US Politics -- with all sorts of platforms

[Ormond]

I feel odd starting one of these threads, but IHeartTesla said he'd never seen a "libertarian platform", and of course the Libertarian Party just adopted one at their convention, so I thought I should post the link:

http://www.lp.org/platform

It would be interesting to get the self-proclaimed "libertarians" on this thread to say which parts of this platform they agree and disagree with.

P.S. I find particularly interesting the very last plank:

Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval.

I just find it a bit silly that they just had to include the word "machination" at the end of that list. It's hard to take something seriously as a party platform that feels it has to put in such a paranoid sounding word. But I guess it fits the libertarian attitude toward government.

[Guest]

One of the more hilarious lines of argument that you'll hear from American conservatives is that they are actually the purveyors of freedom and civil rights and such.

That Kevin Williamson article from NRO that was posted in the last thread was about as convincing as that argument could ever be, but it's still utterly unconvincing.

See the glorious takedown here:

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/05/conservative-fantasy-history-of-civil-rights.html

[Lord O' Bones]

Finally the libertarians have an official platform. Now I can officially (wait, already did that) disassociate myself from them and form the "Fuck this Noise" party.

Damn it. Now I suppose I need a platform as well.

[Guest]

Well, Gary Johnson, the guy who will be the official nominee for that party does a great job at coming across as totally not crazy. Dr. Paul should take lessons (actually he shouldn't...being Dr. Paul has been quite a wise investment these last few years).

[Sci-2]

Finally the libertarians have an official platform. Now I can officially (wait, already did that) disassociate myself from them and form the "Fuck this Noise" party. Damn it. Now I suppose I need a platform as well.

My sister has dreams of putting together the Anger Party. The party's slogan is "It doesn't matter what I'm yelling about, I'm yelling for you."

[Lord O' Bones]

@ Trisky

I will take this information under advisement. Truly.

But I hope all of you understand that I made from scratch a Michael Badnarik sign from scratch* as a counter to my roommates at the time littering the lawn with John Kerry bullshit. While the assholes down the street tried to tell me that "These colors don't run; Bush 2004."

* seriously, I bought the paper and the stick and the crayons and the laminate and everything.

@ sciborg I hope your sister isn't serious about that. It's fucking funny, but not helpful.

[lokisnow]

This is amazing, and should be reposted, Triskele posted it at the end of the last thread. Bruce Bartlett, extreme conservative, pointing out the stupidity of Supply Side Economics (that they don't work):

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/would-romney-be-another-bill-clinton-or-another-george-w-bush/?ref=business

But what about the economy? Republicans almost obsessively refer to all tax increases as job-killers. They commonly assert that tax increases would crush the economy and investment. Conversely, they assert that tax cuts are always what the economy needs to raise growth and create jobs.

This is why Mr. Romney; Paul D. Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee; and every other Republican leader say that we must cut taxes, especially for the rich, even as spending for the poor is slashed in the name of fiscal responsibility.

But the record does not support the idea that tax cuts necessarily foster jobs or growth.

Please click the link to see the amazing charts he included.

[Guest]

@ Trisky

I will take this information under advisement. Truly.

Ron Paul (and his legions) have all of these theories such as that the gold standard would prevent wars from happening and that a store's right to exclude black customers is vital because any law stating otherwise would be an egregious overreach of federal power.

Gary Johnson is more like "Eh, I don't get too worked up about this stuff, but I just feel like the government's role should be limited."

Although one thing that they're both in agreement on (as are most libertarians) that I am completely with them on is that the war on drugs is a fucking disaster. A fiscal one as well as a moral one. Terrible.

lockesnow - thanks for reposting that. Not too many people have as much cred to speak on that issue as he does, yet the Commodores of the world are still drinking the kool-aid to this day. How much more evidence do we need?

And I'll mention again that another guy (not Bartlett) who was in Reagan's team said that he felt publicly shamed when he had to admit that the Reagan Admin. was actively practicing supply-side nonsense. It was that much against all textbook economics (and still is).

[Sci-2]

@Lord O' Bones: Don't worry, my sister has no desire to enter politics. The Anger Party is more a comment on the nature of politics than a serious thing....although one does wonder how far we could get...

eta: added the @ part.

[IheartTesla]

I feel odd starting one of these threads, but IHeartTesla said he'd never seen a "libertarian platform", and of course the Libertarian Party just adopted one at their convention, so I thought I should post the link:

http://www.lp.org/platform

Apparently they are for liberty, who knew.

And for a military as well as the abolition of the IRS. Not sure how those F-22s are gonna make themselves....

[Guest]

Not sure how those F-22s are gonna make themselves....

They don't realize that they don't actually want what they say that they want. Liberianism is more about some emotional appeal than actual results.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

They don't realize that they don't actually want what they say that they want. Liberianism is more about some emotional appeal than actual results.

I wonder how many people who criticize libertarianism on consequentialist grounds are consequentialists when it comes to any other aspect of their own political philosophy.

[Guest]

I wonder how many people who criticize libertarianism on consequentialist grounds are consequentialists when it comes to any other aspect of their own political philosophy.

It's a fair point. And all humans are hypocrites on some level.

But most libertarians are really pushing something that comes dangerously close to anarchy, and it's caught fire with a lot of young folks for some reason that, again, I suspect is emotional on some level as opposed to a means to an end.

I do consider myself to be pretty consequentionalist if I understand your meaning. I support government only insofar as it brings about outcomes that I prefer, and I accept a certain level of waste, fraud, and abuse as an unfortunate but tolerable side-effect of this. But I don't support government in the abstract as in "I always want more government no matter what." A lot of youngin'-seeming libertarians like Tyrion Baratheon and SpicyTurkey seem to love more freedom no matter what as in "No matter what the status quo is, we need more freedom!"

