That's a pretty good summation there Zar.
I'd also suggest that the social issues than appeal to both Dems and Libertarians are far less important than the structural, regulatory, or economic issues that they disagree about.
I've said this many times before, I think that if Republicans stopped talking about any social issues they'd do much better. It is a tiny, tiny group of people who's vote is swayed by gay marriage or any other social issue. More often than not, social issues are used as a club against the GOP.
Libertarianism: the opposing view
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
-
Hashi Lebwohl
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 19576
- Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm
I apologize in advance for the wall of text.
Consider the opening statement itself, "these four libertarian/conservative dystopias are offered", and you can already tell that the author of these comments has a strong bias against Libertarianism, either because they have read somewhere that Libertarians are bad or because they simply don't understand Libertarianism. Note, also, that the author like to throw out Ayn Rand's name as if she were some unassailable goddess whom Libertarians follow. I have read some of her works, yes, and I like some of the premises she proposes but never forget that Ayn Rand liked to surround herself with sycophants and that she and her husband (the man upon whom John Galt and Henry Rearden are based) had an open relationship. She was also pro-smoking and anti-soybean; we are fully aware of the many benefits soybeans provide these days as well as the dangers of smoking, so Ms. Rand is not the end-all-and-be-all of Libertarian thought. She is, these days, merely an extra rather than a leading actress.
Cutting benefits. Let me propose another question. Can the author--can anyone--name a single person who has risen out of poverty as a result of government help? I don't mean someone who got some student grants to attend community college and get low-cost daycare while they also worked a job and then managed to find a job that paid well, I mean someone who relied solely on government assistance who managed to get out of poverty. If you cannot find an example of this then we must conclude that government benefits do only one thing--keep people in perpetual poverty. It would be a crime for me to take money from one person and give it to another--Robin Hood was still a criminal, even if he gave most of the money away--so why isn't it a crime when the government does it? No, government isn't a person like I am but taking money from me by force is still stealing. My responsibility is primarily to my own family, not society in general, but that doesn't mean that I won't help someone who needs it when I can help.
As far an unemployment benefits are concerned....yes, it is a shame when people lose a job and it can be difficult to find another one but extending unemployement benefits out to an unreasonable length of time like 99 weeks (that is almost two years, you know) will lead to some people deciding that they would rather suckle at the teat than stand on their own and get back into the labor force. If offered a free ride most people would willingly take it but this engenders a psychology of dependency rather than independence.
Although the Social Security program was established at a time when perhaps it really was needed, in the decades since its inception it became a large slush fund and cookie jar the Federal Government has raided whenever it needed some extra money for its current pet project.
Nothing but competition. The author managed to find one example--one--where self-centered competition failed. Well, sure, self-centered competition failed at Sears because each department was trying to run the other departments into the ground. Can you imagine what would happen if a basketball players tried to take the ball away from their own team so they could earn the privilege of scoring a basket? It wasn't competition that failed at Sears; rather, it was the way in which Mr. Lambert misapplied the principles. I was in Academic Decathlon and on the Math/Science teams in high school. I competed against both my fellow students and students on other teams, which means I tried to beat my fellow students *but* I never worked against my own team. Why does the author think that Libertarians would work against their own team? Does the author think Libertarians are stupid or irrational? If take care of myself and you take care of yourself then we are both taken care of. *That* is what competition is about. My win doesn't necessarily mean your failure because life is not a zero-sum game, a mistake the author seems to be making.
Free enterprise zones. I notice that the author doesn't explain why those economically disadvantaged areas existed in the first place but I will tell you why: the employers who left abandoned their cities like Detroit and Flint because the cost of doing business there grew to be too great and those costs were directly attributable to layering too much regulation on the corporations. Corporations exist to make money; you cannot change their fundamental nature so you have to work with what you have. If costs get to be too high because of too much regulation and allowing unions to force unnecessary wage increases on the employer they will close the doors and walk away. A modicum of regulation is necessary--no one wants to return to the good old Railroad Baron days where workers were a dime a dozen and if one died you cleaned up the mess and put someone else to work there the next day. As with many other things, the fact that a little bit does a little bit of good (an after-dinner nightcap) doesn't necessarily mean that a lot will do a lot of good (downing a fifth of vodka).
