If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reason Magazine)   This year's Libertarian Party convention? Why yes, it did end up being a complete clusterfark   (reason.com) divider line 284
    More: Obvious, political convention, Committee Chairman, two-thirds vote, witness tampering  
•       •       •

4743 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 May 2012 at 8:26 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



284 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-06 10:31:00 AM  

Mayhem of the Black Underclass: cman: Linux_Yes: Good.

Libertarian=Republican hiding under another name.

Thats like someone saying Democrat=Communist hiding under another name

Whenever I talk to LP members I get the feeling that they're saying that the LP is the other Republican Party. You'd have to go to the alliance for the libertarian left to hear about old dems who got sick of their party line.


Well, the LP was founded by people that walked out of the RP over Nixons nomination. But there is a large contingent of folks like me that came in from the left, concerned of civil liberties and personal rights issues. They are the ones concerned mostly over issues like the War on Drugs, legalizing sex-work, free speech, freedom of and from religion, women's rights etc.

Not that these get covered by the media much, they prefer to keep portraying the LP as radical right-wing free marketers and pissed off refugees from the RP. Covering the entire spectrum of LP issues is too much work, easier to keep them one-dimensional so they can be the good-guy or bad-guy as the reporter needs.
 
2012-05-06 10:32:53 AM  

cman: Linux_Yes: Wyalt Derp: Libertarians apparently know exactly what they don't want, but have no clue what they do want.

cash. lots and lots of it. and you'd better not require them to follow any rules of the game.

You and I may not agree on much, but I still kinda like ya


Enjoy your free month of TF



dude, you shouldn't have, but i appreciate it. (: the odd thing is that i'm conservative in alot of ways. fiscally, for example. i believe in free markets and limited government, even though socially i'm progressive. what i can't stand is these mega news outlets (owned by big business no doubt) spreading "news" that favors their agenda instead of giving unbiased news. History has shown over and over, you cannot have a Democratic system if there is no free (as in Freedom) and independent press. this Nation's citizens are at each others throats because they are not getting unbiased news. and the Owners like it that way because, like crooks, they can continue robbing this Country blind as long as everyone is distracted and at each others throats.
 
2012-05-06 10:35:51 AM  
As an Anarchist, I'm insulted by the comparison.

Let this be an example to those who think Consensus is convoluted and slow.
 
2012-05-06 10:36:35 AM  
I was a Libertarian right up to the day my next-door neighbor decided to be a pig farmer.
 
2012-05-06 10:37:12 AM  

Mayhem of the Black Underclass: Whenever I talk to LP members I get the feeling that they're saying that the LP is the other Republican Party. You'd have to go to the alliance for the libertarian left to hear about old dems who got sick of their party line.


Anyone I know who says they're libertarian listen nothing but Rush on the radio, vote straight party Republican, blame Obama and Liberals for everything, know few basic facts about what's going on in the country, and get visibly angry when discussing politics.
 
2012-05-06 10:38:58 AM  
So basically, the most sensible candidate for president is being nominated by the Libertarians. woohoo!!!
 
2012-05-06 10:41:11 AM  

coco ebert: clambam: I recommended the Libertarians to my brother, who is too sensible to vote for Romney and too racist to vote for Obama.

My brother never follows the news and doesn't even know who's running. Neither he nor your brother should be voting.

Informed citizenry and all that.


Perhaps you're right, but I'm personally opposed to any attempt under any circumstance to disenfranchise anyone for any reason in this country. Hell, I'm even opposed to disenfranchising convicted felons. They might be an important demographic for determining who not to vote for. My brother may end up holding his nose and voting for Romney--a lot of people are going to do that, to vote for a guy they know simply doesn't have what it takes to be president, for political reasons or out of racism--but that is his prerogative. He lives in NC too, so his vote actually means something.
 
2012-05-06 10:41:24 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: Mayhem of the Black Underclass: Whenever I talk to LP members I get the feeling that they're saying that the LP is the other Republican Party. You'd have to go to the alliance for the libertarian left to hear about old dems who got sick of their party line.

Anyone I know who says they're libertarian listen nothing but Rush on the radio, vote straight party Republican, blame Obama and Liberals for everything, know few basic facts about what's going on in the country, and get visibly angry when discussing politics.


