Here’s An Open Letter to Barack Obama that urges him to support a basic progressive agenda — sign it if you’re sympathetic with its goals.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Here’s An Open Letter to Barack Obama that urges him to support a basic progressive agenda — sign it if you’re sympathetic with its goals.
Are they gonna spam me? Also, why no mention of gay marriage?
Also, why no mention of gay marriage?
How about any mention of gay people at all?
Big City and MAJeff- I had that same reaction when I read that in my dead-tree copy of The Nation. A weird omission that I’d never have expected from them; I guess I can put it down to a brain fart, but it’s disturbing.
Still worth signing though. Thanks to PZ for alerting us to it- I don’t hang around on their website much even though I’m a subscriber so I didn’t know about the internet-petition version.
There is also nothing on the “Office of Faith Based Initiatives” which he supported expanding.
Obama sucks, just like Mccain – can’t you see that?
*Mcain
A weird omission that I’d never have expected from them; I guess I can put it down to a brain fart, but it’s disturbing.
Not really surprising at all, to be honest.
It took a very long time for The Nation–hell, anyone on the left–to take gay people and gay rights seriously. Our rights aren’t “real issues,” but diversions from the serious work. (Heck, the left isn’t that different from the Democratic Party in that regard.)
Even beyond marriage, what about non-discrimination law?
While I agree with the sentiments expressed in the letter, I doubt that such efforts have much impact. Will it actually cause Sen. Obama to slow down his strategic move toward the supposed “center”? I doubt it. He has me where he wants me, solidly in his camp, and I can’t imagine any realistic scenario where his pre-election maneuvering makes me desert the cause. Only if he pledged to appoint Supreme Court justices in the mold of Scalia. I’d do just about anything to save the Supreme Court from more right-wing bastards like that! These are desperate times and my eye is on the prize. [Link]
Well, I’m sure you’d be more aware of such things than I, so I stand corrected. Very sad, because it’s hard for me to conceive of an issue that’s closer to the core of what progressivism (or, hell, just common decency) should be about than full equality for people who are not white heterosexual males.
I smiled when I saw that the first signature was from former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson.
Well, I’m also realistic enough to expect little impact, but we have to at least try to make our voices heard or else there’s no hope at all.
I am horrified by the amount of time it has taken, and the amount of maneuvering that politicians do on Gay Rights. Although the Libertarian philosophy there of saying no government marriages period has an appeal to me. I should say that I am happy to be in one of the few states with civil-union (which is another thing I could rant at is the naming conventions).
btw, despite no mention of gay rights, this letter is a very good sign – progressives every where should know, that Obama must be pushed, and pushed hard, or the majority of the damage done by the Bush regime will not be fixed, and we’ll be wasting hundreds of billions of dollars and millions of lives in Iraq for years to come.
With them on the first one, but they go off into the weeds on the second item. “Please, more looting!”
-jcr
Fuck you and the gilded-age robber-baron horse you rode in on, John. And I mean that in the nicest possible way. ;)
Libertarian philosophy there of saying no government marriages period has an appeal to me.
Here’s the thing that always struck me as rather bizarre about the gay marriage issue. As a member of a readily-targetable minority, why in the world would you demand to get on a government list?
I can just imagine Jews in the Weimar republic shaking their heads in disbelief.
-jcr
Obama does have a universal health care plan.
No signature.
If the Dems capture the WH and congress it will be interesting to see if the gap between what they say they are going to do and what they actually do begins to narrow.
I am not holding my breath. Since 2001 I have become (amazingly to myself) even more cynical about our political system. Since 2006 the needle has moved into the red zone.
In addition to what others have mentioned, there’s the FISA abuses and the telecom immunity which Obama VOTED FOR!
This is the problem I run into with being a libertarian. I am gung-ho with about 75% of that letter, but when it starts talking about universal healthcare and socialist redistribution of weath, I’m outtie.
And no mention of gay, bi and transgendered rights? WTF?
He has a weak, unworkable pretence of one that, once it’s worked over by the lobbyists, will simply become merely another sluice to channel taxpayer dollars to the insurance parasites.
Steve,
The robber barons you despise made a large part of their money by manipulating the government. I don’t think the government should have the power to reward some at others’ expense. You and JP Morgan both disagree with me.
Incidentally, one railroad entrepreneur proved that it was indeed possible to build a major railway network without government handouts or land-grabs. Look up the history of the Great Northern sometime.
-jcr
Umm…the thousands upon thousands of huge societal benefits that come with being married, and are being denied to huge numbers of couples because of some asshole’s sense of squick?
Fuck you.
Here’s the thing that always struck me as rather bizarre about the gay marriage issue. As a member of a readily-targetable minority, why in the world would you demand to get on a government list?
Sounds kind of like the asshole MA Justice who dissented in the marriage case by saying, “well, they wanted the state to stop fucking ’em over by making their sex illegal, so why on earth would they want the state to enforce their ability to make medical decisions for each other?”
They didn’t manipulate the government. They effectively WERE the government. As their successors are under Bush. What’s needed is precisely a government that can stand up to them because it isn’t owned by them. As both Roosevelts could explain to you.
Libertarian history is as laughable as libertarian economics.
stogoe,
Same to you, I’m sure. I have no issue with anyone’s orientation, what I question is the wisdom of demanding that government keep a list of people who are likely to be the victims of some future collective action. You can ask the Japanese Americans in my own state how well that worked out.
The “societal benefits” of which you speak are mostly consequences of a brain-dead tax system, which should itself be abolished.
-jcr
Oh, Crom, the
Know-NothingLibertarian party has shown up. Please, go away. I’d honestly rather have Pete Rooke show up again than the Libertarians – at least he’s mildly entertaining while being completely and utterly wrong.More of the same-old “I got mine, fuck the poor” garbage from jcr. Le sigh.
They didn’t manipulate the government. They effectively WERE the government.
Sounds like you’re in violent agreement with me.
What’s needed is precisely a government that can stand up to them because it isn’t owned by them.
Nope. Concentrate power, and Bad Things Happen. Rich people have always been far better at controlling governments than you are, and if you’re gullible enough to believe that can be changed, then L. Ron Hubbard has a bridge to sell you.
We have a constitution that was written precisely to try to avoid that kind of concentration of power. It worked pretty well for a fairly long time, and we should get back to it.
-jcr
I, like several others here, am firmly in support of the civil libertarian issues mentioned in the petition (and would also add support for same-sex marriage). But where I jump ship, and why I am still undecided about voting for Obama, is the appalling lack of knowledge about economics exhibited by the petition writers and the candidate himself.
Unfortunately, John McCain exhibits no grasp of economics, either, which means–whomever wins–the number of presidents with real economic knowledge in our country’s history is…0? (Perhaps 1, if we give George H.W. Bush some credit.)
Well Stogoe, that’s about the level of discourse I’ve come to expect from people whose only exposure to economics came from American public schools. If you care to argue the points I’ve made, have at it. if you just want to toss off insults, then fuck you too.
More of the same-old “I got mine, fuck the poor” garbage from jcr.
The poor need capitalism and free markets more than anyone else. Google for “Grameen bank”, read and learn.
-jcr
Unfortunately, John McCain exhibits no grasp of economics, either
Oh, you noticed that, did you? ;-)
McCain got rich by marrying a wealthy heiress. Like John Kerry, he has no idea at all of what it took to create the wealth he enjoys.
I think the Republicans actually picked McCain to be a fall guy. They knew that whoever ran after GWB was going to get squashed like a bug, so they didn’t want it to be anyone they cared about.
-jcr
Only a libertarian is stupid enough to think the solution to corporate manipulation of government for rent-seeking purposes is to abolish the government and let them screw us over without the fig leaf, rather than to make the government more genuinely democratic. Or that great concentrations of power somehow become innocuous when labeled “private” rather than “public”.
Any way, we’re talking amongst us progressives here, sorry you’re not intellectually up to joining in the conversation.
Wow, the Libertarians are out in full force tonight. How can they find the website with their heads so far up their asses?
I’m kidding, sort of…
#20
Really? Holding onto reactionary economic ideals means you run into problems when it comes to a platform laid out in a progressive petition? Maybe you should catch up.
Still, I prefer a Libertarian to a Republican any day of the week. Not sure how I should feel about Ron Paul, in that case.
I like roads, libraries, and public education. Hence, taxes.
[/win]
John C.,
You’re not alone! But my experience is that it’s fairly useless to argue these points with people who haven’t studied economics. It’s funny that most people who comment here would mock those who haven’t studied biology yet feel competent to critique evolution (a mocking well deserved), yet don’t apply the lessons and see the need to study economics before critiquing it.
“Studied economics” in these contexts always turns out to mean, “can spout a few half-understood bromides from my Ec 101 course taught by a Republican economist”.
Steve,
You are a dreamer. Don’t ever change. (Not that you have the capacity, but still…)
-jcr
“Studied economics” in these contexts always turns out to mean, “can spout a few half-understood bromides from my Ec 101 course taught by a Republican economist”.
What’s your next guess?
I read Human Action, I read The Wealth of Nations, and I highly recommend that you read Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.
-jcr
As a non-American I don’t really understand US politics that well ( but I’m learning) so I wonder if someone can tell me what the arguments that people have for not having universal healthcare are? I would have thought that could only be a good thing. I’m speculating that costs may be one argument against it but are there other reasonings that some people/parties are against it?
Thanks for confirming that my description fits you to a T.
spgreenlaw, a Libertarian is barely more than a Republican who likes to smoke dope.
To put it another way, libertarians are among the most right-wing authoritarian people in existence. Only their flimsy cover of opposing vice laws makes them stand out slightly from their fascist neo-con brethren.
“Studied economics” in these contexts always turns out to mean, “can spout a few half-understood bromides from my Ec 101 course taught by a Republican economist”.
Jumpin’ Jesus on a pogo-stick! You sure do go to great lengths to justify your ignorance.
Sorry, Steve, but I’ve been making political economy my academic specialty for over a decade now. And since I’m not a Republican, you may be a little more than partly off-base.
And what have you shown so far here except a few bromides, anyway?
The opposition seems to be as follows:
1) It’s the GUBMINT!!!!!11!!!eleventy!!!one!!
2) It’ll take a whole lot of money out of the profits of insurance “providers” and put it towards treatment of patients.
3) RATIONING OH NOES! or TWO TIERED SYSTEM OH NOES!!! (Which just ignores the reality that we’re already rationing health care in this country, and the reality that we already have a two-tiered system in this country.)
spgreenlaw,
There was a time when I though that a government monopoly on health care was a good idea. Then, I read The Cancer Ward. In the years since then, I’ve also become aware of the tragedy of socialized medicine in countries like England and Canada, where you can die on a waiting list for treatments that can be obtained immediately in the USA or India.
We do not have a free market for health care today. We have a massively over-regulated system that was bought and paid for by HMOS and insurance companies through campaign contributions to legislators, both at the federal and state levels. Your representatives didn’t write those laws and regulations: insurance company lawyers did.
Follow the money: look up who’s giving the contributions to the proponents of socialized medicine like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. A legal requirement to buy health insurance is their biggest wet dream of all: a whole country of people who can’t even choose not to buy their services.
-jcr
It doesn’t mention getting rid of the Office of Faith-Based Money Funneling, supports letting all 20 million illegals stay here and says nothing about restoring the Bill of Rights. Can’t sign it.
No, ignorance is a good description of impudent claims that “economics” supports Libertarian nostrums.
You at least should know enough to know perfectly well that there are respected academic economists who would vigorously disagree with you about the supposed economic illiteracy on display in that open letter. So in your case we are dealing not with ignorance but with intellectual dishonesty.
jcr, do you have a few copies of the World’s Smallest Political TestTM I could borrow? I need some good libertarian propaganda to wipe my ass with, as I’m a mite low on toilet paper.
I mean, look at that list. You might as well have rattled off Ayn Rand screeds for all the good it would have done. Sheesh.
Power tends to be self-organizing. With the power in the hands of a democratic government, at least the people have some control of the power.
Oh, you have a two-party system? Guess you’re screwed. :P
“Obama sucks, just like Mccain – can’t you see that?”
I disagree. He sucks somewhat differently than McCain.
I’ve been making political economy my academic specialty for over a decade now.
Interesting blog you’ve got there, James. Your entry on the hyperinflation in ZImbabwe kind of jumps out.
I remember when Bush floated the “economic stimulus” circle-jerk a few months back, one congressional candidate whom I support pointed out that if it were possible to stimulate an economy through inflation, then Zimbabwe would be the most prosperous country on earth.
-jcr
I’ve never met a Libertarian who would accept the end of trademark, patent and copyright law. I wonder why that is?
Fellow Aussie Bride of Shrek asked about the downside to universal health care – and I have to say I can’t see a downside to it. I’ve never had health problems (and, fingers crossed, never will) but that doesn’t mean I don’t want it there for the people who do.
By the sound of it this would make me an ardent socialist in the US. But if feeling that it’s the duty of a government to keep its people healthy equates to socialism then feel free to call me comrade.
Would one or more of the economic ‘gurus’ here care to explain the benefits of dispensing with it?
I need some good libertarian propaganda to wipe my ass with
Gosh, with masterful rhetoric like that, you must be the star of your local Che fan club meetings. Do the undergrads swoon over you?
-jcr
You ever get seriously sick without health insurance or government socialized healthcare? Good luck coming back from that bankruptcy, you self-made independent type who never took a dime from the gubmint*.
*Note: This is a lie. Yes, even for you, jcr.
Liberturds like to trot out examples of universal healthcare in other countries as failures, even when it’s clear that they’re a thousand times better, even with their flaws, compared to what we have currently in America.
Liberturds
Oh, no! He’s coining neologisms! How can I possibly counter such brilliance?
Oh, I remember: grow up, kid.
it’s clear that they’re a thousand times better
wishing doesn’t make it so, sunshine.
-jcr
Steve,
You’ve still said nothing of substance. I know you can find some economists who would agree with most of the letter. I also know that they’re a distinct minority. E.g., “fair trade policies;” Even the quite-liberal Paul Krugman is a free trader. But I also noted that you apparently couldn’t name any of these economists!
And as for your obvious hatred of libertarianism, the indisputable fact is that the great majority of economists have libertarian leanings–not that all of them classify themselves as libertarians, but the Republican economists are more libertarian than the bulk of Republicans (tend to be pro-legalization, anti-corporate subsidies), and the Democratic economists are more libertarian than are most Democrats (tend to be pro-free trade, dubious of many business regulations).
Economists are not all out to destroy government, but as a group they are less enamored of it’s problem-solving potential than, if I may guess so, you are.
But let me reiterate–you’ve said nothing of substance. You really do sound like a creationist attacking evolutionary theory.
libertarians are among the most right-wing authoritarian people in existence.
Now, that’s what’s known in debate as the “bald-faced lie” technique. I defy you to show me a libertarian who demands power over other people, as your side considers its birthright.
-jcr
jcr, in my experience with fanatics, for example creationists and libertarians and wingnut bloggers, there comes a time when you should admit to yourself that no evidence will ever sway them from their delusion. It is at that point where out and out mockery takes over.
You are a fool, and you are a proponent of foolish and destructive policies. Your mother was a primate, and your father huffed glue.
Now go away, or I shall mock you yet again.
I can’t imagine how this crowd could be “FOR” Obama. The guy either adopted Christianity as a young adult because he is not very bright, or because he is a schrewd and pre-planning politician of the most ambitious and unscrupulous nature.
Given that he appears to be quite bright (though calculating), it is very plain that his career trajectory, from his “public service” work in Chigago to his lip service on his newfound “faith” (because we all know you can’t get elected if you are a sane and rational person) is a calculated, politically motivated arc that no sane and rational person would fall for.
All that put aside, I am dumbfounded by the demands requested on him by self-proclaimed “progressives”, especially this–
A response to the current economic crisis that reduces the gap between the rich and the rest of us through a more progressive financial and welfare system; public investment to create jobs and repair the country’s collapsing infrastructure; fair trade policies; restoration of the freedom to organize unions; and meaningful government enforcement of labor laws and regulation of industry.
WE ARE NOW THE LARGEST DEBTOR NATION IN THE WORLD. That means that our government OWES the rest of the world more money than we can pay back without massively deflating the dollar by printing large wads of it, causing all of those nice grandma’s on fixed incomes to be instantly poor.
10 TRILLION dollars in debt and the only thing a progressive wants is to take money from rich people and dole it out to poor people. Folks, our economy is about to make everybody poor and the cause is government spending and taxes. Why isn’t anybody DEMANDING that we bring all our troops home from all 130 nations? Why isn’t anybody demanding that we close down ALL ineffective or redundant government agencies? Why isn’t anybody demanding that the government go back to doing only that which is necessary, and stop asking that the government rob the successful to appease the unproductive?
