OK, so it's not an exact quote.  It IS perilously close to what POTUS said in a speech in Kansas on NYE.  Tell me I'm wrong, according to Henry Binswanger:

there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes–especially for the wealthy–our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty.

Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That’s in America’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. (Laughter.) But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. (Applause.) It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ’50s and ’60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade. (Applause.) I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory. Harry Binswanger Contributor

The only thing that the market doesn’t take care of is anti-market acts: acts that initiate physical force. That’s why we need government: to wield retaliatory force to defend individual rights.

Radicals for capitalism would, as the Declaration of Independence says, use government only “to secure these rights”–the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. (Yes, I added “property” in there–property rights are inseparable from the other three.)

That’s the political philosophy on which Obama is trying to hang the blame for the recent financial crisis and every other social ill. But ask yourself, are we few radical capitalists in charge? Have radical capitalists been in charge at any time in the last, oh, say 100 years?

The interwebs have been full of discussion regarding a new book by Ilya Somin regarding political ignorance.  In Concluding Thoughts Maggie McNeill offers some good summations.  Two good takewaways.

First from Somin himself: " …my critics and I do not accept the view that the voters have an intrinsic right to make political decisions on the basis of ignorance. As John Stuart Mill emphasized, voting is not a purely personal right, but rather the “exercise of power over others.” It must be done with at least some reasonable degree of knowledge and judgment."

and then from Ms. McNeil: 

The purpose of political debate, ... , is not to convince one’s opponents; it is to present arguments, counter-arguments, and information so the members of the audience can come to a rational, informed opinion on the issue before engaging in democracy, that “exercise of power over others.”  The interactive nature of the debate process reveals the strengths and weaknesses of the participants’ positions and allows each side the opportunity to present evidence and arguments to counter the other’s claims.

and it's the way I was taught AND the way I teach.  But it's probably not the optimum method for public discourse ... or what passes for public discourse ... these days.

Ed Whalen has written on a similar side issue over at National Review.  Pertinent points:

A reader who objects to my defense of marriage asserts that marriage should be available to any two consenting adults who love each other. I respond by pointing out that the principle that the reader is (explicitly or implicitly) invoking would extend to adult incestuous relationships. The reader replies by taking offense that I’m supposedly “comparing” same-sex relationships to incest.

There are various potentially intelligent paths that the reader might instead explore for his reply. He might try to maintain his principle by alleging that genuine consent isn’t possible in incestuous relationships or, alternatively, by defending application of the principle to adult incestuous relationships. Or he might modify his principle: he might, for example, contend that incest presents special harms and posit that his principle applies except where those special harms are present. But what isn’t intelligent is to complain that I’m “comparing” same-sex relationships to incest.

(To be clear, I of course acknowledge that if a principle applies to two distinct phenomena, that means that those phenomena have the common feature of being covered by the principle—and thus are in that very limited sense “like” each other. But that’s plainly not what the objecting reader is taking, or feigning, offense at.)

 

and this one's just ... well ... sad ...a new, incredibly stupid article in Rolling Stone by Jesse A. Myerson.

Titled "Five Economic Reforms Millennials Should be Fighting For," here's the list for those of you in hurry (the explanatory chatter accompanying each entry doesn't make them any more convincing).

1. Guaranteed Work for Everybody

2. Social Security for All

3. Take Back The Land

4. Make Everything Owned by Everybody

5. A Public Bank in Every State

The White House is standing by the “Lie of the Year.” On its Reality Check website, an informational page for Obamacare, the administration still claims that the president’s promise that people can keep their plans if they like them is true.

On a page titled “You can keep your own insurance,” an official from the Office of Health Reform “debunks the myth” that people will be pushed off of their current, preferred plans because of Obamacare regulations. “To the contrary,” the Reality Check website reads, “reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.”

There's a special place in my heart for pasties, Cornish or otherwise, which is why I stumbled on this:

Greggs, a bakery in England, sells some 61 million Cornish pasties a year. But it won't sell any starting in 2014. Oh, it will still sell a beef pie, but it can't call it Cornish pasty anymore. The European Union awarded the dish protected geographical indication status, which means anything called a Cornish pasty must be prepared in Cornwall. Greggs is located in Plymouth. And a Cornish pasty can only contain beef, potatoes, onions and rutabagas. Greggs' pie also contains peas and carrots. But even some pasty makers based in Cornwall may have to change. European Union rules state that a Cornish pasty must be crimped on the side, while some bakeries crimp them at the top.

I'm ready forthe "Bush did it too" arguements, just so you know.  My compilation of POTUS's most egregious Constituional assaults:

1.  Obamacare delays: out-of-pocket caps, employer mandate and  insurance requirements.

2.  Obamacare exemptions for Congress.

3.  IRS over-reach: via expansion of the employer mandate penalty and profiling.

4.  Outlandish Supreme Court arguements.  NINE 9-0 losses.  More in six years than Bush had in eight.  More than ANY president has EVER had in eight.  

5.  Recess appointment abuse.  Supremes to rule on this one soon.  Won't be 9-0 but won't be 5-4 either!

6.  DoJ assault on campus speech.

7.  Mini-Dream act.