Comments

  1. says

    Outlook not so good.

    *shakeshakeshake*

    My sources say no.

    *shakeshakeshake*

    Don’t count on it.

    *shakeshakeshakeshakeshake*

    Very doubtful.

  3. Platypus says

    I have a pretty hardcore (small-l) libertarian friend, but if I were to show this cartoon to him, I know exactly what his response would be:

    “Wow, you’re saying citizens are actually property, animals that need to be owned and taken care of by the government? Scary.”

  4. Rorschach says

    Oh shit…One thread I will stay out of…:-)

    Cue libertarian infestation and much debating pontificating whining in 3, 2, 1…..

  6. Azkyroth says

    No. Malignant narcissism doesn’t allow itself to be laughed at without a fight.

  7. Cheerios623 says

    I’m libertarian. I thought this was pretty funny.

    I’m not so unsteady in my political beliefs that a little comic will get me all puffed up and defensive, but I think some other libertarians might not respond so calmly.

  8. Travis says

    Sure we do! I mean, it can be tough being the minority view, but if I cared about that, I wouldn’t be an atheist now, would I?

  9. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    Thanks, PZ. We should get some decent trolls out of this. My teeth are dulling and my coat’s not as sniny as it should be.

  10. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    My cats are complete socialists. They expect to do absolutely nothing, while the Welfare State (me) provides chow, clean litter, and pettings.

  12. alysonmiers says

    (I totally did not see Josh’s post until after I submitted mine. The timing, she is strange.)

  13. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    Cats are libertarians. They’re selfish. They expect everyone else to support them without doing anything in return. They feel superior to everyone else. Cats are the epitome of the libertarian “I’ve got mine, fuck you” ethos.

  14. Mel Dahl says

    I’m not a pure libertarian though I have tendencies in that direction, and I thought the cartoon was funny. Of course, similar caricatures could be done about every other political viewpoint out there, and for that matter atheism. Query: Does PZ laugh at comparable theist caricatures of atheism?

    Second query: Why is it any more marcissistic to think you’re entitled to keep your stuff than it is to think you have the right to make use of other people’s stuff?

  15. Wesley says

    The fish one was amusing, but pretty much all political humor pales before this mocking quiz: http://www.donaldjhagen.com/humoroustest.html

    I think the best one making fun of libertarians is:

    16: A cup with that only contains half a cup of water is…

    CONS: half full.

    LIBL: half empty.

    LBRT: an example of shortages caused by government control of our water supply.

    COMM: an example of inequitable wealth distribution caused by the inherent social injustice in free enterprise.

  17. Fil says

    I misread the title as “librarians” and I’m like, wtf?(my wife is one, so I guess I’m pre-programmed to see it).

    As for sense of humour and political views, well I’m a paid up member of the Greens Party and I have to say a sense of humour can be lacking with many enviro-freaks, sadly.

  18. alysonmiers says

    Query: Does PZ laugh at comparable theist caricatures of atheism?

    Most theist caricatures of atheism just aren’t very funny, I’m afraid. We godless sinners tend to have a bit of an advantage in the comedy department.

    Second query: Why is it any more marcissistic to think you’re entitled to keep your stuff than it is to think you have the right to make use of other people’s stuff?

    *grabs popcorn* Here we go!

  19. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    (I totally did not see Josh’s post until after I submitted mine. The timing, she is strange.)

    Jinx!

  21. Recovered Catholic says

    As soon as dogs are the vehicle of analogy I’m sold on it, I’m a libertarian when it comes to social issues, but a socialist mostly, all around for basic needs and all that. Oh yeah, and a gun toting’/ gardening hippie from VT, good luck figgerin’ that into the demographic.

    Nice cross hatching in the art BTW!

  22. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    Mel Dahl asked,

    Why is it any more marcissistic to think you’re entitled to keep your stuff than it is to think you have the right to make use of other people’s stuff?

    Because you live in a society. There are other people around who provide you with neat stuff like roads and clean water and police protection and safe food and good things like that. It’s narcissistic to pretend you can just squat in this country, getting all the goodies without paying for it. Sometimes you don’t get an immediate, personal benefit from things like an interstate highway a thousand miles away you’ll never drive on, but the folks who live near that interstate have to pay for the interstate highway you do use. It all evens out.

  23. nonsensemachine says

    My problem with libertarians is that they seem to care an awful lot about what the government is doing with the couple hundred dollars it is “taking” from them. Public education? Peh. If I wasn’t taxed so much, I could send my kids to a better private school. What? Private schools cost more than a couple hundred dollars a year? Whoops.

  24. Fil says

    @ Josh, Official SpokesGay

    The Emily Litella is strong in you.

    Not being American and unfamiliar with Sat Night Live, I had to look up Emily Litella. I like learning new things, even in popular culture, so thanks for that little pizzle. I mean puzzle.

    Never mind… ;-)

  25. Scott Carnegie says

    Neither P.Z. nor the author of this cartoon undertsand the Libertarian position at all. For someone like P.Z. to be a skeptic and want to understand things as they really are I am constantly dissapointed with his attitude towards a poltiical philosophy he doesn’t understand. Reject it, that’s fine, make fun of it, that’s fine but understand it first.

  26. Azkyroth says

    Why is it any more marcissistic to think you’re entitled to keep your stuff than it is to think you have the right to make use of other people’s stuff?

    It’s mostly the flagrant Gerrymandering of what qualifies as “your stuff” and what doesn’t count as “making use of other people’s stuff.” That and the insufferable smug self-righteousness.

  27. Caine, Fleur du mal says

    Josh, OSG OM:

    My cats are complete socialists. They expect to do absolutely nothing, while the Welfare State (me) provides chow, clean litter, and pettings.

    Hmmm. I’d place my dogs as socialists, my cats as anarchists who have no problem with socialism and my rat is full metal jacket anarchist.

  28. Mel Dahl says

    Because you live in a society. There are other people around who provide you with neat stuff like roads and clean water and police protection and safe food and good things like that.

    If appropriating “my stuff” were restricted to things like roads and clean water and police protection I wouldn’t object quite so much, but the busybodies hardly limit themselves to such things, which even most libertarians agree are necessities. (They might quibble with you about how and by whom they should be done and paid for.) Most of government these days has less to do with providing basic services than it does with providing people the opportunity to run their neighbors’ lives.

  29. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    The perennial problem with Teh Libertarian Discussion is that everyone seems to use a different definition. I think PZ’s usually referring to the complete, through-and-through libertarian; the one who thinks government is basically illegitimate if it does anything beyond providing a military. Others who might call themselves libertarians don’t go all the way there, but they don’t seem to get that their personal definitions aren’t necessarily widely known to other people. It’s like Christians getting all butthurt: “That’s not MY kind of Christianity!”

    I’m a leftie with a huge libertarian streak when it comes to social issues. Also when it comes to government regulation that purports to protect the public, but is actually a system of collusion between government and the “regulated” to shut down competition that would actually help consumers (and there’s a lot of it). That’s just plain old industry protectionism at the expense of the public, something most sensible people don’t approve of.

  30. dark&twisty says

    Neither P.Z. nor the author of this cartoon undertsand the Libertarian position at all.

    [Citation needed]

  31. Alverant says

    Scott Carnegie #25
    Oh I don’t know. I’ve spoken with more than a few libertarians. I think PZ is a lot closer to the mark than most libertarians are willing to admit. They want to keep their stuff while using any means necessary to justify using your stuff too. In the libertarian world you only have all the rights you can afford to have and entitled only to the possessions you can protect yourself. It’s anarchy for rich people who think they have the means to get by without the benefits of a government.

  32. SteveM says

    16: A cup with that only contains half a cup of water is…

    ENGNR: A glass that is twice as big as necessary.

  33. Utakata says

    I think I mention this before…I agree with most libertarians, accept in one area. They think capitalism is great. I see no evidence it is. And IMO, most social ills will likely be solved threw income redistribution.

    Nice cartoon, btw. I am trying to figure out the where my parent’s highly evolved lap dog would fit on the political scale of things. That is, I’m not sure it’s something living the full embodiment of a welfare state. Or spoiled and lazy entity that’s conviently sucking off the teet of the privileged upper class.

  34. James F says

    When someone identifies as a libertarian, I find that I need more information to figure out if they are friend or foe with respect to sound evolution education. On one hand, there’s the Ed Brayton-style anti-Religious Right “liberaltarian,” on the other, there are folks who think that local control of school curriculum extends to teaching The Flintstones as a documentary. Thoughts?

  35. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    my parent’s highly evolved absurdly modified by artificial selection lap dog

    Friendly fix. :)

  36. Alverant says

    Mel Dahl #28
    “Most of government these days has less to do with providing basic services than it does with providing people the opportunity to run their neighbors’ lives.”

    Because libertarians would rather run their neighbor’s lives for their own benefit and don’t like it when their neighbors fight back using a bigger stick. I had a neighbor who was libertarian who thought it was his right to toss garbage into my yard because he had a gun. He threatened me with it when I tried I returned his unwanted property. He had power so he felt he could do what he wanted and everyone else had to deal with the consequences.

  38. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    Neither P.Z. nor the author of this cartoon undertsand the Libertarian position at all. For someone like P.Z. to be a skeptic and want to understand things as they really are I am constantly dissapointed with his attitude towards a poltiical philosophy he doesn’t understand. Reject it, that’s fine, make fun of it, that’s fine but understand it first.

    The problem with looneytarianism (to give it its proper name) is it’s amorphous. It’s hard to describe a philosophy based purely on selfishness and disdain for anyone who isn’t you. As soon as a non-looneytarian ascribes a specific characteristic to looneytarianism then some looneytarian will deny his* particular brand of looneytarianism incorporates that idea.

    Mike Huben discusses this phenomenon:

    It’s hard to clearly define libertarianism. “It’s a dessert topping!” “No, it’s a floor wax!” “Wait– it’s both!” It’s a mixture of social philosophy, economic philosophy, a political party, and more. It would be unjust for me to try to characterize libertarianism too exactly: libertarians should be allowed to represent their own positions. At least two FAQs have been created by libertarians to introduce their positions. But the two major flavors are anarcho-capitalists (who want to eliminate political governments) and minarchists (who want to minimize government.) There are many more subtle flavorings, such as Austrian and Chicago economic schools, gold-bug, space cadets, Old-Right, paleo-libertarians, classical liberals, hard money, the Libertarian Party, influences from Ayn Rand, and others.

    This diversity of libertarian viewpoints can make it quite difficult to have a coherent discussion with them, because an argument that is valid for or against one type of libertarianism may not apply to other types…non-libertarians may feel that they have rebutted some libertarian point, but some other flavor libertarian may feel that his “one true libertarianism” doesn’t have that flaw.

    *The vast majority of looneytarians are men.

  39. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    #33:

    They think capitalism is great. I see no evidence it is. And IMO, most social ills will likely be solved threw income redistribution.

    Well, the whole “income redistribution” thing has been tried, and that didn’t go so well (it’s called Communism). What Americans think of as “capitalism” is an extreme version, and not necessarily the only way to do capitalism. We could follow the model of many European countries and impose tight regulations on the capitalist market, striking a better balance between the “free” market and the economic exploitation that’s so common in the US.

  41. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    Clarification to my post at #39:

    Well, the whole “income redistribution” thing has been tried, and that didn’t go so well (it’s called Communism).

    I should have been more nuanced. I’m in favor of income redistribution through progressive taxation. I do think I should have to pay more in taxes from my middle class income than the single parent struggling to get by on a minimum wage salary.

  44. John Morales says

    sendittodevnull @37, yeah, ideally he should have¹. I imagine someone posted the link to him, and he featured it because, ahem, it bites. :)

    Good job on pointing out the source.

    —

    ¹ And probably would’ve, had he known it.

  45. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    Mel Dahl #28

    Most of government these days has less to do with providing basic services than it does with providing people the opportunity to run their neighbors’ lives.

    You mean like the way Ron Paul wants to outlaw abortion?

    Looneytarians want, or claim to want, government off of peoples’ backs…except for those particular things they want government to control. Paul’s anti-abortion stance is a prime example.

  46. Kel, OM says

    Nail. Head.

    Now to exit this thread so I don’t get dragged into another libertarian apologetics argument.

  47. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    Fucking homophones, how do they work? ;)

    You don’t want to know. . .it’s perverse. The more pertinent question: how is babby formed?

  48. Fil says

    It’s funny how various political stances are common in some Western nations and not in others.

    As an Aussie, I’ve met a few (very few) anarchists for example. But I can honestly say I have never met someone who identifies themselves as a libertarian, and I’ve been around the block a few times (maybe they don’t live in my block though).

    Then again, our conservative party is called The Liberal Party, which often confuses up some of my North American friends.

    I was called a typical liberal once by some republifag and got all cross trying to explain that I was actually kinda left wing and he’s saying yeah I am and it was all really funny. Beer may have been involved too.

  49. Alukonis says

    Okay so… I need definition help here. I was under the impression that libertarians were liberal socially and conservative economically – unregulated free market, but you can do whatever you want in your own home so long as it’s not infringing on other people’s rights. Like, gay marriage would be just fine, to take an example.

    As for the “I’ve got mine, jack”… I thought the point was that it’s all about personal responsibility and not just mooching off of others? Like, limiting welfare so people can’t live their whole lives on it and encouraging them to find work, getting unemployment so long as you’re actively looking for another job, basically trying to get everyone to contribute to society rather than entitlement that because “rich people” have lots of money, you don’t have to work or contribute?

    Am I wrong on this? Is there a different name for that sort of political philosophy?

  50. geoffmovies says

    PZ,

    You are brilliant! The comments say it all. That was the best setup of the year.

  52. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    @Fil, #48:

    some republifag

    Was he actually a (shudder) gay republican? If so, I approve of the nomenclature. If not, then not so much.

  53. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    As for the “I’ve got mine, jack”… I thought the point was that it’s all about personal responsibility and not just mooching off of others?

    You’re missing part of the quotation. It’s “I’ve got mine, fuck you Jack.” You see, looneytarians not only want what they have, they don’t care if you have anything. They’re all for building a road from their driveway to their place of business. But they don’t want to pay for roads from your or my homes to where we work. If something doesn’t benefit them personally, they whine about having to pay for it. A Texan looneytarian not only doesn’t care if Minnesota has roads, he doesn’t want Minnesotans to have roads, or at least he doesn’t want to pay for Minnesotan roads.

  54. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    If so, I approve of the nomenclature.

    And for clarification (I’m all about that tonight), I’d only approve of it if the alleged gay republican were trying to pretend his membership in the republican party was not contradictory, self-loathing, and traitorous. If he did so pretend, gloves off.

  55. Gyeong Hwa Pak, Scholar of Shen Zhou says

    Was he actually a (shudder) gay republican?

    Shudder indeed. How can the be in party that has work so hard to screw them over?

  57. Scott Carnegie says

    The main idea is it is about voluntary interaction. Would there be welfare? of course, becasue people want to help each other out. The difference is that you would not be forced to fund the welfare, it would be thorugh voluntary means.

  58. Islander says

    ‘Tis,

    If I’m not mistaken, Ron Paul likes to talk about how abortion is evil (he says he’s an obsetrician and he therefore knows that life begins at conception, good luck following that logic) but he says that it is up to the states to each decide if they want to ban abortion.

    Mel Dahl,

    you’re getting very boring very quickly. How about giving us some substance on your position?

  59. Fil says

    @ Boygenius. #51

    Sorry, was that offensive? In other forums where I often hang out with Americans for political jousting, it’s just seems to be treated as a light-hearted joke.

    Anyway it was not meant to offend, either Republicans or gay people.

    I saw someone warned here recently using a shortened version of Pakistani, which I myself didn’t realise was really offensive in the UK. I still don’t really understand why.

    Anyway, apologies. Now I have to come up with a new dig word for republicans. ;-)

  61. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    Islander,

    I believe Ron Paul has recommended the overturn of Roe v Wade. I could be wrong on this, but I do know Paul is personally anti-abortion and wants it outlawed.

  62. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    How can the be in party that has work so hard to screw them over?

    Gyeong, they do so by deceiving themselves. They tell themselves a little story that goes like this:

    “I may be gay, but I’m for personal economic responsibility. I think stable household and societal economics are important skills, and crucial to society. Sure, this party has some unfortunate bigots, but that reality is outweighed by the fact that republican ideals are really good for our society in the long-term. I can overlook the kooks, and work to better the party from within.”

    Real Life Translation:

    “I’m an intellectual and moral coward with a deep streak of self-hatred. I have a deeply seated streak of social conservatism – I think people should buckle down and conform to conventionality. Yes, this conflicts with the fact that, try as I might, I can’t be anything but a social outlaw in my own party, but that doesn’t mean I’m inconsistent. It doesn’t bother me that my compatriots deny me the legal opportunity to form a lasting economic and social bond recognized by law.

    Oh, and I wish I could be straight.”

  63. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    Sorry, was that offensive?

    Yes, it was.

    In other forums where I often hang out with Americans for political jousting, it’s just seems to be treated as a light-hearted joke.

    It’s not, anymore than republinigger or republicunt, or republigook would be a light-hearted joke. It’s not funny to treat the words for a stigmatized social group as “lighthearted jokes”, or synonyms for “shitty” or “stupid.?

    Consider this a lesson.

  64. Islander says

    The main idea is it is about voluntary interaction. Would there be welfare? of course, becasue people want to help each other out. The difference is that you would not be forced to fund the welfare, it would be thorugh voluntary means.

    This is the “we don’t need to help them because I’m sure others will” argument, and the same one is advanced for health care. If this were true, we would have never had the need to start the social programs in the first place.

    Look at the situation in Haiti. Initially there was a fantastic response by people to donate and send any type of aid they could, but most people only gave once, and the overwhelming majority have stopped by now, despite the fact that there is still much to be done. If we left welfare to depend solely on the good will of the public, we would have a lot of starving men, women and children on our conscience.

  65. boygenius says

    Fil #59,

    Sorry, was that offensive? In other forums where I often hang out with Americans for political jousting, it’s just seems to be treated as a light-hearted joke.

    Well, in these here parts of the interwebz, using sexual orientation or gender as an insult is not acceptable. Unfortunately, this does not hold for the general society. Yet.

    Thank you for apologizing and moving on. Too many people in the past have stuck to their guns and derailed threads over this very issue.

    IMHO, the word “Republican” is offensive enough on it’s own. :)

  66. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    What Islander said in #64. “Voluntary charity” is just a piss-poor excuse for selfish people to protest taxation.

  67. John Morales says

    Scott Carnage:

    Would there be welfare? of course, becasue people want to help each other out. The difference is that you would not be forced to fund the welfare, it would be thorugh voluntary means.

    So your objection is to having to do what you would choose to do anyway?

    Somehow, that sounds less than convincing.

    Do you apply a similar argument to taxes?

  68. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    Scott Carnegie #57

    The main idea is it is about voluntary interaction. Would there be welfare? of course, becasue people want to help each other out. The difference is that you would not be forced to fund the welfare, it would be thorugh voluntary means.

    Let’s look at the real world. I realize that looneytarians hate the real world because it shows their fantasies are absolute bullshit, but unfortunately for them they live in the real world.

    The reason why governments got into the welfare business is quite simple, the private sector couldn’t handle the load. There were more poor needing assistance than such assistance was available. Now I realize that looneytarians don’t give a rat’s ass about the poor, but normal people do. And since, fortunately, there’s more normal people than looneytarians, the poor get (limited) government assistance.

    Of course if a looneytarian were to lose his job then he’d be screaming for government assistance. We see this in the Teabagger movement, where folks whine about what the government’s doing but don’t want to give up Medicare, Social Security Disability, etc. But if the looneytarian gets a new job then he’ll be back screaming about “welfare queens” and “get a job, freeloader” like he was before he needed welfare assistance.

  69. Fil says

    @52

    Oh dear, Josh, Official SpokesGay is upset too; seems I’ve really put my foot in it.

    Hmm, would you believe I meant a hypocritical Republican who is, er, still in the closet? No, no, that’s half the Senate.

    Damn. How about a republican who’s made of bundles of sticks and is, er, wooden in his er, delivery…no?

    WTF, sorry (again). Please forgive?

  70. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    So your objection is to having to do what you would choose to do anyway?

    Somehow, that sounds less than convincing.

    Of course it sounds less than convincing. Because it’s a transparent cover for the real position: “I want to be able to get away with not contributing money to help poor people not starve, but I don’t want anyone to know my position is purely selfish. So, I’ll affect to appeal to peoples’ natural generosity, and hope no one notices.”

    We noticed.

  71. Cheerios623 says

    There’s a lot of libertarian-hate being thrown around, I thought I’d chime in with my justification for a libertarian perspective.

    Government is a necessary institution, it provides infrastructure, military, and other vital functions (like protecting the environment and a judicial system). Even though the government is necessary, it is not efficient. It is not efficient because it has no competition and thus no reason to excel. A group of evolution-literate people like yourselves don’t need to be told that competition breeds efficiency and improvement. You don’t need to look far past the daily headlines to see real life evidence of government doing an awful, inefficient job.

    Thus Libertarians propose keeping the job of government very small, to reduce the aggregate effect of it’s inefficiency. The free market (or mostly-free market) is more than capable of running many of the functions that government currently controls; and because the free market is competitive, it will be much more efficient.

    I also don’t think it’s the job of the government to do all this moral legislation crap. Moral legislation is not a ‘vital function’ of government. Thus it should not concern the government whether gays are marrying, or if abortions are going down, or if two consenting adults want to have a duel at sunup on Boot Hill.

  72. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    WTF, sorry (again). Please forgive?

    Of course! You are forgiven. I know the difference between someone who wants to be evil, and someone who just stumbled. My point wasn’t to be all hateful to you, but to point out how easily we all assume casual bigotry doesn’t hurt.

    I know you didn’t mean it.:))

  73. Scott Carnegie says

    The issue is force. Simple as that. Enough of the strawman’s already.

  74. Gyeong Hwa Pak, Scholar of Shen Zhou says

    Oh, and I wish I could be straight.

    I’ve actually heard some gay people say just that. I’d slap them if I could.

  75. pjreiss says

    @Scott Carnage #57:

    The main idea is it is about voluntary interaction. Would there be welfare? of course, becasue people want to help each other out. The difference is that you would not be forced to fund the welfare, it would be thorugh voluntary means.

    Let’s see… a welfare system provided by private interest groups, hrmmm, I wonder what that would be like… oh hey look it’s the developing world!

    What’s that? Misinformation about, or outright obstruction of, contraceptive programs during AIDS crises, exchanging food and medicine for religious conversion, and the further marginalisation of sexual minorities. Sounds super!

  76. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    I’ve actually heard some gay people say just that. I’d slap them if I could.

    Me too. It’s just sad, sad, sad. The last time I said to myself “I wish I were straight,” I was a 7-year-old kid still praying to god, convinced I’d done something so intrinsically wrong, there was nothing I could do but ask for divine intervention.

    No one – gay, straight, brown, white, whatever -should ever have to feel essentially inadequate.

  77. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    The issue is force. Simple as that.

    How do you define “force,” Scott? When is “force” over the line?

  78. pjreiss says

    @ Alukonis #49:

    Am I wrong on this? Is there a different name for that sort of political philosophy?

    Sociopathy.

  79. calvinlindfors says

    The problem with the free market is that it’s motivated by profits, and the profit motive is often in direct conflict with the wellbeing of the consumer. In healthcare, for instance, the only way to make a profit is to deny care as much as possible with as large a pool as possible. Since the government doesn’t need to worry about the profit motive, it can better provide health care since it doesn’t need to deny lifesaving procedures, and since it has no competition, it can have a pool of the entirety of the population of the country, minimizing costs.

  82. Scott Carnegie says

    calvinlindfors #79

    Since the government doesn’t need to worry about the profit motive, it can better provide health care since it doesn’t need to deny lifesaving procedures

    If you are a skeptic I would suggest that you look at the evidence to see what the profit motive actually does and how it encourages better goods and services, not takes away from it.

  83. Islander says

    Tis, you are correct.

    The issue is force. Simple as that. Enough of the strawman’s already.

    So, just to clarify, you don’t mind people starving or going without any social programs so long as you’re not being -gasp- forced to give a small amount to make sure that doesn’t happen to your brothers and sisters?

    Your use of the word “forced” is intended to stir up angry feelings about the gummint takin our money, but it won’t work here. Let’s call it like it is: a portion of everyone’s earnings goes to make sure that everyone (including you) will, in tough times, be given a minimal amount of assistance to allow them to squeak through another day.

    THE HORROR!!!!!!!!

  84. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    Even though the government is necessary, it is not efficient. It is not efficient because it has no competition and thus no reason to excel. A group of evolution-literate people like yourselves don’t need to be told that competition breeds efficiency and improvement. You don’t need to look far past the daily headlines to see real life evidence of government doing an awful, inefficient job.

    This is one of the great looneytarian myths. “Da gummint don’t do nothin’ good enough.” The reverse of this myth is “corporations are honorable, good, and faultless.”

    Government operates under transparency. With few exceptions, it’s easy to find out what governments are doing. The $600 hammers and coffeepots designed to withstand aircraft crashes come into view readily. Corporations don’t have this handicap. Unless the screwup is massive, like Union Carbide’s poisoning of Bhopal or AIG’s financial meltdown, corporate mistakes and inefficiencies remain hidden.

    Remind us again about how Lehman Brothers was so efficient that it went bankrupt? And don’t forget the management got billions in bonuses while driving their company into the ground. That certainly showed how efficiently they took care of themselves.

  85. Scott Carnegie says

    Islander #83

    a portion of everyone’s earnings goes to make sure that everyone (including you) will, in tough times, be given a minimal amount of assistance to allow them to squeak through another day.

    I have re-worded your statement to say this…

    a portion of everyone’s earnings goes to make sure that everyone (including you) will, in tough times, be forced to pay to kill innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan

    Not so pleasing now is it.

  86. calvinlindfors says

    If you are a skeptic I would suggest that you look at the evidence to see what the profit motive actually does and how it encourages better goods and services, not takes away from it.

    I suggest you follow up your Econ 101 class with Econ 102 and learn about a little thing called “Market Failures”. While the Just World fallacy is a comfortable lie to believe, acting on it just causes harm.

  87. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    Scott, what the hell does that have to do with the minimum social safety net?

  88. jcwelch says

    #25 wins for the first instance of “No true Scotsman!”

    On Government overspending. I used to giggle at this.”Why does the Air Force need a $7000 toilet when you can get one at home depot for a hundred bucks?”

    “Well sir, our toilets, like civilian airliners, have to deal with things like turbulence and rough landings. Oh, and we do expect to occasionally get shot at. So, with that in mind, a hundred buck porcelain loo just won’t cut it. Dumbass.”

    #82 and others: actually, the only reason we have competition is because we made things like trusts and abuse of monopoly power illegal. The aim of business is to make money. Period. Things like competition put a crimp in that. You have to shave your profit margins, pay your workers more, offer benefits, lower your prices, add features.

    It’s a complete fucking pain in the ass.

    Now, if we go back to the glory days, immediate antebellum in the U.S., there were no inconvenient regulations about monopolies. So, if you were ruthless enough, you could ensure you had no competition. This allowed you to:

    1) charge whatever you want, (PROFIT!)

    2) pay your workers whatever you felt like, (MORE PROFIT), because a) they couldn’t work for the competition, (there was none), b) if they quit, you could talk to your buddies on the interlocking boards that let you all make money off each other’s monopolies thanks to gentlemen’s agreements not to compete, and said workers would be blackballed from getting jobs in their industries either.

    3) add in new features whenever you felt like it, because if you didn’t…well, shit, there’s no competition, do whatever you want.

    4) some dirty foreigner tries to come in? undercut, dump, whatever it takes, and drive them out.

    5) ecological responsibility? fuck that shit, that cuts into profit.

    The true natural end state of an unregulated economy, besides extreme boom and bust cycles, (boom only for a few. if you’re not at the top, then you really live in a bust/not so bust world), are a small number of industry monopolies, ass-raping their workers and the environment, but making truly obscene amounts of money..

    And for anyone bringing up the computer industry, if it weren’t for regular government intervention, we’d all still be using IBM 3270 terminals.

    If you love competition, you love the government slapping down the worst impulses of big business.

  89. Islander says

    Even though the government is necessary, it is not efficient. It is not efficient because it has no competition and thus no reason to excel.

    Well, if we apply libertarian theory consistently, then the competing parties of the government will be in competition to better serve the people. Their desire to be in the controlling party will stimulate them to serve the people better than the other party, and thus, we all benefit.

    Now, as you are undoubtedly prepared to tell me, this doesn’t happen in reality because the two parties have a monopoly on the political system and they’re way too much alike. But the same is true of the private sector, and that’s what the libertarians invariably fail to realise. There’s almost never true competition; a few companies get control of the market, competition is suppressed, and public benefit grinds down to a minimum as it becomes all about maximizing profits. The health insurance industry is a great example.

    It sucks either way, but I would much rather have people I could vote out of office in charge of this crappy system, rather than unaccountable, nameless executivrs.

  90. f.boniboni says

    I had to log in just to say that Scott #85 comparison of financing the war versus financing a minimum safety net for ensuring human development was utterly UGLY.

  91. Fil says

    Of course! You are forgiven. I know the difference between someone who wants to be evil, and someone who just stumbled. My point wasn’t to be all hateful to you, but to point out how easily we all assume casual bigotry doesn’t hurt.

    I know you didn’t mean it.:))

    Thanks for that. It was really quite embarrassing, seeing as how I’m very much not anti-gay or unmindful of how prejudicial comments can hurt. Stupid on my part. I’ve worked in the entertainment industry for decades with loads of gay people and am extremely comfortable in doing so, I count gays as some of my closest friends and my favourite niece (and her lover of course) is also gay, so it’s not like I’m an old fuddy duddy with hidden prejudices (a hackneyed defence I know, but in my case quite true and meant sincerely).

    I guess another problem is that I often pop in here from quite different forums where the banter is often not politically correct, everybody has known each other for years and I guess the mindset carries over. In a similar vein, I can seem a bit grumpy here, while not really meaning to seem so intense, just inappropriate for this forum. I’ll be more thoughtful in future. :-)

  92. Islander says

    Executives, even. Nothing like hitting the ‘submit’ button only to a bad typo.

  93. Tulse says

    Neither P.Z. nor the author of this cartoon undertsand the Libertarian position at all.

    It only takes to comment #25 to get PZ’s question answered.

    Government is a necessary institution, it provides infrastructure, military, and other vital functions (like protecting the environment and a judicial system). Even though the government is necessary, it is not efficient. It is not efficient because it has no competition and thus no reason to excel.

    So why not privatize those government functions? Surely those who want military protection could pay for it directly, and those who don’t want it could opt out — I’m willing to take a chance on invasion, so why should I pay for the armed forces? Same for police and fire protection — if my house is made of concrete, why should I pay for fire coverage for your wooden house? If I have an alarm system and guard dog, why should I pay for the cops to protect you? Heck, if I drive a large all-wheel-drive truck, why should I have to pay for paved roads?