Hasn’t GW Bush demonstrated just what a waste of capital the federal government is? Haven’t we seen enough of the effects of giving the US government TOO MUCH money and power?
Does anybody here read the Constitution anymore?
Have we all but lost our minds?
the indisputable fact is that the great majority of economists have libertarian leanings
I wish.
There’s still a lot of residual Keynsian attitudes floating around in that field. Way too many economic advisors to politicians still believe that a government can run an economy.
-jcr
I can’t imagine how this crowd could be “FOR” Obama.
Well, there’s the long-standing habit of backing the lesser of some set of evils which the American public has become accustomed to.
I would take Obama over McCain for one reason only, and that is that he is less likely to expand the war into Iran. I would hope that he’ll end up deadlocked with the congress as Clinton was on economic matters, which allows the market to adapt and cope.
-jcr
Which is quite sufficient to establish that claims of “economic illiteracy” are merely impudent.
I would be more impressed by such demographic arguments in a natural science than in an ideologically laden profession with suspect intellectual foundations such as economics. In such fields one cannot be nearly so confident that the majority view is really imposed on practitioners by the weight of the evidence rather than by ideological fashion and the tendency of departments to hire the like-minded.
@ #42
Ah, but at least I have somebody to trade Cheech and Chong tapes with! But in all seriousness, a good number of the Libertarians I’ve met are committed to a freer, better society. They go about it all wrong, but I suppose their good intentions count for something.
That’s not to say that there aren’t a large number of them who are “right-wing authoritarian[s]” to borrow your words. Most probably are, and are only concerned with holding onto what they’ve already got, at all costs, and kicking anyone else below them off the already perilous ladder of capitalism.
Suffice it to say that I find them more interesting than the Neocons.
Liberturds….lol…at least he didn’t say liberTARDS…I hate the whole TARD thing.
What’s up with libertarians? If evolutionary psychologists say altruism evolved then HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN LIBERTARIANS???
I’m watching the second season of Bullshit right now. Penn and Teller and Bullshit libertarians…
James Hanley, #57, wrote:
Er, not to point out the obvious, but wouldn’t that be because they’re educated and have good jobs? It’s hardly a shock that people who aren’t as dependant on the government are keen to minimise how much money the government gets.
They (we) mostly aren’t. We regard him as simply the lesser of two evils, in the usual Hobson’s choice presented by our rigged political system. I will vote for him because the alternative is unthinkable but, after he FISA sellout, will not send a dime to his campaign.
there comes a time when you should admit to yourself that no evidence will ever sway them from their delusion.
You describe yourself perfectly. How sad that you have no interest in learning.
-jcr
Stogoe,
Which policies are foolish and destructive? You don’t mention any, so I’m curious which ones have your ire?
And I’m not sure why you say evidence won’t sway John from his delusions, since you’ve not presented any evidence.
Seriously, you and Steve have not presented any substantive argument, nor any real shred of evidence–neither of you has done anything more than fling moronic insults, and then claim you’ve made an argument.
Anyway, I’m bored. I’m going to answer one other person’s reasonable question, then head home.
kicking anyone else below them off the already perilous ladder of capitalism.
What a bizarre conjecture. I can only assume that it derives from your left-wing back biting power game culture, where all advancement comes from knocking someone else down.
Anyone seeking to increase his own wealth benefits from a more prosperous market to sell to. The Marxist fantasy of people getting rich by exploiting the poor is absurd on its face: the poor have little wealth to trade.
As a producer of goods or services, I want as many people as possible to be able to afford whatever I’m selling. This was Henry Ford’s great insight.
-jcr
On the contrary, I presented an argument- one whose correctness you had to grudgingly admit- which devastated the closest thing to an argument that you have presented (see #63). Nice job of projection, though. Now go away and preen yourself on your imagined intellectual superiority.
Here’s a real brain tosser–
WHAT IF, you became a federal Libertarian, a State centrist, and a County “progressive”??
You utilize taxes locally for your roads and hospitals and health care, and you stopped feeding into the singular CAUSE of corporate influence peddling and big businesses in-bed-ness?
You fix the broken system by getting a handle on it yourself.
You remove the temptation to “fix the world” with a blunt-force military.
You put a face on where your local charity taxes go.
You actually KNOW the people who you put in government because you went to school with them…
The mind boggles when it is so simple.
…can we add:
“make Libertarians face up to reality”
as part of that list of progressive demands?
nobody wants you here, John.
take a hike.
My fellow godless hedonists,
Obama is totally on our side. He’s just hiding some of his feelings to get elected. We cannot take a stand on principle, we cannot afford to. Obama is blurring his position to win over independents that he sure as hell is going to shake off when he gets elected. It is wrong to compormise with conservatives. The ideological base of the republican party is conservative fundamentalist evangelical christians. Let Obama perform his little politican dance. I assure you he will deliver.
I better as hell see all of you godless liberals at the voting booth!! We cannot afford another bush term. Obama got my vote when he said he would support indictments and investigation of the bush administration. McCain has it in his interest and the interest of his party to cover-up and pardon the crimes and oversteps of the Bush administration and to further american theocracy.
Go watch one of John Hagee’s sermons or Rev.Ricky.
Liberals have this hackysacky whole foods obsession that is kinda annoying but at least its not evil.
nobody wants you here, John.
I’ll bet you were quite the playground potentate in your day. Sorry to disappoint you, but you’ll just have to cope with the fact that others have no duty to obey your whims.
take a hike.
Your request is denied. If PZ asked me to quit posting here, I’d do so. Any self-appointed blog monitors like yourself can get bent.
-jcr
“You describe yourself perfectly. How sad that you have no interest in learning.”
10/10 for irony.
I’ll bet you were quite the playground potentate in your day.
…and you must have always been the annoying little pissant who just couldn’t shut the fuck up, and so became the butt of all jokes and dodgeball targeting.
Go watch one of John Hagee’s sermons or Rev.Ricky.
And immediately afterwards, watch Sam Kinnison. The similarity is striking.
-jcr
@ #70
John, I think the families (both parents and children) who worked in this country for a few cents a day during the Industrial Revolution would have a problem with what you’re saying. And I think the families who do the same now, only in foreign countries (where they have no legal protection against their employers like minimum wage, and where union organizers are frequently shot so as to suppress any sort labor movement), could personally attest to how ridiculous that is. You don’t need a large, prosperous market to sell to. You just need a small, rich one.
OK, I’m going to answer three question. All of them reasonable, even if not generously phrased.
1. Craig said: “I’ve never met a Libertarian who would accept the end of trademark, patent and copyright law. I wonder why that is?”
Libertarians tend to rank property rights at the very top of their pantheon of holies. To the extent they are willing to accept government (and contary to what some folks seem to think here, there is variety among libertarians, not all of whom want to destroy the gubmint), they are willing to accept it for its role as protector of property rights. These intellectual property rights are, of course, troublesome because they can’t be defended with a gun as easily as physical property can, so libertarians tend to see government as a necessary evil in this case. For those familiar with English political philosophers, libertarians tend to have a very Lockean view of property–“I invested my labor in it, so it’s my mine.”
2. Doubting Foo asked: “If evolutionary psychologists say altruism evolved then HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN LIBERTARIANS??? ”
Well, given the caricatures of libertarians that float around, as well as the number of vocal libertarians who are living embodiments of the caricature, this question isn’t surprising.
But libertarianism is not inherently about selfish and egoistic individualism. I freely admit there are any number of libertarians who take it that way–for example the Ayn Rand acolytes–but it’s not a necessary interpretation. Libertarianism in its essence is just a opposition to coercion. From that perspective, there’s nothing at all wrong with altruism–libertarians just don’t want coerced altruism. Rand, I’d say, fundamentally misunderstood human nature. But it’s entirely consistent with libertarianism to support the idea of individuals willingly coming together for mutual support. I am inclined to think that our evolved nature actually inclines us toward a form of authoritarian communitarianism, but of course we have to beware the naturalistic fallacy. Just because that is what we’re inclined toward (if I’m right), doesn’t mean we ought to go that direction.
3. Finally, Wowbagger, in response to my claim that most economists have libertarian tendencies, asked: “wouldn’t that be because they’re educated and have good jobs? ”
Actually, no. PZ Myers is certainly as well educated as I am, and I would argue has a better job (I’m quite sure he gets paid more, dammit!). In fact most academics are both well-educated and have good jobs, but as a group are more likely to be liberal than libertarian, so clearly there’s another factor at play.
That factor is, I believe, a more sophisticated understanding of how well markets work when left mostly unhindered (mostly, not completely–economists nearly all believe in the necessity of government to enforce contracts, punish thieves, etc.). It’s less an ideological thing–despite what certain persons who lack education in the field feel free to say here–than the equivalent of biologists being more likely to believe in evolution than creationism. In fact those who actually study markets carefully recognize there are deep similarities–that the market is an evolutionary process (although to use the term “natural” selection would lead to endless quibbling about terminology).
One thing the critics of economists here fail to recognize is that economics derived from moral philosophy, and has always been seen by its students as having an important moral purpose–the material well-being of society. That is, economics is really the study of how we can maximize the material wealth of society. Distributing that wealth is another matter, of course, and is something we could debate endlessly. But the key for economics is to make society wealthy enough that we can actually have real wealth to redistribute, should we choose to do so. And policies that too severely hinder the wealth production of a society will ultimately undermine the ability to do any of that redistribution.
So there’s my “half-baked bromides.” Cheers, I’m off to bed, and will let the purveyors of insults have the field.
fucking libertarian trolls.
why come here to spew your idiocy, unless you simply intend to drag stinky bait?
aren’t there enough Ron Paul fan blogs for you?
We’re going to be screwed economically for anyone who isn’t uber rich for the next 6-10 years anyway, no matter who is in office, so that leaves social policies and Iraq as the major points for choosing between McCain and Obama. I have a nearly violent hatred for NeoCons of the current administration. McCain isn’t a NeoCon but I’m not comfortable with him in any capacity.
As for any presidential candidate lining up under the banner of belief, not to do so is political suicide in this country. Unfortunately in campaigning, the end justifies the means.
If PZ asked me to quit posting here, I’d do so.
you must have forgotten how much PZ hates libertarians.
memory isn’t the libertarian strong suit, though.
worked in this country for a few cents a day
Nobody disputes that their working conditions were terrible, by modern standards. I will point out though, that the people who streamed into the sweatshops in the USA during the 19th century did so because it was better than subsistence farming. That’s precisely the same thing that draws people into factories overseas today (except in China, where they are often coerced into it by the government of their Socialist Workers’ Paradise).
You don’t need a large, prosperous market to sell to. You just need a small, rich one.
What I said is that it’s advantageous to have the biggest and most prosperous pool of customers possible, which it is. A small market of rich customers is far tougher to sell to.
-jcr
..and you must have always been the annoying little pissant who just couldn’t shut the fuck up, and so became the butt of all jokes and dodgeball targeting.
Longing for your lost days of glory as a playground bully, are you?
-jcr
Ichthyic,
I despise Ron Paul. I don’t consider myself a troll, as I often come here to see PZ’s latest updates on new findings in science, as well as his critique of creationists.
I guess I was under the impression that reasoned debate might be encouraged here. Your inability to rise above comments like “idiocy” and “stinky bait” suggests that you’d like to claim possession of pharyngula for people unable to engage in reasoned debate. Given PZ’s popularity, I am optimistic that you’ll be unsuccessful.
And now, I really am out of here, before I fall again to the temptation to respond these childish comments.
James Hanly, you fail to realize how strongly the reputations of both libertarians and economists are affected by the actions of dedicated cranks like Julian Simon and John Lott, and crank organizations like AEI.
Liberals are suspicious of economists and libertarians largely because the kookiest members of both groups have been by far the most successful at spreading their messages.
“And I think the families who do the same now, only in foreign countries (where they have no legal protection against their employers like minimum wage, and where union organizers are frequently shot so as to suppress any sort labor movement), could personally attest to how ridiculous that is. You don’t need a large, prosperous market to sell to. You just need a small, rich one”.
Ummm, no. The US is one of the biggest “markets” because even the poor in this country can afford a tv and Wii. Amazing that it was relatively free market capitalism that produced the wealth that Americans take for granted, yet so many are hell bent on not taking the lessons of East Germany to heart.
“fucking libertarian trolls.
why come here to spew your idiocy, unless you simply intend to drag stinky bait?”
And I thought a nice crowd of athiest liberal “progressives” would have better manners and a better argument for “more debt and a tanking dollar” than just “anything but McCain”.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
James Hanley has a PhD in Poli Sci. I don’t have the credentials, much less the knowledge, to debate him. I think he posted in good faith so I see little use in being openly hostile to him.
“You ever get seriously sick without health insurance or government socialized healthcare? Good luck coming back from that bankruptcy, you self-made independent type who never took a dime from the gubmint*”
If you do have health insurance, you also need a lawyer to fight the denials. I recently had surgery, the Insurance Co covers the surgeon but not the hospital where he operates. I just received the first and smallest bill from the hospital for $33,000..the insurance paid $1,700. You really don’t know what the insurance will pay until you run up big charges. Even with health insurance, most people are one serious illness away from bankruptcy.
Good thing labour is not wealth otherwise we might have seen dozens of societies throughout history adopt slavery.
I mean, slavery is absurd on its face; most slaves had NO wealth to trade.
I hate Obama. I hate McCain. But I hate the republican party more than any of them. So cheers for Obama.
“I despise Ron Paul”.
I can understand how you may disagree with all of his ideas and political principles, but I have a hard time imagining how anyone could “despise” an old time doctor turned politician who stayed true to his ideals in spite of all monetary temptation not to.
It shows you up to be rather mean spirited and unlikable as a human being.
One other item which may affect PZ’s opposition to libertarians: the germ theory of disease. A direct effect of this theory is that health is automatically a community issue; you and your children are endangered by the ill-health of every schoolchild and every airport tourist. If you have the freedom to choose whether your child gets vaccinated – you also have the freedom to endanger other people’s children. The germ theory of disease strongly encourages those who understand it to support universal health care. Many libertarians are opposed to universal health care.
I signed the letter although many items are baby steps and more aggressive action needs to be taken with immediacy. I belong to a progressive group called Democratic Structuralism which is trying to trying to reform government; we are not a political party. If you are interested in learning more please ready the following:
Democratic Structuralism
The argument i’ve heard against it is that when health care is privatized it becomes more efficient because they’re trying to make a profit.
I think it’s a false dichotomy. I think it can be universal and still reward efficiency.
@ #88
Scott,
I don’t recall saying the U.S. still had low standards of living. No, we passed legislation for a minimum wage, workplace standards, and education that allowed for the average American’s lot in life to improve. Since then we’ve merely shifted our industrial working core overseas to places like India, China, etc, (which have significantly lower standards of living and a much lower income per capita) that have largely failed to introduce these market controlling necessities.
America is a such a big market because so much of the world’s wealth is concentrated here. We’ve simply shipped our industrial factories overseas. Wal*Mart families can afford multiple pairs of shoes for each person because the truly poor laborers are making them. The ones making the shoes? Tough luck. Its the same old scenario, only on a global scale.
Ron Paul doesnt believe in evolution.
“I don’t recall saying the U.S. still had low standards of living. No, we passed legislation for a minimum wage, workplace standards, and education that allowed for the average American’s lot in life to improve. Since then we’ve merely shifted our industrial working core overseas to places like India, China, etc, (which have significantly lower standards of living and a much lower income per capita) that have largely failed to introduce these market controlling necessities.
America is a such a big market because so much of the world’s wealth is concentrated here.”
And so much wealth is located here because we were a market economy for most of last century, AND the biggest PRODUCER of quality goods in the world.
India, in case you don’t know, is highly controlled by its government. China, in case you haven’t noticed, has freed up its economy from its socialist days and has RAISED the standard of living of its citizens in so doing.
Americans, on the other hand, have become less productive and more likely to be mired in debt than flush with cash. Our economy is 70% consumer based, and the credit cards are chockerblock…
This winter will see the biggest level of credit default of my lifetime. Spring will come with banks and financial markets tumbling, housing prices plummeting, and food and fuel skyrocketing.
All those nice ladies and gentlemen who saved diligently for their retirement will lose their savings as inflation slits a hole in the bottom of their purse or wallet and the money just runs out…
Very progressive!
Steal from the old retired folks!
Try to get him elected. The time to remind him of what you expect has passed. He has to listen to the whole electorate now.
Oh, and by the way. Being an independent isn’t what lou Dobbs would like you to think it is. Yes, there is corruption in both parties, but the republicans not only are the biggest offenders but their entire political enterprise is based on corruption.
