[ ]      [ ]   [ ]

RP Daily Trivia Challenge - BlueHeronDruid - May 5, 2016 - 12:46pm
 
2016 Elections - bokey - May 5, 2016 - 12:45pm
 
Fire - ScottFromWyoming - May 5, 2016 - 12:37pm
 
The End of Europe - R_P - May 5, 2016 - 12:34pm
 
RP3 Beta Player - JrzyTmata - May 5, 2016 - 12:33pm
 
Museum Of Bad Album Covers - ScottFromWyoming - May 5, 2016 - 12:02pm
 
Things You Thought Today - Antigone - May 5, 2016 - 12:00pm
 
Trump - JrzyTmata - May 5, 2016 - 11:51am
 
Would you drive this car for dating with ur girl? - aflanigan - May 5, 2016 - 11:17am
 
Things that make you go Hmmmm..... - aflanigan - May 5, 2016 - 11:12am
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - NoEnzLefttoSplit - May 5, 2016 - 10:14am
 
Unusual News - DaveInVA - May 5, 2016 - 9:14am
 
Baseball, anyone? - ScottFromWyoming - May 5, 2016 - 9:09am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - ditty - May 5, 2016 - 9:08am
 
Thank you for the absense of babbling crap - Proclivities - May 5, 2016 - 8:50am
 
Unindicted felon: candidate Hillary Clinton - DaveInVA - May 5, 2016 - 7:58am
 
Beer - oldviolin - May 5, 2016 - 7:46am
 
Household Tips - aflanigan - May 5, 2016 - 7:32am
 
Love the Cinco de Mayo celebration! - lily34 - May 5, 2016 - 7:29am
 
Strange & Cool Music - KurtfromLaQuinta - May 5, 2016 - 7:02am
 
BACK TO THE 80's - Alexandra - May 5, 2016 - 6:51am
 
Obama's Second Term - buddy - May 5, 2016 - 6:45am
 
The War On Drugs = Fail - Proclivities - May 5, 2016 - 6:37am
 
That's good advice - black321 - May 5, 2016 - 6:22am
 
Anyone Use Evernote? - Proclivities - May 5, 2016 - 6:13am
 
Toys I Lusted For As A Child - miamizsun - May 5, 2016 - 4:29am
 
how do you feel right now? - bokey - May 5, 2016 - 2:27am
 
Sunrise, Sunset - kcar - May 4, 2016 - 10:32pm
 
Help!!!!!!!! - kurtster - May 4, 2016 - 8:54pm
 
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests - haresfur - May 4, 2016 - 5:59pm
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - R_P - May 4, 2016 - 5:54pm
 
What Are You Going To Do Today? - DaveInVA - May 4, 2016 - 5:39pm
 
Photos you have taken of your walks or hikes. - KurtfromLaQuinta - May 4, 2016 - 5:34pm
 
The Image Post - haresfur - May 4, 2016 - 4:04pm
 
What Makes You Laugh? - bokey - May 4, 2016 - 3:48pm
 
Does it cost you money if I leave RP playing constantly? - BillG - May 4, 2016 - 3:40pm
 
Robots - R_P - May 4, 2016 - 3:10pm
 
Bernie Sanders 2016? - #feelthebern - R_P - May 4, 2016 - 1:43pm
 
Name My Band - Red_Dragon - May 4, 2016 - 1:32pm
 
NASA & other news from space - miamizsun - May 4, 2016 - 1:21pm
 
Florida - Proclivities - May 4, 2016 - 1:07pm
 
Tech & Science - R_P - May 4, 2016 - 12:38pm
 
Concert Bills We'd Like To See - earthbased - May 4, 2016 - 12:07pm
 
Job Interviews - olivertwist - May 4, 2016 - 12:05pm
 
I went to David Bowie last Friday night ... - Skydog - May 4, 2016 - 11:05am
 
What Did You Do Today? - PoundPuppy - May 4, 2016 - 8:14am
 
New Song Submissions system - mixplusik - May 4, 2016 - 8:00am
 
From where do you listen RP? - DaveInVA - May 4, 2016 - 7:42am
 
Verifying Amazon commission - merriam - May 4, 2016 - 6:15am
 
Infinite cat - sirdroseph - May 4, 2016 - 4:48am
 
Evolution! - R_P - May 4, 2016 - 1:15am
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos; Please Limit to 510 ... - Alchemist - May 3, 2016 - 8:54pm
 
