RP Listener Forum - Radio Paradise - eclectic commercial free Internet radio
[ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Putinphilia - kurtster - Dec 19, 2014 - 9:20am
 
Things You Thought Today - 2cats - Dec 19, 2014 - 9:15am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - Alexandra - Dec 19, 2014 - 9:06am
 
2016 Elections - RichardPrins - Dec 19, 2014 - 9:01am
 
~*Funny Cats*~ - DaveInVA - Dec 19, 2014 - 8:32am
 
Those lovable acronym guys & gals - RichardPrins - Dec 19, 2014 - 8:21am
 
Ebola - miamizsun - Dec 19, 2014 - 8:20am
 
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests - miamizsun - Dec 19, 2014 - 8:17am
 
Art Show - Prodigal_SOB - Dec 19, 2014 - 8:09am
 
Last gas price paid? - kctomato - Dec 19, 2014 - 7:36am
 
What makes you smile? - sirdroseph - Dec 19, 2014 - 7:30am
 
Movie Recommendation - sirdroseph - Dec 19, 2014 - 7:17am
 
Let's build a city - miamizsun - Dec 19, 2014 - 7:10am
 
Song stuck in your head? - Prodigal_SOB - Dec 19, 2014 - 7:06am
 
Counting with Pictures - mrtuba9 - Dec 19, 2014 - 7:04am
 
Geeky Jokes - Prodigal_SOB - Dec 19, 2014 - 7:01am
 
What Are You Going To Do Today? - ashwell - Dec 19, 2014 - 6:50am
 
Oklahoma Questions and Points of Interest - sirdroseph - Dec 19, 2014 - 6:45am
 
Breaking News - Coaxial - Dec 19, 2014 - 6:32am
 
What Makes You Laugh? - lily34 - Dec 19, 2014 - 6:07am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Dec 19, 2014 - 6:05am
 
Museum Of Bad Album Covers - sirdroseph - Dec 19, 2014 - 4:58am
 
Obama's Second Term - sirdroseph - Dec 19, 2014 - 4:54am
 
RPeep News You Should Know - sirdroseph - Dec 19, 2014 - 4:41am
 
Russia - sirdroseph - Dec 19, 2014 - 4:02am
 
Cuba - sirdroseph - Dec 19, 2014 - 2:39am
 
hallucinogenic drugs - kurtster - Dec 19, 2014 - 2:18am
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - RichardPrins - Dec 19, 2014 - 12:23am
 
Venezuela - RichardPrins - Dec 18, 2014 - 6:45pm
 
Quotations - oldviolin - Dec 18, 2014 - 6:23pm
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - oldviolin - Dec 18, 2014 - 4:44pm
 
Those Lovable Policemen - oldviolin - Dec 18, 2014 - 4:17pm
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - DaveInVA - Dec 18, 2014 - 3:49pm
 
WTF??!! - DaveInVA - Dec 18, 2014 - 2:29pm
 
Spambags on RP - BillG - Dec 18, 2014 - 1:14pm
 
When I need a Laugh I ... - ScottFromWyoming - Dec 18, 2014 - 1:04pm
 
The Global War on Terror - RichardPrins - Dec 18, 2014 - 11:59am
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos; Please Limit to 510 ... - ScottFromWyoming - Dec 18, 2014 - 11:12am
 
Holiday food gift ideas - bokey - Dec 18, 2014 - 11:01am
 
SIngle Payer Health Now! Sen. Bernie Sanders sums up - miamizsun - Dec 18, 2014 - 10:32am
 