I.E. Tom Delay, ted stevens, jack abramoff, Mark Foley, Dick cheney, Rick Santorum, George Allen, Bill o’Relly, Michelle Malkin, Robert Novak, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Karl Rove, Charlie Christ, Jeb bush, H.W. Bush, Dan Quayle, Larry Craig, Ronald Reagan, Donald Rumsfeld, Oliver North, Tim Pawlenty…….. oh and George W. Bush,
You know they all have in common? Yep Republicans!
what challenges to democrats are there? Oh well Sandy Berger stuffed some papers in his pants and Rep Jefferson had some money in a freezer and Bill got a blowjob from a fat chick ten years ago and then lied about it(who hasen’t)
To even suggest that the two parties are even comparable in morality or purity in leadership is a BOLD FACED LIE.
Vote Obama on election day you idiots!! Seriously, this is no time to make a stand. Even if you don’t live in a swing state get our there and give Obama a mandate to change things. Vote straight democratic even if your state representive dies and has a funeral and there’s no time to change the ballot
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/07/senate.missouri/
Yeah that’s right, John Ashcroft an incumbent lost an electon to a politican that had ceased metabolic activity.
Better dead than red!
My apologies, James Hanely , for misspelling your name. And I was too harsh. At the least I should have said ‘fail to mention’ rather than ‘fail to realize’.
“The argument i’ve heard against it is that when health care is privatized it becomes more efficient because they’re trying to make a profit.
I think it’s a false dichotomy. I think it can be universal and still reward efficiency”.
Another argument is that the money incentive has produced much of what is thought of as “modern medicine”.
The machines that do imaging and monitoring and the drugs that do the drugging, pretty much come out of the marketplace.
So while Canada can enjoy a nice socialized medicinal system, they rely on the research and developement of the market down here in the US.
I think you mean ‘bald faced lie‘.
Another flame war about libertarianism.
I think that John C. Randolph’s capitalist Panglossianism is just plain wrong. Simply look at the history of slavery and serfdom and the like — it’s been around for centuries in some parts of the world. As some of the people here have pointed out, you don’t need a lot of middle-class people as a market; you need only a few upper-middle-class and rich people.
Henry Ford was, if anything, atypical; many business leaders never tire about whining about “labor costs”, and have done so at least since Adam Smith’s day.
Furthermore, it’s a case of the Tragedy of the Commons — forcing down wages is good for each individual business, even if it isn’t good for all of them as a whole.
And if you want a capitalist utopia, the closest approximation at this time is likely Somalia. Most nations do NOT have pure capitalist economies; instead, capitalism coexisting with governments. There has to be a reason why big businesses have not been pouring millions of dollars into the Libertarian Party.
@ #99
Honestly, I always tell myself not to get into late night discussions and I never learn, but here it goes.
Scott,
India and China have been mishandled by their governments. As I pointed out, they have done little to protect their citizens, even though they may be highly centralized. Their living standards were so low not because they were centralized, but because their governments simply did not give a crap. Clearly, the market does not look to kindly on the masses, because U.S. citizens only began to live comfortably once that market was severely limited.
We are losing more and more factories because we are now playing on a global scale, and many countries allow their laborers to be exploited by corporations. Seems the smart thing to do would be to introduce tariffs that penalize companies exploiting underpaid, overworked people abroad. That way, there is an impetus to keep a number of quality production jobs here, and that way, if foreign countries want to get a bit of the American market, they have to honor some standard of human dignity.
But no, we must have faith in the all holy, all seeing market. Gloria to the Invisible Hand!
Well, I’ve got to go pass out but, until next time, think about it, won’t you?
Hey look, people DOING something–
We’re pushing the idea that we ought to pursue a broad-based legislative attack on all aspects of the Bush-era assault on the Constitution. We have a perfect vehicle to use for this approach, Congressman Ron Paul’s “American Freedom Agenda Act.” This bill was created by a number of progressive and conservative organizations and introduced by Ron Paul. This bill would . . .
* Repeal the “Military Commissions Act of 2006” and thereby restore the ancient right of habeas corpus and end legally sanctioned torture by U.S. government agents
* Restore the “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act” (FISA) and thereby outlaw warrantless spying on American citizens by the President of the United States
* Give Congress standing in court to challenge the President’s use of “signing statements” as a means to avoid executing the nation’s laws
* Make it illegal for government agents to kidnap people and send them abroad to be tortured by foreign governments
* Provide legal protection to journalists who expose wrong-doing by the Federal government
* Prohibit the use of secret evidence to label groups or individuals as terrorists for the purpose of criminal or civil sanctions
‘more debt and a tanking dollar’ is a strawman.
US Govt debt and tanking dollar are mostly due to the idiotic and immoral war in Iraq, gross amounts of corporate welfare, and exploding oil prices. The best solution is to get out of Iraq as fast as possible, and shift away from oil as fast as possible – and Obama will do both of those, if pushed sufficiently hard. McCain will do neither. Unfortunately I see no sign that Obama might work reduce corporate welfare (on most fiscal issues, Obama’s senate votes have been right along classical conservative lines), so Govt debt likely won’t drop as much as it did during the Clinton years.
I don’t expect Obama to do a lot of campaigning in California, but he has endorsed a No vote on Proposition 8, the initiative measure that would overturn the same-sex marriage ruling of the state supreme court. McCain supports 8. It will ease my concerns to a significant degree if I hear the words “No on 8” out of the candidate’s own mouth when Obama comes through the Golden State. If he remains silent, his stock will fall significantly in my eyes (though he’ll still get my vote because there’s no non-insane alternative).
But McCain willletyakeepyurguns!
Like i said, false dichotomy. There can still be money incentives.
“US Govt debt and tanking dollar are mostly due to the idiotic and immoral war in Iraq, gross amounts of corporate welfare, and exploding oil prices…”
Ummm, no. The oil prices have “exploded” because the US dollar is worth half of what it was. Double the value of the dollar and oil suddenly halves. Funny how that works.
The dollar has lost its value because the federal government keeps spending far more than it has. To make up for it, more dollars are put into circulation, which causes the dollar to lose intrinsic value.
The war in Iraq is a horrible drain, but so are the military bases we keep in Europe and Asia. 130 bases in all. Does America need to keep Japan safe while Japan gives away medical care to its populace and we can’t afford to? What madness is this? Who benefits from this? Has Obama even mentioned this in a speech or talk?
What is “corporate welfare”? Farm subsidies? Payments in the form of “aid” to Pakistan and Israel and Egypt?
I only ask because the term is so nebulous.
Last thing before I depart for the night– Google “Strange bedfellows”. Get involved. Fix this mess we’re in.
Glenn Greenwald, Salon.com
Monday July 14, 2008 08:10 EDT
Accountability Now and Strange Bedfellows: The strategy and rationale
In the 2006 mid-term elections, Americans handed The Democratic Party a sweeping, staggering, and historic victory — as the GOP was removed from power and Democrats given control over both the House and Senate. It marked only the third time in the last 60 years that there was a change in control of the Congress. The Democrats defeated six GOP Senators, and picked up 31 House seats. Six Governorships switched from the GOP to the Democrats. Not one single Democratic incumbent in Congress and not one Democratic Governor lost — only the second time in U.S. history in which one of the major parties failed to defeat even a single Congressional incumbent from the other party.
Since that overwhelming Democratic victory, this is what the Democratic-led Congress has done:
Repeatedly funded — at the White House’s insistence — the Iraq War without conditions;
Defeated — at the White House’s insistence — Jim Webb’s bill to increase the intervals between deployments for U.S. troops;
Defeated — at the White House’s insistence — a bill to restore habeas corpus, which had been abolished by the Military Commissions Act, enacted before the 2006 election with substantial Democratic and virtually unanimous GOP support;
Enacted — at the White House’s insistence and with substantial Democratic and virtually unanimous Republican support– the so-called Protect America Act, vesting the President with extreme new warrantless eavesdropping powers;
Overwhelmingly approved the Senate’s Kyl-Lieberman Resolution, to declare parts of the Iranian Government a “terrorist organization,” an extremely belligerent resolution modeled after those which made “regime change” the official U.S. Government position towards Iraq;
Deleted from a pending bill — at the direction of the House Democratic leadership and at the insistence of the White House — a provision merely to require Congressional approval before the Bush administration can attack Iran;
Overwhelmingly enacted — at the White House’s insistence, and with substantial Democratic and virtually unanimous GOP support — the “FISA Amendments Act of 2008,” to vest the President with broad new warrantless eavesdropping powers and to immunize lawbreaking telecoms, all but putting an end to any chance for a real investigation and judicial adjudication of the Bush administration’s illegal NSA spying program;
Confirmed, with the indispensable support of two key Democratic Senators, Bush’s nominee for Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, despite his support for radical Bush theories of executive power and his refusal to oppose torture;
Stood by passively and impotently while Bush officials flagrantly ignored their Subpoenas and refused to comply with their investigations.
This wretched state of affairs was succinctly summarized by this single cartoon this weekend by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Mike Luckovich, examining, with depressing accuracy, how American history would have been different had Steny Hoyer, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Jay Rockefeller been running the Congress in 1974 rather than in 2008.
All of this highlights the central political dilemma in the U.S. The Bush-led Republican Party, marching in virtual lockstep, has been the author of the radicalism, extremism and lawlessness of the last seven years, presiding over an endlessly expanding Surveillance State and accompanying war-making machine, and the dismantling of numerous core Constitutional principles. While numerous individual elected Democrats have opposed many of these measures, the Democratic Party’s leadership, and the Party collectively, has done nothing to stop it and much to support and enable all of it.
As the 2006 election and these subsequent events conclusively demonstrate, mindlessly supporting and electing more Democrats for its own sake doesn’t solve or even mitigate anything. But it’s also true that actions which result in handing Republicans control over any branches of the Government — including supporting third-party candidates or abstaining from the process altogether — makes matters worse still. Nobody who finds the above-documented events objectionable can rationally embrace a course of action that directly or indirectly empowers those who are the prime forces behind these events: namely, the mainstream GOP in its current incarnation.
Wow, fierce debate there (albeit little content in both sides)
I just (temporarily) support whatever ideology suits me personally at any given moment. Screw the other people! XP
Yes, I’m -that- honest =D
So all hail socialism, for a market-based economy generally fails at supporting pure academic research — you know, science for the sake of knowledge itself. I’m possibly the biggest waste of metabolic processes for this society — I love research, observing and analysing, learning, thinking, art…who needs someone like that in the capitalist economy? Especially when one is too proud to sell their soul to corporations?
(ideologically, my ideal is closer to a sort of anarchy, but with a different memetic environment…)
I’m sorry I could not sign. I was all for it until I found the line about “grass roots” organizing. I do not smoke grass, and do not want to. You hippy freaks smoke all the wacky-backy you want, but I intend to support the decent man, Obama, with a sort of local, down to earth, working man, word of mouth campaign that focuses on his positive contributions with no need to resort to grass roots. Ya grass root smoking hippies!
What a stupid idea to be floating around a letter like this during a national campaign.
Don’t people know that if a democrat is to be elected as president, he needs to appear as centrist as possible. No democrat wins by appealing to what people in this country (rightly or wrongly) perceive as “progressive” or “liberal” policy. He or she wins by getting the votes of those in the center and those who are undecided. Call it unfair or sleazy, but it’s true.
So, why strong-arm Obama into accepting or refusing a list of demands endorsed by people that can easily be portrayed by the media and Republicans (again, rightly or wrongly) as “progressives”, “staunch liberals”, “leftists”, like Juan Cole, Phil Donahue, Katrina Vanden Heuvel, etc?
I’m not saying that there aren’t a lot of sound objectives in there that aren’t worthy of being implemented, but politically it is just really stupid to come out publicly with this and I’m sure Obama’s campaign is not going to appreciate it.
Like it or not, our political system is a game and a popularity contest. Whoever comes out less smeared in the end will win. The people who signed this letter are not going to vote for John McCain under any circumstances. There are those, though, that could go either way. They’re gonna put Obama in a no-win situation. If he accepts, refutes, or just ignores, he will be attacked either way. Why put Obama in a position like this if your goal is to make sure he gets elected this year?
A lot of what’s addressed in that letter has already been supported by Obama anyway. Again: ideologically – mostly good, politically – naive and dumb.
I try not to engage Libertarians or Rayndians beyond rolling my eyes, but sometimes they drop these little bombs of such density that I can’t ignore them. Getting rich by exploiting the poor is not limited to taking the money directly from the wallets of the poor, but even if that were the only element the fact remains that there are a hell of a lot of poor to exploit. The 1% at the top of the pyramid are milking nickels and dimes from tens of thousands. That adds up. Take a look at a Catholic cathedral some time and see how a couple bucks here and a couple bucks in the collection basket there adds up to gold and velvet and marble when you’re milking a large enough herd.
What’s more, wealth is not limited merely to money. Beyond their nickels and dimes the poor can be exploited for their time, for their labour. The product of this labour can then be translated into more affluent markets. Your narrow interpretation of the situation would say that nobody ever got wealthy exploiting slavery because slaves didn’t have any money. Like much in Libertarian economics such facile comments just don’t hold up under even moderate scrutiny.
I agree with Amplexus.
Vote a straight Democratic ticket. Democrats are not perfect, but they are far less corrupt. Loosing the election now would be disastrous. I do not consider myself a Democrat, but there is no alternative party.
Sign the An Open Letter to Barack Obama. It may be far from perfect, but if Progressives argue about the points, we will be left with nothing.
“Your narrow interpretation of the situation would say that nobody ever got wealthy exploiting slavery because slaves didn’t have any money. Like much in Libertarian economics such facile comments just don’t hold up under even moderate scrutiny”.
Ummm, not to come in and merely point out how dumb you sound tooting your own horn, but “slavery” would be considered “coercion” and therefore unsupported by any Libertarian, big L or small.
I really would be red in the face if I were you, but I am gonna guess that you don’t get it enough to even know to be embarrassed…
“Ummm, not to come in and merely point out how dumb you sound tooting your own horn, but “slavery” would be considered “coercion” and therefore unsupported by any Libertarian”
Good job completely missing the analogy there Scott. He was not saying that Libertarians support slavery.
I just signed, and now I’m going to hit the sack. You folks can go right on arguing all night, just don’t make too much noise, OK? I need my sleep. =yawwwwwwwwwwwwn=
:-)
“Ummm, not to come in and merely point out how dumb you sound tooting your own horn, but “slavery” would be considered “coercion” and therefore unsupported by any Libertarian, big L or small.
I really would be red in the face if I were you, but I am gonna guess that you don’t get it enough to even know to be embarrassed…”
Woosh, right over your head.
And you wonder why everyone mocks your ideas.
That’s actually quite rare. If your illness is going to kill you and is fixable, the fix comes along quite fast. We do have separate streams for emergency and non-emergency care, you know.
(The National Health Service has now saved my life three or maybe four times in 32 years, depending on how you count it. It hasn’t failed me once. In the US I would certainly be dead: expensive experimental surgical procedures are rarely carried out on US 15-day-olds whose mothers don’t have money and whose family history of cancer would make their mother’s premiums go up too far to be affordable.)
I have to say, the petulant nature of most of the comments here have lowered my estimate of the readers of this blog somewhat.
The topic was the economics of exploitation. Slavery is both exploitation taken to its furthest extreme and poverty of the exploited taken to its furthest extreme (as chattel slaves possess no wealth of their own).
And, just by the way, “tooting your own horn means” self-promotion, not whatever it is you were trying to say.
To those commenting that universal health care is bad, well… I can only say that I next expect you to pick your private insurance provider carefully, because if you don’t, the hospital may ask you to choose what fingers do you want them to stick back to your hand.
In Spain, a man lost his ARM in an accident. The “bad ugly stinky” social health care service had to wait until the tissue on the forearm had healed a bit, so for weeks the arm was connected to the arteries of the patient’s own leg. Once the forearm was ready for a surgery, they put the thing together again. Last news? The man has two functional arms, and did not have to pay a penny.
“The Marxist fantasy of people getting rich by exploiting the poor is absurd on its face: the poor have little wealth to trade. ”
Well, first is not fantasy. Second, is not the poor’s wealth what is going to be traded. It’s their job… If you stick to the end of the post, maybe you’ll learn a bit, unhindered or unfiltered by critics from a land where reading Marx, Engels, and the like was (still is?) akin to being a dirty ungodly commiunist.
Marx’s analysis of history is based on his distinction between the means / forces of production, literally those things such as land, natural resources, and technology, that are necessary for the production of material goods, and the relations of production, in other words, the social relationships people enter into as they acquire and use the means of production. The people who get rich are the ones who have the control of the means of production. The ones that directly work on the production, are on the loosing end. For Marx, the possibility that one may give up ownership of one’s own labor — one’s capacity to transform the world — is almost like a spiritual loss. And in capitalism all the commodities, including labor, are bought and sold on the market, thus alienating the people from the nature.
