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.

(Washington Post)   This just in: The more you personally rely on the US government to take care of everything in your life, the more likely you are to be a raging libertarian   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 339
    More: Obvious, GOP, Kentucky Republican, Justin Amash, pork barrel spending, expediencies, libertarians, Rand Paul  
•       •       •

7942 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Aug 2013 at 9:10 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-01 12:58:46 PM

Phil McKraken: The "libertarians" I know are usually washed up losers in their 30s who tell me that they'd quit waiting tables and "get a real job" except for the fact that government ruins everything. There's no point in trying.


Well that's not very nice. I'm sure a lot of Farkers are in the food services or hospitality industry. Though not a high status occupation, being a server is an honorable and honest way to put food on the table.

I don't really recommend you figure out your political views by looking at a person's status, and then using that as proof that their arguments are valid. Logic doesn't work that way.
 
2013-08-01 12:58:48 PM
The game gives out a bunch of benefits. It'd be stupid not to take them, even if you think the rules of the game should be different.
 
2013-08-01 01:00:35 PM

Garble: Lawyers With Nukes: Garble: The fundamental lie of modern libertarianism is that you can cleanly divide all issues between "social" and "economic". But economic injustice is and has always been the largest social issue in existence.
/money is power
//the purpose of government is to prevent the powerful from abusing the powerless

Translation: we want to protect people with no money, from people with lots of money.

So far so good.

So lets create another group of people, and give them lots of money so they can protect us. Because the danger is people with lots of money...wait, what?
/not sure if you're serious

More like, let's balance the power of people through democracy. The fact that there is so much money in government is a failing of that principle.


More like, let's protect the rights of the minorities by giving the majority the right to elect the leaders. The fact that there is so much money in government is the logical result of having a government - and the explicit goal of the drafters of the Constitution.
 
2013-08-01 01:02:03 PM
Libertarian used to mean "Live and let live" and "Do unto others as you would do unto yourself".
Now it means "MOOSLIM IN THE WHITEHOUSE!!! DURRRP"
 
2013-08-01 01:02:09 PM

BSABSVR: unlikely: It has been my experience that I agree with some and disagree with some because there is no consistent core of beliefs from one libertarian to the next.

Libertarian discussions often turn into "more libertarian than thou".  If you put 5 libertarians in a room, the once closest to Anarcho-capitalist will complain that he is in a room with 4 statist drones, the one closest to Republican/Democrat will complain that he is in a room with Minarchists, and the other three will shake their heads at how everyone else in the room is naive about how the world works.


Very true. You showed see what happens when you throw in some left libertarians into the mix like Libertarian Socialists or Anarcho-Communists.
 
2013-08-01 01:03:48 PM

Lawyers With Nukes: Phil McKraken: The "libertarians" I know are usually washed up losers in their 30s who tell me that they'd quit waiting tables and "get a real job" except for the fact that government ruins everything. There's no point in trying.

Well that's not very nice. I'm sure a lot of Farkers are in the food services or hospitality industry. Though not a high status occupation, being a server is an honorable and honest way to put food on the table.

I don't really recommend you figure out your political views by looking at a person's status, and then using that as proof that their arguments are valid. Logic doesn't work that way.


I have about 15 years in the food service business, mainly waiting tables. Both of the guys I'm talking about I met over 15 years ago. The "philosophy" isn't about governance for them. It's about excusing their laziness. Both of them are smart and talk about going back to school, getting jobs engineering software, etc. But then neither wants to engage in the student loan process, go to state schools or getting a job that doesn't pay mainly in cash. Both of them refuse to agree with me, but both also understand how things appear to me.
 
2013-08-01 01:04:09 PM

Lawyers With Nukes: Phil McKraken: The "libertarians" I know are usually washed up losers in their 30s who tell me that they'd quit waiting tables and "get a real job" except for the fact that government ruins everything. There's no point in trying.

Well that's not very nice. I'm sure a lot of Farkers are in the food services or hospitality industry. Though not a high status occupation, being a server is an honorable and honest way to put food on the table.

I don't really recommend you figure out your political views by looking at a person's status, and then using that as proof that their arguments are valid. Logic doesn't work that way.


Marxism works that way (polylogism), and Fark is filled with Marxists pretending to be hip-independents.
 
2013-08-01 01:05:08 PM

Revek: We now live in a world where every time something unpleasant happens people feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves.


Provide compelling evidence for a period in history in which when unpleasant things happened, people did not feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves.

Please note your use of the conjunctive adverb "rather," followed by use of the coordinating conjunction "and." Logically, your sentence reads ~b & (a & d), where "b" = blaming others, "a" = accepting it, and "d" = dealing with it oneself.

