Flagrant Boosterism (Well, not really)

[WAB]

He does push back, and he pushes back with the best weapon available: Reason.

Seriously, I think Rubin has gotten some kind of Cosmic Reason-and-CALM injection from the greatest philosopher who ever lived and smoked a pipe and liked soup: Benedictus de Spinoza.

The world will give Baruch his due, at long last, some day, some day...

Can you point to me an interview where he pushes back against the right ?

Well he "pushed back" with Milo Yiannopoulos quite a bit when Milo was mouthing off about Islam and other subjects. But he doesn't argue with any degree of hostility, he just makes subtle points and sticks to them. He also disagreed with Dennis Prager quite a bit over religious issues, since Rubin is an atheist, but again, both men are known to be very cordial and the discussion was civil and polite all the way through.

Of course you know that Rubin is famous for pushing back against what he terms the regressive left, and I think he does it quite well. But, in his monologues he makes it very clear that he is not a fan of the far left or the far right. He just happens to choose his battles, and he battles far more against the left than the right.

 

[WAB]

If there is anything to be learned from man's 8 thousand year history of many different civilizations it is that government is the natural order of human society. Although history every human society has formed a government. It must be because governments are needed. There is no other possible conclusion. And yet libertarians come to the conclusion that governments aren't needed and that they are the cause of virtually every problem that we have.

Sorry, somehow I missed that this thread was moving along.

Not to dismiss the rest of what you wrote (I won't quibble over centrist or moderate - moderate works for me) - but you got me with this last para.

I'm no expert on libertarianism, but I had always understood them to be for limited government, not no government?

This is their own definition, from https://www.lp.org/

What is The Libertarian Party?

The Libertarian Party (LP) is your representative in American politics. It is the only political organization which respects you as a unique and responsible individual.

Our slogan is that we are “The Party of Principle”, because we stand firmly on our principles.

Libertarians strongly oppose any government interference into their personal, family, and business decisions. Essentially, we believe all Americans should be free to live their lives and pursue their interests as they see fit as long as they do no harm to another.

Founded in 1971, we run many hundred of candidates every election cycle. These candidates seek positions ranging from City Council to President of the United States. Each of these candidates helps to give liberty a voice.
The Libertarian Option

Consider voting Libertarian or joining the Libertarian Party because…

We seek to substantially reduce the size and intrusiveness of government and cut and eliminate taxes at every opportunity.
We believe that peaceful, honest people should be able to offer their goods and services to willing consumers without inappropriate interference from government.
We believe that peaceful, honest people should decide for themselves how to live their lives, without fear of criminal or civil penalties.
We believe that government’s only responsibility, if any, should be protecting people from force and fraud.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Supply side is a post-Keynesian economic theory of directed government intervention in the economy, while libertarians embrace free market Capitalism instead.

Only in lalalalibertarian land is reducing taxes and reducing regulation considered "directed government intervention into the economy".

So that's pretty much the whole definition of Supply Side, according to lalalaughing dog. Never mind all the rest of it, that doesn't matter and is actually problematic if you want to insist that Supply Side and Free Market are the same thing.

 

[WAB]

Rand was a lot of things, not least of all a victim of the very system she tried to champion as evidenced by the poor quality of her final years. Its kind of poetic in a way. She spent much of her adult life advancing individualist, anti-government thought and then in the end, her only saving grace was that the state was willing to keep her alive through a publicly funded allowance.

After a little digging (not thoroughly), it appears Rand may have received Social Security and Medicare benefits in old age due to her having cancer. Even if that were so it hardly means that "the state was willing to keep her alive through a publicly funded allowance."- which is a seriously fucked-up way of saying that she got back what she paid in. Rand made millions and paid into the system in spades for many decades, and whatever she received (if she did - haven't checked with the O'ists yet) was well-deserved.

Even if collecting on those benefits contradicted her lifelong stance on such things, it doesn't mean she didn't deserve those benefits, just as anyone deserves their SS benefits who has worked their whole life and paid into the system.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

What the heck is this thread about...all the way to Rand and no synopsis on the video of weirdos in the op?

 

[WAB]

What the heck is this thread about...all the way to Rand and no synopsis on the video of weirdos in the op?

