Dumbest Comment By a Progressive Ever?

Responding to a recent poll taken by the Las Vegas Review Journal, an LVJR reader commented:

You consevatives [sic] support 'smaller' govt because you want to be dictated to by the corporate aristocracy, the majority of us reject this idea. Corporations do not create jobs, governments do by regulating markets, creating a stable currancy [sic], and enforcing trade regulations. Free trade isn't free and your polls are misleading.

It's not worth the time just now to argue against this patently absurd view. And, since this is just one Progressive idiot out of millions, and an illiterate one to boot, it wouldn't normally be worth the effort to respond. But, unfortunately, this view is also close to that of Cass Sunstein, Professor of Law at Harvard University and Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. (Also, at the University of Chicago Law School for 27 years.)

According to one source, he is also "[t]he preeminent legal scholar of our time - the most wide-ranging, the most prolific, the most cited, and the most influential," says Harvard Law School Dean Elena Kagan, and "the most-cited law professor on any faculty in the United States."

The view was expressed, among other places, in a Chicago Tribune op-ed: "Without taxes there would be no property. ... No right can be exercised independently, for every rights-holder has a claim on public resources--on money that has been extracted from citizens at large."

Among other gems of thought, according to Wikipedia (which in this case looks accurate),

Sunstein (along with his coauthor Richard Thaler) has elaborated the theory of libertarian paternalism. In arguing for this theory, he counsels thinkers/academics/politicians to embrace the findings of behavioral economics as applied to law, maintaining freedom of choice while also steering people's decisions in directions that will make their lives go better. With Thaler, he coined the term "choice architect."

Now, there is the perfect prototype of the Progressive trying to have it both ways, and indifferent to the blatant contradiction of advocating a 'libertarianism' in which the government 'guides' your choices.

Lest you think this is a mere academic exercise, Sunstein also argues:

There is no reason to believe that in the face of statutory ambiguity, the meaning of federal law should be settled by the inclinations and predispositions of federal judges. The
outcome should instead depend on the commitments and beliefs of the President and those who operate under him. [From the Yale Law Journal, 9/25/2006.]

So much for the separation of powers.

It's a pity that Glenn Beck hasn't yet done a show that would drive this thug out of his position.