GOP: Libertarians not wanted

[coloradoatheist]

I think here is an article that applies

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/magazine/has-the-libertarian-moment-finally-arrived.html?hpw&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpHedThumbWell&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well

Libertarians don't have a consistent platform, one of which would be roads.

 

[Emily Lake]

Humans have never lived as self sufficient individuals.

I don't know anyone who espouses the idea that humans should live as completely self-sufficient individuals. It's a strawman.

ETA: If I ever met someone who held that position, I would consider them in need of clinical intervention. I would pay the state to take on the role of clinical intervener .

- - - Updated - - -

Prepare to have your mind blown: you could have a government that is more libertarian than what we have now and a government that builds roads.

Ya, but then the libertarian government would go and hide in a magic valley and leave the world to burn down under the incompetent mismanagement of the road-building government.

You do understand that Atlas Shrugged was an allegorical work of fiction, not a literal handbook, right?

 

[Sarpedon]

I don't know anyone who espouses the idea that humans should live as completely self-sufficient individuals. It's a strawman.

Bullshit. Read the philosophy of the time. They all assume a self sufficient man living without societal constraints. Locke or Rousseau. They don't say that man should live like that NOW, but they take it as their philosophical basis. They postulate that our society developed from such roots, when in fact it didn't, then they take and further develop the idea. Libertarianism is an intellectual successor to this movement. The fact that they don't advocate that people should be self sufficient, that doesn't mean that their ideas don't derive from that idea. (And frankly, I am constantly hearing them boast about how self sufficient they are, and am extremely skeptical of your claim never to have heard anything of the like.)


Libertarians are their philosophical successors.

 

[Emily Lake]

I don't know anyone who espouses the idea that humans should live as completely self-sufficient individuals. It's a strawman.

Bullshit. Read the philosophy of the time. They all assume a self sufficient man living without societal constraints. Locke or Rousseau. They don't say that man should live like that NOW, but they take it as their philosophical basis. They postulate that our society developed from such roots, when in fact it didn't, then they take and further develop the idea. Libertarianism is an intellectual successor to this movement. The fact that they don't advocate that people should be self sufficient, that doesn't mean that their ideas don't derive from that idea. (And frankly, I am constantly hearing them boast about how self sufficient they are, and am extremely skeptical of your claim never to have heard anything of the like.)


Libertarians are their philosophical successors.

I have confusion...

I don't know what you're trying to say.

 

[Sarpedon]

I'm saying your objection was a non-sequitor, you having missed my initial point, and therefore your accusation of me using a strawman was misinformed and insulting.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I don't know anyone who espouses the idea that humans should live as completely self-sufficient individuals. It's a strawman.

ETA: If I ever met someone who held that position, I would consider them in need of clinical intervention. I would pay the state to take on the role of clinical intervener .

- - - Updated - - -

Prepare to have your mind blown: you could have a government that is more libertarian than what we have now and a government that builds roads.

Ya, but then the libertarian government would go and hide in a magic valley and leave the world to burn down under the incompetent mismanagement of the road-building government.

You do understand that Atlas Shrugged was an allegorical work of fiction, not a literal handbook, right?

Are you sure that Sharpedon and Tom Sawyer think they are writing strawmen?

I would not be surprised if they thought that I really believed what they write.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm saying your objection was a non-sequitor, you having missed my initial point, and therefore your accusation of me using a strawman was misinformed and insulting.

If that is the case, then I invite you to correct my misunderstanding.

 

[Emily Lake]

I would not be surprised if they thought that I really believed what they write.

It is my belief that a great many people honestly believe that their opponents believe what they think they believe.

If you can parse that, you get a gold star.

Most people think that they understand their opponents better than their opponents understand themselves. It's called the Illusion of Asymmetrical Insight. And in so doing, they often discount what their opponents say of their own thoughts and reasoning, and substitute what they believe their opponent really means instead. It's not unique to any particular ideology or age, gender or religion. Nearly all humans do this to some degree - I know that I do, and I try my best to be on watch against it.

If anyone is interested...
The Illusion of Asymmetrical Insight

 

[untermensche]

That's one of the criticism of Libertarian doctrine.

It is blind to the effects it's ideas will have on society.

Particularly the effects of increasing economic disparity and lessening the ability of government to deal with collected capital.

Yeah, if the government isn't telling people how to live their lives, they might make the wrong decisions and do things you don't approve of.

No. If people are allowed to use individual wealth any way they want, without any checks from the government, soon most will be slaves to a tiny few.

Wealth is power and all power should be checked.

 

[Sarpedon]

Oh, may I??

 

[Emily Lake]

No. If people are allowed to use individual wealth any way they want, without any checks from the government, soon most will be slaves to a tiny few.

Wealth is power and all power should be checked.

I dunno, untermensche. Without checks from the government on the other side of the coin, there's no protection of property, and nothing to keep those masses from simply overwhelming the few and taking by force what they need to ensure their own survival.

Although at this point, we're talking about anarchy.

 

[untermensche]

No. If people are allowed to use individual wealth any way they want, without any checks from the government, soon most will be slaves to a tiny few.

Wealth is power and all power should be checked.

I dunno, untermensche. Without checks from the government on the other side of the coin, there's no protection of property, and nothing to keep those masses from simply overwhelming the few and taking by force what they need to ensure their own survival.

Although at this point, we're talking about anarchy.

The government should protect property.

It should protect freedom too.

And it should not let people use their property to enslave others.

As it currently does.

And Anarchism, not anarchy is the answer.

The way you prevent the minority from using wealth to oppress the majority is through worker owned and controlled economic institutions. A person can become very wealthy under such a system as long as they don't need other people to create the wealth.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Yeah, if the government isn't telling people how to live their lives, they might make the wrong decisions and do things you don't approve of.

