Who do you vote for if it's McCain Vs. Hillary

[Coyote]

Fee Fi Foe Fum, I smell the blood of a Libertarian!

[The Spartan]

Fee Fi Foe Fum, I smell the blood of a Libertarian!

Dingdingdingdingding!

He's actually admitted as much.

[MichaelFerrariF1]

Who exactly do you think the government is, if not 'the American people.'?

A bunch of rich elites who try to control to populace.

[MichaelFerrariF1]

All that shit that needs fixing requires government intervention because they're the only ones that don't have a ingrown profit motive. Just off the top of my head: roads, bridges, health care...

I know some things like infrastructure can't be privatized. But I would rather see all employers provide adequate health care, with government aid only for the unemployed, disabled, etc. I think of every aspect of your life that the government controls as potential leverage they can use against you.

[General Zod]

I know some things like infrastructure can't be privatized. But I would rather see all employers provide adequate health care, with government aid only for the unemployed, disabled, etc. I think of every aspect of your life that the government controls as potential leverage they can use against you.

Do you have any idea how much adequate health-care costs? It's impossible for all employers to provide adequate health-care without government intervention. If the government was as limited as much as you seem to want, mega pharmaceuticals would crank up their prices as much as humanly possible to gouge people with no government checks and balances in place.

[MichaelFerrariF1]

Do you have any idea how much adequate health-care costs? It's impossible for all employers to provide adequate health-care without government intervention. If the government was as limited as much as you seem to want, mega pharmaceuticals would crank up their prices as much as humanly possible to gouge people with no government checks and balances in place.

Not many libertarians want pure laizze-faire capitalism. I know what kind of exploitation can happen in that that situation. I just want to limit government as much as possible to prevent exploitation on their part as well.

[Terralthra]

Who exactly do you think the government is, if not 'the American people.'?

A bunch of rich elites who try to control to populace.

Wow. That's sure an epic rebuttal. Curiously enough, it's the "rich elites" who actually benefit the most from less government intervention.

[Stark]

I would rather work on fixing things myself. I have a hard time trusting the government not to fuck things up even more. I mean, look at the record so far...

Fixing 'things'.

Like, say, the Supreme Court? The Iraq war? Healing the foreign policy rifts? You can do that, so it doesn't matter who you vote for?

HILARIOUS.

[Patrick Degan]

Who exactly do you think the government is, if not 'the American people.'?

A bunch of rich elites who try to control to populace.

Once again, government caricatured by way of a Hasty Generalisation Fallacy.

[Rye]

I don't think that's an unfair hasty generalisation. If the government was representative of the American People, where are all the poor people and "ethnics"? That's not to say certain elites are less shitty than others, but there's really no denying the obvious "elite" white patriarchy in American government.

[Patrick Degan]

I don't think that's an unfair hasty generalisation. If the government was representative of the American People, where are all the poor people and "ethnics"? That's not to say certain elites are less shitty than others, but there's really no denying the obvious "elite" white patriarchy in American government.

So because the government isn't composed of an ideal set of people, that makes FerrariF1's claim valid? We've already had one idiot get his ass kicked in the Coliseum as well as the Hall of Shame in part for making simpleminded equations like the one under question here.

It is an unfair hasty generalisation because it ignores the fact that American government isn't entirely composed of a single body in Washington, that there is a growing ethnic representation in Congress, that civil rights laws, antitrust laws, and constitutional protections for the right to vote which didn't exist when the United States was founded exist now. That even the present conservative rabble can't simply rule by fiat, even though they'd like to, and have found themselves blocked more and more. The attempt to privatise Social Security when the GOP had effective control of all three branches of the Federal government didn't even get out of the starting gate no matter how much the Stupid Chimp wanted it done. A government which would fit a libertarian's simplistic definition would have done so entirely by edict and told the people to go eat cake afterward.

No, FerrariF1's argument here doesn't obtain for the same reason Volleyball failed so spectacularly: a libertarian's simplistic definitions stem not from logic but dogma.

[K. A. Pital]

Wait, we have a new libertarian? Didn't we just recently dispose of the, um, old one?

I just want to limit government as much as possible to prevent exploitation on their part as well.