Are they also white men?
 
2012-05-06 10:42:17 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: Mayhem of the Black Underclass: Whenever I talk to LP members I get the feeling that they're saying that the LP is the other Republican Party. You'd have to go to the alliance for the libertarian left to hear about old dems who got sick of their party line.

Anyone I know who says they're libertarian listen nothing but Rush on the radio, vote straight party Republican, blame Obama and Liberals for everything, know few basic facts about what's going on in the country, and get visibly angry when discussing politics.


Hi, I can't stand Rush, think most of the Republicans need to be voted out, and have proven myself on this site many times. I also think the war on Drugs, police abuse and our current war culture is the biggest problems in this country. The fear coming from the left over guns are foolish.
 
2012-05-06 10:43:32 AM  
Libertarians just want America to be mainly ruled without laws. They like to look to their own advantage rather than that of the governed.

You know, tyrants.
 
2012-05-06 10:46:28 AM  

clambam: Libertarians: want to let the country fall apart and the world go to hell, on principle


I think this is my problem with Libertarians. I find Small Governmentism* in general to be very rigid in its ideology to the point where any minor compromise seems to undermine or debunk its philosophy, so I find Libertarians are apt to say "fark it, let the world burn because we don't deserve it" rather than compromise on their positions.


*which is not to imply that I am advocating Big Government, just that I recognise how the government can be utilised. I would trust someone who would admit that government has its uses even in minor doses than one who will not admit that.
 
2012-05-06 10:48:38 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: Mayhem of the Black Underclass: Whenever I talk to LP members I get the feeling that they're saying that the LP is the other Republican Party. You'd have to go to the alliance for the libertarian left to hear about old dems who got sick of their party line.

Anyone I know who says they're libertarian listen nothing but Rush on the radio, vote straight party Republican, blame Obama and Liberals for everything, know few basic facts about what's going on in the country, and get visibly angry when discussing politics.


Then you do not know any Libertarians, just people that think the term is cool so they adopt it without realizing what it really means.

But then, you being in Texas, most people are probably more to the right than in other parts of the country. I'll bet the Democrats in Texas are for more to the right than Democrats in, say, Madison Wi., Boston or NYC.

Check out the LP convention. I do not know if C-Span covered it this year, but how many national political conventions have a cross-dressing guy in fishnets and heels on the convention floor, or even on the national board? That is, if Starchild is there again. Luckily he has the legs for the fishnets. Or someone in an openly gay couple in the leadership. Whathisname a former national treasurer I met in Indy was such a person.

There are far more folks like that in the LP, and In the LP leadership than I am aware of in either the DP or the RP.
 
2012-05-06 10:51:16 AM  

Wyalt Derp: Libertarians apparently know exactly what they don't want, but have no clue what they do want.


Hen fap!
 
2012-05-06 10:51:45 AM  

Jackson Herring: Rann Xerox: Was Ron Paul there?

[i.imgur.com image 640x383]

PAUL/TORG 2012


Nothing can stop TORG!
 
2012-05-06 10:55:09 AM  

coco ebert: Satanic_Hamster: Mayhem of the Black Underclass: Whenever I talk to LP members I get the feeling that they're saying that the LP is the other Republican Party. You'd have to go to the alliance for the libertarian left to hear about old dems who got sick of their party line.

Anyone I know who says they're libertarian listen nothing but Rush on the radio, vote straight party Republican, blame Obama and Liberals for everything, know few basic facts about what's going on in the country, and get visibly angry when discussing politics.

Are they also white men?


He said they listen to nothing but Rush on the radio. Does anyone but White guys listen to Rush. Either one, group or gasbag.
 
2012-05-06 10:58:36 AM  
Is this due to an influx of teatards who think they are libertarian?
 
2012-05-06 11:04:55 AM  

LarryDan43: Is this due to an influx of teatards who think they are libertarian?


Gary Johnson is no teatard.
 
2012-05-06 11:05:00 AM  

dugitman: Being a friend of Mark Rutherford, I'm getting a kick...

[sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net image 640x480]

Seriously though, I'm not sure what all this is about, but Mark is a good guy to have a beer and conversation with. He's not one of those overbearing Libs that argue for the sake of arguing. He mostly listens and asks questions. Probably why they started flinging poo over him being leader.


Sounds like a terrible leader. I know I hate it when my manager asks me questions and listens to what I have to say. I prefer him to proclaim "I'm the decider" and bark commands at everyone; now that's the mark of a true leader.

And if I was GOP, I wouldn't be kidding.
 
2012-05-06 11:08:07 AM  

meehaw: I used to respect the libertarian philosophy as being cohesive and consistent, but now I find it terribly unnuanced and prone to severely reductionist thinking, that tends to cut off the nose despite the face. Again, those friends of mine who are Libertarian cannot but get angry when politics is the subject, and that's the only subject that they want to broach. So that leads me to believe that they just like being angry.


The Libertarian response to every argument: "That's fine in practice, but in theory it just won't work."
 
2012-05-06 11:08:52 AM  

clambam: coco ebert: clambam: I recommended the Libertarians to my brother, who is too sensible to vote for Romney and too racist to vote for Obama.

My brother never follows the news and doesn't even know who's running. Neither he nor your brother should be voting.

Informed citizenry and all that.

Perhaps you're right, but I'm personally opposed to any attempt under any circumstance to disenfranchise anyone for any reason in this country. Hell, I'm even opposed to disenfranchising convicted felons. They might be an important demographic for determining who not to vote for. My brother may end up holding his nose and voting for Romney--a lot of people are going to do that, to vote for a guy they know simply doesn't have what it takes to be president, for political reasons or out of racism--but that is his prerogative. He lives in NC too, so his vote actually means something.


Oh, sure. I'm not for disenfranchising either, and I think felons who have served their time should be allowed to vote as well. I just think that some people would be wise to reconsider voting. At least my brother openly admits that he doesn't know enough to vote. Ah well, even "informed" voters aren't always so I guess.
 
2012-05-06 11:08:56 AM  
My problem with the Libertarian Party is that half of what they espouse is completely reasonable and I agree with it almost completely. The other half is entirely antithetical to my entire core belief system. So as much as I want to support their anti-authoritarian platforms, I simply can't vote for them.
 
2012-05-06 11:09:34 AM  

globalwarmingpraiser: LarryDan43: Is this due to an influx of teatards who think they are libertarian?

Gary Johnson is no teatard.


He did support the abortion that is Paul Ryan's budget plan...so there's that...
 
2012-05-06 11:10:50 AM  
You Gotta Fight for Your Party To the Right
 
2012-05-06 11:14:11 AM  
I would imagine the ballot and the sign-in list would be identical and the candidates would be tied with one vote each.
 
2012-05-06 11:15:57 AM  

Mrtraveler01: globalwarmingpraiser: LarryDan43: Is this due to an influx of teatards who think they are libertarian?

Gary Johnson is no teatard.

He did support the abortion that is Paul Ryan's budget plan...so there's that...


He is going to support anything that leads to a balanced budget and less government. He is also the only one I know that has shrunk a government while increasing individual freedom and balancing a budget. Without hurting anyone. He also came out for massively cutting our military, ending the War in Afghanistan, ending the war on drugs, is pro-choice, and pro gay marraige. Horrible guy.
 
2012-05-06 11:18:11 AM  

globalwarmingpraiser: He is going to support anything that leads to a balanced budget and less government


So he actually believed that Paul Ryan's budget plan would do that.

LOL
 
2012-05-06 11:20:54 AM  

DarnoKonrad: starsrift: DarnoKonrad: Reminds me of Penn Jillette's "Big Think" videos on YouTube. In one of them he implicitly suggests he'd rather be objectively correct than cooperate on common goals with people who are not -- this attitude is rampant among libertarians. And they some how see this as a virtue, rather than a glaring weakness.

Is "objectively" the correct adverb you intended to use? Subjectively would make more sense. Otherwise it seems you are putting forward the notion of standing by one's principles is a weakness.


"Common goals" is the operative context here. Whether you believe in evolution or not is not going to get in the way of me agreeing on unemployment insurance. It would for Mr. Jillette. Because you're wrong. See what I'm saying?