Absolute rights of private ownership. What the hell? He thinks business owners are going to be robbing or killing people inside the business because the gummint can't tell them what to do inside their own shop? Did he totally miss the fact that personal rights and liberties such as the freedom not to be made a victim trump business owner rights? Or did he carefully ignore that just to fall down the slippery slope? In fact, most of what this author has said has been "slippery slope" thinking; a typicaly tactic when trying to paint the other side in as negative a light as possible.
Oh...a particularly great jest was how he placed responbility for ACA onto the Americna Enterprise Institute. I thought it was a Democrat policy, not the dream of a conservative think tank?
Now that you have read what the other side thinks Libertarians believe, why don't you allow me to tell you what we actually believe. Libertarian thought is a spectrum, not a concretely-defined set of principles to which all Libertarians must adhere lest we be cast out. Yes, there are some who want to do things like abolish the IRS, end all regulations of corporations, and get the government out of our lives even to the point where the State cannot issue a driver's license (the gummint can't tell me that I can drive, gol-darned it) but they are what we call the fringe. They fall into the same category as Democrats who think that taxes aren't nearly high enough (but they never quite say how high or what the rate should be) and that all employees should be unionized or Republicans who think that any abortive procedure or pill is a sin or that if we all got on our knees and prayed for guidance that God would restore our country to greatness.
Libertarians believe that when you work and receive a paycheck the money you receive is yours to do with as you please. Pay your bills or bet it all on black, it is entirely up to you. It isn't the government's money to take as it pleases then give you the change. If you aren't saving for your own future to make it more comfortable or to have a safety net then that is your fault. If you keep improving your skill set and making yourself valuable to employers then you wont *need* unemployment. Getting a job is not a case of sitting by the phone and hoping someone will call you; that is the thought mode of a helpless child and Libertarians do not think adults should act or behave like helpless children.
Libertarians believe that competition allows us to better ourselves. Life isn't a game where you win or lose (in general, that is, because are there ways in which you can indeed "win" or "lose") but a constant competition in which you need to ask yourself daily, "was I a better person today than I was yesterday?". Part of this competition means that I may beat you when applying for job but you might outbid me for the house we both wanted. I "compete" against my colleagues to be the best IT support I can be but that doesn't mean I am going to tear them down in the process--that would be pure stupidity. Only petty, vindictive people tear down their own teammates and call that "competition".
Libertarians do think government should not involve itself in the marketplace when it isn't needed; micromanaging the economy never leads to anything except the need for more micromanaging. The economy is like a cat--yes, it is yours and you may pet it but there are going to be times it doesn't want to have anything to do with you, up to and including hissing at you and scratching. Don't take it personally--if you wait 10 minutes it will be all lovey-dovey again. No amount of government involvement has solved the problems in the economically disadvantaged areas mentioned earlier so the only way to bring jobs back into those areas is to make it attractive to corporations to come back and bring the jobs with them.
I don't even know where to go with that last one; the author was so irrational with it that I almost can't believe they wrote that for publishing. No sane person would engage in criminal activity against his own business patrons, at least not if he wanted to stay in business for a week. A crime against a person is still a crime against a person, whether it happens inside a business or not. Did I really have to reiterate that? That isn't even a Libertarian belief--it is so fundamental that it should be a given. Still...a business belongs to its owner, not the government, and if the business owner doesn't want to serve certain customers then he doesn't have to--word of mouth will kill the business soon enough and perhaps the owner will learn his lesson about turning away paying customers.
Anyway....the the official party platform is here. Like I said, it isn't carved in stone and Libertarians do not have to adhere to it as it is written. If anything, Libertarians like to think for ourselves.
Cail...the reason that Libertarians are being targeted by progressives is because Libertarianism scares progressives. You don't attack something that isn't a threat.
Orlion, what do past wrongs have to do with anything other than to serve as object lessons as to what not to do in the future? (I know it wasn't you but you quoted someone saying that.)
Vraith, the reason that Libertarians seem to be closer to Republicans is simple: in general, Libertarians and Republicans would like small government and to keep government out of the lives of private citizens while Democrats think government should take a greater role is making certain that everyone is taken care of. I say "in general" because Republicans don't really believe that any more--they are not about shrinking government no matter how many times they throw out that particular sound byte.
ussusimiel, Libertarians don't attack the Left; instead, we attack ideas we think are misguided. There are things liberals want which are good--making sure that kids get a decent education or that people have access to affordable health care--but there are also things which liberals want which are bad--unionize everyone or a $15 minimum wage, for example.