"Limiting" the government in the healthcare area opens the door to corporate exploit. The difference is that legally, the government should not be exploiting people and should act in the general population's interest. The corporation, legally, only acts in the interests of it's shareholders. See the difference? You seem more capable of grasping logic than Voluntard who was recently thrown to the lions here, so I hope you do.

[Soontir C'boath]

I suppose my vote here would be for castrating Straha. I wouldn't vote for either of them nor for a third party. I would write in Barack Obama and for those adamantly voting third party who were behind Obama, I would strongly suggest to do the same. If you're going to make a protest vote, at least do it with someone that had garnered a tremendous amount of support.

[Rye]

So because the government isn't composed of an ideal set of people, that makes FerrariF1's claim valid?

No, because the government is composed of an elite (the rich), that has been preoccupied with controlling stupid parts of people's lives (see the constitution initially saying some people are more equal than others) his claim is valid. All US history shows the same tradition and elites controlling matters, and the modern era is no different. For a modern example, just look at the media coverage of Obama vs Hillary and McCain. You're telling me that's not an elite reenforcing an existing hegemony?

It is an unfair hasty generalisation because it ignores the fact that American government isn't entirely composed of a single body in Washington, that there is a growing ethnic representation in Congress, that civil rights laws, antitrust laws, and constitutional protections for the right to vote which didn't exist when the United States was founded exist now.

So because there is progress, it is too hasty and generalising to say that wealth plays perhaps the most decisive part in what gets your issues heard in American politics?

That even the present conservative rabble can't simply rule by fiat,

Red herring. Ruling by fiat != an elite controlling interests in politics, as those elites often set the agenda. That's why whatever Murdoch's empire is chatty about at the moment resonates more than say, New Orleans being rebuilt and why religious elites can make one set of people more equal than others.

A government which would fit a libertarian's simplistic definition would have done so entirely by edict and told the people to go eat cake afterward.

Actually, while he is probably stupid, it is simply knee jerk bullshit to dismiss his claim especially WRT the US government. A more clear case of wealthy elites setting agendas through either direct political pressure and lobbying and through media control is difficult to come by.

No, FerrariF1's argument here doesn't obtain for the same reason Volleyball failed so spectacularly: a libertarian's simplistic definitions stem not from logic but dogma.

That may be the case, but on this single issue, he is right. He may not realise it, but he is in line with people like Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore on the recognition of the elite in Washington. He probably doesn't recognise that Libertarianism is a chief tool of such elites, and he undoubtedly holds a load of dogmatic opinions, this is one that is backed up by the evidence.

[Starglider]

But I would rather see all employers provide adequate health care,

Do you have any idea how much hassle this is for small businesses? There's no way anything but the biggest companies can set up individualised health plans or self-insure. They have to outsource all that crap to HMOs, which of course ream you. What conceivable difference does it make between your company mandating a healthcare plan and the government doing it? Other than the fact that the former is massively less efficient, distorted by the profit motive (rather than keeping people healthy) and means that if you happen to lose your job then get ill, you're shafted.

[MichaelFerrariF1]

I think libertarians and liberals line up on a lot of issues, especially personal liberty and foreign policy.

Obviously there needs to be limits on corporations to prevent exploitation, just like there needs to be limits on government to prevent oppression. As I said before, I'm not advocating lassiez-faire capitalism.

I just see the government as a larger threat to liberty than companies. An oppressive company can only take my money. An oppressive government can take my money, my freedom, and my life. (Wal-mart and sweatshop companies are an exception, acting like quasi-governments to their employees).

As for my political position, I may be more liberal than I think or admit to myself. A few years ago I was a hardcore, pro-war, religious right fanatic. Then I grew up, started thinking for myself, and got a hell of a lot smarter.

[starfury]

I just see the government as a larger threat to liberty than companies. An oppressive company can only take my money. An oppressive government can take my money, my freedom, and my life. (Wal-mart and sweatshop companies are an exception, acting like quasi-governments to their employees).

Actually This was as you stated it gets rather Fuzzy at certain times when Corporations Become large enough to practically be government at times, Ironically the old Feudal barons of old and very large corps which are practically government in some places are very similar indeed at times.