I saw him make a similar comment in the "Penn Says" series where he essentially put forward his position that he wouldn't support the whole "let's work together" attitude after the '08 elections because he didn't agree with the Democrats. The fact that the rallying cry was to mend fences at home and internationally and get the country moving forward was secondary, hell even tertiary to his belief that his philosophy is the correct one and because of that he doesn't have to help out.
 
2012-05-06 11:21:55 AM  

Mrtraveler01: globalwarmingpraiser: He is going to support anything that leads to a balanced budget and less government

So he actually believed that Paul Ryan's budget plan would do that.

LOL


It at least attempted to address it. also he was running for the Republican Nom.
 
2012-05-06 11:26:25 AM  

globalwarmingpraiser: Mrtraveler01: globalwarmingpraiser: He is going to support anything that leads to a balanced budget and less government

So he actually believed that Paul Ryan's budget plan would do that.

LOL

It at least attempted to address it


Pretty poorly I might add.
 
2012-05-06 11:30:13 AM  

FeedTheCollapse: clambam: Libertarians: want to let the country fall apart and the world go to hell, on principle

I think this is my problem with Libertarians. I find Small Governmentism* in general to be very rigid in its ideology to the point where any minor compromise seems to undermine or debunk its philosophy, so I find Libertarians are apt to say "fark it, let the world burn because we don't deserve it" rather than compromise on their positions.


*which is not to imply that I am advocating Big Government, just that I recognise how the government can be utilised. I would trust someone who would admit that government has its uses even in minor doses than one who will not admit that.


The problem between the two of you is that the libertarian really doesn't think the world is going to burn if nothing gets done, but thinks that even a "compromised" govt solution is worse than the govt doing nothing.

Take the TARP - before it was instituted, Obama was saying "if we don't DO SOMETHING, unemployment will hit 8%!!!!1!!!". Well, they did TARP - unemployment, by the govt's own numbers, hit close to 10%. But today they still say "well we saved the economy!"

A libertarian see this and says: If you would have done nothing, GM and some big banks would have had to go bankrupt. Some people would have lost their jobs, and unemployment may have hit 8%. But then the old creditors would have been able to reinvest in production and hire new workers, and the whole "downturn" would have lasted a year, maybe two.

It's the difference between letting the undergrowth burn off in a controlled burn and handing an arsonist a "compromised" half-full flame thrower.
 
2012-05-06 11:33:48 AM  

tomWright: Maybe if both testicles fluoresced you could see the light.


Says he who apparently saw "Liberal" and thought "Democrat." I don't subscribe to any party.

tomWright: They are the ones concerned mostly over issues like the War on Drugs, legalizing sex-work, free speech, freedom of and from religion, women's rights etc.


I would absolutely love to see a politician in a position of power - Libertarian, Democratic, Republican or whatever - draught legislation or make a speech espousing any of these positions, all of which I strongly agree with and support, but it hasn't happened yet. Or, if it has happened, I haven't seen it - would you happen to have any links for me to read? No, RON PAUL's "I want to legalise marijuana but shut down every-farking-thing else" schtick doesn't count, because I'm not an idiot.
 
2012-05-06 11:37:04 AM  
My largest problem with the Libertarians is that the ethos that they espouse essentially leads to a form of Neo-Feudalism. While they may wave the flag of liberty and the strength of the citizen, essentially it all leads to a place where strongmen will be created, and their backers will have their protection, and everyone else can go hang. It is a nice ideal, that in the current policy positions leads to really crappy execution.

Communism sounds fair when you look at equality and fraternity, but let's face it, the execution has really sucked. Libertarians have a grand vision, that entirely ignores human nature, in the same way that Communism tends to ignore reality.

I can understand the reasoning. I can understand the desire. I can understand the ideal that they would like to work towards. But the unrealistic goals set, and the legislation that they endorse doesn't lead to those ideals. It leads to a tribalism that equates money and power with right and good, and that is a lousy way to set up liberty.

At some point you have to look at the ideal and realize that execution is important. Ideology has to give way to pragmatism, especially when dealing with a 3rd of a billion people. Their ideal goes back to principles of governing not in a modern industrialized society, nor as interconnected as economies are today.