People sell their labor-power when they accept compensation in return for whatever work they do in a given period of time (in other words, they are not selling the product of their labor, but their capacity to work). In return for selling their labor power they receive money, which allows them to survive.
According to Marx, capitalists, on the other hand, take advantage of the difference between the labor market and the market for whatever commodity is produced by the capitalist. Marx observed that in practically every successful industry input unit-costs are lower than output unit-prices. Marx called the difference “surplus value” and argued that this surplus value had its source in surplus labour, the difference between what it costs to keep workers alive and what they can produce.
Marx saw more advanced modes of production as growing out of mature capitalism, and needing widespread education and democratic apparatuses to allow the eventual control of the state by the people themselves only possible with a well educated and democratic populace. Marx did not appear to suggest that a stage of economic development could simply be skipped over, as the Soviet ideology implied. Rather, no nation should realistically be able to achieve socialism until it had developed a modern capitalist system, and mature communism was supposed to require a level of wealth and technology that would allow the basic material needs of all citizens to be produced with very little labor, on average, per person in a given time period.
Posted by: craig | August 6, 2008 11:34 PM
“Obama sucks, just like Mccain – can’t you see that?”
I disagree. He sucks somewhat differently than McCain.
McCain can take his teeth out.
I mean, slavery is absurd on its face; most slaves had NO wealth to trade.
Slaves aren’t very productive, for obvious reasons. They have no prospects to improve their living conditions, so they will do the least that they can. Just look at the dismal economy of Cuba or North Korea for a modern example.
We had slavery for thousands of years, and throughout that time, even the slave owners lived in what we would consider abject squalor today. It’s no accident that the end of slavery coincides with an explosion of productivity. Prosperity is a consequence of freedom.
-jcr
What is “corporate welfare”? Farm subsidies? Payments in the form of “aid” to Pakistan and Israel and Egypt?
All of the above, and many other programs. I use the term to refer to any transfer of wealth from the taxpayers to companies that buy financial favors from governments.
-jcr
I can understand how you may disagree with all of his ideas and political principles, but I have a hard time imagining how anyone could “despise” an old time doctor turned politician who stayed true to his ideals in spite of all monetary temptation not to.
Well, the fact he’s a bigot helps in hating him.
Universal Health Care. You know, we almost got it thirty plus years ago. Under Nixon. He was in favor of it, and he was as Republican as they come.
Problem is, it was blocked by the lobbying efforts of the AFL-CIO. Know why? They thought they could get a better deal.
http://latinopoliticsblog.com/?p=70
It currently, as I understand it, is in operation in Hawaii.
The germ theory of disease strongly encourages those who understand it to support universal health care
Only if you believe that governments are effective in delivering services. I’d rather not leave my health in the hands of bureaucrats, thanks.
I’ve had some first-hand experience in seeing how government drives up the costs of health care. I worked on developing a karyotyping system many years ago, which could have sold for about $20K, except for the insane regulatory requirements imposed by the FDA.
-jcr
I was very discouraged when I found out that Obama voted to erect that ridiculous fence between the U.S. and Mexico. What a waste of money. I am leaning toward Nader.
Well, the fact he’s a bigot helps in hating him.
A bigot who wants to free hundreds of thousands of black men currently imprisoned for non-violent drug offenses? Guess again.
Ron Paul’s no bigot, and you don’t have to take my word for that:
http://www.knowthelies.com/?q=node/53
“Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment.”
-jcr
I was very discouraged when I found out that Obama voted to erect that ridiculous fence between the U.S. and Mexico.
Obama voting for a massive waste of tax money? Stop the presses! ;-)
We could turn immigration into a non-issue overnight by creating a guest worker program, but Mexicans are just too convenient to use as a scapegoat when politicians want to deflect attention from the damage they’re doing to the country with their profligate spending.
-jcr
jcr…and what does he think of gay people?
Oh right, hating on the gays isn’t bigotry. Thinking that states are perfectly justified in throwing us in prison-as a supporter of Texas’s anti-sodomy law– is just fine.
I keep forgetting we don’t matter.
You know, we almost got it thirty plus years ago. Under Nixon. He was in favor of it, and he was as Republican as they come.
Nope. Read what Barry Goldwater had to say about Nixon sometime. Nixon devalued the dollar, and imposed wage and price controls to try to keep us from coping with the resulting inflation. Central economic planning is the democrats’ hobby, not the republicans’.
-jcr
As one of the many watching nervously from beyond your shores while you lot go through the bizarre pantomime that may just fuck everything up for the rest of the world again – can I just say that RamziD articulates everything I see wrong with this.
Putting a letter like this out in public at this stage is like loudly asking one of the players in a poker game what he plans to do with all those aces. Either Obama is what he appears – the best damn option we’ve all had for altogether too long – or he isn’t. But what will leaning on him right now to announce support for policies that terrify his opponents achieve?
CD
.and what does he think of gay people?
He thinks that your sexual orientation isn’t a federal matter. Got a problem with that?
-jcr
He thinks that your sexual orientation isn’t a federal matter. Got a problem with that?
Well, on such things as DADT, and the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence and DOMA, I’ve got a hell of a problem with him.
But again, we’re not full humans or full citizens, so none of this matters in the least.
@124
/agree
One gets the feeling many posters here are “emulating” Hitchens in much the same way every blogger with a political opinion and a drug habit thinks he’s the second coming of Raoul Duke.
Prof. Hanley nailed it in #57. Some of you people are acting just like the knee-jerk ideologues you claim to disdain, and being really frackin’ ugly about it, too.
Ron Paul’s position on the DOMA follows from the position that marriage is not a matter for federal jurisdiction. He also weighed in against a constitutional amendment on the same subject.
As far as DADT goes, blaming Ron Paul for Clinton’s fuck-up is a bit of a stretch, I’d have to say. Instead of acting as the commander-in-chief as he should have, and saying “it’s ok to be out and be in the military, that’s an order”, he came up with that half-baked non-policy of DADT.
But again, we’re not full humans or full citizens
Sure you are, even when you’re sulking.
-jcr
Paul Supports DADT. We can blame Clinton, and I do. But he has continued to go on record supporting it–in other words, he continues to support making my sexual orientation a federal issue.
Sure you are, even when you’re sulking
And, another condescending heterosexual supremacist, just like Paul.
another condescending heterosexual supremacist
Oh, please. You have no grounds to accuse anyone else of being condescending.
-jcr
Paul Supports DADT.
You might want to consider the possibility that there’s a difference between supporting a policy and merely declining to rail against it. I’ve never seen him advocate DADT.
-jcr
Let us speculate a little, shall we?
http://seekingalpha.com/article/89243-two-types-of-speculation-one-harmful-one-not
#8: “He has me where he wants me, solidly in his camp, and I can’t imagine any realistic scenario where his pre-election maneuvering makes me desert the cause.”
Ah, so your darling socialist can Do No Wrong. No doubt the End justifies the Means, too. This makes you better than a mindless right-wing biblethumper just how, now?
It’s a sad day for us when the choice is between a RINO and a socialist. Only the True Believers can see much difference between them.
A quick spin around the web says Paul’s position on DADT is a bit of a cop-out. It’s not so much that he’s railing against it or not, as he doesn’t seem to be interested in engaging with it. It’s a moot point, as his candidacy is past algor mortis and well into putrefaction, but it’s certainly not the position of somebody personally invested in eliminating sexual orientation as a legal issue.
Source.
Source.
Source.
But my experience is that it’s fairly useless to argue these points with people who haven’t studied economics.
(late to the party again – my apologies if this has been addressed already)
Uh huh. Of course, I actually have studied economics – I have a Masters degree in the subject – and perhaps the most important thing I learned* from that experience was that most economic thinking is rooted in assumptions that are just plain false. For one thing, there are not now nor have there ever been any perfectly competitive markets, nor will any ever exist. What this means is that almost all the common-sense notions most people have about how economies actually work are just flat-out wrong.
As a group, I have found libertarians to be among the least likely to realize this, but the most likely to overestimate their own understanding of economics. Personally, I believe that this is because libertarians don’t generally understand people all that well, but I admit that this is just a hypothesis for which I have no hard evidence.
* – of course, this is not the lesson that my professors wanted me to take from my studies. But it’s right there for all to see, if you’re willing to think just a little bit.
I’ve also become aware of the tragedy of socialized medicine in countries like England and Canada, where you can die on a waiting list for treatments that can be obtained immediately in the USA if you are fortunate enough to be rich, or to have adequate insurance through a company that doesn’t try to fuck you out of paying for your treatment or India.
Fixed.
Like Nix at #123, I’m in the “NHS saved my life” camp. Sure it’s not perfect, but I can’t understand why anyone would want a ‘market driven’ system like the USA’s, when it’s so obviously broken.
With regard to the evils of “socialised medicine”, the “libertarians” here (I put the word in scare-quotes because the right has stolen the word from the left in relatively recent times) might like to check the CIA World Factbook statistics on life expectancy and infant mortality by country. The USA does worse than countries of comparable wealth that have these bureaucratic systems, and for infant mortality, does worse than Cuba, which spends a fraction of the amount (the USA does a little better than Cuba, but not much, on life expectancy).
Of course, jcr and co. always have the fallback position of “Well, we don’t have a real free market.” How convenient – just like the Marxists who insist that the repression and famines in the USSR and China were because those countries were not really Marxist. The “libertarian shuffle” can be quite an amusing dance to watch: where “free market” capitalism does well, they claim its successes as their own; where it doesn’t, then it’s always because of the enormous amount of pernicious gubmint interference.
In fact, of course, there never has been and never could be any such thing as a “free market”: every market is embedded in an institutional system (formal or informal) that makes it possible for it to operate. This is perhaps easiest to see with respect to “intellectual property”: whether there should be such a thing at all and if so, what its limits should be and how they should be enforced, are of necessity extra-market, political decisions, determined by which interests hold most political power. However, the same can be seen in relation to conditions approximating to slavery. Of course, libertarians claim to oppose coercion, but they also want contracts enforced. What if I “freely” make a contract with someone to supply him with a down payment plus food and lodging in return for complete direction of what he should do for the rest of his life? Does a “free market” allow that, or not? What if it’s for a fixed period? These are not mere theoretical possibilities – debt bondage is common in parts of Africa and Asia. Again, what restrictions if any should there be on food adulteration, or selling worthless “remedies” for serious diseases? Again, can I sell my vote? If not, this is a restriction on the free market.
“Libertarianism”, being largely an American delusion, invariably rests on a comprehensive misrepresentation of US history. American wealth was not built on free markets, but on slavery followed by sharecropping near-slavery (in the South), extensive protectionism combined with a complete lack of respect for foreign patents(in the North), and aggressive war and land theft on a continental scale.
In more recent times, the foreign bases about whose expense someone was moaning, are there to support a global economic and political system, set up at the end of WW2, which benefits the American elite and to a lesser extent, their collaborators abroad and Americans in general: cheap raw materials, open markets abroad combined with protection for key interests at home, highly favourable foreign investment opportunities and the dollar as reserve currency. This system is now coming under strain (as it has done before, in the 1970s) due to imperial overstretch – specifically, the strategically premature invasion of Iraq – but it is quite rational and has been on the whole astonishingly successful.
The fact that the majority of economists are neoclassicist is hardly surprising: the function of economics within capitalism is to serve the interests of the ruling elites, and justify the ways of Mammon to man. Most economists, of course, are employed by profit-making corporations, not universities, there is a good deal of circulation between the two, and even academic economists are, IIRC, paid considerably more than average academic salaries.
There are coherent schools of economics that dispute the theories of the neoclassicist majority in fundamental ways: Hayekians, Marxists, Keynesians, ecological economists, and institutionalists to name but five – so the suituation is quite different from that in the biological sciences. Most neoclassical microeconomists wouldn’t know an empirical fact if it bit them in the bum, but recent behavioural and experimental economics, and even more recent neuroeconomics, show that its assumptions about human decision-making are fundamentally flawed. This doesn’t matter for economics’ primary function of course – the “free market” stuff is mostly prolefeed, although it’s easier for the economists themselves if they can manage to believe it.
Finally (for this comment), there’s the little matter of pollution and resource exhaustion. Markets are inherently short-termist: they couldn’t care less if disaster – say in the form of anthropogenic climate change (ACC) – is approaching, and urgent action is needed to mitigate it although the disaster itself is probably still some decades off. This, of course, is why we find so many “libertarians” among the climate change denialists – ACC basically sinks their entire philosophy. Incidentally, jcr is at least partly right about the close parallels between natural selection and markets, but he makes the elementary mistake of thinking that we should let these natural processes take their course. We don’t with respect to natural selection, and we should no more consider doing so with respect to markets.
Just to comment on some of the comments on healthcare
the NHS over here is in a bad place right now not because the system is flawed (far from it) but because the government cant work out how to manage it properly.
The last decade has seen the ammount of red tape in the NHS go through the roof and rather than cut it down our government keeps increasing the hoops hospitals have to jump through with Targets and “long term goals” forcing them to hire more middle managment to handle the overflowing paper work and less Doctors
The NHS is a great system and great Idea the only problem is we left it solely in the hands of Governments who couldnt manage a piss up in a brewery.
Anyone who trots the NHS out as an example of why the US should remain with a Health system based on Profits and not maintaining a healthy populace is barking up the wrong tree – the NHS in its current state is more an example of what happens when Governments over-manage rather than an example of a failed health care system. Universal Health care should be a right to every human being.
of course im a Liberal European so by US standards im slightly to the left of Karl Marx so you can completely ignore me if you want
I was lucky enough in my youth to witness a year-long Randroid deprogramming session. Very enlightening how the same patterns of thought keep repeating and repeating. I nearly cracked up above when Scott from Oregon brought up ‘coercion’. It brought back hilarious memories of the cantankerous fractal wrongness of libertarianism.
Conservativism (and apparently libertarianism): The continual search for a moral justification of selfishness.
Thank you, E.V. A little hostility doesn’t bother me–it’s a political debate after all–but the implications that I wasn’t arguing in good faith, that I was no more than a troll, did bother me.
It’s also been grossly underfunded for many years relative to health care spending in most other advanced countries. You get what you pay for.
Yet, oddly enough, the problems still don’t show up at all in the UK’s very good mortality statistics, so the system must still be doing some important things right.
#45:
Nix at #123 already pointed this out, but the socialized medecine structures in England and Canada are absolutely not broken. You are far more likely to die of inadequate health care in the US than in England, and far far far more likely to be financially ruined if you or a member of your family suffers a serious illness.
I don’t have links handy but I’ve read studies showing that Americans pay more per capita for health care, and receive less of it, than most industrialized nations – and yes, that’s including the proportion of taxes that go to nationalized health care systems. I’d far rather pay a few more tax dollars and have them go to medical care and administration costs, than pay even more non-tax dollars to pay for medical care and administration costs and very large profits to private insurance companies.
I’ve lived in England and in America for a couple of decades in each, and I’ve spent considerable time in Canada. I’ll take the “tragedy of socialized medecine” over the tragedy of America’s private medecine any day.
I don’t approve of simply requiring everyone to buy private insurance either, mind you; I believe this is an arena which is far better suited to direct government administration than to trusting in private enterprise. The pursuit of private gain is a powerful force which can maximise efficiency in many arenas but it’s not apt to every purpose.
Health care should no more be trusted to the market than national defense. (If you’re the type of libertarian who trusts companies like Blackwater better than government-owned military, kindly shoot yourself in the head.)
The purpose of “pressure”: “Promise support for these policies or we won’t vote for you”.
Really? Would you really vote for more neocon lovin’? Because if you can’t seriously threaten that, this little Internet letter is a distracting waste of time *squared*.
Steve LaBonne@158,
Yes, the NHS is still pretty good if you have an immediately life-threatening disease, other than psychiatric conditions (depression and anorexia), less so for chronic conditions and elective surgery. A lot of the “mismanagement” recently looks deliberate to me – privatisation has already made considerable inroads, and we’re being systematically softened up for a complete sell-of (and sell-out) to (primarily US) corporations.
The US spends more, as a percentage, of GDP on healthcare. Since the US also has the largest GDP of any nation, that also means it spends more as an absolute amount.
If the market and competition are so good, why is that ? Surely competition should have driven down the cost of health in the US ? And why does the US fair so poorly compared to other Western countries when it comes to things like infant mortality ? If competition is so good, surely the US would be doing better ?
it all makes me think that maybe the market and competition are not always the answer.
I don’t expect universal healthcare in the US until Toyota makes it a condition for taking over the corpse of General Motors, but I expect it will happen immediately after. Any review of costs and outcomes makes it clear that the present system serves the needs of insurance companies, not governments, healthcare providers or patients. Evere have a CT scan? – thank the NHS, it’s British technology.