Bowie fans, check this out - Skydog - May 3, 2016 - 7:37pm
 
What Makes You Sad? - bokey - May 3, 2016 - 7:28pm
 
Dialing 1-800-Manbird - Red_Dragon - May 3, 2016 - 6:37pm
 
Breaking News - kurtster - May 3, 2016 - 4:31pm
 
Waste Time At Work - haresfur - May 3, 2016 - 3:35pm
 
How's the weather? - haresfur - May 3, 2016 - 3:32pm
 
You might be getting old if...... - aflanigan - May 3, 2016 - 1:17pm
 
The Political Joke Thread - tony_b - May 3, 2016 - 1:15pm
 
~ Have a good joke you can post? ~ - bokey - May 3, 2016 - 12:35pm
 
Radiohead - R_P - May 3, 2016 - 12:20pm
 
New Music - ScottFromWyoming - May 3, 2016 - 10:53am
 
Deep Dark Secrets ... in postcards. - miamizsun - May 3, 2016 - 10:46am
 
Words are unrelated - Beaker - May 3, 2016 - 8:24am
 
Regarding cats - lily34 - May 3, 2016 - 7:55am
 
The Prince topic - ScottFromWyoming - May 3, 2016 - 7:55am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - SECA_Alan - May 3, 2016 - 7:55am
 
Global Warming - aflanigan - May 3, 2016 - 6:58am
 
Caretakers Of Our Parents - aflanigan - May 3, 2016 - 6:29am
 
Advice? - Prodigal_SOB - May 3, 2016 - 5:47am
 
France - oldjack - May 3, 2016 - 5:30am
 
Earworm - miamizsun - May 3, 2016 - 4:56am
 
Song Lyrics - Skydog - May 2, 2016 - 5:07pm
 
The Obituary Page - R_P - May 2, 2016 - 2:21pm
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Ask the Libertarian Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 138, 139, 140  Next
Post to this Topic
sirdroseph
Endeavor to Perservere
sirdroseph Avatar

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


Posted: Mar 31, 2016 - 8:28am

Gary Johnson For Dummies

 

http://theodysseyonline.com/columbus-st/gary-johnson-for-dummies/383068

 

 


Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 26, 2016 - 8:34am

Tibor Machan has died.

He was a founding editor for Reason magazine and a huge influence on libertarian thought. This is the best obituary I've seen so far. A snippet:

Tibor R. Machan on the Questions that Matter

A great philosopher and journalist has died


Amid this fog, Machan’s contributions to the volume were a brilliant shaft of light and clarity. He brought around the focus of debate to the crucial issue. Regardless of your views on culture, philosophy, literature, religion, morality and so on, the central question that society needs to answer is the following: under what conditions are you willing to use the force of law, the coercion of the state, to impose your views on others? If you are willing to do that, are you also willing to consider the costs of doing so and take responsibility for the results?

He made this point again and again in this book and throughout his life. He had to repeat and repeat it, because his interlocutors proved themselves oddly unwilling to even address it. The conservatives in this volume could write pages about the glories of Western philosophy, the need for moral absolutism, the merit of tradition, and so on, but never quite get around to that critical question: what should the state do about it?

This is where Machan’s libertarianism provided clarity. His answer is a good rule of thumb: the law only pertains where there is aggression on life and property. No, this doesn’t provide an all-encompassing answer to all life’s mysteries, and it does not guarantee specific social outcomes, but libertarianism doesn’t seek to do that. It only seeks to shift the burden of proof concerning when it is appropriate to unleash the violence of the law on people
 

black321
See For Yourself
black321 Avatar

Location: A sunset in the desert
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Capricorn
Chinese Yr: Horse


Posted: Mar 18, 2016 - 10:55am

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

Sorry for stumbling in here at an inappropriate time (considering everyone is in a huff over the election) but I am still trying to get my head around what people are actually talking about (and given that I am probably going to fail at even describing my problem, I won’t be too surprised if the following long rant quickly gets buried.. c’est la vie).. Right, we currently have a situation where most if not all world economies are muddling along with some kind of welfare state based on a classic distinction between the public sector and the private sector. A full-on public sector (command economy) appears to have failed on a grand scale (the soviet model) and unbridled private enterprise also seems to go off the rails periodically, encouraging state intervention in the twin forms of regulation and rescue packages.  So most states muddle along with something in the middle.

 Yet, we currently have enormous dissatisfaction worldwide with such centrist policies as real incomes have fallen relative to the total wealth of the economy. Inequality* is at incredible levels, health services are under severe strain, and nationalist reactionaries a la Trump are enjoying new-found popularity.

