Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Liberaltarianism Redux, Plus Survivalists vs. Cosmopolitans
Supply-sider and occasional Reason contributor Bruce Bartlett goes to one of those liberaltarian dinners in Washington, D.C. and expresses hope that "the dialogue continues." Along the way he makes some characterizations of Planet Libertarian (and, later in the column, some recommendations) that many here may find interesting. A selection:
Libertarians' views on social policy and national defense make them sympathetic to the Democrats, while their views on economic policy tend to align them with the Republicans. If one views social, defense and economic policy as having roughly equal weight, it would seem, therefore, that most libertarians should be Democrats. In fact, almost none are. Those that don't belong to the dysfunctional Libertarian Party are, by and large, Republicans.
The reason for this is that most self-described libertarians are primarily motivated by economics. In particular, they don't like paying taxes. They also tend to have an obsession with gold and a distrust of paper money. As a philosophy, their libertarianism doesn't extent much beyond not wanting to pay taxes, being paid in gold and being able to keep all the guns they want. Many are survivalists at heart and would be perfectly content to live in complete isolation on a mountain somewhere, neither taking anything from society nor giving anything. [...]
One is not likely to run into that type of libertarian at a Washington dinner party. These libertarians tend to be well-educated, arriving at his or her philosophy through reading obscure books or random contact with some libertarian in graduate school. They don't own guns--probably never even fired one, don't mind paying taxes too much, have no particular nostalgia for the gold standard and certainly would not choose to live in isolation on a mountaintop. They are cosmopolitan, urbane, articulate and interested in ideas more than just about anything else. They are not especially career-oriented--they are happy to be paid less than they probably could make as long as they don't have to compromise their principles and can do work that advances the cause. For the most part, they aren't family-oriented or religious, and they mostly fit the stereotype of a nerd.
As a poorly educated, non-tax fetishizing, family/career-oriented, gun-firing, non-goldbug city mouse, I don't feel particularly represented in that list above. Nor, for that matter, do I hold much short-term hope for the liberaltarian project. But I'm not much of a joiner, and it's a worthwhile read.
Gilbert Martin|5.29.09 @ 12:03PM|#
"The reason for this is that most self-described libertarians
are primarily motivated by economics. In particular, they don't
like paying taxes."
And why shouldn't they be?
After all, it is this arena that government has the most real-world
impact on the lives of most people.
|5.29.09 @ 12:05PM|#
And why shouldn't they be?
After all, it is this arena that government has the most real-world impact on the lives of most people.
And arguably it's the arena in which libertarianism needs the most
help.
The article also reaffirms that politics, even for the avowedly
"rational" driven by Reason, really boils down to
associating with people like you and whom you like, just like high
school.
Abdul|5.29.09 @ 12:09PM|#
Seems like Humprey Bogart in "Treasure of the Sierra Madre" is
the classic libertarian.
Gold, Gold, GOLD!
Brian Sorgatz|5.29.09 @ 12:11PM|#
Speaking of Cosmopolitan, The New Yorker has recently acknowledged Helen Gurley Brown as a "sexual libertarian." She's finally getting the credit she deserves.
Mike|5.29.09 @ 12:11PM|#
To say that libertarians are liberal on all social issues is an
oversimplification. Most libertarians agree with most conservatives
on some social issues like anti-smoking/fatty food laws and
affirmative action. There are also some social issues, like capital
punishment and abortion that don't have an explicity libertarian
side, and libertarians are split on these issues. In addition,
there are some libertarian issues, like drug legalization and
gambling legalization, that are opposed by both most liberals and
most conservatives.
On the other hand, liberals and libertarians are always on the
opposite side on economic issues.
Craig|5.29.09 @ 12:12PM|#
Libertarians' views on social policy and national defense
make them sympathetic to the Democrats, while their views on
economic policy tend to align them with the Republicans. If one
views social, defense and economic policy as having roughly equal
weight, it would seem, therefore, that most libertarians should be
Democrats.
The problem with this analysis is that neither major party is
particularly close to the libertarian positions on social policy,
national defense, or economic policy.
The most left-leaning Democratic president of the past 40 years,
for instance, is opposed to same sex marriage and laughs at the
idea of decriminalizing marijuana. That same president proposed a
larger budget for military spending than his extremely hawkish
Republican predecessor.
The Republicans talk a better game on economic policy, but when
given a chance to control the White House, the Senate, and the
House of Representatives, embarked on a spending and borrowing
spree that made the liberal Democratic administration they replaced
look like careful stewards of the national government's
finances.
The main reason most libertarians lean Republican is that
Republicans at least speak the same language, about the free
market, the Constitution, and lower taxes. They consistently fail
to deliver (or deliver the opposite of what they talked about on
the campaign trail), but the slight social and military policy
advantages in Democratic rhetoric don't tend to materialize in
enacted policy differences either, and certainly not in any radical
or significant advance in any kind of freedom.
squarooticus|5.29.09 @ 12:12PM|#
Is this douchebag for real?
I am an Ivy-educated, gold-buying, Rothbard-reading,
anarcho-capitalist gun nut.
I like being around other people: I play hockey several times a
week; I go to concerts, bars, and do other assorted activities with
friends; I respect division of labor and don't make or do
everything myself.
But, unlike paying taxes, those interactions are
voluntary. As I've said numerous times before, I pay taxes
only because the government will throw me in prison if I don't.
T|5.29.09 @ 12:13PM|#
The article also reaffirms that politics, even for the
avowedly "rational" driven by Reason, really boils down to
associating with people like you and whom you like, just like high
school.
Can't be, 'cause I don't like none of y'all. Of course, I like
people in the other parties even less. Maybe it is true.
|5.29.09 @ 12:27PM|#
don't mind paying taxes too much
Ah, so the libertarians he found aren't libertarians. I'm going to
go out on a radical limb here and say... if you have no problem
paying taxes at the current rates and on the basis for which they
are now collected, you are not a libertarian. You are supporting
aggression, you are defending the bloated apparatus of the state,
and you don't give a fig about about liberty or the individual.
|5.29.09 @ 12:27PM|#
Barlett is a douchebag. When libertarians agree with
Rethuglicans and DemocRATs, they often agree for different
reasons, so they're not really on the same page at all.
The survivalist stereotype is an annoying one, as some of those
people are only "libertarian" in that they just want to be left
totally alone. But Barlett goes right to it. Great.
Ed|5.29.09 @ 12:27PM|#
The reason many libertarians prioritize taxes over social freedom, if you have to pick one, is because it's understood that with money... you can buy social freedom. Without money, you depend on the generosity of the government to "permit" you to pursue happiness.
|5.29.09 @ 12:27PM|#
As a philosophy, their libertarianism doesn't extent much
beyond not wanting to pay taxes, being paid in gold and being able
to keep all the guns they want. Many are survivalists at heart and
would be perfectly content to live in complete isolation on a
mountain somewhere, neither taking anything from society nor giving
anything. [...]
F
Try again, and next time, do a little more research than talking to
people at BeltwayLand cocktail parties.
|5.29.09 @ 12:31PM|#
|5.29.09 @ 12:31PM|#
Well, the second part fits me better than the first one, but
it's only partially accurate...However, this
fit the stereotype of a nerd.
Goosebumps.
|5.29.09 @ 12:33PM|#
Squarooticus-
Who says libertarians do not have the proverbial big tent? Look at
the differences between the two of us:
I am a NON-ivy educated, gold buying, Rothbard reading,
anarcho-capitalist.
|5.29.09 @ 12:34PM|#
Libertarians' views on social policy and national defense
make them sympathetic to the Democrats, while their views on
economic policy tend to align them with the Republicans.
This is incredibly stupid. Bartlett neatly leaves out some major
non-economic issues where Libertarians agree with Republicans and
disagree with Democrats, ie gun rights and school choice.
And keep in mind it was the Dems who wanted us to invade the Sudan
last year, and a Dem president who undertook the Kosovo mini-war
over the objection of the Republican Congress.
|5.29.09 @ 12:36PM|#
Bartlett manages to trot out nearly every disparaging caricature
of libertarians in the space of a few short paragraphs, and then
wonders why people who think libertarians and people who think they
are survivalist gun-nut gold-bugs can't seem to get along with each
other.
Color me deeply unimpressed.
As noted above, most libertarians tend to identify with Republicans
because the Repubs at least pay lip service to the idea of limited
government, individual initiative, personal responsibility, etc.
The Dems don't; even on issues where we might agree on outcomes,
our reasons are different.
DHS Thinks I’m a Terrorist|5.29.09 @ 12:37PM|#
In Response to Bruce Bartlett
"These libertarians tend to be well-educated, arriving at his or
her philosophy through reading obscure books"
Like the novels of Robert A. Heinlein and Ayn Rand?
"They don't own guns--probably never even fired one"
I don't own any (yet) but have fired many. I was in the Air Force
and my grandfather was an armsophile.
" don't mind paying taxes too much"
WRONG! I very much DO!
"have no particular nostalgia for the gold standard"
My fondness for gthe gold standard is not based on nostalgia but
basic economics
"For the most part, they aren't family-oriented or religious"
I am family-oriented but not religious. I am an ignostic (no, I
didn't misspell agnostic)
" and they mostly fit the stereotype of a nerd."
Yes, I mostly fit the stereotype of nerd.
|5.29.09 @ 12:38PM|#
I realize it's not his entire point, but the Bartlett piece
seems to read as "I'd rather be in a party with people I'd feel
comfortable with at cocktail and dinner parties, regardless of
their actual views."
Of course, that describes most people politically anyway.
Franklin Harris|5.29.09 @ 12:38PM|#
Nor, for that matter, do I hold much short-term hope for the liberaltarian project.
The paleolibertarians already tried and failed at this sort of
thing with their alliance with the paleoconservatives, which is all
but dead except for within the pages of The American
Conservative. I suspect "liberaltarianism" will be even less
successful.
|5.29.09 @ 12:38PM|#
Libertarians' views on social policy and national defense
make them sympathetic to the Democrats, while their views on
economic policy tend to align them with the Republicans.
EAT SHIT AND DIE you lying lowlife douche!
Libertarians have nothing but HATE HATE HATE for the even-bigger
government economic policies of the Republicans.
GET IT RIGHT FUCK FACE
Franklin Harris|5.29.09 @ 12:39PM|#
I realize it's not his entire point, but the Bartlett piece seems to read as "I'd rather be in a party with people I'd feel comfortable with at cocktail and dinner parties, regardless of their actual views."
