NationStates Jolt Archive

sources: 1 (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/016703.html) 2 (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/016658.html)

In the last few days, voters in Oregon (supposedly a blue state) rejected a cigarette tax increase, voters in New Jersey (which is supposed to be another blue state) rejected subsidies for stem cell research (which is often misconstrued to be stem cell research by both liberals and conservatives), and voters in Utah (which is supposed to be a red state) rejected school vouchers (which is an attempt by government to take over private schools).

The referendum votes provide pretty strong evidence, but they aren't the biggest story. The biggest story of the week is Ron Paul raising over $4 million in a day, giving him the money primary.

It appears that the American people are willing to adopt libertarianism. However, libertarians need to seize this opportunity. To do this, they must become politically active in educating the rest of the American people about libertarian candidates regardless of what party they are in and in voting on election days. Libertarians must reject both those who advocate compromising with the center-statist establishment (by listening to them, libertarianism would be blamed for the failures of the center-statist agenda) and those who reject political action (you can't get every potential government employee to resign, nor can you violently overthrow a democracy unless you are the military). In order to succeed libertarians must be willing to fight for total victory in the near future.

Defeating a stem cell subsidy sounds like a terrible idea. Scientific progress is definitely worth the cost of taxes given the gigantic boost to economic growth and development it provides to the nation that encourages it. Sure, this won't really impede progress on stem cells; however, it will ensure that the dollars from that research end up in California or Japan instead of in New Jersey. Defeating school vouchers takes away some of the ability for parents to get their kids out of failing public schools, and the rejection of a cigarette tax does nothing but increase the negative cost effects of smoking, which will have to be paid for by nonsmokers some time in the future.

Sounds like three steps backward more than anything else. If that's libertarianism, I guess I'm not a libertarian. I'd rather see wasteful, illegal farm subsidies, protectionist tariffs, and pork projects be brought under control and eliminated as part of a major effort to increase economic competitiveness and ease of investment in the US market instead of a bunch of good ideas being shut down.

Defeating a stem cell subsidy sounds like a terrible idea. Scientific progress is definitely worth the cost of taxes given the gigantic boost to economic growth and development it provides to the nation that encourages it. Sure, this won't really impede progress on stem cells; however, it will ensure that the dollars from that research end up in California or Japan instead of in New Jersey. Defeating school vouchers takes away some of the ability for parents to get their kids out of failing public schools, and the rejection of a cigarette tax does nothing but increase the negative cost effects of smoking, which will have to be paid for by nonsmokers some time in the future.


Yup. The problem with some (most?) libertarians is that they don't do nuance. They're committed to an ideology for its own sake, and to hell with the practical consequences. That's rather worrying.

Yup. The problem with some (most?) libertarians is that they don't do nuance. They're committed to an ideology for its own sake, and to hell with the practical consequences. That's rather worrying.

Indeed. They also tend to assume that people are rational economic actors. Most people are not.

In terms of any ideologically motivated policy, one must step back and actually try to figure out what it would actually do if implemented. One can't just go on "well this is good because so and so says it's good and it's consistent with such and such ideology." Sometimes things that sound good ideologically or that are consistent with another policy don't actually work in practicality.

sources: 1 (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/016703.html) 2 (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/016658.html)

In the last few days, voters in Oregon (supposedly a blue state) rejected a cigarette tax increase, voters in New Jersey (which is supposed to be another blue state) rejected subsidies for stem cell research (which is often misconstrued to be stem cell research by both liberals and conservatives), and voters in Utah (which is supposed to be a red state) rejected school vouchers (which is an attempt by government to take over private schools).

The referendum votes provide pretty strong evidence, but they aren't the biggest story. The biggest story of the week is Ron Paul raising over $4 million in a day, giving him the money primary.

It appears that the American people are willing to adopt libertarianism. However, libertarians need to seize this opportunity. To do this, they must become politically active in educating the rest of the American people about libertarian candidates regardless of what party they are in and in voting on election days. Libertarians must reject both those who advocate compromising with the center-statist establishment (by listening to them, libertarianism would be blamed for the failures of the center-statist agenda) and those who reject political action (you can't get every potential government employee to resign, nor can you violently overthrow a democracy unless you are the military). In order to succeed libertarians must be willing to fight for total victory in the near future.

Since there is no ideology more evil and abhorrent than 'libertarianism', here's hoping that the US is not becoming a 'libertarian' country.

Since there is no ideology more evil and abhorrent than 'libertarianism', here's hoping that the US is not becoming a 'libertarian' country.

? Please explain. I know people who don't like Libertarianism (I have my own problems with it too), but "evil and abhorrent"?

America likes winners and losers. Libertarian is more like a tie and that will never do.

Voter turnout in all of those votes was immensely low. That's why they went in the direction they did.

It appears that the American people are willing to adopt libertarianism.

Holy cow, I really thought that the US are libertarian enough already! No national healthcare system, almost no state-granted welfare system, almost no statal schooling...

:rolleyes:

About liberty, I think that the US may profit from a bit of personal liberties more, like not being tazed for asking questions to a senator.

Holy cow, I really thought that the US are libertarian enough already! No national healthcare system, almost no state-granted welfare system, almost no statal schooling...

:rolleyes:


I suggest a new motto. "More than enough is never enough!"

I don't see the US becoming libertarian. But I do see it becoming more socially liberal in the next few decades due to demographic trends.

I suspect that anti-government interference view that's cropping up will get funneled mostly into social issues.

Defeating a stem cell subsidy sounds like a terrible idea. Scientific progress is definitely worth the cost of taxes given the gigantic boost to economic growth and development it provides to the nation that encourages it. Sure, this won't really impede progress on stem cells; however, it will ensure that the dollars from that research end up in California or Japan instead of in New Jersey. Defeating school vouchers takes away some of the ability for parents to get their kids out of failing public schools, and the rejection of a cigarette tax does nothing but increase the negative cost effects of smoking, which will have to be paid for by nonsmokers some time in the future.