I appreciate the sentiment that Libertarians try for. Their execution, and often the incipient disdain for those around them stains those ideals though. You cannot form an effective government if you don't respect the populace, you just form a government that seeks control, and that sort of defeats the ideal...
 
2012-05-06 11:38:09 AM  

dugitman: He mostly listens and asks questions. Probably why they started flinging poo over him being leader.

meehaw: I used to respect the libertarian philosophy as being cohesive and consistent, but now I find it terribly unnuanced and prone to severely reductionist thinking, that tends to cut off the nose despite the face


...so, the Libertarians may be falling to the same Quest For Ideological Purity that the GOP is?
 
2012-05-06 11:39:49 AM  

Lackofname: Some of these are basically the same thing, but, relevant:

[www.leftycartoons.com image 640x960]


You may laugh but this was obliquely mentioned at the convention. One of the guys stumping for Wrights stated how there are various factions within the party including the stoners.
 
2012-05-06 11:47:24 AM  
A party full of naive trust-fund babies and neo-Confederate scumbags had a fight about which fairy tales they wanted to push for all seven of their supporters this year.

Exciting.
 
2012-05-06 11:49:14 AM  

hubiestubert: I appreciate the sentiment that Libertarians try for.


I don't. Pretending that externalities (and Free Riding) don't exist IRL is absurd and yields horrifying policy. They're a farking joke.

/the only thing that makes them better than commies is that they defend civil liberties
//otherwise they're merely the flipside of the same dipshiat coin
 
2012-05-06 11:53:51 AM  

hubiestubert: My largest problem with the Libertarians is that the ethos that they espouse essentially leads to a form of Neo-Feudalism. While they may wave the flag of liberty and the strength of the citizen, essentially it all leads to a place where strongmen will be created, and their backers will have their protection, and everyone else can go hang. It is a nice ideal, that in the current policy positions leads to really crappy execution.

Communism sounds fair when you look at equality and fraternity, but let's face it, the execution has really sucked. Libertarians have a grand vision, that entirely ignores human nature, in the same way that Communism tends to ignore reality.

I can understand the reasoning. I can understand the desire. I can understand the ideal that they would like to work towards. But the unrealistic goals set, and the legislation that they endorse doesn't lead to those ideals. It leads to a tribalism that equates money and power with right and good, and that is a lousy way to set up liberty.

At some point you have to look at the ideal and realize that execution is important. Ideology has to give way to pragmatism, especially when dealing with a 3rd of a billion people. Their ideal goes back to principles of governing not in a modern industrialized society, nor as interconnected as economies are today.

I appreciate the sentiment that Libertarians try for. Their execution, and often the incipient disdain for those around them stains those ideals though. You cannot form an effective government if you don't respect the populace, you just form a government that seeks control, and that sort of defeats the ideal...


Yeah, let's avoid that situation where "strongmen" will control life by instituting a monopoly of strongmen to control life...
 
2012-05-06 11:54:51 AM  

RickyWilliams'sBong: A party full of naive trust-fund babies and neo-Confederate scumbags had a fight about which fairy tales they wanted to push for all seven of their supporters this year.

Exciting.


How is that different than the GOP or Dems, except for size?
 
2012-05-06 12:01:50 PM  

iawai: RickyWilliams'sBong: A party full of naive trust-fund babies and neo-Confederate scumbags had a fight about which fairy tales they wanted to push for all seven of their supporters this year.

Exciting.

How is that different than the GOP or Dems, except for size?


Both parties are bad so RON PAUL?
 
2012-05-06 12:06:25 PM  

gameshowhost: hubiestubert: I appreciate the sentiment that Libertarians try for.

I don't. Pretending that externalities (and Free Riding) don't exist IRL is absurd and yields horrifying policy. They're a farking joke.

/the only thing that makes them better than commies is that they defend civil liberties
//otherwise they're merely the flipside of the same dipshiat coin


What bothers me is the lack of any sort of understanding of the consequences for implementing the policies that they say that they want. These are folks who hold liberty up as a sort of fetish to hold the Commies and Socialists at bay, but don't truly understand what the realization of this ideal will actually mean. It is a naive politics that ignores anything grounded in reality, and demands respect for having their hearts in the right place, while advocating disastrous public policy that will crush the republic, and nail the coffin on the nation, and any sort of real liberty.