Hence, your claim is not supported if you provide evidence only that at some period in history, people dealt with unpleasant things themselves. You must provide evidence that at some point in history people in dealing with unpleasant happenings:

a) did not blame others, and
b) accepted it, and
c) dealt with it themselves.

Note that even providing evidence for all three propositions at the same period in history does not settle the policy conversation. This is just to see if you can satisfy even the barest threshold for rationally discussing the issue.
 
2013-08-01 01:08:32 PM

Phil McKraken: Lawyers With Nukes: Phil McKraken: The "libertarians" I know are usually washed up losers in their 30s who tell me that they'd quit waiting tables and "get a real job" except for the fact that government ruins everything. There's no point in trying.

Well that's not very nice. I'm sure a lot of Farkers are in the food services or hospitality industry. Though not a high status occupation, being a server is an honorable and honest way to put food on the table.

I don't really recommend you figure out your political views by looking at a person's status, and then using that as proof that their arguments are valid. Logic doesn't work that way.

I have about 15 years in the food service business, mainly waiting tables. Both of the guys I'm talking about I met over 15 years ago. The "philosophy" isn't about governance for them. It's about excusing their laziness. Both of them are smart and talk about going back to school, getting jobs engineering software, etc. But then neither wants to engage in the student loan process, go to state schools or getting a job that doesn't pay mainly in cash. Both of them refuse to agree with me, but both also understand how things appear to me.


How does saying that "govt shouldn't reward the lazy" or any other teaching of libertarianism excuse their laziness? If anything, it burdens them with knowing that they are getting what they deserve for being lazy.
 
2013-08-01 01:10:11 PM

Begoggle: Libertarian used to mean "Live and let live" and "Do unto others as you would do unto yourself".
Now it means "MOOSLIM IN THE WHITEHOUSE!!! DURRRP"


Which is one of the reasons that I'm a voluntarist.
 
2013-08-01 01:10:39 PM

Garble: Lawyers With Nukes: Garble: The fundamental lie of modern libertarianism is that you can cleanly divide all issues between "social" and "economic". But economic injustice is and has always been the largest social issue in existence.
/money is power
//the purpose of government is to prevent the powerful from abusing the powerless

Translation: we want to protect people with no money, from people with lots of money.

So far so good.

So lets create another group of people, and give them lots of money so they can protect us. Because the danger is people with lots of money...wait, what?
/not sure if you're serious

More like, let's balance the power of people through democracy. The fact that there is so much money in government is a failing of that principle.


Lets protect ourselves from other people with guns, by creating a group of people with guns. Because people with guns are dangerous.
Lets protect ourselves from other people with money, by creating a group of people with money. Because people with money are dangerous.

Sprinkling the magic pixie dust of "democracy" over the above statements doesn't make them any less absurd or dangerous. Indeed, democracy is easily scammed and rigged when used to try to control the situation, ie fighting against a small group of coordinated, determined, and powerful actors. Reason and evidence clearly demonstrate this.

Or don't pay any attention to history, and just keep piling on more derp.
 
2013-08-01 01:10:54 PM

EWreckedSean: BSABSVR: unlikely: It has been my experience that I agree with some and disagree with some because there is no consistent core of beliefs from one libertarian to the next.

Libertarian discussions often turn into "more libertarian than thou".  If you put 5 libertarians in a room, the once closest to Anarcho-capitalist will complain that he is in a room with 4 statist drones, the one closest to Republican/Democrat will complain that he is in a room with Minarchists, and the other three will shake their heads at how everyone else in the room is naive about how the world works.

Very true. You showed see what happens when you throw in some left libertarians into the mix like Libertarian Socialists or Anarcho-Communists.


Labels are for central planners!
 
2013-08-01 01:13:11 PM

Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.  I get no money for my autistic son.  No money for my disabling medical condition  including no medical help at all.  I make half the median income for the state.  The removal of responsibility for ones own life has been the biggest detriment to this countrys prosperity.  We now live in a world where every time something unpleasant happens  people feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves.  They expect someone else to pay for it.  Thats not a true libertarian trait, it is however the primary method of conservatives and liberals.


I have an autistic child and I live in CA.  The state used to pay for a certain amount of hours of In-Home ABA therapy a month.  In an effort to balance the budget, our (democrat) governor deemed that insurance companies should handle that bill instead.  The state will still pay the copay I would have to pay per visit, because we make under a specific amount for a family of four.  If I happen to get a better job, I will then be on the hook for those copays.  It will sting a little to pay for something I haven't had to pay for in the past, but it will not keep me from trying for that better job.  I will also console myself in the fact that when I can afford to make those payments, I am freeing the state money up for someone else, who is currently where I used to be financially.  And that money can help a family improve their child's chance at success while still being able to feed and clothe themselves.  I'm cool with that.  I'm all for responsibility, I just wonder why it became irresponsible to either need help or be ok with helping those who need it.
 