No. If people are allowed to use individual wealth any way they want, without any checks from the government, soon most will be slaves to a tiny few.

Wealth is power and all power should be checked.

That is the libertarian belief. Power should be checked. And that power is government.

 

[untermensche]

No. If people are allowed to use individual wealth any way they want, without any checks from the government, soon most will be slaves to a tiny few.

Wealth is power and all power should be checked.

That is the libertarian belief. Power should be checked. And that power is government.

That's one power.

And the best way to check the government is to increase democratic control. Make the people more powerful.

But if economic power isn't checked then the people have no voice, they have no issues addressed. They have the current system.

The problem with the current system is that the government is not powerful enough to deal with corporate malfeasance. It goes on unchecked.

Making the government weaker without putting checks on collected wealth and increasing democratic control will simply make a bad situation worse.

 

[coloradoatheist]

That is the libertarian belief. Power should be checked. And that power is government.

That's one power.

And the best way to check the government is to increase democratic control. Make the people more powerful.

But if economic power isn't checked then the people have no voice, they have no issues addressed. They have the current system.

The problem with the current system is that the government is not powerful enough to deal with corporate malfeasance. It goes on unchecked.

Making the government weaker without putting checks on collected wealth and increasing democratic control will simply make a bad situation worse.

Actually libertarians do believe that, that the power should be with the people and not the government and where democracy matters, at the local level, not the federal level. A democracy of 300 million is not very good.

 

[untermensche]

That's one power.

And the best way to check the government is to increase democratic control. Make the people more powerful.

But if economic power isn't checked then the people have no voice, they have no issues addressed. They have the current system.

The problem with the current system is that the government is not powerful enough to deal with corporate malfeasance. It goes on unchecked.

Making the government weaker without putting checks on collected wealth and increasing democratic control will simply make a bad situation worse.

Actually libertarians do believe that, that the power should be with the people and not the government and where democracy matters, at the local level, not the federal level. A democracy of 300 million is not very good.

There are miles between what we currently have and direct democracy.

One way to increase democracy is to bring it into the workplace, where democratic overall control is possible even if in many technical decisions it is not.

 

[Emily Lake]

I dunno, untermensche. Without checks from the government on the other side of the coin, there's no protection of property, and nothing to keep those masses from simply overwhelming the few and taking by force what they need to ensure their own survival.

Although at this point, we're talking about anarchy.

The government should protect property.

It should protect freedom too.

And it should not let people use their property to enslave others.

As it currently does.

And Anarchism, not anarchy is the answer.

My error, I should have said anarchism.
Although I disagree about it being the answer

The way you prevent the minority from using wealth to oppress the majority is through worker owned and controlled economic institutions. A person can become very wealthy under such a system as long as they don't need other people to create the wealth.

But I don't WANT to be an owner. I don't want the risk. I don't want to worry about the risks associated with having a stake in revenue. I just want a steady paycheck, and to do a simple job, and go home without having to make any big decisions. Why would you deny my that freedom?

 

[untermensche]

But I don't WANT to be an owner. I don't want the risk. I don't want to worry about the risks associated with having a stake in revenue. I just want a steady paycheck, and to do a simple job, and go home without having to make any big decisions. Why would you deny my that freedom?

You wouldn't be forced to anything more than you already do.

But you would have the opportunity to have more control of your overall life.

Part of worker control also means that viable jobs won't be sent overseas simply so nonworking investors can make more.

 

[Emily Lake]

That's one power.

And the best way to check the government is to increase democratic control. Make the people more powerful.

But if economic power isn't checked then the people have no voice, they have no issues addressed. They have the current system.

The problem with the current system is that the government is not powerful enough to deal with corporate malfeasance. It goes on unchecked.

Making the government weaker without putting checks on collected wealth and increasing democratic control will simply make a bad situation worse.

I would disagree that it's the case that the government isn't powerful enough to deal with corporate malfeasance; I think you're presupposing that our current government wants to, but is incapable of dealing with it. I think your assumption may be in error. I think the problem is that the government is actively in bed with corporations. The current government actively grants unconscionable control to corporations, and in doing so it shifts power away from individuals within our society. Big government and Big Corporation have set up a nice little collusion whereby each gets stronger and bigger at the expense of the disenfranchised individual.

I think it's very highly likely that you and I would agree on the root problems, if we set aside labels and rote prescriptions for a solution and talked about it. Once we can agree on the problems... then we can start the process of developing a solution that is acceptable to the largest number of people possible. It may not be anyone's idea solution... but if it's acceptable to as many as possible, then it actually has a chance of going somewhere .

 

[untermensche]

That's one power.

And the best way to check the government is to increase democratic control. Make the people more powerful.

But if economic power isn't checked then the people have no voice, they have no issues addressed. They have the current system.

The problem with the current system is that the government is not powerful enough to deal with corporate malfeasance. It goes on unchecked.

Making the government weaker without putting checks on collected wealth and increasing democratic control will simply make a bad situation worse.

I would disagree that it's the case that the government isn't powerful enough to deal with corporate malfeasance; I think you're presupposing that our current government wants to, but is incapable of dealing with it. I think your assumption may be in error. I think the problem is that the government is actively in bed with corporations. The current government actively grants unconscionable control to corporations, and in doing so it shifts power away from individuals within our society. Big government and Big Corporation have set up a nice little collusion whereby each gets stronger and bigger at the expense of the disenfranchised individual.

I think it's very highly likely that you and I would agree on the root problems, if we set aside labels and rote prescriptions for a solution and talked about it. Once we can agree on the problems... then we can start the process of developing a solution that is acceptable to the largest number of people possible. It may not be anyone's idea solution... but if it's acceptable to as many as possible, then it actually has a chance of going somewhere .

What does the term "too big to fail" mean to you?