U.S. Politics - Let them who is without stones cast the first cake agaisnt the glass house

[ThinkerX]

What are the consequences of a Libertarian world view?

Long term, you end up with something at least similar to what is now called a 'failed state.'

What happens is a handful of opportunists use whatever means they can get away with to get most or all of the 'property.' At that point, this bunch sets the rules: yes, this being a libertarian utopia, you are free to do drugs or whatnot - except where the major property holders say 'no.' You don't own property, well, you rent from the big stakeholders. Likewise, you work for them - under whatever conditions and pay they deem 'fair' - which regardless of any protest to the contrary will mean low pay under likely unsafe conditions. You drive to work on toll roads - if they'll let you pass. Education? The education to advance will be deliberately priced out of reach of ordinary sorts - educated vermin are troublesome to rule. Labor unions - theoretically legal, in practice flat out forbidden. Complain? The big stakeholders are in bed with the courts. Quit? Fine, Your free to starve out in the cold because the stakeholders don't want worthless mouths on their property.

You get anywhere near 'true libertarianism' of any stripe and this sort of situation sets in very fast. It happened in the US, back during the settling of the west: cattle barons, tycoons, hired guns, outlaw gangs, bought and paid for courts, vigilante justice, and so on. Those conditions led directly to the rise of the labor union movement and a serious push for reform.

But most libertarians of your sort go to great lengths to NOT see these issues.

[Stannatic]

Before I respond to you, I think it would be fair if you told me which side of the coin you were on so I could reply with an equally obtuse and exaggerated post lambasting you for your leftist or neo-con views.

[Inigima]

Semantic dodge

Now that's lazy of you. They're not the same thing and the difference matters. A political party isn't simple political shorthand, it's a group of people who have decided their politics are broadly similar enough to band together for political advantage. There are frequently major differences within one, like the Blue Dogs vs the progressive wing of the Democrats, or the Tea Party Republicans versus the more traditional GOP. An ideology is supposed to mean something, a matter of principles.

[aceluby]

This really is interesting to me. I'm a member of a right-leaning site too, and they spew as much venom toward libertarians as I see in this thread for similar, but different, reasons.

What is a garden variety Republican, by the way?

What are the consequences of a Libertarian world view?

I think the main reason Leftists and Neo-Cons are so perturbed by Libertarians is because they infringe upon alot of the constituents of both parties. Fiscal conservatism and Constitutional Preservation for the GOP, and social liberalism for the Democrats. I think the radicals in both parties know that if Libertarianism ever took over the GOP, or came into a party of it's own, then their end goals are finished. Both the never-ending-war pro-military industrial complex super-state for the Neo-Cons and the Marxist-Progressive, European style socialist state that the Neo-Cons and Leftists respectively want would end up on the ash heap of history.

Where they belong.

Do you even know current events, or do you just spew ridiculous talking points? And let me guess... because nobody is libertarian enough for you, you still vote GOP...

[aceluby]

Before I respond to you, I think it would be fair if you told me which side of the coin you were on so I could reply with an equally obtuse and exaggerated post lambasting you for your leftist or neo-con views.

Why would you need to in order to defend your own views?

[Inigima]

This really is interesting to me. I'm a member of a right-leaning site too, and they spew as much venom toward libertarians as I see in this thread for similar, but different, reasons.

What is a garden variety Republican, by the way?

What are the consequences of a Libertarian world view?

I think the main reason Leftists and Neo-Cons are so perturbed by Libertarians is because they infringe upon alot of the constituents of both parties. Fiscal conservatism and Constitutional Preservation for the GOP, and social liberalism for the Democrats. I think the radicals in both parties know that if Libertarianism ever took over the GOP, or came into a party of it's own, then their end goals are finished. Both the never-ending-war pro-military industrial complex super-state for the Neo-Cons and the Marxist-Progressive, European style socialist state that the Neo-Cons and Leftists respectively want would end up on the ash heap of history.

Where they belong.

You had the makings of an interesting thesis here before you pissed it all away in a fit of Freeper-grade commenting.

[Stannatic]

Do you even know current events, or do you just spew ridiculous talking points? And let me guess... because nobody is libertarian enough for you, you still vote GOP...

I've actually voted straight Libertarian for the past two elections.