Sounds like three steps backward more than anything else. If that's libertarianism, I guess I'm not a libertarian. I'd rather see wasteful, illegal farm subsidies, protectionist tariffs, and pork projects be brought under control and eliminated as part of a major effort to increase economic competitiveness and ease of investment in the US market instead of a bunch of good ideas being shut down.
You win the thread!!

I don't see the US becoming libertarian. But I do see it becoming more socially liberal in the next few decades due to demographic trends.

I suspect that anti-government interference view that's cropping up will get funneled mostly into social issues.


One can hope that they are and that the anti-government interference attitude continues. The last thing needed is more government when there's already too much. Or rather if the citizens want a higher level of government then it should be on a State-by-State level, not a Federal level. That's right. There's still a few of us "States Rights" people left.

In the last few days, voters in Oregon (supposedly a blue state) rejected a cigarette tax increase, voters in New Jersey (which is supposed to be another blue state) rejected subsidies for stem cell research (which is often misconstrued to be stem cell research by both liberals and conservatives), and voters in Utah (which is supposed to be a red state) rejected school vouchers (which is an attempt by government to take over private schools).
And that is strong evidence how? Strangely enough, your source (blog) doesn't mention any other ballot measures, which would probably completely contradict what you're saying. Only one state (by 51%) has, for example, rejected an anti-gay marriage initiative, hardly particulary libertarian. Although having said that, most libertarians tend to give up on social liberalism once they've got their tax breaks for big business.

The referendum votes provide pretty strong evidence, but they aren't the biggest story. The biggest story of the week is Ron Paul raising over $4 million in a day, giving him the money primary.
Don't worry, I'm not losing sleep over him winning.

School vouchers aka "a way for parents to choose where their kids go to school" is more libertarian than favouring a state school system. The voucher system allows for choice, and thus free-market principles, to affect the school system. Better schools get more people, more vouchers, more money, and the crappy schools lose people and are shut down. Public schools attendance is determined by area of residence, and so bad schools don't really lose kids, cause the kids are required to go there.
Aside from whether this philosophy is right or not, I'm just clarifying that, despite what was said earlier, vouchers are libertarian, not the other way around.

Basic philosophy of a libertarian: "Do whatever you want, in so far as much as it doesn't affect someone else."
Libertarian and proud of it.

As I see it, America is on a slippery slope of becoming a police state and worse. I think a libertarian movement is exactly what we need to get us back to the way America was supposed to be.

Put the libertarians in charge? We may as well put the housecats in charge.

But no fear -- the US is not on its way to becoming a libertarian nation because most Americans do not know what libertarianism is. Just about anybody can call themselves "libertarian," and only a few politics nerds will question it because most people neither know enough nor care enough. The majority of Americans might some distant day call themselves "libertarian," but it is highly unlikely that they will actually be libertarians.

Anyway, it's a non-starter. For over 150 years, the majority trend in the US has been a slow-drip towards liberal-progressive, and the current crop of loudmouthed reactionary factions notwithstanding, nothing has changed that.

Yup. The problem with some (most?) libertarians is that they don't do nuance. They're committed to an ideology for its own sake, and to hell with the practical consequences. That's rather worrying.

The Republicans have an ideology. The Democrats sure as hell do. I'd say over-all the Libertarians are the least ideological, and the most realistic.

Republicans: "Ban evil pot!"

Libertarians: "No, how do you expect to enforce that?"

Democrats: "Increase welfare!"

Libertarians: "No, we don't want to pay people for not getting a job."

The Republicans have an ideology. The Democrats sure as hell do. I'd say over-all the Libertarians are the least ideological, and the most realistic.

Republicans: "Ban evil pot!"

Libertarians: "No, how do you expect to enforce that?"

Democrats: "Increase welfare!"

Libertarians: "No, we don't want to pay people for not getting a job."

You call it realistic. I call it self-centered and short-sighted.

Libertarian: The We Can't Be Bothered About Anyone But Ourselves Party.

I don't think America is becoming a Libertarian country in the sense that the majority of Libertarian beliefs are accepted by a majority of people.

The real problem is that we continue to label people as either Democrat or Republican for the most part, and thus assume that someone who believes in one thing that Republicans believe, that they automatically believe everything Republicans do.


For instance, I would be considered a Republican if you based your opinions strictly on gun rights, but I'd be a Democrat if you based it on gay marriage.


In my opinion the Libertarian ideology, that is both socially and economically will never be popular with more than 30-40% of the population at the most.

The next president of the united states is going to be either rudy giuliani or hillary clinton, neither of whom might be considered even remotely libertarian, so no.

sources: 1 (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/016703.html) 2 (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/016658.html)

voters in New Jersey (which is supposed to be another blue state) rejected subsidies for stem cell research (which is often misconstrued to be stem cell research by both liberals and conservatives),


Have you heard about property rates and taxes going to extreme measures in New Jersey? At one time I was afraid my family was going to have to move because of the heavy taxes laid on us.

You call it realistic. I call it self-centered and short-sighted.

Libertarian: The We Can't Be Bothered About Anyone But Ourselves Party.

More like: The We Can't Be Bothered Party...and We Won't Bother You!

Really, the other parties just cause harm.

Republicans: "let's help people of the world via the great American war!"

Democrats: "let's tax more, and give it all away to charity!"

Libertarians: "let's spend less guys, we're already in debt as it is."

Republicans: "but Daaaaad, I wanna get that new tank so I can go play bang-bang with my friend Iraq."

Democrats: "That's not fair! I wuz gonna pop by Green's place and start my project: "homes for those who haven't got any".

Public schools attendance is determined by area of residence, and so bad schools don't really lose kids, cause the kids are required to go there.

Here in Italy, not anymore. It's about 20 years since kids can go to the public school they (better, their parents) choose, independently of area of residence.
Maybe making the same move in the US would be enough to better the level of public schooling - which, from what I get from the media, is lousy on the average.

