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.

(CNN)   After the Democratic and Republican conventions, the Libertarians now get the spotlight   (cnn.com) divider line 135
    More: Interesting, Somalia, al-Shabab, Republican convention, transitional government, African Union  
•       •       •

1106 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Sep 2012 at 8:41 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-10 10:33:33 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Dr Dreidel: *offer not valid nationwide for black people and women

Ahhhh yes. When all else fails narrow it down to slavery...which ended in 1863 (65 if you want to split hairs).


or 1995 if you really want to split
 
2012-09-10 10:36:03 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Dancin_In_Anson: Philip Francis Queeg: Please identify one society in human history that has met your definition of "Libertarian".

The United States of America through the 19th century.

What "Libertarian" looks like to DIA.

[www.sjsapush.com image 295x340]http://www.continuetolearn.uiowa.edu/laborctr/child_labor/img/ break er_ boys.jpg [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 154x176][www.bluecorncomics.com image 550x313][www.novanumismatics.com image 210x210]


You say that like he doesn't approve of shooting striking workers.
 
2012-09-10 10:36:43 AM
good one subby. The rest of you who say it in earnestness, you're stupid
 
2012-09-10 10:39:26 AM

skullkrusher: good one subby. The rest of you who say it in earnestness, you're stupid


Well come on now. When using your massive intellect as a standard, pretty much everyone is stupid.

How is that dark matter research going by the way?
 
2012-09-10 10:40:30 AM

sprawl15: The silliest thing about libertarianism is that it doesn't take into account the concept of information asymmetry. It assumes every contract will be entered into by two perfectly informed parties, and uses the tension between these parties to form a stable web of interdependence.


More broadly, it assumes that all actors are perfectly rational in the exact same ways. It ignores the fact that people act much more out of emotion, custom, instinct, and any number of non-rational motivations, than out of their trite Enlightenment notion of "reason."

We need to give up this notion that people are "rational," or at least we need to dramatically alter how we think about that term. Behavioral psychology provides a much better framework for incorporating human beings into political theory.
 
2012-09-10 10:43:43 AM

BeesNuts: That's a gross oversimplification of Libertarianism. In the headline? Funny. In your post? Weird.It's about decentralization of government. Which is crazy in some of its own special ways, but it's not "turn this biatch out and let's get all Somalia on these muf'ks." It's more: you have more control over your local government than you do over national government because your vote is less diffuse. So by decentralizing government power and granting more power to those entities you have direct control over, you are effectively made more free and more empowered in self-governance."


Aren't you describing Localism and not Libertarianism?

Both have big gaping holes of course - localism is a cause of huge amounts of inefficiency and problems in the US, as laws change every few miles you drive, meaning you can be arrested for something that was legal at the beginning and end of a short journey, and its not really practical to investigate the laws of everywhere you might ever need to travel. You also get a lot of race to the bottom issues - as per states with the most relaxed laws attract lots of corporations to incorporate and/or fight legal battles there, or the same happens with taxes and all the roads and other infrastructure decays, or the same thing on corporate taxes, etc.

Libertarianism (at least the main US version of it) mostly seems to suggest getting the government to not do things the government has proved historically to be much better at than the free market (such as ensure a minimum level of education for all, social security, universal healthcare).
 
2012-09-10 10:47:12 AM
And by "spotlight," they mean someone's using a flashlight with half-dead D-cell batteries.
 
2012-09-10 10:49:36 AM
+1
 
2012-09-10 10:51:45 AM

BeesNuts: It's about decentralization of government. Which is crazy in some of its own special ways, but it's not "turn this biatch out and let's get all Somalia on these muf'ks." It's more: you have more control over your local government than you do over national government because your vote is less diffuse. So by decentralizing government power and granting more power to those entities you have direct control over, you are effectively made more free and more empowered in self-governance."

Which is a fancy way of saying "you could vote for Somalia if you wanted, but it's gonna be confined to your shiatty little neighborhood... with any luck."


I'm OK with that, except when it comes to things that involve equal rights. A person should be treated with the same level of dignity and respect no matter which shiathole of a state he goes to. Ideally, that "level" should be pretty high.
 
2012-09-10 10:53:58 AM
Still nothing of substance.

