Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Townhall)   "Honestly, what does being a Libertarian mean beyond legalizing drugs, banging hookers and sitting by while the rest of the world blows itself up?"   (townhall.com) divider line 499
    More: Fail  
•       •       •

1810 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Nov 2013 at 9:43 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-07 03:02:45 PM  

vygramul: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: karnal: A libertarian is a liberal who learned economics.

I guess.  If they skipped the lessons on negative externalities, fiat currency, and a bunch of other stuff.

Don't forget fractional reserve banking.


Ah yes, the creation of money by "banksters" allowing them to privatize profit while socializing risk that liberals seem to adore
 
2013-11-07 03:02:51 PM  

toomuchwhargarbl: Fedoraheads for freedumbs!

[i.imgur.com image 430x538]


I decided to review the theory of this young libertarian upstart and watched some My Little Pony and I see his point. Currently, I'm seeing the threat of government intrusion and their arbitrary limiting of resources upon the populous. The major conflict that this creates is solely the creation of the Sovreign upon her people. If she hadn't gotten involved and let the market rule the supplies then everyone would have their fair chance.

This has been a continuous trend throughout the series until I had a huge epiphany. After my sixth or eighth scotch, it dawned on me that I wasted a majority of my day on this dumb show
 
2013-11-07 03:03:15 PM  
Libertarianism. Great on paper.  Terrible in practice.  Actually, it's terrible on paper as well.
 
2013-11-07 03:04:20 PM  

toomuchwhargarbl: Fedoraheads for freedumbs!

[i.imgur.com image 430x538]


Beta male says what?
 
2013-11-07 03:04:22 PM  
Yeah, who are these Liberals? Let Jon Stewart show you.

img855.imageshack.us

Sure, I know we're talking about Libertarians, but teabag Americans don't know the difference and group them as one (see some posts above).
So this little snack was for them.
 
2013-11-07 03:04:35 PM  

FarkedOver: Libertarianism. Great on paper.  Terrible in practice.  Actually, it's terrible on paper as well.


But enough about Ayn Rand
 
2013-11-07 03:04:38 PM  

sprawl15: dwrash: I used to identify with the Libertarian Party... but I'm now more along the lines of the Modern Whig party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Whig

the meaningful distinctions are:


He get's to avoid to avoid being teased like other libertarians while still being able to say both sides are bad.
 
2013-11-07 03:04:58 PM  

lockers: slayer199: EWreckedSean: Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

Where does ad hominem come in, I refuted his argument.

You didn't refute, you said I was ignorant, then went on to say something I said. It doesn't matter what the the framers had in mind, as passed the constitution did not limit the power over individual liberties. It took the bill of rights to do that. Where there aren't explicit limitations the government has governed as they see fit with limited regard for liberties not enumerated. In no way did you actually address my central point, the government is not here to defend individual ...


As to your 2nd point, I'd look to the declaration of independence:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men "
 
2013-11-07 03:07:27 PM  

FarkedOver: Libertarianism. Great on paper.  Terrible in practice.  Actually, it's terrible on paper as well.


It only works if everyone plays by the rules and abuse them for personal gain.

Since we all know that's impossible, it doesn't work.
 
2013-11-07 03:08:27 PM  

Mrtraveler01: FarkedOver: Libertarianism. Great on paper.  Terrible in practice.  Actually, it's terrible on paper as well.

It only works if everyone plays by the rules and doesn't abuse them for personal gain.

Since we all know that's impossible, it doesn't work.


FTFM
 
2013-11-07 03:10:57 PM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: kxs401: All the Libertarians I know are either 20-something dudes who love weed and have very little idea what the federal government actually does or brilliant sociopaths who believe they would flourish in a country without a strong central government and therefore, screw you.

Anecdata!

All the libertarians I know are early-30s tech sector workers with bad beards who think they're so much smarter than everyone else and can simply solve all the world's problems by letting markets do everything.

Need to protect children from exploitation? Let kidnappers take them and sell them in the sex trade. If the parents care enough, they will hire mercenaries to get them back.

Want to open up a medical practice even though you're not a doctor? After ten of your patients die your Yelp reviews will be so bad you won't be able to stay in business.


This.

I was going to say that the libertarians I know aren't so much brilliant as they are convinced of their own brilliance.

I also don't see them wearing fedoras so much as the sort of cheesy fedora-esque "bush hats." (Hawaiian shirt optional)

Basically like this one...

img830.imageshack.us

Chubby, beardy, pasty guys who seem to have spent far too much of their childhoods on the outside looking in socially-speaking, and it has left them with something of a misanthropic streak and an ingrained habit of thinking "I don't need those people. I'm better than them anyway."

i163.photobucket.com 


And they're ALL white guys (no, I don't care about your one random black friend or some chick you know... those people are statistically-insignificant anomalies if they exist at all).