More like: The We Can't Be Bothered Party...and We Won't Bother You!
Like I said, self-centered and short-sighted.

And libertarians always claim that they want to leave others alone, yet they always have lots and lots of opinions about how others should live, and all those opinions revolve around how others should be mindful of what libertarians want in life. They bother people quite a lot, despite their claims otherwise.

Really, the other parties just cause harm.

<snip>
The libertarians do not have enough of a track record with applied policies to tell whether they would be less harmful than any other party.

The Republicans have an ideology. The Democrats sure as hell do. I'd say over-all the Libertarians are the least ideological, and the most realistic.

Republicans: "Ban evil pot!"

Libertarians: "No, how do you expect to enforce that?"

Democrats: "Increase welfare!"

Libertarians: "No, we don't want to pay people for not getting a job."

See, wrong example. This is actually an ideological answer: the verb "want" undelines that it is against the libertarian line-of-thought (aka ideology) to give money to someone who's not working for it. A realistic answer could have been "If we did, many people wouldn't even bother looking for a job" or "we can't pay that many people".

Behind every political thought, there is (or should be) an ideology. A political thought without any ideology is going to be hazy at best, and totally demagogical at worst.

See, wrong example. This is actually an ideological answer: the verb "want" undelines that it is against the libertarian line-of-thought (aka ideology) to give money to someone who's not working for it. A realistic answer could have been "If we did, many people wouldn't even bother looking for a job" or "we can't pay that many people".

Behind every political thought, there is (or should be) an ideology. A political thought without any ideology is going to be hazy at best, and totally demagogical at worst.
Part of the libertarian ideology is that ideology is not libertarian and, therefore, libertarianism is free of ideology. It's part of their party doctrine.

Ahem, propertarians of the Libertarian Party USA do not have a monopoly on the word "libertarian."

In fact, it was a leftist term before they appropriated it. The word "libertarian socialism" dates back all the way to the 1890s, and is synonymous with left-wing anarchism.

Defeating a stem cell subsidy sounds like a terrible idea. Scientific progress is definitely worth the cost of taxes given the gigantic boost to economic growth and development it provides to the nation that encourages it. Show me one study that attributes economic growth to stem cell research subsidies. If a field is worth researching, the government need not subsidize (which generally leads to government control and restrictions) but just not get in the way.

Perhaps the government should keep out of it rather than muck it up with skewed incentives - there are many ways to write the subsidy that would likely retard growth (such as requirements that any organization receiving any federal funds must follow certain procedures like limiting research to narrow paths some bureaucrat with no scientific background picks).

Sure, this won't really impede progress on stem cells; however, it will ensure that the dollars from that research end up in California or Japan instead of in New Jersey. If NJ cannot compete with California or anywhere else, its possible that any benefit might be outweighed by the cost of the subsidy. I dont know - it would probably take an economic study to determine if the projected benefits outweigh the cost.

Defeating school vouchers takes away some of the ability for parents to get their kids out of failing public schoolsWhich is why the defeat of vouchers is wrongly attributed to libertarianism - it is properly attributed to the efforts of the teachers union to make ludicrous claims and scare tactics to maintain control of education.

and the rejection of a cigarette tax does nothing but increase the negative cost effects of smoking, which will have to be paid for by nonsmokers some time in the future. Depends on the level of the existing tax. If current tax already pays for the externalities of smoking (higher health care costs, litter cleanup, etc) then any additional tax is merely punitive and just an abhorrent attempt of government to modify behavior. If taxes are not sufficient to cover all the externalities of smoking, then the additional tax is along libertarian lines because it is trying to make smokers pay for the damage done by their choices.

I personally believe it is more likely the latter.

Sounds like three steps backward more than anything else. If that's libertarianism, I guess I'm not a libertarian. As I hope I pointed out, the OP is not exactly being clear on libertarian stands.

I'd rather see wasteful, illegal farm subsidies, protectionist tariffs, and pork projects be brought under control and eliminated as part of a major effort to increase economic competitiveness and ease of investment in the US market instead of a bunch of good ideas being shut down.Now THAT sounds like a libertarian!

Since there is no ideology more evil and abhorrent than 'libertarianism', here's hoping that the US is not becoming a 'libertarian' country.

Why do you have a religious hatred (I call that religious, because calling something abhorrent and evil is so inherently religious anyway) against pragmatic theories on how to improve the economy?

Since there is no ideology more evil and abhorrent than 'libertarianism', here's hoping that the US is not becoming a 'libertarian' country.

Wow, more evil than National Socialism or Stalinism? Sounds like you have some explaining to do.

Holy cow, I really thought that the US are libertarian enough already! No national healthcare system, almost no state-granted welfare system, almost no statal schooling...

ROFLMAO

Ahem, propertarians of the Libertarian Party USA do not have a monopoly on the word "libertarian."

In fact, it was a leftist term before they appropriated it. The word "libertarian socialism" dates back all the way to the 1890s, and is synonymous with left-wing anarchism.

It still is in France. "Libertaire" means left-wing anarchist.

It still is in France. "Libertaire" means left-wing anarchist.

See what we have to deal with over here?

See what we have to deal with over here?

Yeah, it's almost as if there are somewhat different philosophical and cultural trends in the US or something.

Yeah, it's almost as if there are somewhat different philosophical and cultural trends in the US or something.

But it makes discussion so darned confusing, because you have to spend at least ten minutes refuting the LPUSA's claim to monopoly on the word "Libertarian" so that you qualify that you're not some Stalin worshipping type.

But it makes discussion so darned confusing, because you have to spend at least ten minutes refuting the LPUSA's claim to monopoly on the word "Libertarian" so that you qualify that you're not some Stalin worshipping type.

Personally, I don't mind spending ten minutes educating people during a discussion. If I would have to spend hours on it, I'm probably not going to. I guess the point at which it gets annoyingly inconvenient for me is a little different for you.

*shrug* C'est la vie, non?

