In the few days since I've returned to the board I've noticed a strong vibe against Libertarians that I don't seem to really recall. Whether or not this is simply imagined, I would once again like to weaponize this board's hatred for my own personal amusement.
My politics class contains a student whom is an outspoken Libertarian. Initially I wanted to be "nice*" as I sympathize with most 3rd parties because I have underdog syndrome (this is not always true). However, in the last class period said student sympathized with Romney saying "so what if he doesn't pay all those taxes, he gives to charity, how much is enough, blah blah." This little rant stuck in my head because it was was somewhat unprompted, and in my eyes it put him in the Republican zone. This makes him my new sparring partner (which makes me somewhat happy. When I have no one to argue with I start fading away like in Back to the Future).
ITT: please support or destroy the Libertarian party. Just about any little thing will be appreciated from the academic critique (Cain, v3x) to the inflammatory hate shit (the whole board), to support and counter-argument (one of you guys, right? I really hope this thread doesn't devolve into everyone sucking each others dicks over how much smarter than Ron Paul you all are). Things about environmental regulation are probably not needed, as I've never met a Libertarian who believes in global warming/ climate change/ science, and simply ignoring facts renders most issues moot. Please note that I have no problems contradicting myself, I can smoke a J and then argue the death penalty for possession (as proven by my alcoholism/ prohibitionist stance).
The basic problem that I have with Libertarianism, speaking as a person who as a youth (a Wiccan youth, no less) identified as one, is that, like Anarchists and Communists, the premise of their entire philosophy is based on everyone behaving themselves nicely. It's not only Utopian (and Utopias by necessity eventually become Fascist, in order to make everyone behave), but also inherently contradictory to their other central tenet, that of everyone looking after themselves.
The Libertarian party is basically the GOP for stoners. And Ron Paul has Bircher ties and his followers are tards.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYaujnR_8NE
Libertarians forget that we live in these things called societies and communities, and the reason we do lies in the interconnectedness of individuals.
So, essentially, Libertarianism could work just dandy, if Libertarians all decided to live solitary, hermit-like existences. If you want to live in a community and a society, by definition, you have to check some of your freedom at the door.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 30, 2012, 05:50:29 PM
The Libertarian party is basically the GOP for stoners. And Ron Paul has Bircher ties and his followers are tards.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYaujnR_8NE
What is a Bircher? I am not familiar with this.
The John Birch Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society). Notoriously racist right wingnuts.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on September 30, 2012, 05:16:26 PM
In the few days since I've returned to the board I've noticed a strong vibe against Libertarians that I don't seem to really recall. Whether or not this is simply imagined, I would once again like to weaponize this board's hatred for my own personal amusement.
My politics class contains a student whom is an outspoken Libertarian. Initially I wanted to be "nice*" as I sympathize with most 3rd parties because I have underdog syndrome (this is not always true). However, in the last class period said student sympathized with Romney saying "so what if he doesn't pay all those taxes, he gives to charity, how much is enough, blah blah." This little rant stuck in my head because it was was somewhat unprompted, and in my eyes it put him in the Republican zone. This makes him my new sparring partner (which makes me somewhat happy. When I have no one to argue with I start fading away like in Back to the Future).
ITT: please support or destroy the Libertarian party. Just about any little thing will be appreciated from the academic critique (Cain, v3x) to the inflammatory hate shit (the whole board), to support and counter-argument (one of you guys, right? I really hope this thread doesn't devolve into everyone sucking each others dicks over how much smarter than Ron Paul you all are). Things about environmental regulation are probably not needed, as I've never met a Libertarian who believes in global warming/ climate change/ science, and simply ignoring facts renders most issues moot. Please note that I have no problems contradicting myself, I can smoke a J and then argue the death penalty for possession (as proven by my alcoholism/ prohibitionist stance).
Libertarians simply ignore the fact that the very things they despise are the same things that allow them to have the luxury to make their arguments. For example, Somalia has all the qualities in government that they are asking for, which is why Somalia is a wealthy nation full of happy people, right? You get all the protection you can pay for, you have none of those pesky "roads" to maintain, and if you pay off all the right people, you just MIGHT get a cargo in or out without having it taken by pirates. And no social safety net.
But basically, it's this: Libertarians ignore the very basic reality that we are pack-oriented creatures, and that we have a government mostly because a population needs an alpha. That need is buried WAY back in the back of our brains, and explains why, for example, Americans think the president is an all-powerful emperor who can make sure everyone has a job, regulate oil prices, etc.
That being said, libertarianism fails for the same reason communism fails: It does not take human psychology into account. Libertarians, like communists, like to talk about how great everything would be if only people would be sensible. Good luck with that.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 30, 2012, 06:25:25 PM
Quote from: hunter s.durden on September 30, 2012, 05:16:26 PM
In the few days since I've returned to the board I've noticed a strong vibe against Libertarians that I don't seem to really recall. Whether or not this is simply imagined, I would once again like to weaponize this board's hatred for my own personal amusement.
My politics class contains a student whom is an outspoken Libertarian. Initially I wanted to be "nice*" as I sympathize with most 3rd parties because I have underdog syndrome (this is not always true). However, in the last class period said student sympathized with Romney saying "so what if he doesn't pay all those taxes, he gives to charity, how much is enough, blah blah." This little rant stuck in my head because it was was somewhat unprompted, and in my eyes it put him in the Republican zone. This makes him my new sparring partner (which makes me somewhat happy. When I have no one to argue with I start fading away like in Back to the Future).
ITT: please support or destroy the Libertarian party. Just about any little thing will be appreciated from the academic critique (Cain, v3x) to the inflammatory hate shit (the whole board), to support and counter-argument (one of you guys, right? I really hope this thread doesn't devolve into everyone sucking each others dicks over how much smarter than Ron Paul you all are). Things about environmental regulation are probably not needed, as I've never met a Libertarian who believes in global warming/ climate change/ science, and simply ignoring facts renders most issues moot. Please note that I have no problems contradicting myself, I can smoke a J and then argue the death penalty for possession (as proven by my alcoholism/ prohibitionist stance).
Libertarians simply ignore the fact that the very things they despise are the same things that allow them to have the luxury to make their arguments. For example, Somalia has all the qualities in government that they are asking for, which is why Somalia is a wealthy nation full of happy people, right? You get all the protection you can pay for, you have none of those pesky "roads" to maintain, and if you pay off all the right people, you just MIGHT get a cargo in or out without having it taken by pirates. And no social safety net.
But basically, it's this: Libertarians ignore the very basic reality that we are pack-oriented creatures, and that we have a government mostly because a population needs an alpha. That need is buried WAY back in the back of our brains, and explains why, for example, Americans think the president is an all-powerful emperor who can make sure everyone has a job, regulate oil prices, etc.
That being said, libertarianism fails for the same reason communism fails: It does not take human psychology into account. Libertarians, like communists, like to talk about how great everything would be if only people would be sensible. Good luck with that.
Well, I think this is dogma at work again. I think so because of this:
"Abstract
Could anarchy be good for Somalia's development? If state predation goes unchecked
government may not only fail to add to social welfare, but can actually reduce welfare below its
level under statelessness. Such was the case with Somalia's government, which did more harm to
its citizens than good. The government's collapse and subsequent emergence of statelessness
opened the opportunity for Somali progress. This paper uses an "event study" to investigate the
impact of anarchy on Somali development. The data suggest that while the state of this
development remains low, on nearly all of 18 key indicators that allow pre- and post-stateless
welfare comparisons, Somalis are better off under anarchy than they were under government.
Renewed vibrancy in critical sectors of Somalia's economy and public goods in the absence of a
predatory state are responsible for this improvement. (JEL: O1, O17)"
(And the entire paper here: http://www.peterleeson.com/better_off_stateless.pdf (http://www.peterleeson.com/better_off_stateless.pdf))
And because of this:
http://libera.me.uk/pub/pub/books/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf (http://libera.me.uk/pub/pub/books/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf)
That is an entire book. I don't think it ignores human/primate psychology and the stories it tells are far from utopias and rather feasible.
Quote from: holist on September 30, 2012, 06:40:18 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 30, 2012, 06:25:25 PM
Quote from: hunter s.durden on September 30, 2012, 05:16:26 PM
In the few days since I've returned to the board I've noticed a strong vibe against Libertarians that I don't seem to really recall. Whether or not this is simply imagined, I would once again like to weaponize this board's hatred for my own personal amusement.
My politics class contains a student whom is an outspoken Libertarian. Initially I wanted to be "nice*" as I sympathize with most 3rd parties because I have underdog syndrome (this is not always true). However, in the last class period said student sympathized with Romney saying "so what if he doesn't pay all those taxes, he gives to charity, how much is enough, blah blah." This little rant stuck in my head because it was was somewhat unprompted, and in my eyes it put him in the Republican zone. This makes him my new sparring partner (which makes me somewhat happy. When I have no one to argue with I start fading away like in Back to the Future).
ITT: please support or destroy the Libertarian party. Just about any little thing will be appreciated from the academic critique (Cain, v3x) to the inflammatory hate shit (the whole board), to support and counter-argument (one of you guys, right? I really hope this thread doesn't devolve into everyone sucking each others dicks over how much smarter than Ron Paul you all are). Things about environmental regulation are probably not needed, as I've never met a Libertarian who believes in global warming/ climate change/ science, and simply ignoring facts renders most issues moot. Please note that I have no problems contradicting myself, I can smoke a J and then argue the death penalty for possession (as proven by my alcoholism/ prohibitionist stance).
Libertarians simply ignore the fact that the very things they despise are the same things that allow them to have the luxury to make their arguments. For example, Somalia has all the qualities in government that they are asking for, which is why Somalia is a wealthy nation full of happy people, right? You get all the protection you can pay for, you have none of those pesky "roads" to maintain, and if you pay off all the right people, you just MIGHT get a cargo in or out without having it taken by pirates. And no social safety net.
But basically, it's this: Libertarians ignore the very basic reality that we are pack-oriented creatures, and that we have a government mostly because a population needs an alpha. That need is buried WAY back in the back of our brains, and explains why, for example, Americans think the president is an all-powerful emperor who can make sure everyone has a job, regulate oil prices, etc.
That being said, libertarianism fails for the same reason communism fails: It does not take human psychology into account. Libertarians, like communists, like to talk about how great everything would be if only people would be sensible. Good luck with that.