[Darth Raptor]

I just see the government as a larger threat to liberty than companies. An oppressive company can only take my money. An oppressive government can take my money, my freedom, and my life. (Wal-mart and sweatshop companies are an exception, acting like quasi-governments to their employees).

Your problem seems to be that you don't recognize the threat posed by inaction in the face of problems too large for an individual to solve. Big problems require big organizations, and an organization dedicated to addressing these issues is always, *always* preferable to an organization whose only obligation is to its shareholders. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you simply haven't thought this through very much but still care about people other than yourself.

[MichaelFerrariF1]

I thought I was saying that I do care about others when I said that I am concerned about the exploitation or oppression of others.

[Patrick Degan]

I just see the government as a larger threat to liberty than companies. An oppressive company can only take my money. An oppressive government can take my money, my freedom, and my life. (Wal-mart and sweatshop companies are an exception, acting like quasi-governments to their employees).

Not this again. Not this same tired argument we've already had one idiot spew here over the course of the previous month. And one based on the same hasty generalisation and black/white fallacies as the other guest idiot who seems to have slinked from the battlefield.

[Patrick Degan]

the government is composed of an elite (the rich), that has been preoccupied with controlling stupid parts of people's lives (see the constitution initially saying some people are more equal than others) his claim is valid. All US history shows the same tradition and elites controlling matters, and the modern era is no different. For a modern example, just look at the media coverage of Obama vs Hillary and McCain. You're telling me that's not an elite reenforcing an existing hegemony?

You're telling me that the government is not bound by law? That several very obvious attempts to "control stupid parts of peoples' lives" have not faced court challenge and have been shot down on the basis of that law? That the "rich elite" you refer to rules as a monolithic bloc? That the previous elites did so through 220 years of American history? Where did the New Deal come from if it's the case that the government has always been under the control of a rich elite enforcing their hegemony? What about the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and Title IX? And why is Barack Obama managing to make so much electoral headway despite the opposition of this supposedly controllling elite enforcing its hegemony?

It is an unfair hasty generalisation because it ignores the fact that American government isn't entirely composed of a single body in Washington, that there is a growing ethnic representation in Congress, that civil rights laws, antitrust laws, and constitutional protections for the right to vote which didn't exist when the United States was founded exist now.

So because there is progress, it is too hasty and generalising to say that wealth plays perhaps the most decisive part in what gets your issues heard in American politics?

As compared to where? Handwaving away the fact of progress in American society over the past 220 years does not prove your argument, or FerrariF1's.

That even the present conservative rabble can't simply rule by fiat,

Red herring. Ruling by fiat != an elite controlling interests in politics, as those elites often set the agenda. That's why whatever Murdoch's empire is chatty about at the moment resonates more than say, New Orleans being rebuilt and why religious elites can make one set of people more equal than others.

Cuuuuute —you just cherry-pick one part of that paragraph and conveniently leave off the entire bit about how Social Security privatisation —a central part of the conservative agenda supported by Murdoch and pushed by the Stupid Chimp— got defeated handily despite the supposed control of the government by the elite you refer to.

Context-restoration in progress:

t is an unfair hasty generalisation because it ignores the fact that American government isn't entirely composed of a single body in Washington, that there is a growing ethnic representation in Congress, that civil rights laws, antitrust laws, and constitutional protections for the right to vote which didn't exist when the United States was founded exist now. That even the present conservative rabble can't simply rule by fiat, even though they'd like to, and have found themselves blocked more and more. The attempt to privatise Social Security when the GOP had effective control of all three branches of the Federal government didn't even get out of the starting gate no matter how much the Stupid Chimp wanted it done.

Next time, try not to cherry-pick.

A government which would fit a libertarian's simplistic definition would have done so entirely by edict and told the people to go eat cake afterward.

Actually, while he is probably stupid, it is simply knee jerk bullshit to dismiss his claim especially WRT the US government. A more clear case of wealthy elites setting agendas through either direct political pressure and lobbying and through media control is difficult to come by.

Then why did Social Security privatisation fail? Why did the GOP lose control of Congress in 2006? Why have the American people turned against the Iraq War? Why is Barack Obama, a first-time presidential candidate and junior senator, in position to actually get the nomination for the Democratic Party despite the media circus directed against him?