It's about my admiration for Rubin, and to a lesser extent, Stossel. Both were liberals who woke up and moved more toward the middle, or toward the right. I was a liberal who moved pretty far to the right and am now pretty securely in the middle.

We got into libertarianism, and then Rand, and that may have been my fault. We can stop talking about Rand and begin talking about Dave! But no-one wants to watch the video. Ah well.

I thought the vid would be of interest to those of you on the left who might wonder how and why two "garden-variety" liberals were compelled to change their views. But alas, I was mistaken.

Why do you say weirdos, Don? What's weird about either one of them?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I am not going to watch 54 minutes of that. Give me a few sentences of a summary.

 

[WAB]

I am not going to watch 54 minutes of that. Give me a few sentences of a summary.

Then don't. Who cares? There are other threads.

 

[laughing dog]

Only in lalalalibertarian land is reducing taxes and reducing regulation considered "directed government intervention into the economy".

So that's pretty much the whole definition of Supply Side, according to lalalaughing dog.

Not in standard english. For example.

supply-side economics
noun
1.
(functioning as sing) a school of economic thought that emphasizes the importance to a strong economy of policies that remove impediments to supply

(http://www.dictionary.com/browse/supply-side-economics or

Supply-side economics is a macroeconomic theory that argues economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering taxes and decreasing regulation.

( Supply-side_economics) or

Supply-side economics, Theory that focuses on influencing the supply of labour and goods, using tax cuts and benefit cuts as incentives to work and produce goods.

(https://www.britannica.com/topic/supply-side-economics

Apparently, reducing taxes and/or regulation and/or gov't benefits means directed gov't intervention into the economy. Fascinating.

Never mind all the rest of it, that doesn't matter and is actually problematic if you want to insist that Supply Side and Free Market are the same thing.

Who is doing that?

 

[LordKiran]

Rand was a lot of things, not least of all a victim of the very system she tried to champion as evidenced by the poor quality of her final years. Its kind of poetic in a way. She spent much of her adult life advancing individualist, anti-government thought and then in the end, her only saving grace was that the state was willing to keep her alive through a publicly funded allowance.

After a little digging (not thoroughly), it appears Rand may have received Social Security and Medicare benefits in old age due to her having cancer. Even if that were so it hardly means that "the state was willing to keep her alive through a publicly funded allowance."- which is a seriously fucked-up way of saying that she got back what she paid in. Rand made millions and paid into the system in spades for many decades, and whatever she received (if she did - haven't checked with the O'ists yet) was well-deserved.

Even if collecting on those benefits contradicted her lifelong stance on such things, it doesn't mean she didn't deserve those benefits, just as anyone deserves their SS benefits who has worked their whole life and paid into the system.

If Rand truly believed in her principles she would have let herself die before she took public money, but no because it turns out that Miss Rand only had one lasting principle "What's in it for me?"

Rather than die for her principles, she compromised them to save her own skin. Which is fine so long as she acknowledge it and refine her views accordingly. To the best of my knowledge, she did not do this. So she's a MASSIVE hypocrite.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Never mind all the rest of it, that doesn't matter and is actually problematic if you want to insist that Supply Side and Free Market are the same thing.

Who is doing that?

You are. It is true that there are common positions between the two, but they are not identical in spite of your fervent desire to say otherwise. Highlighting the common positions does not make all positions common. For example, both Democrats and Republicans think the Free Market advocacy of hard currency is ludicrous, so therefore the Democrats and Republicans agree on everything?

I'm not even going to mention the different motives that underlie the common positions, because I know you care about "ha, they agree on A, forget why, so they agree on everything." Still, according to even your own source of dictionary dot com, the ultimate goal of Supply Side economics is to skillfully manage the economy, just like Keynesians, while they ultimate goal of Free Market Capitalism is to not manage the economy. By your logic, where if you agree on one point you agree on all, that makes Supply Siders the same as Keynesians.

First of all, in the Wikipedia article you referenced, the article points out that Supply Side economists have little concern over deficit and debt, while Free Market Capitalists are quite concerned with deficit and debt. Since Fiscal Policy include deficit and debt by necessity, this is a rather glaring difference. Also considered good by supply side economists is a trade deficit, and skillfully managed mild to moderate inflation.