 At the same time, government regulation and intervention is extreme and growing, as though it were subject to some kind of internal growth dynamic and not subject to any evolutionary checks or controls. Whether we like it or not, most decisions are not made in political forums but in backroom committees and meetings within large organizations, all of whom are subject to the rules of logic and to inputs that seem given.

My question: where in this giant web of givens, is the room for individual human freedom? Is this what libertarians are on about?  And given how entrenched these structures are, is the libertarian movement just an example of glorious naïveté?

 Or are we just spoilt kids who no longer appreciate the freedoms this giant modern economy gives us (internet chatrooms, the ability to buy coffee from some far-off country, access to doctors, education etc.) and we just don’t know how good we’ve got it? Are these two aims (1. individual freedoms (from wants, from regulation, from stinky neighbors, etc) and 2. the maximization of wealth and living standards) mutually exclusive? i.e. can this level of wealth even exist without large organizational structures like governments and giant corporations? Conversely if you need such large structures, can you have them yet still maximize individual liberties and dismantle all the rules that make them run?

 Or to put it another way, large structures require concessions on the part of the individual. Indeed, it is impossible to cut the individual’s own private wants and needs out of the larger organizational context in which the individual finds him or herself. Thus you get the clichéd government man, the corporate hack, the social worker, etc. all of which are typologies that only exist in an organizational structure. And without that context you have removed about 90% of what makes us social beings.

In my view, there aren’t too many ways out of this paradox. The first is some kind of Rousseau-ean identification with the larger organization. The individual here becomes free because his wants and ideals don’t jar with those of the larger organization (in the end this is also how Marx tried to solve the paradox by appealing to a strange thing called “class consciousness”), or you dismantle the organization’s inherent needs and wants and make them secondary to those of the individual (the current buzz words are diversity and inclusiveness) and run the risk of not getting anything done because everything gets mired in the noise and bedlam of democracy. Or you just don’t have long-standing large structures, but then you run the risk of losing the benefits of large logical structures and mass production, etc.

Now, I fully realize this is old territory that we have covered before. But I personally suspect the true course of history from here on in is already set by the structures we have in place crashing into some hard constraints. It is nice to talk about ideals like human rights and freedoms and so on but let’s not kid ourselves, history is going to pan out as a reaction to the stuff we are confronting today. The issue is, what form is that reaction going to take? A return to romantic nationalism (a la Trump), an extension of bureaucracy (a la the EU), an all embracing global village (a la TTIP), a descent into war and destruction (a la WWI and WWII)? Or will we humans just get sidelined as AI takes over production pursuing its own logic?

 

Nice post.  As I was reading it, a couple of points came to mind.  First, the regulations are meant to keep the greedy large corporations from going the off the rail, yet they seem more burden the smaller less efficient businesses...who are more directly related to the "individuals" you speak of.  One model I've seen that works (at least somewhat) in markets dominated by larger national players is the cooperative.  Specifically, in the supermarket industry it allows smaller independents to compete against larger national chains like Kroger by pooling their purchasing power, thereby giving the independent similar scale of its larger competitor.  Now, if you look at ACA (Obamacare), most of the larger companies (major drug manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, and providers) have been singing its praise in the form of higher sales despite some margin pressure from lower reimbursement rates.  Conversely, the smaller cos., docs operating independently, appear to be struggling with the cut in rates.  Perhaps here some cooperative model would help...not only from a procurement level, but also in pooling their own risks and helping reduce their malpractice insurance...bottom line, if you can't beat the big uns, join em. 
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 18, 2016 - 8:42am

What? WHAT????
sirdroseph
Endeavor to Perservere
sirdroseph Avatar

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


Posted: Mar 11, 2016 - 6:08am

 kurtster wrote:

As stated repeatedly, my first test is all about illegal immigration and getting that fixed.  I think that Bernie and Trump are more similar.  But it gets back to this for me.  No borders, no country.  As to Hillary and Trump, I find plenty of differences.  The biggest is in foreign policy.

 
Yes, I think you answered your own question in regards to why you support Trump; tougher immigration stance is your most important issue so it does make sense for you to support him.
kurtster
waiting ...
kurtster Avatar

Location: ymmv
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Libra
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Mar 11, 2016 - 6:02am

 sirdroseph wrote:

I will be honest kurt, I don't understand how anyone who considers themselves libertarian, small or large L could support Trump.  He is just another authoritarian statist with a different speaking style and hairdo.  Bernie Sanders has more Libertarian positions than Trump.  If you stick to strictly the policy issues, other than immigration Trump and Clinton are the most similar imo.

