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

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, SerHaHa said:

It isn't 1964 any longer.  You show me one place where someone in recent living memory where somebody had to use a rear entrance due to race in the free world.  It'd be front page news, if any business, tried that stunt, same as being denied goods and services.  Prove it, with links.

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.  

As such it is proper to dismiss, out of hand, similar government actions regarding modern civil rights issues?

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, SerHaHa said:

It isn't 1964 any longer.  You show me one place where someone in recent living memory where somebody had to use a rear entrance due to race in the free world.  It'd be front page news, if any business, tried that stunt, same as being denied goods and services.  Prove it, with links.

But that wasn't the real point. The real point is that there can be issues with private power. The 1964 Civil Rights Act being an obvious and illustrative case.

Also, I get that businesses can't overtly and legally discriminate based on race anymore. But, that doesn't mean the historical effects of discrimination are completely gone. And we still have to worry about them.

When we make these kind of policy choices, we have to deal with how shit really went down and not based on some mythical libertarian garden of eden where good little libertarians just mixed their labor with the land, trading goods and services for gold of course, until evil gubment came in and ruined everything.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OGE,

For the record the government is neither a demonic leech on society or a panecea for all ills.  It is a too.  Reasonable people can and do disagree regarding the proper scope of the application of its power.  That doesn't make people "bad libertarians" or "good statists" .  It means they simply disagree about where and when government should be used.  We need to try to find a happy point between those two extremes were we can all choose to live.

The alternative is extremely unpleasant.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

OGE,

For the record the government is neither a demonic leech on society or a panecea for all ills.  It is a too.  Reasonable people can and do disagree regarding the proper scope of the application of its power.  That doesn't make people "bad libertarians" or "good statists" .  It means they simply disagree about where and when government should be used.  We need to try to find a happy point between those two extremes were we can all choose to live.

The alternative is extremely unpleasant.

I'm certainly not for an all powerful state.  To some extent, I still consider myself a child of classic liberalism.

And I'm certainly aware that the government can make bad policy.

But my problem with libertarians are:

1. They act is if any interference with private markets is inherently illegitimate.

2. The market always produces optimal outcomes. It can do no wrong.

3. And often peddling some pretty crank ideas ie "let's get on the gold standard!!!".

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

20 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I'm certainly not for an all powerful state.  To some extent, I still consider myself a child of classic liberalism.

And I'm certainly aware that the government can make bad policy.

But my problem with libertarians are:

1. They act is if any interference with private markets is inherently illegitimate.

2. The market always produces optimal outcomes. It can do no wrong.

3. And often peddling some pretty crank ideas ie "let's get on the gold standard!!!".

I'm not going to disagree on any if those points.  Just recognize those are caricatures of more nuanced positions in many, if not most, cases.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I'm not going to disagree on any if those point.  Just recognize those are caricatures of more nuanced positions in many, if not most, cases.

Eh, I am not so sure about that. I think with a lot of libertarians this isn't true.

Also you write;

Quote

We need to try to find a happy point between those two extremes were we can all choose to live.

In my view, this is what largely happened in a lot of western countries after world war 2. Many western nations developed quasi-social democratic  governments as a compromise between the extremes of 19th Century Capitalism and Marxism. 

And libertarians and conservatives have been trying to undermine the legitimacy of that compromise ever since.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Eh, I am not so sure about that. I think with a lot of libertarians this isn't true.

Also you write;

In my view, this is what largely happened in a lot of western countries after world war 2. Many western nations developed quasi-social democratic  governments as a compromise between the extremes of 19th Century Capitalism and Marxism. 

And libertarians and conservatives have been trying to undermine the legitimacy of that compromise ever since.

Is attempting to reposition the median point "undermining"?  Nothing is truely static.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Is attempting to reposition the median point "undermining"?  Nothing is truely static.

1. Depends a great deal on the nature of re-positioning. And lot of it has been bullshit. Things like:

1. Supply side economics is awesome

2. In recent years there has been an inflation problem, let's get on the gold standard as a solution.

3. Let's get rid of Dodd-Frank, cause it lowers lending growth!!

4. Expansionary austerity is awesome!!!

When the arguments presented by one side are often very dubious on grounds of theory or empirical evidence, then I have to question one sides good faith to "reposition to the median" as you put it. Also, it seems the same side is the one that tends to fall for fake news.

And the fact is that there was a group of people that thought that everything about the New Deal was illegitimate and would have rolled everything back. And these people were not there to make technocratic arguments about the efficiency of some program, but fundamentally thought that everything about government interference into private markets were illegitimate.

You had people like Ayn Rand.

You had people like William Buckley arguing that universities should ban keynesian professors.

