12 votes

Forbes hit piece on Justin Amash: Rep. Justin Amash's 'Libertarianism' Will Likely Disappoint Libertarians

Recently I had the chance to see Rep. Justin Amash (R – Michigan) speak during a trip down to Florida. Known as one of the few libertarians in Congress, I approached his talk with excitement.

Figure Amash has been vocal in the verbal and legislative sense about NSA overreach, and then he’s rather famously known for consulting the Constitution ahead of every vote. The Constitution greatly limits the power of the federal government, and Amash’s consultation of it speaks to a politician who properly believes much federal government activity obnoxiously exceeds the strict limits set by our founding document.

Of course, it was Amash’s sterling reputation as a strict libertarian that made his talk a bit of a disappointment. If the fact that he looked down and read most of the speech can be ignored, his questionable economic views cannot be. Most libertarians would have been puzzled by the talk, and probably discouraged.

Indeed, it was hard to watch him read the speech without concluding that Amash is the latest in a long line of small-government talking Republicans fully willing to let the federal government grow by leaps and bounds. Evidence supporting this claim was his fixation on budget deficits over government spending, his view that massive tax increases will be required to pay the deficits off, and his strongly held belief that a balanced budget amendment is the solution to a federal government that always seems to grow no matter the political party in power.

About budget deficits, Amash believes that absent reform meant to rein them in, our economy and country will be “brought to its knees.” Interesting there is that it would take several Rose Bowls to seat all the pundits, politicians and economists who’ve said much the same over the decades. The problem is that these dire predictions never seem to come true.

Never explained by the doomsayers of the past, and not covered by Amash in the present, is what would be so bad about a scenario whereby the federal government would have trouble covering its debts. On its face, this would bring about a positive in that the investors who buy U.S. debt would simply allocate their capital elsewhere; ideally away from government consumption.

Read more:


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

What an idiot

Nominal taxes don't matter. Spending and inflation are the real taxes. Also, Amash didn't want just a balanced budget amendment, he wants spending caps. We've spent decades trying to "starve the beast." I think it's obvious now that starving the beast doesn't work. Polititions honestly don't care about inflation or debt.

There's no starving a beast that creates its food from thin air

End the Fed

He lost me at "what would be so bad about a scenario .."

Everything after that made me totally not interested in reading the article. Waste of time.


These are the kind of articles I was referring to in my post 'time for rebuttal'. Please take a second to read my post if you can find it. People read these kinds of articles and believe them if there is no other view point presented, I've begun my rebuttal, now I'm heading back for more...please join me


good article

Cutting government spending is way more important than balancing the budget.

"It may be a hundred years before a computer beats humans at Go - maybe even longer. If a reasonably intelligent person learned to play Go, in a few months he could beat all existing computer programs." - Piet Hut

Don't click the link - this is just link bait

This guy is all over the place with his logic. Implying that a US default would be OK.

Also implying that the future holds no problems because nothing bad has happened yet.

Not sure which is harder to believe: that people can make a living writing garbage like this or that there is an audience for such a poorly reasoned piece.

He's just trolling for links/traffic.

Amash supporters are the only ones who will read this

Most will stop reading after the first paragraph. Anyone who reads the whole thing already knows how wrong this guy is about deficits, and the financial shape of this country.


What do you mean?

The writer is saying that Amash wants to raise revenues to cover the deficit, when what he should be focusing on is cutting government spending. Do you disagree with that?

"It may be a hundred years before a computer beats humans at Go - maybe even longer. If a reasonably intelligent person learned to play Go, in a few months he could beat all existing computer programs." - Piet Hut

At the Daily Paul?!?!?!?

I AM SO MAD!!!!!

You are supposed to not be a moron!

Deficit spending is the biggest sole contributor to big government on the planet!!!!!

Take a look at Lew Rockwell's YouTube video on war and the fed.

Balance that budget and you expose the cleptocrats and stop compounding our problem. Lower spending(on everything but the military I might add) without balancing the budget and you sacrifice the integrity of the patchwork system we have and deliberately penalizing its biggest victims.


dig deeper



"It may be a hundred years before a computer beats humans at Go - maybe even longer. If a reasonably intelligent person learned to play Go, in a few months he could beat all existing computer programs." - Piet Hut


Have you even considered what either one of the authors of those two articles would have said in response to this hit piece.

Central bank financed deficit spending is what Murray Rothbard spent his whole life advocating against. If you don't know that, look it up.



Many libertarians are under attack, as well as liberty republicans like Amash and Massie. No one will read these articles because just from the title alone, you can tell it's full of half truths and lies. Anyone who knows Amash, Massie and Ron Paul would know these articles are full of crap.

Exactly, I didn't even

read that much of it,, I read forbes,,, enough for me!