That is, in fact, how most people form their political views.
Stamp|5.29.09 @ 12:40PM|#
"After all, it is this arena that government has the most
real-world impact on the lives of most people."
Well, there's the roads, and the aquaducts, and the libraries, but
apart from that, what has the bloody US government done for
us???
T|5.29.09 @ 12:41PM|#
I realize it's not his entire point, but the Bartlett piece
seems to read as "I'd rather be in a party with people I'd feel
comfortable with at cocktail and dinner parties, regardless of
their actual views."
"I'd rather be at a dinner party than up on a mountain top with a
cabin full of guns, wouldn't you?" seems to be his major
thesis.
|5.29.09 @ 12:42PM|#
Well, there's the roads, and the aquaducts, and the
libraries, but apart from that, what has the bloody US government
done for us???
SPLITTERS!!!
|5.29.09 @ 12:42PM|#
squarooticus, I'm a hockey player, too. I'm surprised that didn't make it into the article...that libertarians are predominantly hockey players. Apparently it doesn't take many to make it "predominant" to that guy...
shecky|5.29.09 @ 12:42PM|#
Truth hurts, folks. And there's a lot of truth in what Bartlett
says. It reminds me of the truth Obama spoke during the Bittergate
scandal.
I still think a large segment on self described libertarians are
yokel right wingers at heart. Notice how much traction something
like liberalized immigration law gets when brought up at some
libertarian-ish sites. The same tired pseudo arguments about
non-assimilation, welfare, crime all of a sudden get thrown up as
common libertarian sense.
DHS Thinks I’m a Terrorist|5.29.09 @ 12:43PM|#
"Well, there's the roads, and the aquaducts, and the libraries,
but apart from that, what has the bloody US government done for
us???"
They have turned us into slaves.
|5.29.09 @ 12:43PM|#
It's worse tyhan I thought.
In short, there is a theoretical case to be made for liberals and libertarians at least continuing a dialogue. But for it to go anywhere, libertarians must scale back their almost single-minded focus on economic freedom as the sole determinant of liberty. They must work harder to defend civil liberties and resist expansion of the police state whether it involves suspected terrorists, illegal aliens or those who enjoy smoking marijuana.
Libertarians should also be more outspoken about America's disastrous foreign policy, which Obama seems to be doing very little to fix. This would seem like an obvious area for cooperation. The main problem seems that neither liberals nor libertarians are up to challenging the loudmouthed bullies on talk radio and Fox News who equate anything less than a 100% commitment to the "war on terror" as treasonous.
Bruce Bartlett: cretin, or moron? You decide.
|5.29.09 @ 12:43PM|#
This guy is obviously never met an actual survivalist in his
life. Most survivalists are anything but libertarians. Most of them
are whackjobs of various bents who would like to impose anything
from anarchy to a Christan theocracy on the country.
Most gun owners are not necessarily libertarians either. They are
generally single issue voters. Does anyone here think most gun
owners are just dying to eliminate national borders and legalize
gay marriage and polygomy?
Libertarians need to realize that while most people argree with
them on some issues few people agree with them on all issues. For
that reason, they need to work on single issues. Gun control needs
to be the model for future libertarian action. There one group of
people of very diverse views, gun owners, got together and voted
strongly on that one issue. Gun control is dead in this country and
it is not coming back anytime soon. Libertarians need to find other
cases of unpopular government over reach and hack away at them one
issue at a time. It is a never ending project. But because it
actually accomplishes something it beats pining for paradise.
Craig|5.29.09 @ 12:44PM|#
In particular, they don't like paying taxes.
I've met very few people of any party who like paying taxes -- just
a few super-rich liberals who wish we could be more like France or
Sweden. Libertarians regard taxes as theft, which tends to make us
like paying them even less, naturally.
They also tend to have an obsession with gold and a distrust of
paper money.
Define "obsession". Expressing an opinion that a gold based
monetary system would be superior to a paper currency based one
after carefully analyzing the historical track records of each and
the likely outcomes of current fiscal policies hardly qualifies as
an obsession. And when has a paper currency ever proven
trustworthy?
As a philosophy, their libertarianism doesn't extent much
beyond not wanting to pay taxes, being paid in gold and being able
to keep all the guns they want.
Well, since the Constitution says that our right to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed, isn't it a legitimate request to
expect the government to follow its own rules?
|5.29.09 @ 12:46PM|#
I play hockey several times a week
You will be assigned to one of the major two parties based on how
you answer this question, since the rest of you is so confused. (It
is for your own good.)
"Should fighting be removed from the NHL?"
DHS Thinks I’m a Terrorist|5.29.09 @ 12:46PM|#
"I still think a large segment on self described libertarians
are yokel right wingers at heart."
Interesting, for those of us who have never met such people could
you please describe them for us? Preferably without using
meaningless ad hominems.
Hammered Head|5.29.09 @ 12:47PM|#
I'm a good mix of both. I live in an apartment in uptown Dallas
and I'm highly educated and earn well. I also own a lakefront home
in east Texas and love drinking with my red-neck friends down
there. I would probably enjoy uptown better if it wasn't filled
with twenty-something who only seem to listen to rap. I'm 41.
I don't own a gun, but have shot plenty. Finally, I have no
interest in gold and have always wondered why it has been given
such a high intrinsic value. After all, it is just another
commodity.
I tend to agree with the sentiment here that economics issues are
more highly valued as they affect far more people than the social
ones and money can buy freedom to some extent. I seem to dislike
all Democrats, but only most and not all Republicans.
|5.29.09 @ 12:48PM|#
Well, there's the roads, and the aquaducts, and the
libraries, but apart from that, what has the bloody US government
done for us???
All of which could have been constructed and paid for by the users
had the government not intruded.
Jeez, can you wipe your own ass without a government program to get
you through it?
shecky|5.29.09 @ 12:49PM|#
Interesting, for those of us who have never met such people
could you please describe them for us? Preferably without using
meaningless ad hominems.
Like I said, truth hurts.
Jordan|5.29.09 @ 12:51PM|#
Well, there's the roads, and the aquaducts, and the libraries, but apart from that, what has the bloody US government done for us???
Hey, if that and providing a framework for justice and national
defense was all the government did I'd be thrilled. My tax rate
could probably be lowered to about 1% of what it is now.
|5.29.09 @ 12:52PM|#
The reason certain libertarians don't mind paying taxes too much
is that, despite the bloated taxes, they don't feel poor. For me,
despite giving over 30% of my paycheck away to the government, plus
all the other taxes (maybe 40%-50% of my money goes to gov't?), I
reckon I'm richer than 99+% of the people who have ever lived.
Also, despite all the taxes we pay, modern Americans (including
me!) generally live wealthy, easy lives.
Once you're happy with your financial situation, and America's
financial situation in general, it doesn't make sense that $$$
should be your #1 issue.
Sure, I'd prefer a smaller gov't, but the issues that really rile
me up are civil rights type issues. People who are wrongfully
imprisoned (drugs, sex, etc), or cops doing horrendous things (read
Balko), or schools failing (creating an uneducated population is a
bigger problem than wasting money), or environmental damage (sorry
about that one).
I'll still vote for smaller gov't and lower taxes, it makes me sick
that people love massively wasteful spending programs, and I'm
taking good care of myself in preparation for the debacle of
socialized medicine... but other issues are much more
important.
|5.29.09 @ 12:54PM|#
Well, there's the roads, and the aquaducts, and the
libraries, but apart from that, what has the bloody US government
done for us???
For all of you who seem to be missing this, the above is a quote
from Life
of Brian. It is a joke.
I'm starting to think that mandatory Monty Python classes in school
might be a good idea.
Jordan|5.29.09 @ 12:54PM|#
Score another victory for Hope
over Change:
The US Department of Homeland Security is set to kickstart a controversial new pilot to scan the fingerprints of travellers departing the United States. From June, US Customs and Border Patrol will take a fingerprint scan of travellers exiting the United States from Detroit, while the US Transport Security Administration will take fingerprint scans of international travellers exiting the United States from Atlanta. The controversial plan to scan outgoing passengers - including US citizens - was allegedly hatched under the Bush Administration. An official has said it will be used in part to crack down on the US population of illegal immigrants.
Just remember kids: the Democrats are better on social issues.
T|5.29.09 @ 12:54PM|#
I still think a large segment on self described libertarians
are yokel right wingers at heart.
I still think you're a dog with excellent typing skills. Since both
of us lack any convincing evidence for our thoughts, I guess there
no settling the issue. Now bark for the biscuit, shecky.
DHS Thinks I’m a Terrorist|5.29.09 @ 12:56PM|#
"Like I said, truth hurts."
You didn't answer the question.
|5.29.09 @ 12:57PM|#
"It reminds me of the truth Obama spoke during the Bittergate
scandal."
I don't know lots of people who own guns, go to church and live in
rural areas. They don't seem to be bitter at all. The only bitter
people I know are maladjusted aging hippies who never got the help
they needed back in the 70s. Only bigoted morons thought BO hit on
any truth in that statement.
|5.29.09 @ 12:58PM|#
"An official has said it will be used in part to crack down on
the US population of illegal immigrants."
Wait, what?
|5.29.09 @ 12:58PM|#
I've met very few people of any party who like paying taxes
-- just a few super-rich liberals who wish we could be more like
France or Sweden.
Have you ever noticed how those self-same individuals never avail
themselves of the simple option of just writing a big ol' check to
the Treasury out of the goodness of their hearts?
Loo Rockwell|5.29.09 @ 12:59PM|#
"Many are survivalists at heart and would be perfectly content
to live in complete isolation on a mountain somewhere, neither
taking anything from society nor giving anything."
As long as by not "taking anything from society" you exclude
popular politicians that help me sell books and make money off of
his two first names. But if he ever gets crap for anything I wrote
in his name you can be damn sure that I won't give anything back,
I'll just lay back as he gets crucified by the press.
And of course we want to live in isolated areas, as far from
Welfaria as we can be.
|5.29.09 @ 12:59PM|#
Jordan,
It should be noted that idea originated in 1996 under Clinton. It
languished under Bush but didn't die. Now it has returned. It spans
three Presidencies of both parties. But Dems will protect your
privacy and freedom. Right.
|5.29.09 @ 12:59PM|#
people who like ideas and are intelligent don't care much about
their families?! wtf?! I don't have a gun in my house, but this
makes me want to drve up to a gun show in NH today and get
one.
