GOP: Libertarians not wanted

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Who says Rand Paul is one of us? Good grief. Even he denies being libertarian, and accuses the mainstream media of trying to "hang the albatross of libertarian around [his] neck."

So how about those Illinois Republicans?

Oh, he's not one of the faith. So sorry. I guess the truly faithful are a small group.

He explicitly denies being libertarian. Don't take my word for it. Take his word for it.

So, how about those Illinois Republicans, eh?

 

[SimpleDon]

So President Obama should declare himself King Barack I and abolish elections?

I should have the freedom of choice to decide what I want to do. If Untermensche doesn't like someone having power over him, then allow him to start his own business!

So only business leaders deserve to have any rights?

Those both seem like gratuitous strawmen to me.

Rather strawmen it seems that we are expected to choose between two idealistic, totally impractical and unobtainable systems, the workers paradise version 13.2, "after one hundred years we finally have all of the bugs worked out, we think," or the self-regulating, self-organizing free market that "we don't know how we get there or what it will be like when we do, but we are absolutely sure that it will be wonderful!"

I for one, will withhold my enthusiasm from either.

 

[SimpleDon]

Oh, he's not one of the faith. So sorry. I guess the truly faithful are a small group.

He explicitly denies being libertarian. Don't take my word for it. Take his word for it.

So, how about those Illinois Republicans, eh?

So who is a card carry true libertarian in your eyes? Murray Rothbard? Hyack? Ron Paul?

Who are your libertarian heroes?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

He explicitly denied being libertarian.

I know why untermensche brought up the issue - Rand Paul, in one of his multitudinous non-libertarian policy positions, endorses Israel instead of Non-Internventionism. Untermensche did so in order to accuse libertarians of holding positions libertarians don't hold.

That's like saying "Since Obama supports the Affordable Care Act, libertarians do so. If libertarians don't support it, then why does Obama support it? You say Obama isn't a libertarian? That's a No True Scotsman."

Rand Paul explicitly, with his own words, denies being libertarian. The son is not the father. He said he is conservative, he said he is not libertarian. Why is it so important to paint him as one?

Is it because people have figured out that there really is a gulf between conservative Republicans and libertarian Libertarians? And mainstream partisans want to undo that knowledge in peoples minds by pretending that the gulf isn't there? Has Republican maltreatment of libertarians destroyed the illusion that every third party and minority viewpoint belongs to one of the two parties? Are you trying to convince people to ignore the evidence and accept the bromide that libertarians belong to Republicans?

So how about those Illinois Republicans that neither of you want to discuss?

 

[arkirk]

The libertarians say essentially that you cannot trust ANY SOCIAL CONTRACT, in fact deny that there can be any such thing. Mainstream Republicans insist there is...an unwritten but very absolute contract obligating have-nots to obey the haves...or go pound sand. Neither of these ideas are good. Mainstream Republicanism is the daughter ideology of Monarchy. Libertarianism seems to have a naïve kind of Robin Hoodism as its parent. The basic ideas of these modern ideologies are at odds with each other. So we would expect just what the OP says the GOP says.

One side supports personal isolationism for everybody. The other side just confines this isolationism to the poor. Neither ideology is capable of dealing with social necessities in a manner that accounts for the entire population. Both ideologies are archaic and promote precarious living conditions for some portion of the population. One side promotes this disorganization of society and moves the scale toward pre-feudal times, ignorance, and near zero social obligation. The other side promotes this same condition for the poor but institutes the rule of oligarchy for the sake of a small portion of the population.

Both sides appear blind to the necessity for binding universal social contracts guaranteeing human rights, societal continuity, and environmental responsibility. I am thankful that these two ideologies waste so much of their energy fighting each other. It is in fact, this split between these two socially irresponsible groups that can allow some small civilizing gains to occur within our society. Both these groups have participated in the decline of our understanding of the need for genuine social government through the constant attacks both parties have made on liberal arts education, subordinating human social concepts to rigid economic theories on one side and to ever escalating concepts of absolute personal freedom on the other.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The libertarians say essentially that you cannot trust ANY SOCIAL CONTRACT, in fact deny that there can be any such thing.