Personally, I don't mind spending ten minutes educating people during a discussion. If I would have to spend hours on it, I'm probably not going to. I guess the point at which it gets annoyingly inconvenient for me is a little different for you.

*shrug* C'est la vie, non?

*nods* Oui, c'est la vie, mon ami.

hahaha, I quite literally spat water onto my monitor when i saw the title of this thread and burst into uncontrollable giggles. Seriously, I need to wipe it now. Good one guys :D:rolleyes:

Don't you just love two party systems? :rolleyes:

hahaha, I quite literally spat water onto my monitor when i saw the title of this thread and burst into uncontrollable giggles. Seriously, I need to wipe it now. Good one guys :D:rolleyes:

Yeah, I wish it were true though. GO Ron Paul:)!

Okay, It seems people really have a misconception of what being "libertarian" actually is.

First of all, libertarian is an ideology. Yes, there is a "Libertarian Party," but I assure you all, that they do not fully or accurately represent the libertarian ideology at all times. Democrats and Republicans; liberal and conservative are the respective ideologies associated with those parties, but they are NOT symbiotic.

Second, libertarian is NOT just extreme liberalism or extreme conservatism. I can't tell you how many people dismiss me as one or the other because they don't understand there is a difference. Sure, many libertarians value free-market principles more so than social issue and so are labled as conservatives, and some libertarians are more socially motivated and so are labeled as liberals, but just cause there are similarites doesn't mean they're the same.

Third, not all libertarians are anarchists. As with liberalism and conservatism, there are degrees. Not all liberals are pot-smoking hippies, not all conservatives are religious zealots, and not all libertarians are anarchists advocating complete abolition of gov't. To regress all people within an ideology as such just shows your own poltical ignorance.

Finally, you can basically sum up the philosophy of a libertarian as "Do wha ever you want, just as long as you don't affect someone else" and, i guess, go with what works. Oh, and you are responsible for your actions, since you can do what you want; don't expect a bail out. They also don't believe that you have the right to impose your beliefs and values upon someone else. Now obviously this isn't hard and fast because much of what you do affects others in SOME way or another; whether this affect is inconsiquential or not needs to be figured out.

For instance, on gay marriage, a libertarian would have no problem with it. They certainly wouldn't advocate an admendmant or law banning it, but most leave it up to the states to decide, rather than federally protecting it. Give the choice to the people, and let them decide.

Smoking laws: MOST libertarians (my dad, for example) are against smoking bans in bars and especially outside. Outside mainly cause the smoke disappates so much and poses little risk to others in the vicinity (there is also the fact that second smoke is still disputed, although it is gradually becoming accepted. See Penn+Telley: Bullshit). Also, it is a public place and non-smokers have the choice to leave. Who's to say their desire for a smoke free area outweighs the choice of a smoker to smoke outside, where it poses little to no risk?
In bars, MOST are against bans. This is because every person who enters an establishment has the choice to leave or not. Some may say that non-smokers deserve the right to a healthy environment, but they can leave. If this is bad for business, the business owner will enforce a ban. It becomes a simple economic problem for the business :is the opportunity cost from smokers outweighing the opportunity cost of non-smokers? The problem with a governmental ban is that it takes this decision out of the hands of the business owner.

Welfare: A little more divided, extreme ones will say eliminate it, since people should earn their money. Basically, you are responsible for your situation. If you can work, but choose not to, you don't deserve welfare.
There are of course, people who are poor despite their efforts and they should get money. But, the problem is that many people who are "poor" and receiving welfare don;t deserve it, they just have poor fiscal responsibility. A "poor" person does not get luxuries, and more often than not, people will spend money on luxuries before necessities. Welfare is to get you to necessity status, not relaxin status. It is counter-productive to make welfare enough to live comfortbly on, the great thing about America is that anyone can achieve, given enough time and effort.
Some examples of luxuries include TV, video games, air conditioning (depending on area), cell phone, internet, computer, certain food items. L
Liveable wage is 10,000 dollars a year (note I said "liveable," not comfortable), and coincidentally this is the same as a full time minimum wage job $5.15/hr x 40 hours/wk x 50 wks = >$10,000

Subsidies and taxes: In all but a few cases, no subsidies. Subsidies work against the free market and amount to less social benefit than what would occur if left alone. (I'd go into the math behind this, but it should be learn in any Microecon class).
Taxes are different. Except for the anarchists, libertarians acknowledge that while the private sector is preferable because of its inherrent efficiency, the free market does fail at times, and that is where the government comes in, and thus we need taxes for this reason. Note: The free market fails most noticably in non-exclusive public goods i.e. Fireworks: a private person could charge admission for the display, but no one would pay, cause they could see it anyway. So a private business would never have an incentive to show fireworks, but people want fireworks. So the gov't taxes people and puts on the show.
Along free-market economics, a gov't should tax something if there is a social harm that isn;t corrected in the private sector, and subsidies something i there is social benefit left ungained by the private sector. (taxing cigarrates is an example, since it cost the gov't money in health care costs; FAFSA is a subsidy example since educated students are a valuable resource for the country. Whether or not these are perfectly enacted is another matter).

Whew. I'm sure some will object anyway, but I hope this clears up some confusion.

LOL. America, Libertarian? Please. Try stupid. Or idiotic. Or factionalized. But don't think we're becoming Libertarian.

Like I said before, american laissez-faire classic liberals do not have the monopoly on the word "libertarian"

Libertarian, before the 1970s, used to be synonymous with left-wing anarchist schools of thought, like anarcho-syndicalism, mutualism or council communism.

I think its more that people want governments to realize they can't just spend spend spend than a libertarian rise. Wishful thinking, but thank cheese it's not gonna happen.

Well, the libertarians took the name because the leftists stole the names liberal, progressive, and radical, while also labeling their anti-social ideology as socialism.

Back in the early 1800s, the vast majority of Americans were libertarian, except for the Hamiltonian ancestors of the leftists and the conservatives.