I apologize that it took me this long to get here; I saw the thread last night but it was getting late and I have been busy at work this morning. There may be typos in this; I will correct them when I am able to do so.
Consider the opening statement itself, "these four libertarian/conservative dystopias are offered", and you can already tell that the author of these comments has a strong bias against Libertarianism, either because they have read somewhere that Libertarians are bad or because they simply don't understand Libertarianism. Note, also, that the author like to throw out Ayn Rand's name as if she were some unassailable goddess whom Libertarians follow. I have read some of her works, yes, and I like some of the premises she proposes but never forget that Ayn Rand liked to surround herself with sycophants and that she and her husband (the man upon whom John Galt and Henry Rearden are based) had an open relationship. She was also pro-smoking and anti-soybean; we are fully aware of the many benefits soybeans provide these days as well as the dangers of smoking, so Ms. Rand is not the end-all-and-be-all of Libertarian thought. She is, these days, merely an extra rather than a leading actress.
Cutting benefits. Let me propose another question. Can the author--can anyone--name a single person who has risen out of poverty as a result of government help? I don't mean someone who got some student grants to attend community college and get low-cost daycare while they also worked a job and then managed to find a job that paid well, I mean someone who relied solely on government assistance who managed to get out of poverty. If you cannot find an example of this then we must conclude that government benefits do only one thing--keep people in perpetual poverty. It would be a crime for me to take money from one person and give it to another--Robin Hood was still a criminal, even if he gave most of the money away--so why isn't it a crime when the government does it? No, government isn't a person like I am but taking money from me by force is still stealing. My responsibility is primarily to my own family, not society in general, but that doesn't mean that I won't help someone who needs it when I can help.
As far an unemployment benefits are concerned....yes, it is a shame when people lose a job and it can be difficult to find another one but extending unemployement benefits out to an unreasonable length of time like 99 weeks (that is almost two years, you know) will lead to some people deciding that they would rather suckle at the teat than stand on their own and get back into the labor force. If offered a free ride most people would willingly take it but this engenders a psychology of dependency rather than independence.
Although the Social Security program was established at a time when perhaps it really was needed, in the decades since its inception it became a large slush fund and cookie jar the Federal Government has raided whenever it needed some extra money for its current pet project.
Nothing but competition. The author managed to find one example--one--where self-centered competition failed. Well, sure, self-centered competition failed at Sears because each department was trying to run the other departments into the ground. Can you imagine what would happen if a basketball players tried to take the ball away from their own team so they could earn the privilege of scoring a basket? It wasn't competition that failed at Sears; rather, it was the way in which Mr. Lambert misapplied the principles. I was in Academic Decathlon and on the Math/Science teams in high school. I competed against both my fellow students and students on other teams, which means I tried to beat my fellow students *but* I never worked against my own team. Why does the author think that Libertarians would work against their own team? Does the author think Libertarians are stupid or irrational? If take care of myself and you take care of yourself then we are both taken care of. *That* is what competition is about. My win doesn't necessarily mean your failure because life is not a zero-sum game, a mistake the author seems to be making.
Free enterprise zones. I notice that the author doesn't explain why those economically disadvantaged areas existed in the first place but I will tell you why: the employers who left abandoned their cities like Detroit and Flint because the cost of doing business there grew to be too great and those costs were directly attributable to layering too much regulation on the corporations. Corporations exist to make money; you cannot change their fundamental nature so you have to work with what you have. If costs get to be too high because of too much regulation and allowing unions to force unnecessary wage increases on the employer they will close the doors and walk away. A modicum of regulation is necessary--no one wants to return to the good old Railroad Baron days where workers were a dime a dozen and if one died you cleaned up the mess and put someone else to work there the next day. As with many other things, the fact that a little bit does a little bit of good (an after-dinner nightcap) doesn't necessarily mean that a lot will do a lot of good (downing a fifth of vodka).
Absolute rights of private ownership. What the hell? He thinks business owners are going to be robbing or killing people inside the business because the gummint can't tell them what to do inside their own shop? Did he totally miss the fact that personal rights and liberties such as the freedom not to be made a victim trump business owner rights? Or did he carefully ignore that just to fall down the slippery slope? In fact, most of what this author has said has been "slippery slope" thinking; a typicaly tactic when trying to paint the other side in as negative a light as possible.