 
As stated repeatedly, my first test is all about illegal immigration and getting that fixed.  I think that Bernie and Trump are more similar.  But it gets back to this for me.  No borders, no country.  As to Hillary and Trump, I find plenty of differences.  The biggest is in foreign policy.
sirdroseph
Endeavor to Perservere
sirdroseph Avatar

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


Posted: Mar 11, 2016 - 5:45am

 kurtster wrote:

I guess that you are referring to me.  Yeah, I consider myself a small-L libertarian.  Fiscally conservative and socially liberal is how I have identified myself for 50 or so years.  If that qualifies as one definition of a small-L libertarian, then yes.  Otherwise how would you or anyone else define that position ?

Where does one fit into the political party spectrum with these values ?  That is if one wants to pick sides when voting for candidates that might actually win ?  

If you are seeking a logic based explanation for those who support Trump, I doubt you will find one.  If you think that someone with my values supporting Trump is inconsistent with those values, so be it.  But then again most people really don't understand how anyone who is compos mentis can support Trump.


 
I will be honest kurt, I don't understand how anyone who considers themselves libertarian, small or large L could support Trump.  He is just another authoritarian statist with a different speaking style and hairdo.  Bernie Sanders has more Libertarian positions than Trump.  If you stick to strictly the policy issues, other than immigration Trump and Clinton are the most similar imo.
Trump Rides The Wave of American Fascism

 

 

Side note; it is shocking how much FDR looks like my dad.{#Eek}




kurtster
waiting ...
kurtster Avatar

Location: ymmv
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Libra
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Mar 11, 2016 - 5:39am

 R_P wrote:

Nope, sorry, still some.

Also keep in mind that our biggest regular Trump stumper here self-identifies with small-L libertarian and the "Austrian School", aside from being a big fan of Teabaggery. If they could be found with Tea, you're gonna find some with Trump.

Whether you like it or not.
 
I guess that you are referring to me.  Yeah, I consider myself a small-L libertarian.  Fiscally conservative and socially liberal is how I have identified myself for 50 or so years.  If that qualifies as one definition of a small-L libertarian, then yes.  Otherwise how would you or anyone else define that position ?

Where does one fit into the political party spectrum with these values ?  That is if one wants to pick sides when voting for candidates that might actually win ?  

If you are seeking a logic based explanation for those who support Trump, I doubt you will find one.  If you think that someone with my values supporting Trump is inconsistent with those values, so be it.  But then again most people really don't understand how anyone who is compos mentis can support Trump.

R_P
Ni dieu ni maître
R_P Avatar



Posted: Mar 11, 2016 - 1:16am

 Lazy8 wrote:
 R_P wrote:
Nope, sorry, still some.

Also keep in mind that our biggest regular Trump stumper here self-identifies with small-L libertarian and the "Austrian School", aside from being a big fan of Teabaggery. If they could be found with Tea, you're gonna find some with Trump.

Whether you like it or not.

PS:

Seems like a bit of a fan boy too...

Can we count Scott Adams in? He who now spends his days proclaiming the brilliance of Trump the Persuader. (Yes, not quite an endorsement yet...)

Hard to tell with Adams. He has praised Trump's deftness in manipulating the media but stopped well short of an endorsement. Can't tell if his fascination is horrified or admiring; rubbernecking drivers in traffic jams don't go around causing crashes just to have something to watch.

Molyneux is another matter. I'm only halfway thru the video so far (busy day at work, proletariat to oppress and all) and so far all he's doing is complaining about how unfair Trump's press coverage has been. Not sufficient reason to vote for somebody, but Imma let him finish before I comment.

And finally, getting beyond anecdotes, we have some poling data from two Republican primaries in the south.

The one poll that acknowledges that there are such things as libertarians (South Carolina) showed 2% of those polled self-identified as libertarian, and 51% of that 2% supporting Trump. They don't give exact figures for sample size (just "3,500+") so this may be as few as 35 people, self-selected as voting Republican. Ron Paul got 13% of the vote in South Carolina in 2012, so that 2% is probably a small portion of South Carolina's libertarians, or even its libertarian-leaning Republicans. The majority probably stayed home out of disgust.

Voting for Ron Paul is not a perfect stand-in for libertarianism I'll admit, especially in Texas where he represented several congressional districts for 23 years. He took 12% of the Texas primary in 2012. The data don't show what fraction of the electorate they polled fit into the libertarian camp (and the sample size, 645 voters, is even smaller than the South Carolina sample in a much bigger state) so it's hard to draw any conclusions from that. Of those who went to the polls this year 40% supported Trump. That leaves open the question of how many of Ron Paul's supporters even showed up, but it is troubling to see that many of them falling for Trump's shtick.