  94. Andyo says

    Posted by:
    Cheerios623 Author Profile Page |
    May 2, 2010 12:58 AM

    Even though the government is necessary, it is not efficient. It is not efficient because it has no competition and thus no reason to excel.

    That’s a pretty bizarre statement. Wanna rephrase?

  95. Islander says

    Bah! Fuck it.

    I have re-worded your statement to say this…

    a portion of everyone’s earnings goes to make sure that everyone (including you) will, in tough times, be forced to pay to kill innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan

    Not so pleasing now is it.

    ???

    Methinks I smell the odor of desperation. Is it just a coincidence that your last name is Carnegie?

  96. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    @Fil:

    I guess another problem is that I often pop in here from quite different forums where the banter is often not politically correct, everybody has known each other for years and I guess the mindset carries over.

    It’s the same with me. It can be hard to readjust one’s tone/vocabulary quickly.

    Just as everyone should take care not to be crass, bigoted or hateful, we should also try hard to tell the difference between banter and genuine ugliness. It’s no good cussing out people who don’t deserve it, and it’s not fair to lump people of good will in with assholes. I keep trying to work on that.

  97. Autumn says

    Wow, using the war argument. Well, as a voter, I have the ability to try and change the policies that I feel are misguided by voting for candidates who share my views.
    In a properly run business, those on low rungs, as well as the consumer, have no option available to alter company policies. The company will (as it should) strive to increase profits. That is good. Every business should seek to increase its profits.
    However, in the cases in which a public (read: this includes you, even if you refuse to realise it) need is involved, more government concern is logical.
    Or do you really want to argue that Microsoft has realized the pinnacle of user interface.

  98. tuckerch says

    We are currently seeing just how well the Free Market has been in protecting the Gulf of Mexico from the effects of an exploded and collapsed oil platform.

    All Hail The MIGHTY INVISIBLE HAND of the ALL KNOWING AND ALL POWERFUL FREE MARKET!

    And, of course, I must post my favorite bit of libertarian batshit insanity, The Scourge of Public Libraries.

    “Public libraries, as institutions that destroy value, destroy in some small way our ability to live our lives to the fullest. They represent houses of death and should be spat upon and cursed in the most creative language possible.“

  99. otrame says

    Aarrrggghhhh

    I get so sick of this shit.

    The free market (or mostly-free market) is more than capable of running many of the functions that government currently controls; and because the free market is competitive, it will be much more efficient.

    This. This is

    BULLSHIT.

    When people say this and honestly believe it, I am tempted to believe they are both blind and stupid. The “free market” is a fucking monster run by greedy people who are only kept under control by government, and only just barely. EVERY single time the government sells off part of itself to the “efficiency” of the so-called free market we get screwed again. Companies have to make a profit. What ever “efficiency” engendered by competition (when there really is any competition) is more than made up for by the fact that companies have to make a profit. And in addition however much profit they make is not enough, so they will cut some more corners and provide less service-per-dollar to make that extra profit. The only ones who don’t get screwed are the stockholders.

    Oh, and as far as the whole “Welfare Queen” fallacy goes, you tell me how a woman who has two kids and who can only get a minimum wage job is going to pay for childcare for those two kids while she is out asking you if you want fries with that. Have you checked out how much childcare costs these days? Not to mention that if she has that job she does NOT have health care for her kids. She’s in that situation because you guys don’t want the government to spend “your” money on education and fight every school bond election and every attempt to improve the educational system.

    I’d vote for a fucking Republican before I’d vote for a libertarian.

  100. Eileen says

    It was a neo-liberal wet dream to invade and remake Iraq, Scott: free-markets were supposed to help heal Iraq, and an allegedly democratic capitalism was supposed to make it a beacon in the Middle East. I don’t know what can actually heal that country now – but if you want to talk about force and innocent deaths, look at the wonders that militant, utopian libertarians wrought in Iraq.

    Perhaps you’ll reply that nothing about libertarianism necessitates this kind of violence. But you were the one who confused the concept of “large”, tax-collecting government with compulsory participation in mass murder.

    My non-libertarian governed country rejected the bullshit so many free-market libertarians were happy to swallow. We did not let our financial sector run loose in the casino. We said no to Iraq. And at no time did we ever claim to be perfect – but that feeding, housing, educating, and nursing the poor is vastly preferable to the alternative. Do you really think this world would be so great without the welfare state?

    Look at Europe during the middle ages, renaissance, or enlightenment. The poor often worked damned HARDER than anyone today, for just enough money to return to work the next day. And yet so many of our breathtaking CEOs require multi-million dollar “compensation” just to tank the world financial system. In case you haven’t figured it out yet, the profit motive can and does result in CLUSTERFUCKERY and BULLSHIT. Free-markets and minimal governance can and do result in MORAL and FINANCIAL DISASTER.

  101. Citizen of the Cosmos says

    “Do libertarians have a sense of humor?”

    I certainly hope so, the alternative is that they’re actually serious about it.

    Libertarianism is either idiotic, insane or evil. In their world, money and greed would be in control, people would be valued only from their wealth and ability to create more.

    Would I want to live in a “society” with no public *anything*?

    Consider living in a society where you might die if you can’t afford healthcare.

    Or where education is not free or at least affordable for all.

    Or where you have to live in a tent because you had the bad taste of being fired from your job.

    Or where corporations are allowed to freely pollute the air, poison the water and destroy ecosystems simply because there are no environmental regulations.

    Or where the society itself does not organise and fund rescue services, police departments, or fire fighters.

    Who would want that? Surely not anyone in here?

  102. Alukonis says

    This whole conversation reminds me of how I felt when I met people bashing Ayn Rand and realizing I had a completely different interpretation of her writing than, like, the rest of the planet.

    Also, @tuckerch #98, they can have my public libraries when they pry them from my cold dead hands! Is that actually serious!? Are you sure that’s not a clever satirical article?

    Ack I read the article and my brain hurts now.

  103. Azkyroth says

    Like, limiting welfare so people can’t live their whole lives on it and encouraging them to find work, getting unemployment so long as you’re actively looking for another job, basically trying to get everyone to contribute to society rather than entitlement that because “rich people” have lots of money, you don’t have to work or contribute?

    Am I wrong on this? Is there a different name for that sort of political philosophy?

    Yeah, “liberalism,” generally. Self-identified libertarians, especially the Big-L kind, tend to think unemployment and human assistance programs in general should be completely eliminated. Liberals generally endorse the “hand up, not a hand out” stance, though some are more willing to err on the side of generosity than others; Conservatives and most Libertarians take the “let them eat cake” stance.

  104. Islander says

    @ tuckerch

    If that website was a poe like Landover Baptist Church, the author would be nothing short of genius.

    Here’s my favorite part:

    Instead of going to one of the Blockbuster Video stores that are on practically every corner and paying $4, one can go to a local library and pay 50 cents or at some places nothing at all. Yay! Free movies!

    Of course, if you want to get one of the more popular movies, you’ll have to sign up on the waiting list several weeks in advance. It reminds me of Soviet breadlines.[emphasis mine]

    Sometimes people just make me want to jump off the planet.

  105. Citizen of the Cosmos says

    #98

    There are people who oppose public libraries? How sad their lives must be, if they consider libraries to be evil. Amazing.

  106. Azkyroth says

    The main idea is it is about voluntary interaction. Would there be welfare? of course, becasue people want to help each other out. The difference is that you would not be forced to fund the welfare, it would be thorugh voluntary means.

    Been tried. Didn’t work. That’s why the welfare state was created in the first place.

  107. Azkyroth says

    If we left welfare to depend solely on the good will of the public, we would have a lot of starving men, women and children on our conscience.

    But hey, at least we get to keep our stuff.

    (This sort of argument is only effective against people who HAVE consciences).

    The free market (or mostly-free market) is more than capable of running many of the functions that government currently controls; and because the free market is competitive, it will be much more efficient.

    Been tried. Mixed results.

    The issue is force. Simple as that. Enough of the strawman’s already.

    What about it?

    Since the government doesn’t need to worry about the profit motive, it can better provide health care since it doesn’t need to deny lifesaving procedures

    If you are a skeptic I would suggest that you look at the evidence to see what the profit motive actually does

    Oh, you mean like the current US health care system pretty much entirely matching his description?

    and how it encourages better goods and services, not takes away from it.

    The persistent failure of real-world experiments, planned or not, to conform to your theory is a sign that there is a problem with your theory.

  108. Autumn says

    Well, I’d be insane if I didn’t want the serfs to be able to work for me.
    We all get more.

  109. Utakata says

    I agree with you the most part Josh, Official SpokesGay @ #39. That’s kinda of the income distrubution I am talking about…not the one that was perversed by past practices of Communism by self-interested individuals who used it as a power grab.

    boygenius @ #43 wrote:

    “Fucking homophones, how do they work? ;)”

    In the catagorie this might of been a typo:

    If you’re speaking of audiophiles…there is plenty of stuff on that matter, but keep a skeptical mind when approaching the subject. Though, I am not sure what this has to do with the conversation. :)

    If you’re speaking of homophobes…there maybe somethings which there is no cure for bigoted ignorance. Other than universal education and the willingness for the homophobe to admit they’re wrong. I also suspect though, with better income distribution…people may have less incentive to move to such extremist views.

  110. Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom says

    Even though the government is necessary, it is not efficient. It is not efficient because it has no competition and thus no reason to excel.

    Hello, man from the future! I hail from the year of our lord, 1890! Can you direct me to the nearest Standard Oil refinery? I was sent to obtain more oil for Carnegie Steel.

  111. Pygmy Loris says

    As for the “I’ve got mine, jack”… I thought the point was that it’s all about personal responsibility and not just mooching off of others? Like, limiting welfare so people can’t live their whole lives on it and encouraging them to find work, getting unemployment so long as you’re actively looking for another job, basically trying to get everyone to contribute to society rather than entitlement that because “rich people” have lots of money, you don’t have to work or contribute?

    Yes, because you can live forever on welfare. Dumb fuck. Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) has a lifetime maximum of 60 months of benefits. No one in the US is living off of welfare except for the disabled, the old and military vets. BTW many of those “rich people” inherited their wealth and have done nothing to contribute to society and don’t work. You’re an idiot. People who receive welfare benefits of various kinds are, by and large, not “mooching off of others.” They are trying to feed their children and themselves. Why don’t you read People of the Abyss for a look at life for the poor in a society that depends on private charity to take care of the poor. Besides, the poverty stricken class is not full of lazy people. Wal-mart is the largest employer in the country and they pay their average worker poverty level wages. Those people are not lazy. Have you ever worked one of the various minimum or sub-minimum wage jobs that many people live off of? They are hard work. Being a cashier at McDonalds is hard work. Your feet ache, you get treated like shit by people who see themselves as your betters, you develop knee and back problems, there’s tremendous risk of injury from falling on grease slicked floors. Not to mention you go home to a life of grinding poverty.

    Thus Libertarians propose keeping the job of government very small, to reduce the aggregate effect of it’s inefficiency. The free market (or mostly-free market) is more than capable of running many of the functions that government currently controls; and because the free market is competitive, it will be much more efficient.

    Which government functions, specifically, do you think the free market would be better at? Social security? Nope, before we had social security, most older folks relied on their families or ended up in the poor house. Welfare? Oh yeah, there’s a real profit maker. Public transportation? Roads? If you really think the private sector is better, perhaps you should actually do some research and think a bit more.

    I have re-worded your statement to say this…
    a portion of everyone’s earnings goes to make sure that everyone (including you) will, in tough times, be forced to pay to kill innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan
    Not so pleasing now is it.

    Non sequitur much? The war in Iraq has nothing to do with the belief that providing food and shelter for the poverty stricken is a net societal good and an intrinsic function of good government.

  112. tonysidaway says

    “If House Pets Were Librarians” might be funny.

    I find the thought of libertarianism and the coddled narcisists who are attracted to it so deeply depressing that it’s difficult to raise more than a derisive snort at those caricatures.

  113. John Morales says

    [meta]

    Utakata @109, no typo by Josh. Look it up, then reed threw your comment to sea what prompted his invocation of the clownish meem. :)

  115. Pygmy Loris says

    Azkyroth,

    (This sort of argument is only effective against people who HAVE consciences).

    It should be effective from a purely self-interested perspective for all but the truly wealthy. Virtually anyone can find themselves dependent on government assistance at some point in their lives. Not everyone experiences the fall from middle and working class to the ranks of poverty, but it can happen to anyone. The desire to make sure that if it happens to you, there’s a program to make sure you don’t starve should be enough to get people to support welfare programs now. I think much of the backlash against welfare in the US is that too many people feel far too secure in their middle-class lives. They’ve forgotten the Great Depression, the Dust Bowl, the panics of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

  117. boygenius says

    Utakata #109,

    I was referring to your first comment at #33 where you used 2 homophones in one paragraph.

    I think I mention this before…I agree with most libertarians, accept in one area. They think capitalism is great. I see no evidence it is. And IMO, most social ills will likely be solved threw income redistribution.

    I was just flipping you some good-natured shit as I do not know if English is your first language. Hence the winky smiley. :)

  118. https://me.yahoo.com/a/c8vgv20epfOnyZYgaPKrcYfDk4TekTh7#ed6d2 says

    “Well, the whole “income redistribution” thing has been tried, and that didn’t go so well (it’s called Communism). What Americans think of as “capitalism” is an extreme version, and not necessarily the only way to do capitalism. We could follow the model of many European countries and impose tight regulations on the capitalist market, striking a better balance between the “free” market and the economic exploitation that’s so common in the US”

    Got to say I always love the ‘capitalism is great insofar as it isn’t capitalism’ defense. The definition of capitalism, from Meriam-Webster ” an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market”. What you want is called a ‘mixed economy’, which combines elements of public ownership of production and private production.

    I also find it hilarious that people believe communism has been tried, given that Russia was not a developed, capitalist country during the Russian Revolution (it was an underdeveloped, semi-fuedal monarchy) and one of the primary actors in the Revolution, Leon Trotsky, declared that Russia’s starting economic point meant that it could not make a transition directly to communism because it had to build infrastructure before it could support all of its people and that this industrialization would cause the problems of capitalism to rear their ugly head and the people would need to be in a state of continuous revolution. Trotsky, it should be noted, led a major leftist resistance against Stalin before fleeign the country. Stalin revoked most of Lenin’s progressive policies (Lenin instituted some of the most sex positive, woman friendly, and gay friendly laws in the world, and had an openly gay man amoung his top cabinet members who was killed by Stalin) and killed off most of the remaining members of Lenin’s administration. You know what it is called when a group unpopular with the former administration takes over against the will of the original revolution leaders and kills off any resisters from the former administration? A counter revolution. American anarcha-socialist Emma Goldman predicted this due to a flaw in the structure of the Bolshevik goverment. She noted that having a benign authoritarian goverment relies on there being a benevolent (at least for the most part) leader. Lenin’s response was his system for handpicking successors, which fell apart when his successor died shortly before his death.

    So, if the Russian Revolution constitued a genuine communist revolution (which it might not have, given that Marxist revolutionary theory was written with industrialized nations in mind) and if Lenin’s administration, while flawed, made a good attempt, Stalin killed all of that off anyways. Also, some people attribute the fall of the Russian economy to its starting level combined with western hostility and believe that without the arms race, Russia could have succeeded. Worldwide, most communists and socialists were anti-Stalinist (British communists went strongly Trotskyist and Trotskyism is still a more major movement there than in the US), however, the Communist Party in America decided to unthinkingly support Russia and basically instituted purity tests for members. So, the anti-Stalinist leftists in the US left the party. Many of them ended up in the Socialist Party of America or associated with it (this includes a massive part of the union movement in the US, including the leader of the first nationally recognized black union, A. Phillip Randolp, who co-organized the March on Washington with a former communist party member, Bayard Rustin). So, the spectre of the communist as a Stalinist is built out of a weird American myopia (and red scares), rather than any real analysis of the meaning of these economic systems.

  119. Roestigraben says

    Cheerio #71:

    Government is a necessary institution, it provides infrastructure, military, and other vital functions (like protecting the environment and a judicial system). Even though the government is necessary, it is not efficient. It is not efficient because it has no competition and thus no reason to excel. A group of evolution-literate people like yourselves don’t need to be told that competition breeds efficiency and improvement. You don’t need to look far past the daily headlines to see real life evidence of government doing an awful, inefficient job.

    You seem to have a pretty simplistic understanding of what “Government” actually is. Islander has already pointed out that there’s ususally a pretty strong competition among the parties forming it or aspiring to do so, at least in a democracy. You might also want to have a look at the international arena, where nation states are competing as well – sometimes peacefully, as on economic policy, sometimes not so much, as when their national security interests are at odds. And another reason for the inefficiencies which it supposedly spawns can readily be found in the fact that state power is and should be divided between different branches of government as well as between parties or wings of the same party representing different constituencies with specific interests. The CEO of a company only has to provide results for its stockholders, and they’ve got a uniform interest in more profits. A head of state has to provide for the well-being of a whole society, usually not just for the majority coalition that brought him or her into office. Since interests are bound to be fragmented and contradictory in pluralistic societies, there’s always a tradeoff between a coherent, efficient policy and a compromise that satisfies a larger number of people, but entails some contradictions as well. There’s a wonderful example to be found in the recent health care deal.

  120. https://me.yahoo.com/a/c8vgv20epfOnyZYgaPKrcYfDk4TekTh7#ed6d2 says

    @39, also, if you call yourself the official spokesgay, you should know that the first major gay rights org in the US, the Mattachine Society, started out as a highly communist organization. The two split when the Communist Party supported Stalin (who was very anti-gay, in contrast to the pro-gay Lenin) and the Mattachines wanted to appear more mainstream by stripping away associations with commies.

    The pre-Stalin Communist Party in the US, along with the Socialist Party, played a central role in organizing tenant farmers and the Socialist Party was a key organizer of the March on Washington (where King gave the I have a Dream Speech) and the SP actually donated money from its own funds to help pay for buses and put its presidential candidate (Norman Thomas, one of the top ten third party candidates since the civil war) on stage with King. The man who was sent by SNCC to train the young King on nonviolent resistance tactics was Bayard Rustin, a gay former communist party member. Rustin was later forced out by SCLC for those very features before organizing the March.

    I always find it fascinating when Americans in particular bash communism and socialism while ignoring the significance it has had in gaining workers rights, African American rights, and, to a lesser extent, gay rights within the US.

  121. Alukonis says

    @Pygmy Loris #111
    whoa whoa WHOA! I was just asking if that was what libertarianism was, because that was my impression of it! I never said those were my political views. Please don’t insult me just because I was seeking clarification from people who, it appeared to me, were clearly better versed in this type of discussion than I am.

    Seeking knowledge and understanding does not make me a “dumb fuck” or an “idiot.” I would argue that it makes me the opposite, in fact.

    Good day to you, sir (or madam)!

  122. Jadehawk, OM says

    thanks yahoomess, without your lectures we’d be fully ignorant of the left-wing’s achievements thorough modern history. because we’re all just that kind of ignorant blog, full of ignorant American rednecks.

  123. John Morales says

    [meta]

    Alukonis @111, Pygmy Loris made a mistake; call it friendly fire.

    I hope you don’t let it put you off commenting here.

  124. Jadehawk, OM says

    Alukonis, what you’ve presented is the veneer that libertarians like to present to the outer world, but it resembles the real motivations, tactics and effects of what they are trying to accomplish not at all.

    And your post presented that polished turd with a tone that looked suspiciously like sarcasm, or concern trolling at best.

  125. skeptifem says

    Like, limiting welfare so people can’t live their whole lives on it and encouraging them to find work, getting unemployment so long as you’re actively looking for another job, basically trying to get everyone to contribute to society rather than entitlement that because “rich people” have lots of money, you don’t have to work or contribute?

    I know who all those people are, the ones who “don’t work”. They are usually single moms, and they raise children, but it isn’t work, right? Pfft. Anyone who cares to look at poverty & social program statistics knows that it is true; women with kids are apparently the non workers. The work of mothers is the glue that holds society together; everything goes to hell in a generation if they quit, and yet they are paid nothing for their services, making it even harder to do the best job possible in caring for children. Libertarians would say their work is not worth anything because they do not get paid, but the difference made is obvious and is something we all benefit from constantly. Not only that, but a mom is seen as unproductive unless she is also doing something like answering the phone for a television company or waitressing at some restaurant, jobs that do not serve any essential function. The labor involved with countless jobs amounts to meaningless busy work, work that does not improve the world or our lives. Libertarians cannot account for the gap between work that must be done and the kind of work that you can be paid for, and that is a major reason why I stopped calling myself one long ago. Perhaps government isn’t the solution to that problem, but further isolating ourselves clearly isn’t either. Government allows for at least a *chance* at participation though, we can vote and change things with activism(like in the 60’s), and in corporations that kind of change is virtually impossible. It shouldn’t be a suprise that giant corporations push libertarian talking points on the mainstream media they own; it is useful to push this ideology onto people who might otherwise band together to fight it. I am in Utah, surrounded by people who repeat these talking points at me constantly, despite the fact that most of us spend the majority of our lives working at jobs in corporations that are allowed a freakish degree of totalitarian control over our lives. Many do not get health care or retirement out of their labor. Libertarians do not address the tyranny of private power being concentrated in such a way, either.

  126. Knockgoats says

    I saw someone warned here recently using a shortened version of Pakistani, which I myself didn’t realise was really offensive in the UK. I still don’t really understand why. – Fil

    Simply because it’s been used for decades as a racial insult, like “nigger” in the USA or “Yid” in both countries. After all, “nigger” is in origin just the Latin for “black”, and the main language of East European Jews was Yiddish.

  127. Pygmy Loris says

    Alukonis,

    I’m sorry. Like Jadehawk said, your comment was very similar in tone and content to various libertarian jerks who have posted here over the years. I had a knee jerk reaction. If you’re not a libertarian, I’m sorry. If you are, then yeah, what I said stands.

    Libertarian motto: I’ve got mine, fuck you.

  128. Knockgoats says

    If we left welfare to depend solely on the good will of the public, we would have a lot of starving men, women and children on our conscience.

    Conscience?? That’s just socialistic guilt-tripping!

    [/glibertarian]

  129. Kristjan Wager says

    I don’t think anyone else has mentioned it, but the strip is made by Berry Deutsch/Ampersand, who runs the excellent blog Alas, a blog

    More strips can be found here

  130. Knockgoats says

    Even though the government is necessary, it is not efficient. It is not efficient because it has no competition and thus no reason to excel.,/i> – Cheerio623

    Ever hear of elections, fuckwit?

  132. tuckerch says

    The “Rebirth of Reason” site is not a poe, as far as I can tell.

    The fellow apparently means every word he’s written. Some of the comments on the Scourge of Public Libraries page are rather mind boggling.

    A lot of libertarians seem to think that AVATAR is some manner of commie/pinko/socialist propaganda, which is rather odd. You’d think they’d celebrate it as a libertarian ideal! You know, people come in, kill the locals and try to take their resources, locals band together to drive out the people that initiated force against them.

    But once you read what Rand had to say about American Indians, the antipathy towards AVATAR is quite understandable.

  133. Alukonis says

    Alukonis, what you’ve presented is the veneer that libertarians like to present to the outer world, but it resembles the real motivations, tactics and effects of what they are trying to accomplish not at all.

    And your post presented that polished turd with a tone that looked suspiciously like sarcasm, or concern trolling at best.

    Ah, well, tone and the internet don’t mix very well. The veneer WAS what I was questioning though. My dad is a libertarian, so I’m used to hearing that kind of argument, then I see the cartoon and what people here say about it and… it didn’t jive. So I asked.

    Also don’t get me wrong here – my dad is getting progressively more rabid on political stuff, he only watches Fox News, and we can’t discuss politics at ALL any more (whether because I got a lot more liberal in college or he got a lot more right-wing, or both). His views are not mine. I am not trying to “concern troll” or be sarcastic.

    Anyway, thanks to everyone who helped explain this stuff to me. I don’t really have that much familiarity with different political philosophies, and dictionary definitions don’t really give you the context you get from a discussion like this.

  134. Knockgoats says

    A group of evolution-literate people like yourselves don’t need to be told that competition breeds efficiency and improvement. – Cheerio623

    An ignorant glibertarian idiot like you, on the other hand does need to be told that this is, as a generalisation, crap. You know why trees put most of their energy into growing many meters high? It’s to get at the sunlight before the other trees. You know why a peacock risks its life carrying that huge tail about? It’s to attract the peahens in competition with with other peacocks. If trees, or peacocls, could agree among themselves not to compete in these ways, they’d all be better off, but being as stupid as glibertarians, they can’t.

  135. Fil says

    @ Knockgoats #126

    I saw someone warned here recently using a shortened version of Pakistani, which I myself didn’t realise was really offensive in the UK. I still don’t really understand why. – Fil

    Simply because it’s been used for decades as a racial insult, like “nigger” in the USA or “Yid” in both countries. After all, “nigger” is in origin just the Latin for “black”, and the main language of East European Jews was Yiddish.

    I figured as much, but was still surprised to see it was such an emotional word. After all, the stem Paki by itself has no objective denigrating meaning, just as the Latin niger (evolving to the similarly pronounced nigger) really doesn’t mean anything other than black, as you say.

    I thought perhaps it arose because of the term “Paki bashing”, referring to the ugly phenomenon of racist thugs picking on UK immigrants because of their ethnicity.

    The word Paki is a trap for us Aussies, btw, because we are famous for using contractions, rather than the full word…we especially like to shorten and add a “y” or “ie”..as in “footy”, or “firie” (for firefighter and one that annoys me for some silly reason). Childish perhaps, but there you go.

    Oh and I’ve decided to go with Republiclowns for now on when tweaking US conservatives’ noses.

    Dare I say I’ve given up the fags? (pun on ciggies guys).

    As for Pakistanis, I shall declare my solidarity with their dignity by forgoing the temptation to contract in any way and type the full word.

  136. tas121790 says

    Every time a libertarian talks about ann rand* i assume hes getting a a squeezer from the invisible hand.

    *spelling/pronouncing her name “ann” always pisses of libertarians.

  138. Hirnlego says

    He always pictured himself a libertarian, which to my way of thinking means “I want the liberty to grow rich and you can have the liberty to starve”. It’s easy to believe that no one should depend on society for help when you yourself happen not to need such help.
    Isaac Asimov, “I. Asimov” pg. 308.

  139. skeptifem says

    A group of evolution-literate people like yourselves don’t need to be told that competition breeds efficiency and improvement. You don’t need to look far past the daily headlines to see real life evidence of government doing an awful, inefficient job.

    Competition doesn’t breed efficiency and improvement at all! It breeds ruthlessness and dominance. Cooperation is how the world of humans has improved, and why we have the infrastructure that we enjoy today. Most of us owe our lives to that infrastructure.

    Speaking of doing an awful, ineffecient job, there are many products out there that are extremely popular and have far superior competitors. Remember vhs vs beta? Hell, look at iphones and ipods and ipads. There were phones that were much better than an iphone years before the iphone came out, but superior MARKETING made the iphone popular. Being able to sell more of something does not actually make it a superior product.

    Also, government inefficiency does not make private solutions more efficient. Perhaps if government was something more than electing people to make choices for all of us there would be better results.

    And I would also like to mention that discussing how bad government is, and how great private businesses are, is hilarious when using a computer to do so. Computers took many generations of R&D to become profitable to sell to the public, but the government invested a lot in the R&D for military applications. Tax payers funded the development of many modern technologies via the government. This is stuff that could sink many companies because it takes so long to make some technologies practical, and because they have no way of knowing what return they will get on their investment. Once technology of that sort becomes profitable we all had the privilege of buying the technology back, generating billions of dollars in profit for someone else. Where would these things come from without cooperative efforts over time, from large groups of people? One company could not afford to make anything of this sort, and if it could it is unlikely that they would take such a fantastic risk.

  140. skeptifem says

    OH YEAH, and hey libertarians- do you know where labor rights come from? It sure as hell wasn’t from companies! Workers used to get locked in factories that lit on fire and killed everyone inside, or were chucked out into the street when they were crippled by factory machines, and worked 80 hour weeks for very little money. Child labor laws didn’t emerge because companies felt bad. We in the US were treated the way that companies treat 3rd world workers now. People could not afford not to work, and were beaten up when they tried to organize. I am not sure how the free market could protect workers, when they cannot wait for pay (because they will starve to death), but companies can move their factories around and wait out strikes without dissolving. Where do labor rights come from, if not the government?

  141. tas121790 says

    @ 139
    On top of computers the government is responsible for such technologies as
    The airplane
    cell phone
    GPS
    internet
    and the car (the interstate highway system made the car the norm of transportation, creating mega car companies)

  142. marcuspgreen says

    An ignorant glibertarian idiot like you, on the other hand does need to be told that this is, as a generalisation, crap. You know why trees put most of their energy into growing many meters high? It’s to get at the sunlight before the other trees. You know why a peacock risks its life carrying that huge tail about? It’s to attract the peahens in competition with with other peacocks. If trees, or peacocls, could agree among themselves not to compete in these ways, they’d all be better off, but being as stupid as glibertarians, they can’t.

    If we could all agree not to excel at anything, not to exceed the ability of the lowest member of society, the first person to disagree would rule the world, and your fairy tale would be gone. Or, I suppose the alternative is you could kill or imprison them to keep anyone from standing out. That you would deny everyone the very fundamental right to seek their own maximum potential and to direct that potential to their own ends, speaks clearly to the nature of your stance.

  143. GeorgeFromNY says

    Just an FYI, folks…

    That “several-hundred dollar Pentagon hammer” tale is something of an Urban Myth.

    About ten years ago, Sid Freedberg at the magazine National Journal investigated and debunked the story. The article is banging around online and shouldn’t be too hard to find.

    Even were it true, it would hardly be a QED indictment of capitalism any more than colossal financial and managerial screw-ups in the public sector are conclusive arguments for privatization.

  144. jack.rawlinson says

    Libertarianism: anarchy for the comfortable middle class.

    God, I hate libertarians.

  145. Svetogorsk says

    I thought perhaps it arose because of the term “Paki bashing”, referring to the ugly phenomenon of racist thugs picking on UK immigrants because of their ethnicity.

    If the term was only applied to people from Pakistan, it would doubtless be as neutral as ‘Afghan’ or ‘Bangladeshi’ still are – but British racists have traditionally used it as derogatory shorthand to describe anyone from southern Asia with brown skin. I remember an Indian schoolfriend who shrugged off regular insults of ‘Paki bastard’ by pointing out that his parents were married and didn’t come from Pakistan – but most targets aren’t so sanguine.

    Knockgoats is absolutely correct – in Britain, it’s now considered as offensive as “nigger”, and should never, ever be used without copious contextual footnotes.

    That said, just about the only time I’ve ever been minded to defend George W Bush was when he referred to “the Indians and the Pakis”, to widespread outrage (and, it has to be said, amusement) in Britain. He was clearly completely ignorant of the racist usage of the term, and there’s absolutely no good reason why he should have been familiar with it – as far as I’m aware, it’s almost entirely a British term, deriving from very specific British immigration and demographic issues.