And they virtually all have upper-middle class upbringings and the opportunities that they have mostly stumbled into as members of the lucky sperm have confused them into believing that they are bold and dynamic achievers... Randian supermen held down by the looters and takers who are mooching off of THEIR geniius. (never mind that they mostly occupy middling cubicle-jockey positions at government agencies or someone else's company.
 
2013-11-07 03:22:12 PM  

Mrtraveler01: FarkedOver: Libertarianism. Great on paper.  Terrible in practice.  Actually, it's terrible on paper as well.

It only works if everyone plays by the rules and abuse them for personal gain.

Since we all know that's impossible, it doesn't work.


Naw, man, that's anarchy. If something is abusive or fraudulent there can still be legal recourse or regulatory punishment.
 
2013-11-07 03:27:04 PM  

Mrtraveler01: FarkedOver: Libertarianism. Great on paper.  Terrible in practice.  Actually, it's terrible on paper as well.

It only works if everyone plays by the rules and abuse them for personal gain.

Since we all know that's impossible, it doesn't work.


The best part is that isn't just the greedy sociopaths who abuse the lax regulatory environment for personal gain that fark up the theory...

Libertarians themselves fark it up immensely and are a huge example of why it would never work.

You're not supposed to root for the company that hires people at slave wages or dumps toxic chemicals in the river or charges you $50 for a USB cable just because they put a proprietary connector on it.

The people are supposed to be the counterbalance AGAINST that sort of greed, but libertarians are the ones who run around defending that shiat and saying shiat like "It's called business. They're in it to make money. What don't you understand?"

Yes, their goal is to make as much money as possible. Your goal is supposed to be keeping as much of your money as possible... not bending over, greasing up your hole, and saying "well played, gentlemen! well played, indeed!"
 
2013-11-07 03:37:34 PM  

toomuchwhargarbl: Fedoraheads for freedumbs!


WOW. You can just feel the pure patheticness oozing from the computer screen. The fact that he's actually writing a paper about a kid's cartoon. Or the smug, rage inducing picture of him, a 12 year old in a fedora, just makes me.....GGGRRAAAHHHHAAANNNGGRRY!!!!! MUST CRUSH PUNY HIPSTER, PUNCH COMPUTER SCREEN TO MAKE IT FEEL PAIN!!!!

Ok, I'm good. God, the little shiat pisses me off. I kind of hope he does get his "no gov't" wish granted, in that civilization collapses and he gets dragged out of his parent's basement, his weak, vegan fed arm muscles snapping as he helplessly flails around. He had a Desert Eagle pistol, but tried to fire it "gangster style" and broke his jaw. Grabbing it, he attempted to fire, but it had been jammed. Because he had no firearms experience, he desperately pulled the trigger as the raiders closed in for the kill.

Holy Fark that got dark fast. Well point is he's a twat.
 
2013-11-07 03:37:53 PM  

super_grass: Phinn: heap: or maybe one could actually assess what happens and act accordingly - but no, doggedly pretending the assumption of rational actors has some basis in reality because it feels good makes more sense.

I don't pretend.  I don't assume.  I have never subscribed to the idea of universal rationality, and have long since figured out that the whole "rational actor" idea is just a massive strawman argument, invented to justify more authoritarianism.

How is it that people are so irrational and mean-spirited and downright evil that they can't be trusted with their economic freedom, and a government must manage it for them, but that the outcome of every vote by these very same people is presumed to be wise and just and beneficent?

People learn to be rational when their irrationality comes with a cost.  The more immediate and large the cost of irrationality, the more time and energy people invest in learning how to behave rationally (and how to obtain accurate and useful information).

I never got the rational actor thing either. And if people aren't rational, why even give them democracy or trust the same irrational people in government?

Rewarding logical behavior and punishing irrational behavior is the goal of having competition in the first place.


"Rational Actor" is a term economist use.  There are scads of examples of seemingly normal people who behave in ways that make sense on an individual basis, but when done by many people can cause problems.

A classic example is a fisherman who upon seeing the price for fish fall responds by catching more fish to keep
his income up.  That's a good strategy as long as only a few fishermen employ it, but if every fishermen does it then the resulting glut of fish causes the price to drop even further, and if overfishing occurs, the fish population can be decimated for years to come.

A "rational" fisherman should switch to a different species or find a new line of work, but it's hard for an individual to see that.
 
2013-11-07 03:42:06 PM  

Richard C Stanford: toomuchwhargarbl: Fedoraheads for freedumbs!

WOW. You can just feel the pure patheticness oozing from the computer screen. The fact that he's actually writing a paper about a kid's cartoon. Or the smug, rage inducing picture of him, a 12 year old in a fedora, just makes me.....GGGRRAAAHHHHAAANNNGGRRY!!!!! MUST CRUSH PUNY HIPSTER, PUNCH COMPUTER SCREEN TO MAKE IT FEEL PAIN!!!!