However, I did misstate libertarianism a little bit. Libertarianism is consistently opposed to acts of theft and murder even when done by government. Therefore, the idea of a libertarian promoting a tax increase or a war is absurd (though that doesn't stop certain Neo-Cons from pretending to be libertarian or from some people in the Beltway such as the Cato Institute from spreading misinformation). The Libertarian Party is not the basis of libertarianism, nor is it the exclusive or even primary home of libertarians, who are a non-partisan voting bloc that is equally represented among Democrats and Republicans (though most don't know that they are libertarian). As for the idea of the fascist Giuliani having a chance to be president, that is absurd in a country that is pro-civil liberties and anti-war (even a crook like Hillary would tear him apart).

As for school vouchers, the beltway libertarians support them, but they are opposed (like "privatized" social insecurity or the "fair" tax) by the radicals because they are reforms of socialist programs which would inevitably fail and get blamed on libertarianism rather than socialism.

As for the claims that libertarians are reactionaries, they are outright absurd. The reactionaries are the leftists who think that people shouldn't be free to make mutually beneficial trades to permit society to progress (old-line Marxists worshipped the God of Production and claimed that economics is a zero-sum game, though the modern greens worship the earth as their God like the ancient pagans and believe that technology and progress is evil). The real reactionaries are the leftists and if a leftist thinks that freedom is compatible with leftism, then they are delusional (afterall, leftists must prohibit people from making voluntary trades or else they wouldn't be leftists).

You know, for someone so polemical, you sure do misunderstand a lot about ideologies that aren't your own.

First of all, American social liberals stole leftism to prevent the Socialist Party of America from pwning them. Progressive has always meant left of center, and radical has always meant leftist, since the left throughout history has been in some way opposed to the established order. I don't know where you get off on calling socialism "an anti-social ideology," but it most likely has to do with the fact that you've never bothered to listen to what socialists say.

There is more to freedom than economic exchange, and all that glitters is not gold. You "free exchange" is a handy euphemism to hide behind when faced with the grim reality that capitalism, heir to feudalism's legacy of domination, has subjected humanity to the brutal, alienating grind of wage slavery and self-serving economic hierarchies. There can be no freedom in any meaningful sense so long as five percent of the population literally owns the destiny of the remaining ninety-five percent, doing the masses the charity of buying them for a pittance for nothing but sociopathic egoism.

You know, for someone so polemical, you sure do misunderstand a lot about ideologies that aren't your own.

First of all, American social liberals stole leftism to prevent the Socialist Party of America from pwning them. Progressive has always meant left of center, and radical has always meant leftist, since the left throughout history has been in some way opposed to the established order. I don't know where you get off on calling socialism "an anti-social ideology," but it most likely has to do with the fact that you've never bothered to listen to what socialists say.

There is more to freedom than economic exchange, and all that glitters is not gold. You "free exchange" is a handy euphemism to hide behind when faced with the grim reality that capitalism, heir to feudalism's legacy of domination, has subjected humanity to the brutal, alienating grind of wage slavery and self-serving economic hierarchies. There can be no freedom in any meaningful sense so long as five percent of the population literally owns the destiny of the remaining ninety-five percent, doing the masses the charity of buying them for a pittance for nothing but sociopathic egoism.

That is absurd nonsense that has long been debunked.

Radical originally referred to what is now called Anarcho-Capitalism. The Radicals included the likes of Lysander Spooner, who was definitely no socialist. Socialism, which advocates the destruction of society by eliminating property, is definitely anti-social. If you take away property rights, it leads to what is called the "tragedy of the commons," which means that the property ends up destroyed due to no owner existing to take proper care of it (examples include the New Orleans levees which were socialized after Abe Lincoln's War, the California forests which are not properly maintained due to pressure from the Green lobby causing wildfires, the problem of "overfishing" which was solved by the American Indians with property rights etc.).

There is no such thing as "wage slavery" because each and every person is voluntarily accepting the job. If there was a better job available, they would not be working there. Economics is not a zero-sum game. Voluntary trades only occur because each side values that which they are trading for more than that which they are trading away. If one side were being ripped off, they wouldn't make the deal (and of course, every single person has a different value scale). This fallacy of equal value is called the "labor theory of value" and was in Adam Smith's economic theories even though the School of Salamanca already figured out that there was no such thing as a "just price" or any of the similar nonsense. Marx took the labor theory of value and reinstated the debunked concept of "usury" within his theories. Genuine Capitalism has nothing to do with Feudalism and absolutely destroyed whatever remained of that medieval relic.

When Socialism is tried, it inevitably leads to the Soviet Union.

Capitalism is based upon the idea that the most deserving will rise to the top by best fulfilling the needs of others. In practice, it does this, to the degree that it is unhindered by government. During the early 1900s, the "Progressives" instituted a bunch of "reforms" to line the pockets of big business and protect them from competition. This caused alot of distortions, including the business cycle, which is caused by the inflation caused by a central bank, which is hardly Capitalist (afterall, it is government-controlled money, not market money).

America likes winners and losers. Libertarian is more like a tie and that will never do.
Bingo.

That was post 7, why is the thread still going?

You call it realistic. I call it self-centered and short-sighted.

Libertarian: The We Can't Be Bothered About Anyone But Ourselves Party.

Quoted for immense amount of Truth.

That is absurd nonsense that has long been debunked.

Radical originally referred to what is now called Anarcho-Capitalism. The Radicals included the likes of Lysander Spooner, who was definitely no socialist. Socialism, which advocates the destruction of society by eliminating property, is definitely anti-social. If you take away property rights, it leads to what is called the "tragedy of the commons," which means that the property ends up destroyed due to no owner existing to take proper care of it (examples include the New Orleans levees which were socialized after Abe Lincoln's War, the California forests which are not properly maintained due to pressure from the Green lobby causing wildfires, the problem of "overfishing" which was solved by the American Indians with property rights etc.).

