Lib117 wrote:Wow what an unbiased representation of libertarians we have here.(Sarcasm) Allow me to even the scales a bit.
Hey look a long-time lurker who decided to jump in to prove something, or
much more likely, Iosef the Dumb called in one of his lemmings to prop him up.
This debate is actually absurd, since I am a libertarian, a libertarian in the sense of its use in almost all of the world today, and for most of its history of as a political term. It was coined by Joseph Déjacque, a French anarcho-communist to describe what would be regarded today as left-libertarianism, left-wing anarchism, or libertarian socialism -- a meaning its retained in Europe and pretty much everywhere outside North America (where, to give a progressive veneer for their opposition for their opposition to the New Deal and support for capitalism, it was borrowed by apologists for private tyranny).
Lib117 wrote:Illuminatus Primus wrote:No, you're an imbecile who couldn't even attempt to refute the content of my statement. Furthermore, I never said anything remotely like "all other ideologies are evil", which just shows how juvenile and emotionalist your--well, what you think passes for thought--thought is. It is but childish ranting and fetishizing of fancy-sounding philosophical terms, without the depth of understanding of their meaning and the real world around you.
No, actually it would be you who is a childish imbecile. Let's take a look at what you just said shall we.
Uhm, Iosef didn't at all demonstrate what he claimed, and what he described about my post was factually incorrect, so this is specious emotionalism.
Lib117 wrote:Illuminatus Primus wrote:The poverty of mainstream right-"libertarianism" (a complete misnomer, and outright propaganda) is clear here. The only "liberties" that functionally concern them are those of the boss against his workers and the corporate plutocrat against societies.
Oh really! Is that why there for legalizing drugs and against corporate welfare?
Hm, how much money is spent on research pushing those policies? How often does the Cato Institute and the lesser cousins publish propaganda pushing that as aggressively or strongly as they did trying to defeat or turn people against the Obama stimulus? How often do they ally themselves publicly and with dollars and manpower with NORML versus the likes of the Tea Party?
Talk is cheap.
Lib117 wrote:Illuminatus Primus wrote:Crossroads, you have to understand that far-right "libertarians" (actually impassioned defenders of authoritarianism and real tyranny) have always and across the board, from neo-classicists to Austrians been deeply and radically hostile to democracy and public institutions, under cover of "liberties" and other Newspeak weasel words.
Do you have any actual proof for this statement, or are you simply talking out of your ass?
Certainly. Rational choice theory was pioneered by libertarian economists, and is usually used to demonstrate that the voter does not have economic incentive to pursue valid or intelligent policies, which true or false cannot be construed except as an attack on democracy. Bryan Caplan and Milton Friedman both have written extensively on the problem of the rational voter.
I would contend that the motive is obvious: democracy must be criticized because despite the fact that the economic sphere of life is indisputably a public matter, and that stakeholders extend broadly beyond the economic actors in a strict capitalist regime (externalities), right-"libertarians" contend that most means by which democracy may intrude into economic life should not be permitted. One must show that, however fair it is for public decision making in the political realm, it is not suitable for decision-making in the economic realm. By this means, public economic decision making can be criticized in principle as undesirable or unwise. And therefore, I strongly question the
de facto commitment of right-"libertarians" to most basic features of classical liberal thought and democracy in particular both philosophically and in their practical preferences along the political-influence/activism possibilities frontier, if you will.
Lib117 wrote:Again, you are putting words into the mouths of the libertarians that they themselves never uttered. Libertarianism has always been strictly anti corporate cronyism and anti-state intervention. In fact, one of the reason why we are for less government, is because we know that the state is the greatest avenue for expanding corporate control.
Are you an anarcho-capitalist? And if not, can you give any examples where right-"libertarians" have supported in significant part, significant change for civil liberties, social freedom, or restraining the abuse of corporate power. It was those dirty blacks and reds that rallied workers for the victories of labor rights and decent working conditions in the progressive era and lead-up to the New Deal. It was socialists, anarchists (real ones, not the counterfeit ones branded by Rothbard as an attempt to draw recruiting out of the New Left), and communists which rallied African-Americans in the Civil Rights Movement, and of course the LBGT movement and most of the resistance to extraordinary civil liberties abuse, excessive imprisonment and penal policies, and most of the anti-prohibition movement (even today, though I will admit there is some support from less ideological right-"libertarians", of the social-civil-libertarian vice the Cato Institute market-fetishist brand). The Left has consistently be the font of progressive forces, though there are exceptions (and don't even start by smearing me with bullshit about Leninists, of which I am not and I think they're quite totalitarian in their politics and culture).
Your ancestors, the (so-called) classical liberals* (what Milton Friedman identified directly with his libertarianism, so I feel the connection is fair), spent their energies trying to preserve the barbarism of the Gilded Age and defend the bosses and plutocrats in their brutal strikebreaking and anti-labor harassment.
*A lot of people acknowledge this intellectual academic history convention, but I don't see why its orthodoxy. Many of the original classical liberal theoreticians (such as Wilhelm von Humboldt, in
The Limits of State Action, an essential classic libertarian work) emphasized the authoritarianism and oppression of the State in forcing people to do things not for their own ends and purposes, but for its Own, under coercion. The same reasoning could suggest the vast inequalities and conglomerations of private economic power today, and labor relations with them.
Lib117 wrote:Illuminatus Primus wrote:They really want a powerful state that does nothing but play the role of the cop paid off by the strikebreaker.