So yeah, OK, some. Still not convinced that's many, or even enough to be worth talking about.
 
Molyneux ultimately ends up doing it (as always?) for the children (in another video, easily found and/or suggested by YT). Of course he's more of the anarcho-capitalist variety as well, but I'mma gonna let myself count that.

Another one is here. Seems a young one. I came across another one just like him on YouTube. The key seems to be "pragmatism" (and thus ignoring some principles along the way) or just anti-establishmentarianism.

In the same way as Lakoff pointed out that you end up with some union members voting for Trump as well.
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 10, 2016 - 2:04pm

 R_P wrote:
Nope, sorry, still some.

Also keep in mind that our biggest regular Trump stumper here self-identifies with small-L libertarian and the "Austrian School", aside from being a big fan of Teabaggery. If they could be found with Tea, you're gonna find some with Trump.

Whether you like it or not.

PS:

Seems like a bit of a fan boy too...

Can we count Scott Adams in? He who now spends his days proclaiming the brilliance of Trump the Persuader. (Yes, not quite an endorsement yet...)

Hard to tell with Adams. He has praised Trump's deftness in manipulating the media but stopped well short of an endorsement. Can't tell if his fascination is horrified or admiring; rubbernecking drivers in traffic jams don't go around causing crashes just to have something to watch.

Molyneux is another matter. I'm only halfway thru the video so far (busy day at work, proletariat to oppress and all) and so far all he's doing is complaining about how unfair Trump's press coverage has been. Not sufficient reason to vote for somebody, but Imma let him finish before I comment.

And finally, getting beyond anecdotes, we have some poling data from two Republican primaries in the south.

The one poll that acknowledges that there are such things as libertarians (South Carolina) showed 2% of those polled self-identified as libertarian, and 51% of that 2% supporting Trump. They don't give exact figures for sample size (just "3,500+") so this may be as few as 35 people, self-selected as voting Republican. Ron Paul got 13% of the vote in South Carolina in 2012, so that 2% is probably a small portion of South Carolina's libertarians, or even its libertarian-leaning Republicans. The majority probably stayed home out of disgust.

Voting for Ron Paul is not a perfect stand-in for libertarianism I'll admit, especially in Texas where he represented several congressional districts for 23 years. He took 12% of the Texas primary in 2012. The data don't show what fraction of the electorate they polled fit into the libertarian camp (and the sample size, 645 voters, is even smaller than the South Carolina sample in a much bigger state) so it's hard to draw any conclusions from that. Of those who went to the polls this year 40% supported Trump. That leaves open the question of how many of Ron Paul's supporters even showed up, but it is troubling to see that many of them falling for Trump's shtick.

So yeah, OK, some. Still not convinced that's many, or even enough to be worth talking about.


NoEnzLefttoSplit
Being Norwegian is over-rated.
NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male
Zodiac: Taurus
Chinese Yr: Tiger


Posted: Mar 10, 2016 - 10:54am

 oldviolin wrote:

Believe me when I tell you that you are always one of the most open and thoughtful posters in here. {#Good-vibes}

It is a paradox isn't it?
The desire for fresh life giving oxygen juxtaposed with the machinery generating the same old stale and depleted air. {#Mad} And to think, I'm an optimist of the first sort, first meaning last.{#Think} So much opportunity, so little reason.

The face of God lines our collective brow, not our collective pockets. Anyone suggesting otherwise is watching the wrong signs; the ones made for public consumption and strife. If I were to call myself a Libertarian it would be because I'm fundamentally idealistic. That's not odd because unlike Democrats and Republicans the platform promises nothing outside of the fruits of common sense and logical reasoning. In effect, Liberty. Freedom. It requires a level of trust that is otherwise heretofore unrealized. A living breathing free society requires that to survive. Still I'm drawn to that naturally because I am also a believer in the substance of faith of the first sort and otherwise empty rhetoric is not that appealing. It's not so much a contradiction. I like everyone else in this world will fall where I stood last. Everybody's gotta learn sometime. Simplistic yes, but so is anything destined for longevity, like the proof of a future for free beings, living for each other like each day could be their last. That is ever a distinct possibility.

/redundancy {#Wink}

 
I think you and I think very much alike on many fronts
oldviolin
ab origine
oldviolin Avatar

Location: esse quam videri
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Leo


Posted: Mar 10, 2016 - 10:46am

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

Ok I'll try to say it in five words or less. 

um
shit
i
dunno
either

That's the basic paragraph structure.  I might need to swap them around a bit.  

