President Donald Trump!
Dox47 wrote:
marshall wrote:
I still think most libertarians have a seriously stilted moral perspective.
That people should be free to pursue their own happiness?
Happiness at the expense of those who are less fortunate? I think human beings evolved to work together. A situation where a select few have vast power over the majority due to their acquired wealth and property will necessarily detract from the livelihood of the average citizen, not to mention the most disadvantaged who are simply left to bleed out on the street. Maybe you have a version of libertarian society that I could stomach (with a few safety nets and such), but I really doubt I could stomach luan78zao's version. Most libertarians I meet up with are more like luan78zao. Hardcore Randians. I don't want to live in some 19th century Dickensian nightmare.
marshall wrote:
Most libertarians I meet up with are more like luan78zao. Hardcore Randians. I don't want to live in some 19th century Dickensian nightmare.
How many do you know? I know a few, and the Randian school is definitely a minority view among them, most of us being more like social liberals who dislike regulation. You'll actually find more support for social safety nets among libertarians than you might think, I mean even Friedman had his negative income tax, and universal basic income is very attractive to those of use who prize efficiency and find desperate people mugging each other highly inefficient.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
Dox47 wrote:
marshall wrote:
Most libertarians I meet up with are more like luan78zao. Hardcore Randians. I don't want to live in some 19th century Dickensian nightmare.
How many do you know? I know a few, and the Randian school is definitely a minority view among them, most of us being more like social liberals who dislike regulation.
I'm a libertarian. I've never read a word of Rand apart from random Internet taglines. You might want to check your stereotypes.
_________________
There Are Four Lights!
Darmok wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
marshall wrote:
Most libertarians I meet up with are more like luan78zao. Hardcore Randians. I don't want to live in some 19th century Dickensian nightmare.
How many do you know? I know a few, and the Randian school is definitely a minority view among them, most of us being more like social liberals who dislike regulation.
I'm a libertarian. I've never read a word of Rand apart from random Internet taglines. You might want to check your stereotypes.
The left compulsively lumps all non-progressive together as worshipers of Rand. If you're not one of theirs, you must be a hard hearted Randian.
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,454
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
Raptor wrote:
Darmok wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
marshall wrote:
Most libertarians I meet up with are more like luan78zao. Hardcore Randians. I don't want to live in some 19th century Dickensian nightmare.
How many do you know? I know a few, and the Randian school is definitely a minority view among them, most of us being more like social liberals who dislike regulation.
I'm a libertarian. I've never read a word of Rand apart from random Internet taglines. You might want to check your stereotypes.
The left compulsively lumps all non-progressive together as worshipers of Rand. If you're not one of there's, you must be a hard hearted Randian.
That's theirs.
Sorry, but being the pretentious progressive I am, I couldn't resist.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,454
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
Dox47 wrote:
marshall wrote:
Most libertarians I meet up with are more like luan78zao. Hardcore Randians. I don't want to live in some 19th century Dickensian nightmare.
How many do you know? I know a few, and the Randian school is definitely a minority view among them, most of us being more like social liberals who dislike regulation. You'll actually find more support for social safety nets among libertarians than you might think, I mean even Friedman had his negative income tax, and universal basic income is very attractive to those of use who prize efficiency and find desperate people mugging each other highly inefficient.
You know, that very well may be true. But how many of you socially liberal libertarians have any real influence in your political ideology? Most self-professed libertarians with political sway today are used tampon suckers like Sam Brownback, who is doing his damnedest to turn his state of Kansas into a Randian hellscape.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Last edited by Kraichgauer on 14 Mar 2016, 12:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Darmok wrote:
I'm a libertarian. I've never read a word of Rand apart from random Internet taglines. You might want to check your stereotypes.
Did you mis-prune the quote tree? I'm also a libertarian (of sorts), and though I have read Rand, it wasn't until after umpteen people had accused me of being a brainwashed Randroid that I decided to go see what all the fuss was about.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Darmok wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
marshall wrote:
Most libertarians I meet up with are more like luan78zao. Hardcore Randians. I don't want to live in some 19th century Dickensian nightmare.
How many do you know? I know a few, and the Randian school is definitely a minority view among them, most of us being more like social liberals who dislike regulation.