Aliens: The Answer To Everything! - sirdroseph - Dec 18, 2014 - 9:47am
 
And the good news is.... - sirdroseph - Dec 18, 2014 - 9:41am
 
The War On You - sirdroseph - Dec 18, 2014 - 9:17am
 
Celebrity Face Recognition - sirdroseph - Dec 18, 2014 - 9:02am
 
What Did You Do Today? - Coaxial - Dec 18, 2014 - 8:32am
 
::Famous Birthdays:: - sirdroseph - Dec 18, 2014 - 8:30am
 
Me and Mrs. Jones: Got To Give It Up - Red_Dragon - Dec 18, 2014 - 8:19am
 
Mixtape Culture Club - Lazy8 - Dec 18, 2014 - 7:31am
 
Delicacies: a..k.a.. the Gross Food forum - lily34 - Dec 18, 2014 - 6:10am
 
Music News - sirdroseph - Dec 18, 2014 - 5:21am
 
Coffee - miamizsun - Dec 18, 2014 - 4:36am
 
Books read recently - miamizsun - Dec 18, 2014 - 4:23am
 
OUR CATS!! - bokey - Dec 17, 2014 - 8:22pm
 
Beer - JustineFromWyoming - Dec 17, 2014 - 7:29pm
 
What Puts You In the Christmas Mood? - triskele - Dec 17, 2014 - 5:56pm
 
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing - swell_sailor - Dec 17, 2014 - 5:15pm
 
The Dragons' Roost - triskele - Dec 17, 2014 - 4:15pm
 
Honduras - miamizsun - Dec 17, 2014 - 3:57pm
 
Help!!!!!!!! - miamizsun - Dec 17, 2014 - 3:31pm
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - BillG - Dec 17, 2014 - 1:24pm
 
Things I Saw Today... - Coaxial - Dec 17, 2014 - 1:06pm
 
What the world needs now is .... - Proclivities - Dec 17, 2014 - 12:47pm
 
Things that piss me off - islander - Dec 17, 2014 - 12:42pm
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - aflanigan - Dec 17, 2014 - 11:38am
 
Nebraska, anyone? - aflanigan - Dec 17, 2014 - 11:26am
 
Strange & Cool Music - sirdroseph - Dec 17, 2014 - 11:14am
 
Random Solutions - Random Advice - VV - Dec 17, 2014 - 11:09am
 
Oops! - Proclivities - Dec 17, 2014 - 10:44am
 
Amazing animals! - Red_Dragon - Dec 17, 2014 - 9:15am
 
Questions. - Proclivities - Dec 17, 2014 - 8:49am
 
For Jrzy! - MsJudi - Dec 17, 2014 - 8:44am
 
how do you feel right now? - ditty - Dec 17, 2014 - 8:21am
 
Way Cool Video - Prodigal_SOB - Dec 17, 2014 - 8:17am
 
What's on YOUR PSD right now ? - Proclivities - Dec 17, 2014 - 7:42am
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - Red_Dragon - Dec 17, 2014 - 7:41am
 
(a public service of RP)
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Ask the Libertarian Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 133, 134, 135  Next
Post to this Topic
BlueHeronDruid

BlueHeronDruid Avatar



Posted: Nov 30, 2014 - 2:35am

 Lazy8 wrote:
I have my problems with this (its equation of Objectivism with libertarianism and some loaded academic language for starters) but it's the first time I've seen social science research acknowledge that libertarianism is distinct from the left-right paradigm and that has a moral basis.

The Largest Study Ever of Libertarian Psychology

Posted by in Moral Foundations in Action, Politics, Videos

We’ve been deluged in recent years with research on the psychology (and brain structure) of liberals and conservatives. But very little is known about libertarians — an extremely important group in American politics that is not at home in either political party.

At YourMorals.org we have now addressed the gap. Unlike most surveys, which force everyone to place themselves on a Left-Right scale, we have always allowed our visitors to choose “libertarian” as an option.  Given our unique web platform, where people register and then take multiple surveys, we have amassed what we believe is the largest and most detailed dataset in the world on the personality traits of libertarians (as well as of liberals and conservatives).

In a project led by Ravi Iyer, we analyzed data from nearly twelve thousand self-described libertarians, and compared their responses to those of 21,000 conservatives and 97,000 liberals. The paper was just published last week in PLoS ONE. The findings largely confirm what libertarians have long said about themselves, but they also shed light on why some people and not others end up finding libertarian ideas appealing. Here are three of the major findings:



 
Nice, read. Plus, you had me at "its."
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 29, 2014 - 7:28pm

I have my problems with this (its equation of Objectivism with libertarianism and some loaded academic language for starters) but it's the first time I've seen social science research acknowledge that libertarianism is distinct from the left-right paradigm and that has a moral basis.