 
Believe me when I tell you that you are always one of the most open and thoughtful posters in here. {#Good-vibes}

It is a paradox isn't it?
The desire for fresh life giving oxygen juxtaposed with the machinery generating the same old stale and depleted air. {#Mad} And to think, I'm an optimist of the first sort, first meaning last.{#Think} So much opportunity, so little reason.

The face of God lines our collective brow, not our collective pockets. Anyone suggesting otherwise is watching the wrong signs; the ones made for public consumption and strife. If I were to call myself a Libertarian it would be because I'm fundamentally idealistic. That's not odd because unlike Democrats and Republicans the platform promises nothing outside of the fruits of common sense and logical reasoning. In effect, Liberty. Freedom. It requires a level of trust that is otherwise heretofore unrealized. A living breathing free society requires that to survive. Still I'm drawn to that naturally because I am also a believer in the substance of faith of the first sort and otherwise empty rhetoric is not that appealing. It's not so much a contradiction. I like everyone else in this world will fall where I stood last. Everybody's gotta learn sometime. Simplistic yes, but so is anything destined for longevity, like the proof of a future for free beings, living for each other like each day could be their last. That is ever a distinct possibility.

/redundancy {#Wink}


NoEnzLefttoSplit
Being Norwegian is over-rated.
NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male
Zodiac: Taurus
Chinese Yr: Tiger


Posted: Mar 10, 2016 - 10:08am

 oldviolin wrote:

"Klaatu barada nikto"

 
Ok I'll try to say it in five words or less. 

um
shit
i
dunno
either

That's the basic paragraph structure.  I might need to swap them around a bit.  
oldviolin
ab origine
oldviolin Avatar

Location: esse quam videri
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Leo


Posted: Mar 10, 2016 - 6:27am

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

Sorry for stumbling in here at an inappropriate time (considering everyone is in a huff over the election) but I am still trying to get my head around what people are actually talking about (and given that I am probably going to fail at even describing my problem, I won’t be too surprised if the following long rant quickly gets buried.. c’est la vie).. Right, we currently have a situation where most if not all world economies are muddling along with some kind of welfare state based on a classic distinction between the public sector and the private sector. A full-on public sector (command economy) appears to have failed on a grand scale (the soviet model) and unbridled private enterprise also seems to go off the rails periodically, encouraging state intervention in the twin forms of regulation and rescue packages.  So most states muddle along with something in the middle.

 Yet, we currently have enormous dissatisfaction worldwide with such centrist policies as real incomes have fallen relative to the total wealth of the economy. Inequality* is at incredible levels, health services are under severe strain, and nationalist reactionaries a la Trump are enjoying new-found popularity.

 At the same time, government regulation and intervention is extreme and growing, as though it were subject to some kind of internal growth dynamic and not subject to any evolutionary checks or controls. Whether we like it or not, most decisions are not made in political forums but in backroom committees and meetings within large organizations, all of whom are subject to the rules of logic and to inputs that seem given.

My question: where in this giant web of givens, is the room for individual human freedom? Is this what libertarians are on about?  And given how entrenched these structures are, is the libertarian movement just an example of glorious naïveté?

 Or are we just spoilt kids who no longer appreciate the freedoms this giant modern economy gives us (internet chatrooms, the ability to buy coffee from some far-off country, access to doctors, education etc.) and we just don’t know how good we’ve got it? Are these two aims (1. individual freedoms (from wants, from regulation, from stinky neighbors, etc) and 2. the maximization of wealth and living standards) mutually exclusive? i.e. can this level of wealth even exist without large organizational structures like governments and giant corporations? Conversely if you need such large structures, can you have them yet still maximize individual liberties and dismantle all the rules that make them run?

 Or to put it another way, large structures require concessions on the part of the individual. Indeed, it is impossible to cut the individual’s own private wants and needs out of the larger organizational context in which the individual finds him or herself. Thus you get the clichéd government man, the corporate hack, the social worker, etc. all of which are typologies that only exist in an organizational structure. And without that context you have removed about 90% of what makes us social beings.

In my view, there aren’t too many ways out of this paradox. The first is some kind of Rousseau-ean identification with the larger organization. The individual here becomes free because his wants and ideals don’t jar with those of the larger organization (in the end this is also how Marx tried to solve the paradox by appealing to a strange thing called “class consciousness”), or you dismantle the organization’s inherent needs and wants and make them secondary to those of the individual (the current buzz words are diversity and inclusiveness) and run the risk of not getting anything done because everything gets mired in the noise and bedlam of democracy. Or you just don’t have long-standing large structures, but then you run the risk of losing the benefits of large logical structures and mass production, etc.

