GOP: Libertarians not wanted

[coloradoatheist]

The government has to represent 300 million people along with millions of businesses that employee those 300 million people so there is no one decision that 100% of the country agrees on and most issues are not cut and dried. And I would say democracy toward business is better than the democracy we have toward our own government.

There is nothing explicit or implied in the Constitution that the government represent business interests. Often it is good policy and good for the people and sometimes it is very bad to do so. Like with anything in an absolute ideal world: reality interferes.

That being said, you can have a democracy that is pro business without business involvement/interference in that democracy.

You are right, but since it's these employers that are responsible for paying people they have to listen.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

There is nothing explicit or implied in the Constitution that the government represent business interests. Often it is good policy and good for the people and sometimes it is very bad to do so. Like with anything in an absolute ideal world: reality interferes.

That being said, you can have a democracy that is pro business without business involvement/interference in that democracy.

You are right, but since it's these employers that are responsible for paying people they have to listen.

Who has to listen?

 

[coloradoatheist]

You are right, but since it's these employers that are responsible for paying people they have to listen.

Who has to listen?

The government does need to listen to businesss. I think the issue is that the government does do a lot of things that affects everyone, however it isn't as much as one group or another wants so we look for things that we don't like and say the government doesn't listen.

 

[lpetrich]

I don't recall which thread it was in, but since this thread has veered into business management, I'll take on the issue here.

I recall Emily Lake not wanting to be a business owner or whatever because of the supposed terrible risks of business ownership. What risks? Being sodomized with a red-hot poker? Will avoiding having an ownership stake mean that one will have good pay and job security as long as one does a good job?

 

[untermensche]

Who has to listen?

The government does need to listen to businesss. I think the issue is that the government does do a lot of things that affects everyone, however it isn't as much as one group or another wants so we look for things that we don't like and say the government doesn't listen.

The people that run the government are the people Big Business put there.

How do they not listen to business? They work for them?

Nearly every piece of legislation is there because business wants it. It's not there because the people wanted it.

The people want universal healthcare, less wars, higher taxes on the most lucky, and climate change seriously addressed.

But of course business opposes these things so they are not possible.

 

[lpetrich]

Back to the OP, I think that this shows the value of proportional representation. If Congress and state legislatures implemented PR, then the Libertarian Party or similar parties would get seats. Not very many, I suspect, but a number which reflects how many people actually like the party's platform.

So why not consider it?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Back to the OP, I think that this shows the value of proportional representation. If Congress and state legislatures implemented PR, then the Libertarian Party or similar parties would get seats. Not very many, I suspect, but a number which reflects how many people actually like the party's platform.

So why not consider it?

Because it requires those actually in office to implement PR, and those in office have a vested interest in not doing so because they would personally lose power.

 

[lpetrich]

Back to the OP, I think that this shows the value of proportional representation. If Congress and state legislatures implemented PR, then the Libertarian Party or similar parties would get seats. Not very many, I suspect, but a number which reflects how many people actually like the party's platform.

So why not consider it?

Because it requires those actually in office to implement PR, and those in office have a vested interest in not doing so because they would personally lose power.

I agree that a lot of politicians may have too much of a stake in the existing system to want to change it. But others may want a less Procrustean system.

 

[untermensche]

Back to the OP, I think that this shows the value of proportional representation. If Congress and state legislatures implemented PR, then the Libertarian Party or similar parties would get seats. Not very many, I suspect, but a number which reflects how many people actually like the party's platform.

So why not consider it?

Makes too much sense.

 

[arkirk]

The wagons have been circled and fortified a long time

Because it requires those actually in office to implement PR, and those in office have a vested interest in not doing so because they would personally lose power.

I agree that a lot of politicians may have too much of a stake in the existing system to want to change it. But others may want a less Procrustean system.

Our government is totally insolated from social action on real problems and has been for a long time. It is because we do not any longer have the level of debate necessary in our government halls to effectively address our social and environmental problems. Proportional representation would help, but there is a well financed bipartisan opposition to government in the government itself.

Recently, we have been involved in wars the people did not want and they were opposed by millions of people in the streets. Recently, the Occupy movement attempted to raise the issue of social and economic injustice in our country. The Democrats and Republicans just hunkered down and used our tax money to pay cops to take down the camps. Debates about the existential threat of Global Warming have been blunted by paid off Democratic and Republican politicians. There is a dire need for us to address our environment and major debates about this are simply not allowed by politicians in office.

We have proven one thing so far this century: A two party winner take all system does not yield a government capable of adequately addressing our society's problems. I think proportional representation as proposed by the Green Party would help. Government does not have to be perfect, but locked in top down rule by a few corporatist politicians will insure it will not be serving the interests of the people of the United States. For our government to endure and to begin to address real problems, it must not be dominated as it is today by double dealing oligarchs who even today do not mind destroying our future for their own personal gain. Proportional representation would be a necessary first step on the road back to genuine democracy.