There is no such thing as "wage slavery" because each and every person is voluntarily accepting the job. If there was a better job available, they would not be working there. Economics is not a zero-sum game. Voluntary trades only occur because each side values that which they are trading for more than that which they are trading away. If one side were being ripped off, they wouldn't make the deal (and of course, every single person has a different value scale). This fallacy of equal value is called the "labor theory of value" and was in Adam Smith's economic theories even though the School of Salamanca already figured out that there was no such thing as a "just price" or any of the similar nonsense. Marx took the labor theory of value and reinstated the debunked concept of "usury" within his theories. Genuine Capitalism has nothing to do with Feudalism and absolutely destroyed whatever remained of that medieval relic.

When Socialism is tried, it inevitably leads to the Soviet Union.

Capitalism is based upon the idea that the most deserving will rise to the top by best fulfilling the needs of others. In practice, it does this, to the degree that it is unhindered by government. During the early 1900s, the "Progressives" instituted a bunch of "reforms" to line the pockets of big business and protect them from competition. This caused alot of distortions, including the business cycle, which is caused by the inflation caused by a central bank, which is hardly Capitalist (afterall, it is government-controlled money, not market money).

First of all, Spooner was an individualist anarchist, which =/= anarcho capitalism. Secondly, he described himself as a socialist, which you don't seem to understand, since you equate all socialisms with Marxist-Leninist state capitalism (a la the Soviet Union).

Next, the tragedy of the commons describes what happens when private, rational maximizers have access to common resources. It doesn't not describe what will happen to a regime of collective property and cooperative management.

After that, these alleged problems of "socialization" are because of corrupt inefficient government bureaucracies. I'm an anarcho-syndicalist, and have little love lost for the state, so don't equate me with being a state socialist or advocating the nationalization of property, because I don't.

Next, I never advocated the LTV value, nor did I have anything to say about economic exploitation. Everything I said had to do with hierarchy and domination, and the hobson's choice of the employment contract. The agreement is voluntary, but so what? It's as voluntary as being mugged; you can give in or suffer the consequences. With the latter, you get beaten, with the former you are left to perish lest someone give you charity. I don't give a damn if economics is a zero sum game or not (for the record, Marx never said that it was. He was perfectly aware that the absolute wealth could increase, but stressed the fact that the general social misery would likely increase as well).

Like it or not, capitalism is the heir to feudalism's legacy of domination: the "work ethic" of guilt, toil and self-renunciation, the obedience to economic authority, the serf like relationship between the worker and his master.

I can go in length about why the Soviet Union ended up like it did. It has everything to do with the fact that nationalization =/= socialism, and nothing to do with any inherent flaw in the socialist ideal of worker self-management.

Business cycles existed long before central banks, my friend. If you recall the laissiez-faire heydays of the post Civil War era, they actually had the worst and most destructive business cycles of all. And striking workers were routinely shot for wanting to bargain for a better wage. I do not want to return to those times, which is what your unfettered free market will bring.

Quoted for immense amount of Truth.
Define "immense".

I for example do care about others, I just prefer to do it voluntarily. If I help someone else because otherwise I'll get shot, that's not helping. That's not a good deed, I can't feel good about myself* afterwards. Whether or not an action is good is a question that can only be asked after it is established that there is a choice between alternatives.

Force-based help devalues the concept and, if your morality holds helping others to be a good thing, devalues the good with something pretty much all of us consider fundamentally evil (the use of force against people in order to shut out their mind).

If you still disagree, that's fine. I'm the last person in the world to tell you what to think (in fact, there is no such person). But keep it in mind nonetheless if you want to criticise libertarianism. You can criticise the economics behind it or you can criticise the moral premise. But simply trying to score points by calling libertarians "selfish" with nothing more to come, that's just not gonna do it.

And I'll leave it there, because I don't really want to get into it until tomorrow after I've finished my last exam and get three months+ holidays. :)

*And yes, if you really want to hear it: the reason I help is not because I consider help a good thing, it's because I consider my happiness a good thing.

Define "immense".

I for example do care about others, I just prefer to do it voluntarily. If I help someone else because otherwise I'll get shot, that's not helping. That's not a good deed, I can't feel good about myself* afterwards. Whether or not an action is good is a question that can only be asked after it is established that there is a choice between alternatives.

Force-based help devalues the concept and, if your morality holds helping others to be a good thing, devalues the good with something pretty much all of us consider fundamentally evil (the use of force against people in order to shut out their mind).

If you still disagree, that's fine. I'm the last person in the world to tell you what to think (in fact, there is no such person). But keep it in mind nonetheless if you want to criticise libertarianism. You can criticise the economics behind it or you can criticise the moral premise. But simply trying to score points by calling libertarians "selfish" with nothing more to come, that's just not gonna do it.

And I'll leave it there, because I don't really want to get into it until tomorrow after I've finished my last exam and get three months+ holidays. :)

*And yes, if you really want to hear it: the reason I help is not because I consider help a good thing, it's because I consider my happiness a good thing.

And just how much do you contribute to charity? Despite the "onerous" tax burden for "evil" social programs, I have contributed several hundred dollars this year, and still helped support the social programs that helped me when I needed it. Saying that charity should be voluntary is a cop out if not backed up by action. Perhaps there wouldn't have to be social programs if people actually cared about others rather than just paying lip service to it and whineing that they'd give to charity if only the evil government would stop taxing them. I see no reason to believe that, if left to their own devices, most people would give more to charity. It seems likely to me they'd use the same excuses they use to complain about welfare: "I don't want to pay someone for being lazy". Prove that people receiving government assistance are lazy. Don't just state it or imply it: show me the figures. If you can't, then it's not "favoring self-sufficiency", it's just selfishness. Not everyone on Welfare, Disability, etc. is lazy. I have been on disability. If I were lazy, I'd have just remained on it, and not bothered to go back to finish my degree.

I don't know how things stand in Germany (?), so I really can't speculate as to whether living through a tragedy such as a natural disaster or losing your job might help show you a different perspective. But I can say your words show a profound lack of perspective.