How about you grant me the right to print money and I'll write my
own budget for the service I am doing for you? and you can raise
your taxes to pay for my "services" since you don't need any more
money for your family that you don't care about.
|5.29.09 @ 1:02PM|#
"In short, there is a theoretical case to be made for liberals
and libertarians at least continuing a dialogue. But for it to go
anywhere, libertarians must scale back their almost single-minded
focus on economic freedom as the sole determinant of
liberty."
Translation: "If these dern libertarians would just stop bein'
libertarians, I could work with 'em!!"
|5.29.09 @ 1:02PM|#
I still think you're a dog with excellent typing
skills.
Excellent, for a dog, that is.
|5.29.09 @ 1:02PM|#
Matt sure knows how to throw chum in the water.
Yup. I'm sure this opportunity was too good for him to pass up.
|5.29.09 @ 1:03PM|#
"They are not especially career-oriented--they are happy to be
paid less than they probably could make as long as they don't have
to compromise their principles and can do work that advances the
cause. For the most part, they aren't family-oriented or religious,
and they mostly fit the stereotype of a nerd."
What a jackass. Aren't most of the Reason staff, which would be the
best example of who he is talking about, married? You could call
them nerdy, but a lot of people are. Most of them, however, seem to
be mainline and nothing like what he is describing.
|5.29.09 @ 1:04PM|#
I'm a highly educated, urban-dwelling, gold-standard-wanting,
ideas-motivated person who minds paying taxes and doesn't own a gun
but would like to live somewhere out there alone. And I'm a
registered Republican.
I'm not sure I like being shuttled into one of these groups I'm not
a member of. It feels very collectivist.
|5.29.09 @ 1:04PM|#
Jordan, to my knowledge, my finger prints are not on file anywhere so the scan would mean very little. I am a US citizen. Would I be stopped from exiting the country under the Retarded Gestapo Plan?
KT|5.29.09 @ 1:06PM|#
I don't understand this idea that libertarians are more in line with Republicans on economic issues. People may think that's true because it gets repeated so often, because the assumption still hangs around that Republicans are somehow fiscally conservative, but they aren't.
T|5.29.09 @ 1:06PM|#
Excellent, for a dog, that is.
True. My dog is still working through his keyboard issues (gnawing
vs. typing), but I have hopes that someday he'll contribute as much
here as shecky.
hmm|5.29.09 @ 1:08PM|#
The libertarian need, by some, to pigeonhole every fucking
person gets tiresome. The purist mindset of so many libertarians I
come across drives me nuts and to be honest it is what I consider
the largest road block for any progression. No one wants to play
the all or nothing game.
This is just an example of some intellectual tard talking shit as
usual about the loons that own guns, like to be prepared for
anything, and aren't too fond of fiat currency. People who can
often be easily dismissed as armchair quarterbacks or a detriment
to any progression. People that would rather sit around and argue
esoteric nuances of philosophies rather than deal with the people.
The people, of course, being the whole goddamn reason for being a
part of a political movement, regardless of the philosophy.
I'd rather spend two hours talking to a gun crazy, bunker building,
MRE stashing redneck than have to endure 10 minutes of some self
righteous libertarianism at the hands of some "cosmopolitan,
urbane, articulate" douche who wants to argue economic theory ad
nauseam.
Fucking elitist piss me off more than anything. No matter who they
are. Everyone gets the same rights. Why play the us and them game
everyone else plays?
Nikola T|5.29.09 @ 1:08PM|#
Funny how he would try to generalize a group of
individuals. The strength of libertarianism is
that every one is different and are not trying to be lumped into a
bloc. Of course that's also our downfall. It's hard to herd
cats.
I submit that all people are naturally libertarian. At least they
are libertarian for themselves - it's just that the folks who come
here, would like others to experience the same.
|5.29.09 @ 1:08PM|#
would be perfectly content to live in complete isolation on
a mountain somewhere, neither taking anything from society nor
giving anything.
OMFG!!1 That's me. And- I live in Montana, no
less.
Be afraid, Bruce...
|5.29.09 @ 1:11PM|#
"I'd rather spend two hours talking to a gun crazy, bunker
building, MRE stashing redneck than have to endure 10 minutes of
some self righteous libertarianism at the hands of some
"cosmopolitan, urbane, articulate" douche who wants to argue
economic theory ad nauseam.
Fucking elitist piss me off more than anything. No matter who they
are. Everyone gets the same rights. Why play the us and them game
everyone else plays?"
A fucking Men.
Rimfax|5.29.09 @ 1:17PM|#
To nerds, I'm a normal. To normals, I'm a
nerd.
Despite his ad hominem and rhetoric, Epi gets it right.
Libertarians aren't defined by their policy preferences, they are
defined by how they reach their policy preferences. Libertarianism
isn't a political movement as much as it is an ideological
movement. Therein lie the strengths and weaknesses of institutions
like the Libertarian Party. (It is only "disfunctional", if you
want it to function like a political, that is power grabbing,
entity.)
Stamp|5.29.09 @ 1:29PM|#
"Jeez, can you wipe your own ass without a government program to
get you through it?"
Jeez! It was a Python reference!
Mike Laursen|5.29.09 @ 1:30PM|#
No, I've participated in too many Libertarian Party conventions
and committee meetings to buy that it's "only 'disfunctional'
if..."
The LP is dysfunctional, broke, something went haywire --
either the very concept that you can have a libertarian political
party, or the way the party evolved into what it is today.
libertarian democrat|5.29.09 @ 1:30PM|#
I'm a highly educated, Massachusetts city living, moderately
goldbug, family and career oriented, gun buying, not-particularly
obsessed with taxation, although against it in principal,
libertarian.
This is the stupidest article I've read describing
libertarians.
|5.29.09 @ 1:33PM|#
Bartlett doesn't quite have my number, but I think he is
specifically referring to the Cato and Reason types here.
Living on a mountaintop is cool, but at this point in my life I
don't think I could survive without access to ethnic food and an
MLS franchise.
Stamp|5.29.09 @ 1:34PM|#
"Wait, what?"
Illegal immigrants always fly in and out of Detroit and
Atlanta.
Warty|5.29.09 @ 1:37PM|#
Despite his ad hominem and rhetoric, Epi gets it
right.
Dude, Epi's insults are his greatest strength. Behind his
perversion, I mean.
MNG|5.29.09 @ 1:37PM|#
"Fucking elitist piss me off more than anything."
It's nice to know that those baser parts of human nature that fuel
resentment towards those who have climbed higher and further than
you thrives even among a subset of libertarians (paleos)...
|5.29.09 @ 1:39PM|#
SHIT!
"Jeez, can you wipe your own ass without a government program
to get you through it?"
Jeez! It was a Python reference!
Apologies Stamp....! Picked up on "SPLITTERS"! Whiffed on
yours.
MNG|5.29.09 @ 1:39PM|#
Stupid cosmos with their fancy talk, uppity book learnin' and culturally aware, highly eclectic tastes!
|5.29.09 @ 1:42PM|#
People that would rather sit around and argue esoteric nuances of philosophies rather than deal with the people.
With whom do such people argue philosophy, without resorting to
"dealing with people". Do they argue with their dogs? I submit that
nearly all people who argue with their dogs are not
Libertarian.
|5.29.09 @ 1:43PM|#
Hey, I just noticed that Bartlett's douchebaggery proved even more distracting than the Angelina Jolie pic! No one retreating to their bunk[er]?
Stamp|5.29.09 @ 1:44PM|#
"It's nice to know that those baser parts of human nature that
fuel resentment towards those who have climbed higher and further
than you thrives even among a subset of libertarians
(paleos)..."
I'm a wealthy, white land-holding male (born lucky) and I dislike
elitists too. It has nothing to do with income level; it's about
their false sense of self-importance/worth.
Warty|5.29.09 @ 1:46PM|#
Shut up Dagny, I was trying to jack off without anyone noticing. Now you've ruined everything. Again.
JB|5.29.09 @ 1:46PM|#
Bruce Bartlett should stop calling himself a libertarian. He
should call himself a retarded, stuck-up, self-fister who thinks in
stereotypes.
I know all sorts of libertarians and not one fits any of his
descriptions.
What a clueless fool. I hope his writing for reason is over.
MNG|5.29.09 @ 1:47PM|#
"I submit that nearly all people who argue with their dogs are
not Libertarian."
I dunno Rich, I expect a few posters here spend a bit of time
extolling the non-aggression principle to their dogs in between
mumbling about creeping socialism and the evil that was the New
Deal or the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Their dogs probably don't
stop licking their own balls to take in much of it though...
PastyCaffineAddictedInsomniac|5.29.09 @ 1:48PM|#
Jeez! It was a Python reference!
but perl is so much more compact
MNG|5.29.09 @ 1:49PM|#
"He should call himself a retarded, stuck-up, self-fister who
thinks in stereotypes."
Jeez JB, I never knew you and Bruce Bartlett were so much alike!
Like peas in a genetically modified pod you two are...
Stamp|5.29.09 @ 1:49PM|#
"Their dogs probably don't stop licking their own balls to take
in much of it though..."
WRONG! My dog licks her cunt and the only thing we are at odds with
is that she calls her cunt MNG, which I think is stupid because
cunts serve a purpose.
|5.29.09 @ 1:51PM|#
"And then, while they sat helplessly around the campfire...a
demented knife-wielding escaped lunatic libertarian zombie mutant
snuck up and--"
Fry was, of course, talking about Warty.
robc|5.29.09 @ 1:52PM|#
Should fighting be removed from the NHL?
Hell no!
So, ummm, what does that make me?
T|5.29.09 @ 1:52PM|#
Stupid cosmos with their fancy talk, uppity book learnin'
and culturally aware, highly eclectic tastes!
Because the rest of us use monosyllables in communication, are
functionally illiterate, only know what's in WalMart, and all have
the exact same tastes, right?
|5.29.09 @ 1:52PM|#
At least tell me you were simultaneously pondering Angie's
rumored cosmotarian tendencies, Warty.
Wait, she's all elite and urban, and has a shitload of
kids? Unpossible.
hmm|5.29.09 @ 1:53PM|#
It's nice to know that those baser parts of human nature
that fuel resentment towards those who have climbed higher and
further than you thrives even among a subset of libertarians
(paleos)...