I can understand the disgust the the current system has engendered. I can understand wanting to try something new, and with the idea of getting rid of the waste and corruption, but their idea would only make that corruption go away by making legal all the things that chip away our liberty, and make them institutional in a way that even today's standards would gasp at. It isn't any way to insure liberty, and it isn't any way to run a nation.
 
2012-05-06 12:10:48 PM  

Flappyhead: iawai: RickyWilliams'sBong: A party full of naive trust-fund babies and neo-Confederate scumbags had a fight about which fairy tales they wanted to push for all seven of their supporters this year.

Exciting.

How is that different than the GOP or Dems, except for size?

Both parties are bad so RON PAUL?


I voted for RP in both the 08 and 12 primaries. But the logic isn't "Both parties are bad => RP."

If that were the case I might as well just vote for the Greens or the Theocrats Constitution Party.

But the real logic, for me, is that the govt is nothing but a group of people that usurps the subjective judgments of the people it claims to represent, and replaces it with some hybrid of the judgements of the oligarchy and mob-rule. There is no escaping that conclusion. To that end, to better allow each individual a better realization of their subjective wants and goals, the govt must be strictly limited, if it is to exist as a monopoly at all.

Therefore someone like RP, despite his faults, is closest to what I want to see in someone to sit as the govt's executive office (i.e. president).

But I'm not here defending Paul.
 
2012-05-06 12:12:40 PM  

iawai: A libertarian see this and says: If you would have done nothing, GM and some big banks would have had to go bankrupt. Some people would have lost their jobs, and unemployment may have hit 8%. But then the old creditors would have been able to reinvest in production and hire new workers, and the whole "downturn" would have lasted a year, maybe two.

It's the difference between letting the undergrowth burn off in a controlled burn and handing an arsonist a "compromised" half-full flame thrower.


Somehow the libertarians and republicans in michigan that I talk to have gotten it in their minds that within a maximum of six months the banks would have restructured, the housing market rebounded, and the car companies restructured, had there been no TARP.

Apparently the free market would have been so awesome that throwing money at the failing areas not only was a long-term bad idea (which I can understand that view) but also devastating in the short term. And, despite the three areas not failing at the exact same time, somehow they all had their six-month recovery time clock synced up right in-line for Obama. But don't you tell them they're racist, even the one who is against interracial marriage.

/don't want to live on this planet anymore
 
2012-05-06 12:13:50 PM  

gameshowhost: hubiestubert: I appreciate the sentiment that Libertarians try for.

I don't. Pretending that externalities (and Free Riding) don't exist IRL is absurd and yields horrifying policy. They're a farking joke.

/the only thing that makes them better than commies is that they defend civil liberties
//otherwise they're merely the flipside of the same dipshiat coin


Externalities and Free Riding do exist. But where's your proof that a monopoly state is a preferable solution to those problems?
 
2012-05-06 12:14:35 PM  

hubiestubert: My largest problem with the Libertarians is that the ethos that they espouse essentially leads to a form of Neo-Feudalism. While they may wave the flag of liberty and the strength of the citizen, essentially it all leads to a place where strongmen will be created, and their backers will have their protection, and everyone else can go hang.


All Libertarians imagine that they will somehow end up being the warlords and business tycoons, and not the serfs and raped villagers.
 
2012-05-06 12:17:40 PM  

cman: Wyalt Derp: Libertarians apparently know exactly what they don't want, but have no clue what they do want.

We want Peas!


We already gave Peas a chance.
 
2012-05-06 12:19:03 PM  

stiletto_the_wise: hubiestubert: My largest problem with the Libertarians is that the ethos that they espouse essentially leads to a form of Neo-Feudalism. While they may wave the flag of liberty and the strength of the citizen, essentially it all leads to a place where strongmen will be created, and their backers will have their protection, and everyone else can go hang.

All Libertarians imagine that they will somehow end up being the warlords and business tycoons, and not the serfs and raped villagers.