2013-08-01 01:15:16 PM

EWreckedSean: Garble: //the purpose of government is to prevent the powerful from abusing the powerless

When did that start happening? Seems to me government is bought, owned and controlled by the wealthy, and generally tends to promote what they want.


About three thousand five hundred years ago, when Hammurabi's code announced its purpose was:

"To bring about justice in the land, so that the strong shall not harm the weak."
 
2013-08-01 01:15:25 PM
iawai:  How does saying that "govt shouldn't reward the lazy" or any other teaching of libertarianism excuse their laziness? If anything, it burdens them with knowing that they are getting what they deserve for being lazy.

No, I'm saying that both explicitly state to me that they won't try harder because the government will tax them, regulate their jobs, fix interest rates on loans, confiscate their marijuana, and whatever. You see, there's no reason to get a $50k/year job if the Income Tax takes any part of it. It's the government's fault for denying them the opportunity to work without interference.
 
2013-08-01 01:15:35 PM

BMFPitt: Perhaps. But that's something that the shareholders should determine, not some arbitrary ratio.


The shareholders have a vested interest in exploiting workers.
 
2013-08-01 01:18:41 PM

LasersHurt: liam76: LasersHurt: liam76: I am pretty sure not letting them sell off stocks (how most get the big bucks) is a step to prevent this risky behavior.  I am also open to more steps.

So I am not sure wher eyou are going with that.

Capping CEO pay helps prevent short term measures that tend to push these high-salaried execs who run a company poorly. It focuses them to build the company at all levels, and in so doing create a much stronger organization.

I just think it's a good tool for preventing the very sort of thing you want to prevent.

You would have a hard time getting that to pass cosntitutional muster.

Err, what?


I am assuming you are american and are looking at laws that could happen in America.

If you are talking about laws to limit CEO pay or tie it to any wage of the employee you would have a huge constitutional hurdle to overcome.

Now if you were to just change tax laws so any stock that CEO's got as payment had to be kept for X years or they were treated as salary there is no such hurdle, or if you were to put a tax penalty on it if they sold early so it lost a ton of value, once again there is no such hurdle.
 
2013-08-01 01:21:42 PM

GoldSpider: BMFPitt: Perhaps. But that's something that the shareholders should determine, not some arbitrary ratio.

The shareholders have a vested interest in exploiting workers.


What does that have to do with whether or not a given CEO is overpaid?
 
2013-08-01 01:22:21 PM

ExcedrinHeadache: I always thought that Libertarians were just Republicans who wanted to keep hating brown poor people but still be able to smoke weed.


That sums me up pretty nicely actually.


/Libertarian
//Married to a "Brown" person
 
2013-08-01 01:22:39 PM

liam76: You would have a hard time getting that to pass cosntitutional muster.

Err, what?

I am assuming you are american and are looking at laws that could happen in America.

If you are talking about laws to limit CEO pay or tie it to any wage of the employee you would have a huge constitutional hurdle to overcome.


I guess what I am asking is what, specific constitutional hurdle would this be? I could just be blanking on something obvious, but I can't think of what you might mean.
 
2013-08-01 01:23:55 PM

Phil McKraken: No, I'm saying that both explicitly state to me that they won't try harder because the government will tax them, regulate their jobs, fix interest rates on loans, confiscate their marijuana, and whatever. You see, there's no reason to get a $50k/year job if the Income Tax takes any part of it. It's the government's fault for denying them the opportunity to work without interference.


to that argument, they do somewhat have a point.  A better way to make that fair for the taxpayer and the recipiant would to make sure that increasing your working wage would always increase the money you brought home.   Currently that is not the case.

thepatriotperspective.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-08-01 01:25:05 PM

youncasqua: EWreckedSean: Garble: //the purpose of government is to prevent the powerful from abusing the powerless

When did that start happening? Seems to me government is bought, owned and controlled by the wealthy, and generally tends to promote what they want.

About three thousand five hundred years ago, when Hammurabi's code announced its purpose was:

"To bring about justice in the land, so that the strong shall not harm the weak."



That's some good marketing, there. It's catchy, too. Hammurabi always was a good salesman.

The "wants safety & security" market segment. That's a big demographic group, real big, there's a lot of money to be made there.
 
2013-08-01 01:25:14 PM

youncasqua: EWreckedSean: Garble: //the purpose of government is to prevent the powerful from abusing the powerless

When did that start happening? Seems to me government is bought, owned and controlled by the wealthy, and generally tends to promote what they want.

About three thousand five hundred years ago, when Hammurabi's code announced its purpose was:

"To bring about justice in the land, so that the strong shall not harm the weak."


