Educating Hunter: Libertarians

[hunter s.durden]

Well, Subject Lima was exceptionally nice today, and other than a little disagreement about Fox (all news is biased! Both sides do it! I disagree, Goebbels would find Fox news shocking), he compromised on everything we talked about in an intelligent, civilized manner. It basically became a Republican hate fest.
What is happening to me?
I'm losing my edge.

However, in class I got to see this little tidbit from Sarah Silverman explaining the voter Id issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypRW5qoraTw

So far I have not seen one case of voter ID in which there is genuine concern for fraud, nor any accommodations for the people they are supposed not trying to disenfranchise. Tennessee and PA seem to be particularly egregious (I think Sarah covers these two cases).
For as cynical as I often am, it seem I am still capable of naivete.   

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It has been my experience that giving people what they ask for is the best way to teach them self-reflection.

He wants everyone to be selfish?
Start cutting in line exactly in front of him as often as you can.
Borrow his pen without asking and return it broken. If he bitches about it start discussing the small print of your unwritten agreement.
If he wants to borrow your pen call him a socialist.
Take his seat everytime he gets up.
Try to push him out of his seat while he is still in it.
if it is a chair, take it without giving him a chance to get out of it.
Hoard anything communal, like whiteboard markers or something.
When it looks like he is about to break, offer him a drink to make up. Charge him afterwards. Twice what you paid for it.
In fact, charge him for every little thing you can't help yourself doing for him (holding open a door, lighting his cigarette, welcoming smiles and/or verbal greetings, anything someone could possibly get paid for, charge for it.)

I think : regret: just won the internets. 

I like of liked it before the edit. 

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I can attest as one who previously identified as a libertarian, but, thanks in large part to the rhetoric of this forum, no longer do.
i now consider myself just to be politically selfish, i guess.  i don't believe i've really said so in so many words, primarily because i would assume that puts me on worse footing with those here that decry libertarianism, rather than having me lauded for shedding the hypocrisy that libertarianism is mocked for.

You've already proven yourself a cool shit to me. You'd have to kill puppies at this point. And you've been here longer than I.

but i still find many of the arguments against libertarianism to be lacking for some reasons i will point out here.
if a half decent argument against my objections is given, i'll likely abandon them as i'd rather not have vestiges of loyalty to an ideal that i no longer want, so have at if anyone cares....

I still identify as vaguely socialist myself, but, I'll make arguments as I can.

1.'libertarianism requires humans to act non human by assuming everyone to be ultimately benevolent'
-I've not heard any libertarians say so explicitly, and they all say that there is a role for govt. in enforcing voluntary contracts.  the notion, i guess, is that all acts of selfishness that would harm others would be a violation of some contract or another, so malevolent behaviour is controlled in that way.  i don't see how it fails when someone doesn't 'act nicely'.

The same criticism has been made of Socialism and by extension Communism. You can make the same argument for Capitalistic Democratic-Republicanism or Parliamentary Autofellatio, or whatever system you have. What it really comes down to is that nothing works. But in the scheme of things, "libertarianism" (and I loath that word because it is devoid of coherent meaning at this point) doesn't work, not because it expects people to not be selfish, no. It expects the selfishness of the individual to magically have some sort of altruistic outcome. And if it doesn't, fuck that other guy, he wasn't pulling his weight.

2 'why don't you just move to somalia then, huh?'
-somalia has all the features of govt that a libertarian would want?  no.  somalia doesn't have a govt. capable of enforcing contracts with even handed justice, and that's obvious. there's plenty of good arguments against the idea without resorting to this, but it seems to be brought up as more than just a tongue in cheek joke.

I agree. Somalia is not a good example. The Russian Federation is.

Reason being, is that in the past hundred years, the landmass we know as "Russia" has been both a Communist Hellhole and a Libertarian Hellhole. Russia sucks. Period. It always has, and it's not because of the snow. It's because they can't do shit sort of normal. No. Dump Communism, do the opposite. Seriously, if you want to see the flaws in a system, let Russia do it first, kick back for about 15 years and take down data.