[Stannatic]

You had the makings of an interesting thesis here before you pissed it all away in a fit of Freeper-grade commenting.

And you call other people lazy?

[Inigima]

Sorry, I missed the consequences question because I was driving.

The consequences of a libertarian worldview are, among others, that people die, people who don't need to, and similar human costs. The most intellectually honest libertarian I ever knew said straight up that he knew that enacting his policy preferences was going to kill some people. He regarded it as a necessary byproduct of what he saw as the only ethical choice. I think that's monstrous, but he was at least willing to reckon with the cost of his choices. Most wannabe libertarians cling to the idea that their policy preferences

You needn't rush to assure me that you, too, are that intellectually honest and worthy of respect. Partly because I won't believe you, but also because your D- quality efforts so far have already precluded it.

[TerraPrime]

[mod hat]

Libertarianism as it pertains to current political events in the U.S. can stay. A general discussion on the pros and cons of Libertarianism can go to the other thread. Thank you.

[/mod hat]

[Stannatic]

Sorry, I missed the consequences question because I was driving.

The consequences of a libertarian worldview are, among others, that people die, people who don't need to, and similar human costs. The most intellectually honest libertarian I ever knew said straight up that he knew that enacting his policy preferences was going to kill some people. He regarded it as a necessary byproduct of what he saw as the only ethical choice. I think that's monstrous, but he was at least willing to reckon with the cost of his choices. Most wannabe libertarians cling to the idea that their policy preferences

You needn't rush to assure me that you, too, are that intellectually honest and worthy of respect. Partly because I won't believe you, but also because your D- quality efforts so far have already precluded it.

5 derps out of 5 derps.

I guess nobody will die in a Socialist utopia that doesn't need to. Nobody will starve to death in breadlines and nobody will die waiting for a doctor on that single payer health care.

And that's cute. If nothing else I respect your opinion, but as is mostly the case with people like you, something gives you the opinion you are above me. I'm sorry I didn't know you were part of the intelligentsia class master.

[all swedes are racist]

Lol

[ThinkerX]

In deference to this:

[mod hat]

Libertarianism as it pertains to current political events in the U.S. can stay. A general discussion on the pros and cons of Libertarianism can go to the other thread. Thank you.

[/mod hat]

I will limit my debate on this topic in this thread to just this post:

Before I respond to you, I think it would be fair if you told me which side of the coin you were on so I could reply with an equally obtuse and exaggerated post lambasting you for your leftist or neo-con views.

I don't understand why you need to know my affiliation, but since you ask:

I am pragmatic, not bound by ideology. Independent. Shryke has called me 'delightfully crazy' a time or two in the past. I go with what works for the greatest number of people, ideology be damned. At various times in the past I have voted republican, democrat, green, libertarian, and independent - never a straight party ticket. Because I am concerned about the social/political implications of certain economic/climate/resource issues, I have been accused of being a bit of a conspiracy theorist.

Now...what part of my previous post do you intend to take issue with?

Are you going to try to deny that long term libertarianism would result in something different from a failed third world state? I see no proactive mechanism within libertarianism capable of stopping that slide.

[Crazydog7]

Praise and glory be to Doctor Paul. I didn't know there was a seperate Libertarian thread. When was someone going to clue me in? I get it they were waiting for me to catch up with the free market. I'm going to party over there see you guys next thread.

[MerenthaClone]

I'm disappointed, but not all together surprised by the amount of Leftists in this thread.

I'll just say for now that Rand Paul is the kind of change this country needs after 8 years of unchecked executive power advancing progressive agendas which seek to destroy anything resembling the country I grew up in.

You're aware that there's a massive gulf between Rand Paul's (and Ron Paul's, for that matter) stated positions and actual voting pattern, right? Rand Paul was totally against drones right before he was totally for them being used to hit American citizens robbing a liquor store, and that's just what he claims to be for.

https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/enten-datalab-paul-2.png?w=1024

preemptive edit: Sorry this is so late, the board ate my post.

[The Once and Future King]

No, you haven't. You claimed that legally the West Bank was disputed territory and never responded to me pointing out that the Israeli Supreme Court disagreed with you and ruled it was occupied territory.