I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about what government actually does, not some propaganda written 3500 years ago that was as untrue then as it is now...
 
2013-08-01 01:28:48 PM

heavymetal: Khellendros: Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.

That's impressive.  You don't drive cars on roads, bridges, or overpasses?  You don't eat food grow in the U.S., or shipped in from outside the country?  You don't ever travel across publicly maintained land?  Bought a car that is subject to safety regulations?  Use a public utility such as power, water, telephone, or internet?  You defend your own land with your own army?  You don't watch television regulated by the FCC or look at a clock that has time set by NIST created standards?  You don't use federally issued currency, or send or receive anything by the postal service?  You've never called the police for anything?  Needed to have friends or family helped by the fire department?

Truly, you receive nothing from the government.  I salute you, citizen.  You're a beacon to all of us.

That seems to be the main problem I find in their reasoning.  It's all about "I do not receive any money from the government for.............", totally oblivious to the benefits they indirectly recieve through infrastructure and services.  It's not about finding a teat to suckle on so we don't have to fend for ourselves, it's about common sense.  The government of the U.S. isn't some despotic entity, it is a system set up by our founding fathers and supposed to be "of the people, by the people, and for the people"; if it is screwed up we did it to ourselves.

One function of the government in my opinion is to be sort of the national "warehouse bulk shopping club" of the American people.  There are certain essential services that are needed which cannot be provided on an induvidual basis comercially in a cost effective manner.  The intent behind these services are not to create a dependence on the government or enslave the masses, but provide a necessary service at a "bulk discount" rate.  Rather than enslaving the citizen, it is freeing them to pursue greater things than just the basics i ...



Holy crap, dude.  That kind of blatant logic has no place on Fark.  Please stick to bad jokes and terrible opinions based in insanity.  We simply will not tolerate your brand of critical thinking around here.

/I said good day, sir!
 
2013-08-01 01:30:57 PM
Democrats think they know what's good for everybody.
Republicans only care about what's good for them.
Libertarians don't even know what's good for themselves.

/Is that about right?
 
2013-08-01 01:39:12 PM

Neighborhood Watch: If everyone on welfare was a Libertarian, then the Democrat party would cease to exist.


And plonk, into the box with you.

If you had just applied yourself, ya coulda been a contender!
 
2013-08-01 01:40:32 PM

Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.  I get no money for my autistic son.  No money for my disabling medical condition  including no medical help at all.  I make half the median income for the state.  The removal of responsibility for ones own life has been the biggest detriment to this countrys prosperity.  We now live in a world where every time something unpleasant happens  people feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves.  They expect someone else to pay for it.  Thats not a true libertarian trait, it is however the primary method of conservatives and liberals.


I have none of your problems. I feel bad about them BTW.  You are not personally responsible for all your problems.  Sometime they are just shiat that happens.  I make a good living and my family is very healthy.  We all get free health care (Canada) and I would have no issue having my tax dollars going to people like you that need a helping hand.  If I fall flat on my face in life do to illness or other tragedy, I do infact expect some help/support from my countrymen.

Regardless of social benefits/tax, the quality of your life is directly related to being born in a rich and democratic society.  If you make enough to contribute to it, you should count yourself lucky.  If you are so unfortunate, that you need support, count yourself lucky as well.

Regardless of anyone's rugged individuality, your prosperity is on the backs of others before you.
 
2013-08-01 01:41:16 PM

Khellendros: GoldSpider: Khellendros: But if you have a specific oulier in your large company that is a minimum wage employee for a good reason

If your business relies on minimum wage labor to be profitable, perhaps you should pay your executives less.  The guy earning $20k isn't stealing food from the table of the executive who's making $2 million.

I didn't say "relies on minimum wage labor to be profitable".  Read what I wrote - it's very likely in a large company that you have a small group of employees that work jobs that are rightfully paid at minimum wage.  The number is likely very small.  If a company's execs only have to be concerned with making sure the bottom wage earner (note, singular) in the company are at a high enough level to keep exec salaries high, they have no incentive to help their entire workforce.  Tying it to average helps to keep everyone in a good position, particularly the bulk of employees in the lower wage levels (but well above minimum).

Tying to average helps everyone.  Tying to minimum helps two people - the CEO and the one guy at the bottom.  That's it.


Tying to average encourages paying executives and managers more, to bring up the average pay.

Compromise @ 10th percentile, if a limit of 1.5m per year is too low (that's 100x$7.25x2080).
 
2013-08-01 01:47:17 PM

LasersHurt: liam76: You would have a hard time getting that to pass cosntitutional muster.

Err, what?

I am assuming you are american and are looking at laws that could happen in America.

If you are talking about laws to limit CEO pay or tie it to any wage of the employee you would have a huge constitutional hurdle to overcome.