3 'but the 'free' market is rigged against you!'
-this is true. and it's a pretty mortal blow to the individuals that would support the corporations that are rigging our system as if they are somehow a bastion of the libertarian ideal simply due to the fact that they are private enterprise.  it seems to me that their influence over govt. (buying politics) is a serious breach of the governmental contract with society, which libertarianism should abhor.  So, although the libertarians that deny this argument are without a doubt morans, it doesn't seem a direct hit on libertarianism itself...

The reason why I am a socialist is not because I want Socialism. It's because I want balance. The problem is there is no balance anymore. When your liberals are still on the right and and those liberals are considered leftwing extremists, even though they are for all intents conservative, there's a problem. A really big fucking problem. Theoretically I'm a centrist, but the American "Left" is to the right of me. And none of the Democrats I talk to understand this. They still think of themselves as liberal. Or even worse, that politics can be simplified to a left and right scheme. We're talking about a multidimensional graft and they insist on one dimension. That is why the Libertarian Party has been robbed by the GOP. If, you talk to a real Libertarian, they're nothing like a Republican. Seriously. The only thing they can agree on is "leave me alone". It's a bit shocking, really. But after Dubya was Dubya, the Conservatives had to come up with a new label. Something fresh. Libertarian. Oh that sounds like freedom yes? We want less taxes, that means we're Libertarians, and this is grassroots, and non-partisan, except that we're sucking Koch. It's insulting to Libertarians. I've never been a Libertarian, but as a Green, I can imagine what it would be like if the Dems did that to us. Personally I think the Libertarian Party, well meaning though it is, is naive as fuck. But, others probably say that about the Greens.

4 'libertarian guru uses social benefits! haw haw!'
- this one confuses me because it seems to imply a requirement that a libertarian must martyr themselves for the sake of principle.  why must anyone be willing to martyr themselves in order to profess some principle?  i guess, maybe, if their point would have been made better had they allowed their income to be, as they saw it, swindled, and then not chosen to take what is offered in return, but ..... really. it wouldn't.

You seriously have to ask this question?

If you disagree with social benefits you should not use them. And you should not fault your enemies from having a bit of the schadenfreude when you do break down and use them.

Let's say for example, that you know this guy, and this guy is in a band, and this band has an acrimonious break up, where it goes 20%/80%, where 20% who broke up the band and the 80% who decided to still work together stayed together formed two other projects. Well at some point, a former mutual friend complimented the 80 on their new project with a quip at the old, and the 20 somehow found out and posted a hissyfit about how his taxes has to pay one of the band members of the 80's non-existent slew of illegitimate children on welfare.

Then the 20 percent has to get foodstamps because he refuses to work. Seriously. Like, proof for the Repubs from a hard leftist. What's your reaction going to be?

Twid,
"hypothetically" has thought this out.

regarding voter ID, it seems to me that the democrats should flank this issue.  the nominal argument for voter ID is that it would prevent some amount of vote fraud.  this seems wholly good.  who would be against preventing vote fraud?  the argument against is that the republicans are using all sorts of dirty tricks to turn voter ID into a filter against typically democratic groups.  So the Dems should take the high road and demand voter ID to prevent vote fraud, citing the new scandal about GOP consultant vote fraud, and the mess in FL in bush's first election, etc.
they should pursue it at the federal level because 'it is an issue that should be more important than partisanship' and is regulating national voting, and should be universally extended without cost to the individual.  boom. problem solved.  (right?)

Voter fraud is virtually nonexistent in this country (it exists, but it can't effect an outcome anywhere, since it is so rare). Seriously, Voter ID is retarded, AND disenfranchising. Disenfranchising because it just bloody is. You're preventing a registered voter from voting because they don't have the proper paperwork. I've always had to say my name and address. If two people showed up saying Nephew Twiddleton at so and such road in Somerville, yeah. you got voter fraud. But you caught it right away. The purpose is to prove that you're a citizen. Which I'm cool with. When you REGISTER TO VOTE. If you're on the rolls, then shut the fuck up. The time to prove it is when you sign up. Not when you show up.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

The disconnect between Libertarians and sane people is at a fundamental level. Where sane people aim to create a better society, the Libertarian has no use for society. Oh, he'll expect there to be a Government to be there to save him from other people to some degree, but when it comes to pitching in and working together and building something, he would rather live in a cave and not be bothered. And that's great. That's why any free society recognizes his right to butt the fuck out and go be a hermit. So, really, the Libertarian's problem is already solved: he doesn't like society, and he doesn't have to be a part of it if he doesn't want to.