Now, I fully realize this is old territory that we have covered before. But I personally suspect the true course of history from here on in is already set by the structures we have in place crashing into some hard constraints. It is nice to talk about ideals like human rights and freedoms and so on but let’s not kid ourselves, history is going to pan out as a reaction to the stuff we are confronting today. The issue is, what form is that reaction going to take? A return to romantic nationalism (a la Trump), an extension of bureaucracy (a la the EU), an all embracing global village (a la TTIP), a descent into war and destruction (a la WWI and WWII)? Or will we humans just get sidelined as AI takes over production pursuing its own logic?

 

 



 
"Klaatu barada nikto"
NoEnzLefttoSplit
Being Norwegian is over-rated.
NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male
Zodiac: Taurus
Chinese Yr: Tiger


Posted: Mar 10, 2016 - 1:44am

Sorry for stumbling in here at an inappropriate time (considering everyone is in a huff over the election) but I am still trying to get my head around what people are actually talking about (and given that I am probably going to fail at even describing my problem, I won’t be too surprised if the following long rant quickly gets buried.. c’est la vie).. Right, we currently have a situation where most if not all world economies are muddling along with some kind of welfare state based on a classic distinction between the public sector and the private sector. A full-on public sector (command economy) appears to have failed on a grand scale (the soviet model) and unbridled private enterprise also seems to go off the rails periodically, encouraging state intervention in the twin forms of regulation and rescue packages.  So most states muddle along with something in the middle.

 Yet, we currently have enormous dissatisfaction worldwide with such centrist policies as real incomes have fallen relative to the total wealth of the economy. Inequality* is at incredible levels, health services are under severe strain, and nationalist reactionaries a la Trump are enjoying new-found popularity.

 At the same time, government regulation and intervention is extreme and growing, as though it were subject to some kind of internal growth dynamic and not subject to any evolutionary checks or controls. Whether we like it or not, most decisions are not made in political forums but in backroom committees and meetings within large organizations, all of whom are subject to the rules of logic and to inputs that seem given.

My question: where in this giant web of givens, is the room for individual human freedom? Is this what libertarians are on about?  And given how entrenched these structures are, is the libertarian movement just an example of glorious naïveté?

 Or are we just spoilt kids who no longer appreciate the freedoms this giant modern economy gives us (internet chatrooms, the ability to buy coffee from some far-off country, access to doctors, education etc.) and we just don’t know how good we’ve got it? Are these two aims (1. individual freedoms (from wants, from regulation, from stinky neighbors, etc) and 2. the maximization of wealth and living standards) mutually exclusive? i.e. can this level of wealth even exist without large organizational structures like governments and giant corporations? Conversely if you need such large structures, can you have them yet still maximize individual liberties and dismantle all the rules that make them run?

 Or to put it another way, large structures require concessions on the part of the individual. Indeed, it is impossible to cut the individual’s own private wants and needs out of the larger organizational context in which the individual finds him or herself. Thus you get the clichéd government man, the corporate hack, the social worker, etc. all of which are typologies that only exist in an organizational structure. And without that context you have removed about 90% of what makes us social beings.

In my view, there aren’t too many ways out of this paradox. The first is some kind of Rousseau-ean identification with the larger organization. The individual here becomes free because his wants and ideals don’t jar with those of the larger organization (in the end this is also how Marx tried to solve the paradox by appealing to a strange thing called “class consciousness”), or you dismantle the organization’s inherent needs and wants and make them secondary to those of the individual (the current buzz words are diversity and inclusiveness) and run the risk of not getting anything done because everything gets mired in the noise and bedlam of democracy. Or you just don’t have long-standing large structures, but then you run the risk of losing the benefits of large logical structures and mass production, etc.

Now, I fully realize this is old territory that we have covered before. But I personally suspect the true course of history from here on in is already set by the structures we have in place crashing into some hard constraints. It is nice to talk about ideals like human rights and freedoms and so on but let’s not kid ourselves, history is going to pan out as a reaction to the stuff we are confronting today. The issue is, what form is that reaction going to take? A return to romantic nationalism (a la Trump), an extension of bureaucracy (a la the EU), an all embracing global village (a la TTIP), a descent into war and destruction (a la WWI and WWII)? Or will we humans just get sidelined as AI takes over production pursuing its own logic?