No.

We say that the "social contract" is an allegory for the transition from state of nature to civil society, and not an actual physical signed contract. Anyone who tries to say it is an actual contract is, from our point of view, in the same category of literalism with relation to mythology as creationists are.

Also, we view the social contract as between the individuals and society, not between the individuals and government or between society and government. The government is not a "signator" of the social contract. Instead, now that (within the allegory) the social contract exists and society exists, society hires government as the agent of enforcement of the social contract. Given this perspective, it is now extremely apparent that the government can also violate the social contract.

Saying that the government can violate the social contract is a heresy to conservoprogressives.

One side supports personal isolationism for everybody.

Only from the perspective of the two mistakes you made. That accusation of isolationism only makes sense if one thinks the social contract is a real contract, and that accusation only makes sense if one thinks the government is a party to the contract.

Both sides appear blind to the necessity for binding universal social contracts guaranteeing human rights, societal continuity, and environmental responsibility.

Now you need to look at what are the terms of the allegorical contract. In the state of nature, man had the freedoms to kill, enslave, rob, etc. The social contract was "if you don't kill, enslave, rob, etc. me, I won't kill, enslave, rob, etc., you." As a result of giving up the freedom to kill, enslave, and rob, the people gained the right to life, liberty, and property.

There are those who try to invoke "social contract" when they want the government to take from some to give to others. They don't realize they are undermining their own argument.

In short - the social contract belongs to libertarians, not to conservoprogressives.

 

[arkirk]

So President Obama should declare himself King Barack I and abolish elections?

I should have the freedom of choice to decide what I want to do. If Untermensche doesn't like someone having power over him, then allow him to start his own business!

So only business leaders deserve to have any rights?

Those both seem like gratuitous strawmen to me.

Rather strawmen it seems that we are expected to choose between two idealistic, totally impractical and unobtainable systems, the workers paradise version 13.2, "after one hundred years we finally have all of the bugs worked out, we think," or the self-regulating, self-organizing free market that "we don't know how we get there or what it will be like when we do, but we are absolutely sure that it will be wonderful!"

I for one, will withhold my enthusiasm from either.

So how exactly do we approach this. We are a population adrift in very chaotic conditions indeed...with plenty of poverty, disease, war, ignorance, bad environmental habits, despotic corporations, and religious intolerance. Are there ANY ideas that can help us organize ourselves to cope with our real and all too common problems? You withhold your enthusiasm, and thus limit your imagination and we just slide along generation after generation without relief from deteriorating social and environmental conditions.

Every suggestion that comes up is immediately labeled "utopian," "impossible" and "contrary to human nature." Thus it is not considered and refined and implemented. At the same time, we are spoon-fed with the notion our 200+ year old constitution (written by slave owners) has a utopian quality that cannot be denied and is the best thing ever done by the minds of men. We too are stalled out, not imagining, not creating anything better, living in an inglorious past. Einstein said our greatest liability was lack of imagination. This gives us hopelessness and deflates the motivation necessary to change things for the better.

I have great beefs with Libertarianism and Republicanism, and Democratic partyism, but feel we have to recognize we can or at least should have access to better. It still has to be considered. Untermensche comes up with good ideas often and gets the same old "in your dreams" answer rather than consideration. Our cynicism is immense and kills constructive dreaming. One of the longest continuous threads we had on FRDB was theoretical and dealt with what could be considered a fair form of socialism. We looked at so many ideas and learned a lot about each other in that thread. It was the kind of forum that promoted understanding of the complexities we actually are facing. We allowed imagination a place at the table.

 

[arkirk]

No.

We say that the "social contract" is an allegory for the transition from state of nature to civil society, and not an actual physical signed contract. Anyone who tries to say it is an actual contract is, from our point of view, in the same category of literalism with relation to mythology as creationists are.

Also, we view the social contract as between the individuals and society, not between the individuals and government or between society and government. The government is not a "signator" of the social contract. Instead, now that (within the allegory) the social contract exists and society exists, society hires government as the agent of enforcement of the social contract. Given this perspective, it is now extremely apparent that the government can also violate the social contract.