Ok, I'm good. God, the little shiat pisses me off. I kind of hope he does get his "no gov't" wish granted, in that civilization collapses and he gets dragged out of his parent's basement, his weak, vegan fed arm muscles snapping as he helplessly flails around. He had a Desert Eagle pistol, but tried to fire it "gangster style" and broke his jaw. Grabbing it, he attempted to fire, but it had been jammed. Because he had no firearms experience, he desperately pulled the trigger as the raiders closed in for the kill.

Holy Fark that got dark fast. Well point is he's a twat.



He's going to be the sad boy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZqrHw7YV3Q
 
2013-11-07 03:50:48 PM  

Gulper Eel: Thrag: So, you express the notion of starting a new program from scratch. You've got the burn it down part, but what do you build in its place? What are your ideas, the ideas Libertarians you are aware of, or the Libertarian party position on this issue? How can we improve SNAP, or what should it be replaced with that would be more effective?

Read upthread. I'll oversimplify what I already wrote - Instead of providing a card, we provide the food itself, plus the knowhow as needed, along with expanded soup kitchens and pantries. I see no reason why Walmart should get rich selling poor people boxes of taxpayer-subsidized Frosted Flakes that'll land them in diabeetusland 20 years from now.


Weren't you people shrieking bloody murder when it was disclosed that some people were buying produce at Trader Joe's with SNAP benefits?

Other than pelting them with blocks of government cheese and dried beans, you folks don't have anything constructive to say.
 
2013-11-07 03:53:03 PM  

EWreckedSean: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men "


How does that refute my argument?  You may want to bring up that people have unalienable rights...rights that come with being human, NOT granted by the government.
 
2013-11-07 03:56:17 PM  

slayer199: EWreckedSean: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men "

How does that refute my argument?  You may want to bring up that people have unalienable rights...rights that come with being human, NOT granted by the government.


With the lack of government, what prevents me from taking away your right to life?

Answer: nothing.  Rights are a social construct.  They are a result of enlightened self-interest.  We already know what a lack of government leads to: government.
 
2013-11-07 04:08:55 PM  

ikanreed: slayer199: EWreckedSean: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men "

How does that refute my argument?  You may want to bring up that people have unalienable rights...rights that come with being human, NOT granted by the government.

With the lack of government, what prevents me from taking away your right to life?

Answer: nothing.  Rights are a social construct.  They are a result of enlightened self-interest.  We already know what a lack of government leads to: government.


Says the guy who lumped himself in with an anarchist earlier
 
2013-11-07 04:11:21 PM  

Thrag: However do you realize that you are creating a immense government infrastructure that will employ vast numbers of people. A single government run entity that produces (or procures) enough food, the logistics infrastructure to collect and transport all that food to distribution endpoints, and the soup kitchens and pantries to distribute the food, and an we'd still need the agency to keep track of what benefits people should be getting, enforcing the rules, and tracking down fraud. If you are a libertarian, that is one hell of a large government solution. If the answer then is to contract out all those operations to private companies, you have created huge opportunity for crony capitalism like abusing the contracting process and you still have a large government organization that is responsible for performing and overseeing the contracting process (and don't forget we still have the aforementioned bureaucracy for administering the benefits individuals get).

Compared to all this, the current SNAP program is astonishingly more free market/libertarian than your solution.


Fraud? It's a lot easier to swap a benefits card for booze than it is to swap a cabbage. Oversight turns out to be a whole lot easier when the program is distributing something that's not money.

As for the crony capitalism, that's what we have already - we're subsidizing crap on a massive scale. Since I'm not about letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, or even the somewhat better than the status quo. If big agribusiness is involved more with broccoli than corn, that's a step in the right direction.

A lot of this "massive" infrastructure you mention should be kicked down to the states as it is. States handle unemployment insurance programs; they can handle food assistance.

For a solution that doesn't involve as much disruption but gets the job done, I suppose the SNAP program could be tweaked so that it's doled out not in dollar amounts, but in ingredient amounts.
 
2013-11-07 04:13:25 PM  

Huggermugger: Weren't you people shrieking bloody murder when it was disclosed that some people were buying produce at Trader Joe's with SNAP benefits?


You people? Long as they're buying produce instead of MegaCarbSugarPops I couldn't care less where they shop.
 
2013-11-07 04:25:45 PM  

Gulper Eel: Huggermugger: Weren't you people shrieking bloody murder when it was disclosed that some people were buying produce at Trader Joe's with SNAP benefits?

You people? Long as they're buying produce instead of MegaCarbSugarPops I couldn't care less where they shop.


But food deserts!
 
2013-11-07 04:26:20 PM  

Gulper Eel: Thrag: However do you realize that you are creating a immense government infrastructure that will employ vast numbers of people. A single government run entity that produces (or procures) enough food, the logistics infrastructure to collect and transport all that food to distribution endpoints, and the soup kitchens and pantries to distribute the food, and an we'd still need the agency to keep track of what benefits people should be getting, enforcing the rules, and tracking down fraud. If you are a libertarian, that is one hell of a large government solution. If the answer then is to contract out all those operations to private companies, you have created huge opportunity for crony capitalism like abusing the contracting process and you still have a large government organization that is responsible for performing and overseeing the contracting process (and don't forget we still have the aforementioned bureaucracy for administering the benefits individuals get).