 

 


R_P
Ni dieu ni maître
R_P Avatar



Posted: Mar 10, 2016 - 12:46am

 Lazy8 wrote:
 R_P wrote:
The point definitely isn't that Trump is a libertarian (because he isn't), though as with so many things, he does love them too.

The point is in my response to the Gillespie article which opens with a straw man: Trump isn't necessarily mutually exclusive to at least some libertarians. And who knows some might even like Cruz... {#Mrgreen}

"Some" meaning "Well, this one guy."

I'll take that as "I don't really have a point, I'm just flinging poo at people I disagree with to try and get something to stick."

"Poo" meaning, in this context, "Trump".

Oh yeah, {#Mrgreen}
 
Nope, sorry, still some.

Also keep in mind that our biggest regular Trump stumper here self-identifies with small-L libertarian and the "Austrian School", aside from being a big fan of Teabaggery. If they could be found with Tea, you're gonna find some with Trump.

Whether you like it or not.

PS:

Seems like a bit of a fan boy too...

Can we count Scott Adams in? He who now spends his days proclaiming the brilliance of Trump the Persuader. (Yes, not quite an endorsement yet...)
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 9, 2016 - 10:09pm

 R_P wrote:
The point definitely isn't that Trump is a libertarian (because he isn't), though as with so many things, he does love them too.

The point is in my response to the Gillespie article which opens with a straw man: Trump isn't necessarily mutually exclusive to at least some libertarians. And who knows some might even like Cruz... {#Mrgreen}

"Some" meaning "Well, this one guy."

I'll take that as "I don't really have a point, I'm just flinging poo at people I disagree with to try and get something to stick."

"Poo" meaning, in this context, "Trump".

Oh yeah, {#Mrgreen}

R_P
Ni dieu ni maître
R_P Avatar



Posted: Mar 9, 2016 - 5:18pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
 R_P wrote:
That's exactly why I used some. A qualifier (generally a minority). And with the addition that self-proclaimed/self-reported libertarians were a part of the Tea Party as well. They share some discontent while differing in important ways on other matters. Significant? Who knows?

Regardless of how many you know of them, there isn't a single type of pure libertarian, exactly like there's isn't a single stereotype on the other side of the political spectrum, despite all the claims to the contrary.

If it were significant you could probably find a few more, especially a few that anyone pays attention to. The few I found are way out on the fringes: Christopher Cantwell, who calls himself an anarchist; Root; and Bruce Majors on Breitbart (but that was last year when he could pretend that Trump was cleaving to a non-interventionist foreign policy). Maybe there are some others.

Yes, there are more than one kind of libertarian. Donald Trump wouldn't qualify as any of them. Even the (very few) public libertarians I can find supporting him admit this.

Not sure what your point is here. Perhaps you could elaborate.
 
The point definitely isn't that Trump is a libertarian (because he isn't), though as with so many things, he does love them too.

The point is in my response to the Gillespie article which opens with a straw man: Trump isn't necessarily mutually exclusive to at least some libertarians. And who knows some might even like Cruz... {#Mrgreen}
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 9, 2016 - 4:51pm

 R_P wrote:
That's exactly why I used some. A qualifier (generally a minority). And with the addition that self-proclaimed/self-reported libertarians were a part of the Tea Party as well. They share some discontent while differing in important ways on other matters. Significant? Who knows?

Regardless of how many you know of them, there isn't a single type of pure libertarian, exactly like there's isn't a single stereotype on the other side of the political spectrum, despite all the claims to the contrary.

If it were significant you could probably find a few more, especially a few that anyone pays attention to. The few I found are way out on the fringes: Christopher Cantwell, who calls himself an anarchist; Root; and Bruce Majors on Breitbart (but that was last year when he could pretend that Trump was cleaving to a non-interventionist foreign policy). Maybe there are some others.

Yes, there are more than one kind of libertarian. Donald Trump wouldn't qualify as any of them. Even the (very few) public libertarians I can find supporting him admit this.

Not sure what your point is here. Perhaps you could elaborate.
Red_Dragon
y ddraig goch ddyry gychwyn
Red_Dragon Avatar

Location: Rethuglican Jesusland


Posted: Mar 9, 2016 - 4:26pm

 Lazy8 wrote:

Domesticate some of them to save the rest, yes. They can still breed without horns.

Or continue to wring our hands while that last few get wiped out. Go ahead and try to dissuade a culture from its centuries-old superstition if you want; but I doubt the rhinos have time for that to work.

 
What I sad was: Perhaps education has a place in any solution.

The method you linked to makes a lot of sense, but I'd like to see the superstition eradicated eventually. That will eliminate the need for domestication. 
Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 138, 139, 140  Next