Well, I think this is dogma at work again. I think so because of this:
"Abstract
Could anarchy be good for Somalia's development? If state predation goes unchecked
government may not only fail to add to social welfare, but can actually reduce welfare below its
level under statelessness. Such was the case with Somalia's government, which did more harm to
its citizens than good. The government's collapse and subsequent emergence of statelessness
opened the opportunity for Somali progress. This paper uses an "event study" to investigate the
impact of anarchy on Somali development. The data suggest that while the state of this
development remains low, on nearly all of 18 key indicators that allow pre- and post-stateless
welfare comparisons, Somalis are better off under anarchy than they were under government.
Renewed vibrancy in critical sectors of Somalia's economy and public goods in the absence of a
predatory state are responsible for this improvement. (JEL: O1, O17)"
(And the entire paper here: http://www.peterleeson.com/better_off_stateless.pdf (http://www.peterleeson.com/better_off_stateless.pdf))
And because of this:
http://libera.me.uk/pub/pub/books/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf (http://libera.me.uk/pub/pub/books/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf)
That is an entire book. I don't think it ignores human/primate psychology and the stories it tells are far from utopias and rather feasible.
:tldr:
The easiest way to troll a libertarian is to ask them why, if libertarianism is about human freedom, do so many libertarian thinkers seem to praise or openly support right-wing dictatorships, such as von Hayek's support of Pinochet, or Ludwig von Mises' guarded praise of fascism. Last time I checked, pushing political dissidents out of helicoptors into shark-infested waters is not exactly freedom.
If he's Ayn Rand inclined, you can point to her own personality cult (while lol-ing about freedom and indvidualism) or you can juxtapose her comments on freedom with her comments on the Native Americans ("They didn't have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using. What was it that they were fighting for, when they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their 'right' to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or a few caves above it. Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent."). Also, if he has facial hair, point out Ayn Rand said you cannot trust men with facial hair.
Another easy way to wind up a libertarian is to ask them whether it should be legal that someone sell themselves into slavery.
Quote from: Cain on September 30, 2012, 07:00:26 PM
Another easy way to wind up a libertarian is to ask them whether it should be legal that someone sell themselves into slavery.
Oh, you're
good.
It does call for bookmarking, doesn't it? :lulz:
Quote from: Cain on September 30, 2012, 07:00:26 PM
Another easy way to wind up a libertarian is to ask them whether it should be legal that someone sell themselves into slavery.
Under which competing law-provider system do you mean? I would buy into one in which it isn't.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 30, 2012, 07:01:44 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 30, 2012, 07:00:26 PM
Another easy way to wind up a libertarian is to ask them whether it should be legal that someone sell themselves into slavery.
Oh, you're good.
I've been banned from three forums/blogs for that gambit.
There is also a libertarian argument which requires treating children as property or else treating them as legal adults, but I cannot remember it exactly.
Quote from: holist on September 30, 2012, 06:40:18 PM
(And the entire paper here: http://www.peterleeson.com/better_off_stateless.pdf (http://www.peterleeson.com/better_off_stateless.pdf))
I DID read. Is the "between the lines" message here supposed to be "It worked for Somalia, image what we (US) could do?" If this is the case... um... yeah... perhaps unrestricted cattle trade with Kenya would improve our current economic situation.
I did not get to the second thing, though I will probably get to it. I am supposed to be getting educated here, and if I'll read Gene Ray I'll read just about anything.
Thank you for braving the shit fest and offering pro-Lib material.
Cain, you always know when to get right to the trawlings. I especially liked the second bit. Subject: Lima (as he will heretofore be know)did once mention that "people think Libertarians don't want traffic light and stuff, and this isn't true." He did not mention by what sorcery these things will be paid for, and I was not prepared for battle (sorry, my honor is stained), so we didn't get into that.
The Libertarian belief that 'the free market' will eventually get rid of nasty things out of society is particularly ridiculous. Rand Paul said in interviews that he would have opposed Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s (had he'd been around) because he felt that it was unfair that the big, mean nasty old government would insist on legislation to treat people equally. He seemed to think that sufficient numbers of people of good conscience would say "Why, I don't think it's right that negroes can't eat here. I will spend my money somewhere else!"
That they even think the 'free market' is actually free is hilarious. People with enormous amounts of money use same to gain influence over politicians. The usual requests are for no bid contracts, tax cuts/loopholes and deregulation. (Look into the insanity that is Halliburton, their involvement in the Iraq war and the magical way they paid minus $1billion in tax.)
What I find most staggering about the libertarians and republicans I've encountered is the fact they have become cheerleaders for the very same people whose ideologies would rob them blind. It's like watching 18th century French peasants praising the aristocracy for their decadence.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on September 30, 2012, 08:13:10 PM
Lima (as he will heretofore be know)did once mention that "people think Libertarians don't want traffic light and stuff, and this isn't true." He did not mention by what sorcery these things will be paid for, and I was not prepared for battle (sorry, my honor is stained), so we didn't get into that.
But privately owned roads for general traffic already exist? The Machinery of Freedom will describe in great detail how traffic lighs would get paid for.
Libertarianism is also closely linked to support for returning to the Gold Standard, about the dumbest idea in all of economic history.
I had a live one on facebook earlier pushing for voter ID.
We pushed him awhile and he said "forget about the fact that they can provide ID and sign paperwork for social security, food stamps, welfare, ad nauseum" and people on food stamps "are all carrying iPhones and driving cars more expensive than mine and have tattoos, jewelry, hairdos, manicures and designer clothing"
LOL butthurt racists.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 01, 2012, 12:06:59 AM
I had a live one on facebook earlier pushing for voter ID.
We pushed him awhile and he said "forget about the fact that they can provide ID and sign paperwork for social security, food stamps, welfare, ad nauseum" and people on food stamps "are all carrying iPhones and driving cars more expensive than mine and have tattoos, jewelry, hairdos, manicures and designer clothing"
LOL butthurt racists.
I need a link to this.
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on October 01, 2012, 12:12:51 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 01, 2012, 12:06:59 AM
I had a live one on facebook earlier pushing for voter ID.
We pushed him awhile and he said "forget about the fact that they can provide ID and sign paperwork for social security, food stamps, welfare, ad :lulz:
LOL butthurt racists.
I need a link to this.
https://www.facebook.com/stella.waldvogel/posts/470153899672939?notif_t=share_comment
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
He keeps coming back. :D
Unfriended. Just got this in my fb PM box. :lulz:
QuoteLet's see - I showed you a video where people aren't getting ONE phone - they're getting SEVERAL. #oops
Then I mentioned people who maybe shouldn't be receiving entitlements and you say it's "racist" - why is that Stella? I didn't mention race, now did I? #oops
It just so happens that the people I know who abuse the system are white and as far as those at WalMart etc, could be white black or brown. But I'm a racist. Got it. Jim Crow and shit, right on.
You on the other hand are either a moron or a liar - I suspect both. Have fun with your like-minded buddies. Adios!
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 01, 2012, 03:12:15 AM
Unfriended. Just got this in my fb PM box. :lulz:
QuoteLet's see - I showed you a video where people aren't getting ONE phone - they're getting SEVERAL. #oops
Then I mentioned people who maybe shouldn't be receiving entitlements and you say it's "racist" - why is that Stella? I didn't mention race, now did I? #oops
It just so happens that the people I know who abuse the system are white and as far as those at WalMart etc, could be white black or brown. But I'm a racist. Got it. Jim Crow and shit, right on.
You on the other hand are either a moron or a liar - I suspect both. Have fun with your like-minded buddies. Adios!
:lulz:
ROGER WINS AGAIN.
:lulz:
The strongest argument that you can make against the libertarian party is that the gop has coopted them. A real libertarian would vote for libertarians and not republicans. It would be like a green saying they vote democrat. Its ridiculous.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 01, 2012, 03:19:28 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 01, 2012, 03:12:15 AM
Unfriended. Just got this in my fb PM box. :lulz:
QuoteLet's see - I showed you a video where people aren't getting ONE phone - they're getting SEVERAL. #oops
Then I mentioned people who maybe shouldn't be receiving entitlements and you say it's "racist" - why is that Stella? I didn't mention race, now did I? #oops
It just so happens that the people I know who abuse the system are white and as far as those at WalMart etc, could be white black or brown. But I'm a racist. Got it. Jim Crow and shit, right on.
You on the other hand are either a moron or a liar - I suspect both. Have fun with your like-minded buddies. Adios!
:lulz:
ROGER WINS AGAIN.
:lulz:
And you did it in THREE POSTS. I just checked the time stamps. It was after "Funny breed of Libertarian they're making, these days." :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
AND THE HEATHENS WERE SHAMED.
It's like shooting fish in a barrel DON KNOTTS IN A ROWBOAT!
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mb2n76poBs1qmlth7o6_250.gif)
Quote from: Mangrove on September 30, 2012, 09:15:45 PM
What I find most staggering about the libertarians and republicans I've encountered is the fact they have become cheerleaders for the very same people whose ideologies would rob them blind. It's like watching 18th century French peasants praising the aristocracy for their decadence.
This. I like this. It kind of itched something that I haven't quite been able to word.
Quote from: Cain on September 30, 2012, 11:54:07 PM
Libertarianism is also closely linked to support for returning to the Gold Standard, about the dumbest idea in all of economic history.
I am just learning the ins and outs of this concept. So far it's hilarious. Don't spoil the ending for me.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 01, 2012, 03:19:28 AM
ROGER WINS AGAIN.
Bullshit. It's the mind control lasers. You refuse to play fair.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 01, 2012, 12:06:59 AM
I had a live one on facebook earlier pushing for voter ID.
Please explain the voter ID thing, I don't fully understand this issue. Why is it a bad thing? Is it just seen as a waste of money? How does the race component come into play in regards to ID. And why would a Lib support such a thing?ISn't that government interference/ more taxes needed for cards?
Getting educated as fuck up in here.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 01, 2012, 03:37:22 AM
AND THE HEATHENS WERE SHAMED.
It's like shooting fish in a barrel[/i] DON KNOTTS IN A ROWBOAT!
