Trump just won

[DrZoidberg]

Wait, once he says he's in California shouldn't people be telling him there's only one candidate who has a practical chance of winning?

Yes. I practice.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Sorry, but a majority of Americans did not vote for Trump. He'll end up getting about 2% less votes than HRC after all the balloting is completed.

A majority of Americans didn't vote AT ALL. Selecting a range of representatives based crudely on the proportion of voters who support each makes some kind of sense. But selecting your one and only president based on a difference of 62,000,000 votes vs 60,000,000 votes for a population of 350,000,000 people isn't democratic, it isn't sensible, it isn't fair, and it isn't a good idea. Nor would making the process more democratic help to fix that; A president elected by 150,000,000 votes to 140,000,000 who was despised by 140,000,000 people would not be as good a president as someone selected by a panel of experts on the basis of their proven ability to grasp the key concepts and issues that president of the USA faces when doing his job.

Being popular is simply not one of the qualifications that makes for a good president - where 'good' is defined as bringing the most benefit and least harm to the interests of most citizens.

Choosing not to vote is also a choice. In a majority system you're either voting for one, the other or both just as much. There are no other alternatives. You can't not support at least one of them with your vote.

 

[DrZoidberg]

But the ballot listed five. Therefore either the piece of paper was pretending, or the California Secretary of State was pretending.

No. It's still you who are pretending.

Well, congratulations. One of the candidates you supported won the election.

No, Johnson only got about 3% nationwide and isn't likely to receive a single electoral vote.

Seriously, your strange insistence that by not voting for your candidate I am somehow voting for the other, that strange insistence translates into you personally thinking that Trump is legitimate, so it is more realistic to say a candidate you supported won the election.

You think there are only two choices, and everyone must pick one of the two. That means you think Trump is as valid as Hillary, an opinion I don't share. That makes you, to some small extent but more of an extent than me, a Trump supporter.

It's game theory. Johnson wasn't a contender in the election. It's pure illusion (or rather delusion). He couldn't win, so your vote was split evenly between Trump and Clinton. Since only Trump and Clinton could win, the only thing that matters is how much your vote helped or hindered either of them. It's an either or situation.

I was a Clinton supporter because she seemed to be the only adult in the race.

Yes, you did support Trump. The maths isn't that hard.

I have a degree in math, and have never come across a time when adding zero increased a sum.

Welcome to the club. Did you do game theory?

 

[bilby]

A majority of Americans didn't vote AT ALL. Selecting a range of representatives based crudely on the proportion of voters who support each makes some kind of sense. But selecting your one and only president based on a difference of 62,000,000 votes vs 60,000,000 votes for a population of 350,000,000 people isn't democratic, it isn't sensible, it isn't fair, and it isn't a good idea. Nor would making the process more democratic help to fix that; A president elected by 150,000,000 votes to 140,000,000 who was despised by 140,000,000 people would not be as good a president as someone selected by a panel of experts on the basis of their proven ability to grasp the key concepts and issues that president of the USA faces when doing his job.

Being popular is simply not one of the qualifications that makes for a good president - where 'good' is defined as bringing the most benefit and least harm to the interests of most citizens.

Choosing not to vote is also a choice. In a majority system you're either voting for one, the other or both just as much. There are no other alternatives. You can't not support at least one of them with your vote.

Choosing not to vote is BY FAR the majority choice.

Perhaps we should respect the will of the people, and find a way to choose a president without asking them a question they don't want to answer.

http://brilliantmaps.com/did-not-vote/

 

[DrZoidberg]

Choosing not to vote is BY FAR the majority choice.

So what? The system is designed so that one of the candidates will be chosen no matter how many people didn't vote. If you want not voting to matter you need a new system.

Perhaps we should respect the will of the people, and find a way to choose a president without asking them a question they don't want to answer.

Which would be a completely different system than that which you now have. I'm just explaining how the system you now have works. I'm not arguing for some perfect dream system of the future. I'm only concerned with the here and now.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Also, we shouldn't knock the non-voters. The Freakonomics podcast had a good episode where they explored the incentives of voting. It turns out that informing yourself on politics has an awful ROI. It's the worst paid job in the world. So the incentives are to not get informed. Which would explain the large number of idiot voters. It's quite possible that smart people are voting stupidly because their intelligence is informing them that reading up on this stuff is a waste of time. So they don't and just wing it. The large number of idiot voters will help decrease incentives further, since the smart well educated know their votes will drown in a sea of idiocy.