Compared to all this, the current SNAP program is astonishingly more free market/libertarian than your solution.

Fraud? It's a lot easier to swap a benefits card for booze than it is to swap a cabbage. Oversight turns out to be a whole lot easier when the program is distributing something that's not money.


Okay, so your solution might at best somewhat reduce the resources needed to police one type of fraud. That doesn't really make up for the immense logistics infrastructure required to implement direct food distribution.

As for the crony capitalism, that's what we have already - we're subsidizing crap on a massive scale. Since I'm not about letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, or even the somewhat better than the status quo. If big agribusiness is involved more with broccoli than corn, that's a step in the right direction.

You aren't addressing the problem at all. This is just hand waving.

A lot of this "massive" infrastructure you mention should be kicked down to the states as it is. States handle unemployment insurance programs; they can handle food assistance.

This is a total non-answer. Kick it down to the states does not address the fact that a massive infrastructure must be created at some level. Kicking it down to the states will just make the overall bureaucracy larger since there will be redundancies among the 50 states. Your solutions will require larger expenses and more government.

This reply just reinforces my point. You start with a naive over simplistic thought out solution as a replacement once the existing system has been burned down. When questions or raised or flaws pointed out you are just spouting the first answer (or non-answer) that comes to mind. The focus is on burning shiat down with only a passing afterthought about what comes next. You've got stats and cites to support the tearing down of the system, but zero research in how to make things work well.

For a solution that doesn't involve as much disruption but gets the job done, I suppose the SNAP program could be tweaked so that it's doled out not in dollar amounts, but in ingredient amounts.

Okay, how would that work? Who gets to decide what and how much of each foodstuff a person receiving benefits can buy? We'd need a whole new system for tracking not just the money spent, but what ingredients it is spent on. Isn't doing this a larger, more intrusive, more complex, government solution? With these solutions you are kind of a terrible libertarian ;)
 
2013-11-07 04:27:14 PM  
How dare the rest of the world blow itself up!  That's the Plutocrat Party's job!
 
2013-11-07 04:32:53 PM  
It needs to be noted that there are already restrictions on what can be bought with SNAP benefits.

SNAP Eligible food items

The idea of having more narrow restrictions has come up in the past but has never been seen as practical, from the link:

Since the current definition of food is a specific part of the Act, any change to this definition would require action by a member of Congress. Several times in the history of SNAP, Congress had considered placing limits on the types of food that could be purchased with program benefits. However, they concluded that designating foods as luxury or non-nutritious would be administratively costly and burdensome.
 
2013-11-07 04:34:10 PM  

FarkedOver: [graphics8.nytimes.com image 600x331]
 LIBERTARIAN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT


Aren't tent-cities strictly a product of the capitalist system?
 
2013-11-07 04:43:03 PM  

JRoo: FarkedOver: [graphics8.nytimes.com image 600x331]
 LIBERTARIAN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT

Aren't tent-cities strictly a product of the capitalist system?


No mad?
 
2013-11-07 04:44:16 PM  
Well until they drop the whole replacing Government Tyranny with Corporate Tyranny you can count me out. The Fark you for being poor thing will never work. Until they recognize that corporations can be just a threat to personal freedoms and liberty as the government then its all condescending hypocritical garbage laced with racism with a sugar coat of legal weed.

 In fact the whole reason that the Libertarian movement is getting so much play now is beacuse of rich a-holes and wannabes who think Ayn Rand is gospel. ( Rupert Murdoch, John Stossel, Koch Brothers, Glenn Beck, Neil Boortz are Libertarians ..Nuff Said ) And Republicans who are trying to look cool.
 
2013-11-07 04:45:57 PM  

Thrag: It needs to be noted that there are already restrictions on what can be bought with SNAP benefits.

SNAP Eligible food items

The idea of having more narrow restrictions has come up in the past but has never been seen as practical, from the link:

Since the current definition of food is a specific part of the Act, any change to this definition would require action by a member of Congress. Several times in the history of SNAP, Congress had considered placing limits on the types of food that could be purchased with program benefits. However, they concluded that designating foods as luxury or non-nutritious would be administratively costly and burdensome.


Not to mention that the ones who advocate it have one unstated goal; punish the poor for the sin of being poor.
 
2013-11-07 04:46:46 PM  

ItchyMcDoogle: Well until they drop the whole replacing Government Tyranny with Corporate Tyranny you can count me out. The Fark you for being poor thing will never work. Until they recognize that corporations can be just a threat to personal freedoms and liberty as the government then its all condescending hypocritical garbage laced with racism with a sugar coat of legal weed.

 In fact the whole reason that the Libertarian movement is getting so much play now is beacuse of rich a-holes and wannabes who think Ayn Rand is gospel. ( Rupert Murdoch, John Stossel, Koch Brothers, Glenn Beck, Neil Boortz are Libertarians ..Nuff Said ) And Republicans who are trying to look cool.