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mb2n76poBs1qmlth7o6_250.gif)
(http://www.endeavorentertainment.com/carnival%20games/carnival%20games%20images/duck-shooting-game.gif)
Quote from: hunter s.durden on October 01, 2012, 03:38:53 AM
Quote from: Mangrove on September 30, 2012, 09:15:45 PM
What I find most staggering about the libertarians and republicans I've encountered is the fact they have become cheerleaders for the very same people whose ideologies would rob them blind. It's like watching 18th century French peasants praising the aristocracy for their decadence.
This. I like this. It kind of itched something that I haven't quite been able to word.
Quote from: Cain on September 30, 2012, 11:54:07 PM
Libertarianism is also closely linked to support for returning to the Gold Standard, about the dumbest idea in all of economic history.
I am just learning the ins and outs of this concept. So far it's hilarious. Don't spoil the ending for me.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 01, 2012, 03:19:28 AM
ROGER WINS AGAIN.
Bullshit. It's the mind control lasers. You refuse to play fair.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 01, 2012, 12:06:59 AM
I had a live one on facebook earlier pushing for voter ID.
Please explain the voter ID thing, I don't fully understand this issue. Why is it a bad thing? Is it just seen as a waste of money? How does the race component come into play in regards to ID. And why would a Lib support such a thing?ISn't that government interference/ more taxes needed for cards?
Getting educated as fuck up in here.
Short story on the voter ID thing... General, the voter ID laws are skewed so that it's the folks who are more likely to vote Democratic that are getting screwed. Students, the elderly, the poor are less likely to be able to get/pay for the ID to vote. One of the main objections (other than it targets minorities and the poor) is that it is, at its heart, a poll tax, meaning you have to pay to vote, which has been illegal for years.
What if it's provided by taxes? Just an ID you get when you register?
Also, Ayn Rand died on social security, and in her youth idolized a serial killer because he was a "true individual".
And she insisted that smoking was somehow beating the universe.
And she was constantly on speed.
And said disabled people are "leeches" and "looters".
And thought wearing a cape was a good fashion statement.
Yeah... I said cape. She was crazy.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 01, 2012, 05:49:06 AM
Also, Ayn Rand died on social security
Hold up...
Can you give me a good source on this? That would be a biggie, but I don't want to throw this bomb without some high yield sauce behind it.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on October 01, 2012, 05:55:54 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 01, 2012, 05:49:06 AM
Also, Ayn Rand died on social security
Hold up...
Can you give me a good source on this? That would be a biggie, but I don't want to throw this bomb without some high yield sauce behind it.
Lemme look... it's possibly an urban legend, I guess... I'll try to source it.
This Huff Post article says so, not sure how reliable they might be considered:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ford/ayn-rand-and-the-vip-dipe_b_792184.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ford/ayn-rand-and-the-vip-dipe_b_792184.html)
QuoteAn interview with Evva Pryror, a social worker and consultant to Miss Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that on Miss Rand's behalf she secured Rand's Social Security and Medicare payments which Ayn received under the name of Ann O'Connor (husband Frank O'Connor).
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 01, 2012, 03:19:28 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 01, 2012, 03:12:15 AM
Unfriended. Just got this in my fb PM box. :lulz:
QuoteLet's see - I showed you a video where people aren't getting ONE phone - they're getting SEVERAL. #oops
Then I mentioned people who maybe shouldn't be receiving entitlements and you say it's "racist" - why is that Stella? I didn't mention race, now did I? #oops
It just so happens that the people I know who abuse the system are white and as far as those at WalMart etc, could be white black or brown. But I'm a racist. Got it. Jim Crow and shit, right on.
You on the other hand are either a moron or a liar - I suspect both. Have fun with your like-minded buddies. Adios!
:lulz:
ROGER WINS AGAIN.
:lulz:
:lulz: It's always my favorite when I get a PM on FB from someone because Roger
made them unfriend me.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 01, 2012, 06:05:55 AM
This Huff Post article says so, not sure how reliable they might be considered:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ford/ayn-rand-and-the-vip-dipe_b_792184.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ford/ayn-rand-and-the-vip-dipe_b_792184.html)
QuoteAn interview with Evva Pryror, a social worker and consultant to Miss Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that on Miss Rand's behalf she secured Rand's Social Security and Medicare payments which Ayn received under the name of Ann O'Connor (husband Frank O'Connor).
Ha...
Ha Haha...
AHH HA AHHAAAAHAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAhA OH GOD YES!!!!!0
A beauty of a find, and wrapped in a news article so I have an excuse to bring this up. Brilliant work.
The Koch billionaires, who fund many libtertarian ventures (including the Cato Think Tank, Reason Magazine and Freedomworks/the original Teabaggers) made their fortune off contracted work in the Soviet Union for Joe Stalin.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on October 01, 2012, 06:23:30 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 01, 2012, 06:05:55 AM
This Huff Post article says so, not sure how reliable they might be considered:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ford/ayn-rand-and-the-vip-dipe_b_792184.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ford/ayn-rand-and-the-vip-dipe_b_792184.html)
QuoteAn interview with Evva Pryror, a social worker and consultant to Miss Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that on Miss Rand's behalf she secured Rand's Social Security and Medicare payments which Ayn received under the name of Ann O'Connor (husband Frank O'Connor).
Ha...
Ha Haha...
AHH HA AHHAAAAHAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAhA OH GOD YES!!!!!0
A beauty of a find, and wrapped in a news article so I have an excuse to bring this up. Brilliant work.
I do what I can.
But let's not forget
that cape.
Von Hayek, who in his later years argued against social welfare programs such as Medicare...used Medicare when he could no longer afford private cover in the US, with the assistance of Charles Koch of the aforementioned family.
QuoteIHS vice president George Pearson (who later became a top Koch Industries executive) responded three weeks later, conceding that it was all but impossible to arrange affordable private medical insurance for Hayek in the United States. However, thanks to research by Yale Brozen, a libertarian economist at the University of Chicago, Pearson happily reported that "social security was passed at the University of Chicago while you [Hayek] were there in 1951. You had an option of being in the program. If you so elected at that time, you may be entitled to coverage now."
A few weeks later, the institute reported the good news: Professor Hayek had indeed opted into Social Security while he was teaching at Chicago and had paid into the program for ten years. He was eligible for benefits. On August 10, 1973, Koch wrote a letter appealing to Hayek to accept a shorter stay at the IHS, hard-selling Hayek on Social Security's retirement benefits, which Koch encouraged Hayek to draw on even outside America. He also assured Hayek that Medicare, which had been created in 1965 by the Social Security amendments as part of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs, would cover his medical needs.
Koch writes: "You may be interested in the information that we uncovered on the insurance and other benefits that would be available to you in this country. Since you have paid into the United States Social Security Program for a full forty quarters, you are entitled to Social Security payments while living anywhere in the Free World. Also, at any time you are in the United States, you are automatically entitled to hospital coverage."
Then, taking on the unlikely role of Social Security Administration customer service rep, Koch adds, "In order to be eligible for medical coverage you must apply during the registration period which is anytime from January 1 to March 31. For your further information, I am enclosing a pamphlet on Social Security."
Now, he did pay into the system, so there is an argument that he deserved it. But then there is this:
QuoteHayek devoted an entire chapter—titled "Social Security"—to denouncing the modern welfare state as a gateway to tyranny and moral decay. Ironically, one of Hayek's main objections to government programs like Social Security was the "fundamental absurdity" of using tax dollars to promote their benefits. In other words, Hayek publicly objected to the kind of brochure that Charles Koch sent him. In their private correspondence, however, we could find no objection to this "fundamental absurdity."
By the mid-1970s, Hayek had fully distanced himself from the modest benefits he'd originally conceded to in The Road to Serfdom. In his preface to the 1976 edition, he explained his "error": "I had not wholly freed myself from all the current interventionist superstitions, and in consequence still made various concessions which I now think unwarranted."
Publicly, in academia and in politics, in the media and in propaganda, these two major figures—one the sponsor, the other the mandarin—have been pushing Americans to do away with Social Security and Medicare for our own good: we will become freer, richer, healthier and better people.
But the exchange between Koch and Hayek exposes the bad-faith nature of their public arguments. In private, Koch expresses confidence in Social Security's ability to care for a clearly worried Hayek. He and his fellow IHS libertarians repeatedly assure Hayek that his government-funded coverage in the United States would be adequate for his medical needs.None of them—not Koch, Hayek or the other libertarians at the IHS—express anything remotely resembling shame or unease at such a betrayal of their public ideals and writings. Nowhere do they worry that by opting into and taking advantage of Social Security programs they might be hastening a socialist takeover of America. It's simply a given that Social Security and Medicare work, and therefore should be used.
Quote from: Cain on October 01, 2012, 06:26:31 AM
The Koch billionaires, who fund many libtertarian ventures (including the Cato Think Tank, Reason Magazine and Freedomworks/the original Teabaggers) made their fortune off contracted work in the Soviet Union for Joe Stalin.
Jesus, man, did you put new batteries in your hypocrisy detector? OR did you just have all this saved up?
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on October 01, 2012, 06:20:57 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 01, 2012, 03:19:28 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 01, 2012, 03:12:15 AM
Unfriended. Just got this in my fb PM box. :lulz:
QuoteLet's see - I showed you a video where people aren't getting ONE phone - they're getting SEVERAL. #oops
Then I mentioned people who maybe shouldn't be receiving entitlements and you say it's "racist" - why is that Stella? I didn't mention race, now did I? #oops
It just so happens that the people I know who abuse the system are white and as far as those at WalMart etc, could be white black or brown. But I'm a racist. Got it. Jim Crow and shit, right on.
You on the other hand are either a moron or a liar - I suspect both. Have fun with your like-minded buddies. Adios!
:lulz:
ROGER WINS AGAIN.
:lulz:
:lulz: It's always my favorite when I get a PM on FB from someone because Roger made them unfriend me.
Those Mind Laz0rz can do ALL KINDS of things, can't they? :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
This is the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjAjAvxDkfk) he was talking about. It's a FOX News segment put up by this guy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Griffin)
I thought this part of the wikipedia article was interesting:
QuoteVoter Caging
In October 2004, while Griffin was Research Director and Deputy Communications Director for President Bush's reelection campaign, BBC Newsnight released an email (received through an error by the sender) from Tim Griffin to other high-ranking officials of the RNC with the subject line "Re: caging." The email contained a list of 70,000 Floridians registered to vote. The list contained primarily African-American and Hispanic voters from Democratic precincts. The addresses of the individuals in the spreadsheet were primarily homeless shelters and those of deployed, active-duty military personnel. The RNC subsequently sent first-class letters to these potential voters marked "Do Not Forward" and the letters themselves contained instructions to return the letter to ensure proper voting registration. If the letters were not returned, the corresponding voter was removed from the voter registration roll, under the guise of "inconsistent registration." However, the purpose of this mail-scheme (called "voter-caging") was to remove members of the target demographic (in this case, African-Americans, Hispanics and homeless people) for partisan purposes.