I'm a libertarian. I've never read a word of Rand apart from random Internet taglines. You might want to check your stereotypes.
The left compulsively lumps all non-progressive together as worshipers of Rand. If you're not one of there's, you must be a hard hearted Randian.
That's theirs.
Sorry, but being the pretentious progressive I am, I couldn't resist.
I actually caught and corrected it before you hit submit.
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
Kraichgauer wrote:
But how many of you socially liberal libertarians have any real influence in your political ideology?
Most libertarians are socially liberal, it's what sets us apart from conservatives, as can be seen in areas like gay rights, which libertarian Reason magazine was championing all the way back in the 70s. Back then, that would have set us apart from the liberal rank and file too, come to think of it. So, that's kind of a moot question, even if my "ideology" had any structure to it for me to influence.
Kraichgauer wrote:
Most self-professed libertarians with political sway today are used tampon suckers like Sam Brownback, who is doing his damnedest to turn his state of Kansas into a Randian hellscape.
Last I checked, he's a pretty standard issue Republican... Perhaps you should listen to the actual libertarians in the room when it comes to what libertarianism is about?
Rand Paul is much more libertarian-ish, and he's doing things like promoting criminal justice reform and combating the security state, you know, libertarian things. Small government is but one aspect of the philosophy, as much as you seem to think it's the only one.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
Raptor wrote:
Darmok wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
marshall wrote:
Most libertarians I meet up with are more like luan78zao. Hardcore Randians. I don't want to live in some 19th century Dickensian nightmare.
How many do you know? I know a few, and the Randian school is definitely a minority view among them, most of us being more like social liberals who dislike regulation.
I'm a libertarian. I've never read a word of Rand apart from random Internet taglines. You might want to check your stereotypes.
The left compulsively lumps all non-progressive together as worshipers of Rand. If you're not one of theirs, you must be a hard hearted Randian.
To be fair, most libertarians don't spend as much mental energy lamenting "free-loaders" or bitching about taxes as your standard run-of-the-mill conservatives do. They just tend to proselytize the up sides of their ideology (Fwweeeeeedom!) while sweeping the negative consequences under the rug. It's really a hard call to say who is more "hard hearted". Extreme minimalist libertarians (not Dox47) are more "hard hearted" in theory, but plain old conservatives (who usually support those social safety nets that they benefit from) whine more about "moochers" and are thus more "hard hearted" in terms of having abrasive personalities. I suppose it's a tie. It's a tough call.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,454
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
Dox47 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
But how many of you socially liberal libertarians have any real influence in your political ideology?
Most libertarians are socially liberal, it's what sets us apart from conservatives, as can be seen in areas like gay rights, which libertarian Reason magazine was championing all the way back in the 70s. Back then, that would have set us apart from the liberal rank and file too, come to think of it. So, that's kind of a moot question, even if my "ideology" had any structure to it for me to influence.
Kraichgauer wrote:
Most self-professed libertarians with political sway today are used tampon suckers like Sam Brownback, who is doing his damnedest to turn his state of Kansas into a Randian hellscape.
Last I checked, he's a pretty standard issue Republican... Perhaps you should listen to the actual libertarians in the room when it comes to what libertarianism is about?
Rand Paul is much more libertarian-ish, and he's doing things like promoting criminal justice reform and combating the security state, you know, libertarian things. Small government is but one aspect of the philosophy, as much as you seem to think it's the only one.
As Brownback is dismantling any good government can do in his state, including education and free lunches for poor kids, all for the sake of his goddamn tax cuts so free enterprise can lift everyone up (which has so far been a miserable failure), he and his supporters would tell you that they are the tip of the spear in their war for smaller to non-existent government. That is, they'd say they are the truest libertarian conservatives. Right now, I'm seeing Brownback wielding more power than Rand Paul.
On the issue of gay rights - to be for them is great, but just how are you going to enforce those gay rights without big government?
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
marshall wrote:
Raptor wrote:
The left compulsively lumps all non-progressive together as worshipers of Rand. If you're not one of theirs, you must be a hard hearted Randian.