Don't mistake a dislike for those that feel they are better or
their perspective is more accurate because of their education or
station in life with some sort of envy. The only thing worse than
elitists are dipshits who make assumptions on the impetus of a
statement that have no basis in the statement itself. How's that
for a baser reaction? Fucking troglodyte.
|5.29.09 @ 1:54PM|#
"It's nice to know that those baser parts of human nature that
fuel resentment towards those who have climbed higher and further
than you thrives even among a subset of libertarians
(paleos)..."
Oh shut the fuck up. The problem is that we have lost respect for
people who actually do things. Really, who is this loser? Why do I
know who he is or should care what he says? I have more respect for
the guy who can fix my car or draw my blood for a blood test
without stabbing me a hundred times than I do for some douschebag
who happens to write for a magazine.
Is there a place for public intellectuals? Yes. But it is a small
one. The downside of the modern mass media is that every moron
whose daddy can write a check big enough to go to the right
university and take a low paying job at the right magazine thinks
they are a public intellectual. Before the rise of the national
media, shitbags like this guy would be working real jobs and
restricting their pontification to drunken rants at the local salon
or pub. We wouldn't know his name. We would only know the names of
or have to listen to the few truly brilliant public intellectuals.
It was a better world in many ways.
Look, I don't begrudge this guy for being able to make a living as
some snot nosed hack. Good for him. Thank heavens we live in a
world where not everyone has to actually work for a living. But
that doesn't mean I have to respect him. It also doesn't mean I
have to pretend his mediocre musings are somehow more respectable
than real work.
Brian Lockwood|5.29.09 @ 1:56PM|#
The article takes as a given that every libertarian is a
Utilitarian in terms of morals. With that assumption, of course he
would come to the conclusion that liberals and libertarians should
be working together.
How much water does this assumption hold? How many of you would
describe yourself as Utilitarian when it comes to your morals? Of
the libertarians I've known, its probably about 50/50.
|5.29.09 @ 1:58PM|#
"How much water does this assumption hold? How many of you would
describe yourself as Utilitarian when it comes to your morals? Of
the libertarians I've known, its probably about 50/50."
Even if it were true, which I agree with you that it is not, it
would make libertarians arch enemies of liberals. Liberals are
romantics. They are anything but ultilitarian.
robc|5.29.09 @ 2:00PM|#
Brian Lockwood,
Ummm...50/50 seems really high. At least on here, utilitarianism if
really low. With only our current house liberal (I miss joe)
claiming it.
Oh, and, since your brought it up:
Fuck utilitarianism. Evil fuckers trying to justify more evil.
MNG|5.29.09 @ 2:00PM|#
"Thank heavens we live in a world where not everyone has to
actually work for a living. But that doesn't mean I have to respect
him. It also doesn't mean I have to pretend his mediocre musings
are somehow more respectable than real work."
Not good hard-workin' folk like yourself, eh John?
Sadly as is pointed out here all the time the amount of work that
goes into something is hardly the determinant of that thing's
value...
"Don't mistake a dislike for those that feel they are better or
their perspective is more accurate because of their education or
station in life with some sort of envy."
So you hate it when someone who has done better than you acts like
they have done better than you. Ok.
"Because the rest of us use monosyllables in communication, are
functionally illiterate, only know what's in WalMart, and all have
the exact same tastes, right?"
Hey T, I didn't bring you into this, you did ;)
MNG|5.29.09 @ 2:01PM|#
"Liberals are romantics."
You mean we give girls flowers and candy to get to see their
snatches faster? Guilty!
|5.29.09 @ 2:02PM|#
I guess that to Bruce Bartlett I must be some kind of unicornish
creature.
I enjoy cocktail parties and talking about ideas.
I'm also heavily into shooting and firearms. Sorry to disappoint
Bruce, but not all gun-owning libertarians like to go out in the
desert and shoot guns into the air while waving a cowboy hat and
yelling "Yee-Haw."
God, what a putz.
Gilbert Martin|5.29.09 @ 2:02PM|#
"The reason many libertarians prioritize taxes over social
freedom, if you have to pick one, is because it's understood that
with money... you can buy social freedom. Without money, you depend
on the generosity of the government to "permit" you to pursue
happiness."
Well I'd say it's also due to the fact economic issues actually
have an effect on virtually everyone whereas the hotbutton social
issues such as "gay marriage" actaully only have an effect on
relatively few.
After all, if I'm not gay and have no interest in gay marriage,
what compelling reason is there for me to care about it at
all?
On the other hand there is plenty of reason for me to care about
taxation and massive, meddling government regulation and mandates
that interefere with freedom of contract.
Most people of middle income status and up would personally be far
better off without being forced to participate in and pay for
programs such as social security, medicare, etc. They could retire
far earlier with far more wealth than they will otherwise be able
to. That is a significant real world incentive to care.
MNG|5.29.09 @ 2:03PM|#
Paleo-libertarianism: for those who think the normal libertarian disapproval of things like child labor and civil rights laws is far too measured...
|5.29.09 @ 2:04PM|#
Also, the Jolie image doesn't do much for me, as I coincidentally watched Foxfire last night.
MNG|5.29.09 @ 2:05PM|#
"not all gun-owning libertarians like to go out in the desert
and shoot guns into the air while waving a cowboy hat and yelling
"Yee-Haw.""
Indeed. Many prefer to yell "Yippy ki-yay!"
|5.29.09 @ 2:06PM|#
"Not good hard-workin' folk like yourself, eh John?"
No. Read my comment. It is not that being a public intellectual is
disreputable work. It is that there is little need for such. What
is disreputable is not writing and thinking but this guy thinking
that his writing is adding anything significant to the world or
somehow more important than making the trains run on time.
The Angry Optimist|5.29.09 @ 2:07PM|#
We would only know the names of or have to listen to the few truly brilliant public intellectuals. It was a better world in many ways.
Yeah, back in the good old days where historians had monolithic
views about FDR, the New Deal and the Great Depression.
Back in the good old days when we were all told that the Triple
Entente were the "good" guys and the Triple Alliance were the "bad"
guys, and Woodrow Wilson's 18 points were the bee's fucking
knees.
Those good ol' days?
MNG|5.29.09 @ 2:08PM|#
It must meet some need, people pay lots for it, and you and I are here debating what he wrote, with nary a word about whatever work you've done today...
|5.29.09 @ 2:10PM|#
"I enjoy cocktail parties and talking about ideas.
I'm also heavily into shooting and firearms."
The best ones are the cocktail parties that involve ideas and
firearms.
alan|5.29.09 @ 2:11PM|#
Libertarians' views on social policy and national defense
make them sympathetic to the Democrats, while their views on
economic policy tend to align them with the Republicans.
Modern Democrats have moved away from being socially liberal along
time ago. He must have been napping around the time the PMRC was
formed, and thinks it is still Woodstock.
No, it is the socially communitarian trends that I despise even
more in the Democratic party and the Huckabee wing of the
Republican party even more than the high taxers. After all, you
will only get so much income tax out of me, good year or bad, but
two fucking bucks a tax on the occasional pack of cigarettes where
there are no viable alternatives in the black market (as least not,
at this time). Banning saturated and transfats in restaurants, and
bans on smoking sections. You can successfully make my life a
living hell until the day where the cost benefit ratio of not
voting with my feet becomes skewed to the other side.
|5.29.09 @ 2:12PM|#
"Yeah, back in the good old days where historians had monolithic
views about FDR, the New Deal and the Great Depression."
You clearly have no idea of when the good old days were and what
they were actually like. First, the mass media and braying
jackasses like this guy were quite well in the 1930s. Second, this
may come as a shock to you, but there really was dissent before the
internet. There was even dissent before your life time. They had
entire intellectual movements and even revoultions before the
internet and the mass media. You can look it up.
MNG|5.29.09 @ 2:12PM|#
In all seriousness folks, a movement that is trying to expand
its influence should see the similarities of positions between its
various factions (cosmos vs. paleos) and try to overlook the
differences. If you guys were in power, or say breaking 5% of the
vote* in national elections, then maybe splintering would be a
better idea, but as such this is nucking futs...
Later gators
* I really don't mean that as a crack, a party can have greater
influence than it has in votes and I think libertarians accomplish
that at times
|5.29.09 @ 2:13PM|#
mediageek,
Understandable. I just noticed it's from the UK version of Cosmo,
which is, in my experience, usually a little tamer.
Stamp|5.29.09 @ 2:14PM|#
"So you hate it when someone who has done better than you acts
like they have done better than you. Ok."
Your little theory doesn't account for me, cocksucker. Try
again.
Ludwig Von Beethoven|5.29.09 @ 2:17PM|#
"You mean we give girls flowers and candy to get to see their
snatches faster? Guilty!"
Language isn't your strong suit, is it?
|5.29.09 @ 2:18PM|#
There is no getting around the fact that it has been a very bad
20 years or so for freedom. In the 1980s, the world got a lot
freer. Europe and America thanks Thatcher and Reagan got much more
free economiclly in the 1980s. Communism fell. Even right wing
authoritarian countries like South Korea, The Phillipenes, South
Africa and Chile became much more free and Democratic.
That all came to a grinding halt in the 90s. And it has reversed
itself in the 00s. Iraq and Afghanistan are the only two countries
I can think of the world that is freer now than they were 15 years
ago. And those are only free because the US invaded them. And I can
think of any number of countries, including our own and all of
Western Europe, that are significantly less free.
The reason why both Republicans and Democrats are more hostile to
freedom than they used to be is because the world is more hostile
to freedom.
Stamp|5.29.09 @ 2:19PM|#
"After all, if I'm not gay and have no interest in gay marriage,
what compelling reason is there for me to care about it at
all?"
But they'll have butt sex on our childrens' playgounds!
|5.29.09 @ 2:20PM|#
"But they'll have butt sex on our childrens' playgounds!"
Don't they already do that? They certainly do it in our parks and
public bathrooms. I don't see how marriage has anything to do with
it.
JB|5.29.09 @ 2:22PM|#
Jeez JB, I never knew you and Bruce Bartlett were so much
alike! Like peas in a genetically modified pod you two
are...
Yes because responding to stupidity or force are the same thing as
initiating it. ...
You sure are dense, MNG.
Stamp|5.29.09 @ 2:24PM|#
"Don't they already do that? They certainly do it in our parks
and public bathrooms. I don't see how marriage has anything to do
with it."
I keed. I keed.
JB|5.29.09 @ 2:28PM|#
MNG just likes to think better of himself because he was stupid
enough to get a doctorate.
That sentiment informs a lot of his thinking.