The Largest Study Ever of Libertarian Psychology

Posted by in Moral Foundations in Action, Politics, Videos

We’ve been deluged in recent years with research on the psychology (and brain structure) of liberals and conservatives. But very little is known about libertarians — an extremely important group in American politics that is not at home in either political party.

At YourMorals.org we have now addressed the gap. Unlike most surveys, which force everyone to place themselves on a Left-Right scale, we have always allowed our visitors to choose “libertarian” as an option.  Given our unique web platform, where people register and then take multiple surveys, we have amassed what we believe is the largest and most detailed dataset in the world on the personality traits of libertarians (as well as of liberals and conservatives).

In a project led by Ravi Iyer, we analyzed data from nearly twelve thousand self-described libertarians, and compared their responses to those of 21,000 conservatives and 97,000 liberals. The paper was just published last week in PLoS ONE. The findings largely confirm what libertarians have long said about themselves, but they also shed light on why some people and not others end up finding libertarian ideas appealing. Here are three of the major findings:


sirdroseph
Endeavor to Perservere
sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Sagittarius
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Sep 5, 2014 - 5:09am

Libertarians are on the ballot for every race in the upcoming mid terms.  Looking forward to casting my vote, it may help the Democrats, but really what difference does it make? No more voting for the lesser of 2 evils!{#Dancingbanana_2}
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 25, 2014 - 6:22am

 miamizsun wrote:

bridges? transitions?

 

see nader and this {#Arrowd}

 

Rand Paul talks with Reason about the future of the GOP, the need to reach the 80-million-strong Millennial Generation, why having a strong national defense doesn't mean constant military interventions, and what Washington, D.C. can learn from the entrepreneurial culture of Silicon Valley.




sirdroseph
Endeavor to Perservere
sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Sagittarius
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Jul 16, 2014 - 4:51am



I know the map is whack (freekin Ruskies{#Mrgreen}). 


miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 16, 2014 - 9:08am

nader's take on some stuff...


The longtime consumer activist, recidivist presidential candidate, and several-time host of Saturday Night Live talks with Nick Gillespie about what he sees as a new libertarian-progressive attack on crony capitalism, whether GM cars were ever any damn good, and why the Democrats still wrongly insist that he cost Al Gore the 2000 presidential election. Oh yeah, and that article of his Reason published in the early 1970s.

It's a wide-ranging, spirited, fun, and at times contentious conversation.




miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 15, 2014 - 7:26am

 RichardPrins wrote: 
obviously i (and maybe you as well) would identify more with chad on these articles

it's easy to observe socoipolitical conditioning desensitizing and/or hyper-sensitizing issues and chad in a sense (and rightly so) is pointing that out

his delivery could be better, but he philosophically nails the war issue very well

i do understand will's position (probably widely held)

imho where most people in general depart philosophically/social sciences when the scientific method is trumped by political conditioning

will may feel that he (or others) are held hostage by the writings of another person who previously brought issues to light or championed a cause (i think this is a huge problem with all political stripes/labels)

my take in this case is that the necessary evolution of social science is held hostage by political dogma backed up by force

a core issue and huge failure of the social sciences is the lack of precise definitions

political rulers love to manipulate language

peace

p.s. i know there are trolls everywhere but the comments, especially on chad's piece are really sad (it's heartbreaking)

RichardPrins
Anti-Procrustean
RichardPrins Avatar



Posted: Jun 14, 2014 - 1:51pm

Why I left libertarianism: An ethical critique of a limited ideology - Salon.com
Libertarianism as direct experience: My defense of a misunderstood philosophy - Salon.com
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 29, 2014 - 5:44am

here's a very "left" libertarian site that embraces a lot of what the recent conversation reflects (noenz i'm talking to you {#Biggrin} and i think i've referred you here before)

Libertarianism and the Poor

 

video capture here

zwolinski makes some good points here

hopefully food for thought

bridges? transitions?




miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 29, 2014 - 5:37am

 Red_Dragon wrote:
Do animals have rights?

 
are these tasty animals?