I think the idea is that you're supposed to create your own corporation.  One that makes it a priority to not be evil.  You know, like Google's founders did!
 
2013-11-07 04:47:59 PM  

lockers: UNC_Samurai: I can't disagree. I went through a dumb college libertarian phase. Then I graduated and the real world slapped some sense into me. Between wising up and watching the political spectrum around me being distorted, I'm now pretty damn liberal.

Libertarians, like the Tea Party, are a group that espouses ideas that are contrary to what the individuals actually believe. I like jeffersonian liberalism, but I understand that as a practical matter progressive liberalism is more aligned to today's practical realities. It would be really "nice" if we could have a small central government, strong constitutional liberties and a strong self reliance. It is something that did work when this country was expanding, but these days we can't go back to the quaint world of homesteads. That is where libertarians get into trouble. They have ignored why we got where we are. Social justice, government oversight and restraint of rights were all necessary to have a functional and better society.


I ran this idea by one of my libertarian co-workers.  Making sure to point out that the Government funded research that went into funding the govt, and as such, provided a concrete foundation for his job today.  When I asked him if we'd have the, although fleeting, current state of the internet that allowed him his nice cushy job, his reply was simply "well.  the free market would have created it eventually".

Ugh.  He's absolutely intolerable.
 
2013-11-07 04:51:20 PM  
Gulper Eel: "Fraud? It's a lot easier to swap a benefits card for booze than it is to swap a cabbage. Oversight turns out to be a whole lot easier when the program is distributing something that's not money."


As usual, the right-winger doesn't give a shiat about embezzlement or graft... only making sure the poors don't get any pleasure on his dime.
 
2013-11-07 04:54:57 PM  

lockers: Thrag: It needs to be noted that there are already restrictions on what can be bought with SNAP benefits.

SNAP Eligible food items

The idea of having more narrow restrictions has come up in the past but has never been seen as practical, from the link:

Since the current definition of food is a specific part of the Act, any change to this definition would require action by a member of Congress. Several times in the history of SNAP, Congress had considered placing limits on the types of food that could be purchased with program benefits. However, they concluded that designating foods as luxury or non-nutritious would be administratively costly and burdensome.

Not to mention that the ones who advocate it have one unstated goal; punish the poor for the sin of being poor.


I'm skeptical that the conclusion that it was costly and burdensome was the result of actual research and not the opposite unstated goal: Democrats fighting to keep the poor vote.

Show me a real conservative who thought it was a good idea but changed his mind once he saw how much it would cost and I'll be convinced.  (yes, how far fetched the idea of a "real conservative" is).
 
2013-11-07 04:59:11 PM  

skullkrusher: ikanreed: slayer199: EWreckedSean: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men "

How does that refute my argument?  You may want to bring up that people have unalienable rights...rights that come with being human, NOT granted by the government.

With the lack of government, what prevents me from taking away your right to life?

Answer: nothing.  Rights are a social construct.  They are a result of enlightened self-interest.  We already know what a lack of government leads to: government.

Says the guy who lumped himself in with an anarchist earlier


Yeah, that's sure what I did.  Yep.  I'm glad you're still angry about being a racist instead of addressing the fact that you're a racist.
 
2013-11-07 05:03:12 PM  

serial_crusher: lockers: Thrag: It needs to be noted that there are already restrictions on what can be bought with SNAP benefits.

SNAP Eligible food items

The idea of having more narrow restrictions has come up in the past but has never been seen as practical, from the link:

Since the current definition of food is a specific part of the Act, any change to this definition would require action by a member of Congress. Several times in the history of SNAP, Congress had considered placing limits on the types of food that could be purchased with program benefits. However, they concluded that designating foods as luxury or non-nutritious would be administratively costly and burdensome.

Not to mention that the ones who advocate it have one unstated goal; punish the poor for the sin of being poor.

I'm skeptical that the conclusion that it was costly and burdensome was the result of actual research and not the opposite unstated goal: Democrats fighting to keep the poor vote.

Show me a real conservative who thought it was a good idea but changed his mind once he saw how much it would cost and I'll be convinced.  (yes, how far fetched the idea of a "real conservative" is).


Nice hand wave. If not punishing the poor happens to keep the poor vote, that is just a happy coincidence. I personally think that the poor have committed no sin which they need to be punished for, therefore I have no need to limit how they prefer to eat.
 
2013-11-07 05:09:55 PM  

ikanreed: skullkrusher: ikanreed: slayer199: EWreckedSean: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men "

How does that refute my argument?  You may want to bring up that people have unalienable rights...rights that come with being human, NOT granted by the government.

With the lack of government, what prevents me from taking away your right to life?

Answer: nothing.  Rights are a social construct.  They are a result of enlightened self-interest.  We already know what a lack of government leads to: government.