If we look at it as a game, it's a tragedy of the commons situation. What we'd all prefer is for everybody else to get informed while we don't. That would free up time for us to enrich ourselves somehow, while the suckers spend time informing themselves about politics.

So I'm not saying that non-voters should be ashamed of themselves. All I'm saying is that non-voters is not in a position to judge. If you live in USA, you have the vote and you didn't vote for Hilary then it's partly your fault that Trump won. Just own it.

 

[Toni]

So, POTUS is a ceremonial Queen/King for a 4 year term?

Because what you are suggesting is a)contradicted the first paragraph in the section I quoted/ighlighted above--the obvious case of Trump and b) is absolutely contrary to the fact that POTUS is much more than ceremonial and in fact, has significant duties and responsibilities that require a base of knowledge that is both broad and deep, as well as some wisdom, some personal traits and characteristics: i.e. being of sound mind and body, being temperamentally fit to lead, being capable of leading, being WILLING to lead, being able to lead in a direction that is in the best interests of a)the United Statesand its peoples and b) the world at large, including but not limited to its various allies and trading partners. c) the earth itself.

We've done a piss poor job selecting someone this go round. It's hard to imagine doing a worse job if doing a worse job were the exact task we set for ourselves, including electing a 9 year old.

I wouldn't even want to see Australia select its leaders in such a fashion--no offense to Australia, and I live on the other side of the world.

The only way--and I mean the ONLY way to ensure that we do a decent job of selecting a well qualified, competent POTUS who precisely runs for the job as a matter of civic duty (fat lot of good that has done Hillary), is to ensure a well educated population. The Republicans have done a bang up job for the past 20-30 years convincing us that public education is a waste of time, is a failure and must be tested multiple times a year on tests that measure very little and allow very little opportunity to teach anything but how to pass the stupid tests.

This response contains some things I agree with, and some that I disagree with.

What it does not contain, as far as I can tell, is a response to what I actually wrote.

How so?

I never said a word about making the presidency ceremonial; The only changes I would possibly suggest to the presidential powers would be the possibility of greater oversight from the legislature, as a sop to those who would object to the lessening of the power of the people as a result of reducing the democratic input into his selection.

By selecting a person totally disinterested and totally unqualified to be president, we end up with someone who is merely ceremonial. Or is so incompetent as to be rendered completely useless for any genuine practical purpose.

I keep forgetting: you Aussies still worship the Queen. We don't want that here, despite the election of Trump.

 

[dismal]

Also, we shouldn't knock the non-voters. The Freakonomics podcast had a good episode where they explored the incentives of voting. It turns out that informing yourself on politics has an awful ROI. It's the worst paid job in the world. So the incentives are to not get informed. Which would explain the large number of idiot voters. It's quite possible that smart people are voting stupidly because their intelligence is informing them that reading up on this stuff is a waste of time. So they don't and just wing it. The large number of idiot voters will help decrease incentives further, since the smart well educated know their votes will drown in a sea of idiocy.

If we look at it as a game, it's a tragedy of the commons situation. What we'd all prefer is for everybody else to get informed while we don't. That would free up time for us to enrich ourselves somehow, while the suckers spend time informing themselves about politics.

So I'm not saying that non-voters should be ashamed of themselves. All I'm saying is that non-voters is not in a position to judge. If you live in USA, you have the vote and you didn't vote for Hilary then it's partly your fault that Trump won. Just own it.

It's not so much that there is a cost of becoming informed about poliitcs. The issue is that once one sorts through basic probability and causal behaviors voting becomes almost impossible to justify. Regardless of how informed one is. The things people tell themselves to justify voting verges on cult-like behavior.

Let's take this big argument over Jason Harvestdancer's vote. He's in California and voted for Johnson.

The results in California were: Clinton 6,240,224; Trump 3,319,143; Johnson 328,330; Stein 177,198

http://www.cnn.com/election/results/states/california/president

If Jason had voted for Clinton, the one candidate who had a practical chance of winning, instead the results would have been: Clinton 6,240,225; Trump 3,319,143; Johnson 328,329; Stein 177,198

A stunning display of voting power, that.

If Jason had not voted the results would have been: Clinton 6,240,224; Trump 3,319,143; Johnson 328,329; Stein 177,198

You can practically feel the system crumbling.