I guess what I am asking is what, specific constitutional hurdle would this be? I could just be blanking on something obvious, but I can't think of what you might mean.


The 10th would be a show stopper, imho.  Also if you are saying a group can't pay what they want to members of the group that would violate the 1st (freedom of association, I seem to remember this being used when some state said union leaders couldn;t be paid, but I may be dreaimg that one).
 
2013-08-01 01:51:57 PM

GoldSpider: Not really, but you're exactly like everyone else here who thinks they know my personal philosophy on spending priorities and safety net programs, etc.


I see.  Another one whose firmly-held, obviously correct and simple to grasp opinions are misunderstood by all and sundry and its everyone else's fault, because, lord knows, you explained yourself clearly enough, over and over again.

I just wish that one of guys would consider, even for a moment, that the fault does not lie with your readers if your pearls of wisdom are not being successfully communicated.
 
2013-08-01 01:53:07 PM

mrshowrules: Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.  I get no money for my autistic son.  No money for my disabling medical condition  including no medical help at all.  I make half the median income for the state.  The removal of responsibility for ones own life has been the biggest detriment to this countrys prosperity.  We now live in a world where every time something unpleasant happens  people feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves.  They expect someone else to pay for it.  Thats not a true libertarian trait, it is however the primary method of conservatives and liberals.

I have none of your problems. I feel bad about them BTW.  You are not personally responsible for all your problems.  Sometime they are just shiat that happens.  I make a good living and my family is very healthy.  We all get free health care (Canada) and I would have no issue having my tax dollars going to people like you that need a helping hand.  If I fall flat on my face in life do to illness or other tragedy, I do infact expect some help/support from my countrymen.

Regardless of social benefits/tax, the quality of your life is directly related to being born in a rich and democratic society.  If you make enough to contribute to it, you should count yourself lucky.  If you are so unfortunate, that you need support, count yourself lucky as well.

Regardless of anyone's rugged individuality, your prosperity is on the backs of others before you.


That's one of the most eloquently patriotic things I've heard in a while...you dirty Canadian.
 
2013-08-01 01:59:00 PM

brukmann: You earn a star. What should the tag be, though?


Dude, he just told you.
 
2013-08-01 02:02:41 PM

bopis: someonelse: bopis: Liberal thinking:
Liberals agree with me 100% of the time and that makes them more highly evolved.
Conservatives disagree with me on pretty much 100% of issues, that makes them evil!
Libertarians agree/disagree with me on maybe 50% of issues, that makes them the worst!

I'll bet you thought that was clever when you were typing it. Unfortunately, it just comes off as simple minded.

I'm an idiot for oversimplifying things in a FARK THREAD?
That is pretty much my point. Seems like Liberals have a deeper, more special hate for libertarians even though there is probably a lot more common ground. I think that speaks to the closemindedness of the average liberal.
Let's decriminalize homosexuality and end the war on drugs, then we can go back to the retard flame war?


Homosexuality was decriminalized by the big, bad, Federal government (Lawrence v. Texas).  Unfortunately, some fairly prominent libertarians want to allow the states to recriminalize it.

As for ending the war on drugs, that's great, I mean it worked in Portugal, so I guess it would work here, as long as we had the same kind of healthcare system that Portugal has in order to provide treatment.  I'm sure libertarians are on board with that.

/I'd say libertarians disagree with liberals way more than 50%, and haven't been too enthusiastic about the issues that both groups agree on.
 
2013-08-01 02:05:34 PM

Deucednuisance: I see. Another one whose firmly-held, obviously correct and simple to grasp opinions are misunderstood by all and sundry and its everyone else's fault, because, lord knows, you explained yourself clearly enough, over and over again.


No, it's that people THINK they know what I believe without bothering to ask me.  It's practically the engine that runs the Politics tab, an engine that runs on straw.
 
2013-08-01 02:07:46 PM

HighOnCraic: Unfortunately, some fairly prominent libertarians want to allow the states to recriminalize it.


Care to name names?

HighOnCraic: As for ending the war on drugs, that's great, I mean it worked in Portugal, so I guess it would work here, as long as we had the same kind of healthcare system that Portugal has in order to provide treatment.


Ending the war on drugs does not necessitate taxpayer-funded treatment programs.  That's not to say it isn't a good idea though.
 
2013-08-01 02:08:22 PM

Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.  I get no money for my autistic son.  No money for my disabling medical condition  including no medical help at all.  I make half the median income for the state.  The removal of responsibility for ones own life has been the biggest detriment to this countrys prosperity.  We now live in a world where every time something unpleasant happens  people feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves.  They expect someone else to pay for it.  Thats not a true libertarian trait, it is however the primary method of conservatives and liberals.