Voter-caging, if used for the purpose of disenfranchising racial or ethnic demographics, is a Federal crime, a violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. While the incident in question was investigated, however tepidly, by the U.S. House of Representatives, it was never investigated by federal authorities with jurisdiction over violations of federal law. Griffin claims the whole incident to be false, despite the emails delivered from his email address.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on October 01, 2012, 06:46:32 AM
Quote from: Cain on October 01, 2012, 06:26:31 AM
The Koch billionaires, who fund many libtertarian ventures (including the Cato Think Tank, Reason Magazine and Freedomworks/the original Teabaggers) made their fortune off contracted work in the Soviet Union for Joe Stalin.
Jesus, man, did you put new batteries in your hypocrisy detector? OR did you just have all this saved up?
Cain's got a LOT saved up. :lol:
It's true - I save what I think might be useful future information, to unleash when needed.
Most of this stuff comes from the work of Mark Ames - the former eXile editor who was forced to leave Russia and who outed the Tea Party as being an astroturfed movement. Since then, he's had a target painted on him by Koch affiliates, so he's been pushing back just as hard.
"Going Postal" was great too...going to have to find more of his stuff.
The feeling I get when I talk to Libertarians is that they seem to live by the idea that selfishness is a good thing. "I got mine, fuck you" is what a lot of their argumens boil down to. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but when you follow that idea to it's conclusion and try to envision a society where everyone is like that, well... That's when shit gets funny.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 01, 2012, 07:33:51 AM
"Going Postal" was great too...going to have to find more of his stuff.
http://exiledonline.com/
Also The Nation (when they aren't clutching their pearls in horror) and NSFW Corp publish his material, though in the case of the latter you need to pay $3 a month to see it.
Quote from: Cain on October 01, 2012, 02:24:12 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 01, 2012, 07:33:51 AM
"Going Postal" was great too...going to have to find more of his stuff.
http://exiledonline.com/
Also The Nation (when they aren't clutching their pearls in horror) and NSFW Corp publish his material, though in the case of the latter you need to pay $3 a month to see it.
Megan McArdle, Mormons, Pussy Riot...he's been getting around. And $3 a month is nothing...thanks!
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 01, 2012, 02:00:53 PM
The feeling I get when I talk to Libertarians is that they seem to live by the idea that selfishness is a good thing. "I got mine, fuck you" is what a lot of their argumens boil down to. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but when you follow that idea to it's conclusion and try to envision a society where everyone is like that, well... That's when shit gets funny.
Ayn Rand repubs in denial. :lol:
http://www.kochbrothersexposed.com/
Depressing documentary. Oh yeah, Koch Snr was also a big fan of the John Birch Society. The Koch brothers have funded 300 'studies' that say Social Security is bankrupt and should be privatized. It's not and it shouldn't but it provides the current script for Romney/Ryan.
http://www.outfoxed.org/
We've already figured out that Fox isn't a real news organization. Here's how it happened.
http://iraqforsale.org/
Free market? No. Try private companies selling a 6 pack of coca-cola to US soldiers and then billing the taxpayer $45. Or $100 for a bag of laundry. Or $7000 for a monthly car lease.
The other thing regarding the voter ID laws is that they tend to be really, really racist. Older people of color, for example, were not always given a birth certificate because, well, "they didn't need them" according the white people of the time. State ID is also not free - it's like $26 or so in California and there are people whose budgets are made or broken by smaller margins than that. This is not to mention the people who live in the ass-end of places and who would need to drive extensive distances to reach places that give state IDs.
Voter ID laws have sometimes been accompanied by voter purges. There's one district in Milwaukee, I think, where something like 75% of Black voters were purged and it's not like you're informed if you've been purged (at least I don't think so; I could be wrong).
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on October 01, 2012, 05:04:10 PM
The other thing regarding the voter ID laws is that they tend to be really, really racist. Older people of color, for example, were not always given a birth certificate because, well, "they didn't need them" according the white people of the time. State ID is also not free - it's like $26 or so in California and there are people whose budgets are made or broken by smaller margins than that. This is not to mention the people who live in the ass-end of places and who would need to drive extensive distances to reach places that give state IDs.
Voter ID laws have sometimes been accompanied by voter purges. There's one district in Milwaukee, I think, where something like 75% of Black voters were purged and it's not like you're informed if you've been purged (at least I don't think so; I could be wrong).
That's the whole point of voter ID.
Can you see many people at say, Pine Ridge going out and getting these?
Quote from: Mangrove on October 01, 2012, 03:18:02 PM
http://www.kochbrothersexposed.com/
Depressing documentary. Oh yeah, Koch Snr was also a big fan of the John Birch Society. The Koch brothers have funded 300 'studies' that say Social Security is bankrupt and should be privatized. It's not and it shouldn't but it provides the current script for Romney/Ryan.
http://www.outfoxed.org/
We've already figured out that Fox isn't a real news organization. Here's how it happened.
http://iraqforsale.org/
Free market? No. Try private companies selling a 6 pack of coca-cola to US soldiers and then billing the taxpayer $45. Or $100 for a bag of laundry. Or $7000 for a monthly car lease.
Outfoxed is AWESOME. I liked the kid who prepared for O'Reilly by timing how long it takes him to start yelling and getting his say in BEFORE that.
Will check out the others. Thanks!
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 01, 2012, 02:00:53 PM
The feeling I get when I talk to Libertarians is that they seem to live by the idea that selfishness is a good thing. "I got mine, fuck you" is what a lot of their argumens boil down to. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but when you follow that idea to it's conclusion and try to envision a society where everyone is like that, well... That's when shit gets funny.
Better: Point out that they (the libertarians arguing with you) DON'T have theirs. They in fact will NOT get theirs because - according to their own model - they should be rich
already.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 01, 2012, 05:46:00 PM
Quote from: Mangrove on October 01, 2012, 03:18:02 PM
http://www.kochbrothersexposed.com/
Depressing documentary. Oh yeah, Koch Snr was also a big fan of the John Birch Society. The Koch brothers have funded 300 'studies' that say Social Security is bankrupt and should be privatized. It's not and it shouldn't but it provides the current script for Romney/Ryan.
http://www.outfoxed.org/
We've already figured out that Fox isn't a real news organization. Here's how it happened.
http://iraqforsale.org/
Free market? No. Try private companies selling a 6 pack of coca-cola to US soldiers and then billing the taxpayer $45. Or $100 for a bag of laundry. Or $7000 for a monthly car lease.
Outfoxed is AWESOME. I liked the kid who prepared for O'Reilly by timing how long it takes him to start yelling and getting his say in BEFORE that.
Will check out the others. Thanks!
If you have 'Current TV' as one of your channels, you can probably catch these soon. They've been giving these documentaries heavy rotation lately and also 'Wal Mart - The High Cost Of Low Price'. I watched all these shows in fairly close proximity which I don't recommend doing, unless you want to leap about your house in a rabid frustration.
Outfoxed was cool. The kid who stood up to O'Reilly was great to see. The sad part was Al Franken explaining that legally, it's hard to prosecute crazy people for libel/slander.
Outfoxed- watched that one recently. Quite good.
Quote from: Mangrove on October 01, 2012, 06:08:35 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 01, 2012, 05:46:00 PM
Quote from: Mangrove on October 01, 2012, 03:18:02 PM
http://www.kochbrothersexposed.com/
Depressing documentary. Oh yeah, Koch Snr was also a big fan of the John Birch Society. The Koch brothers have funded 300 'studies' that say Social Security is bankrupt and should be privatized. It's not and it shouldn't but it provides the current script for Romney/Ryan.
http://www.outfoxed.org/
We've already figured out that Fox isn't a real news organization. Here's how it happened.
http://iraqforsale.org/
Free market? No. Try private companies selling a 6 pack of coca-cola to US soldiers and then billing the taxpayer $45. Or $100 for a bag of laundry. Or $7000 for a monthly car lease.
Outfoxed is AWESOME. I liked the kid who prepared for O'Reilly by timing how long it takes him to start yelling and getting his say in BEFORE that.
Will check out the others. Thanks!
If you have 'Current TV' as one of your channels, you can probably catch these soon. They've been giving these documentaries heavy rotation lately and also 'Wal Mart - The High Cost Of Low Price'. I watched all these shows in fairly close proximity which I don't recommend doing, unless you want to leap about your house in a rabid frustration.
Outfoxed was cool. The kid who stood up to O'Reilly was great to see. The sad part was Al Franken explaining that legally, it's hard to prosecute crazy people for libel/slander.
Yeah. They've been stacking the deck for years now. :sad:
Don't have Current TV, but it sounds like one to get. Thanks!
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.)
Quote from: :regret: on October 01, 2012, 09:54:08 PM
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. :lulz:
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.
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....
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'.
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.
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...
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.
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?)
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.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 01, 2012, 11:13:42 PM
Quote from: :regret: on October 01, 2012, 09:54:08 PM
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. :lulz:
I like of liked it before the edit. :lulz:
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on October 02, 2012, 03:11:45 AM
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.
Quotebut 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.
Quote1.'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.
Quote2 '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.
Quote3 '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.
Quote4 '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.
Quoteregarding 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: v3x on October 02, 2012, 04:38:37 AM
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.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 02, 2012, 04:25:02 AM
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.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on October 02, 2012, 04:52:56 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 02, 2012, 04:25:02 AM
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
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 02, 2012, 04:25:02 AM
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.
:)
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 02, 2012, 04:25:02 AM
What it really comes down to is that nothing works.
We're on the same page here!
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 02, 2012, 04:25:02 AMIt 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.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 02, 2012, 04:25:02 AMOr 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
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 02, 2012, 04:25:02 AM
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?
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 02, 2012, 04:25:02 AMVoter 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!')
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 02, 2012, 05:04:30 AM
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?