{#Wink}
kurtster
ignore the kitteh behind the kurtain
kurtster Avatar

Location: counting flowers on the wall ...
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Libra
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Apr 4, 2014 - 1:58am

 rexi wrote:


Lazy thinks his flavour of libertarianism has more merit than that of, say Chomsky, because there are more flashy web sites with information about it. He then bemoans that nobody is sponsoring such a web site for him to voice his opinion. Presumably because he hopes that he could then reach more people and preach to them (ye, I knwo he wasn't being serious). But in any case, even though he denies it, he himself makes a straight connection between money, public exposure and subjective perception of merit.

Not sure what you mean with your last sentence. A common point of reference suggests natural rights and equal intelligence is something for rational agents. I don't believe either are representative of the real world, but many libertarians do. In fact, that's precisely what I'm criticizing Lazy for believing.

Further down you wrote: Rights are personal perceptions. And followed it with a, to my mind, sensible description. Do you consider yourself a libertarian? Because what you wrote there does not square with natural rights libertarianism at all.

 
I would like to consider myself a libertarian, but it is a very elusive position or ideal.  My thoughts are still evolving, especially at my advanced age.  I agree that there are many flavours.  I am not a governmental anarchist by any means.  I believe in laws and order.  Socially, perhaps.I lean that way.  What one does with their own body and between consenting informed adults that causes no harm to others outside of that agreement should not be subject to governmental review or oversight.  If you want to play Russian Roulette, fine, just make sure that your affairs are in order and that you have made arrangements to have someone clean up the mess after the game.  The government should not have to pay for that expense and your medical expenses should you survive due to faulty aim.  Its a you made your bed, now lie in it situation as far as I am concerned.  Cruel ?  No, just honest.  I also support people like Dr Kevorkian.

On the law and order.  That is where things get fuzzy and concrete at the same time.  I accept the US Constitution as written and amended.  Equal Protection, Due Process, the assumption of innocence until proven otherwise and the Right of Self Defense of life and personal property and the right to have honestly acquired personal property are things I consider inalienable.  Our Bill of Rights also is inalienable in my world.

With all the flavours of libertarianism, I do recognize that it is a micro application and balancing or interfacing it in the macro is where feathers get ruffled and acceptance breaks down.  It can be reconciled through our First Amendment however, if libertarianism is treated as a religion and has protected Free Speech.  The rights of the individual should trump the rights of a group.  I do not believe in eminent domain.  My property is mine.  If you want my property for your use or a public use, make me an offer for it that I cannot refuse and if I do not accept it, accept that, too.

Why cannot I use Peyote if I like ?  Why do I have to be a member of a certain ethnicity in order to partake ?  My individual want should not be interfered with because I do not belong to a sanctioned group.  I must also recognize and respect the needs of others in order to get what I want or need.  If I live in a community, I should turn down the stereo around 11 pm so my neighbors can sleep.  If I live miles from anyone, then there is no restriction or no restriction is justifiable.  I need to recognize that I must live within my means.  If i want to do what I want 24 / 7, then I must live far enough away from others so that I do not trespass on the needs of others, which in the example offered would be sleep. But if I cannot afford to live in a remote area, then I must accept the limits inherent to my location.  Would not that also be likened to Common Sense ?

I can keep going in the Macro and discuss the role and limits of government in my view, but I'll stop here for now for feedback, if any, before proceeding.  If the expressions above do not represent libertarian thoughts, what are they then ?
rexi

rexi Avatar

Location: far out
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Sagittarius
Chinese Yr: Buffalo


Posted: Apr 3, 2014 - 11:58pm

 kurtster wrote:

I just got to scratch my head on that one.  I didn't see that inferred, not even close.  An idea can have merit, regardless of the source.  Trying to combine merit and money into a standard applies to advertising and influence of thought, yes.  But simple repetition (advertising) does not establish merit.  It affects perception.