How exactly does federal control solve this problem exactly? The solution is reform of state an local government, that's the only way these problems are resolved.
In the long-term, I actually much agree: I am a left-libertarian (along the anarchist tradition), and therefore I am sympathetic to empowering freely associated municipalities. However, in the short term, anyone with a practical knowledge and clear vision for politics and contemporary society can see that the federal government (though I do not believe personally that it can fundamentally and generally work to limit the excesses of corporate capitalism and corruption) is the only large enough collective actor to counterpoise against enormous corporate power to check its influence and power. The aims of state rights in the health care debate was clear: the companies could browbeat and play state-against-state in pursuit of concessions and welfare and defeating regulatory ambitions.
I think a serious libertarian cares about the functional freedoms, liberties, and the capacities to express on the part of the great mass of the population. Therefore I think it is childish and functionally very anti-humanist to in pursuit of personal commitment to principle to struggle to dismantle the relatively meager egalitarian and democratic protections and functions that the State does carry out, often wrested from its tradition of pure authoritarianism and servitude to ruling minorities at the expense of great popular struggle.
Lib117 wrote:Illuminatus Primus wrote:They really want a powerful state that does nothing but play the role of the cop paid off by the strikebreaker.
When exactly did the Pauls say this?
When have the Pauls in general done much about the things you say libertarians are really concerned about? What about the fact Rand's first major media political statements have been sympathy for BP and rightfully condemned tenured remarks of principle over people in opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Ron supports great restraints on functional freedom by opposing significant instances of incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment as I explained above (his guarded weasel-worded pro-life stance). Since this is the basis of most civil and social libertarian constitutional jurisprudence, this would be an enormous assault in precedent against the extensions of the functional liberty which we enjoy today.
Lib117 wrote:Illuminatus Primus wrote:oppression and authoritarianism, and thereby, simply increase the net interference of the State
Again your jumping from strawman to strawman. The Paul's advocate reform of state government to maximize liberty, not authoritarianism.
And you explain Jim Crow how? Hm? You clip away my explanation to make the casual reader not see your sophistry, and hope he'll be distracted by by buzzwords over substance. Again, you're not going to return abortion rights to the state governments without dramatic net reductions in reproductive liberty and women's rights, and without assaulting incorporation, which is the only means of fundamentally and meaningfully restraining the vast and anti-libertarian reserves of power to state governments (without incorporation, the states could compel ideological litmus tests for citizenship rights, education, welfare access, jobs, etc.; they could enforce religious sponsorship and piety; they could require proofs of loyalty; they could violate customary and instinctive civil liberties such as the right to not incriminate yourself, to not be tried twice for the same crime, to have your home bugged or searched without warrant).
Lib117 wrote:Illuminatus Primus wrote:At the end of the day the Pauls would have the average Americans functional liberty and freedom severely under threat by BOTH unrestrained corporations and plutocrats and the State.
Here we have again one of the largest fallacies on the planet: looking at the world as industrialist's versus government.
I describe the real historical record of "actually existing capitalism" and of right-"libertarian" intellectuals and organizations functional support and role in reducing the functions of the State which limit industrial excess and inequality and strengthen parts which promote it.
Lib117 wrote:The fact is, many of these "excesses" of evil industrialists would not occur to the same extent that they do without the support of big government. The fact is, the state is the biggest friend of the corporate industrialist, and without that protection, many of these corporate bodies would fail. The fact is, corporations are one of the biggest impedements to the implementation of laisse-faire capitalism, because they want they nanny state, they want high tarrifs and they want the government hand outs.
Do you have a shred of evidence such a society historically functioned, and did so well? That it would be better than existing society? That capital accumulation and industrialization and economic modernization broadly can function without State support, given that it universally, in historical, "actually existing capitalism", required it? Thus far, history seems to show that capitalism needs the State, and the State likes capitalism (recall of course that if socialism is understood to mean workers' control over production, socialism has never existed as a general system under a settled state society -- that may be a slight against
its realism and practical meaning, which is a fair criticism, though I would say at least it has idealistic moral support that capitalism lacks, even in ideal theory).
Lib117 wrote:And you know what, the best way to get at the industrialists that abuse the system, is to simply cut off their funding, which means dramatic reductions in government spending. Something which the Pauls support by the way.
You mean by destroying all the meaningful organs of federal government which can really levy regulations against the largest corporations (that states are impotent to do), by preventing the free flow of labor, and by apologizing for BP?
Lib117 wrote:Illuminatus Primus wrote:But, rich people would find it easier to protect their investments and income from taxation, so I suppose the world would be a better and more liberty-full place.
No, actually it would be easier for the small business owner that wants to get into the market place, but can't because the government is subsidizing his competitor.
Because there's obviously no reason that small businessmen fundamentally cannot compete with industries which benefit from large economies of scale, except subsidy, right? At least left-libertarians have a cooperative federation model to attempt to deal with this problem, I haven't even seen the suggestion of how the "anarcho"-capitalist manages this. I will remind you ahead of time that the tu quoque is a fallacy, and even if my politics I've alluded to have limitations, that doesn't bear on the core debated issues, which is the content and nature of right-"libertarianism".
Lib117 wrote:Lastly, I don't support Rand Paul's statement about BP, I agree with Crossroads INC. this is the perfect example of societies outrage changing the market for the better.
Your politics denies the wisdom or even right of the public and democratic institutions to effect the policies to intervene in these affairs which they can develop and construct from atomized, fractious, and amorphous public opinion.