You had all sorts of red baiting after World War 2, against people that weren't fundamentally Marxists or had no intention of outlawing all private ownership of capital.

So no, I don't see it always as trying to "re-position things back to the median."

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

1. Depends a great deal on the nature of re-positioning. And lot of it has been bullshit. Things like:

1. Supply side economics is awesome

2. In recent years there has been an inflation problem, let's get on the gold standard as a solution.

3. Let's get rid of Dodd-Frank, cause it lowers lending growth!!

4. Expansionary austerity is awesome!!!

When the arguments presented by one side are often very dubious on grounds of theory or empirical evidence, then I have to question one sides good faith to "reposition to the median" as you put it. Also, it seems the same side is the one that tends to fall for fake news.

And the fact is that there was a group of people that thought that everything about the New Deal was illegitimate and would have rolled everything back. And these people were not there to make technocratic arguments about the efficiency of some program, but fundamentally thought that everything about government interference into private markets were illegitimate.

You had people like Ayn Rand.

You had people like William Buckley arguing that universities should ban keynesian professors.

You had all sorts of red baiting after World War 2, against people that weren't fundamentally Marxists or had no intention of outlawing all private ownership of capital.

So no, I don't see it always as trying to "re-position things back to the median."

Fair enough I'm not defending the Ayn Rand worshippers.  I'm saying that it is possible to hold a good faith belief that we would all benefit with the median between those two polarities set to a different position and that others can, in good faith, think that I am wrong and see shifting the median point toward the Marxist pole as beneficial.  

That doesn't make either of us bad people for disagreeing with each other.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Fair enough I'm not defending the Ayn Rand worshippers.  I'm saying that it is possible to hold a good faith belief that we would all benefit with the median between those two polarities set to a different position and that others can, in good faith, think that I am wrong and see shifting the median point toward the Marxist pole as beneficial.  

Well one thing: I have no desire to see the private ownership of capital banned. Nor do I think it is necessary to eradicate all disparities in income or wealth. And I'm generally fine with most of the economy being left to private markets. I don't think I'm far off from most liberals on this.

I'd argue that American Liberalism is a pretty centrist ideology all things considered.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well one thing: I have no desire to see the private ownership of capital banned. Nor do I think it is necessary to eradicate all disparities in income or wealth. And I'm generally fine with most of the economy being left to private markets. I don't think I'm far off from most liberals on this.

I'd argue that American Liberalism is a pretty centrist ideology all things considered.

FDR's economic "bill of rights" is centrist?

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

FDR's economic "bill of rights" is centrist?

Compared to what proposed alternatives Scott? Ask yourself that question.

Compared to Marxism or Libertarianism, I'd say yes it was.

[SerHaHa]

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. 

[Commodore]

39 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Compared to what proposed alternatives Scott? Ask yourself that question.

Compared to Marxism or Libertarianism, I'd say yes it was.

centrism is not an inherent virtue

[OldGimletEye]

Well the bigger point was to punch a hole in the libertarian theory of freedom.

For many libertarians, freedom is basically about absolute property rights and limiting what the government can do. And I am saying something like the 1964 Civil Rights Act challenges that view.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Commodore said:

centrism is not an inherent virtue

Perhaps not. But, if you recognize that each extreme side has some valid points and that each side has some warts then perhaps being in the center isn't always a bad place to be.

Not that, I think you should pick an argument or side by "splitting it down the middle" necessarily. Like for instance I'm not going to do any middle splitting with racist or segregationist. The issue has to be looked at on it's own terms.

ETA:

Also,Ser Scott said something about going to the median or something. And my point was that American Liberalism has always kind of been there.

If you are a conservative or a libertarian sort living in the US, you'd probably disagree. But, I think in the bigger picture of things, it's mostly true.

[Swordfish]

17 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I think they'll absolutely try to weaken Roe v Wade, but I'm not super concerned about it going away. I am concerned about the EPA going away, about planned parenthood going away, about HUD going away, about the DoE going away, about NASA doing nothing with the environmental studies or Earth studies, about LGBT rights going away, and about most worker's rights going away. 

Indeed.  And a lot of people are concerned not that 2A is going away, but that they will enverthelees be infringed upon by registries and other unreasonable restrictions.

Look at us, all finding commonality and shit.....

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

29 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well the bigger point was to punch a hole in the libertarian theory of freedom.

For many libertarians, freedom is basically about absolute property rights and limiting what the government can do. And I am saying something like the 1964 Civil Rights Act challenges that view.

OGE,

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.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

21 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Indeed.  And a lot of people are concerned not that 2A is going away, but that they will enverthelees be infringed upon by registries and other unreasonable restrictions.

Look at us, all finding commonality and shit.....

 

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

[Commodore]

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