That one tries to discredit a thought based upon the financial support of a thought is faulty to begin with.  That is the basis of establishing a class divide.  Wealth does not create one particular way of thinking.  The source of the wealth (earned vs inherited for example) may, but wealth alone does not.

I really cannot comprehend your answer to l's question.  Usually its me who wonders all around the place trying to make a case. 

Your Sinclair quote is misused.  That or the intent of the quote is faulty.  You want the salary, you do what is required to earn it, or accept the strings attached, in other words.  That is the basis of employment.  One can imply that through employment, you condone the employer's mission.  But that is not always the case.  That is like saying, you read a book, so you must agree with the point of the book.

Your entire argument seems to be based upon the the notion that everyone has equal intelligence and a common or singular point of reference. 
 

Lazy thinks his flavour of libertarianism has more merit than that of, say Chomsky, because there are more flashy web sites with information about it. He then bemoans that nobody is sponsoring such a web site for him to voice his opinion. Presumably because he hopes that he could then reach more people and preach to them (ye, I knwo he wasn't being serious). But in any case, even though he denies it, he himself makes a straight connection between money, public exposure and subjective perception of merit.

Not sure what you mean with your last sentence. A common point of reference suggests natural rights and equal intelligence is something for rational agents. I don't believe either are representative of the real world, but many libertarians do. In fact, that's precisely what I'm criticizing Lazy for believing.

Further down you wrote: Rights are personal perceptions. And followed it with a, to my mind, sensible description. Do you consider yourself a libertarian? Because what you wrote there does not square with natural rights libertarianism at all.
oldviolin
ab origine
oldviolin Avatar

Location: esse quam videri
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Leo


Posted: Apr 3, 2014 - 5:38pm

 Red_Dragon wrote:
Do animals have rights?

 
define have
Red_Dragon
y ddraig goch ddyry gychwyn
Red_Dragon Avatar

Location: Redneck Nation


Posted: Apr 3, 2014 - 5:09pm

Do animals have rights?
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 3, 2014 - 5:01pm

rexi wrote:
We've been through this countless times. Admit it, you're actually a ground hog, right? ;-)
In the extreme, it's about one person / one vote vs. one $ / one vote.

Suppose for a minute that you and I were the only two people with the ability to express a political opinion. Now, I happen to be aquainted with a millionaire who likes what I'm saying although he is not an expert on the subject. Nevertheless, since it seems opportune to him, he decides to sponsor a website, place banners on google and have someone lobby my opinion in Washington. Poor old Lazy8 otoh, is left to express his opinion via the RP comments section in between meetings.

Now, according to you, the mere fact that money flows to support one opinion, suggests that that opinion has more merit. Sure, the fair and balanced reader will pay just as much attention to the RP comments as to the Washington Times, CNN and parrot politicians combined, so money input will not be exactly equal to opinion output. But generally you are saying is that money = merit and that monetary imbalances cannot be the source of unjustified imbalances of power. Readers / voters are independent atoms who have completey access to all sides of all arguments and the mental capacity to judge them objectively.
 
My claim is, that that assumption is complete BS. Not only is it an extreme case of mistaking what ought to be with what is or isn't, in this case (the whole notion of a free market that automatically selects the best ideas is wishful thinking at its best). I would go so far as to say that what shapes peoples opinions depends to 99% on such 'soft powers' and not at all on the implicit violence you claim is represented by government and the law. Our actions are shaped by those who we emotionally or financially dependent on. That means our family, peers and employers etc.. If my friends all watch Fox news or Mises.org instead of reading Chomsky and Zinn, chances are I will too. That says nothing about the merit of either party's argument, though.

Imagine for a minute you responded to something I actually wrote. Further, imagine your response actually addressed what I wrote.

Visualize it. It can happen.
kurtster
ignore the kitteh behind the kurtain
kurtster Avatar

Location: counting flowers on the wall ...
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Libra
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Apr 3, 2014 - 4:49am

 rexi wrote:
Lazy8 wrote:
rexi wrote:
I wasn't referring to Reason, I was referring to the Koch brother's influence. And yes, the same principle applies to George Soros, Michael Moore, governments, Microsoft, BP or any other entity with lots of dosh. If you deny that money influences people (via payrolls, institutions, media, advertisement, peer pressure, propaganda or by just providing a web site) you should not only declare who's sponsoring you but also what you're smoking. Completely ridiculous.