To be fair, most libertarians don't spend as much mental energy lamenting "free-loaders" or bitching about taxes as your standard run-of-the-mill conservatives do. They just tend to proselytize the up sides of their ideology (Fwweeeeeedom!) while sweeping the negative consequences under the rug. It's really a hard call to say who is more "hard hearted". Extreme minimalist libertarians (not Dox47) are more "hard hearted" in theory, but plain old conservatives (who usually support those social safety nets that they benefit from) whine more about "moochers" and are thus more "hard hearted" in terms of having abrasive personalities. I suppose it's a tie. It's a tough call.
Fwweeeeeedom as in individual liberties which I am for, even the stuff I personally dislike, or selective fwweeeeeedom?
Of course, my idea of fwweeeeeedom doesn't include fweeeee-loading.
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
Kraichgauer wrote:
You're not a conservative? Well, you're certainly not liberal. And before you say you're a libertarian, I'll raise yuh by saying libertarians are a sub-species of conservatives.
You ought to brush up on your intellectual history. Conservatives, those who revere tradition and object to change, have always been around. But around 250 years ago, there was a movement of radical thinkers who treasured liberty and advocated a society based on the recognition of individual rights. (They certainly weren't "conservatives"– that would have been the royalists or Tories of the day.) Their ideas were not put into practice with 100% consistency anywhere – but to the extent that they were put into practice, the result was the most dramatic increase in prosperity the world has ever seen.
Those who lived in America we know as the Founders. As a group, they were sometimes referred to as liberals – from a Latin root meaning "freedom."
Eventually that word came to mean its opposite, at least in the US, and so people who still thought all interactions should be consensual had to invent "libertarian" as a replacement. To the extent that there are such things as "mainstream libertarians" today, I generally disagree with them on several issues, so I don't use the term for myself unless it is clearly meant in the broadest possible way. Bottom line: yes, I am a liberal, you are an authoritarian tending toward totalitarian.
Quote:
And, yes, it has always been the wet dream of conservatives to roll back labor laws back to the good old days, which were only good for the rich.
You do know that during the few decades that the US was close to laissez-faire, workers' wages doubled, then doubled again? That millions of people voted with their feet, leaving farms for cities and less-free countries for freer ones? The wages and conditions of those jobs look harsh to us now, but they were infinitely better than those of a subsistence farmer, which is what nearly everybody was before industrialization.
Quote:
And no, no one is forcing anyone to work for an employer, save for their stomachs, and the stomachs of their families. The problem with that way of thinking is that almost all businesses had treated their workers very much the same way, because there was no other game in town for employment.
So you get on the Greyhound and try in another town. Or you collect your resources, take out a loan, and start your own business. (Society is not static, and people do these things all the time.) If every shop in town really is underpaying its workers, you'll be able to attract the best people by paying a little more. Soon you'll be outproducing everybody, and the others will have to follow suit or go under.
Do you view society as an endless battle between evil oppressors and helpless victims? I don't.
Quote:
And strikers don't have the right to take over an employer's property? The same logic could be used against workers striking outside the company entrance. Still not the same as you stealing Marshal's beer.
You're moving the goalposts. Standing there is OK, blocking the entrance is not. Suppose Marshall has been paying me $80 a month to mow his lawn, and now I want $100. When he turns me down, I won't drink his beer, but I will get together with some of my friends to link arms around his house, preventing him from entering his property. Sound fair?
_________________
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission – which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." – Ayn Rand
Raptor wrote:
The left compulsively lumps all non-progressive together as worshipers of Rand. If you're not one of theirs, you must be a hard hearted Randian.
I don't worship anybody, and "Randian" sounds suspiciously like a personality cult, which (contrary to the usual smears) Objectivism absolutely is not. That said, I am a fuzzy, soft-hearted Objectivist. I feel such benevolence toward my fellow man, I don't want to hold a gun to his head and order him around for any reason.
_________________
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission – which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." – Ayn Rand
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,454
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
luan78zao wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
You're not a conservative? Well, you're certainly not liberal. And before you say you're a libertarian, I'll raise yuh by saying libertarians are a sub-species of conservatives.
You ought to brush up on your intellectual history. Conservatives, those who revere tradition and object to change, have always been around. But around 250 years ago, there was a movement of radical thinkers who treasured liberty and advocated a society based on the recognition of individual rights. (They certainly weren't "conservatives"– that would have been the royalists or Tories of the day.) Their ideas were not put into practice with 100% consistency anywhere – but to the extent that they were put into practice, the result was the most dramatic increase in prosperity the world has ever seen.