For what it's worth, that sentiment is wrong. Quite a large chunk
of people pursue graduate degrees because they want to avoid actual
work. Many smart people think 4 years of bullshit is enough and
don't want to shovel more years of it.
hmm|5.29.09 @ 2:28PM|#
So you hate it when someone who has done better than you
acts like they have done better than you. Ok.
Ya that's it. I'm not going to play the out of context troll
game.
The Equestrian|5.29.09 @ 2:30PM|#
"MNG just likes to think better of himself because he was stupid
enough to get a doctorate."
And he spends all day here? That's a great use of that
doctorate.
|5.29.09 @ 2:30PM|#
People may think that's true because it gets repeated so often, because the assumption still hangs around that Republicans are somehow fiscally conservative, but they aren't.
Although the counter-assumption that Democrats are somehow no worse
fiscally is just as inaccurate.
The Republicans are only fiscally conservative when in opposition,
which includes holding Congress when the Democrats have the
Presidency. Partially that's because they're out of power, though
Democrats out of power call for even more spending than
Republicans.
It's also because calling for less spending is unpopular.
Republicans only win by appealing to people who want more spending,
and the marginal Republican who provides the majority will always
want more spending.
Look at the Bush record. Spending went up faster in 2001-2004, when
the Republicans won elections, than in 2005-2006, when they lost
elections. It's very difficult to me to draw from that the idea
that the Republicans lost because they spent too much.
The Equestrian|5.29.09 @ 2:30PM|#
"So you hate it when someone who has done better than you acts
like they have done better than you. Ok."
Define "better".
proud libitard|5.29.09 @ 2:33PM|#
* I really don't mean that as a crack, a party can have
greater influence than it has in votes and I think libertarians
accomplish that at times
Is it me or is MNG a *condescending prick?
* No offense, MNG!
The Angry Optimist|5.29.09 @ 2:35PM|#
but there really was dissent before the internet. There was even dissent before your life time. They had entire intellectual movements and even revoultions before the internet and the mass media. You can look it up.
John, you might just be pig-ignorant or you might be dishonest. I
haven't decided yet. My point was that before the internet,
counternarratives were not very popular among the masses. At all.
It's the reason why veneration of FDR continues to this day: but
it's changing thanks to the availability of the internet.
And you have a lot of nerve talking about the "working man". Aren't
you a lawyer? What are you, some kinda conservative John
Edwards?
|5.29.09 @ 2:37PM|#
"Look at the Bush record. Spending went up faster in 2001-2004,
when the Republicans won elections, than in 2005-2006, when they
lost elections. It's very difficult to me to draw from that the
idea that the Republicans lost because they spent too much."
No. They lost because of Katrina and the Congressional scandals.
They spent money but it should be noted that the deficit peaked in
2004 and dropped every year until 2008. The economy was good and
the deficit was not particularly large by historic standards when
compared to GDP. I don't think people wanted the spending as much
as didn't care. The only people who wanted the spending were the
cabal of crooks who were connected to Congress and benefited from
it. But, since the economy was doing well, most people didn't care
enough to do anything about it.
Now that the economy is bad and the deficits are much larger people
are more concered. Under Bush it was like the bank fucking you on a
big fee every month when you were making a big salary. You have
plenty of money and have better things to do so you let it go.
Under Obama, you have now lost your job and the bank emptied your
account and left you with an IOU for half and monopoly money for
the other half. Now you are a little more pissed off.
Brian Lockwood|5.29.09 @ 2:38PM|#
"Even if it were true, which I agree with you that it is not, it
would make libertarians arch enemies of liberals. Liberals are
romantics. They are anything but ultilitarian."
John,
I think you are mistaken. They might not be quoting John Stuart
Mill on a daily basis but utilitarianism is the underlying
assumption for most liberal policies, even if it is an implicit
assumption. Next time you are talking with a liberal, dig a little
deeper and you will probably find that utilitarianism is the only
moral principle they actually ascribe to.
|5.29.09 @ 2:40PM|#
"My point was that before the internet, counternarratives were
not very popular among the masses."
And that shows a complete and utter ignorance of history. Counter
narratives have always been popular among the masses. Even taking
your FDR example, in some quarters of this country FDR is hated.
Not everyone who grew up in the 1930s loved him. You just think so
because you don't know any better.
You are just pig ignorant. Read history for God sakes. I mean real
history not the fairy tale kind. There has never been a time in
history where the entire population agreed on a single narative
about anything. Never.
|5.29.09 @ 2:43PM|#
"I think you are mistaken. They might not be quoting John Stuart
Mill on a daily basis but utilitarianism is the underlying
assumption for most liberal policies, even if it is an implicit
assumption. Next time you are talking with a liberal, dig a little
deeper and you will probably find that utilitarianism is the only
moral principle they actually ascribe to."
But how do you explain things like environmentalism. Try arguing a
utilitarian position with a green sometime. I think liberals, like
a lot of people are really confused about what their morals are. As
a result, they fall back on utilitarianism because it is easy to
understand and explain not because that is what they really
are.
The Angry Optimist|5.29.09 @ 2:44PM|#
There has never been a time in history where the entire population agreed on a single narative about anything. Never.
Does anybody here, other than John, apparently, think this is what
I said? Way to knock over a strawman, John.
you just telling me to "read history" is a real hoot, because
that's not what I am talking about either. I am talking about the
fact that there are intellectuals and quasi-intellectuals (of whom
you are sneeringly derisive) doing good work counteracting
historical myths that have been ingrained into us thanks to the
public school system.
you seem to pine for the days when it was very hard to counteract
these myths. too bad for you.
|5.29.09 @ 2:47PM|#
"I am talking about the fact that there are intellectuals and
quasi-intellectuals (of whom you are sneeringly derisive) doing
good work counteracting historical myths that have been ingrained
into us thanks to the public school system.
you seem to pine for the days when it was very hard to counteract
these myths. too bad for you."
And no one ever counteracted widely held beliefs before this new
wave of intellectuals? What the hell are you talking about. People
have been argueing about and changing naratives since the dawn of
civilization. That is what people do. We don't need to have a class
of quasi-intellectual media types to do so. They generally don't
add anything to the conversation. And more often than not they just
reaffirm the things that need to be changed.
J B Babcock|5.29.09 @ 2:49PM|#
Is it me or is MNG a *condescending prick?
He's a fucking hillbilly as he admitted years ago. He barely has
enough education to get by as a passable read on an open forum
site, for Christ' sakes. You really shouldn't get so bothered by
some phony's attempt to get under your skin when employs a
condescending attitude to do it.
Give yourself more credit than that.
|5.29.09 @ 2:51PM|#
I don't know where sympathies lie for the most part among
libertarians, but I do know here that the slightest defense of
social insurance programs gets firebombed mercilessly while
movement conservatism talking points and outright mouth-breathing
bigotry usually get a chorus of crickets.
But maybe John's constant licking of GOP balls distorts the
picture.
Brandon|5.29.09 @ 2:53PM|#
Bartlett's division of politics into economics vs. social issues vs. foreign policy proves he doesn't understand libertarianism. The insight of libertarians is that this dichotomy is useless. Libertarians believe in freedom. Conservatives and liberals differ on which bits of freedom they happen to tolerate the best and shit upon the most, but in the end both seek to impose their preferred brand of statism.
The Angry Optimist|5.29.09 @ 2:54PM|#
And no one ever counteracted widely held beliefs before this new wave of intellectuals?
I didn't say that, John. LEARN TO READ.
Look, you see the corner you're backed into. You outright stated
that you yearned for the days where it wasn't so easy to get your
opinions into the national stream of ideas. So own up to it
already...you deride "elitists" and then turn around and yearn for
the days when only elitists were heard.
libertarian democrat|5.29.09 @ 2:55PM|#
re: Utilitarianism
I actually am utilitarian for personal ethical decisions (and I
think about maximum utility for all sorts of stupid little stuff:
most common decency or manners are pretty utilitarian most of the
time). I'm mainly libertarian when it comes to the use of force and
political considerations.
Or, to put another way, I think maximum utility includes a very
very heavy weighting for increased liberty (combined with more
standard stuff like happiness, lack of negatives, etc).
|5.29.09 @ 2:59PM|#
TAO, long before the internet, the gossip rags would routinely include UFO and alien encounters coverage as well as stories like Hitler sightings in Chile. So, counternarratives were given some "mainstream" play.
|5.29.09 @ 3:00PM|#
"So own up to it already...you deride "elitists" and then turn
around and yearn for the days when only elitists were heard."
No. I yearn for the days when the "elites" were actually worthy of
being elites. As opposed to now when any mediocrity who happens to
get a magazine job can claim to be one.
|5.29.09 @ 3:01PM|#
"I don't know where sympathies lie for the most part among
libertarians, but I do know here that the slightest defense of
social insurance programs gets firebombed mercilessly while
movement conservatism talking points and outright mouth-breathing
bigotry usually get a chorus of crickets."
WAAAAAAAA. Are people being mean to you on here Tony? Do you need a
hug?
Jordan|5.29.09 @ 3:02PM|#
Or maybe you see conservative talking points and bigotry everywhere you look.
|5.29.09 @ 3:02PM|#
Conservatives and liberals differ on which bits of freedom
they happen to tolerate the best and shit upon the most, but in the
end both seek to impose their preferred brand of
statism.
As a liberal I feel that I value individual freedom as much as you
do. I just believe that in the modern world the democratic state
has the ability and the mandate to facilitate individual freedom.
At any rate liberalism in America is pretty weak, and implying it's
just like authoritarianism by calling it statist is to turn off
your brain.
The Equestrian|5.29.09 @ 3:02PM|#
"People have been argueing about and changing naratives since
the dawn of civilization."
Mort Sol and Lenny Bruce come to mind.
The Angry Optimist|5.29.09 @ 3:03PM|#
outright mouth-breathing bigotry usually get a chorus of crickets.
Hey, now, that Sotomayor quote got a lot of attention.
Gilbert Martin|5.29.09 @ 3:04PM|#
"Next time you are talking with a liberal, dig a little deeper
and you will probably find that utilitarianism is the only moral
principle they actually ascribe to."
No I don't think so.
Actual utilitarianism can only be employed as a means to achieve
desired outcomes AFTER decisions have been made as to what those
desired outcomes happen to be.
The relative value of outcomes (for better or worse) is a matter of
personal opinion based on one's own philosophy. It is not something
that can be "proven" by somebody claiming a "utilitarian"
approach.