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it! 

Upton Sinclair

...and it's difficult to see what your point was, or is, even tho no one is paying me either way. Perhaps you could elaborate on why we should care that rich people support political causes they believe in and what that has to do with the topic at hand.


We've been through this countless times. Admit it, you're actually a ground hog, right? ;-)
In the extreme, it's about one person / one vote vs. one $ / one vote.

Suppose for a minute that you and I were the only two people with the ability to express a political opinion. Now, I happen to be acquainted with a millionaire who likes what I'm saying although he is not an expert on the subject. Nevertheless, since it seems opportune to him, he decides to sponsor a website, place banners on google and have someone lobby my opinion in Washington. Poor old Lazy8 otoh, is left to express his opinion via the RP comments section in between meetings.

Now, according to you, the mere fact that money flows to support one opinion, suggests that that opinion has more merit. Sure, the fair and balanced reader will pay just as much attention to the RP comments as to the Washington Times, CNN and parrot politicians combined, so money input will not be exactly equal to opinion output. But generally you are saying is that money = merit and that monetary imbalances cannot be the source of unjustified imbalances of power. Readers / voters are independent atoms who have complete access to all sides of all arguments and the mental capacity to judge them objectively.
 
My claim is, that that assumption is complete BS. Not only is it an extreme case of mistaking what ought to be with what is or isn't, in this case (the whole notion of a free market that automatically selects the best ideas is wishful thinking at its best). I would go so far as to say that what shapes peoples opinions depends to 99% on such 'soft powers' and not at all on the implicit violence you claim is represented by government and the law. Our actions are shaped by those who we emotionally or financially dependent on. That means our family, peers and employers etc.. If my friends all watch Fox news or Mises.org instead of reading Chomsky and Zinn, chances are I will too. That says nothing about the merit of either party's argument, though.

 
I just got to scratch my head on that one.  I didn't see that inferred, not even close.  An idea can have merit, regardless of the source.  Trying to combine merit and money into a standard applies to advertising and influence of thought, yes.  But simple repetition (advertising) does not establish merit.  It affects perception.

That one tries to discredit a thought based upon the financial support of a thought is faulty to begin with.  That is the basis of establishing a class divide.  Wealth does not create one particular way of thinking.  The source of the wealth (earned vs inherited for example) may, but wealth alone does not.

I really cannot comprehend your answer to l's question.  Usually its me who wonders all around the place trying to make a case. 

Your Sinclair quote is misused.  That or the intent of the quote is faulty.  You want the salary, you do what is required to earn it, or accept the strings attached, in other words.  That is the basis of employment.  One can imply that through employment, you condone the employer's mission.  But that is not always the case.  That is like saying, you read a book, so you must agree with the point of the book.

Your entire argument seems to be based upon the the notion that everyone has equal intelligence and a common or singular point of reference. 


rexi

rexi Avatar

Location: far out
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Sagittarius
Chinese Yr: Buffalo


Posted: Apr 3, 2014 - 1:02am

 Lazy8 wrote:
rexi wrote:
I wasn't referring to Reason, I was referring to the Koch brother's influence. And yes, the same principle applies to George Soros, Michael Moore, governments, Microsoft, BP or any other entity with lots of dosh. If you deny that money influences people (via payrolls, institutions, media, advertisement, peer pressure, propaganda or by just providing a web site) you should not only declare who's sponsoring you but also what you're smoking. Completely ridiculous.

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it! 

Upton Sinclair

...and it's difficult to see what your point was, or is, even tho no one is paying me either way. Perhaps you could elaborate on why we should care that rich people support political causes they believe in and what that has to do with the topic at hand.

 

We've been through this countless times. Admit it, you're actually a ground hog, right? ;-)
In the extreme, it's about one person / one vote vs. one $ / one vote.