All Statist imagine that they are the govt, that they control their own lives, and that they have some input to what the current warlords and business tycoons do through their infinitesimal democratic voice. But they are just the serfs and raped villagers.

So the question becomes: are there more serfs and raped villagers in a statist system, or a libertarian one? And how is it determined who are the masters and who are the serfs?
 
2012-05-06 12:21:14 PM  

hubiestubert: My largest problem with the Libertarians is that the ethos that they espouse essentially leads to a form of Neo-Feudalism. While they may wave the flag of liberty and the strength of the citizen, essentially it all leads to a place where strongmen will be created, and their backers will have their protection, and everyone else can go hang. It is a nice ideal, that in the current policy positions leads to really crappy execution.

Communism sounds fair when you look at equality and fraternity, but let's face it, the execution has really sucked. Libertarians have a grand vision, that entirely ignores human nature, in the same way that Communism tends to ignore reality.

I can understand the reasoning. I can understand the desire. I can understand the ideal that they would like to work towards. But the unrealistic goals set, and the legislation that they endorse doesn't lead to those ideals. It leads to a tribalism that equates money and power with right and good, and that is a lousy way to set up liberty.

At some point you have to look at the ideal and realize that execution is important. Ideology has to give way to pragmatism, especially when dealing with a 3rd of a billion people. Their ideal goes back to principles of governing not in a modern industrialized society, nor as interconnected as economies are today.

I appreciate the sentiment that Libertarians try for. Their execution, and often the incipient disdain for those around them stains those ideals though. You cannot form an effective government if you don't respect the populace, you just form a government that seeks control, and that sort of defeats the ideal...


And when you tell them this, they pull an about-face and scream some rubbish about not being against ALL regulations and enforcement. Which ones are they for? Nobody really knows, but they are absolutely sure that if libertarians were completely in charge we'd end up with exactly the right amount some how. Then a few platitudes get trotted out that are supposed to explain everything. We all agree on platitudes.

Hell, republican leadership disgusts me right now, and when they aren't talking about specifics, at least half the shiat they say sounds good. "I like jobs" "don't stifle businesses with regulation" "Freedom!" "go working class!" "its annoying to pay taxes for things you don't want", etc etc. That's all good stuff, but it really doesn't mean anything when your liking of jobs entails claiming that a reverse robin-hood policy will create bunches of great ones. When your 'don't stifle business' is an excuse to let them run wild and set them further above the law.

I know everyone is an individual and will fall into their own specific place on issues, but honestly if libertarians were in charge I have no idea what we'd have left.
 
2012-05-06 12:21:55 PM  

iawai: So the question becomes: are there more serfs and raped villagers in a statist system, or a libertarian one? And how is it determined who are the masters and who are the serfs?


Let me guess... "Pure Libertarianism has never been tried in reality, therefore we don't know, therefore we should assume a best case figure!"
 
2012-05-06 12:22:40 PM  

Smackledorfer: iawai: A libertarian see this and says: If you would have done nothing, GM and some big banks would have had to go bankrupt. Some people would have lost their jobs, and unemployment may have hit 8%. But then the old creditors would have been able to reinvest in production and hire new workers, and the whole "downturn" would have lasted a year, maybe two.

It's the difference between letting the undergrowth burn off in a controlled burn and handing an arsonist a "compromised" half-full flame thrower.

Somehow the libertarians and republicans in michigan that I talk to have gotten it in their minds that within a maximum of six months the banks would have restructured, the housing market rebounded, and the car companies restructured, had there been no TARP.

Apparently the free market would have been so awesome that throwing money at the failing areas not only was a long-term bad idea (which I can understand that view) but also devastating in the short term. And, despite the three areas not failing at the exact same time, somehow they all had their six-month recovery time clock synced up right in-line for Obama. But don't you tell them they're racist, even the one who is against interracial marriage.

/don't want to live on this planet anymore


There are libertarians and then there are Libertarians. This was also mentioned at the convention. The fake libertarians of the Republican party and even some fakes within the Libertarian party are making us real Libertarians look bad.
 
2012-05-06 12:23:33 PM  
If they cannot count to 600, why should anyone take them seriously?
 
Displayed 50 of 284 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report