Says the guy who lumped himself in with an anarchist earlier

Yeah, that's sure what I did.  Yep.  I'm glad you're still angry about being a racist instead of addressing the fact that you're a racist.


Racist? Oh are we back on this "sushi chef costumes are racist" kick? Thanks for reminding me when I learned you were a ninny. I knew that I knew that, just didn't recall the clincher. Thanks
 
2013-11-07 05:15:49 PM  

Thrag: "Instead of providing a card, we provide the food itself, plus the knowhow as needed, along with expanded soup kitchens and pantries."

Okay, that's an alternative. However do you realize that you are creating a immense government infrastructure that will employ vast numbers of people. A single government run entity that produces (or procures) enough food, the logistics infrastructure to collect and transport all that food to distribution endpoints, and the soup kitchens and pantries to distribute the food, and an we'd still need the agency to keep track of what benefits people should be getting, enforcing the rules, and tracking down fraud. If you are a libertarian, that is one hell of a large government solution. If the answer then is to contract out all those operations to private companies, you have created huge opportunity for crony capitalism like abusing the contracting process and you still have a large government organization that is responsible for performing and overseeing the contracting process (and don't forget we still have the aforementioned bureaucracy for administering the benefits individuals get).

Compared to all this, the current SNAP program is astonishingly more free market/libertarian than your solution.

As someone on "the left" I find your idea impractical but I have zero ideological problem with it. I find it to be a rather naive idea. The kind of simple but totally impractical solution that will readily pop into one's head. You demonstrate one the things that I and I'm sure many others find characterize conversations with self identified libertarians, and what gives the label a bad name. The firm belief that a system should be torn down because it is imperfect but no ideas to replace it beyond oversimplifications that don't address why the existing system was imperfect in the first place. The concentration of thought is on tearing down the system, and finding all sorts of reasons why it is bad, but expending little to no effort on ...


I've always advocated replacing SNAP with something similar to the currently existing WIC.  Folks get a list of specific items they're allowed to buy each week.  They take that list down to the grocery store and get those items.  Store sends government the bill for however much those cost.  It cuts out a lot of the middle men you mentioned above there, but does introduce a little bit of reasonable overhead on its own.  Mainly we have to have a system that generates that list.
For a trivial solution that would suck, we could just make it a really basic list that applies exactly the same to everybody.  Beans and rice this week, potatoes and ramen noodles next week.  Even I'm not cruel enough to suggest that as an actual solution though.

A little more expensively we could take the meal planning software that already exists on the SNAP website (fark, I can't find the link now.  Somebody posted it in another one of these threads though)... SNAP recipients go to the site and plan their meals for the week, then it prints out their grocery list.  The software could easily enforce well rounded meals, and we could add interfaces for doctors notes etc for people on special diets.

The costs of updating the SNAP web site wouldn't be that bad as long as we didn't contract it to the same company who did healthcare.gov, and there would be some small costs to participating grocery stores to add list validation and reconciliation to their POSes.  They might have to make some changes to their inventory systems to make sure inventory items matched up with the generated lists, but a lot of that work has already been done for WIC compliance.
 
2013-11-07 05:20:31 PM  
EWreckedSean:

That would require studious legislatures truly knowing the intricacy of multiple fields of study and expertise, and not just a bunch of lawyers and politicians.

Or instead they could have an advisory organization that provided the knowledge but the regulations themselves still be created by the body that is the only one that should be creating them is answerable to the people.


You mean like partisan think-tanks, and industry-led focus groups?  Sorry, I believe our representative government should be representative of knowledge and experience, and not just geography.

At least with Congress in more control of the regulations, it would give those slack asses more real work to do.... ah who am I kidding.  Politicians shouldn't be trusted with actually running things, just like MBAs shouldn't be administrating your servers.

EWreckedSean:

Corporations are the creation of government numb nuts, not libertarianism. More to the point, government IS the favorite tool of influence and corruption used by these entities, because it is the only one that has the ability to make law.

So are you implying that a libertarian government would not include corporations or limited liability partnerships?  Everything would be sole proprietorship?  And if corporations are the creation of government, how in the world can libertarians balk at regulation?   And of course the government is a favorite tool of influence and corruption for corporations.  It's the favorite tool of influence and corruption for all people who seek it on a massive scale.
 
2013-11-07 05:22:11 PM  
i204.photobucket.com
 
2013-11-07 05:31:56 PM  
serial_crusher:

I've always advocated replacing SNAP with something similar to the currently existing WIC.  Folks get a list of specific items they're allowed to buy each week.  They take that list down to the grocery store and get those items.  Store sends government the bill for however much those cost.  It cuts out a lot of the middle men you mentioned above there, but does introduce a little bit of reasonable overhead on its own.  Mainly we have to have a system that generates that list.
For a trivial solution that would suck, we could just make it a really basic list that applies exactly the same to everybody.  Beans and rice this week, potatoes and ramen noodles next week.  Even I'm not cruel enough to suggest that as an actual solution though.