If you want I can do the math for what it would have been if he had voted Trump, Stein or the Rent-is-too-damn-high Party. It's pretty easy math.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Also, we shouldn't knock the non-voters. The Freakonomics podcast had a good episode where they explored the incentives of voting. It turns out that informing yourself on politics has an awful ROI. It's the worst paid job in the world. So the incentives are to not get informed. Which would explain the large number of idiot voters. It's quite possible that smart people are voting stupidly because their intelligence is informing them that reading up on this stuff is a waste of time. So they don't and just wing it. The large number of idiot voters will help decrease incentives further, since the smart well educated know their votes will drown in a sea of idiocy.

If we look at it as a game, it's a tragedy of the commons situation. What we'd all prefer is for everybody else to get informed while we don't. That would free up time for us to enrich ourselves somehow, while the suckers spend time informing themselves about politics.

So I'm not saying that non-voters should be ashamed of themselves. All I'm saying is that non-voters is not in a position to judge. If you live in USA, you have the vote and you didn't vote for Hilary then it's partly your fault that Trump won. Just own it.

It's not so much that there is a cost of becoming informed about poliitcs. The issue is that once one sorts through basic probability and causal behaviors voting becomes almost impossible to justify. Regardless of how informed one is. The things people tell themselves to justify voting verges on cult-like behavior.

Let's take this big argument over Jason Harvestdancer's vote. He's in California and voted for Johnson.

The results in California were: Clinton 6,240,224; Trump 3,319,143; Johnson 328,330; Stein 177,198

http://www.cnn.com/election/results/states/california/president

If Jason had voted for Clinton, the one candidate who had a practical chance of winning, instead the results would have been: Clinton 6,240,225; Trump 3,319,143; Johnson 328,329; Stein 177,198

A stunning display of voting power, that.

If Jason had not voted the results would have been: Clinton 6,240,224; Trump 3,319,143; Johnson 328,329; Stein 177,198

You can practically feel the system crumbling.

If you want I can do the math for what it would have been if he had voted Trump, Stein or the Rent-is-too-damn-high Party. It's pretty easy math.

You're arguing after the fact. You're arguing that because we now have knowledge of the much greater Democrat votes it was no point. But that wasn't obvious. If we take a peak at Californian voting history there wasn't so long ago California voted Republican. So while being staunchly Democrat today, if it can swing one way it can of course also swing another way. So I'd argue that, while slim, Trump winning California was in no way impossible. Johnson on the other hand was impossible. While not technically impossible, certainly practically impossible. We use history to predict the future and taking a peak at California's voting history there has never been a time when a non-Democrat or non-Republican didn't win. No, not even 1912.

He claimed there were five options on the ballot. But failed to demonstrate that the other three were real options.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

No. It's still you who are pretending.

So I didn't see five, I just pretended I saw five? Were my eyes playing tricks on me? Or was it a trick of the lighting?

Seriously, your strange insistence that by not voting for your candidate I am somehow voting for the other, that strange insistence translates into you personally thinking that Trump is legitimate, so it is more realistic to say a candidate you supported won the election.

You think there are only two choices, and everyone must pick one of the two. That means you think Trump is as valid as Hillary, an opinion I don't share. That makes you, to some small extent but more of an extent than me, a Trump supporter.

It's game theory. Johnson wasn't a contender in the election. It's pure illusion (or rather delusion). He couldn't win, so your vote was split evenly between Trump and Clinton. Since only Trump and Clinton could win, the only thing that matters is how much your vote helped or hindered either of them. It's an either or situation.

I was a Clinton supporter because she seemed to be the only adult in the race.

Your use of game theory as a substitute for trying to do what is right says that you think Trump and Hillary are the legitimate choices. That makes you, to some tiny extent, a Trump supporter, even though you support Clinton more. That means that when Trump won, your candidate won.

Yes, you did support Trump. The maths isn't that hard.

I have a degree in math, and have never come across a time when adding zero increased a sum.

Welcome to the club. Did you do game theory?

Yep. And when you add zero to any number you don't increase that number.

Congrats, your second choice candidate won. Enjoy it and stop blaming those who had nothing to do with it that your first choice didn't win.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think that would be the social safety net then. The idea that it is the role of the government to help take care of the least able in the society. That's the antithesis of libertarian philosophy - except in regards to real libertarians, of course.

Fair enough. You seem to hold a different position as their core than any other Democrat I've discussed politics with. Certainly almost all have held the safety net as damned important but you are the first I've talked to to see it as most important. All so far drew the line at individual freedom - gay rights, abortion rights, privacy rights, self determination, etc. etc.