Saying that the government can violate the social contract is a heresy to conservoprogressives.

One side supports personal isolationism for everybody.

Only from the perspective of the two mistakes you made. That accusation of isolationism only makes sense if one thinks the social contract is a real contract, and that accusation only makes sense if one thinks the government is a party to the contract.

Both sides appear blind to the necessity for binding universal social contracts guaranteeing human rights, societal continuity, and environmental responsibility.

Now you need to look at what are the terms of the allegorical contract. In the state of nature, man had the freedoms to kill, enslave, rob, etc. The social contract was "if you don't kill, enslave, rob, etc. me, I won't kill, enslave, rob, etc., you." As a result of giving up the freedom to kill, enslave, and rob, the people gained the right to life, liberty, and property.

There are those who try to invoke "social contract" when they want the government to take from some to give to others. They don't realize they are undermining their own argument.

In short - the social contract belongs to libertarians, not to conservoprogressives.

The social contract is the relation the citizen has to his government. I see in your argument the same frightened selfishness that motivates all libertarians. 'OOOOH! The evil government is going to take something away from me and give it to others who either don't deserve it or at least deserve less.' This type of statement reeks of narcissism. Can't you see that?

We live out our lives and then we die. We can't take any of this stuff with us. We just have to get through our lives in peace with our neighbors. You make so much out of accumulated wealth...and how important property rights are to you. You can't take it with you. If you are not using it, then learn a little bit about sharing. You also seem to ignore the fact that there has to be something like fairness going on or we shouldn't be doing it. Democracy is you best chance of keeping what you deserve.

You come to me with your pile of goodies, wave them in my face and tell me, "I'm a libertarian and I have all this stuff and the "social contract" says under no condition can you use any of this stuff." I don't think that is a social contract. It is instead a personal demand from you, kind of like a bull elephant seal protecting his harem. Your thinking on this matter really is quite primal and bears the stamp of existential threat, long before any such threat actually exists. You kill progressive arguments with a heavy dose of your own fear of imaginary loss. The narcissism is clear...what makes you think I want what you have? You over value your possessions to such a degree you become uncivil. You also assume that your true value is what you own and overvalue ownership.

At any rate, you really should not call me a conservoprogressive. I'm a friggin' radical environmentalist. There really ain't no "conservo" here.

 

[untermensche]

I know why untermensche brought up the issue - Rand Paul, in one of his multitudinous non-libertarian policy positions, endorses Israel instead of Non-Internventionism. Untermensche did so in order to accuse libertarians of holding positions libertarians don't hold.

Actually my point was when Libertarians get into positions where they actually have to deal with the real world their positions evolve and usually evolve to Republican positions.

From ivory towers their positions are different.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The social contract is the relation the citizen has to his government.

Only in so far as the government is the employee of one of the signators of the contract.

I see in your argument the same frightened selfishness that motivates all libertarians. 'OOOOH! The evil government is going to take something away from me and give it to others who either don't deserve it or at least deserve less.' This type of statement reeks of narcissism. Can't you see that?

Not at all.

You come to me with your pile of goodies, wave them in my face and tell me, "I'm a libertarian and I have all this stuff and the "social contract" says under no condition can you use any of this stuff."

And then I look at your pile of goodies and tell you "I'm a libertarian and you have all that stuff and the "social contract" says that I cannot take it from you." You love leaving out the other half of the statement for some reason. The right to property is also the restriction to not steal. Why do you leave that part out? I have suspicions, but it really is a question only you can answer.

By the way, "under no condition" is an exaggeration extreme enough to be a straw man. You may always ask to borrow, rent, or buy my stuff. Any of those might give you permission, be "a condition". But remembering transactions kills your attempt to paint us as atomist hermits.

I don't think that is a social contract.

Bully for you.

It is instead a personal demand from you, kind of like a bull elephant seal protecting his harem.