For example, there is no utilitarian way to prove that a government
mandated socialized medicine scheme produces a "superior" national
outcome than a free market system where health care is considered
just another consumer commodity available for those capable of
paying for and unavailable for those who can't.
The Angry Optimist|5.29.09 @ 3:04PM|#
I just believe that in the modern world the democratic state has the ability and the mandate to facilitate individual freedom
*crosses eyes*
Mandate freedom? I hope I'm not engaging in Nineteen-Eighty-Faux,
but HELLO Ingsoc!
|5.29.09 @ 3:04PM|#
John and TAO, what about the elites who pretend or try to be joe the plumber? I hope that you guys find that trait nauseating.
Jordan|5.29.09 @ 3:06PM|#
As a liberal I feel that I value individual freedom as much as you do.
And so does that guy* who argues that legalized prostitution would
make us less free. I guess the road to hell won't pave itself,
though.
* Can't find that article at the moment, unfortunately.
|5.29.09 @ 3:06PM|#
Hey, now, that Sotomayor quote got a lot of
attention.
Are you intentionally trying to prove the point I was making?
|5.29.09 @ 3:08PM|#
Mike,
My issue is not with people having a say. My issue is with losers
like this guy having a disproportionate say. I don't see how the
typically journalist is any smarter or more interesting than the
typical welder or greese monkey. There are people out there who
really are giant brains and deserve a larger forum than your
average person. The problem with the mass media is that it gives a
big forum to people who don't derserve it. We are better served by
the internet where everyone gets about the same forum unless they
earn a bigger one.
The Angry Optimist|5.29.09 @ 3:08PM|#
you said mouth-breathing bigotry doesn't get any attention. I
was just pointing out one example ;)
of course, if you think the libertarians here give racism
a pass, you're dumber than hotsauce on a brick.
|5.29.09 @ 3:09PM|#
Mandate freedom? I hope I'm not engaging in
Nineteen-Eighty-Faux, but HELLO Ingsoc!
Not what I said... I said it has the mandate to facilitate greater
individual freedom. By that I mean it operates on the will of the
people to provide relief to them from the liberty-killing realities
of nature.
The Angry Optimist|5.29.09 @ 3:10PM|#
A "disproportionate say"? Is that anything like Microsoft having
a "disproportionate market share" or Exxon's "disproportionate
profits"?
In your rush to bash on intellectuals (for whatever bizarre
reason), you've now just accused the internet of market failure
because you don't like what you get.
|5.29.09 @ 3:11PM|#
"John and TAO, what about the elites who pretend or try to be
joe the plumber? I hope that you guys find that trait
nauseating."
It is all nausiating. Just be who you are. Like the imortal Ted
Knight said in Caddyshack said "somebody has got to dig the
ditches". Somebody has got to do everything in the world. But
whatever something you do or are, doesn't necessarily give you
exclusive access to the truth.
The Angry Optimist|5.29.09 @ 3:12PM|#
By that I mean it operates on the will of the people to provide relief to them from the liberty-killing realities of nature.
"how can a man with an empty stomach truly be free?"
Yeah, yeah, we get it. Not the most novel or interesting talking
book in the Leftist playbook, you know.
The Equestrian|5.29.09 @ 3:13PM|#
"By that I mean it operates on the will of the people to provide
relief to them from the liberty-killing realities of nature."
So how is that working out?
hmm|5.29.09 @ 3:14PM|#
I think the contributors and writers have a pool to see which
blogs can get the most responses.
So, what's the prize for the winner?
|5.29.09 @ 3:14PM|#
"In your rush to bash on intellectuals (for whatever bizarre
reason), you've now just accused the internet of market failure
because you don't like what you get."
Where did I ever say "ban them"? No where. I don't want to ban
them. I just want people to ignore them. Which, judging by the
financial performance of the mass media, they are doing.
|5.29.09 @ 3:14PM|#
TAO, so by parroting the latest ridiculous narrative of the far right wing you're trying to convince me I'm wrong that most of you guys are just movement conservatives without the Jesus? (except John, who loves Jesus)
|5.29.09 @ 3:14PM|#
John and TAO, what about the elites who pretend or try to be joe the plumber? I hope that you guys find that trait nauseating.
I'm neither of them, but yes. It's like fingernails on a chalk
board.
|5.29.09 @ 3:16PM|#
Yeah, yeah, we get it. Not the most novel or interesting
talking book in the Leftist playbook, you know.
It's central to liberal philosophy, not a talking point. You seem
to be saying that it can be rejected on the grounds that it makes a
lot of sense.
The Angry Optimist|5.29.09 @ 3:16PM|#
I'm toying with you, Tony. you'll note that I substantively and nonjokingly replied to your silly assertion that we don't care about racism. If it's not the paleos stating that reasonistas are all about race, it's airheads like you saying we don't care enough about that noble savage, the Brown Man*.
The Angry Optimist|5.29.09 @ 3:17PM|#
It's central to liberal philosophy, not a talking point. You seem to be saying that it can be rejected on the grounds that it makes a lot of sense.
That's central to your philosophy? I feel sorry for you. So, we get
to the bare bones of liberalism and find out that surprise! it's
communist in nature.
|5.29.09 @ 3:18PM|#
John, I think I have an equal protection claim against you.
Why?
Well, in response to Tony stating that you constantly likc the
balls of the GOP, you asked him if he needed a hug; whereas in
response to my statement, last Friday, that you suck on Caesar's
titties, you did not ask me if I needed a hug-you told me to "Fuck
off."
The Angry Optimist|5.29.09 @ 3:20PM|#
If anything, LM, he was treating you as an adult and a man, where he's treating Tony as a tiny-minded child.
Gilbert Martin|5.29.09 @ 3:20PM|#
"That's central to your philosophy? I feel sorry for you. So, we
get to the bare bones of liberalism and find out that surprise!
it's communist in nature."
Yeah - what a surprise.
It's about as surprising as the fact that submarines don't have
screen doors!
liberal philosophy|5.29.09 @ 3:24PM|#
See that kid, over there? He is starving. So, stick 'em up, and hand me the keys to your Maserati. I'm going to spin doughnuts in your lawn.
|5.29.09 @ 3:27PM|#
By that I mean it operates on the will of the
people
Does it really? How, then, to explain the democratic state
implementing so many policies that are opposed by the majority of
the people? I refer, most recently and prominently, to the serial
bailout bills passed by Our Democratic Congress.
to provide relief to them from the liberty-killing realities of
nature.
We need the state to assure that our basic survival needs are met?
Is that what this is supposed to be about?
We can't provide for our own food and shelter (the lack of which is
what I assume you mean by "the liberty-killing realities of
nature"), but must, necessarily, rely on the state to provide them,
and sacrifice our freedom so that the state may do so?
Is that seriously what you are arguing?
|5.29.09 @ 3:31PM|#
As a liberal I feel that I value individual freedom as much
as you do.
Ahhh, empathy.
I just believe that in the modern world the democratic state
has the ability and the mandate to facilitate individual
freedom.
You believe all "freedom" derives from the generosity and
beneficence of the state.
Guess what I believe.
|5.29.09 @ 3:32PM|#
John, you may not think the example I am going to give applies to you point about elites and average joes, but, IMHO, a lot of the people in the Tax Honesty Movement (okay, call them tax protesters) illustrate the point that the average joes have it all over the elites. I personally know carpenters, electricians, used car salesmen, a UPS supervisor, a local tire wholesaler and distributor, housewives, an assistant manager at Staples, to name a few, who know more about the constitution, the founding and the tax code than the vast majority of lawyers and CPAs.
|5.29.09 @ 3:33PM|#
R C Dean,
But I don't accept the premise that everything the state does is
necessarily anti-freedom. I believe that properly ordered the
entire reason for the state's existence is to secure the blessings
of liberty, to use a famous phrase. I take it that means it exists
to leave you alone. I find that incoherent. It's gotta do something
in the service of securing maximum individual liberty, not just
continually negate itself. Nature (and I would argue the unfettered
marketplace) leaves a tiny minority free to do as they please and
the vast majority shackled by the whims of fortune.
|5.29.09 @ 3:35PM|#
You believe all "freedom" derives from the generosity and
beneficence of the state.
No, I don't. Every single rebuttal I've received here is a
ridiculous straw man argument. Just because I believe the state has
some role to play in securing individual liberty doesn't mean I
believe it necessary for the state to be totalitarian, which would
be the opposite of securing individual liberty.
The Angry Optimist|5.29.09 @ 3:35PM|#
In other words, "from each according to his ability, to each
according to his need".
We get it, Tony. Now, in the parlance of one of your intellectual
ancestors, please kindly place yourself in the "dustbin of
history."
|5.29.09 @ 3:37PM|#
TAO equates all liberals with authoritarian communists and I'm the intellectual child?
|5.29.09 @ 3:40PM|#
Mike,
To your point above. There is that old statement by William F.
Buckley that he would rather be ruled by 100 people taken randomly
from the Boston phonebook than the faculty at Harvard. There is a
lot of truth in that. Education does not always lead to wisdom. To
give you another example of average people knowing a lot, I would
take your average civil war geeks knowledge of the civil war over
your average American history professor's any day.
|5.29.09 @ 3:41PM|#
By that I mean it operates on the will of the people to
provide relief to them from the liberty-killing realities of
nature.
Strawman or not, that sounds suspiciously like "The State must
prevent anyone from failing," and it just cannot work that
way.
RC'Z Law, "There is no freedom, without the freedom to fail,"
applies.
The Equestrian|5.29.09 @ 3:42PM|#
"It's gotta do something in the service of securing maximum
individual liberty, not just continually negate itself."
No it doesn't.
The Equestrian|5.29.09 @ 3:43PM|#
"TAO equates all liberals with authoritarian communists and I'm
the intellectual child?"
Is both a choice here?
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|5.29.09 @ 3:44PM|#
JB:
Quite a large chunk of people pursue graduate degrees because they want to avoid actual work.
If laziness is a crime then I am guilty as charged. By the way,
professor at a four-year college is the best job in the
world.
Many smart people think 4 years of bullshit is enough and don't want to shovel more years of it.
Suckers!
Oh and on utilitarianism, I think it is the most morally dangerous
philosophy ever. It's why I love Star Trek III.
|5.29.09 @ 3:50PM|#
Strawman or not, that sounds suspiciously like "The State
must prevent anyone from failing," and it just cannot work that
way.