  146. scooterKPFT says

    Most theist caricatures of atheism just aren’t very funny, I’m afraid.

    Here is a great joke on atheists.

    An atheist is out swimming in the bay, and suddenly a Great White Shark appears and the atheist realizes he’s too far from shore and he’s doomed, and just before the jaws snap together, he screams, “Oh God, help me!!”

    Time freezes and a shaft of light breaks through the sky and God says, “I thought you were an Atheist, why are you asking me for help?”

    The atheist pauses for a moment, then asks god if instead of saving him, he make the Shark a loving Christian, which would not be as cynical.

    So god agrees, and time starts back up, and sure enough the shark pauses, then closes his eyes and says, “Thank you god for your blessings and this meal I am about to recieve…. ”

  147. negentropyeater says

    The problem with Looneytarians is that they proceed exactly in the same manner as religious believers :

    see cheerios #71:

    There’s a lot of libertarian-hate being thrown around, I thought I’d chime in with my justification for a libertarian perspective.

    Then cheerios proceeds with a series of adhoc presuppositions which are very much alike religious dogma; free-markets are efficient because of competition, government is inefficient because no competition, therefore government should get out of the way and let free markets run most of the functions of the Government

    This is what Looneytarians call “justification”!

    Note the similarity with a typical religiot’s justification for the existence of God :
    the bible is the word of God, therefore God exists.

    Looneytarians, please, when you want to write a justification for your dogmatic principles provide supporting evidence, not just dogma.

  148. MadScientist says

    That’s a pretty good summary. I can’t imagine how libertarianism can be anything other than magic thinking. It may work fine as long as everyone regulates themselves – uh huh – there are numerous examples of the benefits of self-regulation.

  150. Svetogorsk says

    If the term was only applied to people from Pakistan, it would doubtless be as neutral as ‘Afghan’ or ‘Bangladeshi’ still are – but British racists have traditionally used it as derogatory shorthand to describe anyone from southern Asia with brown skin.

    Sorry, quick correction – I should of course have written “anyone with brown skin whose ancestors originated in southern Asia”, as racists don’t care whether they’re actual immigrants or merely descended from them.

  151. Matt Penfold says

    I have always rather liked this definition of a libertarian: A person who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

  153. Feynmaniac, Chimerical Toad says

    Virtually anyone can find themselves dependent on government assistance at some point in their lives.

    Craig T. Nelson on Glenn Beck’s Show:

    “We are a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don’t make it, I go bankrupt. They’re not going to bail me out. I’ve been on food stamps and welfare. Anybody help me out? No.”

  154. Fil says

    @ Svetogorsk #145

    Thank you for that further explanation, that was indeed helpful. I have always been fascinated by language and etymology, although, ironically, I am not a natural linguist (my wife, a gifted Francophone, is reduced to tears of laughter by my French for example).

    Consider how, although “nigger”, despite its benign beginnings in the Romance languages, can be so visceral in its impact when used hatefully in English.

    Yet one can read or hear it used in other contexts, or spelling variations by a “brother” and it’s perfectly fine, even funny or defiant.

    Nigger has even sidestepped into “nigga” in some US forums and is thus passed by moderators, who, aware of the context and the poster’s creds, feel no pain (black or white though they may be).

    Nigger can be used as a badge of pride, defiance, street talk etc by blacks in the US with no problems. Yet a “whitey” using it inappropriately can quickly contract the dreaded deadings, either figuratively or literally.

    Powerful stuff, language. Like music, it is a key to the soul (and nobody dare take me to task on the term soul, brothers and sisters, I’m a muso. It ain’t always religious. ;-)

    Meh, musings aside.

    Pray tell me Pharyngulites, lest I continue to offends unintentionally, what is the three post rule? I know this is not a general forum but a comments section to the Great One’s blog entries. But, what? Three post per thread, three posts per argument? Three posts you’re out?

  155. Weed Monkey says

    I’m pretty sure my cat thinks she owns me… and she’s probably right.

  156. the bill says

    It’s anarchy for rich people who think they have the means to get by without the benefits of a government.

    I agree, but that doesn’t explain its apparent ideological hold on much of the Tea Party, most of whom are hardly of the ruling or managerial class.

    I think one also needs to consider ‘Lottery Thinking’ – ‘I want the society that will let me keep everything for myself when I win the lottery’! Didn’t John Steinbeck say that Socialism would never take root in America because so many of the downtrodden ‘see themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires’?

    Some left Anarchists and anti-statist Marxists used to describe themselves as ‘libertarian socialists’, but I suspect that given its contemporary associations that formulation will have fallen into disuse, and the term is unlikely to be revived in the foreseeable future…

  157. Knockgoats says

    Didn’t John Steinbeck say that Socialism would never take root in America because so many of the downtrodden ‘see themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires’? – the bill

    I read somewhere recently that about 20% of Americans think they are in the top 1% as regards income, and another 20% think they soon will be. Really, fascist and Leninist regimes were/are amateurs when it comes to propaganda!

  159. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.
    -Adam Smith, An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations

  160. Knockgoats says

    If we could all agree not to excel at anything, not to exceed the ability of the lowest member of society, the first person to disagree would rule the world, and your fairy tale would be gone. Or, I suppose the alternative is you could kill or imprison them to keep anyone from standing out. That you would deny everyone the very fundamental right to seek their own maximum potential and to direct that potential to their own ends, speaks clearly to the nature of your stance. – marcuspgreen

    That you misinterpret my comment in this way speaks clearly to the fact that you are a glibertarian fuckwit. I was making the simple point that competition does not in general promote efficiency: sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t. I realise this will be far beyond the capcity of the glibertarian “mind” (using the term loosely) to comprehend.

  162. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    Knockgoats, you made the mistake of using a real world example when discussing looneytarianism. Since their “philosophy” is easily and amply refuted by the real world, they object strongly to it.

  163. negentropyeater says

    I agree, but that doesn’t explain its apparent ideological hold on much of the Tea Party, most of whom are hardly of the ruling or managerial class.

    I think teabaggers and Libertarianism go hand in hand because their ideal of society is one based on mechanical solidarity. Social cohesion comes from the homogeneity of individuals who feel connected through strong shared values, religion and similar lifestyles. Also explains the need to reject the “other”, those who do not share those normative principles, and obviously their racist and xenophobic attitudes. In such societies, volontary charity is seen as sufficient to cater for the mishaps of society, as long as recipients are selected and share those mechanical bounds.

  164. Knockgoats says

    Pray tell me Pharyngulites, lest I continue to offends unintentionally, what is the three post rule?

    Not really a rule, but a suggestion by the CO (Cephalopod Overlord, i.e. PZ), that we give new posters three chances to make a point worth responding to politely before jumping on them with full force – we get a lot of trolls, but on occasion regulars interpret a genuine enquiry or a bit of naivete as trolling. I don’t think it really applies to your gaffe, as that was made in the context of a coherent comment. In any case, I must admit it’s honoured more in the breach than the observance!

  165. Feynmaniac, Chimerical Toad says

    No ‘Tis! You’re suppose to worship Adam Smith, not read him. Just like with God and the Bible.

  167. Hirnlego says

    “The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations…generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become…in every improved and civilized society this is the state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it.”

    “On the contrary, [the rate of profit] is naturally low in rich, and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin.”
    Adam Smith

    “Widespread poverty and concentrated wealth cannot exist side by side in a democracy.” Jefferson

  168. MadScientist says

    @Mike Huben #158: Nice – I’ll just post a link to your website the next time M. Schermer goes on a libertarian rant. He’s been quiet a few weeks though – maybe he’s tiring of the numerous valid challenges made whenever he goes on about how the world should be run.

  169. MATTIR says

    The best argument against libertarianism is that homo sapiens is a type of social primate, not a solitary predator like hawks or tigers. I know it’s a wimpy reality, and that you would really like to be a top-of-the-food-chain predator, but FSM didn’t create us that way. Suck it up and cooperate or we’ll vote you off the island.

    Oh, and I’m tired of breathing, drinking, and otherwise wallowing in your externalities (aka pollution, that you wish you had the right to spew at will).

  170. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    No ‘Tis! You’re suppose to worship Adam Smith, not read him.

    Adam Smith was a seminal and intelligent writer. While he preached the idea of economic self-interest he wasn’t blind to its faults. For instance, when discussing labor relations Smith noted “severity” of laws against worker actions, and contrasted the masters’ “clamour” against workers associations, with associations and collusions of the masters which “are never heard by the people” though such actions are “always and everywhere” taking place.¹

    ¹Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations: A Selected Edition, Ed. Kathryn Sutherland. Oxford: Oxford Paperbacks, ISBN 978-0-199535-92-7. Page 143.

  171. ConcernedJoe says

    To #3 –

    I have a pretty hardcore (small-l) libertarian friend, but if I were to show this cartoon to him, I know exactly what his response would be:
    Wow, you’re saying citizens are actually property, animals that need to be owned and taken care of by the government? Scary.

    Your friend would of course thus cast the cartoons in a way to promote his pet libertarian red herrings. As I am sure you know.

    I believe the point of the cartoons is that libertarians (in same bed as conservatives) often hold some mythic ideal over the realities at hand. Their principles define reality not the other way around. Facts then necessarily take backseat or become amended in some way to fit the principles.

    They believe (I believe they do under the covers) that anyone not an adherent to their principles is a deviant and ancillary to that an amoral at best – or an immoral worst.

    Pragmatists (those willing to do what works with only a few confining principles e.g., “do the least harm and the most good”) drive them crazy.

    But more to the point: the problems with the current crop of libertarians or conservatives are:

    1. they seem to lack a working model – something that addresses the problems at hand and that passes objective criteria of success

    2. it seems the criteria they apply to measure success is how well their principles were adhered to not how well a method or means met the needs of a reality.

  172. Fil says

    Fil,

    Pray tell me Pharyngulites, lest I continue to offends unintentionally, what is the three post rule?

    From the CO¹: A suggestion for the comments.

    —

    ¹ Cephalopodan Overlord (aka PZ)

    Excellent reply (and a fun read of PZ’s standpoint).

    Thank you for taking the trouble to enlighten me, especially sans bar room brawl. ;-)

  173. keay.sensei says

    Eh, the point of libertarianism isn’t that social order and responsibility shouldn’t exist; it’s just that everything has a cost, and we should be aware of that cost when making decisions. Conversely, the point of socialism is that many of the seemingly individual decisions we make affect others, and we should be conscious and careful of those effects.

    The cartoon is a perfect example of the type of libertarian that pisses me off, but then there’s the type of socialist who pisses me off: the ones who think just because something is government-run or “universal,” it’s automatically preferable to private or individual. You know: the type who scream for universal healthcare in the USA and think it’ll automatically be as good as Sweden’s system (and not suck, like, y’know, Italy’s or something–and before you ask, yes, I do claim a right to complain about Italy’s healthcare system). And the type of socialist who doesn’t care about cost at all: “So what if we go $5 trillion more in debt? It’s worth it to earn the fundamental right to free college education for crack addicts!” (I exaggerate, obviously.)

    Every component of social order, be it water pollution controls, healthcare, the court system, the military, bailouts of corporations, education, welfare, or anything else, comes with a social price tag. Some of these things are worth paying a lot of money for, and some of them aren’t. Or, more correctly, they’re all worth paying for… but they’re only worth paying up to a certain amount. Hey, if we could get GOOD universal health coverage for $100 per person per year, then hell yes I’d be for that! If, on the other hand, it costs me half my yearly salary, then sorry, I’m with the libertarians chanting, “Fuck you, I’ve got mine.” Where’s the line drawn? Well, somewhere in between, and it depends on the quality of the healthcare being bought. Others out there might be thinking, “I don’t care if it costs me 80% of my living; healthcare for all is worth it!” And there are those who think it’s a negative, too: “You’d have to PAY ME to subscribe to universal healthcare; if the government gave me a $200 check every month, then okay, I’d be for it.”

    This idea of everything having an individually determined price isn’t so new, and it doesn’t change whether you adopt a libertarian or socialist or liberal or conservative mindset. Value is a construct of the human mind and changes subjectively with each individual–simply put, different things are worth different amounts to different people. No law will ever be able to change that. In this very basic sense, a market economy is inevitable, love it or hate it.

    Morally, I’d submit the right thing to do is whatever’s utilitarian (benefits the largest number of people the most) in the long run. Sometimes that means going socialist–public education, for example, benefits so many by so much that it’s worth the high price tag (although even there, costs can often be more efficiently managed than they are, but this is a known issue school districts are always dealing with). In other cases, the libertarian answer seems like the right thing to do–bailing out GM, for example; I don’t care how many jobs would be lost, because the American people have already collectively decided that company doesn’t deserve their money: they bought Hondas etc. instead.

    So to conclude, if you’re one who thinks the government should never touch anything, fuck you. And if you’re one who thinks the government should touch everything, fuck you. Every issue is a case on its own that should be reviewed and decided on its own merits. The world is not so simple that it automatically always fits one single ideology.

  174. danielm says

    I got into an email spat with somebody over some semi-political disagreement. He called me a leftist liberal.

    I thought it was a nice way for him to say sorry and thanked him for it…

  175. GravityIsJustATheory says

    I used to consider myself a libertarian, which I always thought was primarily about as much as possible letting people live this life as they like as long as they are not harming others or preventing them from living their life as they like[1]. (Which IMO was not much diferent from what I undertood liberalism).

    I tended to favour limited government (at least in certain areas[2]), but was not absolutist or dogmatic about it the way many libertarians/objectivists/anarco-capitalists[3] are. (For one thing, it would be completely hipocritical, as I’m a civil servant. Although I
    do see in the course of my work an awful lot of absurd inefficiencies and waste that I have difficulty imagining would occur in the private sector).

    So when I first came to Pharyngula, I was shocked at how hostile most people were to libertarianism (just as I was shocked when I first saw how hostile US right-wingers were to liberalism) – how could people be so opposed to the idea of freedom?

    If it wasn’t for the fact that by login was bugged to hell, I would probably have ended up tone-trolling about it.

    However, by the time I had got my login to reliably work (or rather, created a new one), I had generally come to a) reject some of my former ideas, b) realise that a lot of self-described libertarians had radically different ideas about wat “libertarianism” meant that I did. (And also to realise that what I would originaly have complained about would just be tone trolling).

    So I realised that either I’m not a libertarian, or most of the loudest (and most obnoxious) self-described libertarians aren’t actually libertarians (which is possible, but difficult to distinguish from a no-true-Scotsman falacy), or else “libertarianism” so such a broad catagory that it is essentially meaningless.

    And that as such, whichever is true, there is no point in me calling myself a libertarian any more.

    Although that does leave a problem of how to describe myself now. The most obvious answer would be “liberal”, but I’ve seen too many self-described liberals advocating ideas and policies that I disagree with and which I don’t consider to be genuinely “liberal” (e.g. banning tobbaco, banning private schools, etc).

    Incidently, and if you’re interested, here’s a post about my libertarian views I made a few months ago of the Richard Dawkins forum. It was supposed to be both a defence of libertarianism against both its detractors, and a rejection of the particularly obnoxious ideas that some other libartarians were advocating in the same thread. However, it was in the course of writing it that I started to doubt whether I atually was a libertarian.

    http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=90865&start=250#p2514114

    [1] Obviously this requires balancing competing people’s rights and freedoms. It shouldn’t mean “Screw you – I should be allowed to do what I like”.

    [2] As a non-exhaustive list, I’m quite happy to have government at some level involved in essential infrastructure and services such as roads, police and fire services, etc. And I’d could heathcare and education etc as essential infrastructure.

    [3] I would argue that a lot of self-described libertarians are really objectivists and anarcho-capitalists, although this would apply to so many that it would be difficult to do so without risking a “no true Scotsman” falacy.

  176. Mel Dahl says

    At Alverant (#36): Neither you nor your neighbor understand libertarianism, which respects all property rights, not just his. He’s got no more right to appropriate your yard as a garbage dump than he would to appropriate your paycheck for his favorite social causes. And the fact that he’s an SOB no more says anything about libertarianism than the fact that Stalin was an SOB says anything about atheism.

    Re abortion and Ron Paul, I disagree with Ron Paul on abortion; I think it should be legal and there are no moral implications to having one. However, if you believe that the fetus is a human life with the full panoply of rights that come from being human (as I do not), then abortion is simply another form of murder and banning it is no more un-libertarian than banning any other kind of murder. Most of the libertarians I’ve met over the years are pro-choice; they do not agree with Ron Paul on that issue.

    At Islander (#58) My libertarian tendencies come from the fact that I view government as dangerous; a government that can do things for you can also do things to you, so don’t go lobbying for a big government unless you’re absolutely certain George Bush will never win an election. We know people are selfish by nature, and often stupid on top of it, so the less power we give humans over other humans, the better. That doesn’t mean government isn’t necessary or doesn’t have legitimate functions; it just means it needs to be kept to a minimum.

    One area in which I think pure libertarians miss the boat is by failing to understand that privately-held power is just as dangerous as government power; corporations are also run by the greedy and the stupid. So I’m happy to play one against the other as the need arises.

  177. broboxley OT says

    @Joe Fatzen #60, your link isnt a fair comparison as that cartoon really isnt funny
    this is funny http://bp1.blogger.com/_53X1LEXXPA4/Ry-rUy6lgnI/AAAAAAAAAjk/vJjpO6eigfw/s400/bizarro_atheists.jpg&imgrefurl=http://brewright.blogspot.com/2007/11/atheists-cartoon.html&h=388&w=325&sz=30&tbnid=2VWyyH5wzk_aoM:&tbnh=123&tbnw=103&prev=/images%3Fq%3Datheist%2Bcartoon&usg=__EC7V-cC52AkCQP8M5Kkn7d033Po=&ei=0X7dS8S6HYLC9QSPoKmpBw&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=7&ct=image&ved=0CBUQ9QEwBg

  178. Andrew T says

    These cartoons might have been funny…if they were in any way representative of how libertarians think. It’s sad that an atheist would promote the same type of gross caricatures that theists often promote of atheists, or that anti-Semites once commonly promoted of Jews.

    Sorry PZ, we libertarians do have a great sense of humor which includes the ability to laugh at ourselves, but only when the points being made are actually accurate. This cartoon doesn’t reflect badly on libertarians nearly as much as it reflects badly on those who like to believe that such is how libertarians actually think.

    Humor FAIL, and not on the libertarian side….

  179. Knockgoats says

    Andrew T,

    You are of course illustrating the glibertarian humour bypass perfectly. Also, you’re lying: we’ve had plenty of glibertairians through here, the cartoon sums up their views perfectly, and most of us are heartily sick of the combination of selfish privilege and self-righteousness they display.

  180. Knockgoats says

    We know people are selfish by nature, and often stupid on top of it – Mel Dahl

    I think you’re making an unsound generalisation from your own case, and maybe that of your fellow-glibertarians.

  181. broboxley OT says

    @Tuckerch #132 according to that link of a Rand Quote, we should look to be invaded any day now

  182. JerryM says

    The Answer to Failing Government is not Less Government.

    The Answer to Failing Government is Better Government.

  184. ehlsever says

    I recently tried to read Atlas Shrugged, having somehow avoided it all these years. I only got as far as the first few pages where the dude is recalling his disappointment, his bone-crushing sense of betrayal, on discovering the beloved oak tree was hollow inside.

    All grand, stately, old strong oak trees are hollow inside. That’s just how they work. They wouldn’t survive long enough to become so grand and stately if they weren’t. In just those few pages I was able to understand how libertarians are able to so grossly misinterpret the world they see around them: they’re just fucking dumb.

  185. Pacal says

    Re: 176:

    We know people are selfish by nature, and often stupid on top of it, so the less power we give humans over other humans, the better.

    Then you should have no problem with the banning of private power over people not just Governement power. So you should support the abolition of Corporations, the courts and all methods and techniques humans have of coercing each other. In other words you should be an anarchist.

  187. Bentham says

    keay.sensei@173

    You know: the type who scream for universal healthcare in the USA and think it’ll automatically be as good as Sweden’s system (and not suck, like, y’know, Italy’s or something–and before you ask, yes, I do claim a right to complain about Italy’s healthcare system).

    You may have the RIGHT to make such a complaint. The facts don’t seem to agree with you, however. The WHO ranks Italy as second, just behind France,in providing the best overall health care.

  188. Don Smith says

    One thing the free market worshippers never seem to realize is that if there were no taxes you would not get the extra money. Most people’s salaries already have an adjustment for current taxes built in. The ruthless efficiency of the free market would soon strip that adjustment away.

    Libertarians just don’t think their positions through.

    Also for those out there who think competition breeds efficiency, look at the number of offspring most life produces. Do you really think producing hundreds or thousands of eggs just so one or two will survive is efficient?

  189. Feynmaniac, Chimerical Toad says

    Mel Dahl,

    We know people are selfish by nature

    They can also be altruistic and, as many have mentioned here, are mostly by nature social creatures. If we are going to talk serious about political theory we can’t oversimplify.

    One area in which I think pure libertarians miss the boat is by failing to understand that privately-held power is just as dangerous as government power;

    I actually agree with you there.

    So I’m happy to play one against the other as the need arises.

    Except they don’t go against one another, they’re mostly allied. In government the people can at least have some say in how the state is going to use its power. In corporations they have none. Hence, in general, government is the lesser of two evils.

  191. Joe Fatzen says

    @broboxley OT #60, your link isnt a fair comparison as that cartoon really isnt working

    ;-)

    Also, wouldn’t humor that’s less clever and more mocking better fit the criteria Mel was asking for? It was for “caricatures.”

    (I’m not sure the artist is a theist, though, so perhaps tongue-in-cheek self-mockery does not count. But as has been brought up before, most theistic attempts at humor end up being Fox’s “The 1/2 Hour News Hour” to others’ “The Daily Show.”)

  192. Ing says

    “We know people are selfish by nature”

    “Man is neither angel nor devil”~Madison.

  194. Bobber says

    You know: the type who scream for universal healthcare in the USA and think it’ll automatically be as good as Sweden’s system (and not suck, like, y’know, Italy’s or something–and before you ask, yes, I do claim a right to complain about Italy’s healthcare system).

    I know a little about this too. I have some recent experience on both sides of the Atlantic.

    In the U.S., my mother-in-law has gotten to the point where she cannot care 100% for herself – she has balance issues, and every time she falls, something breaks. Over the last few years, she moved into my house so we could take care of her. She fell, broke her arm and a few ribs, and was put into the hospital, where she was basically kicked out after a few days and returned here. We needed to hire a nurse to help her during the days, and if it wasn’t for the fact that her husband left a HUGE amount of money specifically for use during her later years, she would have had to depend on my wife and I – which means one of us would have to give up full-time work (wife owns her own company, I worked as a teacher – and we still barely broke even each month, partly because a huge percentage of my meager salary was going to pay for my practically-useless health insurance policy). Since then we’ve had to move her around to various assisted living facilities, one of which almost killed her after she again fell and broke some ribs (with the hospital AGAIN basically kicking her out after a few days). Now she has full-time nursing care in a house we rent for her just next door, with an occasional visit from a physical therapist. All of it made possible by her money – a TON of money. Without it, she’d probably already be dead. The quality of her life has been, in my opinion and hers, poor – but made necessary by our lack of money, and her having to channel so much of her own money into just the necessities that help her keep breathing and eating for another day.

    I contrast this with my aunt in Cellolle, Italy. She had a stroke about the same time these issues came up with my mother-in-law. She was allowed to stay in the hospital for three weeks. When she left, she had nurses visiting her several times each week to help her with household chores. She also had a physical therapist come to visit her a couple of times a week. This lasted for months. And I don’t remember ever hearing of her having to pay for anything out of pocket. She recently died of a massive stroke, but when she did, she was at her own home, getting ready to go out to church, having lived another three good years where she was independent, could enjoy her family, and could still talk to my mom once a week on the phone or over Skype.

    Italy’s healthcare system allowed my aunt to build up her strength after her stroke so that she could live with as much dignity and independence as was possible.

    American’s healthcare system allows my mother-in-law to spend outrageous sums of money just so that she can stave off death for another day, without any regard to the quality of her life – but there sure seems to be a hell of a lot of regard to provider expenses, which dictates she gets short hospital stays and nearly overdoses on morphine because that way she’s not demanding anything of the medical staff.

    Yeah, that socialized healthcare just SUCKS. [/venom-tinged sarcasm]

  195. OurDeadSelves says

    Okay, libtards, here’s a deep-thinking type of question for you:

    If government was to relax all restrictions on private business, how are you so sure you wouldn’t be earning slave wages? I mean, you’re obviously not captains of industry now and that’s certainly not going to change anytime soon.*

    Also, I know that someone else asked for this explanation, but if private industry and competition is so great, then why did big businesses like Lehman Brothers and GM fail so spectacularly?

    *If I recall my college sociology courses correctly, most people in the US are pretty much stuck into whatever socio-economic class they were born into. I could be wrong on this, though.

  196. Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom says

    You remember correctly, #195. Social mobility technically exists, but it is not really common.

    I think my biggest complaint with libertarianism is that we had it. It was called the Gilded Age. It sucked for most of the population. That was why we went so far out of our way to kill it, and kill it dead. Even Calvin Coolidge’s pro-corporate stance of “The business of America is Business” was preferable to “The business of America is letting Business do everything and anything it could want”.

  197. OurDeadSelves says

    You remember correctly, #195. Social mobility technically exists, but it is not really common.

    It’s awesome that I can remember classes from years ago when I am this fucking hungover. I feel like a superhero!

    In all seriousness, if libertarians really really REALLY believed in free-market competition, then they should be willing to work for whatever wage their employer sees fit and to hell with minimum wage laws*. And, hey, if your goal in life is to make as much money as possible, then why the hell aren’t your kids out there working, too? I’m sure there’s gardening or ditch-digging work out there to be had.

    *Note to libertarians: Yes, the minimum wage has a positive impact on society. Minimum wage lifts waqes for all workers, not just those on the bottom.

  198. keay.sensei says

    @ Bentham, #187

    To put it mildly: their system is only good on paper, and as long as you don’t need surgery.

  199. Mike Solomon says

    So what is it called (aside from confused) if you:

    * Don’t want the government to regulate social issues such as gay marriage, abortion, etc.

    * Don’t want the government to regulate other things like drugs (i.e. marijuana being illegal)

    * Want a balanced government budget (i.e. not to be trillions of dollars in debt)

    * Are pro-gun (I come from a small town in Missouri)

    * Are for the line-item veto in the presidency

    * Support evolution / all of the other atheist / skeptic stuff

    * Don’t necessarily approve mass government spending in things like healthcare (but still considering as I learn more about it) <- Yes this will probably get me attacked here. Note that I don't know much about it but that my feelings stem from seeing people in my area completely abuse things like welfare. ?

  200. KOPD says

    Are pro-gun (I come from a small town in Missouri)

    Being from a small town in Missouri is not sufficient to make one “pro-gun” or else I would be “pro-gun” as well. I am, though, less anti-gun than my wife.

  201. redrabbitslife says

    Working in a public healthcare system daily, I see two things: we piss and moan about a lot because we don’t know how bad/ expensive the alternatives are, so thanks, Bobber, for illustrating it so succinctly.

    (What do you mean you can only get the physio in twice a week? No, of course I can’t get someone to drive me for physio to have it more often! They can come to me!)

    Secondly, where our biggest expense lies is publicly funded medication, particularly that which is still patent protected, and the amount of money the pharma companies are willing to throw to extend patent and to keep the docs prescribing non-generic is STUNNING. They will do anything they can to reduce competition, at every level. I am almost certain that pharma lobbyists are behind the recent announcement of outlawing the inducements to pharmacies by generic companies, because it is they who stand to benefit.

    My point, and I do have one, is that the private business model is great, where choice exists. Even if there is only one iteration of iPhone, or whatever, my life doesn’t depend on this touchscreen. It falls down when $$$ are the motivating factors behind preserving life and limb.

    If we could take away the marketing, the lobbying, the bullshit, why they’d have buttloads of dosh for R and D.

    Plus, of course, the NIH is where a goodly chunk of the R&D is actually being done. But that’s a different argument.

  202. keay.sensei says

    @ Bobber, #194

    My condolences regarding your aunts, and I’m glad that your one aunt had a good experience with Italy’s healthcare system.

    For many people, I’m sure it works out that way. And to be sure, being without adequate insurance in the USA sucks royally. I’ve been there, too. I have spondyloarthropathy, which is basically an arthritis that leaves me almost unable to walk unless I have medication, and before I had good prescription drug coverage, that meant I took a LOT more Tylenol than is healthy for anyone.

    Conversely, though, I do know that there are some things our country does right. Once I actually was able to get the condition diagnosed (it took an MRI to do so) and treated, I was fine… And it took about two weeks all said and done. I paid about $40 in copays total. I asked my parents, who happen to both be medical doctors, how long this whole process would’ve taken had I been in Canada or a European country. Mother, in particular, had recently been to Italy for a panel on interstitial cystitis.

    They answered me in unison: “Six months. A year if it needed surgery.” Of course, if you’re Italian, you can avoid the huge waiting period if you’re rich, because you can have private insurance to supplement what the government offers. But that just means there’s a large gap between the healthcare the rich and the poor receive.

    Once you actually GET the healthcare, I’m sure it’s world-class. But–and this was something Canada’s highest court said in a ruling allowing the existence of private insurance–a place on a waiting list isn’t healthcare.

  203. Mike Solomon says

    Being from a small town in Missouri is not sufficient to make one “pro-gun” or else I would be “pro-gun” as well. I am, though, less anti-gun than my wife.

    Of course I’m not pro-gun only because I’m from a small town. I was merely referring to the fact that guns are more part of my culture than other people’s. =P

  204. Pygmy Loris says

    But that just means there’s a large gap between the healthcare the rich and the poor receive.

    From your little story (which in no way qualifies you as an expert on the Italian system, BTW), it’s clear that you’re talking out of your ass about health care in countries with universal coverage. The poor in Italy actually get health care. Here, health care for the poor is called the ER, and you end up quite often with multi-thousand dollar bills that drive you to bankruptcy.

    I’m glad that you got a diagnosis and treatment for your spondyloarthropathy. It’s not deadly, so you weren’t going to die from lack of treatment. What if you’d had fungating breast cancer?

    Yes, having crappy insurance sucks, and if you’re really sick, you’ll probably end up bankrupt, but you still get health care (and, ya know, your life). For the 44 MILLION people with no health insurance, they can’t get treatment. No one’s going to give you chemotherapy for your cancer if you don’t have the ability to pay. Even crappy insurance is taken as the ability to pay. Uninsured people are dying because of this.

    Yes, the gap between the quality of health insurance for the rich and poor is deplorable, but in the US the gap is not in waiting times and such, but between life and death. That’s far more important.

  205. Mel Dahl says

    To those who have objected to my comment that people are greedy and stupid, I didn’t say they were greedy and stupid all the time; just enough of the time to not trust them with power over other humans.

    That said, you know that I’m right, because if I were wrong you’d be happy to trust the free market. The only reason we need a government is because human nature can’t be trusted.