It is both a demand on you and a demand on me, that just as you not violate my rights I'm not to violate yours either. But you forget the second half for some reason. I suspect you intentionally forget the second half, but only you can truly explain why you forget the second half.

Your thinking on this matter really is quite primal and bears the stamp of existential threat, long before any such threat actually exists. You kill progressive arguments with a heavy dose of your own fear of imaginary loss. The narcissism is clear...what makes you think I want what you have? You over value your possessions to such a degree you become uncivil. You also assume that your true value is what you own and overvalue ownership.

It is a very interesting anti-morality you are on display here.

At any rate, you really should not call me a conservoprogressive. I'm a friggin' radical environmentalist. There really ain't no "conservo" here.

The statement "you cannot take from me, I cannot take from you" is interesting from a conservoprogressive point of view. Progressives want to pretend libertarians forget the second half, while conservatives do actually forget the second half. Meanwhile progressives do forget the first half. Together, conservoprogressives demonstrate a collective disregard for peoples rights. Your arguments are definitely conservoprogressive.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I know why untermensche brought up the issue - Rand Paul, in one of his multitudinous non-libertarian policy positions, endorses Israel instead of Non-Internventionism. Untermensche did so in order to accuse libertarians of holding positions libertarians don't hold.

Actually my point was when Libertarians get into positions where they actually have to deal with the real world their positions evolve and usually evolve to Republican positions.

From ivory towers their positions are different.

That might be valid IF Rand Paul didn't actually deny being a libertarian. He said he isn't one and the evidence inclines me to believe him.

It is like saying Obama's endorsement of the Affordable Care Act is an indictment of what libertarians are like once they are in a position where they have to deal with the real world.

 

[arkirk]

Only in so far as the government is the employee of one of the signators of the contract.

I see in your argument the same frightened selfishness that motivates all libertarians. 'OOOOH! The evil government is going to take something away from me and give it to others who either don't deserve it or at least deserve less.' This type of statement reeks of narcissism. Can't you see that?

Not at all.

You come to me with your pile of goodies, wave them in my face and tell me, "I'm a libertarian and I have all this stuff and the "social contract" says under no condition can you use any of this stuff."

And then I look at your pile of goodies and tell you "I'm a libertarian and you have all that stuff and the "social contract" says that I cannot take it from you." You love leaving out the other half of the statement for some reason. The right to property is also the restriction to not steal. Why do you leave that part out? I have suspicions, but it really is a question only you can answer.

By the way, "under no condition" is an exaggeration extreme enough to be a straw man. You may always ask to borrow, rent, or buy my stuff. Any of those might give you permission, be "a condition". But remembering transactions kills your attempt to paint us as atomist hermits.

I don't think that is a social contract.

Bully for you.

It is instead a personal demand from you, kind of like a bull elephant seal protecting his harem.

It is both a demand on you and a demand on me, that just as you not violate my rights I'm not to violate yours either. But you forget the second half for some reason. I suspect you intentionally forget the second half, but only you can truly explain why you forget the second half.

Your thinking on this matter really is quite primal and bears the stamp of existential threat, long before any such threat actually exists. You kill progressive arguments with a heavy dose of your own fear of imaginary loss. The narcissism is clear...what makes you think I want what you have? You over value your possessions to such a degree you become uncivil. You also assume that your true value is what you own and overvalue ownership.

It is a very interesting anti-morality you are on display here.

At any rate, you really should not call me a conservoprogressive. I'm a friggin' radical environmentalist. There really ain't no "conservo" here.

The statement "you cannot take from me, I cannot take from you" is interesting from a conservoprogressive point of view. Progressives want to pretend libertarians forget the second half, while conservatives do actually forget the second half. Meanwhile progressives do forget the first half. Together, conservoprogressives demonstrate a collective disregard for peoples rights. Your arguments are definitely conservoprogressive.