Those who lived in America we know as the Founders. As a group, they were sometimes referred to as liberals – from a Latin root meaning "freedom."
Eventually that word came to mean its opposite, at least in the US, and so people who still thought all interactions should be consensual had to invent "libertarian" as a replacement. To the extent that there are such things as "mainstream libertarians" today, I generally disagree with them on several issues, so I don't use the term for myself unless it is clearly meant in the broadest possible way. Bottom line: yes, I am a liberal, you are an authoritarian tending toward totalitarian.
Quote:
And, yes, it has always been the wet dream of conservatives to roll back labor laws back to the good old days, which were only good for the rich.
You do know that during the few decades that the US was close to laissez-faire, workers' wages doubled, then doubled again? That millions of people voted with their feet, leaving farms for cities and less-free countries for freer ones? The wages and conditions of those jobs look harsh to us now, but they were infinitely better than those of a subsistence farmer, which is what nearly everybody was before industrialization.
Quote:
And no, no one is forcing anyone to work for an employer, save for their stomachs, and the stomachs of their families. The problem with that way of thinking is that almost all businesses had treated their workers very much the same way, because there was no other game in town for employment.
So you get on the Greyhound and try in another town. Or you collect your resources, take out a loan, and start your own business. (Society is not static, and people do these things all the time.) If every shop in town really is underpaying its workers, you'll be able to attract the best people by paying a little more. Soon you'll be outproducing everybody, and the others will have to follow suit or go under.
Do you view society as an endless battle between evil oppressors and helpless victims? I don't.
Quote:
And strikers don't have the right to take over an employer's property? The same logic could be used against workers striking outside the company entrance. Still not the same as you stealing Marshal's beer.
You're moving the goalposts. Standing there is OK, blocking the entrance is not. Suppose Marshall has been paying me $80 a month to mow his lawn, and now I want $100. When he turns me down, I won't drink his beer, but I will get together with some of my friends to link arms around his house, preventing him from entering his property. Sound fair?
That period of time when business practiced almost unrestrained capitalism was such a worker's paradise (sarcasm). Sure, farm labor, unless you owned the farm, was pretty much a dead end. And sure, people looked to factory work as an escape to a better life. But it's also true that whatever good pay and good working conditions existed didn't last long, as the plight of the worker became hell. Why do you think organized labor even arose?
And why shouldn't I be able to fight for something better, rather than moving from town to town looking for a factory job that will treat me like a human being? My dad was a union man, and his dad was actually a Wobbly, so I admit I'm not unbiased in this discussion. But it's also true that I am well aware how good wages and benefits were something that had to be fought for. And so, no, there's no choosing to be a victim here; rather, it's a matter of taking action on the behalf of one self, and one's fellow workers.
As for the founders being libertarians - I am of the opinion that the political designations of today are a thing of today, and that while the founders were the liberals of the 1700's, they wouldn't fit neatly in with any political ideology we have today, liberal, libertarian, or conservative.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
luan78zao wrote:
You ought to brush up on your intellectual history. Conservatives, those who revere tradition and object to change, have always been around. But around 250 years ago, there was a movement of radical thinkers who treasured liberty and advocated a society based on the recognition of individual rights. (They certainly weren't "conservatives"– that would have been the royalists or Tories of the day.) Their ideas were not put into practice with 100% consistency anywhere – but to the extent that they were put into practice, the result was the most dramatic increase in prosperity the world has ever seen.
I think the problem with your argument is that while the radical thinkers of yesteryear may not have been conservatives (according to the British establishment) they stuck with slavery and seemed to be comfortable with having fundamentalist puritan christian values while happily raping and lynching slaves and carried other backward ideas such as women being second class citizens. All these values (republicans appear to yearn for a return to this "glorious" era) are actually pretty vile in the modern context.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Donald Trump Hates Taylor Swift |
17 Sep 2024, 1:09 am |
Germany Responds to Donald Trump's Debate Comments |
16 Sep 2024, 4:15 am |
Donald Trump Banned From Nation’s Secrets by Defying Ethics |
12 Nov 2024, 2:54 pm |
Trump president win impact on healthcare and autism |
Yesterday, 3:46 pm |