It is a strawman. I don't want the state to protect people from
failing. Just to protect them from starving to death. It's the 21st
fucking century and if it can't at least do that much then we're
not really trying very hard to be civilized.
Ben|5.29.09 @ 3:51PM|#
THIS DESCRIBES ME PERFECTLY.
These libertarians tend to be well-educated, arriving at his or her
philosophy through reading obscure books or random contact with
some libertarian in graduate school. They don't own guns--probably
never even fired one, don't mind paying taxes too much, have no
particular nostalgia for the gold standard and certainly would not
choose to live in isolation on a mountaintop. They are
cosmopolitan, urbane, articulate and interested in ideas more than
just about anything else. They are not especially
career-oriented--they are happy to be paid less than they probably
could make as long as they don't have to compromise their
principles and can do work that advances the cause. For the most
part, they aren't family-oriented or religious, and they mostly fit
the stereotype of a nerd.
The Equestrian|5.29.09 @ 3:57PM|#
"I don't want the state to protect people from failing. Just to
protect them from starving to death."
Is it really your position that without the state, people would be
starving to death?
Tell that to the North Koreans. And the folks in Zimbabwe.
The state is a parasite.
war = peace, etc.|5.29.09 @ 3:58PM|#
Tony,
Why do you feel compelled to cloak your collectivist views in the
rhetoric of individual liberty, and in so doing distort the
concept's original meaning into something totally opposite? Just
call yourself a fucking progressive like all the cool kids.
Individual liberty exists in the absence of coercion. You don't
secure the blessing of liberty with coercion. As you don't secure
the blessings of vegetarianism with a hamburger, or of a woman's
virginity with a man's cock.
|5.29.09 @ 4:03PM|#
Individual liberty exists in the absence of coercion. You
don't secure the blessing of liberty with coercion.
Really? But aren't all laws examples of coercion by the state? Are
you suggesting that there would be more individual freedom without
laws?
|5.29.09 @ 4:05PM|#
Tell that to the North Koreans. And the folks in
Zimbabwe.
Again, just because I'm not an anarchist as apparently everyone
else here is doesn't mean I advocate authoritarianism. Not just any
old state will do. One that actually secures the individual
liberties of the people it governs would seem to be necessary.
neener|5.29.09 @ 4:10PM|#
It is no coincidence that the bigger and more authoritarian a government is, the poorer and less free that state's people are. Government does not secure liberty -- totally the opposite is true.
|5.29.09 @ 4:12PM|#
neener,
I feel my individual liberty is far more threatened by nonstate
megacorporations (which are in essence mini-authoritarian
dictatorships) than a democratically accountable government with
the specific charge to secure my liberty.
The Equestrian|5.29.09 @ 4:12PM|#
"Not just any old state will do."
When Daniel Boone was out exploring the west, did he need any help
from the state?
freedom = slavery|5.29.09 @ 4:12PM|#
Really? But aren't all laws examples of coercion by the
state? Are you suggesting that there would be more individual
freedom without laws?
A very limited state is granted a legal monopoly on the use of
force to protect people from the coercion of private thugs. Not to
redistribute resources so people can be "truly free to live up to
their human potential" and all that shit.
The Equestrian|5.29.09 @ 4:13PM|#
"I feel my individual liberty is far more threatened by nonstate
megacorporations (which are in essence mini-authoritarian
dictatorships) than a democratically accountable government with
the specific charge to secure my liberty."
Please name five.
Thank you in advance of your efforts.
TallDave|5.29.09 @ 4:15PM|#
They also tend to have an obsession with gold
I see, so libertarians are just like that Grizzled Prospector
character on the Simpsons:
"Goooold! Ahahahahaha!"
|5.29.09 @ 4:15PM|#
When Daniel Boone was out exploring the west, did he need
any help from the state?
When the day comes that everyone lives in the unexplored frontier
instead of a deeply interconnected civilization, you might have a
point.
Jordan|5.29.09 @ 4:17PM|#
I feel my individual liberty is far more threatened by nonstate megacorporations (which are in essence mini-authoritarian dictatorships) than a democratically accountable government with the specific charge to secure my liberty.
Then we're in agreement. Protect people from force and fraud, and
get out of the way. No redistribution of wealth needed!
neener|5.29.09 @ 4:17PM|#
neener,
I feel my individual liberty is far more threatened by nonstate megacorporations (which are in essence mini-authoritarian dictatorships) than a democratically accountable government with the specific charge to secure my liberty.
You can feel all you want, but you'd be wrong. It wasn't corporations that ran gas chambers in Germany, the GULAGs in Soviet Russia, or filled mass graves in Cambodia.
The Equestrian|5.29.09 @ 4:17PM|#
"When the day comes that everyone lives in the unexplored
frontier instead of a deeply interconnected civilization, you might
have a point."
I respectfully disagree.
The Equestrian|5.29.09 @ 4:20PM|#
"You can feel all you want, but you'd be wrong. It wasn't
corporations that ran gas chambers in Germany, the GULAGs in Soviet
Russia, or filled mass graves in Cambodia."
Those governments were just protecting their populations from Big
Corporate. Sure some people got hurt, but sometimes you have to
raze the village...
Brian Lockwood|5.29.09 @ 4:24PM|#
"But how do you explain things like environmentalism. Try
arguing a utilitarian position with a green sometime. I think
liberals, like a lot of people are really confused about what their
morals are. As a result, they fall back on utilitarianism because
it is easy to understand and explain not because that is what they
really are."
The utilitarian environmentalist would most likely fall into one of
two camps. One camp probably believes that the only way people can
be happy is by living in a more pure state of nature. The other
puts the suffering of animals, plants, etc. on equal footing with
people. As such, in order to maximize happiness for all the things
being considers, drastic sacrifices on the part of humans is
required in order to benefit the others. Environmentalist do come
in a third flavor which is more like a religion of the environment.
I'm not sure where most environmentalist fall but I can say that
utilitarianism is definitely the basis for the entire animal rights
movement and the rational for environmental policies given by
mainstream greens seems to come from the utilitarian arguments of
the first camp.
As for your second point, you are right. Most Liberals are confused
and will make any argument in order to advance the policy which the
academics or the party say is best. However, the policy makers and
academics sure as hell know what they are advancing and use
utilitarianism as their underlying assumption.
libertarian democrat,
Utilitarianism can be used to argue for libertarianism. Friedman
and Hayek are good examples of this line of argument. Typical in
this line of thinking is a false assumption linking freedom and
happiness. Although it is typically a pretty good assumption, there
are many that would gladly be a happy slave than a possibly unhappy
free person. As for including freedom in utility calculations,
freedom is too amorphous of an idea to concretely say what
increases or decreases it. In my eyes, its more of a means to an
end.
Brandon|5.29.09 @ 4:26PM|#
I feel my individual liberty is far more threatened by
nonstate megacorporations (which are in essence mini-authoritarian
dictatorships) than a democratically accountable government with
the specific charge to secure my liberty.
Right. Pfizer maintains prisons full of pot dealers, ADP withholds
money from my paychecks, ADM conscripted thousands of young men to
grow corn in Iowa, and Goldman Sachs killed 6 million Jews.
Meanwhile the government is just there, benevolently securing my
liberty.
neener|5.29.09 @ 4:27PM|#
Those governments were just protecting their populations from Big Corporate. Sure some people got hurt, but sometimes you have to raze the village...
What's funny is that public companies are much more accountable to their stockholders than the Federal government is to the voters.
|5.29.09 @ 4:28PM|#
The utilitarian environmentalist would most likely fall into
one of two camps. One camp probably believes that the only way
people can be happy is by living in a more pure state of nature.
The other puts the suffering of animals, plants, etc. on equal
footing with people.
This is just stupid. Maybe there are some fringe environmentalists
who care about plants and animals equally or more than humans, but
most recognize that humans live in the environment and thus
protecting it is in our own interest.
|5.29.09 @ 4:28PM|#
BTW, Tony, we're still waiting for your top five
picks...
Sorry, I don't understand the question.
TallDave|5.29.09 @ 4:30PM|#
I feel my individual liberty is far more threatened by
nonstate megacorporations (which are in essence mini-authoritarian
dictatorships) than a democratically accountable government with
the specific charge to secure my liberty.
You may be shocked to learn those corporations are created by and
only continue to exist at the discretion of your democratically
accountable government, and are required to follow every law they
pass as well as being subject to the whims of their consumers. So
your formulation makes little sense.
|5.29.09 @ 4:32PM|#
You may be shocked to learn those corporations are created
by and only continue to exist at the discretion of your
democratically accountable government, and are required to follow
every law they pass as well as being subject to the whims of their
consumers. So your formulation makes little sense.
Despite the best efforts of Republicans armed with libertarian
talking points.
Threatened By Nonstate Megacor|5.29.09 @ 4:34PM|#
I know I feel a terrible chill off oppression run down my spine
every time WalMart forces me to buy something at a huge discount.
Those white aisles, the little happy face signs, and My GOD! the
prices... no human being should be subjected to this kind of
mistreatment.
The horror.
The only difference between me and Natan Sharansky is I can buy 20
socks for two dollars.
neener|5.29.09 @ 4:38PM|#
Despite the best efforts of Republicans armed with libertarian talking points.
Just how long do you think a business would remain solvent if it
were openly maiming and/or killing its customers?
Your Michael-Moorish stereotypes of corporations are utterly
laughable.
Brian Lockwood|5.29.09 @ 4:39PM|#
Tony,
You confuse the terms environmentalist and conservationist.
Environmentalist wish to preserve nature for its own sake. The
conservationist believes in preserving nature so man can continue
to exploit it (don't mean to use exploit in a negative manner here,
exploiting nature is a great thing). These are the people who see a
self interest in preserving nature. Most people who are
environmentalists probably mean to say they are conservationist,
however the people leading the environmental movement typically are
what they say they are. They could care less about human survival
if it at the expense of nature.
Noam Chomsky|5.29.09 @ 4:39PM|#
It wasn't corporations that ran gas chambers in Germany, the
GULAGs in Soviet Russia, or filled mass graves in
Cambodia.
Those are all just a myth, manufactured by corporations to trick
you into voting for the status quo.
Buy my book! It's published by one of those evil corporations so I
can buy stock in other evil corporations so my kids have trust
funds.
help! dell won\'t let me get u|5.29.09 @ 4:42PM|#
Ease up guys. There are so many of us and only one Tony. I'm sure that's why he responds selectively and then only with a shallow repartee.