The ignorance of the Libertarian philosophy is staggering yet not surprising. Especially when vilified by people like GAT who need to be controlled...to be told what to do and when to do it. Freedom is a very scary thing isn't it?
 
2012-09-10 10:54:48 AM

Tor_Eckman: skullkrusher: good one subby. The rest of you who say it in earnestness, you're stupid

Well come on now. When using your massive intellect as a standard, pretty much everyone is stupid.

How is that dark matter research going by the way?


stupid and unfunny. The gods were cruel to you
 
2012-09-10 10:55:32 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: Yes, that's the dictionary definition.


Which is the definition we should be using.

Fluorescent Testicle: However, we're talking about the Republican definition here.


And by playing that silly game, all you're doing is reinforcing the connection in people's minds between "limited government" and anarchism, exploitation, and oligarchy. It's for this reason that people who advocate things like fiscal conservatism and limited government on Fark get immediately labeled as sociopaths, racists, and puppets of the 1%. It only serves to polarize the discussion further. Of course, you see the same sort of redefining of terms from the Right: advocate a public safety net of any kind and you're liable to be labeled a "socialist".

Long story short, words have meanings, and we should resist the temptation to redefine them when it is politically convenient.
 
2012-09-10 10:55:49 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Still nothing of substance.



Usually I'm paraphrasing when I type this. Not this time.


/I keed, DIA. Don't go changin'...
 
2012-09-10 10:58:40 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Still nothing of substance.

The ignorance of the Libertarian philosophy is staggering yet not surprising. Especially when vilified by people like GAT who need to be controlled...to be told what to do and when to do it. Freedom is a very scary thing isn't it?


Slavery, a minor detail of no substance.

Genocide, a minor detail of no substance.

Institutionalized discrimination, a minor detail of no substance

Corporate oppression of worker's rights, a minor detail of no substance.
 
2012-09-10 11:01:07 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Dancin_In_Anson: Still nothing of substance.

The ignorance of the Libertarian philosophy is staggering yet not surprising. Especially when vilified by people like GAT who need to be controlled...to be told what to do and when to do it. Freedom is a very scary thing isn't it?

Slavery, a minor detail of no substance.

Genocide, a minor detail of no substance.

Institutionalized discrimination, a minor detail of no substance

Corporate oppression of worker's rights, a minor detail of no substance.


qua?
 
2012-09-10 11:01:15 AM

Koalacaust: Fluorescent Testicle: However, we're talking about the Republican definition here.

And by playing that silly game, all you're doing is reinforcing the connection in people's minds between "limited government" and anarchism, exploitation, and oligarchy. It's for this reason that people who advocate things like fiscal conservatism and limited government on Fark get immediately labeled as sociopaths, racists, and puppets of the 1%. It only serves to polarize the discussion further. Of course, you see the same sort of redefining of terms from the Right: advocate a public safety net of any kind and you're liable to be labeled a "socialist".


Problem is, though the "limited government" desired by the Republicans is different than the one desired by the Libertarians, they both make the same fundamental mistakes. Neither of them takes into account that people are - and will always be - assholes to the best of their ability. By disregarding that fundamental flaw, the only possible result is exploitative oligarchy, with a possibility of a pit stop at an anarchic hellhole along the way.

There is a place to discuss small government, but the idea that government action is inherently bad for society is directly at odds with the entire history of humanity.
 
2012-09-10 11:01:35 AM
I feel like I'm being taunted by a child that's screaming at me that I need to do what they want.
 
2012-09-10 11:02:15 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Dr Dreidel: *offer not valid nationwide for black people and women

Ahhhh yes. When all else fails narrow it down to slavery...which ended in 1863 (65 if you want to split hairs).


So when you replied "19th Century America" when prompted to " identify one society in human history that has met your definition of 'Libertarian'", what you really mean was: "post-Civil War America, 1863-1900", when black people weren't LEGALLY disenfranchised (except where they were - the 13th Amendment wasn't ratified until 1865, the 14th in 1868, and the 15th, which guarantees the right to vote, until 1870) - and women still couldn't vote in all 50 states?

Google the phrase "Jim Crow", then get back to me. The Civil War's end didn't magically heal the legal and "legal" racism in the country.