Tax cuts are an integral part of Supply Side economics, that is true, but consider that carefully. Supply Side economists are comfortable with both general tax cuts and targeted social engineering tax deductions. The primary concern of Supply Side economists is the marginal tax rates and capital gains taxes. Some taxes they completely ignore as not relevant to their theory.

It is true that Supply Side borrows from Free Market Capitalism. It also borrows from Right-Keynesianism. It is an attempt to take the "best" of both policies. I'd say to take a look at the footnotes of the Wikipedia article so as to increase your understanding of the subject, but from your point of view those are just decorations and the Wikipedia article contains everything we know about the subject.

 

[laughing dog]

Who is doing that?

You are. ..

Okay, I will go down your rabbit hole - produce the quote where I equate supply side economics with free market capitalism.

Supply side economics focuses on reducing taxes, reducing regulation and reducing gov't benefits. In other words, reducing the influence of government on economic activity. It is the opposite of trying to directly intervene in the economy. If reducing gov't influence on economic activity is direct gov't intervention then your Free Market Capitalism is the epitome of direct gov't intervention.

 

[WAB]

After a little digging (not thoroughly), it appears Rand may have received Social Security and Medicare benefits in old age due to her having cancer. Even if that were so it hardly means that "the state was willing to keep her alive through a publicly funded allowance."- which is a seriously fucked-up way of saying that she got back what she paid in. Rand made millions and paid into the system in spades for many decades, and whatever she received (if she did - haven't checked with the O'ists yet) was well-deserved.

Even if collecting on those benefits contradicted her lifelong stance on such things, it doesn't mean she didn't deserve those benefits, just as anyone deserves their SS benefits who has worked their whole life and paid into the system.

If Rand truly believed in her principles she would have let herself die before she took public money, but no because it turns out that Miss Rand only had one lasting principle "What's in it for me?"

Rather than die for her principles, she compromised them to save her own skin. Which is fine so long as she acknowledge it and refine her views accordingly. To the best of my knowledge, she did not do this. So she's a MASSIVE hypocrite.

As you will notice, I mentioned that yes, IF Ayn Rand did collect SS and Medicare benefits, then that would have been in contradiction to her documented philosophy and moral stance on the issue. Hence, yes, she would have been hypocritical.

My point is, she was a millionaire, and paid LOTS of money into the system, and she deserved whatever benefits she received in old age. Just as you will deserve yours, and I will deserve mine.

Was she receiving welfare, charity, or handouts? Well, no.

Hypocritical, sure. Drain on society, like so many people who do nothing all their lives but collect checks for doing nothing? Nope.

 

[LordKiran]

If Rand truly believed in her principles she would have let herself die before she took public money, but no because it turns out that Miss Rand only had one lasting principle "What's in it for me?"

Rather than die for her principles, she compromised them to save her own skin. Which is fine so long as she acknowledge it and refine her views accordingly. To the best of my knowledge, she did not do this. So she's a MASSIVE hypocrite.

As you will notice, I mentioned that yes, IF Ayn Rand did collect SS and Medicare benefits, then that would have been in contradiction to her documented philosophy and moral stance on the issue. Hence, yes, she would have been hypocritical.

My point is, she was a millionaire, and paid LOTS of money into the system, and she deserved whatever benefits she received in old age. Just as you will deserve yours, and I will deserve mine.

Was she receiving welfare, charity, or handouts? Well, no.

Hypocritical, sure. Drain on society, like so many people who do nothing all their lives but collect checks for doing nothing? Nope.

Oh I'm not saying she didn't have a right to it, I'm saying that she didn't have a consistent philosophy besides "What's good for me?"

Just another selfish old bag looking to justify her own shortcomings and pass them off as virtues.

 

[untermensche]

If Rand truly believed in her principles she would have let herself die before she took public money, but no because it turns out that Miss Rand only had one lasting principle "What's in it for me?"

Rather than die for her principles, she compromised them to save her own skin. Which is fine so long as she acknowledge it and refine her views accordingly. To the best of my knowledge, she did not do this. So she's a MASSIVE hypocrite.

As you will notice, I mentioned that yes, IF Ayn Rand did collect SS and Medicare benefits, then that would have been in contradiction to her documented philosophy and moral stance on the issue. Hence, yes, she would have been hypocritical.