As for gay rights, Obama would never sign such a thing now, as it can only cost him votes, but I suspect it will be coming over the next 4-6 years, given everything in the rest of the West (although the US has never resurrected the ERA – oddly). The Canadian military is recruiting at Pride Day marches across the country, and the opposition has lost its’ traction across most other countries. It’s like slavery – the US will eventually join the modern age, years late and with heroic ignorance of events outside the borders and beforehand. In the meantime, expect more cruises into Canadian waters, with marriage certificates available.
I’m not sure it’s inability to manage, as such. I think the problem is that politicians are interested in appearances, not substance. It doesn’t matter to them whether or not the NHS improves; what matters is that the public perceives an improvement. Exactly the same applies in a free market, of course.
Hardly. Conspicuous public discussion- and yes, pressure on mainstream Dem politicians- by progressives is a necessary part of moving the Overton window back in a saner direction after its steady rightward movement since 1994. Unconditional support for mainstream Dems is just surrender to the status quo and ensures the continuation of the rightward drift. Not demanding more of Democrats is, in fact, a big part of the syndrome that’s landed us in the neocon mess we’re in today.
Not gonna sign it, though I still favor Obama over McCain.
I think it is partly a reaction to an article by one of the Nation’s sometime contributors, the Political Science prof. at Upenn, Adolph Reed. Its a pretty good article by the way and reflects the opinions of a lot of readers here.
TX CHL Instructor@148,
If you really think Obama is a socialist, you should get emergency psychiatric treatment. Seriously – with that degree of detachment from reality, you could start thinking you can fly and stepping out of a 10th storey window.
Wow great job on comment #153 Nick Gotts! You did a good job at trashing these Libertarians’ crappy arguments.
Feynmaniac@169,
Thanks :-)
Let’s see what (if anything) they come back with.
LOL Nick Gotts @153. Given the hysterical, shrill caricature of classical liberalism, straw men, and logical fallacies, I’d guess I stumbled upon a creationist blog. Oops, it’s that other brand of mysticism, collectivism. Really not much different, it’s just a secularized form religion.
Here is a more accurate view a political philosophies:
Freedom
^
|
|
|
|
|
v
Thuggery
Near the top are classical liberalism (known as “libertarianism” in the U.S.) and anarcho-capitalism. Near the bottom are various flavors of statism, which includes socialism and fascism. It’s evident most people posting here gravitate towards the bottom.
I am what can be best termed a classical liberal, in the European sense. This means that I am pretty much for a free market, but it doesn’t mean that I think this should apply to health care – that is part of what the state should provide for, and what we should pay for through taxes. I don’t mind paying higher taxes for universal health care, especially not when looking at the current US system.
I’ve written a number of posts related to this subject – you can find them here.
Regarding Libertarians, I find them somewhat puzzling – their stances are somewhat classical liberal, and they share many progressive values, yet they seem overly focused on taxes, and not on the many other issues related to their general world-view. E.g. many Libertarians support the GOP because of their focus on taxes, yet ignore issues like civil rights (people getting locked up without access to a judge), equal rights (people denied the right to marry), and privacy (need I explain this?).
Also, on the whole, I find their understanding of economics simplistic, which I guess explains why so many of them were impressed with Ron Paul’s idea of returning to a gold-based currency, which would be catastrophic in a global economy, especially for a country like the US, which has a deficit on the trade balance.
BlueBassit, where would you place “democracy” on that scale? It looks fancy and all, but it’s nonsense to try to see the world in such simplistic terms.
While I can understand the urge to consider classic liberalism close to “freedom”, even Adam Smith warned against letting free market forces run wild in his classic work Wealth of Nations. This has led many of us to the stance that governmental regulation is acceptable once in a while, but it should only happen in so far that it can be demonstrated that this results in a greater common good that if the government had stayed out of it.
In the case of universal health care (and defense, or education for that matter), I believe that can be demonstrated. In many other cases, I don’t think that’s the case.
BluesBassist,
Do you have any actual counter-arguments to my points? My guess is that you don’t, or you would have put them forward.
Any way, we’re talking amongst us progressives here, sorry you’re not intellectually up to joining in the conversation
That’s the best part of ideologues like Steve here. The utter *arrogance* of their stupidity. :-)
The idea that the gummint can make it all better if *just* the right person gets elected. The stuff of fairy tales, and no better than a hard core Crhistian awaiting the second coming of Obama. Oops! I mean the second coming Jesus.
Kristjan @172:
This means that I am pretty much for a free market, but it doesn’t mean that I think this should apply to health care – that is part of what the state should provide for, and what we should pay for through taxes. I don’t mind paying higher taxes for universal health care, especially not when looking at the current US system.
Fine, but I don’t share your preference. May I opt out of universal health care and the associated taxes, or will you point a gun at me and force me to participate under deadly threat? If it’s really the best system, surely 99% of the people will choose to participate voluntarily anyway, right? Why not put away the guns, and let the small minority of stupid libertarians (like me) buy their own more expensive, less effective health care?
many Libertarians support the GOP because of their focus on taxes, yet ignore issues like civil rights (people getting locked up without access to a judge), equal rights (people denied the right to marry), and privacy (need I explain this?).
This is not an accurate summary of what most “libertarians” believe. And if it is, maybe we need a new label, since niether me nor most libertarians I know agree with the above.
Also, on the whole, I find their understanding of economics simplistic, which I guess explains why so many of them were impressed with Ron Paul’s idea of returning to a gold-based currency, which would be catastrophic in a global economy, especially for a country like the US, which has a deficit on the trade balance.
Most libertarians favor the Austrian school of economics. Though you might not agree with that, you can hardly accuse von Mises’ Human Action of being simplistic.
What’s “unconditional” about it? “Congratulations. In this particular election you’ve gotten lucky, and get to run against a caricature. You are currently by far the lesser of two evils. Should you gain office, I will be watching your performance for evaluation in four years.” I also get uncomfortable whenever people start talking about straight tickets, by implication in this case. Though the centers of gravity stand a bit apart, not all Democrats are liberal and not all Republicans are conservative, by whichever definitions you care to use.
Well, yeah. And that’s exactly what the open letter is saying. Which is why I had a hard time understanding the kind of objection to it that consists of wondering why the signatories want to continue the rule of the neocons.
I think you need a new label (may I suggest “classic liberal”?), since that’s what the most well-know representatives of the US Libertarians are saying. Heck, even now, there is even debate about whether Obama or McCain are closes to the Libertarian agenda in magazines like Reason – given McCain and the Republican Party’s totalitarian bend, I cannot for the dead of me understand how there can be any question about this. The only stance where McCain is even nominally closer to libertarians, is on the subject of taxes.
Most libertarians would not be able to explain the Austrian school of economics if forced at gunpoint. Look at the Libertarian party in the US, look at Ron Paul – the policies explained by those don’t even come close to match the Austrian school of economics.
Did they do that, I wouldn’t call the simplistic – I’d make clear that I’d oppose their stances, for a number of reasons, but I’d at least believe they at least understood the basic principles of economics (although they wouldn’t have learned the lessons from history). None of the main voices of Libertarianism in the US demonstrates this.
Sorry, messed up the blockquotes in the last comment – the first paragraph was a quote from BluesBassist.
Not quite accurate – what I said was that unless you’re still willing to consider voting for his alternative, the letter’s just a waste of time.
Isn’t it funny, how the same people who strongly support evolution use creationists arguments against libertarians?
A well run society needs a designer, there are some economists who disagree with libertarianism, libertarians have no morals etc.
Come on now, Obama is simply pandering to the heart and soul of our nation, the salt of the earth…you know…morons.
How about Obama gets fucked? I’m not voting for a regressive progressive corporatist. My belief, based on 40 years of participation and observation is that if they think they’ve gotten you locked up because they’ve fear-mongered you into voting for them, they just treat you like crap.
I already turned away his house-to-house fundraiser. I told the Democrats to not call me anymore and to stop mailing me. Their constant capitulation on the Constitution, their refusal to do the decent thing like stand-up for basic human rights like gay marriage, and their refusal to reinforce my rights to not live in a theocracy have shown me they’re almost as odious as the Republicans.
I have no desire to reinforce these behaviors.
That’s why my money will be going to Accountability Now that Glenn Greenwald is ram-rodding. Change comes from making change, not accepting the constantly shifting Overton-Window of American politics as it becomes more corporate, more corrupt and more self-serving.
Oh by the way, in addition to what Nick Gotts said above–or maybe as a fundamental issue underlying all Nick Gotts’s arguments– the big problem with libertarians is that they don’t really care about initial endowments, and treat these as sacrosanct. They are against the use of the state to compel people to exchange or produce in the economy, but they don’t seem to realize that if the difference in endowments is high the more powerful will always get their way over the weak in an exchange situation such as in a market (because of far superior bargaining power due to relatively high endowment). This the libertarians are not willing to touch. Neither are they willing to question where the difference in endowments came from (see Gotts’s posting above for an answer). They are essentially and effectively in favor of whoever has the most market power in an economy. As Adam Smith pointed out a long time ago, provided everyone has equal bargaining power, relatively free exchange will lead to equality of outcomes. Unfortunately the presumption italicized above has never been recorded in history.
And that’s where you’re fucking up. The Conservatives already OWN THE COURT. But you’ve bought into the fear mongering and you’ll do anything. Voter Stockholm syndrome.
They’ve got this round. The only way to win is stop playing the game they want you to play. And play the game that serves your interests, not theirs.
Christ. Two posts in a thread and Randolph has jumped the shark. I’ve got to start reading this blog in Foxfire again.
The stupidity, it burns.
Another issue free-marketeers overlook is that they really would not like the outcome of a free-market.
In a free-market there would be nothing to stop many markets becoming monopolies. Also they would be unable to prevent cartels from being formed, and agreeing to fix prices. Both those after all are simply the market operating. If you attempt to stop one company gaining a monopoly or several companies deciding to fix prices then you are favouring state intervention.
RS,
*Sigh*. Natural selection is a theory about how the world came to be as it is, not one about how we can improve it. See the difference? And as I pointed out in #153, there are several coherent schools of economics, while this is not the case in biology. In point of fact, though, most economists are not “libertarians”, nor do they follow the school of economics most favoured by “libertarians” – which as BluesBassist noted, is the Austrian (or as I called them Hayekian), not the majority neoclassical school. Interestingly, there is research that suggests that trained economists are less cooperative and more selfish than most people (Frank , Gilovich and Regan 1993 “Does studying economics inhibit cooperation?”, Journal of Economic Perspectives 7(2), 159-171) – and that this is actually a result of their training (Cadsby and Maynes 1998 “Choosing between a socially efficient and free riding equilibrium: nurses versus economics and business students”, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 37, 183-192).
Now, do you have any substantive arguments to make?
I have studied economics. And your rationalizations are anthromorphized bullshit about “good” and “bad.”
Economics isn’t concerned with “good” or “bad.” Only what happens in systems as things change.
Austrian economic-system/Libertarian based-arguments systems are, essentially, a excuse making for hydraulic despotism by the rich over the poor. Nothing more or less. To argue otherwise is to deny the reality of the arguments.
What’s more annoying though, is your unearned condescension towards others for your gilded-age beliefs. You parrot something as “good” when the concepts of good and bad don’t apply to the system, but to those who live under the system.
Austrian Economic policies concentrate wealth in monopolies. Which are, for the average person, very bad from a social perspective, increasing individual poverty.
In the long run, something else happens. Eventually, as the wealth becomes almost completely controlled by a small group of people, the flow of cash for goods and services diminishes greatly.
So while, at the beginning of the deregulation phase, total wealth goes up. At the end of the phase, total wealth is LESS THAN WHERE it started and most people live in poverty.
Just like in the Philippines, Brazile, Argentina etc. Where these policies have lead to ruination. Or Hong Kong, which is controlled by two cartels and everything is massively over-priced and the average citizen can’t even afford to own a condo.
So, really, save if for the true believers. Those of us with sense, empathy and education understand the picture. And yours isn’t it. By a long shot.
protocol@185,
That is a point additional to those I made, I think. Most “libertarians” are rich, at least in global terms, and want to believe that their good fortune is actually the just reward of their talents and industry. Understandable, but hardly admirable. By an odd coincidence, I get the impression most are also white American males. Odd, that.
Not really. You’re just pulling that out of your ass by taking a few positions while ignoring the profession as a whole. For example:
And it goes on like that. Really, except for global trade, economists don’t toe “libertarian leanings.” They don’t believe in drowning the government. They understand how the system works and its interdepencies.
No matter how many times you lie about it.
You guys are like creationists. No lie is too big or too small in your zeal to convert us to your dogma.
By an odd coincidence, I get the impression most are also white American males. Odd, that.
The race card. Last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt.
#189
Nick Gotts,
Unfortunately, the formatting on this website is not suitable for long and detailed discussions (it’s impossible to respond directly to a particular comment and it’s hard to find replies), so I’ll have to limit myself to terse remarks and occasional links to external articles.
Besides, case in point, how should I comment on your observation that most libertarians are white American males(#191)? By pointing out that the same can be said about most evolutionists?
P.S. Economics is just as valid a science with regard to the description of the world as evolutionary biology.
Three Chairs and a Table,
Moron. The point is that most libertarians are lucky in their starting point – where and in which group they are born. Talking of intellectually bankrupt, how about answering some of the points Moses, protocol, Matt Penfold and I have made?
Nick, Moses, et al.
I have to agree with the Libertarian =/= economist arguments and that the majority of libertarians I’ve encountered have been ‘successful’ white male Americans.
JCR, Sam, & friends: fuck you.
I’m reasonably successful. A high six-figure salary, country-club home, swimming pool, multiple cars, etc., etc. But I’m still a product of my European background and education, and compared to my neighbors I’m a dyed-in-the-wool socialist.
I was at a neighbors barbecue last week, where Obama’s Universal heath care was being ridiculed. The general comment being that healthcare was already pretty cheap. Of course it is, compared to a $6000 per year golf club membership.
But most of the folks there just didn’t get it. They could not understand that healthcare was really that much of an issue for ‘average americans’. That many people had to make a choice between healthcare or food & shelter.
I had to wear my consultant with odious client head just to get through the afternoon without damaging someone.
Fucking self-centered, elitist bastards.
Kristjan Wager @179:
Most libertarians would not be able to explain the Austrian school of economics if forced at gunpoint. Look at the Libertarian party in the US, look at Ron Paul – the policies explained by those don’t even come close to match the Austrian school of economics.
I’m not sure what value there is to try to argue about what “most” libertarians believe, but your comment is false. The single biggest influence on modern U.S. libertarians, by far, is the writings of Murray Rothbard:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard
Although I’m sure there are libertarians ignorant of economics, most libertarians and the political positions they espouse are steeped in terms of Austrian economics, if not directly derived from it.
Actually you cannot point that out, unless honesty is optional for you.
Population of US: 300 million
Percentage of Americans who reject evolution: 40% (conservative figure)
That gives 180 million Americans who accept evolution.
Assuming equal split between men and woman gives 90 million men.
Even if that 90 million were all white, or even if all 180 million were white males, you still would not account for most of those who accept evolution.
There 6 billion people in the world. I am willing bet there are LOT more than 360 million who accept evolution.
tony @196:
I have to agree with the Libertarian =/= economist arguments and that the majority of libertarians I’ve encountered have been ‘successful’ white male Americans.
JCR, Sam, & friends: fuck you.
I see that being a vile, racist moron isn’t limited to the religionists who went nuts over Dr. Myers’ cracker. Or maybe tony is one of those people too?
There, I fixed that for you. Hope this helps.
RS,
Unfortunately, the formatting on this website is not suitable for long and detailed discussions
Funny, most people seem to manage, if they actually have something substantive to say.
Besides, case in point, how should I comment on your observation that most libertarians are white American males(#191)? By pointing out that the same can be said about most evolutionists?
Way to miss the point. “Libertarianism”, with its anti-tax mantra, is a political position, which “evolutionism” is not. Moreover, it is one which is directly in the interests of most of those holding it, allowing them to believe that what is actually their good fortune is the reward of their personal qualities.
Economics is just as valid a science with regard to the description of the world as evolutionary biology.
Dubious, actually, as vast tracts of “economics” (specifically, most of neoclassical microeconomics) is simply fiddling around with formal models which are known to misrepresent how people actually make decisions, in crucial ways (e.g. people do not treat losses and gains symmetrically, they discount hyperbolically rather than exponentially, they do not have stable or fully transitive preferences, they do not take all possible courses of action into account). Of course there is good scientific work in economics, but so far as microeconomics is concerned much of it is found in experimental economics, neuroeconomics, and behavioural game theory. In any case you are illicitly conflating economics with libertarianism – and the world most certainly did not get to be the way it is through the play of “free markets”, if only because, as I argued in #153, no such thing ever existed or could exist.