// and BTW, 1863-1900 isn't even most of the 19th century
 
2012-09-10 11:02:29 AM

sprawl15: There is a place to discuss small government, but the idea that government action is inherently bad for society is directly at odds with the entire history of humanity.


which is why you never go full libertarian
 
2012-09-10 11:02:58 AM

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Dancin_In_Anson: Still nothing of substance.

The ignorance of the Libertarian philosophy is staggering yet not surprising. Especially when vilified by people like GAT who need to be controlled...to be told what to do and when to do it. Freedom is a very scary thing isn't it?

Slavery, a minor detail of no substance.

Genocide, a minor detail of no substance.

Institutionalized discrimination, a minor detail of no substance

Corporate oppression of worker's rights, a minor detail of no substance.

qua?


Read the thread.
 
2012-09-10 11:05:07 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Dancin_In_Anson: Still nothing of substance.

The ignorance of the Libertarian philosophy is staggering yet not surprising. Especially when vilified by people like GAT who need to be controlled...to be told what to do and when to do it. Freedom is a very scary thing isn't it?

Slavery, a minor detail of no substance.

Genocide, a minor detail of no substance.

Institutionalized discrimination, a minor detail of no substance

Corporate oppression of worker's rights, a minor detail of no substance.

qua?

Read the thread.


sorry, I didn't account for to whom you were responding
 
2012-09-10 11:06:27 AM

GAT_00: I feel like I'm being taunted by a child that's screaming at me that I need to do what they want.


Oh, you've had to negotiate with John Boehner, too?
 
2012-09-10 11:07:32 AM
The major party I belong to might have some really stupid ideas, but at least they are popular.
 
2012-09-10 11:08:05 AM

Snarfangel: The major party I belong to might have some really stupid ideas, but at least they are popular.


Pirate party?
 
2012-09-10 11:08:10 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Slavery, a minor detail of no substance.

Genocide, a minor detail of no substance.

Institutionalized discrimination, a minor detail of no substance

Corporate oppression of worker's rights, a minor detail of no substance.


Because limiting the power of government invariably leads to slavery, genocide, institutionalized discrimination, and corporatism. After all, countries where there are no checks on the power of government are exemplars of civilized societies, right? In fact, I can't think of one example where an out of control government enslaved its population, committed genocide, oppressed a particular demographic, or bolstered the power of corporations.
 
2012-09-10 11:08:36 AM
Koalacaust
I doubt there is a single person on Fark who is not in favor of limited government.

I'm in favor of no government; does that count? Or is that 'limited to zero'?
 
2012-09-10 11:10:41 AM

Snarfangel: The major party I belong to might have some really stupid ideas, but at least they are popular.


img694.imageshack.us
 
2012-09-10 11:10:54 AM

Koalacaust: Philip Francis Queeg: Slavery, a minor detail of no substance.

Genocide, a minor detail of no substance.

Institutionalized discrimination, a minor detail of no substance

Corporate oppression of worker's rights, a minor detail of no substance.

Because limiting the power of government invariably leads to slavery, genocide, institutionalized discrimination, and corporatism. After all, countries where there are no checks on the power of government are exemplars of civilized societies, right? In fact, I can't think of one example where an out of control government enslaved its population, committed genocide, oppressed a particular demographic, or bolstered the power of corporations.


Again, read DIA's posts that were being responded to.
 
2012-09-10 11:13:28 AM

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Dancin_In_Anson: Still nothing of substance.

The ignorance of the Libertarian philosophy is staggering yet not surprising. Especially when vilified by people like GAT who need to be controlled...to be told what to do and when to do it. Freedom is a very scary thing isn't it?

Slavery, a minor detail of no substance.

Genocide, a minor detail of no substance.

Institutionalized discrimination, a minor detail of no substance

Corporate oppression of worker's rights, a minor detail of no substance.

qua?

Read the thread.

sorry, I didn't account for to whom you were responding


Subby or anyone, please link the spotlight backstory. It looks amusing and I'm afraid I don't have this meme ingested

Also, I have sincere questions about Libertarianism:

If entities can transmit their entire wealth to their descendents, with no redistribution or taxes, no government interference or ability to regulate accumulation, what mechanism will keep a strong aristocracy from arising that will effectively create an non-competitive marketplace characterized by monopolies and collusion?