Quote from: hunter s.durden on October 02, 2012, 05:10:16 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 02, 2012, 05:04:30 AM
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...
Quote from: hunter s.durden on October 02, 2012, 05:10:16 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 02, 2012, 05:04:30 AM
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
Quote from: hunter s.durden on October 02, 2012, 05:10:16 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 02, 2012, 05:04:30 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on October 02, 2012, 05:05:51 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 02, 2012, 04:25:02 AMIt 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.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on October 02, 2012, 05:05:51 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 02, 2012, 04:25:02 AM
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, ...
QuoteI 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?
The guy in question isn't a sour grapes over the successes of his former bandmates, at least in the musical sphere.
The schadenfreude comes in where he brought up untrue accusation of one of the 80, and then was guilty of system mooching himself. Now, I'm not denigrating this guy's right to get foodstamps. I just find it delightfully amusing. You can mock said person for hypocrisy, because at the end of the day,
they did nothing wrong but everyone else did. I also think that said hypothetical person should stop being lazy and stick with a job since, he (or she) is actually a rarity in the system, and is contributing to a stereotype they previously used as an insult.
QuoteQuote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 02, 2012, 04:25:02 AMVoter 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!')
It is my opinion that if the government requires you to do something, they should foot the bill.
If they require you to get medical insurance, they should give you a cheap option, or just take more taxes out of your paycheck for your coverage.
If the government requires you to have a photo ID to have a say in your government, they should pay for it, and have office hours 24 hours a day 7 days a week, so as to fit everyone's schedules, and to create more jobs.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 02, 2012, 05:23:11 AM
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.
Where can I find this?
I am undecided on my opinion of a planetary government. This is because when envisioned in my idealistic head anything can seem like a good idea. Communism and Libertarianism both work great in the magical land where everyone is altruistic and things like the bystander effect and diffusion of responsibility don't exist.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on October 02, 2012, 05:56:44 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 02, 2012, 05:23:11 AM
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.
Where can I find this?
I am undecided on my opinion of a planetary government. This is because when envisioned in my idealistic head anything can seem like a good idea. Communism and Libertarianism both work great in the magical land where everyone is altruistic and things like the bystander effect and diffusion of responsibility don't exist.
I'll see if I can find it, but no guarantees.
But the gist of it is that I'm in favor of the United Nations becoming a the framework for a planetary confederation, whereas Cain prefers the city-state model.
I had thought that it was in a thread I started but giving a quick glance this does not seem to be the case. I just remember asking Cain about his thoughts on a planetary government, him giving the reasons why he was in favor of city-states, and me understanding but not agreeing.
ETA: I may or may not have voiced my disagreement. I might not have disagreed at the time even, but went, "huh... never thought of that that way" and just ended up staying a global unificationist or whatever we should be called.
But if I recall, Cain's argument was along the lines of:
Live in a city-state:
Mayor fucks up big, angry mob successfully overthrows government, preferably for the better.
Live in a globe-state:
Beefed up General Secretary fucks up big, angry mob gets sent to concentration camps, nothing changes.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 02, 2012, 06:16:22 AM
But if I recall, Cain's argument was along the lines of:
Live in a city-state:
Mayor fucks up big, angry mob successfully overthrows government, preferably for the better.
Live in a globe-state:
Beefed up General Secretary fucks up big, angry mob gets sent to concentration camps, nothing changes.
Pretty much what I was imagining.
Offhand I see where he's coming from, but this is based on my view of the US. When the federal government tries to impose federal laws it always seems to be on the wrong side (for me), whereas leaving it up to states to decide allows me more freedom to choose what laws I want to live under.
Though this is the US, and the global thing would probably have a weaker central government.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on October 02, 2012, 06:26:43 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 02, 2012, 06:16:22 AM
But if I recall, Cain's argument was along the lines of:
Live in a city-state:
Mayor fucks up big, angry mob successfully overthrows government, preferably for the better.
Live in a globe-state:
Beefed up General Secretary fucks up big, angry mob gets sent to concentration camps, nothing changes.
Pretty much what I was imagining.
Offhand I see where he's coming from, but this is based on my view of the US. When the federal government tries to impose federal laws it always seems to be on the wrong side (for me), whereas leaving it up to states to decide allows me more freedom to choose what laws I want to live under.
Though this is the US, and the global thing would probably have a weaker central government.
I do not trust the states to allow me more freedom.
On the contrary, I trust them to deny me freedom. Every leap in personal freedoms, throughout American history, has been done at the national level, not the state level. And it's usually been through the Supreme Court, not the Congress or the Presidency.
And yeah, I would not want to see a centralized global government.
I don't trust anyone, or any clique, with that much power, especially if they're religious zealots from Pakistan, or worse, Kansas.
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on October 02, 2012, 04:23:47 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 01, 2012, 11:13:42 PM
Quote from: :regret: on October 01, 2012, 09:54:08 PM
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. :lulz:
I like of liked it before the edit. :lulz:
:regret:
A big problem with a global government is that, very much along the lines of what we see already, there is no insulation from localized economic collapse.
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on October 02, 2012, 06:32:39 AM
A big problem with a global government is that, very much along the lines of what we see already, there is no insulation from localized economic collapse.
True, but we're pretty much past the point of local economic collapse at this point, no? Aside from a new Walmart in town, at any rate.
We already have a good bit of the drawbacks of planetary union in place. May as well reap the benefits of such an arrangement. I'd like our species to be at peace. Real peace. For at least one generation.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 02, 2012, 06:30:50 AM
On the contrary, I trust them to deny me freedom. Every leap in personal freedoms, throughout American history, has been done at the national level, not the state level. And it's usually been through the Supreme Court, not the Congress or the Presidency.
I'm looking at it differently. I see national marijuana prohibition, but state medical marijuana permission.
I see a federal defense of marriage act, but many states allowing and recognizing them.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 02, 2012, 06:16:22 AM
Live in a city-state:
Mayor fucks up big, angry mob successfully overthrows government, preferably for the better.
Live in a globe-state:
Beefed up General Secretary fucks up big, angry mob gets sent to concentration camps, nothing changes.
Couldn't both happen at the same time? Devolution as far as possible, do not centralise coercion, and if the beefed up General Secretary fucks up bug, an angry mob of city-states calls her to account? It could even be argued that some of it is sort of in place already, except most nation-states are too large to encourage proactive elector involvement, the consumer ethos also discourages it, and the global institutions have horrible bloatware operating systems. This could be fixed, question is, where does the leverage come for fixing it.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on October 02, 2012, 06:36:29 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 02, 2012, 06:30:50 AM
On the contrary, I trust them to deny me freedom. Every leap in personal freedoms, throughout American history, has been done at the national level, not the state level. And it's usually been through the Supreme Court, not the Congress or the Presidency.
I'm looking at it differently. I see national marijuana prohibition, but state medical marijuana permission.
I see a federal defense of marriage act, but many states allowing and recognizing them.
Meanwhile I see the emancipation of slaves and civil rights for non-whites.
Don't forget, these things were battles that were fought on the state level. But they weren't actually won until the Federal Government stepped in.
You will not see nationwide gay marriage until DC says so. And when it does, there will still be about 20 states bitching about it. Same thing with weed.
No. You're don't have a freedom unless you have it in all 50 states.
Also, the Federal Government prohibiting gay marriage and enacting DOMA in the first place was blatantly illegal.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on October 02, 2012, 06:36:29 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 02, 2012, 06:30:50 AM
On the contrary, I trust them to deny me freedom. Every leap in personal freedoms, throughout American history, has been done at the national level, not the state level. And it's usually been through the Supreme Court, not the Congress or the Presidency.
I'm looking at it differently. I see national marijuana prohibition, but state medical marijuana permission.
I see a federal defense of marriage act, but many states allowing and recognizing them.
Two words: "States Rights".
People pushing for that always seem to suck.
Quote from: Dishonest Wanker on October 02, 2012, 06:42:53 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 02, 2012, 06:16:22 AM
Live in a city-state:
Mayor fucks up big, angry mob successfully overthrows government, preferably for the better.
Live in a globe-state:
Beefed up General Secretary fucks up big, angry mob gets sent to concentration camps, nothing changes.
Couldn't both happen at the same time? Devolution as far as possible, do not centralise coercion, and if the beefed up General Secretary fucks up bug, an angry mob of city-states calls her to account? It could even be argued that some of it is sort of in place already, except most nation-states are too large to encourage proactive elector involvement, the consumer ethos also discourages it, and the global institutions have horrible bloatware operating systems. This could be fixed, question is, where does the leverage come for fixing it.
I am not against the idea of a multi-tiered variably federal/confederal sort of government. It might even be the best idea. City-states with a loose planetary government. But I think the problem is that planetary government has to evolve. We're at an intermediary stage. We're starting to see the emergence of continental unions. And those aren't working out too great. I just hope the concept can be tweaked the right way before it gets ditch because Germany tried to take over Europe again.
But the leverage comes from different areas. What would convince you that planetary government is a good thing?
Me personally, I'm tired of seeing human competing against human. I would rather see them cooperate on most things, and compete for sport.
It's the fucking future for Christ's sake. Let's start acting like it already. In a good way. Not a dystopian way. We already have dystopia.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 02, 2012, 06:49:32 AM
Quote from: hunter s.durden on October 02, 2012, 06:36:29 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 02, 2012, 06:30:50 AM
On the contrary, I trust them to deny me freedom. Every leap in personal freedoms, throughout American history, has been done at the national level, not the state level. And it's usually been through the Supreme Court, not the Congress or the Presidency.
I'm looking at it differently. I see national marijuana prohibition, but state medical marijuana permission.
I see a federal defense of marriage act, but many states allowing and recognizing them.
Two words: "States Rights".
People pushing for that always seem to suck.
States Rights is code for "we're totally cool with being backwards and fuck you for trying to improve us"
ETA: with a little wink wink nudge nudge "hey, never mind that dark thing hanging from the tree"
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 02, 2012, 06:56:28 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 02, 2012, 06:49:32 AM
Quote from: hunter s.durden on October 02, 2012, 06:36:29 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 02, 2012, 06:30:50 AM
On the contrary, I trust them to deny me freedom. Every leap in personal freedoms, throughout American history, has been done at the national level, not the state level. And it's usually been through the Supreme Court, not the Congress or the Presidency.