    To Pacal, #185, I don’t think anarchy is possible, even if it were desirable. I think the best we can hope for is to manage having too much power concentrated anywhere. Governments have been evil far more often than they’ve been good; the tradition of liberal democracy is relatively new.

  206. cylusys says

    So what is it called (aside from confused) if you:

    * Don’t want the government to regulate social issues such as gay marriage, abortion, etc.

    * Don’t want the government to regulate other things like drugs (i.e. marijuana being illegal)

    * Want a balanced government budget (i.e. not to be trillions of dollars in debt)

    * Are pro-gun (I come from a small town in Missouri)

    * Are for the line-item veto in the presidency

    * Support evolution / all of the other atheist / skeptic stuff

    * Don’t necessarily approve mass government spending in things like healthcare (but still considering as I learn more about it)

    ?

    Pretty much a libertarian, although one who has yet to make up their mind.

    Your first point would result in tyrannies of the majority occurring. – If it wasn’t for government regulation in regard to abortions then the majority of abortions would likely be the backstreet variety, i.e. more unneeded deaths. And technically government does not so much regulate marriage, it merely recognises marriage. Anyone can perform a same-sex marriage, getting it to be recognised by the state apparatus and to have more meaning beyond a ceremony however, now that is the main problem.

    Second – the government does not regulate drugs at all, it has banned them outright, which means that illegal narcotics are by and far the most unregulated business going. Hence all the cutting of drugs with slug pellets etc that occurs. For a government to legalise narcotics and then regulate them would be a massive improvement over the current ‘war’ on drugs.

    Third – who doesn’t? How would you achieve this by hobbling all the apparatus of the state?

    Forth – I’m not sure as to how your geographical position affects your decision to believe that implements designed solely to kill are something to stand in favour for.

    Fifth – A line item veto? A double edged sword likely to create as many problems as it solves. The potential for abuse would still remain high. perhaps even more so if it is only one man who has to consider the decision.

    Sixth – possibly contradicted by item seven, given that an awful lot of scientific endeavour and public schooling in general is funded by government spending. Guess what the net result of reduced education and science programs would be?

    Seventh – No mass spending on healthcare? The US as a whole is already mass spending on healthcare. This government intervention is to *reduce* the general spending on healthcare for the benefit of all US citizens.
    More to the point what do you think the government is there for? What purpose is the government for if it does not, in any sense, serve the people? If spending taxpayers money to ensure that taxpayers have affordable access to healthcare is not something worth pursuing I really would like to know just what the hell is?

  207. David Marjanović says

    A group of evolution-literate people like yourselves don’t need to be told that competition breeds efficiency and improvement.

    At the cost of death – usually literally.

    And while we’re already at the ecology metaphor, let me mention the concept of “the ghost of competition past”. When the free market is left to itself, companies avoid competition by merging, making cartels, or specializing. The first two options are not available in nature, so we get biodiversity – closely related species with similar but not overlapping ecological niches. It goes further: even intraspecific competition is often avoided by means like sexual dimorphism (female birds of prey are bigger than males, allowing them to hunt different prey) and metamorphosis (larvae and adults have different ecological niches). It is rare to see competition in action; what we see are the results of the avoidance of this costly activity, an activity that is selected against.

    Competition is an unstable state of affairs. It must be artificially kept alive by a state that actively prevents monopolies from forming.

    Conscience?? That’s just socialistic guilt-tripping!

    [/glibertarian]

    Ooh! Ooh! May I godwin this? :-)

    “Conscience is a Jewish invention.”
    – Adolf Hitler

    Sorry for the brainstorming. I think that some glibertarians really don’t have a conscience, in other words, they lack empathy completely; thus, conscience really is incomprehensible to them.

    Assuming psychiatric help isn’t possible, these people must be kept away from positions of power, in states as well as in corporations.

    I read somewhere recently that about 20% of Americans think they are in the top 1% as regards income, and another 20% think they soon will be. Really, fascist and Leninist regimes were/are amateurs when it comes to propaganda!

    Have you got a source? All I know about is a poll done in early 2001. Captain Unelected had just got his tax cuts through Congress. Those cuts were going to benefit only the richest 1 % of the population, so the pollsters wanted to know where the outrage was; it turned out 19 % of UnSAnians believed they were in that richest 1 %.

    Rethuglicans, repukes, repuglicans, etc.

    Reptilians.

    If I recall my college sociology courses correctly, most people in the US are pretty much stuck into whatever socio-economic class they were born into. I could be wrong on this, though.

    There’s indeed a bit less social mobility in the USA than in much of Europe.

    So what is it called (aside from confused) if you:

    Don’t worry about that. Just keep learning about healthcare. :-)

  208. Cannabinaceae says

    I’m glad somebody brought up Mike Huben; ‘toonians tend to be so tireless in their off-topic posturing that most people (myself included) simply wither with exhaustion. Huben at least has gone to some effort to embody critique of what the ‘toonians claim to believe.

    The ‘toonians I’ve shared conversation time with apparently lack some mental organ (e.g. the lack of conscience mentioned above, but more comprehensive) that makes most of what they think are their bons mots and devastating arguments a string of non-sequiters. They hear a few words of a conversation, make up a different conversation in their minds, and then argue against their made-up straw man.

    The example that stands out in my mind is a conversation in which the ‘toonian was surprised that primates can’t make their own vitamin C. No matter how I tried to explain how that could happen, he’d come back with some variant of “but evolution should have preserved the ability to make vitamin C just in case primates found themselves in an environment without fruit”

    The world should, in the ‘toonian mind, be a certain way, and they can only act as if their wishes were true. Facts are just examples of conspiracy theories out to thwart their righteousness.

    Is there a medical word for straining the eye-rolling muscles?

  209. wmdkitty#83021 says

    Citizen of the Cosmos (#101) said:

    Consider living in a society where you might die if you can’t afford healthcare.

    Oh, wait… we already DO!

  210. https://me.yahoo.com/a/O.jullMj0I2VvJaxMMVeNKSfOPf73voLSxJAe9PdlOWwi8Y-#258ec says

    Individual competition is not the only thing the only thing that drives evolution if it were we would be more like lions. We have some limitations that should have limited our proliferation as a species we reproduce slowly and have a very extended period of dependence. If it were competition alone then why would not the older children kill the younger ones like some others species do? It was not competition alone that gave us the edge but altruism and cooperation that are some of our strengths. It is not me and my stuff versus everyone else it is We together, the collective, that is our strength.
    Libertarianism seems to me to be the self-serving rationalizations of spoiled petulant greedy children who deliberately ignore the rest of the family and delude themselves into thinking that they made it this far by themselves. It sounds more like a mental emotional condition like Agoraphobia or Depression that a political or economic system to me and the people who profess such a philosophy are in need of deep therapy to help them recognize and accept there common humanity .
    I simply can not get into one on one discussion with them without getting over whelmed by the irrationality.

    uncle frogy

  211. Patricia08 says

    In my tender youth I learned a lesson about those expensive hammers referred to (much) earlier in the discussion. It was my first day of employment as an engineer for a defense contractor company. All the new employees were getting the pep talk about how great and noble the company was and how crucial the private industry was in supporting the defense goals for the US (despite all the bad press happening about government waste due to the overly expensive hammers etc). The presenters complained bitterly about the focus shifting to industry as the cause instead of on government where it clearly belonged. NOONE in industry wanted to charge excessively for ANYTHING. No, it was all those government regulations, brought on by the stupid paranoia of the government bureaucrats that was the REAL problem. We were given examples to prove their point of all the ways the government made sure they were getting exactly what they were paying for, down to the precise measurements and composition of all the parts. Why there were even government employees that came by regularly to check work (disrupting production when they found minor problems). This all seemed to make sense and gave me a new perspective on the problem.

    For the next five years I observed how the company saw the government. Pretty much as a patsy to be used to get as much as possible out of and give as little as possible back to. I saw them write an invoice for items at much increased prices when there was really an agreement that what they were buying was many more at a reduced price. They were to get X for some amount and all the rest were “free”. That particular fraud was explained as this was the only way they could get what they wanted since they had to receive the entire shipment sooner than they could be made for some stupid government regulation deadline reason. I saw them gloat over their selling of a very expensive “disposable” product over other possible solutions. This was so great cause they were disposable and it was going to cost millions (I mean we would make millions) every time a naval shop crossed the pacific. Anyway you get the idea. The government was to be used and fooled as long as it was for the good of the company. Over time I thought a lot about that saying “It’s not paranoia if there really are people out to get you”.

    I have a great deal of respect for bureaucrats.

  212. Utakata says

    Oh…I see, boygenius @ #117. I have never heard of that term until today. Then it likely went over my head…because I rather debate the merritts of what is been said, then dealing with frivolous spelling and gramma Nazi’isms. Which usely leads to flaming, trolling and ad hominems.

    I will keep that in mind though, since I do make a lot of typos unintentionally. Though don’t expect any Shakespear or a Rhodes Scholor piece. /sigh

    As for if English is my first language, It is. But I’ll admit I don’t have a full grasp of it. Then again, I don’t know many that do. :(

    But since we’re at it…

    Islander @ #114

    You make no fucking sense.

    John Morales @ #113

    *meme

    :)

  213. Felicis says

    One of the arguments for capitalism/libertarianism that makes me cringe is the ‘free markets are efficient’ gambit.

    The assumption is that a ‘free market’ is one free of government regulation, however to make the efficiency statement, you need to use the economic definition which says that a free market is one in which there are no costs to join (as a vendor) nor any costs to leave. While that *can* include regulatory costs, it also includes investment costs.

    In that *technical* case, free markets give the most efficient means of distributing goods and services (in the sense that the fewest resources are left unused). It says nothing about how equitable such a distribution is.

    Since free markets are generally unrealizable in any large scale sense – there are no ‘efficient’ markets.

    Now – when ‘efficiency’ is used by Cheerios623:

    “Government is a necessary institution, it provides infrastructure, military, and other vital functions (like protecting the environment and a judicial system). Even though the government is necessary, it is not efficient. It is not efficient because it has no competition and thus no reason to excel. A group of evolution-literate people like yourselves don’t need to be told that competition breeds efficiency and improvement. You don’t need to look far past the daily headlines to see real life evidence of government doing an awful, inefficient job.”

    What measure of ‘efficiency’ is he using? And he implicitly claims that a body other than the government would be *more* efficient- but again, by what measure? And, more importantly, by what evidence does he (and others) claim this?

    Having had to deal with both ‘government’ (military and VA) and ‘private’ (mainly Kaiser, but I’ve had other insurance too) health care, I find little difference in how quickly I received treatment and in the quality of that treatment. Of course, I have also not had any major health issues of any kind, so my case is not representative. Yet, my point is valid in that, in any large modern undertaking, there is going to be a correspondingly large amount of bureaucracy, and the government is at least as efficient in running such a bureaucracy as any private corporation (here, I am meaning efficiency in terms of customer satisfaction). Given the recent few decades’ privatizing of many government functions, it seems that private industry is generally less effective and more expensive in *every* task that used to be performed by the government – and with less transparency and oversight.

    cheers all-

  214. brentdax says

    We do have a sense of humor, and that comic was somewhat funny. Perhaps the reason you haven’t seen our sense of humor is because it can be hard to take a joke told by someone who harbors an uncontrollable frothing hatred of you.

    Seriously, PZ, there are certainly looney libertarians who think public libraries are evil, but there are also ones who see the same societal problems you do. The difference is that they’ve seen the government’s solutions fail and felt helpless to change them for the better.

    I have a friend fresh out of her master’s program who can’t find a job. The local welfare authorities throw her a new problem every few months; the latest is that they pulled her medical care for no discernible reason (she’s appealing). What has she been able to rely on? Private charities’ food pantries and the check I send her every month.

  215. A. Nuran says

    Libertarianism in three sentences:

    1) Bugger you Jack, I’ve got mine.
    2) Let them eat cake.
    3) I’m a right wing Republican, but I want my drugs and porn and don’t wanna go to church.

  216. King of the Road says

    Absolutely hilarious to read the comments and reflect on #26 where Azkyroth refers to libertarians at self-righteous. Introspection is not a valued characteristic on this site.

    For a site that has much with which I’d agree, y’all really do come off like insufferable, self-congratulatory windbags.

  217. Sili, The Unknown Virgin says

    “We are a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don’t make it, I go bankrupt. They’re not going to bail me out. I’ve been on food stamps and welfare. Anybody help me out? No.”

    *headesk*

    arrrrrgh!

  218. Nerd of Redhead, OM says

    For a site that has much with which I’d agree, y’all really do come off like insufferable, self-congratulatory windbags.

    Ooh, a tone troll. We’re shaking in our jackboots…

  219. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    Patricia08 #211

    We were given examples to prove their point of all the ways the government made sure they were getting exactly what they were paying for, down to the precise measurements and composition of all the parts.

    I once talked to a guy who worked for the Air Force writing material specifications on contracts. He explained to me the reason why the government had a 17 page specification for fruit cake was if they didn’t explain in excruciating detail exactly what they were buying then contractors would sell fruit cakes that didn’t contain any fruit.

    Incidentally, my present company is suing a supplier who delivered prime rib which wasn’t US Grade Prime meat. It’s not just the government which has to look out for shady suppliers.

  220. Knockgoats says

    King of the Road,

    Oddly enough, most of us are not impressed by some pompous glibertarian twerp with no substantive comment to make (such as yourself) coming here to whinge at us.

  221. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    For a site that has much with which I’d agree, y’all really do come off like insufferable, self-congratulatory windbags.

    Your concern is noted.

  222. Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom says

    Another point regarding government efficiency.

    I had, for some time, been employed by the government. It was a menial, bottom level position, but it was a necessary one (Enumerator at the census). My payment was 1.5x that of private industry. Reading over the regs, every permanent employee gets health care (Unfortunately, this didn’t apply to Census Employees as most of us were temporarily employed by the government). We were paid 55 cents a mile that we moved, while on the clock; This is above and beyond the cost of gas, and is based on the cost of ownership of a car, not simply the cost of mileage. We were paid for transit time as well (On the grounds that we made sure to work at least 4 hours a day; This was specifically because someo f us were driving 30 or more miles to get on site). WE were also given mandatory breaks at 5 hours, to ensure that we could not be overworked, and incidental expenses necessary to our job (Cell phones, toll booths, etc).

    Whenever I hear “Government is inefficient”, I think to myself “Yes, I suppose paying me decent wages and covering job related costs is going to be less efficient then paying me minimum wage and expecting me to cover the costs of employment, isn’t it?”

    Do I think government is somehow omnibenevolent? Of course not. But if indeed business is more efficient, we should also look at why that might be. In health care, it’s by not covering 45 million people, and by going far, far out of their way to drive costs down by ensuring that people don’t get the treatments they ought be entitled.

  223. Knockgoats says

    I have a friend fresh out of her master’s program who can’t find a job. The local welfare authorities throw her a new problem every few months; the latest is that they pulled her medical care for no discernible reason (she’s appealing). What has she been able to rely on? Private charities’ food pantries and the check I send her every month.

    Right, and abolishing welfare would really help her, wouldn’t it? You might also try looking outside the USA (yes, there really is a world out there you know), at countries which have come close to abolishing poverty altogether – and which have much lower levels of homicide, imprisonment, addiction, obesity, mental and physical health problems, teenage pregnancy, etc.

  224. JediBear says

    Libertarians are, without exception, wrong. How they are wrong, however, usually varies a bit.

    A libertarian is generally a very earnest, very confused fellow. He’s had just enough education in economics to make a real cock-up of trying to apply it and has bought the right-wing lie that the poor are just lazy. He does not understand the nature and function of markets. He may not understand the nature and function of government. He probably does not understand the interaction of the two, usually to the point of being exactly wrong in any position taken with regard to those associations.

    However, a libertarian is not necessarily a skeptic’s adversary. I agree with my straw libertarian on many things: gun control, war and peace, god, drugs, sex, rock and roll, etc. And if these positions cause him to vote libertarian or democratic, he’s no enemy of mine. However, if his positions on government and economics cause him to prostitute himself to the deadly hydra of modern Republicanism, he is in desperate need of education, LARTing, or both.

    And then there are the libertarians who are virtual or actual anarchists and subscribe to the “altruism is bad” school of morality. Those are described above.

  225. King of the Road says

    @Knockgoats #220

    Gee, my feelings are so hurt. Oddly enough, I don’t care if I impress “most of you.” Or, for the matter of that, any of you. I would think, though, that enlightened ones such as yourselves would not want to exhibit the very characteristics they decry in others. The examples are myriad – the sycophantic falling in line behind the god PZ being just one. I thought it might be useful to point that out.

    Can I take the liberalism of John Edwards and attribute his more… socially maladaptive (lying, cheating, blame deflecting) … behaviors to all liberals? No? Then don’t take the babbling of Ron Paul to represent all libertarians. That type of thing is called, wait for it now, stereotyping.

    There is no political philosophy (at least that I’ve ever read about or heard a rumor of) that can be successfully implemented in a “pure” form. To take the doctrinaire Libertarian positions and use them to reject all libertarian ideas is equivalent to taking doctrinaire Cuban or North Korean statist positions and using them to reject all socialist ideas.

    P.S.: on careful reading of my original comment you may note that nothing I said was something that would have to have been said by anyone with a particular political philosophy.

  226. https://me.yahoo.com/a/c8vgv20epfOnyZYgaPKrcYfDk4TekTh7#ed6d2 says

    @210 “Libertarianism seems to me to be the self-serving rationalizations of spoiled petulant greedy children who deliberately ignore the rest of the family and delude themselves into thinking that they made it this far by themselves. It sounds more like a mental emotional condition like Agoraphobia or Depression that a political or economic system to me and the people who profess such a philosophy are in need of deep therapy to help them recognize and accept there common humanity .”

    I thought that was a wonderful observation, given how many libertarians are fans of Ayn Rand, who believed that a sociopathic child-murderer represented the ideal human being (a famous one of the time, actually, William Edward Hickman) and based her protagonists of of that figure, especially the protagonist of the fountainhead. Here’s a simple profile of sociopathic behavior http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html. So, selfishness and lack of empathy aren’t a byproduct, they are a built in feature for many libertarians.

    From Rand herself “He does not understand, because he has no organ for understanding, the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people … Other people do not exist for him and he does not understand why they should.” “One puts oneself above all and crushes everything in one’s way to get the best for oneself. Fine!” “has learned long ago, with his first consciousness, two things which dominate his entire attitude toward life: his own superiority and the utter worthlessness of the world” “What are your masses but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?” “”Other people have no right, no hold, no interest or influence on him. And this is not affected or chosen — it’s inborn, absolute, it can’t be changed, he has ‘no organ’ to be otherwise. In this respect, he has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel ‘other people.’ ” “”He shows how impossible it is for a genuinely beautiful soul to succeed at present, for in all modern life, one has to be a hypocrite, to bend and tolerate. This boy wanted to command and smash away things and people he didn’t approve of.”

    I really don’t see how anyone can read and admire this crap, or even read it without a strong desire to vomit. For me, reading Rand was like reading Mein Kampf, an insite into a twisted, murderous, genocidal world view.

    The thing about Rand fans is that they see themselves as the ‘wonderful’ people and the rest of us as the cockroaches to be crushed, an exercise only made available to those with massive social privilege. It is the same mental acrobatics that makes some poor white hetero christians vote against their own interests, they see themselves as always the exception, always the deserving. Those with less privilege know that when someone is being singled out as the leaching scum in need of burning away, the genocides are going to start with them.

  227. Bobber says

    The examples are myriad – the sycophantic falling in line behind the god PZ being just one. I thought it might be useful to point that out.

    Right. Because you are independent-minded and just a little bit – oooooh! – edgy. The blogosphere is oh so full of Virtual Indiana Jones types. Nice hat, btw.

  229. Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom says

    . I would think, though, that enlightened ones such as yourselves would not want to exhibit the very characteristics they decry in others. The examples are myriad – the sycophantic falling in line behind the god PZ being just one. I thought it might be useful to point that out.

    Oh say it isn’t so. Oh frabjulous fram! Calloo! Callay! How I have awaited this day!

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/04/roger_ebert_ticks_off_video_ga.php

    We are such the sheep, lining up behind the blog owner, lining up like ducks to fawn and support him!

  230. Azkyroth says

    We know people are selfish by nature, and often stupid on top of it, so the less power we give humans over other humans, the better.

    Then why are you against having the economic power wielded by some humans over other humans curtailed by social welfare programs that make “do it my way or you’ll starve on the streets” a considerably less credible threat?

    Unless, of course, you confess the creed that all transactions are free and voluntary exchanges between rational agents, especially the transactions that demonstrably aren’t, and therefore the idea of wealthy individuals or corporations “holding economic power” over others is incoherent. But if you actually hold such an absurd view it would be a service to state it plainly – oh, crap, now you’ll never do so.

  231. Kagehi says

    My libertarian tendencies come from the fact that I view government as dangerous; a government that can do things for you can also do things to you, so don’t go lobbying for a big government unless you’re absolutely certain George Bush will never win an election.

    Mel Dahl, this is **precisely** why most of use are not Libertarians. Every company I ever worked for has had, as part of their contract, a whole damn stupid list of things you couldn’t talk about, including what you where paid compared to other people, or what perks they got, or what someone *did* to you, but not someone else, who may have been a worse employee. Arizona is often seen as a Libertarian state, and because of its laws, you can’t even challenge being fired, unless you are union, and then only barely, or they can’t make up some reason for doing it *after the fact*. Any place else, if you are wrongly terminated, you could sue, and they have to *prove* you where fired for cause. Here, they only have to prove it wasn’t because of something like a disability, or other purely federal/state illegal reason. In other words, the only protections you *get* in Arizona are outside organizations, like unions, or the state and federal government. Otherwise, if its anything else, you are screwed, and the state government has already said, “You are mostly screwed anyway.” At my own job, they decided that since the contract was up for renewal, and there was this economy issue, they a) threatened to wipe out out pension plan (as endangered/on the verge of failure), if we didn’t comply with their contract demands, and then the Libertards among my own store, and others, opted to cave, which left the lowest paid position in the company not just the lowest paid, **but** they are now, under the new contract, “Not allowed raises, or to make more than minimum wage, *ever*, until such a time as the federal or state government raise that wage.”

    The difference between being screwed by the government vs. a company is a) you can, in theory, fire the people in the government, even if you are not working for them, and b) they have to tell *someone* why, how, by how much, and when they started thinking about, screwing you. Corporations, generally, don’t, unless the state, or the fed, specifically makes it illegal for them to do it. As people have pointed out, Wal-Mart is a perfect example, but then so is, I think it was Krogers? They had a contract with different pay scales, per department, pensions, etc. Their union didn’t just cave, their members actually bought into the idea they might lose their jobs if they protested, or something, the union caved entirely, and now they are the new Wal-Mart, no differences in pay scale, everyone makes minimum, and it doesn’t matter if your are an expert meat cutter/baker/etc., or the guy collecting shopping carts from the lot.

    You can get rid of fracking George Bush. You can’t get rid of the idiot running your company, unless you own a lot of stock, and most people, in most companies, can’t, or can’t afford to. And the ones that do? They see you, me, and everyone else as either office furniture, or someone buying their poorly made, buggy, easily broken, non-refundable, better only in terms of how it was marketed, and barely improved, dross.

    But, you are right about one thing. Once you get past, in say the computer industry, of paying 20% of your profits to “buy off” everyone that *might* have a patent you could maybe infringe, you can “compete”, by marketing a product that cost you 20% more than necessary to invent, was rushed onto the market, will only sell well for the first 6 months to a year, so you can never make it truly **excellent**, just “most adequate, and hopefully better, or seem better, than the other guys”. And, you hope to hell someone else doesn’t market it better, or worse, actually figure out how to make something, and get it on the market, which **is** innovative, and game changing.

    Better the enemy you know, than the enemy you can’t and are not allowed to to see, and may not even be aware of existing. The former you get do something about, the later, will stab you in the back while you are looking the other way, then praise the, “invisible hand of the market”, for letting them do it, and by the time you realize there is a knife in your back, you won’t have the money, the time, or the actual product, necessary to fight back.

  233. PZ Myers says

    I am a god now? Not only does this cause serious conceptual difficulties for an atheist, but I thought I couldn’t be deified until I’d achieved imperial status. And maybe died.

    Next time you sycophants feel like calling me a poopyhead, remember this: I might call down the lightning on you.

  234. King of the Road says

    #229 (again)

    So, your example of where some members of your tribe won’t toe the line with PZ involves video games and whether they’re art, huh?

  235. Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom says

    So, your example of where some members of your tribe won’t toe the line with PZ involves video games and whether they’re art, huh

    You’re the one who put forth the idea that we worshipped him as unto a God, an infallible being. It doesn’t take much to demolish that idea, turning it into little pieces, so I didn’t use much.

  236. condignaction says

    So what is it called…

    * Don’t want the government to regulate social issues such as gay marriage, abortion, etc.

    The “gubbmit” isn’t a person. Religious buffoons are actively attempting to influence and control secular civil government through political action. Their goal is a nation governed by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law including to criminalize being gay and criminalize abortion. If you oppose the attempt of these individuals to enact their religions agenda and establish a Christian Nation then you are an ANTI-DOMINIONIST.

    * Don’t want the government to regulate other things like drugs (i.e. marijuana being illegal)

    You are for the decriminalization of marijuana as a policy preference. You might be called LIBERTINE or PRO CIVIL-LIBERTY.

    * Want a balanced government budget (i.e. not to be trillions of dollars in debt).

    Why? Try this: “All debt is bad, especially when businesses take loans to buy more efficient machinery.” Government deficits may be good depending on the specifics. Why not a general constraint that debt shouldn’t exceed 20% of GNP? There is certainly no serious economic basis to assert that a “no government debt ever” rule is intrinsically desirable or beneficial. It’s a boogeyman the masive-debt-loving Republicans espouse when the Democrats win elections and espoused by Libertarians who want to hobble government with the ultimate goal of establishing a Libertarian Utopia (aka, anarchy-capitalism).

    * Are pro-gun (I come from a small town in Missouri)

    That would make you “pro-private ownership of small handguns and hunting rifles.” If you are very extreme on the issue, you could be an ANARCHIST or ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT (a policy or attitude that views a nation’s power structure as corrupt, repressive, exploitive, etc.). Pro-gun ownership tends to be associated with the Republican Party but that’s an arbitrary association. You need to think of the RepParty and DemParty as each being a mini-version of a Parliamentary system where they cobble together smaller parties or sub-groups to reach 51%. Thus, the RepParty seeks the votes of gun-rights advocates and Libertarian Utopianists but also courts Christian Dominionists.

    * Are for the line-item veto in the presidency

    A policy preference. Not every personal whimsy has a political-philisophical ideology.

    * Support evolution / all of the other atheist / skeptic stuff

    FREE-THINKER

    * Don’t necessarily approve mass government spending in things like healthcare (but still considering as I learn more about it)

    A policy preference. Having a policy preference does not mean you must adopt the ideology of groups with the same policy preference. For example, [1] the American Communist Party supports public libraries [2] you support public libraries [3] you are [not] a Communist.

  238. Kel, OM says

    The examples are myriad – the sycophantic falling in line behind the god PZ being just one.

    I’m sure everyone here once was a raging fiscal libertarian, until such time as PZed pushed his mighty banhammer down on anyone who did not submit to his political will… tool

  239. Azkyroth says

    Absolutely hilarious to read the comments and reflect on #26 where Azkyroth refers to libertarians at self-righteous. Introspection is not a valued characteristic on this site.

    For a site that has much with which I’d agree, y’all really do come off like insufferable, self-congratulatory windbags.

    Thank you for illustrating my point.

  240. King of the Road says

    @ #231 Kagehi

    So, a job is your right? Should you also be able to force another company to hire you? Should the government determine how many employees your employer has? Where they locate their facilities? When you get promoted? What furniture you have in your office? What else? When a fired employee sues and loses, will the government pay the company for its defense? Will they implement any sort of penalty for such suits being brought frivolously?

    Etc.

  241. randydudek says

    A. Nuran

    Libertarianism in three sentences:
    …
    3) [B]ut I want my drugs and porn and don’t wanna go to church.

    Why you gotta start hating on drugs and porn!?

  242. randydudek says

    @240,

    And does any of that shit really happen, or do you just like pulling ridiculous examples out of your ass?

  243. Naked Bunny with a Whip says

    Why you gotta start hating on drugs and porn!?

    Republicans are supposed to be against them. Calling yourself a libertarian instead lets you agree with their fiscal policy without having to agree with their social policy.

  244. Zabinatrix says

    the sycophantic falling in line behind the god PZ being just one.

    So, your example of where some members of your tribe won’t toe the line with PZ involves video games and whether they’re art, huh?

    Ah, how many times have I seen this behavior?

    PZ says something that most regulars agree with, then someone who disagrees sees this and says “Hey! People are not defending my point of view – this must mean that they worship PZ as a god and automatically agree with everything he says! There can be no other explanation!”

    I mean, hey, it can’t be that the regulars here are regulars because they have opinions and interests that are similar to PZ’s? It must be worship? I get it.

    Sure, people are not just saying “You go PZ, I agree!!” – many are giving reasoned responses with their own personal reasons for agreeing, but whatever, right?

    And then of course there are some threads where PZ has expressed a view that is not in line with what most of the regulars think. The most recent is the infamous video game thread linked to above. So someone links to such an example. The response? Of course: “That doesn’t count! You still worship him!”

    Sure, 900+ comments where all but a handful are extremely opposed to what PZ said, but hey, it’s about video games so it doesn’t count as a point against “You guys all feel the need to agree with PZ about everything!”

    Sigh.

    King of the Road, I think you’ll see that if you examine the comments on past posts about libertarians, that much of the disdain you see here has its reason. I’ve seen a lot of discussions with libertarians, and they have tended to give a very bad image of themselves.

    Sure, that might not represent every single libertarian, but not every Catholic is a child-raper either. It’s still fair to call the Church on the sex-abuse though, and it’s still fair to call main-stream or vocal libertarians on their bullshit.

    You don’t have to agree with the assessment that typical libertarianism is bullshit. You don’t have to agree that the libertarians posting here have defended a political ideology worthy of disdain. I just don’t see where you’re getting off calling people sycophantic tribe-members who worship PZ as a god just because they don’t happen to agree with you.

    Are you so very sure of yourself that you feel that sycophancy and worship are the only possible reasons that anyone would hold an opinion different than yours?

  245. King of the Road says

    @242

    Some of it certainly happens, not all of it. Yet. Thankfully. But I infer Kagehi would prefer that it did. Oh, you think I’m imputing motivations and desires to Kagehi that he or she may not have and carrying to the extreme?

    I offer you post #215.

  246. boygenius says

    Utakata #212;

    Oh…I see, boygenius @ #117. I havehad never heard of that term until today. Then it likely went over my head…because I[‘d] rather debate the merrittsmerits of what ishas been said, thenthan dealing with frivolous spelling and gramma Nazi’isms. Which uselyusually leads to flaming, trolling and ad hominems.

