US politics 2016: I can see Russia from my White House

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

17 minutes ago, Commodore said:

most of us libertarians have moved on from social contract as a means of preserving liberty

there are other ways that don't require the majority's permission

Commodore,

Which, if you look at this from a historical perspective, is going back to "Rule of the Clan".  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 Trump Names Carl's Jr. CEO as Labor Secretary. 

http://nypost.com/2016/12/08/trump-to-name-fast-food-ceo-as-labor-secretary/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

 

/Not yet reported as to whether or not he wanted fries with that.

[Guy Kilmore]

So if I go by Shadowrun, when do people think the magical calamity will hit and what will Trump's response be to it?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, Guy Kilmore said:

So if I go by Shadowrun, when do people think the magical calamity will hit and what will Trump's response be to it?

I bet he'd be a Troll. Outside of that, not sure.

[Dr. Pepper]

1 hour ago, SerHaHa said:

Oh I completely agree that the attitudes which allowed that behavior in 1964, before, and even after that, still exist.  They always will, so long as we all walk this earth.  My point is and was that in society today, even those on the supposed evil "right", by a very large majority, wouldn't have it, won't tolerate those types of behaviors.  If you think we can backslide into that, the next 4 years I think will prove that despite having a leader that many on the left think is going to bring back that stone age - it isn't going to happen. 

All those 'religious freedom" laws the right have been passing are meant to allow discrimination against LGBT folks.  They tolerate it, tolerate it so much that they vote repeatedly for it.  

[Rippounet]

35 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What is interesting to me is that extreme libertarians want extremely small government to promote individual liberties.  A book I finished recently Rule of the Clan by Mark Weiner very cogently points out that when you have anarchy, or very weak governments, what you end up with is not a libertarian paradise.  What you end up with is gang warfare and Tribalism writ large.  

The idea of individual liberties exists in conjunction with the State.  Now, you can chuck the idea of individual liberties altogether and use the State to act on a purely collective basis the way Marxist-Leninist States have but, for individual liberties to have meaning.  There needs to be a reasonably strong State to act to protect individual liberties.

The irony of libertarianism is that it only works as a principle in reaction to a strong state, to question whether perhaps some specific issues should not be addressed by the state (gwhether some things should really be prohibhited or regulated).
But it does not propose a functioning system of government. By definition, you can't have a libertarian government or a libertarian society.

[Swordfish]

40 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What, in your opinion, is "reasonable" regulation of the right to keep and bear arms?

The same as it has been in the last dozen or so threads on gun control.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Rippounet said:

But it does not propose a functioning system of government. By definition, you can't have a libertarian government or a libertarian society.

Wait, I though we did. It was called feudalism. Wasn't feudalism largely based on notions of private contractual relations? There wasn't any place for a political entity known as a "state".

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

29 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Trump Names Carl's Jr. CEO as Labor Secretary. 

http://nypost.com/2016/12/08/trump-to-name-fast-food-ceo-as-labor-secretary/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

 

/Not yet reported as to whether or not he wanted fries with that.

Still not as funny as Linda McCahon running the Small Business Administration:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/07/politics/linda-mcmahon-picked-to-be-small-business-administrator/index.html

Trump really mucked this up. He should have gone solely with WWE HOFers.

SoS: The Rock

SoD: Stone Cold

CoS: HHH

UNA: Mankind

Press Secretary: Rick Flair

[Fragile Bird]

So,,,,in summary, DT has appointed an EPA czar who doesn't believe in the environment, a labor secretary who doesn't believe in a minimum wage, an Education honcho who doesn't believe in public education, a Housing head who doesn't believe in public housing, a Treasury Secretary who contributed to the 2008 financial crisis, a National Security adviser who worked for the Russians, a head of the CIA who has said so many things I can't choose which ones to list....

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

18 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

The irony of libertarianism is that it only works as a principle in reaction to a strong state, to question whether perhaps some specific issues should not be addressed by the state (gwhether some things should really be prohibhited or regulated).
But it does not propose a functioning system of government. By definition, you can't have a libertarian government or a libertarian society.