What will deter neo-feudalism from arising in a few short generations?

Or does Galt kick his kids out of his house when they turn 18 to make-or-break on their own? Is that a realistic expectation in light of history - or even our current problems with wealth disparity on our culture?

Aren't we having these issues arising now as we are certainly one of the most libertarian (small "l") societies in the developed world, and certainly the most libertarian in comparison to regulations of industry.
 
2012-09-10 11:14:58 AM

EyeballKid: GAT_00: I feel like I'm being taunted by a child that's screaming at me that I need to do what they want.

Oh, you've had to negotiate with John Boehner, too?


Heh. Yeah, you can't actually talk to people like that. Completely incapable of accepting any view but their own, and often quick to say that you are the ones who refuse to consider other views. It seems central to their perspective that while they are completely intransigent, it's everyone else who refuses to talk.
 
2012-09-10 11:15:01 AM

sprawl15: Neither of them takes into account that people are - and will always be - assholes to the best of their ability.


I agree, for the most part. The question then becomes: "How do you keep the assholes surrounding you from ruining your day?" Often times the answer involves government intervention or regulation. However, I think it's important to remember that the people in government are just as capable of being selfish, corrupt assholes as the guys on Wall Street. In fact, they are often the same people!

sprawl15: the idea that government action is inherently bad for society is directly at odds with the entire history of humanity.


No argument here, I am by no means an anarchist, or even a minarchist. However, the idea that government action is always good or beneficial is flawed as well.
 
2012-09-10 11:16:15 AM

RanDomino: I'm in favor of no government; does that count? Or is that 'limited to zero'?


Thats the limit as G→0
 
2012-09-10 11:16:26 AM

skullkrusher: Tor_Eckman: skullkrusher: good one subby. The rest of you who say it in earnestness, you're stupid

Well come on now. When using your massive intellect as a standard, pretty much everyone is stupid.

How is that dark matter research going by the way?

stupid and unfunny. The gods were cruel to you


No gods or kings. Only man.
 
2012-09-10 11:18:09 AM

Koalacaust: No argument here, I am by no means an anarchist, or even a minarchist. However, the idea that government action is always good or beneficial is flawed as well.


What is something no one ever said ever, Alex?
 
2012-09-10 11:22:27 AM

Koalacaust: However, I think it's important to remember that the people in government are just as capable of being selfish, corrupt assholes as the guys on Wall Street.


The main benefit (and drawback) of government workers is that people's asshole nature isn't guided by fiduciary responsibilities.
 
2012-09-10 11:28:44 AM

theknuckler_33: Somalia to pick president, set up first stable govt. in 21 years

Good luck (sincerely), but I won't hold my breath.


The horses will be well behaved.
 
2012-09-10 11:30:29 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Again, read DIA's posts that were being responded to.


You do realize that the institution of slavery and Jim Crow...ahem...laws were government sanctioned, don't you?
 
2012-09-10 11:33:10 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Philip Francis Queeg: Again, read DIA's posts that were being responded to.

You do realize that the institution of slavery and Jim Crow...ahem...laws were government sanctioned, don't you?


Impossible! How could your example of a Libertarian government engage in such restrictions of liberty?
 
2012-09-10 11:38:46 AM
Sure, half the states in the US practiced slavery for much of the 19th century. The other half were willing to go to war to free them. Slavery was wrong, and it was abolished, but let's not overlook the fact that the practice was considered abhorrent by many of the slaveowners' contemporaries.

Some of you would do well to actually read up on libertarianism from some sources other than blogs that keep you believing this notion that the libertarians are the boogeyman. Libertarianism is not about anarchy and whoever dies with the most toys wins. Much of it focuses on embracing civil liberties just as much as the restraint of government.
 
2012-09-10 11:41:13 AM

BeesNuts: devek: I never understood it all to be honest. Seriously questions for Libertarians. Aren't there tons of countries out there with governments so small you can literately rape a baby? How are they doing and why would it be different here?

That's a gross oversimplification of Libertarianism. In the headline? Funny. In your post? Weird.