    I will keep that in mind though, since I do make a lot of typos unintentionally. Though don’t expect any ShakespearShakespeare or a Rhodes ScholorScholar piece. /sigh

    As for if[?] English is my first language, Iit is. But I’ll admit I don’t have a full grasp of it. Then again, I don’t know many thatwho do. :(

    :-D :-D :-D
    Sorry, I couldn’t resist. It’s the result of being the son of a reading teacher.

    All “typos” are unintentional, but words mean things. If you want people to take your argument seriously, proper spelling, grammar, capitalization and punctuation are essential.

    As you are a native speaker of English, using threw for through and accept for except is just plain lazy thinking.

    I have invoked Skitt’s Law somewhere in this comment, no doubt.

    *shrug*

    I may be a mental midget ’round these parts, but pet peeves are pets (& peeves) nonetheless.

  247. David Marjanović says

    Are you so very sure of yourself that you feel that sycophancy and worship are the only possible reasons that anyone would hold an opinion different than yours?

    If he weren’t, he wouldn’t call himself “King of the Road”, wouldn’t he.

  248. Islander says

    Utakata @212

    Islander @ #114

    You make no fucking sense.

    This should get you all caught up, so hopefully you can stop asking to have the point spelled out to you.

  250. randydudek says

    KotR,

    I had no idea that people had the ability to force their way into a job. That would have been an asset when I lost my job as a hotel manager due to my local automotive economy going into the shitter.

    I had no idea that the government had the power to help me staff my hotel. Would have really been an asset during special event weekends. But should I have asked the state or the federal government for this help?

    The government WAS a big help in making sure that the hotel was not build on dangerous land. I see where you are coming from how that was a bad decision, but most of our guests seemed to appreciate it.

    I could have only DREAMED that the government was a factor in me getting a promotion. Even though I’ve just started a brand new job that I love, if you could steer me towards one of these jobs where the government is in charge of promotions, I’d love to at least drop off a resume.

    I’d hit the rest of your ass-pulled examples, but I’m bored typing this and I’m pretty sure no one else has read this far.

  251. King of the Road says

    @ #244 Zabinatrix

    Fair enough. This reasoned response deserves my best attempt at a well thought out reply.

    First, my personal political philosophy has elements of libertarianism, of conservatism, and of liberalism. I don’t think anything with a name (other than “Rob’s political philosophy”) can capture my thoughts.

    Second, you’re quite correct. Those who most frequently read and post here are likely to generally agree. There’s certainly nothing herd-like about that, per se. The nature of the comments sometimes leads me to wonder if the commenters have really thought through their positions though.

    But I contrast this site with a sight I frequent a lot where climate change is discussed (Only In It For the Gold) where there’s really much less “na na we’re right and they’re wrong” and snark types of comment and where there’s a refreshing lack of name calling and insult hurling. Admittedly, it’s a moderated site. I suppose that implying that there’s value in moderation would be considered a betrayal of libertarian ideals. But then a blog is property so…

    I constantly question my assumptions, and am nearly always unsure of my positions (in the scientific sense) other than my bedrock respect for privacy.

    As I said originally and as, in fact, I’ve posted on my blog, I find many areas of agreement with the general consensus on this site.

    But there really is a huge air of superiority here, and it seems to come from the “top down,” so to speak. The formula seems to be: PZ posts on a topic he deems worthy of derision; a couple of hundred posters then deride; a defender of the object of derision or, at the least, a critic of the derision comments; regulars pile on in what appears, from an occasional visitor, to be a competition to see who can be most sarcastic. Interspersed within the above is some thoughtful commentary and some citation of pertinent facts.

    I will admit that this seems to me to rise to the level of hypocrisy at times and that there is a tendency toward self-congratulation. This is just the way it appears to me, and when I jump in it’s with this view. Thus, I’ll resort to snarkiness and name calling (“sycophant”).

    I’ll try not to do that and I’ll hope that this comment is not taken to be concern trolling. If it is, oh well.

  252. King of the Road says

    @ #247

    “King of the Road” is a reference to a Roger Miller song from the 1960s and to the original thrust of my blog, i.e., utilizing any and all methods to coax the maximum gas mileage from my vehicle.

  253. Islander says

    Kagehi,

    Wal-Mart is a perfect example, but then so is, I think it was Krogers? They had a contract with different pay scales, per department, pensions, etc. Their union didn’t just cave, their members actually bought into the idea they might lose their jobs if they protested, or something, the union caved entirely, and now they are the new Wal-Mart, no differences in pay scale, everyone makes minimum, and it doesn’t matter if your are an expert meat cutter/baker/etc., or the guy collecting shopping carts from the lot.

    You are, for the most part, correct. I was a low-level manager at Kroger at the time, and I quit soon after. Here’s what happened.

    Every 3 years, the top execs in corporate and the top union reps meet to renegotiate the contract that decides who gets paid what, health benefits, etc. The union gives ground every time, but on this occasion, corporate wanted to eliminate all benefits and give everyone a 10 cent raise.

    The baggers (lowest level employees) start at minimum wage, $5.25, and after 6 months are given a raise all the way up to $5.50, which is the maximum they can make, ever. We had 10-year veterans making $5.50.

    The cashiers and everyone else in the store start out at $6.00, and every 6 months get somewhere between a 10-20 cent raise, topping out at $8.50.

    When threatened with a complete withdrawal of benefits by corporate, all the union reps would do is keep requesting extensions on the deadline for the contract. I guess there was some talk of strike from the union, although no rep from our store or any other in the area actually told the employees that this was a possible strategy. Nevertheless, someone must have said it, because the store managers began putting up propaganda in our breakroom, such as old newspaper articles about some random union on strike during christmas, not able to buy their families presents and having to protest in 10 degree weather.

    In addition to that, they would pull random employees in their office and ask things like “so, I’m just wondering if you plan to go on strike if the union tells you to,” with a veiled threatening tone.

    Eventually, as you say, the union caved, and we got worse benefit plans which we had to pay more money for, along with decreased pay raises.

    Sorry for the long screed, but I still have a bad taste in my mouth from this. I wonder if any libertarians in the room would like to explain how this was actually a good thing.

  254. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    King of the Road,

    In this thread I’ve given reasons for my disdain of looneytarianism. You may not agree with those reasons but you cannot say I haven’t given them. If you think looneytarianism is so great then it’s up to you to show us how it isn’t wishful thinking by a bunch of self-centered, ignorant, assholes.

  255. Bobber says

    Oh please.

    But I contrast this site with a sight I frequent a lot where climate change is discussed (Only In It For the Gold) where there’s really much less “na na we’re right and they’re wrong” and snark types of comment and where there’s a refreshing lack of name calling and insult hurling.

    Fainting couch is against the wall to the left.

    The formula seems to be: PZ posts on a topic he deems worthy of derision; a couple of hundred posters then deride; a defender of the object of derision or, at the least, a critic of the derision comments; regulars pile on in what appears, from an occasional visitor, to be a competition to see who can be most sarcastic.

    The virtual door is to the right of the fainting couch. You are free to use it.

    Thus, I’ll resort to snarkiness and name calling (“sycophant”).

    Thus, whilst I lecture you on your bad manners, allow me to flaunt my own.

    I’ll try not to do that and I’ll hope that this comment is not taken to be concern trolling.

    As others will point out, I am certain that your concern will be noted and dutifully addressed by ministers higher up than I.

    If it is, oh well.

    At least you still have your hat.

  256. King of the Road says

    @ #255 Bobber

    So you really see NONE of the characteristics I described?

  257. Bobber says

    “King of the Road” is a reference to a Roger Miller song from the 1960s

    You must also be a man of means by no means.

    and to the original thrust of my blog

    which is as fascinating and inspired as Elwood Blues’ order at Matt “Guitar” Murphy’s restaurant.

  258. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    So you really see NONE of the characteristics I described?

    No, what we see is a tone trolling asshole calling us names.

  259. Bobber says

    So you really see NONE of the characteristics I described?

    Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that I do.

    Why would I complain about it to the sycophants? To what purpose, other than to reinforce my own belief in my superiority and moral courage – which no one cares about except myself?

    Your approach has more to do with self-aggrandizement than with chastisement.

  260. King of the Road says

    #256

    As you so rightly pointed out, you’re free not to read it. You can hang out here and wait for PZ’s next target.

    #257

    “us” OK.

  261. King of the Road says

    #259

    Well, one would hope that, if it became a trend, the tendency might decrease.

    Sycophant – I retract the statement, it was not constructive. I further apologize for not being constructive.

    By the way, the last time I posted here I was called an idiot, an absolute lunatic, a troll, a slimy troll, and a dipshit. I was told to fuck off and then, when I didn’t reply (i.e., when I fucked off), was stated to have “stomped off in a huff.”

    Just sayin’

  262. PZ Myers says

    There is no prior record of you posting here before today, under that name.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if you got that response before, since you seem to have charged in here today with broad accusations and some genuinely clueless assertions. As you’ve noticed, you haven’t been constructive — you’ve been an arrogant idiot. You don’t get to complain about the fact that you’ve been honestly characterized.

  263. Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom says

    By the way, the last time I posted here I was called an idiot, an absolute lunatic, a troll, a slimy troll, and a dipshit. I was told to fuck off and then, when I didn’t reply (i.e., when I fucked off), was stated to have “stomped off in a huff.”

    If you still want a song from my tiny violin, I’ll see if I can manage.

  264. King of the Road says

    @262

    I posted under my first name, Rob. I didn’t have a moveable type profile then. But your post was here and my first comment was #135.

    “Arrogant idiot”, unlike anyone who professes agreement? PZ, seriously, you really don’t see any arrogance in any of those who comment in general agreement with you?

  265. King of the Road says

    @ #263

    Jeepers Rutee, the …..

    My feelings weren’t hurt, I was just commenting on the nature of name calling and who does it, something I had been accused of (and which, in fact, I’d done – not to my credit).

  266. Naked Bunny with a Whip says

    @King of the Road #261: Based on your performance today, you probably deserved it. You have done nothing but hurl insults and invective while having the temerity to complain about our tone. You have contributed absolutely no substance to the discussion, choosing instead to assert an air of moral superiority while hypocritically engaging in the actions you wildly accuse us of.

  267. PZ Myers says

    You are fulminating indignantly, nothing more. “Arrogant idiot” is an entirely appropriate response to that. It’s not as if you said anything substantive.

    The invective is not a consequence of your opinion, but of the way you make it, and the stupidity of your assertions. Of course there is a general pattern of broad agreement, or people wouldn’t be here. A community where everyone disagrees vehemently with everything everyone says on general principle does not last long.

  268. King of the Road says

    @ #266

    OK, I’ll try to meet your standards of substance.

    There are elements of the libertarian philosophy with which I agree and that I believe are needed. To wit, those who are productive should be able to reap at the better part of the fruits of their productivity. Humans are incentive driven creatures and we do well to incentivize that which we want, i.e., productive activity. For an example of failure to incentivize productivity, I offer Greece.

    There are elements of the libertarian philosophy that cannot work, to wit, their relatively completely refractory attitude toward externalities and public goods. For the failure to recognize public goods and externalities, I offer the roaring ’20s.

    I’ll stop hurling insults though, because then none will be hurled here, I’m sure.

  269. King of the Road says

    @ #267

    I acknowledged that already, refer to #251. Although disagreement doesn’t necessarily imply vehement disagreement.

  270. Pygmy Loris says

    For an example of failure to incentivize productivity, I offer Greece.

    What are you going on about?

  271. Flex says

    Mike Soloman @199 wrote,

    * Are for the line-item veto in the presidency

    I would call that opinion one that has not been fully thought through.

    A presidential line-item veto would, in practice, shift the decisions on how government money is spent from congress to the executive branch. Thus giving the President far more power than the framers of the constitution felt was prudent in the executive office.

    Here are some examples to illustrate the point:

    A) A Representative includes an item in a spending bill that would build a bridge to nowhere in his district. Is it discussed in committee? Maybe. But is it removed from the bill? No. Why should it be. The President will simply line-item-veto the bridge. Hopefully. And if he does then the Representative can blame the President for killing jobs in his district. If the President fails to veto that spending line, then the bridge to nowhere is actually built and is a serious waste of money.

    Do you see where that leads? Congress will add all sorts of pork to bills (far more than today), expecting the President to veto them. The pork that the President misses will be spent.

    B) A Representative may add a jobs-creation program in his state or district to a spending bill. The entire rest of Congress feels this is a great idea which has historically shown a good cost/return ratio and is entirely behind it. The President, under public pressure to line-item-veto projects to reach a balanced budget kills the program. The program may have been a cheap program, but that additional $5M savings on this program means not cutting his favorite charity program, prosthetic limbs for infants, even though most of Congress think this program is a silly one and not a worthy as the program being cut.

    Again, the will of the people, through it’s elected representatives in congress is suborned to the will of an individual.

    C) A Representative of an opposing party inserts a cheap program in a spending bill which would greatly help the citizens he represents. A program to upgrade an antiquated water treatment plant. Only a few million are needed. The President vetoes the program using his line-item-veto because the Representative is a senior member of Congress, with a lot of clout, but is up for re-election. His opponent makes much about the fact the the Representative couldn’t get the residents the new water treatment plant upgrade they need, and implies that if they elect him, the project will go ahead.

    D) Conversely, another senior Congresscritter of the same party as the President has a huge influence with the radio talk show hosts and the voters. If his pet project, complete pork, is vetoed but the President, he will actively campaign against the President when re-election time comes. So the pork is not vetoed.

    A presidential line-item-veto is also a tool for politics. We don’t need to give anyone more tools of this nature.

    There are several points here.

    First, it is the responsibility of congress, as outlined in the Federal Constitution, to disburse the monies collected by the government. A line-item-veto would shift that power to the Executive office.

    Second, currently the budget bills already have some pork (although less than some appear to believe, it’s often a case of whose ox is being gored). Putting the onus on the office of the President to remove pork relieves congresscritters of one of their major restraints from adding even more pork, with the expectation that the President will remove it.

    Third, the budget bills are complex pieces of legislation, often filled with compromises and reflecting the very diverse views of the public. Allowing the President, who cannot know all the details of the deliberations while crafting these bills, to simply eliminate legislation approved by congress is to elevate the opinions and beliefs of one man above the deliberations of many.

    Finally, human nature being what it is, it is inevitable that at times the Presidential line-item-veto would be used for political purposes. That is, the power would be used more often against the President’s political opponents than their supporters. This gives the President far more power than I’m comfortable with.

    While I can’t say that the current system is perfect, what we have currently creates a check both on the spending habits of congress and the executive power of the presidency to implement only the projects the President chooses.

    Cheers!

  272. CanadianChick says

    KOTR @ 240 – reading comprehension fail – that’s not at all what the OP said

    FYI – don’t know where you are, but where I live, we have an Employment Standards Act that ensures employees aren’t screwed over at the whim of an employer – FSM forbid that an employer should have to provide a reason for firing an employee. And as for your comment about suing for wrongful dismissal

    “Will they implement any sort of penalty for such suits being brought frivolously?”

    that already exists here – costs follow in the cause. If you file a frivolous lawsuit and it is dismissed or you are unsuccessful, you must pay the other party’s costs. That’s a DAMN fine incentive to keep stupid lawsuits out of the courts…

  273. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    For an example of failure to incentivize productivity, I offer Greece.

    What are you going on about?

    Seconded. Please explain how Greece failed to “incentivize” (is that even a word?) productivity.

  274. King of the Road says

    @ #272

    Argh. I didn’t claim he’d said that, as is clear from both comment #240 and a subsequent comment. The post was carrying the tendency to an extreme, though I’m not sure that many wouldn’t support such things.

    As to penalties for frivolous suits, the bar is set so high as to make it (almost) completely ineffectual. Better would be a “loser pays” for all cases. “But that will bar the non-wealthy and powerless from the courts.” Really? It works in England and contingency lawsuits already cost the plaintiff nothing. If a case is solid, an attorney will still undertake it on a contingency basis. As it is now, he or she has nothing to lose but his or her time and some filing and stenography fees.

    As it is now, any sued employer looks to settle because the costs of litigation are so high, regardless of the merit of the suit. Consequently, plaintiff’s counsel will bring the suit with little, if anything, to lose.

    I agree though, an employer should not have to provide a reason for firing an employee unless there is a breach of a contract. FSM has failed to forbid not requiring it, unfortunately.

  275. King of the Road says

    Argh. Foiled by the double negative. FSM has failed to forbid requiring it.

  276. jmchiejr says

    Irony: Whenever PZ needs that little traffic bump to improve the market-based economics of his blog, he makes fun of libertarians.

  277. keay.sensei says

    I think what he’s referring to is the fact that Greece is deeply in debt and has such a failing economy that it’s recently threatened to take all of Europe the way of the USA circa 1929. (Or, at least, that’s the way CNBC seems to be hyping it.)

    There are many reasons, it seems, but one reason seems to be tax evasion on a grand scale. Another is monetary union guidelines leading to what may have been an incentive for Greece to report its earnings falsely.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Greece#2010_debt_crisis

    It’s not necessarily productivity that’s the culprit here, as he suggested, but rather lack of social incentive to report earnings honestly–both at a national and individual level.

    That’s how I understand it, anyway. Anyone here from Greece that knows more about the situation?

  278. OurDeadSelves says

    If I recall my college sociology courses correctly, most people in the US are pretty much stuck into whatever socio-economic class they were born into. I could be wrong on this, though.

    There’s indeed a bit less social mobility in the USA than in much of Europe.

    OMG. I was quoted by David Marjanović. I feel like I’ve had a brush with a rock star! :D

    I’ve decided that I will take libertarian scum seriously when they actively take themselves out of society. You think you can get along without roads, schools, fire fighters, equal protection laws, consumer protection laws, etc.? Awesome, you have fun with that. Just don’t bother me with your whining when it doesn’t work out for you, bucko.

  279. JustALurker says

    I have experience in the receiving welfare area so I have some anecdotal evidence to share. (weak, I know but since everyone else has this argument down pat, I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in again.)

    Cash assistance does have a lifetime limit of 60 months. In Arizona, the cash assistance you receive for a family of 2 is 190 dollars (this may have decreased more since the last time I received it). These stupid limits they give are based off a 1960 something research they did about people’s expenses, that’s when I checked about 2 years ago for a honors report I did. I will find the links and double check that they didn’t change it since then. I only mention it now because it’s outrageous and I seriously doubt they have changed it. Of course, I am willing to accept evidence if I’m wrong.
    Now, if you make one fucking cent over 190 bucks a month you are DENIED. While I received it for several months when I was in between work study in a shelter. The 190 gift you think is too fucking generous and that I’m living off of didn’t go very far. It didn’t even cover all of my rent for the shelter I was staying at, diapers, wipes, and phone bill. Yes, I needed a phone it was 30 bucks a month with cricket and daycare needs a way to contact me at all times. Not to mention that way I can receive calls from employers, I mean you do want me to get a job right? As for daycare, yea I got assistance but guess what? I was still paying 500 bucks out of pocket when I was working. 500 out of 800 a month on a barely more than minimum wage life is killing me.
    Well, now I’m in my own apartment, going back to school in fall ( had to take a break to work 2 jobs to pay bills) and I just lost my jobs. Now, I really need the help or else we’re going to the streets. Not a shelter since every single one I’ve called has at least a 6 month waiting period unless I get really lucky. Now there are shelters that provide for the night, but you have to get there early to get a bed. Now, if I miss a night, I will have to call the police to come get my kid because my preference to stay with my baby does not outweigh her right to safety.
    So off to foster care she goes, I’m stuck in the cycle of shelters ,and you claim I’m a fucking welfare queen? How exactly am I living off the state? How exactly is you’re “hand up” helping me? How exactly am I suppose to get out of this fucked up system? I much rather pay my own goddamn way then go through this shit, but I got screwed and can’t.
    Admittedly, something is better than nothing and I’m thankful for the help I do get but don’t you dare jump on your self righteous, condensing ignorant high horse to preach about what a leach I am on this society. I want to be a productive member of society again, but I wasn’t given a good start so I need an actual helping hand to get there. FYI, I also pay fucking taxes from my checks and gladly do and the tax credit helps but doesn’t off set the HUGE expense my child is. And in case you are a complete dumb fuck, if I don’t get out of this now it means my kid and her kids are going to be stuck in the same cycle until we get helped out. Is that what you people WANT? GRRRR. I’m starting to think people really do want us here just so they have something to bitch and preach about.
    Sorry about the long post and rant but where I live I hear this shit all the time and it pisses me off to no fucking end.

  280. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    I think what he’s referring to is the fact that Greece is deeply in debt and has such a failing economy that it’s recently threatened to take all of Europe the way of the USA circa 1929. (Or, at least, that’s the way CNBC seems to be hyping it.)

    There are many reasons, it seems, but one reason seems to be tax evasion on a grand scale. Another is monetary union guidelines leading to what may have been an incentive for Greece to report its earnings falsely.

    I’m aware of the Greek government’s economic problems. I’ve even written about them a couple of times here at Pharyngula.

    No, what I was wondering is how Greece’s problems were caused by a “failure to incentivize [sic] productivity.”

  281. Walton says

    JustALurker: That’s awful.

    Reading posts like yours has, over time, made me realise how privileged I am, compared to a large number of people, to have grown up in financial security in a middle-class family. I didn’t “earn” that; it’s entirely a product of luck and privilege. This realisation, and my having developed a bit more empathy with people living in deprived circumstances, is part of why I’m not an orthodox libertarian any more, and why I now believe that there should be a welfare safety-net to help people in your situation.

  282. Naked Bunny with a Whip says

    I’ll stop hurling insults though, because then none will be hurled here, I’m sure.

    Thanks, you’ve proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are absolutely uninterested in engaging anyone here in an honest discussion. Your urgent desire to misrepresent this forum makes any claims you put forth suspect, and your continued unwillingness to provide any specifics to support your stupendously broad assertions makes engaging you intellectually dull.

    I don’t suffer from “SIWOTI Syndrome”, I don’t find endlessly repeated insults amusing, and — unlike you — I don’t nurse a pathological need to control people’s harmless entertainment, so am tossing you into the ignore box with all the other tedious, ego-stroking “tone” hypocrites.

  283. CanadianChick says

    KOTR – um, it IS loser pays here, I guess that wasn’t clear. I could bore everyone with the ins and outs of it (I’m not a lawyer but I read BC Court Judgements for amusement and education).

    If you think that an employer should be able to fire without cause or reason, do you think they should provide notice, severance or both?

  284. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    Whenever PZ needs that little traffic bump to improve the market-based economics of his blog, he makes fun of libertarians.

    No, he did it because us regulars have been complaining about the low level of trolls recently. Looneytarians are excellent trolls. As shown by Asshole of the Road, they’re arrogant and ignorant but they rant really well.

  285. OurDeadSelves says

    JAL #279:
    I’m so sorry to hear about your situation.

    The sad thing is, no evidence like yours will sway these shit-for-brains. I’ve heard too many self-important libtards claim that people can always pull themselves out of poverty, no matter what the circumstances are, simply by “putting your nose to the grindstone” and all that rot. It makes me want to forcefully implant an empathy chip in their brains.

    I’m of two minds about this. Either: a) They really don’t realize that they come from male, white privilege or b) they honestly don’t care about each individual person, ‘cos let’s face it, they’re just going to assume that your a minority. For all of their claims that merit is the only thing that matters, they certainly are a huge group of racists.

  286. keay.sensei says

    @279

    Agreed, although there’s also a decent amount of ignorance as to how the systems actually work. Very few people opposed to “welfare queens” actually know what the laws are in their states regarding this. In the same way, very few people who support cracking down on illegal immigration in the USA actually know the full process to become a legal citizen here.

  287. Mr T says

    JustALurker:

    How exactly am I living off the state?

    Well, you are alive, which seems to be the problem for the more extreme looneytarians. Their “freedom” (nay, Constitutional Right) to spend money on hookers and blow is more important than the state giving you the privilege of breathing their air and infecting their precious bodily fluids. They would’ve gotten away with it too, if it weren’t for all of us pesky socialist kids…

    I was conversing with a libertarian a few months ago who actually said, and I quote, “I’m not really sure if I believe in morality” — I was shocked by such a rare moment of honesty. We were talking about politics of course, and I had made some ethical claim. Rather than explain what was he thought was wrong with my claim, that was the response. I’m not kidding. This is all just an anecdote, but it is astonishing that someone could put themselves into that sort of mindset. Needless to say, I don’t enjoy discussing politics with libertarians.

  288. King of the Road says

    Merriam Webster seems to think it’s a word.

    As to Greece, its the public sector represents 40% of GDP, retirement age at 96% of pre-retirement earnings at an average age of 61. Even Greece’s finance minister, George Papaconstantinou (no Margaret Thatcher) states that “the main problem in his country’s civil service is overmanning.”

    Thus, the incentive leads to getting a civil service job and sticking it out until one reaches retirement age. Further, rather than making capital available for investment via a defined contribution system, an underfunded pension leads to a “paycheck to paycheck” system and investment funds are lacking.

    For a broad overview, see the Economic Survey of Greece 2005,here, and particularly Chapter 3.

  289. JustALurker says

    @281

    Thank you Walton. I’m glad you have been liberated some from that horrid way of thinking. =)

    @285

    Yes, I have come to realize that but it still makes my blood boil. The funny thing is in their jacked up world I was “one of them”. I’m not a minority, I was raised in hometown America, where everyone knew everybody, the was no crime and the people where honest Joe Six Pack types. My father was the All American boy, captain of high school football team, serves his country several times, his mother was a elementary school teacher and his father a fire fighter. They were “good Catholics” and blah, blah, blah. It’s all a bunch of crap. In reality Daddy was an alcoholic abusive pedophile racist. Of course though no one said anything because they couldn’t believe he could do anything wrong. Forget the bruised they saw on me and such. It was all my dirty hippie mother’s fault for leaving us. Of course, they forgot how they used to love her when she was one of them too, severed in the Army and all. Fuck them. Now, I am a statistic, a minority with a mixed baby and it’s my fault for not working hard enough and dating those dirty brown people. (gag) They sicken me to no end.

  290. JustALurker says

    Well, you are alive, which seems to be the problem for the more extreme looneytarians. Their “freedom” (nay, Constitutional Right) to spend money on hookers and blow is more important than the state giving you the privilege of breathing their air and infecting their precious bodily fluids.

    I literally lol’d at that. very funny way of stating a seriously fucked up way of thinking. Thanks, I really need that.

  291. OurDeadSelves says

    (gag) They sicken me to no end.

    Me too. I don’t actively hate many people (being the bleeding-heart liberal that I am), but these ass hats deserve nothing less than our scorn. Where is the respect for another’s basic humanity? What malfunction in their brain causes them not see you as a living, breathing person worthy of our respect, but as someone who a financial drain?

    These aren’t hypothetical questions here. Any self-identified libertarian can feel free to try to justify their mindset.

  292. King of the Road says

    So, PZ. “Asshole of the Road” (comment #284). He clearly hasn’t critically read anything I’ve written. Fine, his or her privilege. But I guess you’d contend that I can’t object to an honest characterization. Really?

    CanadianChick: It isn’t loser pays here in the U.S., I wasn’t aware that it is such in Canada. Is there an inability of the non-wealthy to utilize the court system? I really don’t know and would like to.

    As to severance and notice, I believe the moral obligation is there and, consequently, don’t argue against requiring it. I agree that a typical employer enjoys a large bargaining position advantage over a typical employee and thus the “whatever can be put in the contract or employment agreement governs” approach is, to use the legal term, unconscionable.

    My company pays two weeks plus a week for each year, unless the termination was for something egregious (assault, battery, making threats, theft, fraud, weapons possession, sale (but not possession) of controlled substances on company time or property, etc.).

  293. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    Asshole of the Road #288

    A much greater problem for Greece is low taxes and massive tax dodging, causing a deficit. As with most European countries, the government provides many services which are privatized in the US, but until the recent financial meltdown, the Greek government was able to pay its bills. The Greek public debt has massively grown during the past few years but the government refused to raise taxes (no, George W. Bush was not Maximum Leader of Greece).

    Privatizing government services causes its own problems. If the government sells profitable services then it loses income over the long run. If it tries to sell unprofitable services there’s few takers, the price is low, and under the new owners the quality of service generally suffers, making for unhappy customers.

    So, Asshole of the Road, what’s the looneytarian fix for Greece? I know what the real world fix is likely to be, but I want to know how you economic illiterates would go about solving a real world problem.

  294. King of the Road says

    about #282 (It has to be about because he or she is ignoring me): It always amuses me when people announce that they’re putting others on ignore. Why can’t they just do so? I guess the “ignoree” has to feel the pain. It’s analogous to the trolls who threaten to leave but won’t actually do so (“this is my last post,” “well, I had to come back because you were so very wrong but this is REALLY my last post, etc.”). I strongly suspect that Naked Bunny With a Whip is secretly not ignoring me – otherwise how will he or she know that the slight has been duly received?

  295. MadScientist says

    @keay.sensei#172:

    “Eh, the point of libertarianism isn’t that social order and responsibility shouldn’t exist; it’s just that everything has a cost, and we should be aware of that cost when making decisions.”

    Really? Well, I’ve never heard of your brand of libertarianism then. I’ve only ever heard variations of Ayn Rand’s insane blather (see, for example, Michael Shermer or ask Penn Jillette). So how would you distinguish your libertarianism from, say, the work of public oversight organizations?

  296. Flex says

    King of the Road at #292 wrote,

    My company pays two weeks plus a week for each year,…

    Until they decide to change it.

    Just before, literally a week before, the layoffs at the end of 2008, the company policy changed from 2 weeks + 2 weeks for each year with a 26 week maximum to 2 weeks + 1 week for each year with a 16 week maximum.

    People who had thought for years that their company loyalty would be worth something got a real slap in the face. 10 weeks of severance pulled out from them without notice and then layoffs which affected 40% of the company.

    And there was nothing the employees could do about the change in policy aside from leaving the company and forfeiting even the 16 weeks (which used to be 26 weeks) they previously had coming to them.

    When something like that, an employer changing their terms of employment without notice, happens to you, maybe you will consider that some employee protection legislation is important.

    For at-will employees, all the power to change their employment conditions lies with the employer, none of it lies with the employee. Which is why unions were formed in the first place.

  298. King of the Road says

    #293

    Really, just what does it take to make clear that any solution I offer isn’t a libertarian one, though it may have libertarian elements? I thought I was pretty clear. Provide incentives (people don’t seem to react well to “incentivize”) for entrepreneurial activities (using tax policies most likely), convert from a defined benefit to a defined contribution retirement system, etc.

    In any case, what will happen is that Greece will be bailed out by Germans. Conditions will be attached involving gradually raising the retirement age, using retirement and other voluntary measures to reduce public sector size, cutting back on infrastructure investments, etc.

  299. King of the Road says

    @ #297. Exhibit A for constructive criticism.

    I’m actually a happy guy. I’m about 5’8″ and weigh about 185 so, though I’m not tall, few describe me as little. I hope that doesn’t disturb you.