You're the one who is scared of losing...very scared. You can use whatever language you want regarding me, but there is no such a thing as a conservoprogressive. I think you don't understand that you can own things that are bad for other people and use them in a way that harms other people. There are far more serious issues than simple ownership. Actually, you make too much out of the idea that every progressive is trying to redistribute what you own. Libertarians assume a whole bunch of rights to operate on the world in ways that harm others and base their rights on the fact that they own the materials they use. The issue is not wealth distribution. It is abuse of power, pollution, denial of support for social institutions of education, and domination of an underclass. It is really quite a power trip and the narcissism of the Libertarian view just hypes it up to a fever pitch. In fact, the narcissism of the Libertarian view promotes such good feelings for oneself, even members of the underclass get suckered into believing they are superior...the good guys who should have a right to do with what they own as they please (even though they don't own anything). The second half of your little statement "I cannot take from you." Libertarians do this taking all the time and then refer the person seeking redress to the first half. This is just a silly word game and has no substance in the real world.

Libertarians avoid environmental issues because their philosophy of ownership of the environment has no way to address these problems. Their intense focus of rugged individualism divorces them from social responsibility. Unfortunately, it is ill informed. Radical environmentalists consider ALL THE PEOPLES' RIGHTS, NOT JUST THEIR OWN. Again your conservoprogressive is nothing but you trying to label me and stick that label on me and it just does not fit. Don't get angry at me and try that. If you do, it will also be ill informed because I have no desire to take away your genuine human rights. Any time a decision is made by a body of people where there is a dispute, (for instance land use issues, air pollution issues, water pollution issues, preservation of the commons, etc. etc. etc.) there always is somebody screaming about his "right"
to pollute, destroy ecosystems, etc.) and claim he has rights which civil society cannot afford. Sometimes we have to give up the right to be arbitrary.

 

[untermensche]

Actually my point was when Libertarians get into positions where they actually have to deal with the real world their positions evolve and usually evolve to Republican positions.

From ivory towers their positions are different.

That might be valid IF Rand Paul didn't actually deny being a libertarian. He said he isn't one and the evidence inclines me to believe him.

It is like saying Obama's endorsement of the Affordable Care Act is an indictment of what libertarians are like once they are in a position where they have to deal with the real world.

What Paul said was that he differed on a few a positions from the Libertarians. A few positions.

As I said, this is what happens when Libertarians run into reality, they have to shift some of their positions.

But the Libertarians who preach from ivory towers don't have to change anything and don't have to make any of their ideas conform with reality.

 

[Emily Lake]

So President Obama should declare himself King Barack I and abolish elections?

I should have the freedom of choice to decide what I want to do. If Untermensche doesn't like someone having power over him, then allow him to start his own business!

So only business leaders deserve to have any rights?

Those both seem like gratuitous strawmen to me.

Rather strawmen it seems that we are expected to choose between two idealistic, totally impractical and unobtainable systems, the workers paradise version 13.2, "after one hundred years we finally have all of the bugs worked out, we think," or the self-regulating, self-organizing free market that "we don't know how we get there or what it will be like when we do, but we are absolutely sure that it will be wonderful!"

I for one, will withhold my enthusiasm from either.

Just for clarity, are you under the impression that I personally espouse one of those dichotomous positions?

 

[arkirk]

So President Obama should declare himself King Barack I and abolish elections?

I should have the freedom of choice to decide what I want to do. If Untermensche doesn't like someone having power over him, then allow him to start his own business!

So only business leaders deserve to have any rights?

Those both seem like gratuitous strawmen to me.

Rather strawmen it seems that we are expected to choose between two idealistic, totally impractical and unobtainable systems, the workers paradise version 13.2, "after one hundred years we finally have all of the bugs worked out, we think," or the self-regulating, self-organizing free market that "we don't know how we get there or what it will be like when we do, but we are absolutely sure that it will be wonderful!"

I for one, will withhold my enthusiasm from either.

Just for clarity, are you under the impression that I personally espouse one of those dichotomous positions?