Environmentalsylumist|5.29.09 @ 4:42PM|#
exploiting nature is a great thing
Statements like this make baby Gaia cry.
|5.29.09 @ 4:46PM|#
It comes down to property rights. Libertarians fall to the right side of the spectrum because they believe in private ownership of property. Liberaltarians fall to the left because they distrust private ownership. Along for the ride are distrusts of meritocracy, wealth, and business.
The Equestrian|5.29.09 @ 4:47PM|#
"Sorry, I don't understand the question."
You wrote:
"I feel my individual liberty is far more threatened by nonstate
megacorporations (which are in essence mini-authoritarian
dictatorships) than a democratically accountable government with
the specific charge to secure my liberty."
I asked you to name five. It's a very simple request. You just tell
us the names of these nonstate megacorporations that threaten you.
You don't even have to explain why. Just name five.
Brian Lockwood|5.29.09 @ 4:49PM|#
Environmentalsylumist,
It also makes Italian American actor Espera "Iron Eyes Cody" de
Corti cry.
|5.29.09 @ 4:49PM|#
I feel my individual liberty is far more threatened by nonstate megacorporations (which are in essence mini-authoritarian dictatorships) than a democratically accountable government with the specific charge to secure my liberty.
I'm fairly certain that the number of megacorporations who've
dispatched heavily-armed enforcement squads against those they deem
to be in violation of some corporate edict is far outnumbered by
the number of similarly-armed groups dispatched by the
government.
Seward|5.29.09 @ 4:55PM|#
A libertarian who is not concerned with taxes is not much of a libertarian. Taxes harm the productive, voluntary activities we see in society, and voluntary activities are what libertarians are basically all about.
|5.29.09 @ 4:58PM|#
I asked you to name five. It's a very simple request. You
just tell us the names of these nonstate megacorporations that
threaten you. You don't even have to explain why. Just name
five.
AIG
Chevron
Wal-Mart
Halliburton
Imperial Sugar
Republican Armed With Libertar|5.29.09 @ 4:58PM|#
You think you've defeated us? Fool! Soon we will create a
corporation so powerful no government can stand before it! It's
profits will shake the Earth and the mighty will tremble before its
earnings statement conference calls!
And then it's off to the slave mines with you, my pretty! And your
little dog, too!
Seward|5.29.09 @ 5:00PM|#
...than a democratically accountable government with the
specific charge to secure my liberty.
The U.S. government (and the state governments) is clearly not
democratically accountable in any meaningful way. The mere fact
that a majority of Americans have consistently disapproved of all
the bailouts that were undertaken under Bush II and Obama is
illustration enough of this. What drives the U.S. political scene
are interest group politics (to which only a minority of the U.S.
population is privy), not democratic accountability.
|5.29.09 @ 5:00PM|#
I'm fairly certain that the number of megacorporations
who've dispatched heavily-armed enforcement squads against those
they deem to be in violation of some corporate edict is far
outnumbered by the number of similarly-armed groups dispatched by
the government.
You're ignoring the fact that governments that have been weakened
by decades of Reagan/Thatcheromics often become pawns of
corporations, and the frequency with which governments dispatch
armed squads purely for corporate interests.
|5.29.09 @ 5:00PM|#
Tony, in no way can AIG be claimed to be a "nonstate megacorporation" after the bailout.
The Emperor Of Sugar|5.29.09 @ 5:01PM|#
Imperial Sugar
Oh no, my secret is out!
Quick, my Oompa-Loompa army! To the Gumdropmobile! Man the
CottonCandifiers! We'll give them a fight their fragile tooth
enamel won't soon forget!
|5.29.09 @ 5:01PM|#
I'm not defending the U.S. government. It has many problems, and at the top of the list is its entanglement with corporate interests.
Oppressed Consumer|5.29.09 @ 5:07PM|#
the frequency with which governments dispatch armed squads
purely for corporate interests.
It's true, I tried to go to a local store instead of WalMart the
other day, and the National Guard was called out to stop me.
Seward|5.29.09 @ 5:20PM|#
Crony capitalism is a direct and predictable result of any sort of regulatory scheme. Social democrats basically get the exact opposite of what they expect, which is commonplace in the world of state intervention into the life of the individual.
wenis|5.29.09 @ 5:20PM|#
AIG
Chevron
Wal-Mart
Halliburton
Imperial Sugar
Imperial Sugar has been downsizing since '01, and Halliburton
spun off KBR back in '07, which means they're strictly in the
oilfield services business. And since you've probably had your head
up your ass for a while now, AIG is basically owned by the
Feds.
Get new talking points, fuckwit.
wenis|5.29.09 @ 5:22PM|#
I'm not defending the U.S. government. It has many problems, and at the top of the list is its entanglement with corporate interests.
If you voted for either major party recently, you're basically an enabler of this behavior and a hypocrite. Wake the fuck up.
VM|5.29.09 @ 5:25PM|#
... and there's no problems with the gov't and corporations in
basically "socially-democratic" nations. Like Belgium. No corporate
problems there, nope.
but Edward, that's an argument (the big business one) against the
last administration. And this current one. As Gunnels notes at
5:20, it's the regulatory scheme!
Brian Lockwood|5.29.09 @ 5:27PM|#
Oppressed Consumer,
You should see what will happen if you try to organize a boycott.
Lets just say it involves Tobasco sauce, a telephone and the
anus.
VM|5.29.09 @ 5:35PM|#
Brian - awesome reference! by the way, that is one of the BEST BATIN methods out there!
|5.29.09 @ 6:11PM|#
Corporations are inherently evil, because they're run by people
who are working together to achieve a common goal.
Governments are inherently good, because they're run by people who
are working together to achieve a common goal.
Is that pretty much it?
What did I miss?
Tim|5.29.09 @ 6:22PM|#
@Tony
I consider myself a libertarian and would agree that some social
welfare programs, specifically those that meet the characteristics
of public goods. Your argument though about "facilitating freedom"
from the "liberty killing" ravages of nature does seem a bit
ingsocy, it lacks a clear reasoning of what programs are justified
and what are not leaving that largely up to the arbitrary decisions
of the state or majority with little regard for minority interest's
(not just racial minorities) rights. It further presupposes that
people need the government to help themselves out of such
situations and that the government programs actually leave such
people better off, as shielding some people from the realities of
life can lead to dependency, complacency, and moral hazard. Helping
starving children is one thing, bailing out people who took out
adjustable rate mortgages to buy 700,000 dollar homes are another.
F.A. Hayek was down with public education (I favor vouchers) so I
agree that many libertarian purists drive away those who would be
sympathetic to their cause, however I feel that most public
assistance programs if they aren't massive failures or power
grabbing schemes are not very cost effective at achieving their
purpose when compared to free markets or market based programs such
as voucher-type programs.
I would advance that any public program must first meet the
criterion of a public good using real math and not just touchy
feely intuitions about social costs and benefits, should endeavor
to remain publicly financed as opposed to government run, and
should be subject to regular and strict scrutiny about whether or
not it actually achieves it's desired results with reasonable
costs.
However, as a libertarian and a cynic I feel that government's
tendency tword incompetence, laziness, corruption and its simple
lack of information relative to the market implies that this would
never happen; so to me any such program is guilty until proven
innocent. But if you prove one innocent many will listen.
Tim|5.29.09 @ 6:24PM|#
Edit, my bad
I consider myself a libertarian and would agree with you that some
social welfare programs can be beneficial, specifically those that
meet the characteristics of public goods.
alan|5.29.09 @ 6:51PM|#
"I feel my individual liberty is far more threatened by
nonstate megacorporations (which are in essence mini-authoritarian
dictatorships) than a democratically accountable government with
the specific charge to secure my liberty."
Man, I wish that were the case. Surgeon General warns kids not to
smoke, MegaSmoke has him capped by untraceable assassins. Smelly
protesters show up at a nuclear power plant, Comedian sprays 'em
down with a flamethrower. The left reduced to a mere remnant
trembling in fear and living in the shadows.
That's the world I would like to live in, but unfortunately,
corporations are nothing like you describe.
|5.29.09 @ 7:04PM|#
When I need something, I always try to get the lowest quality
for the highest price; preferably wrong size, wrong color. I do,
honest.
But fucking WalMart won't let me.
Bastards.
JB|5.29.09 @ 10:44PM|#
Tony, you moron, how many people did corporations kill in the
20th century?
How many did governments kill?
Liberals and democrats are dumb. You are proof of that.
MJ|5.30.09 @ 10:49AM|#
"I feel my individual liberty is far more threatened by nonstate
megacorporations (which are in essence mini-authoritarian
dictatorships) than a democratically accountable government with
the specific charge to secure my liberty."
The problem with this is no matter how a corporation is governed,
it has little to no power over you unless you decide to interact
with it in some way. The government has the power to threaten your
liberty no matter how it is governed. Your politics supports giving
government more power to coerce individual decisions, so what you
support works to undermine liberty.
MNG|5.30.09 @ 12:22PM|#
"Tony, you moron, how many people did corporations kill in the
20th century?
How many did governments kill?"
As Tony pointed out this is a stupid question because often
governments are tools of corporations, indeed often governments and
corporations are the tools of wealthy interests in general. Since
only governments legitmately exercise (or excuse or justify) the
use of force of course by defintion horrible examples of the use of
force are going to be pretty relegated to governments...Basing
ideologies on tautologies are usually a bad idea.
MNG|5.30.09 @ 12:24PM|#
The best thing about stupid paleos is how they growl so loudly, and of course so impotently, when you poke 'em with a stick. OK paleos, I release you back to your fatback, cornfields and Nascar races while us cosmos go back to our fancy book learnin' and other elitist, vain, non-productive cultural pursuits. Have a good weekend!
DHS Thinks I’m a Terrorist |5.30.09 @ 3:15PM|#
"because often governments are tools of corporations"
OK, I would reverse the wording here and say corporations are tools
of governments. But, either way, it is governments that are the
problem. They are the ones granted the monopoly on the use of
force.
By the way, do you view me as a "cosmo" or a "paleo"? I am an
atheist who has no problem with gays tying the knot but I am also a
member of the NRA and the LvMI. I also was born in Appalachia if
that matters to you. I was also at one of the Tea Parties and waved
a "Don't Tread on Me" flag.
So, how do you classify me?
|5.30.09 @ 3:59PM|#
I was also at one of the Tea Parties and waved a "Don't
Tread on Me" flag.
So, how do you classify me?
You plainly are a threat to decent people everywhere; the DHS is
right.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245