Bluesbassist: I see that being a vile, racist moron isn’t limited to the religionists who went nuts over Dr. Myers’ cracker. Or maybe tony is one of those people too?
Did you read my post? Almost every libertarian I have encountered has been a ‘privileged white male American’.
And per Nick, Matt, Moses and others: the Austrian school is not the only school of economics, and using a baseline economics theory as the foundation of your political stance does not an economist make. therefore being a libertarian does not make you an authority on economics!
Last (but not least) – the commentary from the libertarians here has been less than honest (calling out ‘Jews in the Weimar republic’, and others being completely unfounded).
Do you consider then that my response was unfounded?
I do apologize for a personal anecdote. But it’s fresh in my mind and the commentary here simply brought it firmly to the fore.
If you don’t like it – then feel free to add me to your killfile. You are trending towards mine.
Nick is being far too polite- this statement deserves nothing but mockery. With rare (and pathological) exceptions not even professional economists would be hubristic enough to endorse it.
What Paul Lazarsfeld famously said of sociology is equally true of other social sciences including economics – they have not developed enough to be a safe basis for social engineering. Neoclassical economics, in particular, relies heavily on a toy model psychology that demonstrably is disastrously unrealistic. (Hence the need for the burgeoning field of “behavioral economcis”.)
tony @202:
Did you read my post? Almost every libertarian I have encountered has been a ‘privileged white male American’.
Yes, I read your post, it’s offensive. Why is the (alleged) race or gender of libertarians relevant? Why even bring that up? Unless, or course, you think the content of one’s mind is determined by his or her skin color. Are you saying libertarian philosophy can be dismissed because of the (supposed) race/gender of it’s proponents?
Imagine the ridicule I was justly receive if I claimed that Obama’s health plan is stupid and unworkable because he’s black. What you are saying is no different.
I don’t understand why some people claim universal healthcare is opposed to their ‘libertarian’ stance. Unless you are opposed to any kind of tax, I cannot see why you would be opposed to healthcare. It basically means hospitals gain power and reputation by giving the best service to as many patients as possible, not by the service they give to patients with health insurance. Even with a universal healthcare system, some private hospitals will still exist, meaning that the national system still has to compete and individuals can choose to use private services if they don’t think the national service is good enough.
Put simply it’s like the school system. If you think everyone in America should have to pay for their children’s education privately regardless of their personal income, then at least you are being consistent – but I have to say, I think you’d have to be crazy.
It is most certainly influenced by it; a trivially obvious truth in a society still permeated by racial privilege. Of course, it’s very much in the interest of the privileged to pretend not to notice this and to wax indignant when it’s mentioned. Their indignation should be met with contempt.
BluesBassist@204,
In addition to what Steve LaBonne rightly says @205, it’s interesting you have chosen this point to answer, where you could come over all wounded and self-righteous, rather than any of the multiple other points which attacked “libertarianism” purely as a system of ideas.
205->206 @207.
If you end up with a private healthcare system as exists in the UK, the taxpayer ends up subsidising that as well.
Many of the doctors, nurses and technicians employed within the private sector will have had training at least partly funded by the government. In addition many will still be employed, and be having ongoing training funded by, the NHS. On top of that many private hospitals will make use of NHS intensive care facilities when procedures do not go as well as planned.
Bluesbassist: Yes, I read your post, it’s offensive. Why is the (alleged) race or gender of libertarians relevant?
It is not so much important, as it is indicative. Some groups are heterogeneous. The Republicans, and the Democrats, can both lay valid claim to wide swathes of support among all demographics – although some would claim a preference in certain demographics for one over the other. The libertarians are, conversely, pretty homogeneous: largely white, wealthy, male and American. Do you dispute this particular fact? I can go google up the stats if you wish.
As Steve La Bonne stated in response to you:
Nick Gotts:
In addition to what Steve LaBonne rightly says @205, it’s interesting you have chosen this point to answer, where you could come over all wounded and self-righteous, rather than any of the multiple other points which attacked “libertarianism” purely as a system of ideas.
At least you admit you’re a racist. Why should I respond to those points if you’ll just dismiss my ideas because you think I’m a white male?
One of my best friends is a “black” libertarian who comes from a low income family. Should I get him to post here, even though he’ll probably just make the same arguments I would?
Yawn. The idea that people who point out that racial privilege still exists are themselves racists for doing so is one of the hoariest and most retarded lies in the right-wing playbook. Anyone deploying it is self-convicted of extreme stupidity.
Oh, and “some of my best friends are black” equals it in both venerability and idiocy.
At least you admit you’re a racist. – bluesBassist
That’s a bare-faced lie – where do you claim I admit it? And you don’t respond because you have no arguments.
Bluesbassist – I took a moment to search some demographics for you Source: Pew Research Center, “In Search of Ideologues in America,” April 11, 2006, http://pewresearch.
org/obdeck/?ObDeckID=17.
What this shows is that libertarians are predominantly white male, and since this is an American study, they are also American. You may note that Liberals are also predominantly white. But not gender biased.
Demographics of Ideological Groups (percent)
Gender Male/Female
All 48/52
Libertarians 59/41
Conservatives 51/49
Ambivalents 46/54
Liberals 47/53
Populists 46/54
Race
White/Black
All 80/12
Libertarians 82/7
Conservatives 83/10
Ambivalents 77/14
Liberals 82/7
Populists 80/15
What countries other than the US have a libertarian movement that is politically significant ?
Not many to be found in Europe, since socialised healthcare, funding for education to degree level and beyond, minimum wage legislation and extensive rights for employees against dismissal are all pretty common. Common even in the UK, which is probably the most “libertarian” country in Europe. These days even the Tories are claiming to favour the provision of services by the state.
India is not notably libertarian leaning, and nor are other countries in Asia with universal suffrage. Oceania is not that libertarian, although Australia flirted with the idea before kicking Howard out of office. Africa ? Again, not really. South America ? Not these days, it seems to be tending towards socialism if anything.
Have I forgotten anywhere ?
…but not disproportionately so, apparently.
Somalia?
MartinM:
Actually, in comparison to the other groups, a 60/40 gender split, versus a 50/50 split is significant.
While looking for other stats on libertarians in the US – I’m finding the trend is towards even more male/female disparity, higher wealth, and fewer black/latino.
MartinM,
Well, no, they are disproportionately white (as are liberals), in the clear sense that the white:black ratio is considerably greater for libertarians than among the population as a whole.
#176 BluesBassist:
It’d be possible to do, I suppose. You could require identification before treatment and look up whether someone has opted out, or you could tattoo STUPID LIBERTARIAN, DO NOT TREAT WITHOUT PREPAYMENT in ultraviolet ink on their bodies somewhere. That’s a bit permanent and intrusive though, and I wonder how many stupid libertarians would suddenly change their political philosophy right after a medical emergency?
You also don’t get to opt out of paying for police protection or being protected by the military, even if you’d rather take your chances. You don’t get to opt out of the FDA inspecting food and drugs, even if you promise never to eat store bought food or use medical drugs. You don’t get to opt out of intellectual property rights, even if you find government monopolies an abhorrent notion. The list goes on.
You can choose not to use some of those services, but you still have to pay for them, through associated taxes, and yes, that’s enforced by guns. The fact of the matter is that to the rest of us it isn’t worth the cost and complexity to institute a la carte government, ior optional anarchy. Get used to it; it’s called living in a modern society, and by modern I mean post-hunter/gatherer.
Mind you, if it was up to me I’d find an unused island or the equivalent somewhere and put all the libertarians on it, if only to see how long it would take before governments and involuntary taxes appeared. I’m guessing we’d have a proto-feudal society in the first generation, with an underclass of effectively enslaved ex-libertarians comstantly plotting the next iteration of revolution.
BT Murtagh: if it was up to me I’d find an unused island or the equivalent somewhere and put all the libertarians on it
Love it!
I can’t see why libertarians would not embrace this idea as their own – with all of their wealth they could simply buy an island… Although being fierce individualists they would likely each want their own island!
What position do libertarians normally take on immigration ?
One would assume, based on their ideology, that they would be opposed to any form of immigration control. Should the movement of people not be considered part of the economy ?
tony@221,
Oh, they do. Some have ideas of taking over New Hampshire, others of creating a floating Libertopia, out of any state’s territorial waters. Both almost as unlikely to come to pass as a free market!
Nick@223
Libertopia reminds me of the glossalia infected raft in Snow Crash. Libertarian speak is similarly disjoint and confusing.
No one has yet explained to me why the US pays more for its healthcare, and has worse outcomes, when compared to many countries with socialised healthcare systems.
If the private sector is so superior in providing services, how some it does such a bad job of it when it comes to healthcare in the US ?
The Libertarian binary view of the world may equate citizens in an authoritarian nation with slaves, but that doesn’t actually make them the same. And, as always, its completely disingenuous to suggest that the only reason for Cuba’s economic woes is their lack of individual “freedoms” and that the only reason for American comparative prosperity is their comparative freedom. Such superficial and self-serving examination is really the hallmark of Libertarian economics.
As to your suggestion that slaves don’t work very hard compared to the free, even if you offered some sort of evidence to back that up it would remain orthogonal to the issue. However hard we may individually work to avoid the lash (or earn a subsistence wage) is not the only issue. Slaves may only work half as hard as paid workers (which, again, you have not demonstrated) but if you can pay ten slaves (or ten Honduran children) less to perform a task than you would have to pay one decently remunerated worker, how is that not economically viable?
This is why slavery, quasislavery and blatant exploitation persist today. Such systems “work”- as long as you’re the one doing the exploiting.
Again, a completely disingenuous response. This time you’re directly comparing economic conditions from another era to certain specific economic conditions today. Slaves, serfs and indentured peasants have, throughout history, been the bedrock of the (contemporarily) most wealthy individuals and (pre-technology) nations. (Technology is an important distinction because a modern machine can replace a whole bunch of slaves and you don’t even have to feed ’em.)
You’re also claiming that slavery then and no slavery now is the reason that some countries enjoy better economic conditions, rather than that the opposite is true. (That greater general wealth allows a stratified society to move the lowest echelons from slaves to serfs, to peasants, to uninsured minimum wage employees.) You’re completely ignoring the myriad factors which provide that general wealth increase including simple accumulation, education, modern technology and (not surprisingly given your bias) modern social support networks. You’re also completely ignoring the fact that many places without slavery remain mired in crushing poverty far worse than those “slave nations” you decry.
tony,
I haven’t read Snow Crash. Recommended?
Matt @ 225: No one has yet explained to me why the US pays more for its healthcare, and has worse outcomes, when compared to many countries with socialised healthcare systems.
If the private sector is so superior in providing services, how some it does such a bad job of it when it comes to healthcare in the US ?
Matt – you’re making an assumption that healthcare is supposed to help everyone. US healthcare is designed to help people who can pay.
Being in a relatively privileged position (see my earlier post) My family & I enjoy truly enviable healthcare, primary and specialist. But I do pay for it.
I am, at the same time, fully cognizant of many people who can’t even get basic primary care (from a GP) and who cannot afford prescription drugs necessary to their health.
This country *needs* universal healthcare.
US healthcare works extremely well for me. I can pay. It works significantly less well for the vast majority who cannot.
I have! It’s really good.
Tony,
You will not an argument from about all that.
I was just wanting someone like Hanley or Randoph to explain it. They claim privatised medical provision is superior, but the data shows it is not. The US pays more and gets less. And that is supposed to better, according to them.
Nick: Snow Crash is definitely a good read. As is almost anything else by Neal Stephenson.
I just finished “the system of the world” and enjoyed it immensely.
Matt:
So far as I can tell, the libertarian ideal for healthcare is the little country doctor who accepts chickens or potatoes for his services and keeps his little bucolic corner of the world healthy and well. It’s the 19th century midwest through rose tinted glasses.
Maybe they can adopt that in Libertopia, too (it will certainly have an effect on population pressure!)
tony,
Hm, I couldn’t finish Quicksilver – enjoyed the first couple of hundred pages, but got bored with the syphilitic soldier (can’t remember his name), and haven’t tried anything else of his. I’ll give Snow Crash a go at some point.
You have to send a letter to the progressive candidate asking that the candidate follow a progressive agenda? Do you hear yourselves?
It is pointless, Barack Obama has already demonstrated he has no real convictions other than personal gain. Why bother?
I was just wanting someone like Hanley or Randoph to explain it. They claim privatised medical provision is superior, but the data shows it is not. – Matt Penfold
Ah, but the superiority of “libertarianism” as a system of thought doesn’t depend on anything so evil and socialistic as data or arguments! Hanley and Randolph were both complaining (with some justice I must admit) that they were simply being told they were idiots early in the thread, but as soon as some more of their opponents turned up, and started making substantive points, those two disappeared from the thread, and left their side of the argument to cretins like BluesBassist.
Here’s why. There’s a famous anecdote about a progressive group lobbying FDR on something- I forget the specifics. After they spoke he said, “You’ve convinced me that I want to do it. Now make me do it.”
Nick: I understand your issue with Quicksilver. It’s not typical Stephenson (other than the strong and quirky characterization). I read it on international flights – so I had less incentive to give up… :) and I enjoyed it more as I worked through it and the other stories.
In response to BluesBassist at #171 with the simplistic political spectrum he espouses:
http://www.politicalcompass.org
As well as the authoritarian / libertarian axis there’s the left / right axis. Amusingly, by that site’s analysis, Ron Paul isn’t even particularly libertarian (less so than Nader).
“”No one has yet explained to me why the US pays more for its healthcare, and has worse outcomes, when compared to many countries with socialised healthcare systems.
If the private sector is so superior in providing services, how some it does such a bad job of it when it comes to healthcare in the US ?””
This one is easy. Americans eat shit food and don’t walk anywhere. IF Americans ate as well as an asian and did a bit of manual labor for exercise… perhaps walked to the store instead of driving… the mediocre showing in the statistics would vastly improve.
One would think a group of science geniuses would understand a health care system has very little to do with actual “health”.
Americans pay more for two reasons. One, we are unhealthier. Two, we have a hybrid system that benefits far too many folks in between the doctor and his patient.
You either have to let the system run freely, or completely take over the sytem. Right now, the very unproductive parasites are raking in the cash.
Well, you’re factually wrong on a couple of points, and I should correct you, but…why bother?
So the difference between the cost and outcomes of healthcare in Western Europe and the US is that Europeans are all Asians, at least in terms of diet ?
As an aside, are you aware of the horrendously high rates for type II diabetes in the Indian sub-continent ? Far higher than either Europe or the US.
Does anyone know a person who is strongly motivated by O.’s speeches?
Scott from Oregon:
My family try to eat healthily. to do so, and stock our pantry with fresh vegetables, fruit, quality meats, and fresh fish costs about $300 per week (for a family of four). And that does not include the cost of gas to run to the multitude of different stores and farm-stands needed to keep it healthy.
However, this is less than the cost of eating fast food three times a day. ($5 x 4 x 3 x 7 = $420 per week)
We could eat a roughly equivalent diet (meats, vegetables, ‘ready meals’ and such from the supermarket at a 30% saving. But we’d ingest about a thousand percent more sodium, hundreds of percent more fat (and much more saturated fat), more refined sugars, more high fructose corn syrup. generally more ‘bad for you’ foodstuffs.
We could go completely for ‘ready meals’ or the equivalent, and forgo most health benefits (foods loaded with sugar are ‘low fat’, etc) That would save maybe another 20%.
That would be the equivalent of eating fast food equivalents at breakfast lunch and dinner. That is, unfortunately, what the majority of americans do. That is the reason for obesity.
I travel a lot, and it continues to be difficult to find healthy food while on the road (except in NYC or California, strangely enough). I don’t want to eat in ‘expensive’ restaurants. I don’t want to eat a 2000 calorie meal (that’s a ‘typical steak dinner’). I just want to eat healthy food.
The healthiest ‘on the road’ food I’ve (regularly) eaten was in Switzerland. But even there the golden arches are invading.
I may need to start packing food as well as clothes for my trips.
someone plainly hasnt been to the UK
we also eat awful food and dont walk anywhere (and have the fastest growing obese population in Europe)
yet we come out better so it doesnt explain why the US pays more for weaker results
I don’t really think I can support this: Americans already feel that he’s far too liberal to lead; I’d rather him pretend to be in the center, then make leftist policies when elected, then trying to befriend the left during his campaign.
I mean we’re talking about a nation that a good number of people still believes he’s a Muslim.
“”So the difference between the cost and outcomes of healthcare in Western Europe and the US is that Europeans are all Asians, at least in terms of diet ? “”
The biggest difference in “outcomes” is the relative health of the individual when sickness strikes.
Americans are far less healthy, in terms of intake and exercise, than other systems you are trying to compare to.