I'm looking at it differently. I see national marijuana prohibition, but state medical marijuana permission.
I see a federal defense of marriage act, but many states allowing and recognizing them.
Two words: "States Rights".
People pushing for that always seem to suck.
States Rights is code for "we're totally cool with being backwards and fuck you for trying to improve us"
Precisely.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 02, 2012, 06:57:39 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 02, 2012, 06:56:28 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 02, 2012, 06:49:32 AM
Quote from: hunter s.durden on October 02, 2012, 06:36:29 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 02, 2012, 06:30:50 AM
On the contrary, I trust them to deny me freedom. Every leap in personal freedoms, throughout American history, has been done at the national level, not the state level. And it's usually been through the Supreme Court, not the Congress or the Presidency.
I'm looking at it differently. I see national marijuana prohibition, but state medical marijuana permission.
I see a federal defense of marriage act, but many states allowing and recognizing them.
Two words: "States Rights".
People pushing for that always seem to suck.
States Rights is code for "we're totally cool with being backwards and fuck you for trying to improve us"
Precisely.
See edit for more detail
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 02, 2012, 06:58:03 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 02, 2012, 06:57:39 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 02, 2012, 06:56:28 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 02, 2012, 06:49:32 AM
Quote from: hunter s.durden on October 02, 2012, 06:36:29 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 02, 2012, 06:30:50 AM
On the contrary, I trust them to deny me freedom. Every leap in personal freedoms, throughout American history, has been done at the national level, not the state level. And it's usually been through the Supreme Court, not the Congress or the Presidency.
I'm looking at it differently. I see national marijuana prohibition, but state medical marijuana permission.
I see a federal defense of marriage act, but many states allowing and recognizing them.
Two words: "States Rights".
People pushing for that always seem to suck.
States Rights is code for "we're totally cool with being backwards and fuck you for trying to improve us"
Precisely.
See edit for more detail
:x :x :x
Yeah.
You never hear the medical marijuana people or the gay marriage people even USING that term. It kind of begs the question: if you let that stuff happen just at state level, does it open the door for the other stuff to happen?
Penn Jillette: Why I Am A Libertarian (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsXxUKjklt8)
He discusses the difference between being a member of the party and being a dick, lol.
He like Ayn Rand too, but I suspect he'd participate in a fair debate.
at any rate, it might be a good way to build up your buddy's own argument to then tear it down.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 02, 2012, 06:54:43 AM
Quote from: Dishonest Wanker on October 02, 2012, 06:42:53 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 02, 2012, 06:16:22 AM
Live in a city-state:
Mayor fucks up big, angry mob successfully overthrows government, preferably for the better.
Live in a globe-state:
Beefed up General Secretary fucks up big, angry mob gets sent to concentration camps, nothing changes.
Couldn't both happen at the same time? Devolution as far as possible, do not centralise coercion, and if the beefed up General Secretary fucks up bug, an angry mob of city-states calls her to account? It could even be argued that some of it is sort of in place already, except most nation-states are too large to encourage proactive elector involvement, the consumer ethos also discourages it, and the global institutions have horrible bloatware operating systems. This could be fixed, question is, where does the leverage come for fixing it.
I am not against the idea of a multi-tiered variably federal/confederal sort of government. It might even be the best idea. City-states with a loose planetary government. But I think the problem is that planetary government has to evolve. We're at an intermediary stage. We're starting to see the emergence of continental unions. And those aren't working out too great. I just hope the concept can be tweaked the right way before it gets ditch because Germany tried to take over Europe again.
Have you heard about open source governance? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_governance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_governance)
This would be a technological solution to making the planetary government (or any system of government) evolve rather more rapidly than what we're used to.
Germany has already taken over Europe, no? :lol:
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 02, 2012, 06:54:43 AM
But the leverage comes from different areas. What would convince you that planetary government is a good thing?
Me personally, I'm tired of seeing human competing against human. I would rather see them cooperate on most things, and compete for sport.
It's the fucking future for Christ's sake. Let's start acting like it already. In a good way. Not a dystopian way. We already have dystopia.
I agree, totally. In order to be convinced, however, I would have to see it work well. Or, if my assent was needed before it started, I would have to see it set up in a way that is highly adaptible and responsive to citizen input and totally transparent. Bit like Sweden... (?)
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 02, 2012, 07:07:50 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 02, 2012, 06:58:03 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 02, 2012, 06:57:39 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 02, 2012, 06:56:28 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 02, 2012, 06:49:32 AM
Quote from: hunter s.durden on October 02, 2012, 06:36:29 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 02, 2012, 06:30:50 AM
On the contrary, I trust them to deny me freedom. Every leap in personal freedoms, throughout American history, has been done at the national level, not the state level. And it's usually been through the Supreme Court, not the Congress or the Presidency.
I'm looking at it differently. I see national marijuana prohibition, but state medical marijuana permission.
I see a federal defense of marriage act, but many states allowing and recognizing them.
Two words: "States Rights".
People pushing for that always seem to suck.
States Rights is code for "we're totally cool with being backwards and fuck you for trying to improve us"
Precisely.
See edit for more detail
:x :x :x
Yeah.
You never hear the medical marijuana people or the gay marriage people even USING that term. It kind of begs the question: if you let that stuff happen just at state level, does it open the door for the other stuff to happen?
Of course it does. That's the POINT.
Whoo! for a good crazy thread on this topic :)
I would have replied earlier but with the trip to Paris and all, its been a crazy couple weeks.
OK. Here's my thoughts (as someone that once considered themselves libertarian):
First, figure out what libertarian means specifically to this guy. Libertarian the political philosophy is very different than Libertarian the US political party.
Even within the philosophy, there are several levels of belief. At its most extreme, there would be 0 taxes and extremely minimal government. At its least extreme, the government would be responsible for public safety, national defense, interstate commerce and property taxes (not income taxes) would be used to fund these basic needs. Further there are differences within the philosophy about local taxation. That is extreme Libertarians would argue against most state or local taxes, while other libertarians would argue that local taxes could be acceptable since a person could choose to not live in the boundaries of the city or town.
Then you get some people that claim to be libertarian, but really fit more with Classical Liberalism. These schmucks just need a friendly pointer in the right direction.
I think several of the negatives associated with Libertarianism (both the ideal and the party) were hit pretty well here.
Libertarian philosophy (depending on the strain) can make some very valid points. The role of government in a society is not an objective truth and the debate between liberals and libertarians really boil down to moving the line between government and private industry. Libertarians aren't anarchists, they believe in government just a smaller government with less power, less money and less functionality. This country ran pretty well for nearly a century with a rather limited government. Times were different, of course, you could pay your doctor in chickens and it wasn't like a doctor bill was ever in the thousands or tens of thousands of dollars. Most of the country were smallish settlements and within those settlements, the governments role didn't really exist beyond the local law enforcement. Private or volunteer fire brigades worked fine. In the larger cities however, this sort of community ideal fell apart. Private fire depts. often fought over who got to put out which fires and who got paid, sometimes privately held fire depts. actually set fires to increase their profit.
Humans spent a large part of their existence in societies that were more libertarian than liberal. Tribes, Settlements, Villages etc. often relied on getting things done by the people living there rather than a government sponsored solution based on taxation. However, in almost all of those societies, the size was small... larger societies almost always ended up with some kind of taxation and government responsibility. From a philosophical position, the libertarians make a valid point. If we are truly free individuals then there is no right for one man to tell another what he must or must not do (ie slavery) nor is there any right for a group of people to tell one man what he must or must not do (ie government). This tends to fall apart in practice, mostly because humans tend to cluster together in large bunches, with varying degrees of personal responsibility. There are some that choose to do as little as possible, others that have some condition that prohibits them from doing as much as others and some people that see part of their personal responsibility as helping others. If everyone fell into the last group, libertarian philosophy would have a much stronger argument.
Finally, there's the biggest disconnect I've seen in many libertarians... Social vs Fiscal. Many individuals want their personal freedom, freedom to stick various chemicals into their own body if they want, to live in whatever social agreement they want (marriage, gay marriage, living together etc etc), to own guns if they want, to basically DO ANYTHING within their private lives that they want as long as they don't directly impact the private life of someone else. So they may say "If I want to own a fully automatic rifle withexploding bullets I should be allowed. I should only be punished if I use the gun and bullets to kill someone or commit a crime." The idea that "Some people might abuse X so we'll outlaw it for everyone" doesn't sit well with these people... and again, that is a valid point.
So to sum up, I've met libertarians that hold cohesive, rational positions based on a understandable philosophy of personal freedom. I've met libertarians that are completely nuts, have no cohesive or rational position (weed should be legal, abortion should be illegal) and as far as I can tell base their beliefs on a combination of Fox News and an attachment to the word libertarian being more cool than the word Republican. I've met libertarians that hold a cohesive view, but its based solely on philosophy with no connection to any sort of real implementation (Randians especially) and I've met some that appear to be willing to compromise between their philosophy and reality. So figuring out where this poor spag is on the scale, is probably key to figuring out which arguments will work and which won't.
In a perfect world, where all humans accepted as much personal responsibility for themselves and their community as possible, libertarianism and even some forms of anarchism would probably work... but then if we used leaves for money, we'd all be rich (or very poor due to inflation).
ETA: On the issue of States Rights, I've seen the same dichotomy. There are States Rights people that are complete asshats. However, there are also States Rights people that have a cohesive argument. The best argument I've seen is basically that the State should be responsible for MOST laws and only if those laws infringe on the constitutional rights of a citizen, should the issue be taken to the Federal government.
So for example, Medical Marijuana would be a states rights issue. A lack of Civil Rights, however, would infringe on the constitutional freedoms of minorities and therefore fall to the federal justice system. Generally, if the issue of States rights comes up I tend to ask about these two topics... if the person argues that civil rights should fall to the states, I assume that they are either racist, idiots, or just regurgitating what they read/heard from racists and idiots. If they make a rational argument that covers the constitutional rights for all, and leaves the rest up to the States, I figure they may have ayt least a few brain cells working.
Quote from: Bu☆ns on October 02, 2012, 07:52:41 AM
Penn Jillette: Why I Am A Libertarian (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsXxUKjklt8)
He discusses the difference between being a member of the party and being a dick, lol.
He like Ayn Rand too, but I suspect he'd participate in a fair debate.
at any rate, it might be a good way to build up your buddy's own argument to then tear it down.