I like this idea.  You'd have to have some sort of limit on price and item selection (yes, you can have bread.  You cannot have the tiny $10 artisan spring water sourdough), and make sure that grocery stores weren't gaming the system, but it'd be easier to audit 10,000 grocery stores than 1 million benefit recipients, at the same time you'd have to give them leeway for regional brand variance, etc. otherwise you'd quickly unbalance the market with winners and losers.

Those basic meals could be packaged up and sold to *everyone*, not just welfare recipients, with the government basically condoning said pacakge as "100% nutritionally complete for 1 adult for 1 week" or something: boom instant health program to reduce obesity and malnutrition... run it in cooperation with HHS (just make sure they don't build a website for it).
 
2013-11-07 06:40:36 PM  

Thrag: It needs to be noted that there are already restrictions on what can be bought with SNAP benefits.

SNAP Eligible food items

The idea of having more narrow restrictions has come up in the past but has never been seen as practical, from the link:

Since the current definition of food is a specific part of the Act, any change to this definition would require action by a member of Congress. Several times in the history of SNAP, Congress had considered placing limits on the types of food that could be purchased with program benefits. However, they concluded that designating foods as luxury or non-nutritious would be administratively costly and burdensome.


They don't genuinely want poor people to actually eat healthy foods - they couldn't possibly care less.  What they do want is to shame people who are receiving benefits, to force them to grovel in thanks, and preferably to not even allow them to shop in regular grocery stores with 'normal' (i.e., 'good') people, but instead to line up in a queue outside of the back of a trailer for distribution of spoiled produce and rotten meat, like those photos of bread lines from the Great Depression.
 
2013-11-07 07:25:10 PM  
"Are you familiar with the concept of structural violence?"
"...no."



The Martian Manhandler
If anyone missed the Unfrozen Caveman Libertarian thread, they should really check out it's epicness.

The last post should have just been "/fark".


FarkedOver
Now, I love the state in as much as I want the working class (the majority of the people) to control the state to oppress the ruling class (the capitalists). It's only fair :)

fuuka.warosu.org


xria
in a practical sense the only real way to rein in the power of corporations is to have a relatively powerful government, which at least has to respond to public pressure to a reasonable extent in regulating and limiting their worst abuses. Obviously it is far from ideal, but "Never let perfect become the enemy of the good" or whatever the phrase is.

Ideally, there would be a high enough level of social and labor organization to be able to do things without having to resort to the government. According to what you're saying, there is no reason the government can't do its part to rein in corporate power WHILE we work toward that level of organization. Anyway, do you really believe the government has any interest in actually reining in corporate power? If not, there's only one thing that could force the government to do its job- if we achieve a high enough level of social and labor organization that they are forced to either shape up or be made obsolete. But then if we do manage to achieve that kind of organizational power, why continue relying on a governmental system which is fundamentally hostile? At that point, if the government acts because there is a credible threat of a revolution, why not follow through on that revolution and be done with the problem once and for all?


skullkrusher
I believe money=money and should have no impact on political power

Economic power IS political power. "Politics" does not necessarily mean "government".


lockers
Kinda like communism and anarcho-capitalism. if only there was some sort of compromise that existed between these systems.

Mutualism? Anti-State capitalist, but with homesteading allowed on abandoned property even if someone else once held a title to it.
I don't mind mutualists, mostly because they tend to have good politics when it comes to racism, sexism, nationalism, poverty, etc. By their deeds judge them etc.


Felgraf
I really don't think communism can work for large-scale societies, because, yes, of human nature at the moment. Most people may be happy to help folks they know/work to provide for friends and family, but when the people you're supposedly aiding are so far away as to become a total abstraction, I suspect it is much harder to give a fark.

True, but this can possibly be solved by making a 'large-scale society' which consists of a vast number of small groups, organized and coordinated through an acephalous federation. You don't need to know everyone in the world; just the individuals in the organizations you're part of and the general overview of your supply chain and the world news. That's Anarchism.
 
2013-11-07 08:32:23 PM  

RanDomino: "Are you familiar with the concept of structural violence?"
"...no."



That's because it's horse sh*t.

"Structural violence" is just another word for "I want what you've got, and you're going to hit me when I try to steal it, aren't you?"

It's a pseudo-intellectual word for "hoarding."

It's an attempt to take the word "violence" (which sounds awfully mean and scary) and apply it to situations where someone dares assert a right of property over something.

Of course, the whole idea that "hoarding" or "property" is bad and wrong in the first place DEPENDS upon the idea that the person who wants to take the good in question has a superior right to it, and thus that the person resisting the taking has no right to do so.  In other words, it affirms the principle of property rights, in the same instance that it attempts to deny it.  Contradiction.  Fail.  QED.

Oh, and by the way, Peter Joseph's Great Big Wonderful Idea is ... that the entire world's production, of everything, should be taken over by robots and the entire distribution of the goods produced by our robot-made goods should be handled by a great big computer.

For reals.