  300. Flex says

    King of the Road @298, wrote, for entrepreneurial activities (using tax policies most likely)….

    According to a co-worker of mine who is Greek, there is plenty of entrepreneurial action. Just that no one is paying taxes on it.

    How do you propose to fix that by using tax policy?

  301. King of the Road says

    @296.

    Really, what you’re complaining about is that, after paying people for, say, 15 years, instead of paying them for another six months for not doing anything of value to the company, they’ll only pay for a 3 1/2 months for for not doing anything of value to the company. I suppose a release will be required to be signed to get the severance, so I guess you could consider that not suing the company is of value.

  303. King of the Road says

    @ #300

    Yup, that’s a problem all right. If the rule of law goes away, it doesn’t much matter what political philosophy is in place. Still, public sector spending is too big, public employment levels are too high, and the retirement system is not geared to produce investment capital. We have many of these problems in the U.S.

  304. Pygmy Loris says

    JustaLurker,

    I’m so sorry you have to deal with such shit.

    Tis,

    Thanks for the information. I think this King of the Road character might be a bit full of shit.

    Flex,

    When something like that, an employer changing their terms of employment without notice, happens to you, maybe you will consider that some employee protection legislation is important.

    But he’s probably just such a valuable employee that he’d never get laid off. I mean, with such obvious skills the employers are probably crawling all over each other to offer him more money!

    beth lehman,

    Wow. You are a sad little man, KotR.

    Agreed.

  305. King of the Road says

    To all those concerned about my welfare:

    Don’t worry. I have enough saved to get a double wide and live off grid in Montana.

    I’m finding it hard to stick by my pledge not to hurl insults. But not impossible.

  306. Pygmy Loris says

    KotR,

    We have many of these problems in the U.S.

    Excuse me while I laugh my ass off.

    BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

  307. jack lecou says

    Boring Sunday night, might as well wade into the mire…

    Even though the government is necessary, it is not efficient. It is not efficient because it has no competition and thus no reason to excel.

    I think this typifies a lot of what libertarians ignore or get wrong about human nature.

    In fact, people have a great many varied and complex reasons to excel. Profit and competition are only two – and possibly not even the most important. Altruism, professionalism, pride, camaraderie, peer recognition (or reproach), generosity, etc. are all just as valid and just as important to consider when we study what motivates individuals, and how societies and institutions work.

    It takes a great deal of ignorant cynicism to assume that civil servants can’t be (and aren’t) motivated to excel by a genuine desire to do good and to do their jobs well. It’s simply not the case that the only possible human motivation is a desire for a big bonus at the end of the year, or the fear of a layoff should RivalCo’s new product steal too much business in the second quarter.

    Indeed, in many cases those less concrete, more altruistic incentives are strongly preferable. Few people, for example, think that the profit-based incentives of mercenaries are somehow superior to the more patriotic incentives of a volunteer national military. And in general, bringing money too crassly into an equation can destroy other more important bonds – see Dan Ariely for some great examples.

    More broadly, there’s nothing inherently ‘inefficient’ about government, or inherently ‘efficient’ about for-profit enterprise, competitive environment or no. Both can work well or work poorly. It depends entirely on the direction of the overall incentives, their aptness for the particular situation at hand, and the specific, myriad details of the institutional structures and cultures involved.

    I actually think one key characteristic of libertarianism and related political philosophies is an unwillingness to recognize or deal with those kind of gritty details. Drilling down to find the specific causes of failures in institutions or government structures, then working through the vagaries of the political process to patch them (ever imperfectly) is just too much hard, messy, human work.

    It would kill the buzz of the (supposed) logical purity that is a fundamental part of libertarianism’s appeal. The idea that living in a human society necessarily requires messy participation, give-and-take and living with the reality of human fallibility is anathema.

    Instead, the tendency is to find flaws, but then to attribute them simplistically to some inhuman black-box entity called ‘government’ that has one and only one adjustable knob – size. The way to fix all our problems is to “minimize inefficient government”. The fervent wish/assumption is that everyone should just act like homo economicus so society can run on neat mathematical autopilot.

  308. OurDeadSelves says

    Don’t worry. I have enough saved to get a double wide and live off grid in Montana.

    High holy hell, I hope this is actually true and you’re not just being a snarky asshole.

    (What a way to make fun of people who earn less than you, btw. Please tell me, have you ever respected another person, even if they earned less than you?)

  309. Flex says

    Way to miss the point, idiot.

    You said your company provides severance pay at a certain rate. I showed you that companies can, and do, change that rate without your consent and your only, repeat, only option is to leave the company.

    The party who was hired under the terms of severance being 2 weeks + 2 weeks/year up to 26 weeks has no standing when the other party unilaterally changes the terms that BOTH parties agreed to 15 years ago.

    When one party has the power to unilaterally change the terms of a contract, are you suggesting the contract is a fair one? Can you even find an employer who will hire you on the basis of you being able to negotiate your personal contract?

    I guess when your company eliminates severance pay altogether you won’t mind in the least because the company has decided to avoid paying you for not working. After all, the company will be simply avoiding paying you for not adding value to the company, regardless of your current understanding of your severance pay situation.

    In fact, I suggest that you go to your employer tomorrow morning and tell them that you would be willing to sign away all your severance pay because if you are laid off you won’t be providing value to the company.

  310. King of the Road says

    @ #307

    I think the best argument against libertarianism is the transition from “frontier Earth” to “spaceship Earth” as we trend toward 9 billion people all wanting to consume natural resources at the rate of a so-called “developed economy.” That clearly won’t work and everyone acting on “enlightened self-interest” will not reach a workable solution in time.

  311. King of the Road says

    @ #308

    I actually respect anyone who is honest and not a hypocrite. I have a retirement account in the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 12 and was a trade worker for years.

    I’m not sure how it’s disrespectful of or making fun of anyone to state that I’ve worked hard to provide for contingencies. Let’s get this straight: I’m a white male born in the U.S. in the 1950’s, and hence I pretty much won the lottery straight out of the womb. I acknowledge it fully.

    So, how does that make it wrong to save my earnings where possible, and plan for worst case scenarios? How is it insulting to state that I’ve done so?

    Am I vulnerable to things I can’t control? Sure. I could contract cancer or, worse, Alzheimer’s. I could be rendered quadriplegic by a drunk driver. My company could be bankrupted (it’s in the construction industry). Does that make it OK not to do what I can to cover the things I can? I sure don’t see how.

    Do I not have empathy for those so affected or whom life dealt a different starting hand? I do and, to the extent possible within the limits of providing for my family as above, I do what I can. I most assuredly pay all my taxes and do so on time.

    But to be criticized for these things is really counterproductive.

  313. King of the Road says

    So, I guess the ban on name calling and insult hurling only applies to the home team, huh?

  314. OurDeadSelves says

    How is it insulting to state that I’ve done so?

    It was the double-wide comment. Too often, people are insulted simply because they live in a trailer and your comment seemed to be full of snark.

  316. Naked Bunny with a Whip says

    Whenever I hear about the efficiency of private enterprise, I wonder how much time and money is spent on competing, essentially duplicate efforts. I’m not some pie-in-the-sky optimist who believes that competition can feasibly be scrapped in favor of collaboration, but I don’t think we get a realistic picture by ignoring the inherent waste in a competitive system.

  317. King of the Road says

    @#314

    Nope, that’s actually my plan. No snarkiness at all. Land selected, equipment scoped out, money saved.

  318. OurDeadSelves says

    Just a tip, KotR:
    Next time if you don’t want to come off as a snarky asshole, don’t qualify your statement with

    To all those concerned about my welfare:

    when there was a poster right above you who is actually struggling to live.

  319. King of the Road says

    @ #318

    I’m very sorry for that situation. People were expressing what was, in my opinion, sarcastic hope that I’d be ok were I to lose my job. So if someone took it to be insulting to someone struggling to get by, that certainly wasn’t my intent.

  320. Jadehawk, OM says

    JustALurker:

    next time you’re facing serious homelessness, I want you to send me an e-mail. Your situation is depressing me, and I’m determined to eliminate the sources of my depression whenever I encounter them. Even if it means housing complete strangers on my living room couch. :-p

  321. Gene Hawkridge says

    The really funny thing about the cartoon is that it illustrates how ready the cartoonist is to make fun of what the cartoonist so clearly, at least to this actual libertarian, does not understand. The attitudes expressed by the cartoon characters are far more typical of socialists than libertarians: give them everything for free, and they complain that it isn’t enough. Its what I like to call, “spoiled brat syndrome.” Perhaps the cartoonist will never read my comment. I’m unlikely to change the mind of someone that pathetically ignorant, anyway. It’d be nice, though, if this person would actually take the trouble to learn something about us, instead of simply basing ideas on the media pundits.

  322. BrianX says

    It is my considered opinion that when arguing against a libertarian, you will *always* be arguing against a strawman. They don’t move the goalposts; they cut them down and claim they’re playing a completely different sport.

  323. Jadehawk, OM says

    The attitudes expressed by the cartoon characters are far more typical of socialists than libertarians: give them everything for free, and they complain that it isn’t enough.

    let me guess: you’ve never actually met a socialist in your entire life. It’s not those advocating taking care of all the weak members of society who are the spoiled brats.

  326. boggsster says

    I am amazed by the lack of understanding in this thread.

    “Libertarian motto: I’ve got mine, fuck you.”

    Sure, okay. You’ve thought that one through.

    It is my opinion that most libertarians believe that their system in the best way to help MORE people than the current system. Don’t know how this might work? Read something.

    “Liberals want to take all my MONIES.”

    Another stupid strawman.

  327. King of the Road says

    #325
    Well, I guess then that the entire “us” has. [/sarcasm]

  328. PZ Myers says

    How many libertarians have responded to this cartoon by haughtily informing us that the cartoonist simply doesn’t understand libertarianism? I think the question in the title is being answered with a firm “no.”

  329. Jadehawk, OM says

    It is my opinion that most libertarians believe that their system in the best way to help MORE people than the current system.

    oh, sure. there are some libertarians that are such simply because they are ignorant of life outside their privilege. But I am not convinced that this is a majority of them.

  330. Pygmy Loris says

    It is my opinion that most libertarians believe that their system in the best way to help MORE people than the current system. Don’t know how this might work? Read something.

    It is a known fact that libertarian economics will result in decreased competition, poor working condition, and a very small, very wealthy elite with a very large, very poor underclass. The time period was called the Gilded Age (as someone mentioned upthread). My facts trump your opinion.

    Why don’t you go read something?

  331. boggsster says

    The crux of this whole issue is:

    Why the squabbling about economics between Leftists and Libertarians? These two groups are the most compatible to join forces on the most important issue of all. End The Empire! When we are done murdering millions around the globe and throwing countless dollars away, we can meaningfully discuss how best to reform the Government (One that isn’t skewed by trillions in the Military-Industrial Complex).

  332. Nerd of Redhead, OM says

    I see the liberturds still can’t read or remember history, particularly 1820-1900. Ergo, liberturds don’t understand why those of us who remember our history realize they are a doomed and morally bankrupt ideology. Show us historically where you are right…

  333. Jadehawk, OM says

    Why the squabbling about economics between Leftists and Libertarians? These two groups are the most compatible to join forces on the most important issue of all. End The Empire!

    the libertarians aren’t interested in ending the Empire, but rather in speeding up and completing the transfer of it into corporate hands. There’s no point in destroying government if you’re not also going to destroy the ability of businesses to buy each other and become multinationals.

  334. https://me.yahoo.com/a/c8vgv20epfOnyZYgaPKrcYfDk4TekTh7#ed6d2 says

    KotR @311 pretty much does give the ‘I’ve got mine, fuck you’ response. ‘I was born with massive privilege and was lucky enough to never have a major disaster, but fuck those of you who weren’t, lazy bastards, no need to have food, housing, medical care, etc.’ I’ll make sure to tell my mother who raised four kids alone on government assistance because her abusive, alcoholic,crackhead husband who verbally abused and hit her would rather buy drugs or buy gifts for his girlfriends (who he also beat, recently one was sent to the hospital with multiple broken ribs), that her problem was that she just didn’t want to save enough (despite working two jobs without recieving no child support, like 80% of single mothers in the US). I’ll just whine about how medicaid saved my life on more than one occasion and sustains my survival every day, because, you know, it is lack of saving that makes me unable to pay thousands of dollars of medical bills without family support while I am a full time student. But I’ll rest assured that a rich hetero able bodied white dude thinks it would all be fine if only I could save more.

    @323, Yeah, I thought the same thing. As someone who has actually participated in Socialist Party USA local meetings, I can say that I was the only one who was not either employed full time or retired (I am a full time student and work summers). Being an educator was given a lot more respect, we have quite a few current and retired teachers and professors. Working class labour is also respected, one of our prominent members and organizers works for UPS. Unlike libertarians, socialists actually have a great deal of respect for low income workers and for the unemployed poor.

    “Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most – that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least.” -Eugene Debs, union leader and founder of the now defunct Socialist Party of America

  335. skeptifem says

    In fact, people have a great many varied and complex reasons to excel. Profit and competition are only two – and possibly not even the most important. Altruism, professionalism, pride, camaraderie, peer recognition (or reproach), generosity, etc. are all just as valid and just as important to consider when we study what motivates individuals, and how societies and institutions work.

    It takes a great deal of ignorant cynicism to assume that civil servants can’t be (and aren’t) motivated to excel by a genuine desire to do good and to do their jobs well. It’s simply not the case that the only possible human motivation is a desire for a big bonus at the end of the year, or the fear of a layoff should RivalCo’s new product steal too much business in the second quarter.

    Exactly! There is so much hard, thankless work that people do for free or for little money because it needs to be done and it is normal to care about other human beings. There is a disincentive financially to doing work of this sort, and yet people are good enough to continue to do it (mostly women). Jobs that involve caring for people (working in schools, health care, social work, child care, etc) are paid a lot less than comparable workers in things like finance and sales. The way that value is assigned to tasks is all screwed up. In reality, being educated well, cared for, and healed when sick are some of the most important things to human beings.

    JustALurker- I am so very sorry. What I cannot stand is how people talk about poverty and falling on hard times like it is just an inconvenience instead of a serious & scary thing to go through. God forbid anyone get sick when they are broke, and being mentally ill while poor is pretty much a life sentence of poverty. It isn’t always possible to get out of poverty, and it is less and less likely as the support systems dissolve. I was reading Down and Out in Paris and London recently, and George Orwell said something about how being poor is a full time job (the whole book chronicles how much work goes into food/board/not getting arrested when you have no money), it is just the sort of work that people look down on, or they don’t call it work at all. I don’t really know who all these people are who “don’t work” are, I haven’t met any. The only people I know with the kind of leisure to actually not work are rich.

  336. timrowledge says

    The free market (or mostly-free market) is more than capable of running many of the functions that government currently controls; and because the free market is competitive, it will be much more efficient

    Competition is not efficient. It is wasteful – in order to have competition you must at least duplicate the means of production and typically over-produce in order to have the goods or service available from each competitor at all locations. What competition can do, if the market is actually honest, is fairly efficiently find out which is the preferred good or service. Which just leaves the failed competitor(s) to go bankrupt, wasting more resources.

    Best argument against libertarianism? Mirror neurons.

  337. Islander says

    The really funny thing about the cartoon is that it illustrates how ready the cartoonist is to make fun of what the cartoonist so clearly, at least to this actual libertarian, does not understand.

    Jebus, how many looneys are going to come in here with the same opening line?

    We understand your position very well, and it is ridiculous and immoral.

  338. Azkyroth says

    It is my opinion that most libertarians believe that their system in the best way to help MORE people than the current system.

    Which, even if true, doesn’t get them any points. After all, Ria Ramkissoon believed that her one year old son was possessed by a “spirit of rebellion” and that denying him food would cure him.

  339. Autumn says

    @skeptifem, @335,
    Yeah, Down and Out in Paris and London is a hell of a read. The great thing is that Blair (Orwell) had the audacity to later pen 1984 as a warning against dogmatic adherence to any party line. I actually had to have an argument in a community college English course because a classmate didn’t believe that Blair was a socialist.

  340. Azkyroth says

    As for Pakistanis, I shall declare my solidarity with their dignity by forgoing the temptation to contract in any way and type the full word.

    I suppose I should stop referring to red-staters as “Dumbfuckis” then. At least around the Britainese.

  341. Kagehi says

    So, a job is your right? Should you also be able to force another company to hire you? Should the government determine how many employees your employer has?

    Blah, blah, blah…

    You know what the real fracking joke is? The laws in Arizona that protect companies right to fire you for nothing, refuse you work for purely arbitrary reasons (even more so than otherwise), and undermine your ability to even look for replacement work are called, “Right to work”, laws. Sounds an awful lot like laws giving people the “right” to have a job, but, like most Libertarian gibberish, it actually means they get to deny you the right to even make a living wage, if they can get by with it, and you can just leave, or shut up, if you don’t like it. I don’t need to government “making” people find me work. I do need them to keep the people that hire me from screwing me out of everything they can possibly get by with, including my health, sanity, and saving, to make up for what they refuse to pay me.

  342. Ramdic Hellbane says

    When I met PZ in Champaign someone suggested that I might fit in with the Libertarians. I don’t try to keep up with all the various religions and offshoots as alot of you do. I find it a waste of my time to learn nonsense and falsehoods. I had no Idea what Libertarianism represented. Now I realize what an insult that was and i’m pissed! Maybe it’s better I didn’t know then, however. It may have ruined everyone’s evening and possibly got me thrown in jail. That is more of an insult than the English teacher who thought I was drunk just because I was loud and obnoxious. Hehe.

  343. skeptifem says

    KOTR-

    There are elements of the libertarian philosophy with which I agree and that I believe are needed. To wit, those who are productive should be able to reap at the better part of the fruits of their productivity. Humans are incentive driven creatures and we do well to incentivize that which we want, i.e., productive activity.

    The communist manifesto states that same idea over and over. Exceptions are made for those who cannot work, but Marx said that those who are working deserve to enjoy the full value of their labor, which they are denied in a capitalist system. Marx was talking more about the rich people, the ones who rake in money simply by owning something (like a company or a piece of land), instead of who you are most likely referring to (lower classes of people who are on government benefits). It is kind of entertaining in a perverse way to see the “those who work deserve what they earn” line of thought represented as being a libertarian idea.

  344. Hirnlego says

    When someone asks me why I oppose laissez faire capitalism I simply reply ‘child labor’.
    There would be nothing which would prohibit such a practice, I’m not at all interested going back to the days of Manchester Liberalism.

    The horrible working conditions and low wages are exactly why our capitalists move their manufacturing to China.

  346. keay.sensei says

    @Mad Scientist, 295

    My own view is that I don’t particularly care whether something is “public” or “private” as long as the entity in charge of oversight is not the same as the entity doing the work–in other words, that the referee isn’t a player in the game.

    My problem with laissez-faire and letting industries self-regulate is the same most people have here, but I extend the need for more oversight to government organizations: they need to be held more accountable than they are. EITHER the government should be the regulator and the one making and enforcing rules, OR it should be the player in the game. Not both.

    Example 1: Wall Street (and Automotive) Bailout. If the government wants to regulate big business, I’m all for that! If it wants to arrest CEOs and others who deliberately built up the housing bubble, sold junk equity and made millions while others lost their retirement, great! But why is the government buying stock in the companies? Why does the government now own a large part of GM and others? Putting a large stockholder in charge of regulation is what GOT us into this mess. Making it a body of elected officials as notoriously corrupt as the USA senate, house, and presidency doesn’t change that. Regulate, yes. But buy? Sell? No.

    Example 2: Public education. Full disclosure, here: I’m a public high school teacher. The government this time is the entity running the show. So it shouldn’t be the one in charge of assessing whether or not the school district is doing well. The problems here are multifold. On the one hand, there are acts like No Child Left Behind, which require assessment of schools in such a way as to intentionally bring about failing scores. Why would the conservatives who passed it want schools to fail? Short answer: they want justification for taxpayer vouchers to private (religious) schools. On the other hand, there are the states in charge of making sure their schools pass the unfair assessment demand, and they’re proudly cheating their way through for the most part. The assessments are made exceedingly easy, and even for kids who don’t pass those, there is often an alternate “project” the kid can do to get out of the test requirement. I’ve seen these projects with my own eyes: a student does a posterboard with a teacher’s “help.” The teacher does 80% of the work, because if they don’t, they get possible consequences from higher up. The work consists of answering questions out of a textbook and writing the answers on the poster. This ten-or-so question worksheet-made-poster is supposed to suffice for high school assessment.

    How SHOULD assessing high school achievement be done, then, if the government itself shouldn’t do it? Well, the only real check on the government’s power in the long run consists of the people. And in the case of education, election cycles take too long and don’t make enough of a difference anyway. So schools should be given more local control over assessment. There’s an encouraging trend in education to move away from the mindset of “every child must pass the exact same tests and have the exact same classes”–that mindset might have been necessary for increasing school equality in, say, the 1960s, but it’s being replaced today by a diversity point of view–not by race, mind, but by individual student. Instead of subjecting everyone to the same standards, there are Individual Education Plans for some that adjust their workload in certain areas. It’s just a start, but where I hope it goes is that teachers and parents and schools can individually monitor the success of each and every student, not according to a rubrick, but according to what that student can achieve. The chief oversight here belongs to the parent, and through PTAs, it would be easy enough to shift school evaluation and accreditation to the parents in the community.

    Obvious point: This does not mean that some national laws aren’t necessary to try and counter discrimination in some schools. But as per assessment of performance itself, the states should not be the judge of how good the states’ schools are, and the federal government should not be the judge of how good the nation’s schools are, but rather the parents whose children are entitled to an education should be the ones able to hold schools immediately and directly accountable.

    —

    Whew, long rant. Anyway, long story short: Don’t leave foxes in charge of henhouses, but don’t leave the hens in charge, either.

  347. Flex says

    King of the Road @312 wrote, Did you ever hear of a contract?

    Ah yes, this gambit. Contracts solve everything.

    Now explain how a mid-level, at-will, engineer like myself can convince the HR department of a company employing over 20,000 people to write a contract just for me.

    The fact is, they won’t. If I pushed it, I’d be laid off and replaced with one of dozens of people as qualified as I am who would be willing to work (in fact eager to work) without a contract as an at-will employee.

    I’ve actually got it pretty good. I might be able to, sometime in my career, be important enough to a company to be able to negotiate an individual employment contract. But it’s very unlikely.

    Individual employment contracts are fairly rare, mainly confined to executives. Collective bargaining contracts are far more common, but require unions to negotiate and administer. The majority of workers in the US are at-will employees without individual employment contracts or union contracts. Which means that their conditions of employment can be changed at-will by the employer and the only recourse an employee has is to quit.

    Compare my position, a qualified engineer with an additional business degree and a great deal of experience in the automotive industry world-wide, with an employee at Wall-Mart. Where I’m unlikely to be able to negotiate an individual employment contract with my employer, they have absolutely no chance.

    Contracts would be nice, but when employers refuse to provide contracts what other options are available?

  348. Flex says

    keay.sensei @346 wrote,

    …parents whose children are entitled to an education should be the ones able to hold schools immediately and directly accountable.

    Wasn’t that the original intent of school boards?

    /snark

  349. jmchiejr says

    @333 Jadehawk

    “the libertarians aren’t interested in ending the Empire, but rather in speeding up and completing the transfer of it into corporate hands.”

    Personally I would do away with corporations entirely. If libertarians don’t believe government can do things efficiently, then why believe they can create an efficient legal entity out of whole cloth?

  350. Knockgoats says

    It is my opinion that most libertarians believe that their system in the best way to help MORE people than the current system. Don’t know how this might work? Read something. – boggsster

    Ever try looking at the real world, boggsster? That demonstrates quite clearly that the rich countries furthest from glibertarianism (Scandinavia, Japan) have the lowest levels of poverty, homicide, imprisonment, addiction, obesity, mental health problems…. But of course, glibertarians hate the very idea of looking at the real world, since it shows quite clearly what utter bilge they are spewing.

  351. King of the Road says

    @ #344

    One of the most obnoxious things one can do is to attribute to someone something he or she never said or implied. You don’t know me, don’t know what I do. You have no clue what I do with my opportunities other than my self-described saving. You seem to imply that it’s some kind of flaw to have planned and saved. Would I be a better person in your eyes had I not done so? Should I take what I’ve saved and divide it equally among those who haven’t, either due to poor choices or not having my opportunities? Or maybe only among those who haven’t because circumstances have been less favorable for them than they have for me? Or maybe let the board here choose a recipient and give it to him or her?

    Should I apologize for the circumstances (hugely favorable, as I said) into which I was born? It’s very difficult to believe that the regulars here are even serious. It’s seriously pack behavior.

  352. brotheratombombofmoderation says

    Related to the question “do libertarians have a sense of humor?” is “when will the creators of South Park make fun of libertarianism?”

    But that would be very close to them making fun of themselves and much of their audience … I’m guessing it’s not likely to happen any time soon.

  353. King of the Road says

    @352

    Really? Michael Moore, that well-known libertarian, seemed to take quite a shine to South Park’s creators.

    I actually would have guessed the herd here would like South Park. Parker and Stone certainly aren’t religious.

    I would imagine South Park will take up libertarianism should it becomes popular enough.

  354. brotheratombombofmoderation says

    @ 353

    I just discovered that a libertarian counterpart to Wikipedia exists … it’s called “Libertapedia.”

    This libertarian resource calls Michael Moore a “socialist” who promotes “Marxist” ideas:

    http://libertapedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moore

    I’ve read non-libertarian descriptions of Moore that call him a “left-wing populist.”

    If you’re calling him a libertarian, perhaps the word is so elastic in meaning that it can be stretched to fit anybody?

  355. King of the Road says

    @ #354

    I guess I have to be more explicit in my sarcasm warnings. With that in mind:

    Really? Michael Moore, [sw]that well-known libertarian[/sw], seemed to take quite a shine to South Park’s creators.

  357. Zabinatrix says

    So, since I last visited this thread there has been a new batch of people coming in to say nothing but “That cartoon is not an accurate portrayal of libertarianism. Libertarians are different than that and you don’t understand it” with no further explanation of what is right.

    It reminds me a lot of how any group insulted by blogs like this will act. For instance, if there’s a cartoon lampooning the Bible story where Jesus curses a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season, calling Jesus a petulant child for acting that way, there will be Christians coming in to say nothing but “That is not an accurate portrayal of what the Bible says! You’re not reading it right!” with no further explanation.

    Rarely is that constructive. If there is a brand of libertarianism (or an interpretation of the Bible) that is easy to defend, why don’t you just give it?

    Then, of course, when it comes to both Bible apologists and libertarians, some will eventually – after much coaxing – try to explain their point. The Bible defenders are usually just uneducated about their own holy book, or make stupid assumptions – we’ve seen it many times.

    The libertarians who actually try to explain their point of view have also mostly been the same so far. I’d say that the cartoon at the top is fairly accurate humor about the beliefs of every single libertarian who has so far clearly stated his view.

    Discounting of course the “Oh no, I’m not like Ron Paul or the guys who call public libraries a scourge, or any of the many libertarians who have demonstrated here that they have no sympathy for those born into poverty. I’m an American liberal in almost every respect, I just think that it is important to consider whether we in a few, isolated instances are giving the government too much power, so therefore I call myself a true libertarian. For some reason.”

    Sure, the cartoon may not be the right way to mock those, but I will mock them for their poor choice of label. When libertarian leaders and most vocal members give a much different picture of what libertarianism is, you can choose a different label for yourselves. It’s just a word, if it is associated with things you do not stand for, you can ditch it and choose another.

    King of the Road,

    I was told to fuck off and then, when I didn’t reply (i.e., when I fucked off), was stated to have “stomped off in a huff.” Just sayin’

    I might be misinterpreting what you’re going for here, but it seems to be another example of something I see often in Internet discussions and get really tired of. You seem to be saying that people were being inconsistent, because at first they told you to fuck off and then derided you for doing so.

    But I checked the thread you linked to. From what I can see, it was not the same people who told you to fuck off and who said that you had “stomped off in a huff.” That is not inconsistency – it is different people expressing different things.

    But it’s so common in Internet discussions where one person argues against many who hold similar opinions – they will start to address all their opponents as if it was one person, or a group with the exact same opinions. When two of them do not hold the same opinion, the one arguing against them will accuse all of them of being inconsistent, saying something like “Hey, first you said this, now suddenly it’s that!?”

    You keep repeating, both in that thread and this one, that people here are a “pack” or “tribe” and imply that they all hold the same opinion. But you won’t recognize that it is different people saying different things?

    I actually would have guessed the herd here would like South Park. Parker and Stone certainly aren’t religious.

    Oh, just as I was about to post the previous, this comes in. You really do have to use a word like pack, tribe, herd, etcetera in every post, don’t you?

    Well, in this case you will again find many different opinions. Just check some of the recent posts about South Park. Some like it, some do not. But yeah, I guess it doesn’t count – if everyone here did unanimously like South Park you’d have it as a data point towards your “You’re just a herd all going in the same direction!” but when we’re again split on an issue I’m guessing that it’s unimportant, like the video games mentioned earlier. It’s only TV, after all.

    Really? Michael Moore, that well-known libertarian, seemed to take quite a shine to South Park’s creators.

    I don’t know what Michael Moore thinks of them, but to my recollection Stone and Parker certainly don’t like Moore.

  358. Feynmaniac, Chimerical Toad says

    I actually would have guessed the herd here would like South Park. Parker and Stone certainly aren’t religious.

    Well, I don’t think they like atheists all that much….

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_God_Go

    During an appearance by the pair on TV’s Nightline, an interviewer had asked, “May I assume you two are atheists, since you make fun of religious beliefs so often?”

    Surprised by the question, Parker and Stone emphatically said that they didn’t consider themselves to be atheists—leading to a phone call shortly thereafter from their friend Penn Jillette, an outspoken advocate for atheism who’d seen the interview and was evidently disappointed to learn that the two weren’t “on the Atheist team.”

    Personally, I think South Park isn’t that bad. Sometimes it’s funny. And sometimes it’s just preachy and relies too heavily on gross out humour.

  359. King of the Road says

    So now the herd is offended because South Park has failed to make fun of libertarians.

    By the way, I said what is logically equivalent to: becomes popular enough -> is made fun of by South Park. This is not the same as: Made fun of by South Park -> has become popular enough popular enough as you seem to think I’m implying based on your comment.

  360. Knockgoats says

    So now the herd – Fuckwit of the Road

    You really can’t help yourself, can you, Fuckwit? Take a look at some of the threads about Islam, GMOs, animal rights, Obama… you’ll see people who are united in their contempt for selfish and self-righteous arseholes such as yourself, arguing furiously. But because we all see through your lies, to you we’re a “herd”.

  362. King of the Road says

    #360

    Well, many of you certainly seem to take the same approach – name calling and insult hurling (though I can’t do it because only the home team gets to call names) and hypocritical accusations of self-righteousness.

  363. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Baa baa I’m a sheep.

    King of the Road has made me understand how I am driven by the dogs and shepherd.

  364. King of the Road says

    I guess I should add a nearly complete opaqueness to any self-examination.