[ThinkerX]

There is always 'Default Libertarianism'...but even though it has been happening for a while at the local level, nobody wants to go there - even me.

[Ser Greguh]

I wonder how many people who criticize libertarianism on consequentialist grounds are consequentialists when it comes to any other aspect of their own political philosophy.

How do you define a "consequetialist?" By choosing one's positions based on the consequences that result from adopting them? Because it frankly staggers the imagination that anyone else would use any other rationale for anything, and as far as I'm concerned anyone that would use any other criteria is fucking insane. Then again it would explain quite a bit.

[Guest]

How do you define a "consequetialist?" By choosing one's positions based on the consequences that result from adopting them? Because it frankly staggers the imagination that anyone else would use any other rationale for anything, and as far as I'm concerned anyone that would use any other criteria is fucking insane. Then again it would explain quite a bit.

'

I know, right? It's like when Rick Perry was asked about how he reconciled his policies with horrific results, and he resorted to some response about morals.

[Ser Greguh]

A lot of youngin'-seeming libertarians like Tyrion Baratheon and SpicyTurkey seem to love more freedom no matter what as in "No matter what the status quo is, we need more freedom!"

The counter-argument - and I never tire of making it - is that it doesn't appear, from what I can tell, to be "freedom" that they love, except insofar as a very narrow concept of freedom from the federal government specifically. It's a strange fixation. Other concepts of freedom do not seem to interest them, and they appear to be all in favor of tyrannical state governments, because they're, well, states and stuff, so, um, they're, different and stuff I guess?

And then there's the concept of freedom from the tyranny of corporations that are freed from every regulatory body specifically designed to curb their abuses. Enron causing rolling blackouts via backdoor manipulation of power plants that allow them predict the price of the electricity that they're speculating on? No problem, because that's all just free market, and the free market is awesome and stuff.

I swear, the only reason Libertarianism exists as a semi-popular political philosophy is because of an association fallacy run horribly amok. They see the federal government doing all this bad stuff and decide that if you get rid of or reduce the power of the federal government all their abuses stop too.

It's the deepest of ironies, because the strategy all-too-closely mirrors that of the drug war they all despise: lock up one kingpin and, surprise surprise, the drug flow doesn't stop because others step up to fill the vacuum. It's such a miserable failure because what the government wants to be at war with is the drug trade in general. But that is a nebulous, economic concept, and the only tangible way it has to translate that into action is to declare war on individual drug dealers who are of course only a symptom, a side-effect of economics. Libertarians seem to understand this better than most, and then proceed to make the exact same mistake by declaring war on tyranny and anthropomorphically casting the federal government (and only the federal government) into that role.

[Commodore]

The counter-argument - and I never tire of making it - is that it doesn't appear, from what I can tell, to be "freedom" that they love, except insofar as a very narrow concept of freedom from the federal government specifically.

No it's free will we love, with government as a means of maximizing and protecting it.

and they appear to be all in favor of tyrannical state governments, because they're, well, states and stuff, so, um, they're, different and stuff I guess?

different in a constitutional sense, but not in the moral justification for their existence

And then there's the concept of freedom from the tyranny of corporations that are freed from every regulatory body specifically designed to curb their abuses.

Lots of loaded language here. How is a corporation a tyranny? How are they restricting your free will?

Enron causing rolling blackouts via backdoor manipulation of power plants that allow them predict the price of the electricity that they're speculating on? No problem, because that's all just free market, and the free market is awesome and stuff.

There is a demand for blackout free electricity. Enron contractually agrees to supply this. If they don't, there are contractual consequences, enforced by the state. If the contract does not contain such language, that is the fault of the signers who agreed to it. That's how the free market would handle this problem (not to mention Enron developing a reputation as unreliable and losing customers to better companies).

Libertarians seem to understand this better than most, and then proceed to make the exact same mistake by declaring war on tyranny and anthropomorphically casting the federal government (and only the federal government) into that role.

The state has a monopoly on the legal initiation of force. Force is a mechanism to physically restrict the free will of others. Every state action is effectively a use of force (else it could be ignored). Use of force is only moral under a limited set of parameters (defense of person, defense of property, enforcement of contracts, enforcement of compensation/regulation related to externalities). Use of force for other reasons like controlling personal behavior or restricting voluntary exchange, is immoral (tyrannical is not the word I would use).

[ThinkerX]

No it's free will we love, with government as a means of maximizing and protecting it

Except Homeland Security, the Patriot act, the initiation of warrentless wiretapping, and similiar acts all run counter to this. Deeds put the lie to the words.

Or - 'He who gives up freedom for the sake of security deserves neither.' A lesson that appears to be utterly lost on the present day conservative movement, and on many others as well.

As to corporations: for the most part, as currently structured, profit comes before *ALL* else, including *ANY* notion of legality or morality. If the profit outweighs the cost of the potential fine, then they will gladly commit atrocities. You *CANNOT* support corporations without admitting this at some level.

[Brienne the Beauty]

There is a demand for blackout free electricity. Enron contractually agrees to supply this. If they don't, there are contractual consequences, enforced by the state. If the contract does not contain such language, that is the fault of the signers who agreed to it. That's how the free market would handle this problem (not to mention Enron developing a reputation as unreliable and losing customers to better companies).

I'm not sure a state contract enforced by the state is exactly the model of private enterprise. The free market seems to perform best when rewards are determined by results, not by how a company can weasel into technically fulfilling the literal terms of a contract. That sort of nonsense generally provides the worst of both public and private enterprise; nothing gets done, expensively.