When you treat a person who is already systemically ill, you get less success with your treatment.
Therefore, the system of treatment is not near the factor for success that the relative health of the patient is.
If “Asian food” bothers you, let’s just say “more vegetables and fish”, and far less grease and fast food”.
Actually policy positions well to the left of Obama’s poll quite strongly when the party label is left off; the residue of Republican well-poisoning.
And Obama really is a centrist. There’s no evidence to support the idea that he’s a progressive in drag. Without pressure from the left, inadequate though it may be, there will be nothing at all counteract the usual spineless Democratic pandering to the right, which coincides with everything we know about Obama’s own political instincts.
“someone plainly hasnt been to the UK
we also eat awful food and dont walk anywhere (and have the fastest growing obese population in Europe)
yet we come out better so it doesnt explain why the US pays more for weaker results”
Ummm, actually I have. And your new lust for stagnation and junk food will eventually do to your health stats what it did to America’s.
Remember, Americans don’t even use public transportation, which requires a small amount of walking to attend.
They walk from the house to the car, and grumble when they can’t find parking front and center…
Well, you’re factually wrong on a couple of points, and I should correct you, but…why bother?
If you had anything worthwhile to say, you would have said it.
Nick: You didn’t ask me, but yes – Snow Crash is hiiiighly recommended, and yes, per tony, virtually anything by Neal Stephenson is worth a read. But Snow Crash in particular is about Libertarianism, and takes place in a lovingly spun Libertarian/anarchist utopia. Be warned, there are stupid parts where you have to squint a bit – e.g. many events in the VR Metaverse, and I’m still not sure exactly what Snow Crash’s history is supposed to be – but it’s a cracking read with a lot of gleeful brainpower behind it. And nuclear-powered cyborg [spoilers].
I think it would be smart not to push for gay marriage during these last few months before we vote. Gays should keep a low profile until the election is over. Nothing will motivate the right wing to come out and vote more than a canidate that endorses gay marriage. Republicans are unexcited about McCain and hopefully a lot of them will stay home. If the issue of gay marriage didn’t have such a high profile in the last election Bush wouldn’t be in office right now.
Not sure that’s the one major factor but it sure as hell was one of them. But I’m also not about to tell someone that they should be quiet about their rights because it makes thing more convenient for my goals, even if our goals coincide.
Scott from Oregon,
Your point about unhealthy living has some merit – but still, when you pay more for worse health outcomes, that still makes it rather difficult to support a claim that “socialized medicine” is bad, other than with a dogmatic insistence that it must be. Moreover, the USA has lower rates of smoking than the EU, which should work in the opposite direction, and much lower than Cuba (24% to 40%), with its evil socialized medicine, lower infant mortality, and just slightly lower life expectancy.
Yeah. Like riding in the back of the bus, for example.
“that still makes it rather difficult to support a claim that “socialized medicine” is bad”…
Well, I for one, am not trying to make that claim.
I make the claim that a FEDERALLY BASED system is bad, because America is too unweildy for just one system, and America has a habit of spending funding on military adventures and worldly controls.
In other words, granting the federal government MORE power via more money and control, just enhances the already heavy-handed way the federal goverment operates.
Any state in the nation can have its own “universal” health care system, operating in the manner of European countries in that regard. The trouble is, once you extract tax dollars via the federal income tax scheme, you have tapped out the resources and already bled the patient…
IF you remove the power of the fed to dictate all policy via its tax structure, you allow states the ability to implement taxes for smaller, more efficient systems catered to the locals who live there and using local resources as possible funding alternatives.
For example, Oregon, a poor state, could easily fund health care and a good education system, if the feds gave us the control of our forest lands back and quit taking a percentage of our income to fund guarding the South Koreans.
Hawaii simply needs a small “tourist” tax to heal the surfers, dude…
Kansas might have to make some corn into ethanol…
The point I try and make, is that governance is not bad, but top down, one size fits all governance, is; showing itself to be unresponsive to its citizenry and highly subject to manipulation by large banks and corps.
And that’s not occurring now?
I think you need to make the case that one case is worse than the other, and that hasnt been done successfully yet.
And so would you, kind sir.
Way back up at post 106 someone wrote, “We are losing more and more factories because we are now playing on a global scale, and many countries allow their laborers to be exploited by corporations. ”
I won’t disagree that many countries don’t provide any protections for their workers, but the point about losing more and more factories isn’t quite accurate. The manufacturing workforce in the U.S. has declined, but the total manufactured output of the U.S. has continued to increase. The U.S. is producing more and more with less and less labor, a consequence of increasing productivity. This increased productivit keeps U.S. goods cost competitive.
There’s more to a decision to relocate than just labor cost–cheap labor that’s also exceptionally low productivity results in a net loss for an industry. That’s why the net amount of outsourcing really isn’t as bad as people think it is, and why there’s a lot more insourcing-foreign companies opening factories in the U.S. (like the Toyota Prius engine plant opening near me in Michigan)–than is normally realized.
I’m sure I’ll be blasted as a liar, but for anyone who doesn’t outright reject my claim, you can find the manufacturing output at bea.gov, and the manufacturing labor numbers at bls.gov.
Scott,
I realise you’re not a straight-down-the-line “libertarian”, but you answered a point I thought was addressed to them, so I assumed you agreed with them on that point. The question of the scale at which various activities and services are best organised is a complex one – my own opinion is that some things need to be organised globally (like limits on pollution), but in general I’d say if something can be done locally without gross unfairness or inefficiency, do it locally.
BT Murtagh@220:
Isn’t that the plot of the videogame BioShock?
……………..
Sounds like Escape from New York/LA to me.
“””The question of the scale at which various activities and services are best organised is a complex one – my own opinion is that some things need to be organised globally (like limits on pollution), but in general I’d say if something can be done locally without gross unfairness or inefficiency, do it locally.”””
I pretty much agree, but good luck with that global organizing thing. Having had a pops in the UN I do know a thing about global solution mandates, (and meetings to decide where best to spend the next meeting’s capital, and what would go good with the roasted lamb?)
Americans have been led to believe that the only solution is to be found by voting in “the right guy” in Washington.
What a bunch of baloney, and shame on anybody who buys into that nonsense.
Hanley@258. You mention manufacturing only. Much of the balance of trade is in intangibles (services not goods) as any good macro-economist would know.
I won’t dispute your numbers on manufacturing output and productivity (I may argue with you on the ‘meaning’ but that’s another story altogether)
I do dispute your ‘rosy’ view of the US economy. We’ve had yet another year with an increasing trade deficit. The national debt continues to rise, as the gubmint funds it’s imperial ambition with loans, and the dollar continues to weaken overall (minor fluctuations notwithstanding) which further damages the trade deficit.
I can hear you argue that a weak dollar means American goods & services are more competitive. Well, we’ve had a good few years of a weak dollar, and I don’t see any uptick in competitiveness. I do see an uptick in inbound investment (foreign manufacturers building US plant to increase their US marketshare or reduce their overall US cost of operation). Note that toyota, et al, do not, generally, export from the US, and their US ops in no way reduce their ‘capped’ imports.
One other lesson learned globally about such ‘inward investment’ is that is incredibly fickle – as anyone in the UK auto industry will attest.
Again – you are guilty of cherry-picking numbers to support your claim, despite a wealth of evidence that rejects that claim.
Typical Libertarian.
good luck with that global organizing thing – Scott from Oregon
It’s very difficult, but given the environmental issues we face, essential. The Montreal Protocol is a successful, and very important example. Without it, we’d be in much worse trouble than we already are.
I wouldn’t say that gay marriage was a major factor in the last election. It was minor compared to the war in Iraq. However, the election was won by a very slim margin.
Right now McCain and Obama are even in the polls. I don’t think the war in Iraq is going to energize democrats like it did last year even though the situation is more grave than ever. Obama has a lot of support from younger voter who are not as like to vote as the rest of the population. For Obama to win we need to hope for some real apathy among the republicans. Not that I’m a democrate — I’m just against war.
I think it would be smart not to push for gay marriage during these last few months before we vote. Gays should keep a low profile until the election is over.
Translation: shut the fuck up and get back in the closet, faggots.
There’s never a “good” time, and we’re well aware of it. Every election becomes, “wait.”
#266 Yes, but THIS time it’ll be different.
/sarcasm
Too many Americans are willing to shut up because they’ve been told to not rock the boat and spoil the vote.
Sorry about this, but civil rights are not negotiable.
I don’t think the war in Iraq is going to energize democrats like it did last year even though the situation is more grave than ever. – Randy Stimpson
Well no, it isn’t, interpreting your claim in the obvious way: casualties are quite clearly down from last year – both of Iraqis and of the invaders. That’s not necessarily irreversible, and the situation in Afghanistan is quite different, but for those against the war, there’s no sense pretending otherwise. Still, as you’re an ID believer, basing your beliefs on the evidence obviously isn’t important to you. What is much graver than last year is the state of the US economy; that’s why Obama should win easily.
He should indeed, but if he keeps running such a passive, reactive campaign he just might not.
Steve LaBonne@212:
The idea that people who point out that racial privilege still exists are themselves racists for doing so is one of the hoariest and most retarded lies in the right-wing playbook. Anyone deploying it is self-convicted of extreme stupidity.
You are doing more than pointing out there still exists racism in our society (I agree, since after all, you are living proof). You go further and claim the content of one’s mind is determined by race. That is the very essence of racism.
I’m not necessarily refuting that a “white” male demographic is overrepresented among libertarians. I’m refuting the relevance, since I don’t share your racist premise.
I’m an aerospace engieeer for a living, and my occupation is probably represented by “white” males even more than is the libertarian political movement. Does that mean you don’t trust aircraft designers, because you apparently think “white” men are less intellectually capable than other (arbitrarily defined) groups?
As “evidence” that a new aircraft design is unsound, would you mention the racial make-up of the aircraft designers? (I guess so, which is very weird and blatantly racist.)
You can’t possibly really be so stupid that you can’t understand the obvious truth that many things about one’s background, upbringing and experience, INCLUDING RACE, influence one’s thinking.
Or maybe you can, you certainly don’t coem across as the sharpest knife in the drawer.
So it’s racist to point out that the majority of U.S. libertarians are white males. Tell me, BluesBassist, is it sexist to say that 100% of Catholic and Mormon priests are male? Is it ageist to note that every single American president has been over 35?*
The simple fact is that libertarians are primarily white males. Claiming that pointing out this fact is racist just tells me that you have no arguments in support of libertarianism. Your use of the ad hominem fallacy is not going to win many arguments at this website.
*Let’s not get into the fact that each and every president has also been a white male, that would be too racist and sexist for this discussion.
Steve@271,
He’s a “libertarian” – of course he can be that stupid. In fact, it’s pretty much a requirement.
You go further and claim the content of one’s mind is determined by race. That is the very essence of racism.
Do you disagree that “the content of one’s mind” is influenced (not determined, a much stronger claim that no one has made) by one’s life experiences? Do you deny that one’s life experiences are affected by one’s race? If you say no to both, and they would seem to be unassailable premises, then you are admitting that the content of one’s mind is to some degree or other influenced by race.
And you’re wrong about the very essence of racism. Like most defenders of the systematically racist status quo that protects white privelege, you conflate prejudice, to which everyone succumbs at least occasionally, with racism, the very essence of which is supremacy. To be racist, a person or an institution must show by words or deeds that he/it values persons of a given race over others; that members of one race are superior to members of other races, not just different in some ostensibly value-neutral way.
“The simple fact is that libertarians are primarily white males”.
If one were to take Ron Paul’s most avid supporters to be “libertarian”, then your “simple fact” is a stupid admission of your ignorance.
Looking through photos of Ron Paul “events”, the racial and sex mix was fairly typical of the population at large.
Now if you want to only count hard core Libertarian Ideological Extremist, you may have a point, though you would find Anarchists and American Communists to have the same all white male make-up. Something about being an extreme nutjobberdoodoohead attracts white males.
I don’t think the bros care enough about politics to get that worked up.
“The simple fact is that libertarians are primarily white males”.
If one were to take Ron Paul’s most avid supporters to be “libertarian”, then your “simple fact” is a stupid admission of your ignorance.
Looking through photos of Ron Paul “events”, the racial and sex mix was fairly typical of the population at large.
Now if you want to only count hard core Libertarian Ideological Extremist, you may have a point, though you would find Anarchists and American Communists to have the same all white male make-up. Something about being an extreme nutjobberdoodoohead attracts white males.
I don’t think the bros care enough about politics to get that worked up.
“The simple fact is that libertarians are primarily white males”.
If one were to take Ron Paul’s most avid supporters to be “libertarian”, then your “simple fact” is a stupid admission of your ignorance.
Looking through photos of Ron Paul “events”, the racial and sex mix was fairly typical of the population at large.
Now if you want to only count hard core Libertarian Ideological Extremist, you may have a point, though you would find Anarchists and American Communists to have the same all white male make-up. Something about being an extreme nutjobberdoodoohead attracts white males.
I don’t think the bros care enough about politics to get that worked up.
Focus people! Here it is again:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080818/open_letter
Use it!
I heard people say that it didn’t matter if Humphrey or Nixon won. Nixon won – it mattered.
I saw people writing that it didn’t matter if Gore or Bush won – the election was so close the repubs stole it and it mattered.
Now people are saying it doesn’t matter if McCain or Obama wins. It will matter
The stupidity, it burns.
I’m sorry to hear that you’re suffering from your stupidity, but it can be remedied with a bit of education, as you may have heard.
Now that we’ve exchanged the formalities, perhaps you’d care to explain why you disagree with my remarks about the wisdom of getting on government lists?
-jcr
So it’s racist to point out that the majority of U.S. libertarians are white males.
It’s not racist to comment on an observed fact, it’s racist to infer that if a majority of libertarians are white males, that this makes them somehow culpable.
That being said, I know a lot of libertarians, and I can tell you that libertarians aren’t interested in tallying their fellow libertarians into the racists’ categories.
-jcr
This country *needs* universal healthcare.
This country needs affordable health care. If you expect a government to deliver that, then you’re in for a bitter disappointment.
-jcr
Nobody said they were culpable.
In his autobiography, I. Asimov, the Good Doctor described libertarianism as “I want the liberty to be rich and you can have the liberty to starve.” I’m not saying all libertarians feel that way. Perhaps you are one of the rare exceptions. But the common impression that non-libertarians have is that libertarians want institutionalized selfishness. Libertarians are either at or near the top of the heap and want to stay there. The vast majority of people at the top or near the top of the heap are white males.
The private sector appears to be dropping the ball on this so let’s let the government have a try. Canada, France, Germany and Japan all have working single-payer health systems. Or are you saying that the U.S. can’t do something as successfully as Canada or Japan?
Whenever a libertarian whines about how bad the gummint will be, I know that he’s showing his prejudices. The only person I’ve ever met who denies that men ever went to the Moon is a libertarian. I strongly suspect that the basis for his denial is his belief that the government could never do anything that sophisticated.
“””I’m not saying all libertarians feel that way. Perhaps you are one of the rare exceptions. But the common impression that non-libertarians have is that libertarians want institutionalized selfishness. Libertarians are either at or near the top of the heap and want to stay there. The vast majority of people at the top or near the top of the heap are white males.””””
Actually, all the true Libertarians I know are poor rural folks of all colors who don’t see the benefits for their dollar that the government promises them.
The government robs them of, say 20% of everything they earn, then comes in when there is a death and makes poor families have to pay the government to keep their property (death tax, estate tax, back taxes) and then gives them nothing they can see of value for it.
Why, they ask rightfully, are they contributing to the safety of Japanese fishermen and South Korean factory workers? Why are they giving money to Palestine AND Israel and Egypt? Why are they asked to finance G W Bush’s little jaunt to go watch Kobe Bryant play basketball?
Why are we in Iraq again,?
Why are my phone calls tapped?
Why are you arresting my sick daughter in chemo because she smokes her medicine?
You’re taking my money and giving it to WHICH farm corporation?
And so on and so forth…
Regarding the high cost and inefficiency of US health care, there are several reasons that spring to mind.
First of all, up towards one third of all health care costs in the US is spent on administrating health care costs and billing.
That’s the problem with privatizing health care coverage – the ones who have to cover the costs (the insurance companies) wants to avoid doing so – they are private companies after all, and need to show profit – and will put up barriers to avoid paying. This is why most bankruptcies in the US are due to medical costs, and why so many people have problems getting health care insurance, even if they can afford it.