The Israeli Supreme court ruled that this situation is most similar to an occupied territory out of all the listed in the GC. The fact is there is no conflict that compares to the one in Israel and the territories. As someone said a page or two earlier, politically genocide would have served them better

[Takyon]

Not that I have much to contribute to the current discussion but I was curious to know the board's general consensus towards Martin O'Malley. It's obvious that he going to "run" for president (i.e. run for vice-president) but he strikes me as a by-the-numbers politician who has neither strong charisma nor a very favourable legacy in Maryland. I guess that's why he would be a beneficial primary challenge for Ms. Clinton because she'll need a red-blooded liberal by her side to push her rhetoric farther to the left (the same way that Romney's opponents pushed his image rather to the right) and she'll need to kick at least one opponent's ass.

I would ultimately agree with a previous assertion about Julian Castro being a prospective running-mate. National Democrats have been eager to prop up an affluent Gen X'er with administrative experience and he's said to hail from a to-be-purple state (though that to me is a somewhat preposterous prospect, considering how measly their state-level Democratic Party is). That said, Elizabeth Warren is a seasoned debater and is very popular among the more social democratic wing of the American left but that's really the only demographic that the junior Senator could energize.

[Shryke]

Not that I have much to contribute to the current discussion but I was curious to know the board's general consensus towards Martin O'Malley. It's obvious that he going to "run" for president (i.e. run for vice-president) but he strikes me as a by-the-numbers politician who has neither strong charisma nor a very favourable legacy in Maryland. I guess that's why he would be a beneficial primary challenge for Ms. Clinton because she'll need a red-blooded liberal by her side to push her rhetoric farther to the left (the same way that Romney's opponents pushed his image rather to the right) and she'll need to kick at least one opponent's ass.

I would ultimately agree with a previous assertion about Julian Castro being a prospective running-mate. National Democrats have been eager to prop up an affluent Gen X'er with administrative experience and he's said to hail from a to-be-purple state (though that to me is a somewhat preposterous prospect, considering how measly their state-level Democratic Party is). That said, Elizabeth Warren is a seasoned debater and is very popular among the more social democratic wing of the American left but that's really the only demographic that the junior Senator could energize.

O'Malley as far as I've heard is:

1) Unremarkable. His time as governor is at best just time as governor and at worst there were some screwups.

2) The basis for Carcetti from The Wire. So ..... yeah.

[Inigima]

5 derps out of 5 derps.

I guess nobody will die in a Socialist utopia that doesn't need to. Nobody will starve to death in breadlines and nobody will die waiting for a doctor on that single payer health care.

And that's cute. If nothing else I respect your opinion, but as is mostly the case with people like you, something gives you the opinion you are above me. I'm sorry I didn't know you were part of the intelligentsia class master.

I will respond to this in the other thread.

[Fez]

Not that I have much to contribute to the current discussion but I was curious to know the board's general consensus towards Martin O'Malley. It's obvious that he going to "run" for president (i.e. run for vice-president) but he strikes me as a by-the-numbers politician who has neither strong charisma nor a very favourable legacy in Maryland. I guess that's why he would be a beneficial primary challenge for Ms. Clinton because she'll need a red-blooded liberal by her side to push her rhetoric farther to the left (the same way that Romney's opponents pushed his image rather to the right) and she'll need to kick at least one opponent's ass.

I would ultimately agree with a previous assertion about Julian Castro being a prospective running-mate. National Democrats have been eager to prop up an affluent Gen X'er with administrative experience and he's said to hail from a to-be-purple state (though that to me is a somewhat preposterous prospect, considering how measly their state-level Democratic Party is). That said, Elizabeth Warren is a seasoned debater and is very popular among the more social democratic wing of the American left but that's really the only demographic that the junior Senator could energize.

O'Malley's fine. There's not much special about him, but he's a photogenic, reasonably young white male Democrat with executive experience, and there's simply not that many of those left anymore. His legacy in Maryland is harmed by the fact that his Lt. Gov was beaten by a Republican in the race to succeed him, but that's more on the Lt. Gov than him. He had a few screw-ups as governor but overall did a fine job. His big asset is help get back that 2% of the white vote that Gore and Kerry both got that Obama didn't, by being an "acceptable" white male face for them. That 2% doesn't sound like a lot, but it'd be enough to lock-up Ohio and a few other states for Clinton, assuming she maintains Obama's minority voter support.

ETA: Its the same role Biden played for Obama, and I think he definitely helped Obama's white support from falling even further.