Unfortunately, PR is opposed by the billionaires who currently own our politicians and our government is so structured these politicians are empowered to violate the will of the electorate.

Internal Republican Party matters are just the tip of the iceberg. Our country is actually being run by an internally fractured single party with internecine feuding the rule within that party. I am unsure of just how we name that party. It is either the Democans or the Repulicrats. Both of our parties are sold out to self serving private interests. The degree of corruption is great enough to totally paralyze the actual interests of the inhabitants of our country. I feel the degree of corruption is so great we will possibly not see significant reform in my lifetime. It may just take some form of disaster to bring about reform. It makes me queasy to try to imagine how bad things have to get before we begin to see some reform. PR would be a good start, but this is being effectively blocked by people with billions to spend.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Libertarians and Conservatives: Opponents, Not Allies

Conservatives, attempting to shore up a sinking ship, claim their ideology is inherently libertarian, instead of the obvious choice: authoritarian.

In spite of such juvenile attempts the differences are obvious to objective observers. One of the most outspoken voices of the theocratic right is Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association. He recently wrote: "Perhaps the most sinister and dangerous lie the left has beaten into the brains of unthinking Americans is that there is strength in diversity. Nothing could be further from the truth."

He claims "strength is found in unity and not diversity" and that countries should be like football teams: "Successful football teams wear identical uniforms, take directions from one coach, follow one game plan, and serve one high school, college or franchise. It is utter bilge and dangerous falsehood to believe that there is some kind of mystical strength in diversity."

...

Hayek's Why I Am Not a Conservative perfectly dissects the collectivism and authoritarianism of theocrats such as Fischer, though written when Fischer was a child. Hayek said the conservative only "feels safe and content" when "some higher wisdom watches and supervises change" and yearns for some "authority" to keep things under control. They are not opposed "to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. "He regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people."

Rise of the 'Unholy Alliance' of Libertarians and Leftists - How libertarians and leftists are changing American politics, from foreign policy to Ferguson.

In 2010, Lindsey Graham could see it coming.

"You know what I worry most about?" the Republican Senator from South Carolina told CNN about the growing opposition to the war in Afghanistan. "An unholy alliance between the right and the left." If the war continued to yield no clear victories for the U.S., libertarian-leaning Republicans who believed it was "impossible for us to win" could join with "people on the left who are mad with the president because he is doing exactly what Bush did and we’re in a war we can’t win." Such a coalition would pose the gravest threat to the joint war-making project of the Republican and Democratic establishments. "My concern is that, for different reasons, they join forces and we lose the ability to hold this thing together."

Six months later, progressive icon Ralph Nader saw the potential power of a libertarian-left alliance, too, but welcomed it. Appearing with Ron Paul on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s "Freedom Watch" show on Fox Business Network in January 2011, Nader issued a manifesto for "a dynamic political force" that would not only stop the war in Afghanistan but radically re-shape American politics. What he called "genuine libertarian conservatives" were "great allies" and together with "many liberals and progressives" could challenge "the bloated, wasteful military budget," "undeclared wars overseas," "hundreds of billions of dollars of corporate welfare," "invasions of our civil liberties and civil rights," "the sovereignty-shredding, job-destroying NAFTA and World Trade Organization agreements," and the "completely out-of-control" and unaccountable Federal Reserve System. Nader could also have mentioned the criminalization of drugs, police abuses, and immigration restrictions, which the left and libertarians have fought together against for years.

In fact, Graham’s fears and Nader’s hopes have now been realized. Never has there been a greater convergence of libertarian and leftist activities, never has it given more trouble to the powers of Washington, D.C., and never has it been a greater cause of concern, hope, and conflict among the political intelligentsia.

I really do hope that liberals remember their roots, ditch the progressives, and reforge their bonds with libertarians.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Libertarians and Conservatives: Opponents, Not Allies



Rise of the 'Unholy Alliance' of Libertarians and Leftists - How libertarians and leftists are changing American politics, from foreign policy to Ferguson.

In 2010, Lindsey Graham could see it coming.

"You know what I worry most about?" the Republican Senator from South Carolina told CNN about the growing opposition to the war in Afghanistan. "An unholy alliance between the right and the left." If the war continued to yield no clear victories for the U.S., libertarian-leaning Republicans who believed it was "impossible for us to win" could join with "people on the left who are mad with the president because he is doing exactly what Bush did and we’re in a war we can’t win." Such a coalition would pose the gravest threat to the joint war-making project of the Republican and Democratic establishments. "My concern is that, for different reasons, they join forces and we lose the ability to hold this thing together."