First of all, Spooner was an individualist anarchist, which =/= anarcho capitalism.

Spooner was both.

[quote[Secondly, he described himself as a socialist[/quote]

Prove it.

Part of the libertarian ideology is that ideology is not libertarian and, therefore, libertarianism is free of ideology. It's part of their party doctrine.

To explain better:
Party doctrine, aka ideology. Hence previous statement contains an absurdum.

I hereby declare the libertarian party as 100% certified logics-free.

america has been usurped by the corporate mafia for decades.

it there's one thing i think, and HOPE, greens and libertarians agree on,
is that we'd both prefer that it was not!

at least libertarians CLAIM to prefer indipendence over centralization.

(at the same time, how libirtarians somewhat blindly expect to achieve this, is having exactly the opposite resault, is being practiced by the corpocratic usurpers, and is, more then anything else, what is screwing everything up).

i also though, see all idiological disputes as killing each other of the arraingement of deck chairs on the titanic.

=^^=
.../\...

Snip
When Socialism is tried, it inevitably leads to the Soviet Union.
Snip

No, when socialism is really tried it leads to Czechoslovakia 1965-68.

No, when socialism is really tried it leads to Czechoslovakia 1965-68.

no when socialism is really tried it leads to western europe and the e.u.

and giving people a real alternative to indenturing themselves to the automobile, instead of throwing those alternatives out with the bath water the way america has been doing for decades.

socialism ISN'T marxism. socialism is FURTHER from marxism then capitolism is from fashism!

(and it's marxism, NOT socialism that supposedly collapsed. though actually it was corruption that can and does bring down everything. socialism is the only thing that SAVED capitolism's ass!)

=^^=
.../\...

Defeating a stem cell subsidy sounds like a terrible idea. Scientific progress is definitely worth the cost of taxes given the gigantic boost to economic growth and development it provides to the nation that encourages it. Sure, this won't really impede progress on stem cells; however, it will ensure that the dollars from that research end up in California or Japan instead of in New Jersey. Defeating school vouchers takes away some of the ability for parents to get their kids out of failing public schools, and the rejection of a cigarette tax does nothing but increase the negative cost effects of smoking, which will have to be paid for by nonsmokers some time in the future.

Sounds like three steps backward more than anything else. If that's libertarianism, I guess I'm not a libertarian. I'd rather see wasteful, illegal farm subsidies, protectionist tariffs, and pork projects be brought under control and eliminated as part of a major effort to increase economic competitiveness and ease of investment in the US market instead of a bunch of good ideas being shut down.
Hey. If we're going to reward research institutions for their inability to compete by giving them grants of tax revenue, why shouldn't we protect farmers and steel mills? In other words, why are you the arbiter of what's a good pork project and what's a bad one?

Spooner was both.

Prove it.

First of all, Spooner is not alive to protest the anachronism. Spiritually baptizing the deceased as one of your own is kind of intellectually dishonest.

Second, while I was wrong about his self-description, he certainly wasn't an anarcho-capitalist. Let's look at his rhetoric: Spooner's anti-capitalism can be found his book Poverty: Its Illegal Causes and Legal Cure, where he notes that under capitalism the labourer does not receive "all the fruits of his own labour" because the capitalist lives off of workers' "honest industry." Thus: ". . . almost all fortunes are made out of the capital and labour of other men than those who realise them. Indeed, except by his sponging capital and labour from others."

Suddenly he sounds a bit Proudhonian or even a bit Marxist...

Hey. If we're going to reward research institutions for their inability to compete by giving them grants of tax revenue, why shouldn't we protect farmers and steel mills? In other words, why are you the arbiter of what's a good pork project and what's a bad one?

Research and development generally has high social rates of return that are higher than private rates of return. In other words, they benefit most people higher than they benefit the researchers. We already have subsidies in the form of intellectual property. Its constitutional. The Federal Government has the right "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".

What is your definition of pork?

sources: 1 (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/016703.html) 2 (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/016658.html)

voters in Utah (which is supposed to be a red state) rejected school vouchers (which is an attempt by government to take over private schools).


Okay take it from a Utahn: Vouchers were not a Government takeover of Private Schools. What they did was offer up money to families and divert funds to give kids a "Chance" to go to private school. Half the PTA and teachers unions for Public Schools all voted it down because basically it would still leave Public Schools to fend for themselves. I don't know where Vouchers really fall in the spectrum though.

Okay take it from a Utahn: Vouchers were not a Government takeover of Private Schools. What they did was offer up money to families and divert funds to give kids a "Chance" to go to private school. Half the PTA and teachers unions for Public Schools all voted it down because basically it would still leave Public Schools to fend for themselves. I don't know where Vouchers really fall in the spectrum though.
Sure, on one side you WILL have the teachers that are afraid of competition. I'm sure competition in schools will be like competition in every other field -- it will only make it better.

But on the other side, you have the government. When has the government ever given away money without attaching conditions about how it should be spent?

Didn't the State of Utah just reject Federal financing because of the unreasonable conditions imposed by NCLB? Or to put it another way, didn't the Utah legislature vote to reject NCLB at the risk of losing Federal money?

Either way, you have some legislators with their heads screwed on right.

Research and development generally has high social rates of return that are higher than private rates of return. In other words, they benefit most people higher than they benefit the researchers. We already have subsidies in the form of intellectual property. Its constitutional. The Federal Government has the right "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".

What is your definition of pork?
I read Section 8 Claus 3 to allow Congress to enact trademark, copyright, and patent laws, not shore up research institutions that couldn't compete with anyone. I'm sure if that's been interpreted differently you can cite instances.

Pork is like pornography -- I know it when I see it. Seriously, the OMB (http://www.earmarks.omb.gov/earmarks_definition.html)
definition is as good as any. Basically, it's money that is unwanted, targeted toward a single recipient, or somehow restricted in the way it can be spent. Farm subsidies would not be earmarks, but a project to build a damn on Farmer K's property would be.