As a whole, right now, I contribute to the government... I see it the same way as... paying insurance (except that insurance company has guns)... I pay now, while times are good, and if I lose my job, I collect on that insurance, in the form of government programs, for a little bit until I get a new job. I don't see this as "blaming" anyone... and I find it really weird that libertarians are against the government providing decent bang for the buck. We fund programs to keep the rich even richer (take the latest Ag bill for q.e.d.), but if a person falls on bad circumstance and wants to collect on the benefits they've already paid for, then they must be lazy or irresponsible.
 
2013-08-01 02:10:31 PM

drp: The Democrats hate us because we don't hate corporations and the 2nd Amendment like they do.  They want big government and police-state powers when it's convenient for them, and a drug war to pander to their small-minded constituents who want toughness on crime.


Whut da actualfuq?

I live in the Democratic Paradise of Maryland, and have for 45 years.  I'm a Democrat, raised by Democrats, and am surrounded by Democrats.

I have never, not once, met a single Democratic constituent who demands that their representatives continue to prosecute the "drug war".  We all know that it is futile and worse, counter-productive.

I dare you to show us one.  Just one.
 
2013-08-01 02:13:27 PM

Deucednuisance: brukmann: You earn a star. What should the tag be, though?

Dude, he just told you.



GoldSpider
(favorite: Libertus and the amazing technicolor dreamjerk)

Worked it out--we already tacitly agreed to taunt each other in the future. But yeah, dumb question, coffee jitters.
 
2013-08-01 02:19:04 PM

Deucednuisance: drp: The Democrats hate us because we don't hate corporations and the 2nd Amendment like they do.  They want big government and police-state powers when it's convenient for them, and a drug war to pander to their small-minded constituents who want toughness on crime.

Whut da actualfuq?

I live in the Democratic Paradise of Maryland, and have for 45 years.  I'm a Democrat, raised by Democrats, and am surrounded by Democrats.

I have never, not once, met a single Democratic constituent who demands that their representatives continue to prosecute the "drug war".  We all know that it is futile and worse, counter-productive.

I dare you to show us one.  Just one.


images.politico.com
 
2013-08-01 02:21:26 PM

bopis: Seems like Liberals have a deeper, more special hate for libertarians even though there is probably a lot more common ground. I think that speaks to the closemindedness of the average liberal.


I'm going to go with the notion that you are sincerely trying to comprehend something you don't understand, and explain it to you as best I can.

First off, I obviously can't speak for all liberals.  Nobody made me Queen of the Liberals nor elected me president of the Liberals for Life Committee.  I will simply explain things as I think they are, and it may be than many Liberals agree with me, or perhaps not, but it's at least a starting point.  Second, I don't think most liberals "hate" Libertarians or Conservatives.  If you want to be taken seriously --- if you really are earnest about having a meaningful dialog --- then you need to drop such provocative terms as "hate."  We generally disagree with Libertarians and Conservatives, we probably disapprove of them, I'm sure some of us dislike them, and yes, a few of us might "hate" Libertarian or Conservatives if not both, but to claim all Liberals "hate" Libertarians just undermines your credibility.

Third, even if you were essentially correct about the phenomenon (that Liberals "hate" libertarians more than we "hate" Conservatives), and even if you were right that it was caused by Liberals seeing more in common with Libertarians than with Conservatives, that wouldn't be close-mindedness.  Frankly, it sounds to me like you don't even know what the word "close-mindedness" even means.  If it WERE as you say, and Liberals DID dislike Libertarians more precisely because of how much they have in common, that would be something entirely different than close-mindedness.

Fourth, yes, it is true that in some respects Libertarians have more in common with Liberals than Conservatives do; the common observation is that Libertarians are fiscally conservative but socially liberal.  That's probably be an oversimplification, but it's enough for our purposes right now.  And it's great that we can agree on some things.  But I might say that that is offset by how extreme Libertarians seem to be about the fiscal issues.  To give just one example: Liberals and Conservatives disagree about the education system because Conservatives (among other things) don't want to spend enough money on public schools.  But Libertarians want to spend NO MONEY AT ALL on the public school system, which is far worse.

Fifth (and as this is highly subjective I REALLY can't claim to speak for all Liberals) one of the things about Libertarianism that I personally find most disquieting is my perception that, at it's core, it's really nothing more that pure,unadulterated selfishness and shortsightedness systematized.  Conservatism, for all that I think it's wrong, at least seems to be trying to make the nation a better place for everyone, or at least for everyone willing to follow their rules.  Libertarianism, by contrast, seems like it would shut out in the cold anyone who wasn't born rich, regardless of how ardently the disenfranchised tried to follow it themselves.