But, inevitably, he bitches that he has to pay taxes or be subject to arrest in the event that he breaks a law, or whatever. Basically his argument boils down to "I should get to live in a modern society with modern amenities, but I shouldn't have to participate in it on a financial level." If he doesn't want to pay taxes, well then he doesn't have to own anything. No problem here. As for being subject to arrest, well, he should think of society as a single entity. It is very big, it has lots of parts, and if he doesn't want to break his finger he shouldn't stick it in the gears. Just stay away. Go be a Libertarian somewhere quiet, by yourself, and quit telling the rest of us how we should want to be hermits too.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Actually, I'm going to take it a step further and say that if you can legally work in the United States, you have a right to vote, and therefore reciting your social security number should be sufficient.

I say this because my father lived here for 20-some-odd years, paid taxes, raised a family of 3 children in the United States, two of which until they were voters themselves... Citizen or not, he should have had a say after a certain point. I think "citizen" is too rigid a concept.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

The disconnect between Libertarians and sane people is at a fundamental level. Where sane people aim to create a better society, the Libertarian has no use for society. Oh, he'll expect there to be a Government to be there to save him from other people to some degree, but when it comes to pitching in and working together and building something, he would rather live in a cave and not be bothered. And that's great. That's why any free society recognizes his right to butt the fuck out and go be a hermit. So, really, the Libertarian's problem is already solved: he doesn't like society, and he doesn't have to be a part of it if he doesn't want to.

But, inevitably, he bitches that he has to pay taxes or be subject to arrest in the event that he breaks a law, or whatever. Basically his argument boils down to "I should get to live in a modern society with modern amenities, but I shouldn't have to participate in it on a financial level." If he doesn't want to pay taxes, well then he doesn't have to own anything. No problem here. As for being subject to arrest, well, he should think of society as a single entity. It is very big, it has lots of parts, and if he doesn't want to break his finger he shouldn't stick it in the gears. Just stay away. Go be a Libertarian somewhere quiet, by yourself, and quit telling the rest of us how we should want to be hermits too.

This is very quotable.

[hunter s.durden]

Theoretically I'm a centrist, but the American "Left" is to the right of me. And none of the Democrats I talk to understand this. They still think of themselves as liberal.

A thousand times this for me.
Do the Europeans on the board feel this way when looking at our politics?
The politicalcompass.com chart showing where everyone stands says it all. There's Dennis Kuchinich, all alone in his sphere, and every other politician in a little one inch clump to the upper right.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Theoretically I'm a centrist, but the American "Left" is to the right of me. And none of the Democrats I talk to understand this. They still think of themselves as liberal.

A thousand times this for me.
Do the Europeans on the board feel this way when looking at our politics?
The politicalcompass.com chart showing where everyone stands says it all. There's Dennis Kuchinich, all alone in his sphere, and every other politician in a little one inch clump to the upper right.

Yes. That's part of what has informed my political positions, and how I identify myself as not on a spectrum, but a multi-axis sort of thing.

Twid,
Also a citizen of the European Union

[Elder Iptuous]

You've already proven yourself a cool shit to me. You'd have to kill puppies at this point. And you've been here longer than I.

What it really comes down to is that nothing works.

We're on the same page here!

It expects the selfishness of the individual to magically have some sort of altruistic outcome.

doesn't it? it has beneficial outcome in the form of commerce.  it has negative outcome in the form of theft.  the one is supported and the other punished.

Or even worse, that politics can be simplified to a left and right scheme. We're talking about a multidimensional graft and they insist on one dimension.

Amen.  it amazes me sometimes that this is not a common understanding.  the amazement passes quickly, however

You seriously have to ask this question?

If you disagree with social benefits you should not use them. And you should not fault your enemies from having a bit of the schadenfreude when you do break down and use them.