Oh...a particularly great jest was how he placed responbility for ACA onto the Americna Enterprise Institute. I thought it was a Democrat policy, not the dream of a conservative think tank?
Now that you have read what the other side thinks Libertarians believe, why don't you allow me to tell you what we actually believe. Libertarian thought is a spectrum, not a concretely-defined set of principles to which all Libertarians must adhere lest we be cast out. Yes, there are some who want to do things like abolish the IRS, end all regulations of corporations, and get the government out of our lives even to the point where the State cannot issue a driver's license (the gummint can't tell me that I can drive, gol-darned it) but they are what we call the fringe. They fall into the same category as Democrats who think that taxes aren't nearly high enough (but they never quite say how high or what the rate should be) and that all employees should be unionized or Republicans who think that any abortive procedure or pill is a sin or that if we all got on our knees and prayed for guidance that God would restore our country to greatness.
Libertarians believe that when you work and receive a paycheck the money you receive is yours to do with as you please. Pay your bills or bet it all on black, it is entirely up to you. It isn't the government's money to take as it pleases then give you the change. If you aren't saving for your own future to make it more comfortable or to have a safety net then that is your fault. If you keep improving your skill set and making yourself valuable to employers then you wont *need* unemployment. Getting a job is not a case of sitting by the phone and hoping someone will call you; that is the thought mode of a helpless child and Libertarians do not think adults should act or behave like helpless children.
Libertarians believe that competition allows us to better ourselves. Life isn't a game where you win or lose (in general, that is, because are there ways in which you can indeed "win" or "lose") but a constant competition in which you need to ask yourself daily, "was I a better person today than I was yesterday?". Part of this competition means that I may beat you when applying for job but you might outbid me for the house we both wanted. I "compete" against my colleagues to be the best IT support I can be but that doesn't mean I am going to tear them down in the process--that would be pure stupidity. Only petty, vindictive people tear down their own teammates and call that "competition".
Libertarians do think government should not involve itself in the marketplace when it isn't needed; micromanaging the economy never leads to anything except the need for more micromanaging. The economy is like a cat--yes, it is yours and you may pet it but there are going to be times it doesn't want to have anything to do with you, up to and including hissing at you and scratching. Don't take it personally--if you wait 10 minutes it will be all lovey-dovey again. No amount of government involvement has solved the problems in the economically disadvantaged areas mentioned earlier so the only way to bring jobs back into those areas is to make it attractive to corporations to come back and bring the jobs with them.
I don't even know where to go with that last one; the author was so irrational with it that I almost can't believe they wrote that for publishing. No sane person would engage in criminal activity against his own business patrons, at least not if he wanted to stay in business for a week. A crime against a person is still a crime against a person, whether it happens inside a business or not. Did I really have to reiterate that? That isn't even a Libertarian belief--it is so fundamental that it should be a given. Still...a business belongs to its owner, not the government, and if the business owner doesn't want to serve certain customers then he doesn't have to--word of mouth will kill the business soon enough and perhaps the owner will learn his lesson about turning away paying customers.
Anyway....the the official party platform is here. Like I said, it isn't carved in stone and Libertarians do not have to adhere to it as it is written. If anything, Libertarians like to think for ourselves.
Cail...the reason that Libertarians are being targeted by progressives is because Libertarianism scares progressives. You don't attack something that isn't a threat.
Orlion, what do past wrongs have to do with anything other than to serve as object lessons as to what not to do in the future? (I know it wasn't you but you quoted someone saying that.)
Vraith, the reason that Libertarians seem to be closer to Republicans is simple: in general, Libertarians and Republicans would like small government and to keep government out of the lives of private citizens while Democrats think government should take a greater role is making certain that everyone is taken care of. I say "in general" because Republicans don't really believe that any more--they are not about shrinking government no matter how many times they throw out that particular sound byte.
ussusimiel, Libertarians don't attack the Left; instead, we attack ideas we think are misguided. There are things liberals want which are good--making sure that kids get a decent education or that people have access to affordable health care--but there are also things which liberals want which are bad--unionize everyone or a $15 minimum wage, for example.
I apologize that it took me this long to get here; I saw the thread last night but it was getting late and I have been busy at work this morning. There may be typos in this; I will correct them when I am able to do so.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.