You'll probably say I've mischaracterized Libertarianism, and maybe I have, but if so, you'll then have to explain to me what provisions Libertarianism makes for people who aren't born wealthy.  How, exactly, is a person who doesn't start off with enough money supposed to get an education, health care, meaningful work, a home (at least a shared apartment), and so on, all the while paying for the private police, mail, roads, fire, health insurance, etc. that are (thanks to Libertarianism) no longer provided by the government?

bopisLet's decriminalize homosexuality and end the war on drugs, then we can go back to the retard flame war?

Ok, sure.  You focus on homosexuality and the war on drugs exclusively, do nothing whatever to advance any other Libertarian policy, and I'll refrain from criticizing your politics.  Is that the deal you're proposing?
 
2013-08-01 02:34:34 PM

BMFPitt: Deucednuisance: drp: The Democrats hate us because we don't hate corporations and the 2nd Amendment like they do.  They want big government and police-state powers when it's convenient for them, and a drug war to pander to their small-minded constituents who want toughness on crime.

Whut da actualfuq?

I live in the Democratic Paradise of Maryland, and have for 45 years.  I'm a Democrat, raised by Democrats, and am surrounded by Democrats.

I have never, not once, met a single Democratic constituent who demands that their representatives continue to prosecute the "drug war".  We all know that it is futile and worse, counter-productive.

I dare you to show us one.  Just one.

[images.politico.com image 300x162]


except he's not pandering to democrats, he's pandering to "Tough On Crime Fark Independents"TM
 
2013-08-01 02:38:17 PM

ciberido: If you want to be taken seriously --- if you really are earnest about having a meaningful dialog --- then you need to drop such provocative terms as "hate."


Because the incessant ad homeninums* of right-wing neocon, women-hating, teabagging, greedy, corrupt, gay-bashing, wingnuts just screams of love and honest dialog.

/Ultimatly though - I agree with you
//Sadly, the Politis tab is not the place for anything resembling honest dialog or understanding
 
2013-08-01 02:42:08 PM
This quote from TFA made me facepalm:

"Many of the members in our group [Young Americans for Liberty] were not even 10 years old when 9/11 happened," Frazee said. "They've grown up with war, and they are war-weary."

I'd like someone to explain how the fark someone who was 10 years in 2001 is "war weary"?

Is it the draft? Can't be that since there's no draft.

Is it the rationing? Nope, no rationing either. We have vast amounts staples and cheap consumer goods. We exist in a time with levels of consumerism that are unprecedented in human history. There's barely even any price inflation. The war has not interfered in any way with young people's ability to get the latest iPhone.

Is it the constant news focus that every day brings a brutal view of war and the toll it takes on soldiers and civilians into all of our living rooms? Nope, the wars we engage in are barely ever mentioned. We don't even have to hear about them.

In what possible way do the wars we fight effect college age kids who are not in the military? What sacrifices have they been forced to make for the war?

The only way someone who was 10 on 9/11 could possibly be "war weary" is; a) if they are actually a soldier or b) if they are the biggest farking pussy in the world who doesn't have even the slightest clue what war weary really means. Let me guess which of those categories most of these young libertarians fall into. My mother in law, who as a child lived through the Siege of Leningrad, has a right to use the term "war weary". An American twenty something who's never been in the military does not.
 
2013-08-01 02:42:42 PM

Exception Collection: I am a socialist - I believe the necessities of life should be provided for free to the general public (though comfort is not a requirement, just health; stack the shelter beds like Japanese tube hotels and give out energy bars made out of cardboard for all I care).

I'm also in the top 20% of earners nationally, have never received social safety net aid, and refuse to rely on others for anything I can do for myself.

/I challenge anyone to find a person more bootstrappy than I am.


I like your style...it baffles me that teahadis think that if we get socialized medicine or have strong social safety nets that we are one step closer to concentration camps....yet they will gladly over fund pork barrel military contracts/projects.
Last I checked, no country has ever been conquered by social workers...that usually takes a well equipped military.
 
2013-08-01 02:43:31 PM

GoldSpider: No, it's that people THINK they know what I believe without bothering to ask me.


You've been asked, directly, in this very thread.  Five hours ago, in fact.

Cat got your tongue?
 
2013-08-01 02:44:45 PM

ciberido: Fifth (and as this is highly subjective I REALLY can't claim to speak for all Liberals) one of the things about Libertarianism that I personally find most disquieting is my perception that, at it's core, it's really nothing more that pure,unadulterated selfishness and shortsightedness systematized.  Conservatism, for all that I think it's wrong, at least seems to be trying to make the nation a better place for everyone, or at least for everyone willing to follow their rules.  Libertarianism, by contrast, seems like it would shut out in the cold anyone who wasn't born rich, regardless of how ardently the disenfranchised tried to follow it themselves.

