism always get down to. That’s because the use of force is the only way to get people to conform to what those in power deem to be “the common good.”
In a spirit of goodwill, I will go to the trouble of explaining one last thing to comrade BB: Capitalism is not a system. Capitalism is nothing more, and nothing less, than a subcategory of freedom — economic freedom. True capitalism (of the laissez-faire variety) is unfettered and unregulated. People are free to buy and sell what they want to anyone who, without being coerced, is willing to deal with them.
Does that mean that in laissez-faire capitalism anything goes? No. The law of nonaggression always prevails, regardless of what aspect of life is involved. Again, politicians and businessmen who “game” the marketplace should be vigorously prosecuted.
Having said this, the purpose of every business is to make as much money as possible — not by dealing with others “fairly” (which is an abstract word trap), but, rather, without resorting to coercion, fraud, or aggression. Unfortunately, much of the coercion, fraud, and aggression that infests the marketplace — and thus makes it unfree — has its roots in government involvement.
By the way, I agree with BB that if want a friend, you should get a dog. The problem is that I have absolutely no idea what his comment has to do with free-market capitalism. But be patient with me; maybe I’ll eventually figure it out.
_______________________________________
Liberty Education Interview Series
Please encourage your family, friends, and coworkers to listen to the Liberty Education Interview Series. Liberty needs all the support it can get right now.
_______________________________________
To comment on ” The Zany Czars Continue to Babble”, please login below:
You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article:
Copyright © 2012 Robert Ringer
ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times.
To sign up for his one-of-a-kind, pro-liberty e-letter, A Voice of Sanity, Click Here.






In my opinion this is another good article. Again it raises the question why aren’t the “other” political parties making a lot of noise over this issue expecially the Republicans? Hmmmm, make me think that we never really had a “free market” for political candidates. We certainly don’t have any real options today… SOMEONE PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG.
It’s a line from the movie “Wall Street.” That’s back before Oliver Stone went completely nuts…
-p
“Capitalism is not a system; Capitalism is nothing more, and nothing less, than a subcategory of freedom — economic freedom.” What an excellent definition of Capitalism. And Capitalism, unencumbered by government, is one of the best aspects of freedom.
BB’s ridiculous remark about dogs implies that Capitalism is a cold, hard, greedy, and ruthlessly selfish “system” of doing business that is flawed because, unlike his “system” of Socialism and Social Justice,” Capitalism isn’t about friendship; however, BB thinks it should be.
BB’s and all the others’ anti-capitalistic rhetoric is primarily designed to persuade the masses that Collectivism is superior to Capitalism because the collectivists care more about humanity, than the independent and freedom loving Capitalists do; but, this, of course, is only more of the same old mixing up and packaging and repackaging of the facts that the sophists have been doing for many years now.
And let’s not kid ourselves: Mr. Ringer understands to the point of seeing right through the specious BBs of this world. He may even understand them, and their sophistry, more than they understand it and themselves.
Hi Robert,
I mostly agree with this article but their are some points that I would like to debate. Now, just to start, I agree that these czars are all anti-liberty, leftist wingnuts that should all be put on trial for treason against the American people. On capitalism though, I do not believe that Laissez-Faire capitalism is the way to go. Without very minimal government regulation we end up with situations like Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle.” History shows that extremes are bad for the human condition. Too little government and the disingenuous run free to screw as many people as they can get away with. Too much and we have a lagging economy with too much red tape to be profitable. What we need is a balance. I believe that the Government should enact just the basics safety regulation (within reason of regular people, not washington, those idiots don’t know anything) and leave it at that. I belive that if we remove the smothering effect of government on business, but leave just enough pressure on to minimalise any harm then the America I love will prosper again.
Sincerely,
Andrew C.E.
P.S. please continue writing, it give me hope that the education revolution is not over yet.
Capitalism is the un-system. It is not even an “ism”.
Andrew28 writes, “Without very minimal government regulation we end up with situations like Upton Sinclair’s _The Jungle_ History shows that extremes are bad for the human condition.” Extremes of what? What is “the situation” of _THe Jungle_ that is to be properly redressed by the author’s (non-extreme?) socialism? No government involvement in the economy except to enforce of prohibitions against force and fraud is necessary to ensure ever-improving economic conditions. In an unhampered market, there is continous growth of capital and the freedom to make the best choices for oneself that one can, without being stomped by some politician or bureaucrat. Are we to assume that in a social environment of full freedom and protection of individual rights, neither market competitors nor employees nor consumers can or will act to improve their lot to the extent their resources permit when conditions are less than satisfactory?