  365. PZ Myers says

    Your skewering by self-irony is very amusing, O Road King. Now if all you’ve got is repetitive whining about the very things you are doing here, how about hitting the road yourself?

  366. Nerd of Redhead, OM says

    I guess I should add a nearly complete opaqueness to any self-examination.

    Pot. Kettle. Black.

    You have expressed your opinion, and are repeating yourself ad nauseum. Is there really any need for further posts by you, unless you are deliberately trolling?

  367. KOPD says

    Well, many of you certainly seem to take the same approach – name calling and insult hurling (though I can’t do it because only the home team gets to call names)

    Of course you can! It just makes you a hypocrite since you were the one complaining about it. I just don’t see why, of all the sensibilities (such as reason, honesty, etc) that you’ve ignored in the past while commenting, hypocrisy would be what gives you pause. Personally, I think you just keep bringing that canard up over and over and over because you like to complain as a means of bringing attention to yourself and feeling superior. But you know what? If it will make you feel better about yourself, I’ll indulge by making a “poopyhead” of myself by calling you a bad name. Here goes…
    KotR, you’re a dicknosed clownshoed fuckburger.

    Oh, and your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.

    I’m so naughty.

  368. strange gods before me ॐ says

    King. Spare me reading the whole thread. What is your substance?

  369. King of the Road says

    Not so. Per PZ in #262, there are accurate descriptions and then there are mere insults. At least I believe that’s the meaning of his comment. My first post in this thread referred to “insufferable, self-congratulatory windbags.” These adjectives and nouns describe characteristics which I actually believe are possessed by many of the posters here. I guess I could have been more detailed rather than the summary terms.

    The first response called me a tone troll, which at least has a meaning. The next called me “pompous” which has meaning, “glibertarian.” I’m not a libertarian, and a twerp means pretty much nothing.

    I referred to sycophants (though I withdrew it) which, again, actually means something. Since then, I’ve called no one anything. I won’t bother to list the names thrown my way.

    But, as a last comment, I’ve never claimed and don’t now claim to be superior to anyone. The posters here – not so much so.

    PZ is right though, there’s nothing more to add here.

  370. Knockgoats says

    strange gods,

    His substance is that we’re a herd, because we aren’t glibertarians. That’s it.

    BTW, Fuckwit of the Road, you can call anyone including PZ names to your heart’s content without problems, as long as you steer clear of racist, sexist or anti-LGBTetc epithets. It’s not insults, but being boring and without anything of substance to say that could get you banned.

  371. Nerd of Redhead, OM says

    Yawn, boring inane and unconvincing attempt by KotR to have the last word. We know what it means: I was here to troll, and I did. I won’t apologize for my bad behavior.

  373. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    His substance is that we’re a herd

    There’s always the possibility when everyone around you is calling you a moronic fucking asshole that you really are a moronic fucking asshole.

  374. Celtic_Evolution says

    But, as a last comment, I’ve never claimed and don’t now claim to be superior to anyone.

    – KING of the Road.

  375. Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom says

    As long as we’re still discussing Libertarians and how the outgroup is a herd, I’ll go ahead and link this. Surprised it hasn’t been yet…

    http://xkcd.com/610/

    It seems that if you sleep, you can’t reply to the Libertarians because it’s been done for you. Pity!

    Actually, come to think of it, I do have one:
    Neoclassical Economics is built on a lie. You’re all morons for thinking that value is inherent to a thing.

  376. KOPD says

    To expand on what I and Knockgoats have said about insults:

    Insults are fine (unless racist, sexist, etc, as mentioned above), but don’t count as content. If all you do is insult, you are boring and superfluous, and a troll.

  377. a_ray_in_dilbert_space says

    KOTR,
    Have you in fact observed interactions here at Pharyngula? I would call your attention to something you might have missed. To wit, the blog functions in an almost entirely unregulated manner. Comments are posted immediately. No pre-monitoring. No censorship. And yet, the signal to noise ratio is higher here than at most blogs where monitoring is much more heavy-handed.

    Now ask yourself: How does that work? How is it that a blog on evolution, biology, atheism and liberal politics is not completely overrun by the much more numerous and vociferous Faux News crowd? When you understand that and understand the role “tone” plays in that process, you might understand the dynamics here a bit better.

  378. zowxon says

    LOL. Yes, I have a sense of humor, but I need to stop calling myself a libertarian.

  379. https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlDIZTayeJphWjQ_6wx2DaEPW2s05qmz0E says

    I have a sense of humor, I’m not sure that the cartoonist does, however.

  380. goodlookingfatman says

    While the intended humor does hit its mark to a point, I can’t help but laugh just the same at the cartoon’s assumed premise that citizens are on the level of cats and dogs, while governments are their vastly superior caretakers and providers. Gee, that’s not scary…

  383. goodlookingfatman says

    #380 -> #3

    Sounds like Platypus has got those libertarians pegged. But really, the analogy here is a double edged sword.

  384. Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom says

    Sounds like Platypus has got those libertarians pegged. But really, the analogy here is a double edged sword.

    No, it isn’t. It isn’t “If taxpayers were pets”. It’s “If Libertarians are pets”. It’s an exhibition of that selfishness and blindness to the benefits of the things you hate, shown in a situation where the complaints are absurd. If there’s an insulting analogy to be drawn, it isn’t to people in general being pets of the government; It’s to Libertarians. Considering how much the republicans gleefully chuckle at y’all, as a block, typically voting for them, I think the ‘double edged’ part of the analogy is spot on.

  385. SteveM says

    the analogy here is a double edged sword.

    Only to those who don’t understand the limitations of analogies.

  386. a_ray_in_dilbert_space says

    GLFM,
    The thing that you–and most libertarians–seem to miss is that in a democracy, WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT! You may not like what the government does, but there are reasons why it is the way it is.

    It is not a matter of “getting the government off our backs,” but rather of making it work.

  387. goodlookingfatman says

    No, it isn’t.

    Yes, it is Rutee. The “complaints are absurd” because the animals are complaining about the very thing they are so utterly dependent upon. All citizens fit perfectly into the dependent role of animals in this analogy, not just libertarians. The only difference for libertarians is that they are ungrateful animals. Maybe the author would like for this analogy to be more limited, but as it stands the broader big brotherish implications of this comic are bare bootiedly obvious.

  388. goodlookingfatman says

    “Ray in Dilbert Space” said

    GLFM,
    The thing that you–and most libertarians–seem to miss is that in a democracy, WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT! You may not like what the government does, but there are reasons why it is the way it is.

    Actually Ray I didn’t miss that, and I like our form of goverment. Though people only say “we are the government” until the government does something we disagree with like Iraq or health care reform or gun rights or abortion or homosexual blah dee dah or whatever doesn’t float our respective boats.

    And I pay taxes. And I’m not libertarian.

  389. Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom says

    Yes, it is Rutee. The “complaints are absurd” because the animals are complaining about the very thing they are so utterly dependent upon. All citizens fit perfectly into the dependent role of animals in this analogy, not just libertarians. The only difference for libertarians is that they are ungrateful animals.

    No, they don’t. Citizens aren’t that dependent, as a rule. I took that as a given.

    Are you sure the problem isn’t on your end?

  390. Knockgoats says

    The “complaints are absurd” because the animals are complaining about the very thing they are so utterly dependent upon. – goodlookingfatman

    Just as every individual human being is utterly dependent on society.

  391. Zabinatrix says

    goodlookingfatman,

    The “big brotherish implications” of the comic are only obvious if you decide to read things into it that were never intended. Just like Aesop’s fables didn’t actually intend to say that humans are the same as the animals that portrayed them in the stories, this comic did not intend to make a complete analogy.

    It is merely pointing out that many typical libertarians do not acknowledge the benefits that come from their privileged position and believe that it all comes from their own hard work. Nothing more.

    For instance, a libertarian could own a factory that is dependent on workers who are dependent on public education to get their competence, government supported health care to keep well enough to work, public transportation to get to the factory, government regulations to keep their drinking water safe so they can survive to work, et cetera – and then say that he made his fortune himself, without the help of the government… That is the sort of thinking that is referenced.

    In no way is it a comparison that says that humans are owned by the government, nor does it inadvertently “prove” it. Humans are not pets, so there could never be a one-to-one relationship between the cartoon and reality – it’s as simple as that. An analogy does not provide insight – it merely presents a viewpoint. Like Bjarne Stroustrup says – proof by analogy is a lie (or something along those lines.)

    Comparing a human with a housecat and putting a thought bubble above the cat’s head will only give big brotherish implications if the cartoonist had big brotherish ideas in the first place. Otherwise it’s just how you decide to interpret it, since we are not cats. (I just wish I was a cat. I want fur and a tail. Uhm, but maybe that’s too much information.)

  392. goodlookingfatman says

    Rutee, you are right about citizens not being as dependent as a dog. But the thrust of the argument is still that libertarians aren’t grateful for the services they as dependants receive from the government. Non libertarians do fit into the author’s analogy by implication, and I think that sucks for said author.

  393. Knockgoats says

    goodlookingfatman,
    It isn’t just government glibertarians slag off – it’s society. Any time one of them froths at the mouth about their right to keep “my stuff”, that’s what they’re doing. None of your “stuff”, none of my “stuff”, none of anyone’s “stuff” – beyond raw food items – would exist without the labour and ingenuity of scads of human beings way back into prehistory.

  394. goodlookingfatman says

    Zabinatrix said:

    The “big brotherish implications” of the comic are only obvious if you decide to read things into it that were never intended.

    I don’t think the author intended to let the big brother scenario into the picture. Actually I’m wondering if the author just totally biffed on this one or rather isn’t aware enough of the whole debate. Though, either by way of a freudian slip or poor choice of analogy, he did put a smile on my face. I agree that many libertarians complain about needed and received services, but I also think it is too ironic that the author chose the dog/owner scenario.

  395. goodlookingfatman says

    Knock Goats-

    Just to be argumentative. I dont think all libertarians want to slag off society. The ones I have met don’t live in the mountains and shun society or lack social concerns. Those I’ve talked with are more paranoid of government hurting society by getting involved. But, there are some of those mountain boys too who are scary.

  396. Knockgoats says

    I dont think all libertarians want to slag off society. – goodlookingfatman

    Whether they “want to” is neither here nor there. Every damn one of them believes in their “right” to keep “their stuff”, either failing to realise, or pretending not to notice, that both the existence of that “stuff” and property rights depend on the labour of others and the existence of societies in which those rights are not absolute.

  398. Zabinatrix says

    goodlookingfatman,

    Aesop’s “The Mischievous Dog” is a fable about a dog making trouble and getting a bell from its owner to warn people of it. The dog thinks that this is a reward instead of a punishment and goes around proudly showing off the bell.

    The fable is meant to express the viewpoint that many humans mistake notoriety for fame. I think it does that without saying that human notoriety comes with a physical manifestation attached to us by our owners, nor that we are dogs that have or need owners. But you could read that into it if you want to – even if the author did not intend to “let big brother into the picture.”

    Yes, yes, I understand that the comic is different because it is a bit closer to being a valid analogy all around (we do need society, much like a dog needs its owner – the dog would survive in the wild but would be less comfortable, and we would survive without society but not as successfully) but I do not think that this means that it is a poorly chosen analogy that in any way shows a thinking that we are owned by big brother. Some parts of the comic can be compared with the human situation, some can not.

  399. vicariance says

    Libertarians generally do have a sense of humor, yes. But it takes more than just HAVING a sense of humor to laugh at being described as a snotty self-important STUPID asshole. Yeah, that’s tricky, and is exactly the characterization going on in this comic.

  401. goodlookingfatman says

    Aesop’s fable is not based on a premise that begs the question.

    But the pets/owner analogy is a poorly chosen one and lacking much force to anybody even moderately sympathetic to libertarian politics. The idea seems to be that to complain about necessary services provided is ridiculous. This idea is valid to me to a degree because libertarians all need stuff from government whether protection or roads or whatever. But this analogy still begs the question, because any libertarian will tell you that their main issue is, “I don’t want or need most of that crap in the first place.” The analogy didn’t take care of the “big brother” concern, so it’s not a good analogy for this issue.

  402. Knockgoats says

    Knockgoats-Give me your stuff. – goodlookingfatman

    Sorry, I would, but I don’t have any! As a socialist, I regard all of what you call “my stuff” as the common property of humanity and only on loan to me, so I’d need their permission ;-)

    But it takes more than just HAVING a sense of humor to laugh at being described as a snotty self-important STUPID asshole. – vicariance

    Here’s a suggestion for you vicariance: stop being a snotty self-important STUPID asshole – then maybe people will stop pointing out that you are one!

  403. Zabinatrix says

    The idea seems to be that to complain about necessary services provided is ridiculous.

    And I’m still saying that the point is not the libertarians complain about necessary services – or even that the services are strictly necessary. It is that they do not acknowledge or see the fact that they use the services. Like you say, they say that they “don’t want or need most of that crap in the first place.” That is exactly what the analogy is pointing out, in my eyes.

    The fish has clean water because of the filter and humans may have clean water because of government regulations – but many libertarians will say the those regulations prevent freedom and free enterprise and should therefore be removed. Without acknowledging what a great improvement has been achieved in water quality because of such regulations.

    The cat and the dog live comfortable lives where they are healthy and have food because of the house they live in, and because of that they can be productive and efficient in whatever it is housepets do when they are being productive. Most people in the rich part of the world are healthy and have food very much thanks to the society they live in – without that society they would have to start from scratch with the infrastructure et cetera needed to productive. But many libertarians act as if all good things happening in their lives are always the result of solely their own hard work.

    The cartoon is from my understanding meant to point that out. That cats have owners while humans do not doesn’t factor into it. Yes, there is a sort of big brother in the cartoon, but if we don’t misapply what it’s trying to say this isn’t a problem for the analogy. I’m still not a cat. And as long as libertarians are using the services provided by society while claiming that they don’t need those services to succeed, I think the cartoon has a valid point – without being in any way completely analogous to human life.

  404. Kagehi says

    Example 2: Public education. Full disclosure, here: I’m a public high school teacher. The government this time is the entity running the show. So it shouldn’t be the one in charge of assessing whether or not the school district is doing well.

    Hmm. Well, what we can do is let the states handle standards and keep the fed out of it, then I don’t know, elect a board to decide content… Oh, wait.. That is what fucked up the public schools system, before the Federal government, which ***doesn’t run the schools at all***, tried to both a) avoid creating a uniform standard of content, which would have stepped on “states rights” and “community rights”, and instead came up with the bullshit semi-standard idiocy of “Every Child Left Behind”. In other words, they where not **allowed** by law to create such a universal standard, so they only thing they could do was come up with a completely useless test, then when 90% of the damn schools failed it, lower the test standards. Mean while, elected idiots, with no qualification of credentials, kept mucking up, distorting, and setting various sorts of different “standards” for each of their school districts, ranging from ones that want logic, reasoning, and, if we still have the money left when that is done, actual facts, taught, to well… places like Texas, which want fantasy, revisionist history, and ‘bow to our authority’, taught.

    For a school teacher you have a damn blind, and stupid, view of *what* the problem is, and why the fed couldn’t fix it.

  405. OurDeadSelves says

    So, I got around-abouts 6 hours of sleep last night and I worked a full 9 hour shift today and this thread is still going on?? I should just quit my job and devote my entire day to Pharyngula. :)

    The analogy didn’t take care of the “big brother” concern, so it’s not a good analogy for this issue.

    I’m still not quite so sure what you mean by the “‘big brother’ concern.” Perhaps you mean “nanny state” instead?

    (Please tell me you’ve at least read some Orwell.)

  406. Anri says

    GLFM sez:

    Knockgoats-

    Give me your stuff.

    Well, I can’t speak for Knockgoats, (and don’t have to, anyway – #402) but here’s my answer:

    Sure.
    Get a job with the military, here’s some of my stuff.
    Or howabout a public library job? Teacher? Please, take some of my stuff! Here, take more!

    Did you get to where you’re going on public roads? That’s some of my stuff. Use public utilities? Some of my stuff. Were you protected by OSHA regulations? Clear Water Act? Law enforcement? That’s a little bit my stuff, too.

    Got kids in school? Here, have some of my stuff. I don’t have kids, and never will, but you’re welcome – more than welcome – to the stuff of mine that goes into schools if you do, or you did, or you will.
    Ask for even more, I’ll give it to you.

    And, hey, if you’re down on your luck, and you can’t find a job, we’ve got entire sections of the government set up to make sure you get enough of my stuff to make it through a bad patch. Unemployment? Food stamps? Welfare? Disability? Funded with my stuff (partially), and welcome that it is.

    So, GLFM, can you have my stuff?

    Yes. Some of it anyway.

  407. Brownian, OM says

    Libertarians generally do have a sense of humor, yes.

    Purchased from an entrepreneur who saw a market for such a sense and invented one out of ingenuity powered by pure profit-maximising incentive, no doubt.

  408. BrianX says

    Goodlookingfatman:

    That’s because, especially through their involvement in the teabag movement, they’ve shown themselves to be utterly unselfaware. One of the byproducts of libertarian ideology is the inability to think systemically — everything is hypercompartmentalized, or at least someone with that sort of thought pattern thinks so, so when things blow up and affect other compartments, they refuse to admit that there’s any cross-contamination at all.

  409. semiapies says

    This is the second time someone’s pointed out to me a post about Myers not liking libertarians. (The other I saw was where he was terribly giddy about some character in a sci-fi novel snarking about them.)

    Does Myers post a lot about libertarians or something? Is this a regular shtick or just John C. Dvorak-style page-hit inflation…?

  410. semiapies says

    That’s because, especially through their involvement in the teabag movement, they’ve shown themselves to be utterly unselfaware.

    The Teabag movement that’s trying to run someone against Ron Paul, the closest thing to a libertarian in Congress? Yeah, there are some libertarians who are ridiculously optimistic and take the teabaggers and other Republicans at their word. There are also libertarians who were ridiculously optimistic and voted for Democrats in 2006 and 2008. (My bad, I thought in exchange for further screwing up health care and bailing out billionaires, we’re get the wars ended. Hey, I’m only human.)

    One of the byproducts of libertarian ideology is the inability to think systemically — everything is hypercompartmentalized, or at least someone with that sort of thought pattern thinks so, so when things blow up and affect other compartments, they refuse to admit that there’s any cross-contamination at all.

    Ooer. That’s a new one on me. I’m used to the complaint that libertarians are ridiculously consistent and try to apply their philosophies hyper-holistically to everything they think or do.

  411. BrianX says

    “Ridiculously consistent” is sort of a byproduct, and is occasionally admirable if it doesn’t get in the way of pragmatic necessity, but I don’t think it’s inherently libertarian. There are plenty of fascists, religious fundamentalists, and hard greens who share that quality.

    More to the point, I don’t think my accusation is incompatible with your response at all. Libertarianism is based fundamentally on a view of the world that occasionally borders on solipsism — the idea that the individual will is all that counts. Lemme splain.

    Some time ago I wondered on some forum or another why so many libertarians are computer geeks — you’d think in software development, the interplay of side effects from various subsystems would indicate that even though an individual library might be treated as a black box, there would still be a fundamental need to make inputs and outputs compatible. Someone pointed out to me that the black box nature of well-designed software modules looks exactly the opposite — developers don’t have to pay much attention to implementation details, so they pretend they may as well not exist.

    Libertarianism heavily favors the black box approach to society — each individual is an entity unto him/herself — and therefore one’s responsibility to someone else only exists inasmuch as it keeps their side effects from breaching the libertarian’s black box. Consequently, there’s a strong sense of denial that the easily-demonstrated forces that require complex societies to form complex webs of interdependency in order to function even exist. As a result, libertarian legal and economic thinking suffer from a desperate need to drastically simplify their models with little regard for outside complications. The logical weaknesses involved in the position are similar to Pascal’s Wager — the logic could be airtight, but it’s meaningless if the premises are wrong.

  412. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    The thing that amazes me about anti-government types is they’re only found in places which have effective governments. I doubt there are many looneytarians in Somalia. Most Somalians would love to have a functioning government with a real police force that’d keep the warlords in check.

    Many looneytarians recommend suing people instead of having laws and regulations. “You’re polluting my property, I’ll sue you” is a common looneytarian response to the necessity of environmental laws. What the looneytarians usually fail to realize is that to effectively sue someone there has to be a sound legal system in place complete with an effectual enforcement arm (the “men with guns” looneytarians love to denounce).

    There are real world problems with suing people and corporations rather than having laws, but I won’t discuss them because looneytarians hate to be confronted with the real world.

  413. Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom says

    The Teabag movement that’s trying to run someone against Ron Paul, the closest thing to a libertarian in Congress? Yeah, there are some libertarians who are ridiculously optimistic and take the teabaggers and other Republicans at their word. There are also libertarians who were ridiculously optimistic and voted for Democrats in 2006 and 2008. (My bad, I thought in exchange for further screwing up health care and bailing out billionaires, we’re get the wars ended. Hey, I’m only human.)

    Teabaggers are about 50% Paul, 50% Palin. Just an FYI. And if Ron Paul isn’t a libertarian, y’all should change your names to New Scotsmen.

    Ooer. That’s a new one on me. I’m used to the complaint that libertarians are ridiculously consistent and try to apply their philosophies hyper-holistically to everything they think or do.

    That’s not an implication of contradiction, is it?

  414. Nerd of Redhead, OM says

    Does Myers post a lot about libertarians or something?

    No, but some tend to post here ad nauseum, then again ad nauseum, every time anything they think is the slightest bit socialist or anti free trade. They never say anything new either, or present any conclusive evidence their ideology actually works. They just keep repeating the same old bits of morally bankrupt ideology. We could almost write their posts for them. Boring, boring critters.

  415. Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom says

    I had correct blockquotes, but I eated them :<

  416. Dymara says

    Does Myers post a lot about libertarians or something? Is this a regular shtick or just John C. Dvorak-style page-hit inflation…?

    Oh yes, definitely the latter. Poor little PZ Myers just has no traffic whatsoever until the glibertarians grace him with their presence!

  417. 86Gator says

    A description of the Tea Party I heard a while ago that I liked was that they “are a bunch of folks who don’t want the government involved in anything *except* what they want the government to be involved in”. The reverse of that — what I will call the Anti-Tea-Party (ATP) perspective — would be along the lines of “we want the government involved in everything *except* those areas that we don’t the government involved in”. If I replace “we” with “I” in the ATP perspective, I am one happy clam. But, of course, that’s not possible. My concern arises when we then start to look at full superset of all the “*except* those areas that we don’t the government involved in” areas. If we take the intersection of all those, we quickly arrive at a null set. So, the question I ask myself then is who gets to decide what those areas are that the government will *not* get intimately involved in?
    A previous poster made mention of the high percentage of computer geeks who identify as Libertarians (full disclosure, I am an HP-UX Sys Admin). Not sure how accurate that is but another observation I have arrived at about Libertarians is that — at least in my limited sample set — they are almost universally atheists. I was curious as to whether or not anyone here had some thoughts on that. I have seen that an earlier poster had posited that it was so that we can indulge in drugs and porn without burdening our consciousnesses but I have to assume that there is something deeper to it than that.
    For me, I started identifying myself as a Libertarian *after* I finally realized I had adopted an atheistic perspective. At the time, I took another look at the various political philosophies around — I identified as a Liberal until that point — and settled on Libertarianism as it desires limiting government involvement in many areas — one of which being my private matters (like my desire to be left alone with regard to *anything* religious-oriented!. I still grapple with the fiscal Libertarian orthodoxy — and even disagree with some of their positions in that arena — I will admit that.
    For reasons I have never been able to figure out, while we are always comfortable talking about the “political spectrum” and “liberal conservatives” and “conservative liberals”, when it comes to Libertarianism, it’s like there is a single solitary dot on that spectrum and you are not allowed to deviate from that point by even a micron if you call yourself a Libertarian. Like semiapies alluded to in #410, I am always fending off “No True Scotsman” accusations when I posit something that does not follow 100% in lockstep with the orthodox Libertarian position on some matter. I see much of that here — I do indeed enjoy a nice road to travel on when commuting to work and understand how that road came into being — so I guess I need to some political soul searching…

  418. jaderis78 says

    We do have a sense of humor, and that comic was somewhat funny. Perhaps the reason you haven’t seen our sense of humor is because it can be hard to take a joke told by someone who harbors an uncontrollable frothing hatred of you.

    Seriously, PZ, there are certainly looney libertarians who think public libraries are evil, but there are also ones who see the same societal problems you do. The difference is that they’ve seen the government’s solutions fail and felt helpless to change them for the better.

    Well, that’s because they don’t know history and don’t know that the free market and/or the good will of those who have haven’t done very well for those who have fallen on hard times. They also don’t know current events/recent history which have stripped welfare/public benefits because some people bought into the “welfare queen” bullshit and/or don’t want to pay teachers or USDA inspectors or the “bureaucrats” who make sure that companies hired by the government aren’t ripping us off (but guess who gets blamed when they do?)

    I have a friend fresh out of her master’s program who can’t find a job. The local welfare authorities throw her a new problem every few months; the latest is that they pulled her medical care for no discernible reason (she’s appealing). What has she been able to rely on? Private charities’ food pantries and the check I send her every month.

    Who is to blame for that? It certainly isn’t those of the more liberal slant in government. I have always questioned the role of “less government” politicians. It seems to be a really bad self-fulfilling prophecy when they are in power. And then they use it against “government power” in general.

    I dunno…your friend’s continuing misfortunes might have something to do with the people you elect and their aversion towards government assistance?

    You might save a lot of money and help a lot more people if you try to help a government of people promote the general welfare of its citizens.

  419. negentropyeater says

    86gator,

    So, the question I ask myself then is who gets to decide what those areas are that the government will *not* get intimately involved in?

    First, it depends what you mean with “to get intimatemy involved in?”

    If it means to regulate and control a certain segment of economic activity, I don’t think there are any which the government should’nt get involved with. That’s because all areas will involve a certain amount of externalities, whether its public safety or environmental or information asymmetry for instance.
    To give some examples, I don’t think many people argue that the Government should run the car industry or the food business, but both these segments have severe impacts on public safety and the environment and private businesses shouldn’t be allowed to produced whatever they want or whatever they can sell and must meet a certain number of standards and regulations which should be determined by Legislative Bodies and enforced by the Government.
    Moreover, free markets always lead to concentration. This comes from the very empirical fact that profitability is correlated with market share : even when you start with a large number of competitors, those with the highest market share will eventually take over the less profitable ones and you will get a situation of monopolies or at least oligopolies which may be detrimental to the end user or detrimental to society as a whole in the case of “too big too fail”. So Government must of course play a key role in ensuring that competition is sufficient for the free market to work and also avoid the “too big too fail” situation we have seen they let happen over the last three decades in the banking and car business.

    All those issues are evident to anybody who takes a rational approach to reality, but apparently not to looneytarians who proceed from dogmatic adhoc principles akin to religious principles, eg free markets are more efficient than government, etc…

    Moreover, there’s a whole area of work that seems to be absent of Looneytarian thinking, that around the notion of public good, ie areas of the economy which deal with goods or services which are non-rivalrous and non-excludable and are best provided to society by public entreprises governed by elected representatives of society and not by private entreprises governed by profit seeking shareholders. These include national defense, national security, justice, regulation, basic scientific research, education, infrastructure, healthcare insurance, all for empirical and rational justifications which also seem to be greatly absent of looneytarian thinking.

    Not sure how accurate that is but another observation I have arrived at about Libertarians is that — at least in my limited sample set — they are almost universally atheists.

    Many representative polls show that the vast majority of the 18% of Americans who are tea party followers are both very religious and libertarians. That a small % of atheists are also libertarians won’t change the fact that a majority of libertarians are religious.
    Also, the least religious societies of Western Europe are the least prone to libertarianism.

    Libertarianism is in any case a form of religion as it proceeds entirely from purely dogmatic principles that are held in faith and are counter evident.

  420. Flex says

    86Gator @417 wrote,

    …Libertarianism as it desires limiting government involvement in many areas — one of which being my private matters….

    Well, then you should look again at the liberals.

    You will hear quote a few claims about how the liberals are going to tax you to death in order to pay for things like public health care, public education, public roads, and, of course, the huge government necessary to administer all these public programs (which is, by libertarian definition, very inefficient).

    You will also hear things like the liberals support programs like affirmative action (true) and minority quotas (false). According to some, Liberals want to regulate business until it’s unprofitable (false), and force environmentalism down everyone’s throat (false).

    But it’s a very rare liberal which cares much about what you do within your own home. As long as you refrain from hurting others (unless they are a competent adult asking for it), go ahead, do whatever you want.

    Yes, there are some liberals who would like to ban guns outright. But the majority of us, regardless what you are told by conservatives, simply want you to have licenses so that should that tool be stolen it can be more easily found.

    As for drugs, there is a range of viewpoints among liberals, but most would probably support legalization of marijuana. DUI or DWI laws already cover non-alcoholic intoxication, and are pretty draconian already, I don’t know that any changes to the law would be necessary.

    In my mind, and the reason I am a liberal, is that the core philosophy of a liberal is that the power of the state should be used to equalize opportunities.

    State provided roads enable greater mobility among both the population and goods, expanding the opportunities for businesses and helping to level the playing field for job-seeking individuals. Mass transit also helps the general population be more productive.

    State provided education, ideally, helps equalize the opportunities of poor vs. middle class children. The rich are welcome to participate, but they often make their own plans for educating their children.

    State provided health care equalizes the health of the population, once again increasing the opportunity for less advantaged members of the state.

    State regulations to encourage the elimination of bigotry (affirmative action and anti-discrimination legislation) is an attempt to equalize the opportunities of classes of people who have been discriminated against.

    These are all liberal goals. The goal is not to punish those who have more opportunities, but to help those who lack opportunities gain them.

    Liberals also recognize a few other things about reality. We recognize that dependence on foreign oil is unsustainable, and we recognize that everyone’s quality of life is reduced by pollution. We recognize that creating landfills leads to long-term problems and that the material going into these land-fills is a reusable resource, so we promote recycling and environmentalism.

    Liberals also recognize that regulating business is essential to ensure competition while unregulated capitalism will destroy competition. Liberals also recognize that there are often externalities which are not naturally captured by business practices which are either the responsibility of the state to manage or the state to require the business to control. Things like air and water pollution which historically have not been considered a cost of doing business. Things like safety requirements and laws about liability and fraud to protect the citizens of the state from harm.

    (For some bizarre reason, many libertarians argue that these regulations stifle business and should be removed. They claim that the businesses which provide deadly products will quickly be weeded out. Of course, they never consider the cost in human lives, and their egotism is such that they are certain they wouldn’t be affected. I find that attitude very juvenile.)

    Finally, unlike the recent crop of conservatives, the liberals have continued to demand that legislation to promote these goals be paid for. At times this means raising taxes, which allows the conservatives to claim that liberals promote ‘tax and spend’ policies.

    Can you find liberals which disagree with some or all of the above? Certainly. I don’t speak for everyone calling themselves liberal.