You'll probably say I've mischaracterized Libertarianism, and maybe I have, but if so, you'll then have to explain to me what provisions Libertarianism makes for people who aren't born wealthy.  How, exactly, is a person who doesn't start off with enough money supposed to get an education, health care, meaningful work, a home (at least a shared apartment), and so on, all the while paying for the private police, mail, roads, fire, health insurance, etc. that are (thanks to Libertarianism) no longer provided by the government?


These are real concerns about libertarianism.

Short answers:

Yes, it's based on selfishness. But not Shortsightedness. EVERYONE, everywhere, acts selfishly. It's long been a philosophical quest to find the truly altruistic action.
Since everyone is acting selfishly, do we want a system whereby people can personally benefit by taking wealth from others without any real accountability? Or do we want a system where you can only benefit by helping your fellow man in his own selfishness? The first situation is a situation under govt, especially those highly-regulatory, highly-taxing govts of the West today. The second situation is the situation of a free market: you can only benefit by benefiting others.

To your second concern there's five related answers: (1) the wealthy are typically the most philanthropic. (2) You only get wealthy by increasing the wealth of a large number of people in meaningful ways (in a free market). (3) A free market has been responsible for providing all of those things in the past, and in some areas today, usually with much better accountability to the users than a govt system. (4) The enormous gains that could be realized by freeing the market would make all of those things cheap as dirt. (5) Those things all are being paid for already today, just not by the end-user. And if you follow the trail of waste, corruption, and greed you'll find that 70% of the money goes to upper-middle-class bureaucrats while only 30% actually goes to the provision of these necessary services.

There's already evidence that shows that private police, fire, medical providers, etc. will give the poor reduced rates or free service. The fact that these things are your hold-ups shows your willing blindness.

A: "I hate the French because they abuse unicorns!"

B: "Have you seen the French abuse unicorns?"

A: "No, but I'm worried that they do."

B: "Have you taken any steps to investigate your concerns?"

A: "No, my friend who hates the French told me so."

B: "Here's three articles about how the French treat their horses. Here's two offering proof that unicorns don't exist. How do you feel about the French now?"

A: "I don't believe your evidence, and it doesn't prove anything, and I still hate them for some new reason!"
 
2013-08-01 02:45:26 PM

ciberido: To give just one example: Liberals and Conservatives disagree about the education system because Conservatives (among other things) don't want to spend enough money on public schools. But Libertarians want to spend NO MONEY AT ALL on the public school system, which is far worse.


So it appears that you are focusing on the most extreme minority of libertarians.

one of the things about Libertarianism that I personally find most disquieting is my perception that, at it's core, it's really nothing more that pure,unadulterated selfishness and shortsightedness systematized.

That's what we think of you, too.

Libertarianism, by contrast, seems like it would shut out in the cold anyone who wasn't born rich, regardless of how ardently the disenfranchised tried to follow it themselves.

It's unfortunate that you choose to believe this.

You'll probably say I've mischaracterized Libertarianism, and maybe I have, but if so, you'll then have to explain to me what provisions Libertarianism makes for people who aren't born wealthy.

A much better chance to have a much higher quality of life than they would have under your system for 99% of people.

How, exactly, is a person who doesn't start off with enough money supposed to get an education, health care, meaningful work, a home (at least a shared apartment), and so on, all the while paying for the private police, mail, roads, fire, health insurance, etc. that are (thanks to Libertarianism) no longer provided by the government?

I won't bother speaking on behalf on anarchos. I think they're morons. But if you have some questions about mainstream libertarianism, I'd be happy to respond.
 
2013-08-01 02:45:44 PM

blindio: except he's not pandering to democrats, he's pandering to "Tough On Crime Fark Independents"TM


That, and he's not exactly what one can fairly call a "constituent", is he?
 
2013-08-01 02:56:52 PM

HeadLever: ciberido: If you want to be taken seriously --- if you really are earnest about having a meaningful dialog --- then you need to drop such provocative terms as "hate."

Because the incessant ad homeninums* of right-wing neocon, women-hating, teabagging, greedy, corrupt, gay-bashing, wingnuts just screams of love and honest dialog.

/Ultimatly though - I agree with you
//Sadly, the Politis tab is not the place for anything resembling honest dialog or understanding


So basing an opinion on a self-identified group, based on their words and actions, now counts as an ad-hom?
 
2013-08-01 03:06:11 PM

BMFPitt: I won't bother speaking on behalf on anarchos. I think they're morons. But if you have some questions about mainstream libertarianism, I'd be happy to respond.


What is libertarianism, to you? Is there an underlying philosophy, or is it just a set of policy prescriptions that can waver in the winds of current sentiment?
 
Displayed 50 of 339 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report