Penn is the single person who almost convinced me of the merits of libertarianism, but he is also the first person to admit that it's utopian and he has no idea how the ideas could be practically implemented.
Two things:
1. Libertarianism != tribalism. Tribalism is closer to communism than libertarianism.
2. Utopias are fine for navel-gazing. Implimentation, though, requires stacks and stacks of bones.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 02, 2012, 02:38:43 PM
Two things:
1. Libertarianism != tribalism. Tribalism is closer to communism than libertarianism.
2. Utopias are fine for navel-gazing. Implimentation, though, requires stacks and stacks of bones.
Which is what I eventually realized, after some help from a bunch of nutcases on this online forum I go to sometimes...
Quote from: Hoopla on October 02, 2012, 02:39:37 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 02, 2012, 02:38:43 PM
Two things:
1. Libertarianism != tribalism. Tribalism is closer to communism than libertarianism.
2. Utopias are fine for navel-gazing. Implimentation, though, requires stacks and stacks of bones.
Which is what I eventually realized, after some help from a bunch of nutcases on this online forum I go to sometimes...
What I think is REALLY funny is that after all these years, we're still having this subject pop up.
I think we all know what's going to happen.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 02, 2012, 02:40:52 PM
I think we all know what's going to happen.
:crybaby:
:showus:
:butthurt:
In approximately that order.
This is why we can't have nice things.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 02, 2012, 02:38:43 PM
Two things:
1. Libertarianism != tribalism. Tribalism is closer to communism than libertarianism.
2. Utopias are fine for navel-gazing. Implimentation, though, requires stacks and stacks of bones.
I agree with this. Many tribal societies work in a communal fashion. However, some tribes and many settlements work in a more libertarian fashion. That is "what's mine, isn't yours.. but I'll help you out because its in the best interest of the community". Much of the early American settlements were like this and in my discussions with the Amish, they appear to work along the lines of a socially enlightened libertarian ideas. If an Amish family has more money/resources than their neighbors, they do not assume it belongs to a collective 'community', but they do use their resources to help their neighbors out of a sense of altruism. Most (not all) of the families though, grow their own food, build their own homes etc and get assistance from their neighbors (by choice, not force) when doing the work. Families that are focused on specific types of work like carpentry or architecture will barter with neighbors that focus on farming. This seems in line with what I've read about many of the early American settlements.
(Unreleated side note: One Amish guy I knew had a brand new Ford pickup truck he used for work. He was an architect. He still refused to have a button on his pants, but he really liked his shiny truck :lulz:)
Rat: Yes, political Compass has "libertarian" at the bottom of the graph, and it doesn't mean anything like what we're talking about here. It's just the opposite of authoritarianism. I fall well within it myself because I really, really hate fascism and I don't give a shit what anybody does if it's not hurting anything. But I don't CALL myself "libertarian" because it's come to mean something entirely different, i.e., the wingnuts we're talking about here.
Need a new word. :x
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 02, 2012, 06:32:12 AM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on October 02, 2012, 04:23:47 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 01, 2012, 11:13:42 PM
Quote from: :regret: on October 01, 2012, 09:54:08 PM
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. :lulz:
I like of liked it before the edit. :lulz:
:regret:
:lulz:
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 02, 2012, 06:36:15 AM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on October 02, 2012, 06:32:39 AM
A big problem with a global government is that, very much along the lines of what we see already, there is no insulation from localized economic collapse.
True, but we're pretty much past the point of local economic collapse at this point, no? Aside from a new Walmart in town, at any rate.
We already have a good bit of the drawbacks of planetary union in place. May as well reap the benefits of such an arrangement. I'd like our species to be at peace. Real peace. For at least one generation.
Yes and no. It is still possible to shift back toward less-interdependent economies, although that's unlikely. It would, in my opinion, probably be a better idea than continuing to forge ahead with the global economy model.
ETA when I talk about localized economic collapse in this context, I'm not talking about "local" as in small towns, I'm talking about "localized" as in economies that are localized to a nation or region.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 02, 2012, 01:41:59 PM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on October 02, 2012, 07:52:41 AM
Penn Jillette: Why I Am A Libertarian (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsXxUKjklt8)
He discusses the difference between being a member of the party and being a dick, lol.
He like Ayn Rand too, but I suspect he'd participate in a fair debate.
at any rate, it might be a good way to build up your buddy's own argument to then tear it down.
Penn is the single person who almost convinced me of the merits of libertarianism, but he is also the first person to admit that it's utopian and he has no idea how the ideas could be practically implemented.
And this, in my mind, is a good example of recognizing the merits of an ISM without necessarily wearing it's uniform. During one interview (or maybe it was in his God No book i can't remember) he mentioned that he and Teller like Objectivism.
What struck me was that I noticed that I didn't cringe as much as when others have said the same thing.
Quote from: Bu☆ns on October 02, 2012, 04:42:00 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 02, 2012, 01:41:59 PM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on October 02, 2012, 07:52:41 AM
Penn Jillette: Why I Am A Libertarian (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsXxUKjklt8)
He discusses the difference between being a member of the party and being a dick, lol.
He like Ayn Rand too, but I suspect he'd participate in a fair debate.
at any rate, it might be a good way to build up your buddy's own argument to then tear it down.
Penn is the single person who almost convinced me of the merits of libertarianism, but he is also the first person to admit that it's utopian and he has no idea how the ideas could be practically implemented.
And this, in my mind, is a good example of recognizing the merits of an ISM without necessarily wearing it's uniform. During one interview (or maybe it was in his God No book i can't remember) he mentioned that he and Teller like Objectivism.
What struck me was that I noticed that I didn't cringe as much as when others have said the same thing.
Same. I mean, I've read almost everything Rand has written (couldn't finish Atlas Shrugged, it was too boring) and like some of it, but most of her views are frankly laughable and it shocks me that Penn or Teller cannot see that. Penn believes in the essential goodness of mankind though, so I guess that makes it easier. he truly seems to believe poverty can be beaten through charity alone, I wouldnt know where to start arguing with him.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 02, 2012, 05:06:14 PM
Penn believes in the essential goodness of mankind though, so I guess that makes it easier.
And he follows the prophet of greed and selfishness.
Go figure.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 02, 2012, 05:07:59 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 02, 2012, 05:06:14 PM
Penn believes in the essential goodness of mankind though, so I guess that makes it easier.
And he follows the prophet of greed and selfishness.
Go figure.
During a reddit AMA in which he and Teller participated he mentioned how he it would be cool to go back and do a Bullshit! episode tearing apart some of the crazy ass beliefs that he and Teller hold including Atheism and Objectivism (particularly noting that Ayn Rand said some really insane shit). The impression I get is that he's not too terribly attached to his own views and this is really the only reason I mentioned him specifically in this thread.
ETA: I sort of phrased that weird lumping in Athiesm and Objectivism...i don't necessarily mean to do that :P
Quote from: Bu☆ns on October 02, 2012, 05:41:27 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 02, 2012, 05:07:59 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 02, 2012, 05:06:14 PM
Penn believes in the essential goodness of mankind though, so I guess that makes it easier.
And he follows the prophet of greed and selfishness.
Go figure.
During a reddit AMA in which he and Teller participated he mentioned how he it would be cool to go back and do a Bullshit! episode tearing apart some of the crazy ass beliefs that he and Teller hold including Atheism and Objectivism (particularly noting that Ayn Rand said some really insane shit). The impression I get is that he's not too terribly attached to his own views and this is really the only reason I mentioned him specifically in this thread.
ETA: I sort of phrased that weird lumping in Athiesm and Objectivism...i don't necessarily mean to do that :P
If you are an objectivist, you are either an atheist or a demon worshipper. Just saying.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 02, 2012, 05:47:12 PM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on October 02, 2012, 05:41:27 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 02, 2012, 05:07:59 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 02, 2012, 05:06:14 PM
Penn believes in the essential goodness of mankind though, so I guess that makes it easier.
And he follows the prophet of greed and selfishness.
Go figure.
During a reddit AMA in which he and Teller participated he mentioned how he it would be cool to go back and do a Bullshit! episode tearing apart some of the crazy ass beliefs that he and Teller hold including Atheism and Objectivism (particularly noting that Ayn Rand said some really insane shit). The impression I get is that he's not too terribly attached to his own views and this is really the only reason I mentioned him specifically in this thread.
ETA: I sort of phrased that weird lumping in Athiesm and Objectivism...i don't necessarily mean to do that :P
If you are an objectivist, you are either an atheist or a demon worshipper. Just saying.
He is an atheist. Big time. But, although he calls himself an Objectivist he doesn't act like any Objectivist I've ever known. He certainly does not think he knows everything or what is right in every situation. He admits ignorance all the time, and changes his views based on evidence. Again, unlike every Objectivist I've known.
Teller, I don't know. He is IN Atlas Shrugged 2, so he might be more rabid. He doesn't talk too much, so it's hard to know.
And yes, I know I sound like a drooling fanboy. I like me some Penn Jillette.
Perhaps the approach to take is this:
"Ok, so let's pretend that social security and similar programs are cut. Provide evidence (historical, economic, sociological etc) whereby letting citizens 'free fall' is beneficial to any society. Cite actual examples whereby disease, homelessness, and a widening gap between rich & poor has brought value to civilization."
If they can't make a coherent rebuttal, then it boils down to simple selfishness and greed. Selfishness & greed don't count, IMHO as 'a political philosophy'. That's just being a dick. I don't need to study geo-politics to be a dick. I can do that for free, with no training or qualifications. I don't need to get a degree in economics from Harvard to be a dick. I can come from any educational & economic strata of ANY society in the world, from any historical epoch and BE A DICK. All that I must do is work from the assumption that I/Me/Mine trumps everything, even when there is substantial evidence to the contrary. In fact, extreme dickishness suggests that I would resort to the I/Me/Mine paradigm especially because there was opposing evidence. The more compelling the evidence, the more entrenched I can become. It's real easy & takes mere milliseconds of knee jerk reaction.
Being a dick transcends language, nationality, ethnicity, culture, economics & education. The Hindus call it 'adharma' but we know it as BEING A DICK.
Atheism, Objectivism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, Liberalism etc. Somewhere in all of them lurks a pathway to BEING A DICK.