Even if those there are categorized as the most important ones, there's still a vast difference between Libertarian and Democratic philosophies on the subjects. Two philosophies coming to the same end result on a subject doesn't mean that they're mirroring the positions if the rationales behind why they came to those end results aren't similar. For instance, someone who wants to win a drag race and someone who's wife just went into labour both may come to the same end result that speed limits shouldn't apply to them that night, but the rationales which led each of them to this conclusion isn't similar, so you can't really say that their positions mirror each other even though they want the same thing.

It's the same with things like gay marriage. Libertarians would say that this is OK because people can just do whatever they want and it's none of the government's business and they should just stay out of the matter entirely. Democrats would say that this is fine and everything, but "do whatever they want" often ends up being things along the lines of "find ways to stop gay people from getting married", so it's very much the government's business because gay people who want to get married need to have a powerful countervailing force to stop that second group of people from doing what they want because the gays are minority which needs strong protections. So, while the two philosophies come to the same result on the matter, they do not mirror each other since one is having it done through complete disinterest on the part of the government and the other is having it done through heavy involvement on the part of the government.

That level of involvement by the government is a core aspect of each of the philosophies and they are diametrically opposed to each other. The fact that these opposing philosophies sometimes end up bringing their followers to the same place on certain issues doesn't suddenly make them compatible philosophies instead of opposing philosophies.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So I didn't see five, I just pretended I saw five.

You saw five different names listed, but you only saw two options.

Seriously, your strange insistence that by not voting for your candidate I am somehow voting for the other,

That's how binary choices work.

that strange insistence translates into you personally thinking that Trump is legitimate, so it is more realistic to say a candidate you supported won the election.

I don't understand what "legitimate" means in this context. But fine, according to the rules of the game or by logical inference the only two legitimate choices were Trump or Hillary. I fail to see how you can twist this to mean anything else?

You think there are only two choices, and everyone must pick one of the two.

Because reality. No matter what you do you're helping to pick at least one of those two. You can't not do that.

That means you think Trump is as valid as Hillary, an opinion I don't share. That makes you, to some small extent but more of an extent than me, a Trump supporter.

Acknowledging reality isn't being a supporter of said reality.

 

[dismal]

It's not so much that there is a cost of becoming informed about poliitcs. The issue is that once one sorts through basic probability and causal behaviors voting becomes almost impossible to justify. Regardless of how informed one is. The things people tell themselves to justify voting verges on cult-like behavior.

Let's take this big argument over Jason Harvestdancer's vote. He's in California and voted for Johnson.

The results in California were: Clinton 6,240,224; Trump 3,319,143; Johnson 328,330; Stein 177,198

http://www.cnn.com/election/results/states/california/president

If Jason had voted for Clinton, the one candidate who had a practical chance of winning, instead the results would have been: Clinton 6,240,225; Trump 3,319,143; Johnson 328,329; Stein 177,198

A stunning display of voting power, that.

If Jason had not voted the results would have been: Clinton 6,240,224; Trump 3,319,143; Johnson 328,329; Stein 177,198

You can practically feel the system crumbling.

If you want I can do the math for what it would have been if he had voted Trump, Stein or the Rent-is-too-damn-high Party. It's pretty easy math.

You're arguing after the fact. You're arguing that because we now have knowledge of the much greater Democrat votes it was no point. But that wasn't obvious. If we take a peak at Californian voting history there wasn't so long ago California voted Republican. So while being staunchly Democrat today, if it can swing one way it can of course also swing another way. So I'd argue that, while slim, Trump winning California was in no way impossible. Johnson on the other hand was impossible. While not technically impossible, certainly practically impossible. We use history to predict the future and taking a peak at California's voting history there has never been a time when a non-Democrat or non-Republican didn't win. No, not even 1912.

He claimed there were five options on the ballot. But failed to demonstrate that the other three were real options.

Not understanding there were going to be more votes for Clinton in California ex ante would require a depth of ignorance that is nearly impossible to sustain.

And really it only matters that there were going to be more votes for someone by more than one. Or that your state would not decide the electoral college.

If you were a Californian and able to convince yourself of both these things ex ante you're probably in some sort of institution dressed like Napoleon and leading a unicorn hunt.

 

[skepticalbip]

Fair enough. You seem to hold a different position as their core than any other Democrat I've discussed politics with. Certainly almost all have held the safety net as damned important but you are the first I've talked to to see it as most important. All so far drew the line at individual freedom - gay rights, abortion rights, privacy rights, self determination, etc. etc.