In case you hadn't noticed, big business leaders ARE BUYING OUR ELECTIONS AND ELECTED POLITICIANS WHO MAKE ALL OF OUR LAWS. You had better answer Ipterich's question and not just say...I reserve my right to be neutral. It is important that our democracy represent the interests of society as a whole and not just the PRIVATE business sector. To quote the late Howard Zinn, "You can't be neutral on a moving train." This is especially important when that train is carrying us all from war to war, from above sea level to below sea level, from well fed to hungry.....Think about this a bit. It really is not a dichotomy so much as a growing and dangerous monopoly of private business interests.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So President Obama should declare himself King Barack I and abolish elections?

I should have the freedom of choice to decide what I want to do. If Untermensche doesn't like someone having power over him, then allow him to start his own business!

So only business leaders deserve to have any rights?

Those both seem like gratuitous strawmen to me.

Rather strawmen it seems that we are expected to choose between two idealistic, totally impractical and unobtainable systems, the workers paradise version 13.2, "after one hundred years we finally have all of the bugs worked out, we think," or the self-regulating, self-organizing free market that "we don't know how we get there or what it will be like when we do, but we are absolutely sure that it will be wonderful!"

I for one, will withhold my enthusiasm from either.

Just for clarity, are you under the impression that I personally espouse one of those dichotomous positions?

In case you hadn't noticed, big business leaders ARE BUYING OUR ELECTIONS AND ELECTED POLITICIANS WHO MAKE ALL OF OUR LAWS. You had better answer Ipterich's question and not just say...I reserve my right to be neutral. It is important that our democracy represent the interests of society as a whole and not just the PRIVATE business sector. To quote the late Howard Zinn, "You can't be neutral on a moving train." This is especially important when that train is carrying us all from war to war, from above sea level to below sea level, from well fed to hungry.....Think about this a bit. It really is not a dichotomy so much as a growing and dangerous monopoly of private business interests.

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.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You're the one who is scared of losing...very scared.

It's funny how you can see that, because it is nowhere in my post. But then, perhaps you are projecting. I really am not as capable as you are of psychically reaching through the internet to read your emotional state at the time you worte your post - and even if I had this talent you apparently have, by the time I see your post you are no longer writing it.

Still, you display the standard conservoprogressive disdain for property rights. Envy is a rather nast thing, much worse than jealousy or greed. Green says "I want it all", jealousy says "I want what you have", envy says "if I can't have it then nobody can, I will rather destroy it than let someone else have it."

I cannot fathom why natural rights seem so anathema to you. A right to property, you call it a demand, but it is both a demand and a responsibility. Conservoprogressives deny any responsibility, and often deny the demand as well. Only those who go back to what the social contract actually is, the demand and responsibility for the rights to life, liberty, and property, only they respect all peoples rights. They do so because the demand is also a responsibility; the demand to not be killed is a responsibility to not kill others, the demand to not be enslaved is a responsibility to not enslave others, and the demand to not be robbed is the responsibility to not rob others. Those who start with a natural rights basis follow the Zero Aggression Principle, and therefore both respect and guard the rights of everyone - not just their own. That's what sets them apart from conservoprogressives who don't respect anyones rights anywhere.

That might be valid IF Rand Paul didn't actually deny being a libertarian. He said he isn't one and the evidence inclines me to believe him.

It is like saying Obama's endorsement of the Affordable Care Act is an indictment of what libertarians are like once they are in a position where they have to deal with the real world.

What Paul said was that he differed on a few a positions from the Libertarians. A few positions.

As I said, this is what happens when Libertarians run into reality, they have to shift some of their positions.

But the Libertarians who preach from ivory towers don't have to change anything and don't have to make any of their ideas conform with reality.

And he also said he is not one. So just like Rand Paul's position on Israel, Obama's position on the Affordable Care Act is what happens when Libertarians run into reality, right? Obama's position on the Affordable Care Act, that's what happens when a libertarian leaves the ivory tower, right?

How about those Illinois Republicans you are trying to avoid discussing?

 

[Emily Lake]

You had better answer Ipterich's question...

Or else what?

Lpetrich's question represented a false dichotomy, and allowed for no other possible answer than untermensche's utopian worker's paradise or the strawman of corporatist hell. I don't think either of those is an acceptable answer.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

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.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Still, you display the standard conservoprogressive disdain for property rights.

Are property rights absolute?