Another big problem with health care insurance, is the focus on treatment rather than preventive measures. I know that a few insurance companies have started addressing this, but mostly it’s only possible to get costs covered in case of treatment (and then only if the insurance companies can’t find a loophole)
The capacity of “libertarians” for obfuscation is truly astonishing. We’ve had reams of bilge about how a simple observation of fact is racist, description of taxation by an elected government as “robbery”, and plenty of unsupported assertions about government-run health services, but the plain statistics indicating that these assertions are not supported by the evidence have been ignored (with the exception of Scott from Oregon who isn’t a down-the-line “libertarian”); and there has been no response whatever to the substantive points made by Alexandra, protocol, Matt Penfold, Moses, myself and probably others. How about actually addressing some of those points, John C. Randolph or James Hanley? You were both moaning early in the thread (with some justification) about people insulting you rather than arguing. Well come on, argue!
> as chattel slaves possess no wealth of their own
The ministeriales of medieval Germany and the ghulams, mamluks and janissaries of the Muslim world were legally unfree and therefore technically slaves. They were sold and bought on occassion. Still, they were the administrative and military elites of their day, and many of them got very rich indeed. Look at the chain of magnificent castles along the Rhine, built by members of the ministeriales class.
Hey johannes,
No fair, confusing “libertarians” with facts! Their brains only have room for minor variations on the single slogan “Market gooood, gubmint baaaaaaaaad!”
> Canada, France, Germany and Japan all have working
> single-payer health systems.
I wouldn’t call the German system of para-statal insurance companies a single-payer system. It is compulsory for those who work for private corporations (not for civil servants, and not for those who are self-employed), but there are lots of those para-statal insurance companies (its probably a high double-digit or low triple-digit number), and while they have quasi-statal powers – their claims are fully enforcable even without the sentence of a court, for example – they compete with each other pretty much like private corporations do.
“The capacity of “libertarians” for obfuscation is truly astonishing”.
Actually, I’ve observed the opposite here. Who can asily forget…
Libertarians are selfish.
Libertarians are elite white males.
American health system doesn’t work as well as others, because Americans don’t have socialized medicine (aren’t as healthy).
Taxes aren’t “robbery” (they are taken by threat of detainment and confiscation, and are spent on bailing out corporations and jaunts to watch sports events… If THAT isn’t robbery, then what is?)
Libertarians are stupid (I’ve discovered, to my dismay, that progressive, liberal, athiests aren’t very high on the rational, reasonable scale (who knew?), and have been grossly disappointed so far in the level of positive discourse ’round these parts).
What really amazes me, is just how many folks want to give the federal government MORE power after all it has managed to cock up in the last ten years (well, OK, I had to have a cut-off for cock ups. Otherwise, we could go back to Korea and Vietnam and…)
The best solutions for the federal government’s usurpation of power and desecration of the Constitution and dismantling of American’s basic civil rights and right to privacy, is to move in a Libertarian direction for awhile. Reignite local political passions, rather than this top-down “I am the decider” nonsense.
Stop looking to one man in Washington to produce “the change we need”.
Toss out all the bums who think that war is a practical solution. Dump the congressmen and women who voted for Fisa and the new mortgage bail out (with its sneaky little inserted anti-privacy laws) Repeal the 16th Amendment completely and make the federal government operate on a budget just large enough to be a functioning body and not a dictator from across the river.
Get the federal government out the marriage business altogether.
Get the federal government out of our schools.
Bring the US troops stationed in Germany and Japan and South Korea home, and stop pissing money away cruising battleships up and down everybody else’s coastline (at 4 bucks a gallon? C’mon… What for?)
In essence, revamp the mindset of what the federal government is necessary for– put the monster back into the box it came in and tape down the lid…
Taxes aren’t “robbery” (they are taken by threat of detainment and confiscation, and are spent on bailing out corporations and jaunts to watch sports events… If THAT isn’t robbery, then what is?) – Scott from Oregon
Being mugged in the street is robbery. Being taxed by an elected government, even if you don’t like what it’s doing, is not. Calling it such is simply an attempt to change the meaning of words. Grow up.
“Being taxed by an elected government, even if you don’t like what it’s doing, is not. Calling it such is simply an attempt to change the meaning of words. Grow up.”
You say po tah to… I say po tay to…
Sorry, unless the system of election is “fair and equitable” and the choices offered are legitimate and the media gives all candidates even coverage, then calling it an “elected government” is also a misnomer.
We have a “selected” government, with a basic illusion of Democracy still in place to appease those who fight for “selected” issues.
It IS robbery.
It IS stealing.
It is immoral.
It is unnecessary and counterproductive.
Calling it an “elected goverment” is a bit of a stretch, given that we have two entrenched parties who have both shown their very unsavory sides this election season, doing all in their power to maintain the two party stranglehold (with a complicit national media) on government power.
And “grow up” is an argument for what… a milk product?
“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is in the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Scott,
None of your justified complaints about the unfairness of the US electoral system justify your attempt to redefine words to suit yourself. My “grow up” was an expression of exasperation – exasperation that you think you can win an argument by changing the meaning of words. It’s a belief a lot of people grow out of sometime in their teens or early twenties, but evidently being a “libertarian” means never having to grow up.
Scott,
Do you really think quoting the US declaration of independence settles anything? For one thing, what “we hold” is clearly false: the claims made are not “self-evident”, and there is no “Creator”.
“””It’s a belief a lot of people grow out of sometime in their teens or early twenties, but evidently being a “libertarian” means never having to grow up.”””
THAT is your grand and specious argument?
Taxes are a tool, used to benefit society in its entirety, in manners greater than each individual part. When they are used as such, they are a perfectly reasonable implementation of societal needs. When used in any other way, they are a form of stealing.
Stealing, robbery, you name the word that pleases you.
“Do you really think quoting the US declaration of independence settles anything? For one thing, what “we hold” is clearly false: the claims made are not “self-evident”, and there is no “Creator”.”
Two hundred or so years ago, there was a creator, so I forgive the quaintness of the language for the ideas espoused within them. One must be conscious of the times in which a piece of thought was written, in order to see its validity or deception.
You either believe in foundational documents, or you don’t. If you don’t then there is no justification for adhering to any law based on those documents, is there?
Without a singular, basic agreement by all of the populace, you have no foundational starting point, and your result will be a banana Republic with a tin pot dictator… Or a reasonable alternative…
What good is the rule of law if you ignore the rules?
Scott,
Your last contains so many unjustified claims and assumptions it’s hard to know where to start. You obviously regard the D of I as a sacred text, which makes rational argument difficult, but it has, in fact, unlike the US constitution, no legal status – it’s just a piece of PR. The belief in “foundational starting points” is philosophically naive – they solve nothing in science, in ethics, or in politics, as they can always rationally be disputed unless they are tautologies. It is of course not the case that all US citizens have agreed to either the D of I or the constitution. It is you who wants to ignore the rule of law, since the US federal government’s constitutionally mandated right to levy taxes means that doing so is not robbery. finally, believe it or not, while it has many faults, the UK, of which I am a citizen, is not “a banana republic with a tin pot dictator”, despite not even having a written constitution.
“they solve nothing in science, in ethics, or in politics”
Umm, you are kidding right?
Science mandates that science be verified, tested, vetted. Lose this basic foundation, and you don’t have science, but speculation.
Ethics requires basic assumptions, for example, that humans have ethics…
Politics requires a set of foundational rules, such as “a court”, a “right of habeus corpus”, etc… just to function.
England has its own established set of foundational laws, of which all English residents abide (or face a consequence).
“It is you who wants to ignore the rule of law, since the US federal government’s constitutionally mandated right to levy taxes means that doing so is not robbery”.
I see no point in arguing the US system with someone from England. The 16th Amendment, however, violates the 4th and 5th Amendments, which are far more in line with the original foundational ideals for America.
Yes,taxes can be seen as stealing, which is why the US declared its independence from England to begin with.
Look Scott, you still have not answered some of the basic criticisms of libertarianism as a coherent philosophy(well, you have a out, I guess, somewhat convenient, in that you don’t consider yourself a libertarian). But the U.S. constitution is actually a very good example of what a lot of critics have talked about here. The founding fathers and the groups they came from (merchants and planters, almost exclusively) started out with a huge–and I mean humongous–advantage in initial endowments relative to the rest of the population. So they sought to institutionalize their advantage and make sure that the wealth and power of people like them was protected from the majority. Sure, one good thing that came out of their concern was the strong emphasis on individual liberty (but note, even here it was in practice restricted to only a small proportion of the total population). They always feared that they could at any point lose control over the government (after all, people like them were in a minority), and therefore tried to restrict the power of government in very instructive and interesting ways. Lets take just one example:
Before the revolution, elected assemblies could actually print currency, so control over currency was relatively “democratic”. But this was abolished by article 1 section 10 of the constitution, which states, “no state shall…coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts.” The constitution also generally holds that all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government are denied to it and powers not explicitly denied to the states are granted to them. Since the clause above did not explicitly grant the federal government the right to issue money, it essentially forbade the same (in addition to explicitly prohibiting state governments from doing so). This cleared the way for chartered banks to take over monetary functions in the economy. Once ratified, this particular clause of the constitution excluded all but the set of actors with the willingness and the ability to form chartered institutions called commercial banks from having a direct influence on one part of the economy.
so you see, when libertarians appeal to the constitution, they want to preclude more areas of economy or society from even the potential for being democratic. That is why they want indiscriminate privatization.
By the way, the example was from a chapter of my dissertation, so don’t quote without attribution…(could he be serious, they wonder)
Yes,taxes can be seen as stealing, which is why the US declared its independence from England to begin with.
Oh by the way, taxes had very little to do with the American Revolution, and was used by merchants threatened by the granting of monopoly privileges to the East India Company for rhetorical purposes. The Company was, by an act of 1774 permitted by the British parliament to sell directly to the American public by bypassing middlemen (american merchants). Also the Virginia planters wanted to expand further west, which the British government was actively preventing. The native americans knew that they would be essentially fucked once the colonies became independent.
Forgot to add that the colonies had been paying taxes long before 1776 had had little problem with it prior to the granting of privileges to the East India Company.
Scott,
Write me out the “foundational statements” of science and ethics that everyone who does science or holds ethical beliefs accepts. If you can’t, that’s an admission you are wrong.
You are so bloody ignorant you don’t even know the difference between England and the UK, so don’t presume to lecture me on how the UK political system works, or on history – the USA did not “declare independence from England”, but from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
“I see no point in arguing the US system with someone from England.”
Quite, especially if they understand it better than you do. A later amendment clearly supercedes any earlier one – that’s what “amendment” means. So if the 16th amendment contradicted the 4th and 5th, it would be the latter that ceased to apply.
“You are so bloody ignorant you don’t even know the difference between England and the UK”,
You win on your amassed “points” of petty parsing of words. Good for you.
Protocol– The whole “Libertarian” ideology is fairly new to me. My background is in repair and construction, so I look at things in the most basic and practical ways and try and “fix” them.
If you want a pure ideological debate, I am not your guy.
I’m just putting up ideas that seem simple and logical, and wading through all the name calling and nonsense for any possible positive discussion.
If you want a pure ideological debate, I am not your guy
I actually don’t, and that is precisely why I gave empirical examples to look at ideas in practice.
“The founding fathers and the groups they came from (merchants and planters, almost exclusively) started out with a huge–and I mean humongous–advantage in initial endowments relative to the rest of the population. So they sought to institutionalize their advantage and make sure that the wealth and power of people like them was protected from the majority”.
You know, I don’t see any great evidence of this. Had they sought to maximaize their status, all they would have had to have done is create a basic tiered system and climbed aboard. The documents themselves are miraculous in that the status of those who wrote the documents are not explicitly protected within the documents. Granted, the system was set up so that the government did not take from the creators of that government (the founders and their wealth, which would have been ironic).
But there was something profound in the manner in which the idea of government was confronted. Something revolutionary.
Even the basic proclamation “All men are created equal” came from outside of their own actual beliefs in the matter.
You know, I don’t see any great evidence of this. Had they sought to maximaize their status, all they would have had to have done is create a basic tiered system and climbed aboard.
Again, look, to fight the revolution, they needed the support of the people who constituted over 95 percent of the patriot soldiers (according to Benjamin Franklin about a third of the population was patriot, another third loyalist, and the remainder, neutral.After all the revolutionary war was also a civil war But more recent estimates show that perhaps up to 50% of the population was neutral. ). So creating a tiered system like you mention would have been suicide. All the noble rhetoric–though maybe heartfelt for some–was also quite instrumental. And if you want more evidence that the founding fathers’ primary preoccupation was to protect wealth, I can give you plenty of citations to secondary as well as primary documents. To begin, start with the works of Madison and john Jay (note I am not even mentioning Hamilton here; that would be too easy).
This ALL may be historically true, that these men all gathered in a room and figured out the best way to stay on top of the pile while eliminating foreign rule.
I’ll leave that speculation to historians.
It’s sort of like arguing over the motivations of the bible… at some point you just need to look at the ideas held within and decide whether you agree or disagree.
I agree with the idea of the government being given consent to govern by the governed.
I agree with the 4th and 5th Amendments, and disagree with the 16th Amendment.
I believe it to be demonstrably true that the empowered federal government has been a great cause of worldly avarice and subterfuge, and that a less empowered federal government would be less likey to behave as such.
Same goes for almost every societal issue, from education to marriage, to land use, welfare,law enforcement and beyond…
There is very little the federal government needs to be doing in any of these areas.
One, it is an expensive redundancy. Two, a homogenus society gets created which is ultimately bland and boring.
That is a bizarre definition of “stealing” that seems to rest on the use of the goods in question, rather than notions of legitimate ownership and taking by force. By that light, it wouldn’t be stealing to take someone’s Lamborghini and sell it to buy bread for the poor.
Really what you mean is that when the government uses taxes the way you like, it’s OK, but when they use them in ways you don’t like, it’s not OK. I can’t imagine a more vacuous argument.
“Really what you mean is that when the government uses taxes the way you like, it’s OK, but when they use them in ways you don’t like, it’s not OK”.
Ummmm, no. But if that is where your head rests, I won’t fluff your pillow.
If your starting point is the basic rules of law that you started with (in our case, the Constitution) then any expenditure outside of “the law” would be considered stealing, if taken by force (which is the case in the US).
If you want to simply deny the rule of law, then say so.
Otherwise, stick within its framework and make your case within the lines already drawn.
Scott, I was simply pointing out that you were using a very selective definition of “stealing” that depended on the use of the “stolen” property, and not on any particular principle. I don’t see you refuting that. If all we are arguing about is whether it is appropriate to spend taxes on some things rather than others, then it is silly to bring in the notion of theft. Once you’ve admitted that taxes are OK in some instances, you’ve lost the whole “taxation is theft” argument.
Last I checked the 16th Amendment is still part of the US Constitution.
Last I checked the 16th Amendment is still part of the US Constitution. – Tulse@312
No, you’re wrong there. Scott from Oregon has appointed himself a one-man Super-Supreme Court and has decided it doesn’t count.
“Last I checked the 16th Amendment is still part of the US Constitution”.
Sure, but the 16th Amendment DOES NOT NULLIFY the 4th or 5th Amendments. Or the ENTIRE Bill of Rights, for that matter. And in the use of the funds collected from the 16th Amendment, there is not an unlimited arena for which the funds are to be spent. The entire founding ideology encapsulated by the original founding documents was one of “limits to”, not “powers of”.
Any abrogation of Constitutionality in the form of taxes spent unconstitutionally is theft, stealing, abuse of granted powers, illicit activity, a criminal act… whatever term floats your canoe on a sunday.
Again, if you believe in the rule of law as described by the documents that grant the law its validity in America, then you must agree to abide by them. If you prefer law to be sourced willy nilly, just say come out and say so.
Of course not, because IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM. Do you care to provide an actual argument, backed by Supreme Court precedents, that says otherwise?
but the 16th Amendment DOES NOT NULLIFY the 4th or 5th Amendments. Scott from Oregon
Indeed it doesn’t – since it says nothing that contradicts them. If it did, it would of course nullify them. Or do you believe prohibition is still in force?
“Of course not, because IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM”
Ummmm, of course it does.
The power of “government” is strictly dilineated in the Constitution. The power to tax is granted in the 16th Amendment. The cross-over is readily apparent. The question begs “Power to do what?”
The 4th Amendment gives you a right to privacy. The 16th, tells you that no longer applies (though it is never stated).
The 5th gives you the right to not incriminate yourself, and the 16th forces you incriminate yourelf.
That’s enough for now.
Perhaps later you can describe to me where the Constitution grants the US government the right to send aid to Pakistan?
Or to keep a military base in Okinawa?
Ot to overthrow a sovereign government in another nation?
Scott, granting that you’re right about how the 16th amendment has something to do with earlier amendments (and I won’t do that in general), it would still not matter, since that would mean that the 16th amendment overruled the earlier amendments. That’s what amendments mean – changes to the existing.
Of course, you premise is rather doubtful, but even if it wasn’t, it would still be nonsense.