Well, in fairness, you can have strong States that do and don't value individual liberties.  I prefer a State that does value and protect individual liberties.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

13 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

The same as it has been in the last dozen or so threads on gun control.

Could you please share again?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

15 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Wait, I though we did. It was called feudalism. Wasn't feudalism largely based on notions of private contractual relations? There wasn't any place for a political entity known as a "state".

I think most Marxist-Leninist States are feudal with different names for the various parts of the aristocracy.  And Private Property really wasn't a thing in Feudalism.  Look up "Villinage".

[Dr. Pepper]

6 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

So,,,,in summary, DT has appointed an EPA czar who doesn't believe in the environment, a labor secretary who doesn't believe in a minimum wage, an Education honcho who doesn't believe in public education, a Housing head who doesn't believe in public housing, a Treasury Secretary who contributed to the 2008 financial crisis, a National Security adviser who worked for the Russians, a head of the CIA who has said so many things I can't choose which ones to list....

Wow, way to make my Thursday even bleaker. 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I think most Marxist-Leninist States are feudal with different names for the various parts of the aristocracy.  

Except the autocrats in those states don't hold power on the theory of absolute property rights.

If your notion of freedom is based on a notion of absolute property rights, then I'd say a feudal system looks pretty good. 

Perhaps there is a reason why many of the so called "neo-reactionary" clowns within the alt-right began their intellectual journey with hardcore property rights libertarianism.

It seems that libertarianism for all it's crowing about "freedom" can, at least in some case, become quite illiberal and I mean that in the classic liberal sense.

[Swordfish]

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

SerHaHa,

You're missing the point.  Would that cultural change, that visceral reaction to the stupidity of forcing people to a back door because of their race, have taken place without government action like the Civil Rights Act of 1964?  I don't think so.  

Most certainly.  You can perhaps make the argument that it would have taken longer, and been uglier, and I'd agree with that.

But the notion that it wouldn't have happened at all?  No.  Sorry.  I don't buy that.

11 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Could you please share again?

I'm not really sure what you are asking.  Are you presupposing as fact that additional regulation is required?  Or are you talking about my opinion on the reasonableness of existing regulation?  Or are you just asking for an example?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Except the autocrats in those states don't hold power on the theory of absolute property rights.

If your notion of freedom is based on a notion of absolute property rights, then I'd say a feudal system looks pretty good. 

Perhaps there is a reason why many of the so called "neo-reactionary" clowns within the alt-right began their intellectual journey with hardcore property rights libertarianism.

It seems that libertarianism for all it's crowing about "freedom" can, at least in some case, become quite illiberal and I mean that in the classic liberal sense.

Look up Villinage.  All property was held in trust from the ultimate lord of a given territory.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Look up Villinage.  All property was held in trust from the ultimate lord of a given territory.

I don't have to. Because what you want to imply is that those trust wouldn't be considered property rights.

That's not true. Or at least it's highly debatable.

The liege lord wasn't supposed to revoke those "trust" for any old reason, so long as his vassal performed his duties.

[Fez]

54 minutes ago, Guy Kilmore said:

So if I go by Shadowrun, when do people think the magical calamity will hit and what will Trump's response be to it?

So long as we end up with a dragon president, I'm okay with whatever goes down.

25 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Still not as funny as Linda McCahon running the Small Business Administration:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/07/politics/linda-mcmahon-picked-to-be-small-business-administrator/index.html

One thing I will say for Trump, he's managed to get a whole bunch of really rich people with comfortable lives to accept some really boring, grinding, unglamorous government jobs. Treasury or State is one thing, but the SBA? Commerce? There's not even any opportunities for direct corruption with those, just general deregulation; which they could let someone else handle and still reap the benefits from it.

[The guy from the Vale]

13 minutes ago, Fez said:

So long as we end up with a dragon president, I'm okay with whatever goes down.

One thing I will say for Trump, he's managed to get a whole bunch of really rich people with comfortable lives to accept some really boring, grinding, unglamorous government jobs. Treasury or State is one thing, but the SBA? Commerce? There's not even any opportunities for direct corruption with those, just general deregulation; which they could let someone else handle and still reap the benefits from it.

I fear the Dragon President is the one leaving the White House...