Even if those there are categorized as the most important ones, there's still a vast difference between Libertarian and Democratic philosophies on the subjects. Two philosophies coming to the same end result on a subject doesn't mean that they're mirroring the positions if the rationales behind why they came to those end results aren't similar. For instance, someone who wants to win a drag race and someone who's wife just went into labour both may come to the same end result that speed limits shouldn't apply to them that night, but the rationales which led each of them to this conclusion isn't similar, so you can't really say that their positions mirror each other even though they want the same thing.

It's the same with things like gay marriage. Libertarians would say that this is OK because people can just do whatever they want and it's none of the government's business and they should just stay out of the matter entirely. Democrats would say that this is fine and everything, but "do whatever they want" often ends up being things along the lines of "find ways to stop gay people from getting married", so it's very much the government's business because gay people who want to get married need to have a powerful countervailing force to stop that second group of people from doing what they want because the gays are minority which needs strong protections. So, while the two philosophies come to the same result on the matter, they do not mirror each other since one is having it done through complete disinterest on the part of the government and the other is having it done through heavy involvement on the part of the government.

That level of involvement by the government is a core aspect of each of the philosophies and they are diametrically opposed to each other. The fact that these opposing philosophies sometimes end up bringing their followers to the same place on certain issues doesn't suddenly make them compatible philosophies instead of opposing philosophies.

I can make no sense of that highlighted part. "Keep the fucking government out of an individual's personal life" means the fucking government has no say about a persons private life.

The part of the belief system that Democrats claim to hold that Libertarians embrace (in fact it is sorta the heart of Libertarianism) is personal freedom. This would be all the personal freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and, if not explicitly stated, are included in the ninth and tenth amendments. As far as personal life, Libertarians hold that the government holds absolutely no place. Government's place in interpersonal interactions is to prevent force, fraud, or abuse. What I find a bit disappointing about the Democrat Party is that they are moving to remove some of these personal freedoms. Freedom of speech has been under siege for quite a while now. Many Democrats believe that politically incorrect speech should be criminalized - an absurd idea that would reduce discussion to "I find that offensive" stopping any debate.

Disappointingly, it seems that the fucking Republicans capitalized on this Democrat obsession of enforcing politically correct speech (limiting free speech) in the last election. Any Democrat attack on Trump for saying anything "offensive" like saying someone was fat or ugly seemed to increase his appeal in the polls - not because he said it but because the Democrats condemned him for speaking the truth. If someone gains 60 pounds in six months then it may be politically incorrect to point it out to them but it is a fact they may need to hear.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I can make no sense of that highlighted part. "Keep the fucking government out of an individual's personal life" means the fucking government has no say about a persons private life.

The part of the belief system that Democrats claim to hold that Libertarians embrace (in fact it is sorta the heart of Libertarianism) is personal freedom. This would be all the personal freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and, if not explicitly stated, are included in the ninth and tenth amendments. As far as personal life, Libertarians hold that the government holds absolutely no place. Government's place in interpersonal interactions is to prevent force, fraud, or abuse. What I find a bit disappointing about the Democrat Party is that they are moving to remove some of these personal freedoms. Freedom of speech has been under siege for quite a while now. Many Democrats believe that politically incorrect speech should be criminalized - an absurd idea that would reduce discussion to "I find that offensive" stopping any debate.

But the Democrats don't want to keep the government out of people's personal lives. They want the government to have a strong role in people's personal lives so that there is a powerful force preventing anyone else from interfering in their lives.

The Libertarians believe that the government should stay out of people's affairs. That means that they can marry whomever they want, do whatever drugs they want, pay employees whatever slave wages they want, let people die from whichever preventable disease they don't want to pay to protect themselves against, defend themselves how they want, use whatever subpar materials they want, etc. The government should be small and just let people do whatever they choose without much concern for it. The Democrats believe that the government should be strong and be able to counter anyone interfering in people's affairs in what they consider to be a negative manner. If somebody says that you can't marry another man, they want a strong government able to prevent that person from stopping you from marrying whom you like. If someone wants to pay you a slave wage, they want a strong government to prevent them from having you work for less than what you need to live.

Sometimes these two completely different philosophies of the role of government end up in the same place. For instance, the Democrats are in favour of homosexual rights and therefore are on your side if someone wants to try and stop you from marrying whomever you choose. Sometimes these two completely different philosophies of the role of government end up in different places. For instance, the Democrats are against slave wages and therefore are not on your side if you want to run your private business in a manner that pays workers less than the Democrats think your workers should be paid.

