Apparently the Nobel Prize Committee is a Republican Shill

In my experience, there are few points or phrases in a debate that signal that it is done, one side has won or lost. For example, if you can get a person to concede that the Constitution is fatally flawed, that the Holocaust never happened, etc., there can be no real debate because all ground rules are nonexistant and there is no objective standard of truth.

I spent about two hours arguing with supporters of Lyndon LaRouche one night after work last week. I debated serially through six of them before they had to leave, but I did leave my email address and phone number in case they came up with any evidence for their outlandish claims--that machine tools (?) are somehow necessary for a vibrant economy, that Dick Cheney is planning a nuclear attack on North Korea, and, most absurdly, that free trade is wrong. Using an argument from this earlier post, one of the six activists actually said that he would send barges of free goods back into the ocean if they were washing up on our shores, instead of using lesser-priced inputs for American manufacturers and consumers.

Anyway, they pulled a dirty trick and gave my phone number to the LaRouche HQ, who gave me a call at work today inviting me to a speech next week. In a short-three minute debate, he asked for proof that free markets worked, and I let him know that across all continents, the best indicator of a better standard of living was freer markets. Not history, not culture, not religion, or any other factor makes a difference. I let him know that one percentage increase in trade with African nations would produce more income for Africans than a quadrupling of foreign aid.

He told me that the sources I was using are biased and uninformed. I thanked him for his time and let him know that I was leaving that decision up to the Nobel Prize Committee, when he actually told me, I quote: "they give the Nobel Prize to whoever can be the biggest idiot. You should check out our website..."

What am I supposed to think about a statement like this? Is there any reason I should not assume this is the feeling of the larger American liberal movement? LaRoushe isn't anythign important, he's probably unemployed. But there is no way that a statement like this coming from the staff of a senator, for example, (who even initiated the call) would not be attributed to that office. I think this is a perfectly good example of the intellectual bankruptcy of the "fair trade" movement and American liberal thought in general.

We should certainly be tolerant of all speech, especially political speech and academic research, as Radar is eloquently explaining. But does it disturb anyone else that this movement, which is supposedly premised on helping the poorest people out, is doing even more to oppress dissent (see support for Chavez, communist dictators) and retard/oppose any progress (see fair trade, school vouchers, welfare, any economic plan they have) than any other group in modern history? It's atrocious we let them get away with it.