If people spent more time figuring out how to be LESS of a dick, they could rely less upon the above mentioned 'isms'. The 'ism' they find attractive is often the 'ism' that best allows them to justify and rationalize their dickishness. "No, I'm not a selfish jerk with scant concerns for others. I have a philosophy."
Quote from: Mangrove on October 02, 2012, 06:43:09 PM
Perhaps the approach to take is this:
"Ok, so let's pretend that social security and similar programs are cut. Provide evidence (historical, economic, sociological etc) whereby letting citizens 'free fall' is beneficial to any society. Cite actual examples whereby disease, homelessness, and a widening gap between rich & poor has brought value to civilization."
If they can't make a coherent rebuttal, then it boils down to simple selfishness and greed. Selfishness & greed don't count, IMHO as 'a political philosophy'. That's just being a dick. I don't need to study geo-politics to be a dick. I can do that for free, with no training or qualifications. I don't need to get a degree in economics from Harvard to be a dick. I can come from any educational & economic strata of ANY society in the world, from any historical epoch and BE A DICK. All that I must do is work from the assumption that I/Me/Mine trumps everything, even when there is substantial evidence to the contrary. In fact, extreme dickishness suggests that I would resort to the I/Me/Mine paradigm especially because there was opposing evidence. The more compelling the evidence, the more entrenched I can become. It's real easy & takes mere milliseconds of knee jerk reaction.
Being a dick transcends language, nationality, ethnicity, culture, economics & education. The Hindus call it 'adharma' but we know it as BEING A DICK.
Atheism, Objectivism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, Liberalism etc. Somewhere in all of them lurks a pathway to BEING A DICK.
If people spent more time figuring out how to be LESS of a dick, they could rely less upon the above mentioned 'isms'. The 'ism' they find attractive is often the 'ism' that best allows them to justify and rationalize their dickishness. "No, I'm not a selfish jerk with scant concerns for others. I have a philosophy."
Post of the day.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 02, 2012, 06:44:34 PM
Quote from: Mangrove on October 02, 2012, 06:43:09 PM
Perhaps the approach to take is this:
"Ok, so let's pretend that social security and similar programs are cut. Provide evidence (historical, economic, sociological etc) whereby letting citizens 'free fall' is beneficial to any society. Cite actual examples whereby disease, homelessness, and a widening gap between rich & poor has brought value to civilization."
If they can't make a coherent rebuttal, then it boils down to simple selfishness and greed. Selfishness & greed don't count, IMHO as 'a political philosophy'. That's just being a dick. I don't need to study geo-politics to be a dick. I can do that for free, with no training or qualifications. I don't need to get a degree in economics from Harvard to be a dick. I can come from any educational & economic strata of ANY society in the world, from any historical epoch and BE A DICK. All that I must do is work from the assumption that I/Me/Mine trumps everything, even when there is substantial evidence to the contrary. In fact, extreme dickishness suggests that I would resort to the I/Me/Mine paradigm especially because there was opposing evidence. The more compelling the evidence, the more entrenched I can become. It's real easy & takes mere milliseconds of knee jerk reaction.
Being a dick transcends language, nationality, ethnicity, culture, economics & education. The Hindus call it 'adharma' but we know it as BEING A DICK.
Atheism, Objectivism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, Liberalism etc. Somewhere in all of them lurks a pathway to BEING A DICK.
If people spent more time figuring out how to be LESS of a dick, they could rely less upon the above mentioned 'isms'. The 'ism' they find attractive is often the 'ism' that best allows them to justify and rationalize their dickishness. "No, I'm not a selfish jerk with scant concerns for others. I have a philosophy."
Post of the day.
Agreed.
A WINNER IS YUO!
Srsly, nicely put.
Quote from: Mangrove on October 02, 2012, 06:43:09 PM
Perhaps the approach to take is this:
"Ok, so let's pretend that social security and similar programs are cut. Provide evidence (historical, economic, sociological etc) whereby letting citizens 'free fall' is beneficial to any society. Cite actual examples whereby disease, homelessness, and a widening gap between rich & poor has brought value to civilization."
If they can't make a coherent rebuttal, then it boils down to simple selfishness and greed. Selfishness & greed don't count, IMHO as 'a political philosophy'. That's just being a dick. I don't need to study geo-politics to be a dick. I can do that for free, with no training or qualifications. I don't need to get a degree in economics from Harvard to be a dick. I can come from any educational & economic strata of ANY society in the world, from any historical epoch and BE A DICK. All that I must do is work from the assumption that I/Me/Mine trumps everything, even when there is substantial evidence to the contrary. In fact, extreme dickishness suggests that I would resort to the I/Me/Mine paradigm especially because there was opposing evidence. The more compelling the evidence, the more entrenched I can become. It's real easy & takes mere milliseconds of knee jerk reaction.
Being a dick transcends language, nationality, ethnicity, culture, economics & education. The Hindus call it 'adharma' but we know it as BEING A DICK.
Atheism, Objectivism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, Liberalism etc. Somewhere in all of them lurks a pathway to BEING A DICK.
If people spent more time figuring out how to be LESS of a dick, they could rely less upon the above mentioned 'isms'. The 'ism' they find attractive is often the 'ism' that best allows them to justify and rationalize their dickishness. "No, I'm not a selfish jerk with scant concerns for others. I have a philosophy."
Brilliant!
Oh, Mang...
You brought this thread back to where I wanted it. I owe you a "hug."
One of the best thoughts on politics in general I've seen in a while.
A good one liner, if you want to get him on edge:
"A libertarian becomes a hypocrite the moment his rear tires leave the driveway."
Quote from: Mangrove on October 02, 2012, 06:43:09 PM
Perhaps the approach to take is this:
"Ok, so let's pretend that social security and similar programs are cut. Provide evidence (historical, economic, sociological etc) whereby letting citizens 'free fall' is beneficial to any society. Cite actual examples whereby disease, homelessness, and a widening gap between rich & poor has brought value to civilization."
If they can't make a coherent rebuttal, then it boils down to simple selfishness and greed. Selfishness & greed don't count, IMHO as 'a political philosophy'. That's just being a dick. I don't need to study geo-politics to be a dick. I can do that for free, with no training or qualifications. I don't need to get a degree in economics from Harvard to be a dick. I can come from any educational & economic strata of ANY society in the world, from any historical epoch and BE A DICK. All that I must do is work from the assumption that I/Me/Mine trumps everything, even when there is substantial evidence to the contrary. In fact, extreme dickishness suggests that I would resort to the I/Me/Mine paradigm especially because there was opposing evidence. The more compelling the evidence, the more entrenched I can become. It's real easy & takes mere milliseconds of knee jerk reaction.
Being a dick transcends language, nationality, ethnicity, culture, economics & education. The Hindus call it 'adharma' but we know it as BEING A DICK.
Atheism, Objectivism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, Liberalism etc. Somewhere in all of them lurks a pathway to BEING A DICK.
If people spent more time figuring out how to be LESS of a dick, they could rely less upon the above mentioned 'isms'. The 'ism' they find attractive is often the 'ism' that best allows them to justify and rationalize their dickishness. "No, I'm not a selfish jerk with scant concerns for others. I have a philosophy."
This is a most excellent post, indeed.
I was just going to say something about my nametrick working but then this came along being all well said and stuff:
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on October 03, 2012, 04:37:22 AM
Quote from: Mangrove on October 02, 2012, 06:43:09 PM
Perhaps the approach to take is this:
"Ok, so let's pretend that social security and similar programs are cut. Provide evidence (historical, economic, sociological etc) whereby letting citizens 'free fall' is beneficial to any society. Cite actual examples whereby disease, homelessness, and a widening gap between rich & poor has brought value to civilization."
If they can't make a coherent rebuttal, then it boils down to simple selfishness and greed. Selfishness & greed don't count, IMHO as 'a political philosophy'. That's just being a dick. I don't need to study geo-politics to be a dick. I can do that for free, with no training or qualifications. I don't need to get a degree in economics from Harvard to be a dick. I can come from any educational & economic strata of ANY society in the world, from any historical epoch and BE A DICK. All that I must do is work from the assumption that I/Me/Mine trumps everything, even when there is substantial evidence to the contrary. In fact, extreme dickishness suggests that I would resort to the I/Me/Mine paradigm especially because there was opposing evidence. The more compelling the evidence, the more entrenched I can become. It's real easy & takes mere milliseconds of knee jerk reaction.
Being a dick transcends language, nationality, ethnicity, culture, economics & education. The Hindus call it 'adharma' but we know it as BEING A DICK.
Atheism, Objectivism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, Liberalism etc. Somewhere in all of them lurks a pathway to BEING A DICK.
If people spent more time figuring out how to be LESS of a dick, they could rely less upon the above mentioned 'isms'. The 'ism' they find attractive is often the 'ism' that best allows them to justify and rationalize their dickishness. "No, I'm not a selfish jerk with scant concerns for others. I have a philosophy."
This is a most excellent post, indeed.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on October 03, 2012, 02:37:32 AM
Oh, Mang...
You brought this thread back to where I wanted it. I owe you a "hug."
One of the best thoughts on politics in general I've seen in a while.
Yer welcome! Glad I could help out. In fact, you helped me out.
Our local paper runs the most stupidly, irritating reader's letters column. Most of the take the form of 'Obama is/is not the devil' or 'We are still/we are no longer living in the fallout of the Bush era' etc repeat ad nausea.
Last week and the week before, there was one of the typical 'Democrats destroying America' letters written by the same guy. In both letters he got very frothy about Obama's 'dream act' and in the most recent missive, he basically said that anyone who supports the Dems is a 'baby killer' and then got into 'homosexuality being against the laws of God and nature'.
Normally, I ignore this stupidity because well, it's stupid. Because the weather is getting colder, this letter is going to end up in my wood stove anyway. However, I happen to know the person who wrote the letter because he is the husband of one our clients. Replying would probably cause more trouble than it's worth. Still, it left me with this uneasy feeling. Your Libertarian thread turned out to be a great way to vent my frustration creatively.
Had I bothered to written back to this person, the likelihood that my one letter would somehow snap him out of his idiocy was very very slender. If people lack the maturity to 'receive', then all I'd be doing is getting mad and stoking my own ego. "Yeah, I snarked the hell out of that homophobic motherfucker!!!" And then in the following week, that too ends up in the wood stove.
Mang'