My point is, she was a millionaire, and paid LOTS of money into the system, and she deserved whatever benefits she received in old age. Just as you will deserve yours, and I will deserve mine.

Was she receiving welfare, charity, or handouts? Well, no.

Hypocritical, sure. Drain on society, like so many people who do nothing all their lives but collect checks for doing nothing? Nope.

Social Security is an insurance program where generally you pay in to get something back. There are other provisions like for the blind and the disabled.

No different from any other insurance.

It is not a handout. It is not charity.

It is one of the most successful social programs in history. It took the burden of the elderly off their children and society. It lifted millions from what was a life of poverty and misery and burden.

Only the very stupid criticize it.

 

[RavenSky]

Here is a link on Ayn Rand taking social security - http://www.snopes.com/ayn-rand-social-security/

also known as her "have your cake and eat it too" philosophy

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If Rand truly believed in her principles she would have let herself die before she took public money, but no because it turns out that Miss Rand only had one lasting principle "What's in it for me?"

Rather than die for her principles, she compromised them to save her own skin. Which is fine so long as she acknowledge it and refine her views accordingly. To the best of my knowledge, she did not do this. So she's a MASSIVE hypocrite.

As you will notice, I mentioned that yes, IF Ayn Rand did collect SS and Medicare benefits, then that would have been in contradiction to her documented philosophy and moral stance on the issue. Hence, yes, she would have been hypocritical.

My point is, she was a millionaire, and paid LOTS of money into the system, and she deserved whatever benefits she received in old age. Just as you will deserve yours, and I will deserve mine.

Was she receiving welfare, ...?

There really isn't as much difference between SS and welfare as you might like there to be. While people don't pay into welfare per se, they often do work and their family, friends, and neighbors may work and believe in that welfare to be redistributed...whereas with SS you don't always pay into it either and often the benefits are more like an insurance, even for those who are sick.

As for me personally, my mother worked some of the time, ended up on AFDC, worked some more (payed taxes into such programs) and then went on SS. When I was a child I received such benefits. As an adult, I have paid way more in taxes than the benefits I once received as a child, no, more than my mother and I both received.

My debts are paid with interest.

 

[lpetrich]

Small government,

What counts as "small government"?

The ultimate in small government is zero government. Anarchy.

That has been tried, and it isn't very pretty.

accountability (big one)

"Accountability" to what???

responsibility (another biggy).

What qualifies as one's responsibilities? Is one to be responsible for all the crimes that one is subjected to? Responsible by enabling those crimes in some way or other.

The modern, egalitarian fixation on the TEAM!!!!!! is destroying accountability,

How so???

and the welfare state, identity politics, absurd PC, is busy destroying responsibility.

How so???

Like the way that government military and police forces destroy a sense of responsibility for protecting oneself?

 

[lpetrich]

Right-wingers' favorite government agencies, military and police forces, are all very collectivist. What do you call wearing uniforms? Marching in formation?

Also, all but the smallest businesses are collectivist. Often very collectivist. I've had an abundance of experience with business collectivism. Even the ownership of the larger businesses is often collectivist -- as a stockholder, one is part of a group of stockholders unless one is the only stockholder.

Also, team sports are collectivist. Dressing alike is just the beginning of it. Consider this:

America is a country of team sports. We must see these sports for what they are. They are brainwashing stations for individualism. They are training schools for collectivism, socialism, authoritarianism, and totalitarianism. ...

The team is the social group which always comes first.... If you are looking for the real advance guard for modern Communism, you should go to the field-houses and the football stadiums.

Source: "Allston Wheat's Crusade", The McLandress Dimension (1963), John Kenneth Galbraith as Mark Epernay.

 

[lpetrich]

I am not a conservative, nor a liberal.

What are your biggest disagreements with conservatism?

What's even sillier is the linking, in a lot of people's minds, of Libertarianism with Objectivism, Ayn Rand's school of thought. Ayn Rand detested Libertarianism, and hated the fact that many of them were hitching their wagons to her movement.

From the outside, they are hard to distinguish. Try distinguishing Trotskyism and Maoism, and you'll see what I mean.

By the by, I'm NOT an Objectivist, and in fact have HUGE disagreements with Objectivism and Ayn Rand.

Like what?