No word yet on what the Super-Commie Super-Computer's actual PROGRAM is supposed to look like.  (I hope it gives me a b*tchin' car, though.)

Besides, weren't there at least three original Star Trek episodes and a couple of movies about this very concept?  I seem to remember them all ending badly for the humans.
 
2013-11-07 08:33:44 PM  

Clever Neologism: serial_crusher:

I've always advocated replacing SNAP with something similar to the currently existing WIC.  Folks get a list of specific items they're allowed to buy each week.  They take that list down to the grocery store and get those items.  Store sends government the bill for however much those cost.  It cuts out a lot of the middle men you mentioned above there, but does introduce a little bit of reasonable overhead on its own.  Mainly we have to have a system that generates that list.
For a trivial solution that would suck, we could just make it a really basic list that applies exactly the same to everybody.  Beans and rice this week, potatoes and ramen noodles next week.  Even I'm not cruel enough to suggest that as an actual solution though.

I like this idea.  You'd have to have some sort of limit on price and item selection (yes, you can have bread.  You cannot have the tiny $10 artisan spring water sourdough), and make sure that grocery stores weren't gaming the system, but it'd be easier to audit 10,000 grocery stores than 1 million benefit recipients, at the same time you'd have to give them leeway for regional brand variance, etc. otherwise you'd quickly unbalance the market with winners and losers.

Those basic meals could be packaged up and sold to *everyone*, not just welfare recipients, with the government basically condoning said pacakge as "100% nutritionally complete for 1 adult for 1 week" or something: boom instant health program to reduce obesity and malnutrition... run it in cooperation with HHS (just make sure they don't build a website for it).


Yup, the meal planner could show you the total price of that week's groceries.  Then rich folks could pay 100% from their own pocket, dirt poor people could get it for free, folks in between could get a discount.  Problem is that would take some effort to synchronize the government's database with all the stores' prices, or you'd have to force the stores to price approved items equally.  Maybe better to show an approximate cost, then cap the partially subsidized people at some fraction of the estimate.

As for the cheap bread vs. expensive, WIC already does that.  There are particular brands of milk, cereal, baby food, etc that have a WIC approved sticker next to them.  When I was a cashier, WIC people were always a problem because the POS needed to know they were on WIC before we started ringing items up, and most people wouldn't let us know until it was time to pay so we'd have to void out the whole order and start over.  Eventually you could tell by the items and brands they were getting that they were going to be paying with WIC.  Every now and then I would offend a frugal person by asking.
 
2013-11-07 09:44:52 PM  

IdBeCrazyIf: There is of course a balance required and power must ebb and flow as necessary, however in certain extreme situations there are times where member states cannot be trusted to govern themselves despite the representative structure in place because their governance or lack there of threatens the republic at large.


What are you babbling about?

Essentially self interest is trumped when it threatens the great societal whole.

Certainly so.  Of course the problem arises when individual rights are trampled by the whims of society with no rational basis.

We are basically at a point in our human collective history where we need to stop thinking individualistically and start thinking for the species.

You believe there is a contradiction there?

kxs401: Libertarianism IS a crazy extreme.


Tens of missions of people self-identify libertarian, and do not fit into the crazy extreme that you have determined it to be, therefore your definition is wrong.

What?

Well you're saying only the crazy anarcho Rand groupies are true libertarians.  Does it also follow that only Fred Phelps' family are true Christians?

super_grass: Shared ideology, cultural norms, centuries of legal precedent and philosophy?


All of those depend on the rights already existing.

I mean, there's no inherent thing called "human rights", it's just something that people universally agree on and have some utilitarian value. Kind of like the concept of right and wrong.

Right and wrong are right and wrong regardless of any agreement.  Slavery was just as wrong in 2000 BC as it is today.  Now we simply recognize it as such.

Felgraf: Says the person who went "OH, so you think the government should have UNLIMITED POWER?!"


Because that's what he was implying.  And you may have noticed that before you even replied  he confirmed that yes, that was in fact what he was saying, in those words.
 
2013-11-07 09:55:38 PM  
Phinn
Of course, the whole idea that "hoarding" or "property" is bad and wrong in the first place DEPENDS upon the idea that the person who wants to take the good in question has a superior right to it, and thus that the person resisting the taking has no right to do so. In other words, it affirms the principle of property rights, in the same instance that it attempts to deny it. Contradiction. Fail. QED.

Which definition of "property" are you referring to?
 
2013-11-07 10:04:46 PM  

ikanreed: Answer: nothing. Rights are a social construct. They are a result of enlightened self-interest. We already know what a lack of government leads to: government.


Thanks for proving my original point.  Government exists to protect and defend individual liberty, NOT usurp it.
 
2013-11-07 10:06:22 PM  

EWreckedSean: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men "


Which going back to my original point, government exists to protect and defend individual liberty, not usurp it.
 
2013-11-08 12:50:21 AM  

slayer199: Government

should exists to protect and defend individual liberty, NOT usurp it.

FTFY
 
Displayed 50 of 499 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report