Six months later, progressive icon Ralph Nader saw the potential power of a libertarian-left alliance, too, but welcomed it. Appearing with Ron Paul on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s "Freedom Watch" show on Fox Business Network in January 2011, Nader issued a manifesto for "a dynamic political force" that would not only stop the war in Afghanistan but radically re-shape American politics. What he called "genuine libertarian conservatives" were "great allies" and together with "many liberals and progressives" could challenge "the bloated, wasteful military budget," "undeclared wars overseas," "hundreds of billions of dollars of corporate welfare," "invasions of our civil liberties and civil rights," "the sovereignty-shredding, job-destroying NAFTA and World Trade Organization agreements," and the "completely out-of-control" and unaccountable Federal Reserve System. Nader could also have mentioned the criminalization of drugs, police abuses, and immigration restrictions, which the left and libertarians have fought together against for years.

In fact, Graham’s fears and Nader’s hopes have now been realized. Never has there been a greater convergence of libertarian and leftist activities, never has it given more trouble to the powers of Washington, D.C., and never has it been a greater cause of concern, hope, and conflict among the political intelligentsia.

I really do hope that liberals remember their roots, ditch the progressives, and reforge their bonds with libertarians.

so you think that liberals should move to the right?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

so you think that liberals should move to the right?

Renewing the ties between modern liberals and classic liberals has nothing to do with moving to the right.

 

[untermensche]

What is more authoritarian than the vast majority of capitalist economic institutions?

You have a small amount of people with all ultimate power and they send direct orders down the pyramid.

And the vast majority in the power structure have absolutely no real power to make changes. If they have a good idea, with permission, they can institute it.

If only Libertarians saw this obvious authoritarian power I would take them seriously.

 

[lpetrich]

What is more authoritarian than the vast majority of capitalist economic institutions?

You have a small amount of people with all ultimate power and they send direct orders down the pyramid.

And the vast majority in the power structure have absolutely no real power to make changes. If they have a good idea, with permission, they can institute it.

Just like the Right's stereotype of government, except for the parts of government that they like.

If only Libertarians saw this obvious authoritarian power I would take them seriously.

They'd say that you have the freedom to love it or leave it, and that this is all the freedom you'll ever need, and all the freedom that you'll ever have a right to.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Let's see.

In behavior psychology, there are concepts such as positive and negative reinforcement, as well as concepts of punishment, all used to modify behavior. They can be broken down thusly:

Apply Reward
Withhold Reward
Apply Punishment
Withhold Punishment

Apply Reward and Withhold Punishment are both used to encourage behaviors, while Withhold Reward and Apply Punishment are both used to discourage behaviors. But even though the pairs are both used to accomplish the same basic goal, they are very VERY different from each other.

That is, unless you want to accuse libertarians of supporting an authoritarian power structure. Then the lines are either unknowingly or deliberately blurred.

The difference between the rich (wealthy businessmen) and the powerful (government) is that only government can apply or withhold punishment. The most that a rich person can do (without using government) is to withhold reward. That's it. Nothing more.

People who want to accuse libertarians of supporting an authoritarian power structure, ironically, look to government as the check on the power of the rich. In order to keep people in check whose only power is to withhold a reward, we give some people the power to apply or withhold punishment.

There are currently people planning to boycott Burger King for moving their headquarters to another country. Burger King cannot arrest people for participating in this boycott.

So the only freedom is "love it or leave it" in a libertarian system? You have the ultimate freedom of saying "no" when told to do something by the "authoritarian rich."

 

[untermensche]

Let's see.

In behavior psychology, there are concepts such as positive and negative reinforcement, as well as concepts of punishment, all used to modify behavior. They can be broken down thusly:

Apply Reward
Withhold Reward
Apply Punishment
Withhold Punishment

Apply Reward and Withhold Punishment are both used to encourage behaviors, while Withhold Reward and Apply Punishment are both used to discourage behaviors. But even though the pairs are both used to accomplish the same basic goal, they are very VERY different from each other.

That is, unless you want to accuse libertarians of supporting an authoritarian power structure. Then the lines are either unknowingly or deliberately blurred.

The difference between the rich (wealthy businessmen) and the powerful (government) is that only government can apply or withhold punishment. The most that a rich person can do (without using government) is to withhold reward. That's it. Nothing more.

People who want to accuse libertarians of supporting an authoritarian power structure, ironically, look to government as the check on the power of the rich. In order to keep people in check whose only power is to withhold a reward, we give some people the power to apply or withhold punishment.

There are currently people planning to boycott Burger King for moving their headquarters to another country. Burger King cannot arrest people for participating in this boycott.

So the only freedom is "love it or leave it" in a libertarian system? You have the ultimate freedom of saying "no" when told to do something by the "authoritarian rich."

Business would withhold water and food and medicine and shelter and anything else if it were permitted to do so.

If there were no power to stop it.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It makes no sense for a business - an entity that exists to buy and sell goods and services - to withhold goods and services. That activity only makes sense for the government, the very entity you want to use to protect us from business.

 

[untermensche]

It makes no sense for a business - an entity that exists to buy and sell goods and services - to withhold goods and services. That activity only makes sense for the government, the very entity you want to use to protect us from business.

Are you joking?

You control the water then you withhold it until you get the price you want.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Ah, the blight of monopoly, right? Something that can only exist when there are legal barriers to competition.