Utterly wrong. The existence of the "extreme Randian right" makes no impact whatsoever on the caterwauling of the left. They don't quote libertarians when making these charges, or have any need to produce evidence that such extreme plans exist in the form of real proposals or whether such plans have any support. They use the specter of program elimination to whip their voters into a frenzy and scare any fencepost-sitters.

Much as we can admit that the goal of the left really is a completely socialist, engineered society, I am OK with them recognizing that my ultimate goal is to drastically reduce government support. I am also completely fine with incremental steps towards that goal, caterwaling be da*ned. But yes, victory IS elmination of those programs.
It would be irresponsible to do that all at once, but we can wean the greater part of society from the government teat eventually.

Duane Oyen We could fix ObamaCare, Social Security, and Medicare- but we will never have the chance because the public does not trust us- for good reason.  If we spend all our time saying that the programs need to be killed, they will take us at our word and vote leftist idiots into office.

Sorry, but that is reality.  Recognizing that fact does not make me a progressive.

____________________________________________________

If this was at ALL true, we would be a bunch of idiots, but the fact of the matter is, as others have pointed out, that the left will scream bloody murder at even modest reform proposals. So it doesn't matter whether we propose replacing all SS accounts with 401Ks or a limited, partial privatization for only very young workers. Either way, we're getting accused of forcing seniors into the cat food market.

Your definition of reality is actually acceptance of defeat.

Is anyone else's city filled with billboards from a progressive radio station encouraging their members to procreate? Chicago is! It's so weird!

Ummm... yeah. Irony is completely lost on this group, I guess.

This is exactly the argument of the left; you only disagree about the extent of intervention. It's untenable ground, IMHO. I've had many conversations with lefties, and ultimately the above argument involves "smarter" people (the source of your "smart gov't policies") restructuring society in a way that puportedly improves life for the rest of us.

That's NOT FREEDOM. And, again and again, history proves that the systems in which we live are unpredictably complex. This invariably leads to more "smart" policies to correct the problems caused by the initial "smart" policies. And of course, government policies are unmatched in the natural world for their complete immunity to any natural course correction.

So, yes, this does make you a RINO, to use the perjorative term. Also, pretty pollyannish. That's ultimately the comfortable deception of the left: Good intentions yield good outcomes.

6. Warming or cooling is irrelevant. Life on earth requires adaptaion for myriad reasons. Spending 10's or 100's of millions of dollars to avoid change is actually wildy irrational if not downright insane.

I, too, hail from a scientific viewpoint, and thank the other posters here for pointing out the flaws in the warmist arguments.   

Oh my! Where to start?

Disclosure: I am "mostly" libertarian, and have a graduate degree and now work in a field in which I attempt to artfully employ nudging in order to ensure high quality outcomes.

1) The "nudges" specified by the author have actually been proven to have unintended consequences. For example, universal automatic deductions have been shown to lead to broader saving, but less overall savings than in a free system. Meaning that people who otherwise would have saved more are complacent. I do not know of research related to fat mirrors, but the calorie listings on menus (which I personally like) actually result in higher overall calorie consumption! Go figure. People often respond differently than social scientists predict. I think many of these "nudges" are debunked with evidence.

2) Sunstein's views in no way represent libertarianism for several reasons.

a. IMHO, libertarians believe that individual freedom is THE end, not the means.

b. Although I clearly recognize the value of using our own biases to improve decision making and behavioral choices, the difference for me is that the government should not be making the judgement calls on this, unlike the private company that I work for.

As a libertarian, my ideal solution would be to completely get the government out of marriage.

I do take issue with a fundamental tenant of this argument: That marriage in some way is a benefit, and governmental recognition/protection something to be coveted.

I've been married for 10+ years, and so far, the governmental "benefit" of this for me has been insanely higher taxes. Of course, the personal returns are enormous. Ouside of supporting traditions or religious beliefs, I can't understand why anyone would chose to marry rather than cohabitate.

Generally speaking, I feel that I pay for the privelege of being married through higher taxes.

6. 30

I own, love, and wear this shirt regularly! Those snot nosed kids in Che T Shirts really tick me off!

Gaylords are obscenely pricey!!! FYI- I've been to a few conferences held at Gaylords and I always stay somewhere close that costs half as much. As an additional affront to the value minded, they CHARGE for PARKING! In TEXAS!

If we could just not do DAMAGE with our messaging, we'd be in better shape. Why on earth did we focus on reducing the welfare state when we should have been focusing on the plan to reduce the need for the welfare state through economic growth? You don't need to be a social scientist to see the potential for political harm in that!

That said, bravo- wish I was a social scientist and could offer my assistance. I do behavioral research, but it is in-hospital, safety-related, not what you'd need.

I went to a late seminar with a work friend, saving me from listening to the radio on the ride home. When I arrived at my house and my generally apolitical husband was swearing up a storm, I realized I made the right choice. I agree No Ceasar- it's about being told in that arrogant, obnoxious way that I am a bad person because I don't think the same way as the POTUS.  I must hate children and want them all to die, because I disagree that gun control will reduce the incidence of spree killing. It's just an obnoxious combination of straw man arguments and insulting rhetoric - yuck.

Donating an organ is not a career choice! There are gifts you give others for which respect and gratitude are certainly warranted, but deciding you want to do ____ for your daily work is not one of them.

Completely false analogy.

I was responding to the request to show respect for stay at home moms in the same way we acknowledge the sacrifice made by those pledged to military service. I don't think that moms in general are even mildly disdained.

I don't think I should have to venerate someone for their career choice. Ever. (I include in this statement police, firefighters, teachers, doctors, and yes-nurses.)  

I knowingly took a profession in which I work weekends, holidays, nights, and am exposed to dangerous situations. I don't complain about any of that, because I knew it going into it. (It does make for some great stories.) I get crazed when I hear teachers complain about low pay and grading papers at night. Same thing for all life choices, but especially when you have one job while so many of your contemporaries are trying to do two.

I specifically said that I am well aware that I chose my current profession and work status. I just wish that people who were lucky enough to choose stay home and raise families would be less dramatic about the manageability of their lives.  I watch people every day who work 12 hour night shifts and go home and manage a family as well.

I just think we have a whiny society filled with ever-increasing narcicisstic victimhood, and I happen to find this flavor especially irritating.