Let's say for example, that you know this guy, and this guy is in a band, ...

I don't know how useful the anectdote is... the guy from the 20% comes off as a douche because he's sour grapes about the successes of the guy in the band, and makes false complaints, and then due to laziness, comes to rely on the benefits he complained about.

that seems a far cry from someone who simply collects on an imposed ponzi scheme.

an ridiculous, but appropriate analogy(in a sense), i guess, would be a guy forcefully robbing you of your wallet, and then giving you some percentage back.  do you lose the right to complain about the theft if you take the portion he gives back?

Voter fraud is virtually nonexistent in this country (it exists, but it can't effect an outcome anywhere, since it is so rare). Seriously, Voter ID is retarded, AND disenfranchising. Disenfranchising because it just bloody is. You're preventing a registered voter from voting because they don't have the proper paperwork. I've always had to say my name and address. If two people showed up saying Nephew Twiddleton at so and such road in Somerville, yeah. you got voter fraud. But you caught it right away. The purpose is to prove that you're a citizen. Which I'm cool with. When you REGISTER TO VOTE. If you're on the rolls, then shut the fuck up. The time to prove it is when you sign up. Not when you show up.

i agree.  it is a manufactured problem.  i just don't see why the Dems can't outflank them on this one.  so, you register to vote.  you get your registration card.  it's free.  you use that at the ballot.  put a damned picture on it, and everyone should be happy, no? (or at least, they have to pretend to be happy because they can't outright say, 'but the poor and the smudgy are still voting!')

[hunter s.durden]

and how I identify myself as not on a spectrum, but a multi-axis sort of thing.

How is this not more common? Why simply right/left everywhere?

[Elder Iptuous]

and how I identify myself as not on a spectrum, but a multi-axis sort of thing.

How is this not more common? Why simply right/left everywhere?

I blame Angra Mainyu...

[Nephew Twiddleton]

and how I identify myself as not on a spectrum, but a multi-axis sort of thing.

How is this not more common? Why simply right/left everywhere?

We're wired for Us/Them.

Twid,
Became a Red Sox fan because of hatred towards NYC+working in a liquor store during the post season

[Nephew Twiddleton]

and how I identify myself as not on a spectrum, but a multi-axis sort of thing.

How is this not more common? Why simply right/left everywhere?

But if seriously, if you were to ask me what I was, I would say, "A leftist" but that's not exactly true. It's just that's what would give people the best idea of where I come from.

When it comes to social issues, I am a staunch leftist liberal.

When it comes to passing laws, I'm a conservative. Because I think we have too many laws.

I think politician should be a part time job. Maybe we can make them all also play for various DC sports teams. Mostly for sadistic purposes.

I believe in the freedom of the individual, and the freedom of the group simultaneously. For example, Catholic priests have the right not to officiate gay weddings, while likewise, they have no say in whether gay weddings are legal or not (and if they try, their parish gets taxed out of existence)

When it comes to economics, I think that both capitalism and communism are total failures. I think a blend of regulated capitalism and a good dose of socialism is what is actually needed.

What is controversial about this, other than me not taking extreme positions on some things?

Oh, also, unlike most socialists, I am in favor of a move towards planetary government. Cain made a good argument against the idea, but I am not as of yet convinced, since the alternative is not that appealing to me other than for accountability purposes.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The problem with "voter ID" measures is mainly that they're a thinly veiled attempt to impose a voting  tax. There is no logical reason that I can see to not simply combat them by calling them out for what they are.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

It expects the selfishness of the individual to magically have some sort of altruistic outcome.

doesn't it? it has beneficial outcome in the form of commerce.  it has negative outcome in the form of theft.  the one is supported and the other punished.

I don't expect libertarian ideals to lead to increased commerce. Matter of fact, I expect libertarianism, as we know it now, to discourage commerce since libertarianism discourages the proletariat from actually making any money to spend on anything.

Twid,
get's paid through government grants, and "libertarians" elected in 2010 are a big factor in me not getting a decent wage or more hours.

ETA: Sorry, did not respond to all before hitting post. Another post incoming.