The core of the Democratic philosophy is not personal freedom. That's why they're in favour of strong gun regulations, because they think that people's freedom to own guns is less important than protecting society from guns. That's why they're in favour of strong regulations on business because they think that people's freedoms to run their businesses as they choose is less important than ensuring that those businesses are run in a responsible manner. The core of Democratic philosophy is that there should be a strong government advocating for what is in the best interests of the society they run. Sometimes that means giving people more personal freedom and they end up with positions close to the libertarians' positions as a result. Sometimes that means restricting people's freedoms and being contrary to the libertarians' positions as a result. It is however, a completely different philosophical basis than what libertarianism is built upon.

 

[dismal]

pay employees whatever slave wages they want

I didn't even know slaves got paid wages. But anyway, libertarians do not believe you can pay people whatever wages you want. They believe in mutually voluntary relationships, so they believe you should be free to work for whatever wage you are willing to accept.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

pay employees whatever slave wages they want

I didn't even know slaves got paid wages. But anyway, libertarians do not believe you can pay people whatever wages you want. They believe in mutually voluntary relationships, so they believe you should be free to work for whatever wage you are willing to accept.

Right, that's the entire point. It's not a negotiation amongst equals and the employers are far better and more able at driving the wages down, particularly for low-skilled work at the bottom of the ladder, than low-skilled workers are at driving the wages up. If you leave things to the free market, low end wages go down. Democrats believe that these low-skilled workers need a strong government on their side to counter the power imbalance they encounter and it is the role of the government to restrict people's freedom to manage these voluntary relationships however they like because they see leaving it alone as a negative for society.

 

[skepticalbip]

............snip...........
The core of the Democratic philosophy is not personal freedom. That's why they're in favour of strong gun regulations, because they think that people's freedom to own guns is less important than protecting society from guns. That's why they're in favour of strong regulations on business because they think that people's freedoms to run their businesses as they choose is less important than ensuring that those businesses are run in a responsible manner. The core of Democratic philosophy is that there should be a strong government advocating for what is in the best interests of the society they run. Sometimes that means giving people more personal freedom and they end up with positions close to the libertarians' positions as a result. Sometimes that means restricting people's freedoms and being contrary to the libertarians' positions as a result. It is however, a completely different philosophical basis than what libertarianism is built upon.

There is no argument that the core of the Democrat Party philosophy is not personal freedom, it is government control just like the Republicans only controlling different things. However, for many people in the Democrat party, personal freedom is damned important and many of them falsely believe the party agrees with them.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

............snip...........
The core of the Democratic philosophy is not personal freedom. That's why they're in favour of strong gun regulations, because they think that people's freedom to own guns is less important than protecting society from guns. That's why they're in favour of strong regulations on business because they think that people's freedoms to run their businesses as they choose is less important than ensuring that those businesses are run in a responsible manner. The core of Democratic philosophy is that there should be a strong government advocating for what is in the best interests of the society they run. Sometimes that means giving people more personal freedom and they end up with positions close to the libertarians' positions as a result. Sometimes that means restricting people's freedoms and being contrary to the libertarians' positions as a result. It is however, a completely different philosophical basis than what libertarianism is built upon.

There is no argument that the core of the Democrat Party philosophy is not personal freedom, it is government control just like the Republicans only controlling different things. However, for many people in the Democrat party, personal freedom is damned important and many of them falsely believe the party agrees with them.

And many Republicans think that Trump is going to bring manufacturing jobs back to the rust belt states. That doesn't mean this is somehow related to what the Republican party is about.

 

[dismal]

I didn't even know slaves got paid wages. But anyway, libertarians do not believe you can pay people whatever wages you want. They believe in mutually voluntary relationships, so they believe you should be free to work for whatever wage you are willing to accept.

Right, that's the entire point. It's not a negotiation amongst equals and the employers are far better and more able at driving the wages down, particularly for low-skilled work at the bottom of the ladder, than low-skilled workers are at driving the wages up. If you leave things to the free market, low end wages go down. Democrats believe that these low-skilled workers need a strong government on their side to counter the power imbalance they encounter and it is the role of the government to restrict people's freedom to manage these voluntary relationships however they like because they see leaving it alone as a negative for society.

Really? Let's try an experiment: Go ahead. Offer me some slave wages. What do you think I'm going to do?