Suppose for a minute that you and I were the only two people with the ability to express a political opinion. Now, I happen to be aquainted with a millionaire who likes what I'm saying although he is not an expert on the subject. Nevertheless, since it seems opportune to him, he decides to sponsor a website, place banners on google and have someone lobby my opinion in Washington. Poor old Lazy8 otoh, is left to express his opinion via the RP comments section in between meetings.

Now, according to you, the mere fact that money flows to support one opinion, suggests that that opinion has more merit. Sure, the fair and balanced reader will pay just as much attention to the RP comments as to the Washington Times, CNN and parrot politicians combined, so money input will not be exactly equal to opinion output. But generally you are saying is that money = merit and that monetary imbalances cannot be the source of unjustified imbalances of power. Readers / voters are independent atoms who have completey access to all sides of all arguments and the mental capacity to judge them objectively.
 
My claim is, that that assumption is complete BS. Not only is it an extreme case of mistaking what ought to be with what is or isn't, in this case (the whole notion of a free market that automatically selects the best ideas is wishful thinking at its best). I would go so far as to say that what shapes peoples opinions depends to 99% on such 'soft powers' and not at all on the implicit violence you claim is represented by government and the law. Our actions are shaped by those who we emotionally or financially dependent on. That means our family, peers and employers etc.. If my friends all watch Fox news or Mises.org instead of reading Chomsky and Zinn, chances are I will too. That says nothing about the merit of either party's argument, though.
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 2, 2014 - 1:24pm

rexi wrote:
I wasn't referring to Reason, I was referring to the Koch brother's influence. And yes, the same principle applies to George Soros, Michael Moore, governments, Microsoft, BP or any other entity with lots of dosh. If you deny that money influences people (via payrolls, institutions, media, advertisement, peer pressure, propaganda or by just providing a web site) you should not only declare who's sponsoring you but also what you're smoking. Completely ridiculous.

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it! 

Upton Sinclair

...and it's difficult to see what your point was, or is, even tho no one is paying me either way. Perhaps you could elaborate on why we should care that rich people support political causes they believe in and what that has to do with the topic at hand.
rexi

rexi Avatar

Location: far out
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Sagittarius
Chinese Yr: Buffalo


Posted: Apr 2, 2014 - 9:03am

 Lazy8 wrote:
rexi wrote:

Reason Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization completely supported by voluntary contributions from individuals, foundations, corporations, and the sale of its publications. Its largest donors are the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation ($1,522,212) and the Sarah Scaife Foundation ($2,016,000), according to recent disclosures.Both finance conservative and libertarian causes.
Wealth, as Mr. Hobbes says, is power.

Adam Smith


And a budget, as both Mr. Hobbes and Mr Smith would agree, is a budget.

Reason Foundation's budget is over $6 million per year, and the numbers listed above are aggregate totals over the period from 1985 to 2009 according to Sourcewatch.org, a project of the leftish Center for Media and Democracy, which is quoting Media Matters, whose link forwards to the Bridge Project (who is a little murky about who is supporting it, but seems to have a distinct lefty tilt) and which in any case doesn't seem to have any articles on its website pertaining to the Reason Foundation. So there's that.

Not that I'd give a rat's ass—I'm more interested in what gets said than who paid for the web site to say it, but it seems terribly important to you. In that event I can certify that I have received no funding whatsoever from any Koch brother, but am going on record as of now that if a Koch brother (or George Soros, or any of his ex-wives) would like to sponsor me my rates are quite reasonable.

 
I wasn't referring to Reason, I was referring to the Koch brother's influence. And yes, the same principle applies to George Soros, Michael Moore, governments, Microsoft, BP or any other entity with lots of dosh. If you deny that money influences people (via payrolls, institutions, media, advertisement, peer pressure, propaganda or by just providing a web site) you should not only declare who's sponsoring you but also what you're smoking. Completely ridiculous.

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it! 

Upton Sinclair
ScottFromWyoming
I eat pints.
ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Pisces
Chinese Yr: Tiger


Posted: Apr 1, 2014 - 7:04pm

Me too! 
Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 133, 134, 135  Next