It's about decentralization of government. Which is crazy in some of its own special ways, but it's not "turn this biatch out and let's get all Somalia on these muf'ks." It's more: you have more control over your local government than you do over national government because your vote is less diffuse. So by decentralizing government power and granting more power to those entities you have direct control over, you are effectively made more free and more empowered in self-governance."

Which is a fancy way of saying "you could vote for Somalia if you wanted, but it's gonna be confined to your shiatty little neighborhood... with any luck."

Oh, and Silver Dimes (tm).

/It's a silly philosophy for silly people who have honestly good ideas.
//Alternatively it's The Least Pragmatic Political Movement Since Communist Russia.


Counterpoint:
It's waaaaaaaay cheaper to buy a mayor than it is to buy a Senator.
 
2012-09-10 11:46:48 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: How could your example of a Libertarian government engage in such restrictions of liberty?


Well, it seems that this is the ONLY form of of government control that everyone can come up with to dispute my statement. Would you say that there is more or less control of the day to day lives of Americans as a whole now or in the 19th century?
 
2012-09-10 11:48:17 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Counterpoint:
It's waaaaaaaay cheaper to buy a mayor than it is to buy a Senator.


Or a state governor. Just look at what the Koch's have done by buying a bunch of idiots like Walker and Scott and here in PA our own Tom Corbett. These guys have already done enough damage. I shudder to think what they could accomplish without the pesky feds looking over their shoulders.
 
2012-09-10 11:49:50 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Philip Francis Queeg: How could your example of a Libertarian government engage in such restrictions of liberty?

Well, it seems that this is the ONLY form of of government control that everyone can come up with to dispute my statement. Would you say that there is more or less control of the day to day lives of Americans as a whole now or in the 19th century?


Yes.
 
2012-09-10 11:49:57 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Philip Francis Queeg: How could your example of a Libertarian government engage in such restrictions of liberty?

Well, it seems that this is the ONLY form of of government control that everyone can come up with to dispute my statement. Would you say that there is more or less control of the day to day lives of Americans as a whole now or in the 19th century?


Less. Far, far less for everyone who isn't a white, straight, landowning protestant male.
 
2012-09-10 11:53:39 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Dancin_In_Anson: Philip Francis Queeg: How could your example of a Libertarian government engage in such restrictions of liberty?

Well, it seems that this is the ONLY form of of government control that everyone can come up with to dispute my statement. Would you say that there is more or less control of the day to day lives of Americans as a whole now or in the 19th century?

Less. Far, far less for everyone who isn't a white, straight, landowning protestant male.


Ah, but you see, there are all kinds of things nowadays that weren't concerns back then, and these new things are regulated thus government is an iron fist within an even more irony glove.
 
2012-09-10 11:54:30 AM

Koalacaust: However, the idea that government action is always good or beneficial is flawed as well.


You say that as if anybody on earth is actually trying to argue that.
 
2012-09-10 11:56:04 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Would you say that there is more or less control of the day to day lives of Americans as a whole now or in the 19th century?


I think the fact that the answer to this question has basically no relationship to whether or not people are better or worse off now than they were in the 19th century tells how little importance the libertarian conception of freedom has.
 
2012-09-10 11:59:47 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Philip Francis Queeg: How could your example of a Libertarian government engage in such restrictions of liberty?

Well, it seems that this is the ONLY form of of government control that everyone can come up with to dispute my statement. Would you say that there is more or less control of the day to day lives of Americans as a whole now or in the 19th century?


Hey - I also brought up the fact that women were not guaranteed the right to vote. I notice no one's really running with that.

// probably because you're spies in the War on Women
 
2012-09-10 12:03:36 PM

sprawl15: Ah, but you see, there are all kinds of things nowadays that weren't concerns back then, and these new things are regulated thus government is an iron fist within an even more irony glove.


Bingo.
 
2012-09-10 12:59:32 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Philip Francis Queeg: Please identify one society in human history that has met your definition of "Libertarian".

The United States of America through the 19th century.


Anyone who says this is completely ignorant of history. Even the late 19th century was all about mob bosses and political machines.

Nabb1: Sure, half the states in the US practiced slavery for much of the 19th century. The other half were willing to go to war to free them.


That's NOT why the North went to war.
 
Displayed 50 of 135 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report