So you caught me. My use of the word "pork" was incorrect. That doesn't mean that a research institute should be favored with money, while farms and steel mills are ignored. If we're going to look at the Federal government as a charity, let's do it right!

Better yet, let's end the federal giveaways.

"Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim:
The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate." ~ Bertrand Russel

"Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim:
The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate." ~ Bertrand Russel
He's wrong. The choice of the words fortunate and unfortunate are lazy. That implies there is only luck involved in success. Anyone that can think worth a damned realizes that good luck is more about hard work and good choices than it is about real luck.

And just how much do you contribute to charity?
Actually, my income is such that I'm probably eligible to receive rather than give.

But nevermind that: the reason I don't give to charity is because I don't think I can rely on them to do what I want them to do. I much prefer to do the "dirty work" myself. You can give a million dollars to Oxfam so they build a hundred wells in a hundred obscure villages...and a year later they're gone or controlled by some warlord. I would prefer to take my million dollars, go to that village, sit down with the families and end up taking a sort of "mentor" role for the kids, getting them through school and university and showing them the world. That will make a difference, that is dealing with real people and real lives. Plus, I suppose, I will be appreciated by those I help as the person who did it, rather than being an ultimately irrelevant and impersonal money source others can take advantage of.

All of which is theoretical at this point, because delivering pizzas doesn't really pay me enough for myself, let alone the Africans.

The more important question is: how do you justify owning a computer, when there are people all around the world who are literally starving? If you hold the need to cover the basic needs of others superior to, or necessary for, your personal wellbeing I don't see why you don't give 100% of your disposable income to charity, bar basic food and shelter money. You must have some criterion, some threshold where you say "I will give no more". Where is it, and why is it there? And if it's purely subjective, how can you really claim to be morally superior to me?

Actually, my income is such that I'm probably eligible to receive rather than give.

But nevermind that: the reason I don't give to charity is because I don't think I can rely on them to do what I want them to do. I much prefer to do the "dirty work" myself. You can give a million dollars to Oxfam so they build a hundred wells in a hundred obscure villages...and a year later they're gone or controlled by some warlord. I would prefer to take my million dollars, go to that village, sit down with the families and end up taking a sort of "mentor" role for the kids, getting them through school and university and showing them the world. That will make a difference, that is dealing with real people and real lives. Plus, I suppose, I will be appreciated by those I help as the person who did it, rather than being an ultimately irrelevant and impersonal money source others can take advantage of.

All of which is theoretical at this point, because delivering pizzas doesn't really pay me enough for myself, let alone the Africans.

The more important question is: how do you justify owning a computer, when there are people all around the world who are literally starving? If you hold the need to cover the basic needs of others superior to, or necessary for, your personal wellbeing I don't see why you don't give 100% of your disposable income to charity, bar basic food and shelter money. You must have some criterion, some threshold where you say "I will give no more". Where is it, and why is it there? And if it's purely subjective, how can you really claim to be morally superior to me?

Why did you feel it necessary to make the ridiculous claim that unless I give 100% of my disposable income to charity I haven't really done anything? And what does my not donating everything have to do with you not donating anything? How do I justify owning a computer? How do you? Surely, as a pizza delivery driver, you can scarcely afford such a luxury. A rather weak arguement you make there. As I have more disposable income, I will donate more money, not that it's any of your business. I suppose next you'll claim that if I don't donate to every charitable organization, I'm a hypocrite for choosing who should be helped? Come back when you can debate without setting unrealistic criteria.

Come back when you can debate without setting unrealistic criteria.

"RAWR I WIN LEAVE."

Classic argument.

Defeating a stem cell subsidy sounds like a terrible idea. Scientific progress is definitely worth the cost of taxes given the gigantic boost to economic growth and development it provides to the nation that encourages it.

Ummmm....no. And trust me, I have a personal interest in stem cell research: I have muscular dystrophy (the good kind, though; I can still walk).

You wanna totally fuck up scientific progress? Throw government money at it. Look at NASA - in the toilet. Look at cancer research - we're no better off than we were a hundred years ago. Please, don't fuck up my chance to keep walking. Vote against federal stem cell funding, and leave the stem cell research to those who work on private funding, not government stooges.

I suppose next you'll claim that if I don't donate to every charitable organization, I'm a hypocrite for choosing who should be helped? Come back when you can debate without setting unrealistic criteria.
I see that you got what I was saying, you just misinterpreted it.

I am indeed saying that making the welfare of others a major function of your personal happiness is perhaps not unrealistic, but not exactly common. No matter where you go in the world, people want to keep some individually determined minimum standard of material wealth for themselves before they consider giving something away.

By saying that you are obviously not giving everything away to charity, I'm saying that you too have some minimum standard, and it may be quite high compared to the conditions of some starving African child. That doesn't mean you're a hypocrite, it means that there is some threshold built into the system of morality that allows you to call me evil. I ask what it is and why it is inherently superior to me saying I want 10 million dollars, a mansion at an Italian lake and a bunch of supercars before I start giving money away.

Either helping others is an unconditional good, and in that case you are a hypocrite, or there are conditions here. I'm asking you what they are and why they make you a better person than me.

I read Section 8 Claus 3 to allow Congress to enact trademark, copyright, and patent laws, not shore up research institutions that couldn't compete with anyone. I'm sure if that's been interpreted differently you can cite instances.

True. My point wasn't that the Constitution gave explicit reference allowing the Federal government to subsidize research. My point was that the Constitution f=gave the Federal government the power to enact a type of subsidy from the get go.



So you caught me. My use of the word "pork" was incorrect. That doesn't mean that a research institute should be favored with money, while farms and steel mills are ignored. If we're going to look at the Federal government as a charity, let's do it right!

Eh. I think the difference between research subsidies and steel mills/agricultural subsidies is that the former have a distinct possibility of having high returns on investment.


Better yet, let's end the federal giveaways.

Sure. Although I'm guessing our definitions of giveaways differs.