[Simplicius]

I think libertarians and liberals line up on a lot of issues, especially personal liberty and foreign policy.

I would dispute this, if by 'liberals' you mean 'modern US liberalism.' Consider: modern liberalism expanded personal liberties by governmental action and legislation - passing and enforcing civil rights and social welfare laws - not by reducing the government's role in the personal/private sphere. Modern liberals consistently promulgated state-growing activist foreign policy as well, from FDR onward.

If a libertarian is to agree with these features of modern liberalism, he must do so despite the fact that they conflict with the central premise of libtertarianism, i.e. the restraint and reduction of governmental influence and power. It's only 'common ground' if the libertarian concedes that certain desirable goals can be achieved by a large government.

[Rye]

You're telling me that the government is not bound by law?

Yes. That is precisely why I said "the government is not bound by law" and not something else.

That several very obvious attempts to "control stupid parts of peoples' lives" have not faced court challenge and have been shot down on the basis of that law? That the "rich elite" you refer to rules as a monolithic bloc?

Never said that.

Where did the New Deal come from if it's the case that the government has always been under the control of a rich elite enforcing their hegemony? What about the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and Title IX?

What of them?

And why is Barack Obama managing to make so much electoral headway despite the opposition of this supposedly controllling elite enforcing its hegemony?

Because he's popular. And wealthy enough to break into the system at a time when the zeitgeist allows for it. How many other presidential hopefuls in the last 50 years or so have been black or women that have got this far? If there's no elite that are prepared to enforce hegemony on everyone, they should've cropped up as soon as blacks got equal rights and political ambition(which they should've had anyway, had they not been systematically repressed by... well, who were they repressed by, since the elites don't exist and don't influence society?).

As compared to where?

A non-elite, non-bourgeois ideal situation. Or do you think other countries having bourgeois systems suddenly means that America is absent one?

Handwaving away the fact of progress in American society over the past 220 years does not prove your argument, or FerrariF1's.

Nor would it. The overwhelming white male constitution of all points of authority and success does that. Or are you claiming that is merely a thing of the past?

Cuuuuute —you just cherry-pick one part of that paragraph

Yeah, because it was a red herring.

and conveniently leave off the entire bit about how Social Security privatisation —a central part of the conservative agenda supported by Murdoch and pushed by the Stupid Chimp— got defeated handily despite the supposed control of the government by the elite you refer to.

That's because some elites are better than others, something I already outlined.

Then why did Social Security privatisation fail?

Because it was sufficiently unpopular with enough of the elite.

Why did the GOP lose control of Congress in 2006?

Because they were voted out. Do you think my argument precludes that? Do you think I'm arguing that the republican elite are infallible and sit in darkened rooms plotting conspiracies? If so, you have read the wrong thing into what I'm saying.

Why have the American people turned against the Iraq War?

Why were they for it in the first place?

Why is Barack Obama, a first-time presidential candidate and junior senator, in position to actually get the nomination for the Democratic Party despite the media circus directed against him?

Because he's popular and has a shitload of money.

[RedImperator]

I would vote for Hillary, because at the very least, she'd be more likely to aim politics in a generally Democratic direction. You might also get at least some issues done, assuming she gets a friendly congress.*

*A "friendly congress" should really be emphasized more in the public discussion about the presidential race. A president really can't do jack shit with a hostile opposition controlling Congress except certain initiatives and some military actions - it's unlikely, for example, that Bush would have been able to get the Iraq War going if his party didn't have firm control over Congress after 2002, and control over the House before that.

Yeah, it's not like the Democrats controlled the Senate or anything in 2002 and voted to authorize the war.

As far as I'm concerned, one of the bonus prizes of Clinton losing the nomination is seeing one of the leaders of the "roll over for Bush" Democrats get taken behind the woodshed for her role in enabling Bush's biggest fuckup.

That said, if it came down to Hillary or McCain, I'd probably vote Hillary and then cry for a while.

[Ritterin Sophia]

I don't like either of them, but I suppose McCain's the lesser of two evils (though not by much). I may write in Ron Paul, for all the good it would do.

So can I ask why, exactly do you hate America?