    But the libertarian idea seems to be a blindness to the opportunities a person was given combined with a disinclination to extend those same opportunities to others simply because it will cost them some money in taxes. Which is why most of the regulars here call libertarians selfish.

  421. 86Gator says

    negentropyeater & Flex – Thanks for the very reasoned responses; you both have given me some food for thought…

  422. semiapies says

    #411:

    Libertarianism is based fundamentally on a view of the world that occasionally borders on solipsism — the idea that the individual will is all that counts.

    OK, that line I’ve heard before.

    Someone pointed out to me that the black box nature of well-designed software modules looks exactly the opposite — developers don’t have to pay much attention to implementation details, so they pretend they may as well not exist.

    Of course, that takes us to an interesting problem – while many libertarians are geeks, with some who work as engineers or programmers, most engineers and programmers are not libertarian. (Try going to a geek-heavy forum and look for political discussions. Libertarians will show up, but they will never dominate.)

    If anything, the programmer/engineer mindset lends itself far better to people who think even huge problems and unsalvageable situations can always be resolved by well-thought-out solutions that Qualified People can implement, if allowed to. People who find themselves caught within the scope creep of their own projects, and people who find themselves “fixing” the projects of those who came before.

    Libertarianism heavily favors the black box approach to society — each individual is an entity unto him/herself…Consequently, there’s a strong sense of denial that the easily-demonstrated forces that require complex societies to form complex webs of interdependency in order to function even exist.

    I can see where you might think that, but it’s still such a peculiar thing to read for this libertarian. You can’t have a society – much less our Horrific Holy of Holies, the dreaded Free Market – without incredibly complex webs of interdependency. (Google up the essay “I, Pencil” for an example.)

    The only real difference is that folks like you and folks like I disagree on how much of those webs should be mandatory/regulated/otherwise coerced to some extent – and how much of that could be strictly consensual and still leave us with a functional and liberal (in the broad sense) society.

  423. strange gods before me ॐ says

    A libertarian is listening, and I’m late to the party!

    Ex-libertarian here, though you’ll find me arguing for socialism from libertarian principles.

    A previous poster made mention of the high percentage of computer geeks who identify as Libertarians (full disclosure, I am an HP-UX Sys Admin).

    There’s good reason for this, alluded to at #241 of the thread I just linked. I’ll expand here. Computer professionals and dedicated hobbyists are far more likely than the average person to be hanging out in Slashdot comment threads or subscribing to the EFF’s mailing list, or other such specialized discussions which focus on civil liberties.

    So computer geeks are generally much more aware than the average person of how we all, average person included, are losing our basic civil rights very quickly and probably permanently in an area where most people don’t even understand what their rights are were.

    Rightly, this produces a sense of urgency. But where to look for allies? None of the major political parties understand the issues. Only the Piratpartiet actually understands anything relevant. Socialist, progressive and green parties mean well, are open to outreach and can be educated, but that’s work. The Libertarian Party already happens to have the correct answer. They don’t understand the issues either, but they have the same default answer for everything — “hell no” — and here it’s almost always the correct answer, with a few glaring exceptions like net neutrality.

  424. Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom says

    The only real difference is that folks like you and folks like I disagree on how much of those webs should be mandatory/regulated/otherwise coerced to some extent – and how much of that could be strictly consensual and still leave us with a functional and liberal (in the broad sense) society.

    So the only real difference is that some of us paid attention in history class. I can believe that.

  425. strange gods before me ॐ says

    It’s easier to latch on to the libertarians, then. And for professionals who understand digital freedom in great detail but have less immediate interest in the other issues on the LP’s hateful platform, it can be easy to minimize the importance of those other issues, focusing primarily on libertarianism as it relates to computers.

    Well, 86Gator, I’d love to talk about this with you until I’ve completely exhausted your interest. But I’m not sure if you’re still around? Here’s a reading list if you want it.

  426. semiapies says

    So the only real difference is that some of us paid attention in history class. I can believe that.

    I can, too.

  427. semiapies says

    Random other responses:

    No [PZ Meyers doesn’t talk about libertarians that much], but some tend to post here ad nauseum, then again ad nauseum, every time anything they think is the slightest bit socialist or anti free trade.

    Ahh, OK. I was having that creepy feeling I get when I run into left-wing folks online who have a weird fascination with libertarians – the ones who spend more time talking about libertarians than we do.

    My sympathies on running into what sounds like the libertarian equivalent.

    Teabaggers are about 50% Paul, 50% Palin. Just an FYI. And if Ron Paul isn’t a libertarian, y’all should change your names to New Scotsmen.

    See my dumb optimism remarks. As for Paul, he’s a paleocon and a federalist. I’d take him over anyone else in his party, but he doesn’t represent me much. Most of his supporters in 2008 – including those who went on to the teabaggers – were about as clearly libertarian as you are, which is why he got enough support for you to actually hear about him. Bless him in a secular and skeptical way for his work in fighting the war and torture, and his pointless votes against bills, but there are distinctions.

    (I mean, think about it – he wants to keep the federal government. That sure doesn’t sound like the smash-the-state-so-we-can-have-New-Somalia strawman that seems to be the consensus, here, does it? ;) )

    The thing that amazes me about anti-government types is they’re only found in places which have effective governments.

    Your average minarchist libertarian wants an effective, liberal government; ey just don’t want it doing many types of things.

    As for Somalia, unless we’re going the no-true-Scotsman route, statist style, we have to acknowledge that clan organization and warlordism are forms of government, just not ones anyone here would like.

    Not sure how accurate that is but another observation I have arrived at about Libertarians is that — at least in my limited sample set — they are almost universally atheists.

    That’s a stereotype I’ve heard a lot, and it’s at least somewhat borne out in polls – the last one I saw found something like 60%, IIRC. Among other libertarians I talk with, it happens to be somewhat of a minority.

    But it’s a very rare liberal which cares much about what you do within your own home.

    Well, if “within your own home” includes smoking, drinking, using other recreational drugs, eating too much, knowingly eating or drinkings things made with certain ingredients, running a small business, owning a firearm, living with a spouse of the same sex, etc… “Rare” is simply not the right word.

    Yes, there are civil libertarians and such on the Blue side of the aisle, just like there are wide-eyed free marketeers and “individual rights” folks on the Red side of the aisle – and both are about as irrelevant to their respective parties as a whole. Heck, the Democratic rank and file are trending the right way on gay marriage, but Democrats in actual positions of power have made it very clear that they are against it.

  428. semiapies says

    The Libertarian Party already happens to have the correct answer.

    Don’t confuse the LP too much with libertarianism as a whole. It used to be much more influential in the movement (and the people behind it coined the word “libertarianism”), but it’s dominated by a very particular school of libertarian thought.

    From all evidence, there are more libertarians who just don’t vote than those who even worry about the LP.

  429. strange gods before me ॐ says

    As for Paul, he’s a paleocon and a federalist

    and the 1988 presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party. Totally not a libertarian.

    Well, if “within your own home” includes smoking, drinking, using other recreational drugs, eating too much, knowingly eating or drinkings things made with certain ingredients, running a small business, owning a firearm, living with a spouse of the same sex, etc… “Rare” is simply not the right word.

    I’ll grant you that a significant number of urban liberals (and urban conservatives) are anti-gun. For the rest, citations are needed.

  430. semiapies says

    Oh yes, definitely the latter. Poor little PZ Myers just has no traffic whatsoever until the glibertarians grace him with their presence!

    That’s terrible! At least will all the monitoring and tracking scripts on this page, he can see and appreciate the help of the glibetarians and us guys. :)

  431. semiapies says

    and the 1988 presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party. Totally not a libertarian.

    And Bob Barr was the 2008 LP candidate and a hard-core conservative in 1988. Interesting what 20 years can do.

    For the rest, citations are needed.

    Citations that more than “rare” Democrats support, offhand, the drug war, alcohol regulation, efforts to stop gay marriage, anti-smoking laws (including those covering the home under the guise of second-hand smoke affecting children), small business regulation, home office regulation, bans on unpasteurized milks and cheeses, etc.?

    Are you simply uninformed or being outright dishonest?

  432. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Don’t confuse the LP too much with libertarianism as a whole. It used to be much more influential in the movement

    I am giving an example of an actual libertarian organization with actual influence. What you as a single libertarian think, or what I thought when I was a libertarian, matters fuck all. At issue here is how otherwise decent people come to identify with libertarianism.

    Generally speaking that’s by recruitment through large evangelical organizations: the cult of Ayn Rand and their books, the Nolan chart for the LP, YouTube videos for the Ron Paul Revolution, and more rarely by seeing a talking head invited on TV from Reason Corp.

    (and the people behind it coined the word “libertarianism”)

    Ha ha! No. No, they didn’t.

    From all evidence, there are more libertarians who just don’t vote than those who even worry about the LP.

    Which evidence, Mr Silent Majority?

  433. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Citations that more than “rare” Democrats support, offhand, the drug war, alcohol regulation, efforts to stop gay marriage, anti-smoking laws (including those covering the home under the guise of second-hand smoke affecting children), small business regulation, home office regulation, bans on unpasteurized milks and cheeses, etc.?

    Are you simply uninformed or being outright dishonest?

    Watch you move the goalposts. First it was “liberals.” Now it’s “Democrats.” That’s hardly the same thing, as you should well know. So are you simply uninformed or being outright dishonest?

    (Other goalpost-moving: first you said “running a small business,” now you say “small business regulation.” Well, you aren’t going to find many liberals who want to stop you from running a small business. So you’d better complain that they want your small business to obey the same laws that other businesses must follow.)

  434. semiapies says

    What you as a single libertarian think, or what I thought when I was a libertarian, matters fuck all

    Or what you think now, to be fair.

    Ha ha! No. No, they didn’t.

    Sure they did. Though, to be fair, that depends on what you mean. If we want to go back to
    “libertarianism” vs. determinism or throw in libertaire for all sorts of movements, certainly not. The word that has the meaning of the modern political movement, they certainly did.

    Perhaps a rephrase to, “devised the term ‘libertarianism’ in this context” will calm the pedantic reflex?

    Which evidence, Mr Silent Majority?

    You have a Google, use it. :) I think Liberty magazine was fond of doing such polls, most recently.

  435. strange gods before me ॐ says

    And Bob Barr was the 2008 LP candidate and a hard-core conservative in 1988. Interesting what 20 years can do.

    People do change. Bob Barr changed significantly. Now, would you like to present any evidence that Ron Paul has changed, that his political views now are significantly from his views in 1988?

  436. semiapies says

    Watch you move the goalposts. First it was “liberals.” Now it’s “Democrats.” That’s hardly the same thing, as you should well know.

    Ah, so the “all libertarians are the same” shtick flies, but self-described “liberals” are utterly disconnected from the Democratic party.

    Sure.

    Well, you aren’t going to find many liberals who want to stop you from running a small business.

    Suddenly “care about” means “absolutely trying to ban”?

    The false claim being presented was the Democrats (sorry, liberals) are, except for regrettable rare abberations, hands-off on matters “within the home”. To wit:

    As long as you refrain from hurting others (unless they are a competent adult asking for it), go ahead, do whatever you want.

    Perhaps perfectly true for Flex (and if so, good on you, Flex), but simply not so for his political movement.

  437. strange gods before me ॐ says

    You have a Google, use it. :) I think Liberty magazine was fond of doing such polls, most recently.

    You make positive claims, you either present the evidence for them, or retract them. That is the intellectually responsible thing to do. It’s not my job to do your research for you.

    Sure they did. Though, to be fair, that depends on what you mean. If we want to go back to “libertarianism” vs. determinism or throw in libertaire for all sorts of movements, certainly not. The word that has the meaning of the modern political movement, they certainly did.

    Perhaps a rephrase to, “devised the term ‘libertarianism’ in this context” will calm the pedantic reflex?

    You are lying, and I would consider honesty to be more than pedantry. It is trivial to find the term in its modern sense long before the LP.

    This should not be a surprise, since the people using the term in the 1800s were anarchists, actual libertarians promoting actual liberty. Your modern redefinition of “libertarian” to mean “governed by employers” is sad, but it wasn’t arbitrary; the word was chosen because anarchists had already defined it in opposition to government.

  438. semiapies says

    Perhaps we can clarify things, strange guy:

    Flex, when you were talking about “liberals” and “conservatives”, were you talking about the political movements commonly considered to be represented by Democrats and Republicans, or about some other groups that just sounded similar and aren’t actually related to those parties?

    Thanks!

  439. semiapies says

    It’s not my job to do your research for you.

    Nor mine for you. Though I will mildly point out your confusion:

    It is trivial to find the term in its modern sense long before the LP.

    I’m sorry, I see no mention of libertarianism at your link.

    I would consider honesty to be more than pedantry

    …It’s not an honest mistake, then? When you conflate the more general adjective “libertarian” with the term “libertarianism”, you’re saying that’s a deliberate deception on your part?

  440. semiapies says

    Now, would you like to present any evidence that Ron Paul has changed, that his political views now are significantly from his views in 1988?

    As much as he’s been willing to thumb his nose at the neocons, he’s still very distinctly a member of a movement that’s proudly pushed away from libertarians and much closer (in the usual, delusional sense of “change from within”) to the GOP mainstream. Paul and the other paleos used to be much more skeptical of Republicans; in the last couple of decades, they’ve bought in and gotten comfortable.

  442. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Ah, so the “all libertarians are the same” shtick flies, but self-described “liberals” are utterly disconnected from the Democratic party.

    Sure.

    Thank you for confirming that you are habitually dishonest. I’ve made no claim that all libertarians are the same, nor do I believe such, having been a libertarian myself and engaged in the same sort of concern trolling that you’re doing now.

    It is simply a fact that you can’t say “liberals want X” and then use “well, a lot of Democrats want X” as a proof of your previous claim. Have you bothered to look up how many liberals and conservatives there are in the Republican and Democratic parties? Do you have anything but your own hunch about the spread?

    Suddenly “care about” means “absolutely trying to ban”?

    Ha! Okay. Listen.

    A business necessarily makes transactions throughout the community, and its activity is not confined to the home. You’re trying to act like a home business is as private as sexual activity in the bedroom, thus any regulation of home-based business is an encroachment on personal freedom in the same way as regulation of sexual activity would be. But reasonable people can see that your comparison is false: business activity is not confined to the home.

    If your basis for complaint is that liberals want your home business to play by the same rules as other businesses, then your complaint just makes you sound like a whiny baby.

  443. Jadehawk, OM says

    but self-described “liberals” are utterly disconnected from the Democratic party. the Democrats are center right, not liberal.

  444. semiapies says

    It is simply a fact that you can’t say “liberals want X” and then use “well, a lot of Democrats want X” as a proof of your previous claim.

    However, back in the real world, it’s perfectly fair to point that out when someone else claims that only “rare” Democrats want X.

    A business necessarily makes transactions throughout the community, and its activity is not confined to the home.

    Very little home activity is entirely confined to the home. We’re social beings, after all. If two guys walk out into their yard or by a window and kiss, they’ve totally affected the homophobes around them, as can be judged by the latter folks’ squawking and complaining. Heck, they’ve done that just by moving in and at any point admitting that they’re a gay couple.

    You place interesting distinctions on what peaceful interactions are assumed to stay “within the home” and not affect society.

    If your basis for complaint is that liberals want your home business to play by the same rules as other businesses

    Not specifically, though workplace laws that tend to discourage home businesses to the utterly coincidental benefit of larger companies bug me a bit. My objection is more to the claim that once you’re in your home, only weird, outlier Democrats have designs upon you.

  445. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Nor mine for you. Though I will mildly point out your confusion:

    Are you seriously so stupid that you are unfamiliar with the burden of proof?

    You made a claim, semiapies.

    It is thus your responsibility to provide evidence for your claim.

    It is not anyone else’s job to do your research for you, and that includes looking up evidence for your baseless claims.

    So let me know just what you think you mean by “nor mine [to do your research] for you.” I’m not asking you to do my research. I’m asking you to do your own research. Back up your own claims. Demonstrate some intellectual responsibility.

    I’m sorry, I see no mention of libertarianism at your link.

    Ha ha ha! So your claim is only that the LP people added the suffix -ism? That’s what you think they deserve credit for? That’s pathetic.

    It’s still false, of course.

    See “Development and change of political libertarianism among Berkeley undergraduates”, HC Finney, 1967. Or “Economic libertarianism”, K Boulding, 1965. Or “Determinants of Support for Civil Liberties”, HC Selvin, WO Hagstrom, – British Journal of Sociology, 1960.

    You liar.

    As much as he’s been willing to thumb his nose at the neocons, he’s still very distinctly a member of a movement that’s proudly pushed away from libertarians and much closer (in the usual, delusional sense of “change from within”) to the GOP mainstream. Paul and the other paleos used to be much more skeptical of Republicans; in the last couple of decades, they’ve bought in and gotten comfortable.

    This is completely void of content. What has Paul done differently? How has his voting record changed? You claim he has gotten closer to the Republicans, but Ron Paul has been running in the Republican party since 1974.

  446. Jadehawk, OM says

    but self-described “liberals” are utterly disconnected from the Democratic party.

    the Democrats are center right, not liberal.

  447. semiapies says

    I’ve made no claim that all libertarians are the same, nor do I believe such, having been a libertarian myself and engaged in the same sort of concern trolling that you’re doing now.

    1) Fair enough, you specifically haven’t. That’s more my reacting to others’ responses and unfair to you. Retracted.

    2) Are you unclear what “concern trolling” is, or is this another thing you want me to understand that you’re deliberately lying about? :)

  448. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    If two guys walk out into their yard or by a window and kiss, they’ve totally affected the homophobes around them, as can be judged by the latter folks’ squawking and complaining. Heck, they’ve done that just by moving in and at any point admitting that they’re a gay couple.

    Those damn homos always affecting those people just doing their own thing around them.

  449. Flex says

    semiapies @431 wrote,

    Citations that more than “rare” Democrats support, offhand, the drug war, alcohol regulation, efforts to stop gay marriage, anti-smoking laws (including those covering the home under the guise of second-hand smoke affecting children), small business regulation, home office regulation, bans on unpasteurized milks and cheeses, etc.?

    Most liberals, in general, don’t care about gay marriage. Some of the older ones may suggest civil unions would be easier to sell to the country. But usually they change their mind when the differences between the two and difficulties in changing the legislative laws are brought up.

    Most liberals would be happy to get rid of the ‘blue’ laws which prohibit you from purchasing alcohol on Sundays. There is a good reason why drinking ages shouldn’t coincide with same age as learning to operate a motor vehicle. And there is a wide range of opinions among liberals on how to handle drinking ages. Some think the best solution is to lower the drinking age to European levels, others cite the physiological problems that can occur in a developing organism which has a high alcohol intake. Restricting minors from drinking doesn’t really hurt them.

    Recreational drug use? Provided it doesn’t hurt others, especially minors, many liberals wouldn’t care too much. Again, there is a wide range of opinions among liberals on this issue, but using a drug responsibly (i.e. not ending up the in E.R.) isn’t going to ruffle many liberals feathers.

    Anti-smoking laws? This is a public health issue, and a children’s health issue. I don’t know any liberals who would tell you that adults, living sans children, can’t pollute their house with cigarette smoke as much as they wants. We might tell you that you shouldn’t, again for health reasons, but we won’t forbid it.

    There is no ban on using or making unpasteurized cheese or milk for your own use. There is a ban on selling it to others. Buy a cow or a goat and drink all the unpasteurized milk and make all the unpasteurized cheeses you want. Again, this is a public health issue.

    Home office and small business regulations? Many of those are for tax purposes and/or health reasons. There are occasionally quality of life issues. Foe example, one of the more common home businesses are hairdressing services. These businesses often handle toxic chemicals and can stink to high heaven. These types of businesses are often closed down because of the complaints of the neighbors. But it’s pretty rare that someone running a tax service out of a home office is closed down. Which isn’t to say that the occasional over-zealous public official doesn’t invoke zoning regulations and close down home offices. But there are jerks everywhere.

    ————
    As for your question about my use of the term liberals and their relation to the democratic party.

    Liberals are people who, generally, feel as I expressed above. I’ve known members of both the Democratic and Republican parties who felt this way.

    Party affiliation is an entirely separate thing. The New Yorker published an essay a few years ago about one sociologist’s work which suggested that that one’s political party identification was more strongly correlated with their parent’s party identification than any other factor. Although I know more than a few republicans who now identify as independent rather than be associated with the current incarnation of their party.

    There are democratic party strongholds where very conservative politicians run as democrats because thats the only way they will be elected. Take a look at the ‘Blue Dog’ democrats sometime, these guys are not liberals. I also know very liberal republicans in local offices among townships that only vote republican.

    To many politicians the party is the means for getting the job, and does not necessarily reflect their own opinions.

    So, I was not talking about democrats when I was talking about liberals. While the majority of liberals associate with the democratic party, the people elected to office as democrats may not be liberals.

    Is this a problem with the party? Not necessarily. Even if most liberals associate themselves with the democratic party, that doesn’t mean that the party itself is liberal. There are other factions. The democratic party really is a ‘big tent’. It contains socialists, communists, conservatives, unions, minorities, and not a few religions. Not all of these groups can be called liberal in general or even as a majority of their members.

    But don’t trust me, I’m a politician myself.

  450. strange gods before me ॐ says

    However, back in the real world, it’s perfectly fair to point that out when someone else claims that only “rare” Democrats want X.

    Hey look, you’re lying again. No surprise.

    Flex said nothing about Democrats.

    Very little home activity is entirely confined to the home. We’re social beings, after all. If two guys walk out into their yard or by a window and kiss, they’ve totally affected the homophobes around them, as can be judged by the latter folks’ squawking and complaining. Heck, they’ve done that just by moving in and at any point admitting that they’re a gay couple.

    Yes, that’s correct. So the question is whether any of their activity outside the home is a legitimate target of regulation. Does it harm anyone? And even if it does, is it covered by the First Amendment?

    See, if we gay people were actually a threat to civilization, if it could be demonstrated empirically that gay relationships do increase the number of hurricanes and earthquakes, then communities would have a legitimate interest in legislating against us.

    You place interesting distinctions on what peaceful interactions are assumed to stay “within the home” and not affect society.

    Wonder if you’ll have the intellectual honesty to retract this now.

    Not specifically, though workplace laws that tend to discourage home businesses to the utterly coincidental benefit of larger companies bug me a bit. My objection is more to the claim that once you’re in your home, only weird, outlier Democrats have designs upon you.

    Seriously, what is your obsession with Democrats? You won’t find very many here to debate you, if what you want is an argument with Democrats. But if you keep focusing on Democrats when no one else is, then it’s equally legitimate to focus on the Libertarian Party as representative of libertarians. Do you understand this?

  451. semiapies says

    You made a claim, semiapies.

    It is thus your responsibility to provide evidence for your claim.

    Sure! Once everyone else, including you, goes to the trouble of citing their affirmative claims throughout this thread.

    I’m not going to jump and abide by a rule of scientific discourse selectively applied in a political discussion, particularly when demanded by someone arguing in bad faith.

    So your claim is only that the LP people added the suffix -ism? That’s what you think they deserve credit for?

    That little suffix, yes. It’s the difference between “social” and “socialism”, after all. :)

    See [cites of word use from]…1960..1965, 1967

    You mean the time period early libertarianism organized and emerged from total obscurity to known fringe-dom?

    This is completely void of content

    Hey, now. I haven’t said that about long stretches of your posts.

  452. strange gods before me ॐ says

    My objection is more to the claim that once you’re in your home, only weird, outlier Democrats have designs upon you.

    Or perhaps you’re misunderstanding the relationship between liberals and Democrats. The majority of Democrats are not liberals (a positive claim, and one for which I’m prepared to offer citation).

    If you’re complaining that the Democratic party is not controlled by liberals, then great. I’m fully in agreement with that complaint.

    1) Fair enough, you specifically haven’t. That’s more my reacting to others’ responses and unfair to you. Retracted.

    Good on you.

    2) Are you unclear what “concern trolling” is, or is this another thing you want me to understand that you’re deliberately lying about? :)

    Okay, I am using the term loosely, in a common but controversial fashion. I probably shouldn’t do that. To clarify: What you’re doing is whining and making a joke of yourself.

  453. semiapies says

    Thanks, Flex! Sorry for my misunderstanding – I’m used to “liberal” being clarified when not meant to refer to the mainstream US definition, but that’s in other contexts and not a complaint on my part. :)

    Stranger:

    Hey look, you’re lying again. No surprise.

    Nah, just a misunderstanding of terminology. I completely retract the whole thing about Democrats (at least, as relevant to anything Flex said).

    Yes, that’s correct. So the question is whether any of their activity outside the home is a legitimate target of regulation. Does it harm anyone? And even if it does, is it covered by the First Amendment?

    See, if we gay people were actually a threat to civilization, if it could be demonstrated empirically that gay relationships do increase the number of hurricanes and earthquakes, then communities would have a legitimate interest in legislating against us.

    Oh, interesting. Farcical example aside, are you saying your standard for regulating/banning things is that it must constitute a demonstrable threat to civilization? :)

    I smile because, Hell, I have no complaint about something that reasonable.

    Seriously, what is your obsession with Democrats?

    Well, I used to be one years back, and I’ve dealt with a lot in various ways recently…but in this case, it’s that the comments generally struck me as moderate-centrist-left; I didn’t catch anything that struck me as right-wing in tone while skimming towards the bottom of the thread.

    You won’t find very many here to debate you

    Both atheist and more leftward in general than I realized, then?

    Jadehawk:

    the Democrats are center right, not liberal.

    Ahhhh. So it’s a doubly-fringe group lashing out against another fringe group.

    That clarifies the sitch, thanks.

  454. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Sure! Once everyone else, including you, goes to the trouble of citing their affirmative claims throughout this thread.

    I’m not going to jump and abide by a rule of scientific discourse selectively applied in a political discussion, particularly when demanded by someone arguing in bad faith.

    Ha! Bullshitter. I knew it.

    I didn’t ask you to support all your claims, semiapies. I asked you to support a few specific claims which appear dubious. If you don’t want to present any evidence for your dubious claims, even when specifically offered the opportunity to do so, fine. But it doesn’t actually help you make your case.

    That little suffix, yes. It’s the difference between “social” and “socialism”, after all. :)

    Not in this case. The difference between libertarian and libertarianism is the difference between socialist and socialism.

    You mean the time period early libertarianism organized and emerged from total obscurity to known fringe-dom?

    No, political libertarianism organized in the 1800s. Again, you are making the positive claim that the people behind the Libertarian Party coined the word “libertarianism.” I’m offering citations from well before the party’s formation. So perhaps you would care to offer a citation of when this word was coined, and where.

    Hey, now. I haven’t said that about long stretches of your posts.

    Look at that. What a bullshitter. This is your response to me asking “What has Paul done differently? How has his voting record changed? You claim he has gotten closer to the Republicans, but Ron Paul has been running in the Republican party since 1974.”

    So like a seasoned liar, you ignore the question completely and complain about tone.

  455. Feynmaniac, Chimerical Toad says

    Just to show you how libertarians feel about liberty and coercion here’s what Ayn Rand had to say about the Native Americans:

    “They (Native Americans) didn’t have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using. What was it that they were fighting for, when they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their ‘right’ to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or a few caves above it. Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent.“

    Source: Q and A session following her address to the graduating class of The United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, March 6, 1974 – found in Endgame: Resistance, by Derrick Jensen, Seven Stories Press, 2006, pg 220 [Emphasis added]

  456. semiapies says

    Or perhaps you’re misunderstanding

    Oh, no – you forgot to accuse me of lying! :D

    The majority of Democrats are not liberals (a positive claim, and one for which I’m prepared to offer citation).

    Meh, that’s a definitional issue. Flex has a definition of liberal that claim would be accurate for, and there are definitions of the word that would mean virtually no Democrats, most Democrats, or most Democrats and most Republicans and most politicians in the Western world.

    I probably shouldn’t do that.

    No big.

    To clarify: What you’re doing is whining and making a joke of yourself.

    Mm, no, I don’t believe that I’ve whined about anything. I’m certainly making a joke of the cartoonish hostility towards libertarians here, though.

  457. Feynmaniac, Chimerical Toad says

    No, political libertarianism organized in the 1800s. Again, you are making the positive claim that the people behind the Libertarian Party coined the word “libertarianism.”

    It should be noted that the term “libertarianism” orginally meant what we would now call anarchism or ‘libertarian socialism‘. In the last 50-60 years in the US the term has come to mean an anti-statism, pro-capitalism philosophy.

  458. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Nah, just a misunderstanding of terminology. I completely retract the whole thing about Democrats (at least, as relevant to anything Flex said).

    That’s great, but you also need to understand the Democratic Party is not majority liberal, not even in the mainstream US use of the word. It’s not apparent that you understand this.

    From the General Social Survey, 2008, POLVIEWS plotted against PARTYID:

    Oh, interesting. Farcical example aside, are you saying your standard for regulating/banning things is that it must constitute a demonstrable threat to civilization? :)

    The example was chosen because it’s been seriously offered. Legitimate government interest must be to prevent or alleviate harm, but legitimate interest is not enough; the solution must not cause more harm than the problem.

    Oh, no – you forgot to accuse me of lying! :D

    I think you’re stupid too, so there are cases where I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt.

    Mm, no, I don’t believe that I’ve whined about anything. I’m certainly making a joke of the cartoonish hostility towards libertarians here, though.

    Laziness. Inflated ego. Semiapies, it appears you’re the cat.

  459. semiapies says

    Just to show you how libertarians feel about liberty and coercion here’s what Ayn Rand had to say about the Native Americans:

    Speaking as a part-Cherokee and a libertarian, that’s just to show you what Ayn Rand had to say.

    Ayn Rand hated the libertarian movement, for the record – too full of peaceniks and anarchists and other dubious folk people who weren’t Objectivists. Now that she’s dead, some Objectivists try to claim she damn near invented the concept of liberty.

  460. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Ayn Rand hated the libertarian movement, for the record

    And Lenin hated the left-wing communists.

    And we should make note of both distinctions. But that doesn’t go very far toward making the case that Rand’s views are not recognizable as libertarianism.

  461. Flex says

    semiapies wrote at 453,

    I’m used to “liberal” being clarified when not meant to refer to the mainstream US definition, but that’s in other contexts and not a complaint on my part. :)

    No problem on my part. I made the effort to avoid using party designations, and I usually do. But I could have done better to clarify that liberal does not equal democrat, no more than republican equals conservative.

    I call myself a progressive, rationalist, liberal, and I’m a card-carrying member of the democratic party. I’m also a democratic party precinct delegate and serve in an elected position as a township trustee, which position I ran for as a democrat.

    However, on our board, is a secondary school teacher, an ex-sheriff, an owner of an insurance company, a lawyer/minister, an ex-corrections officer, and I don’t know what our treasurer used to do before she became the treasurer. We are all democrats. I’m the only progressive, two are strong union, one is a conservative flying under democratic colors, and I would call the others rational but not progressive.

    Not all democrats are liberals.

    For many years our county clerk was a republican, she was only a republican because when she was hired as a deputy clerk the current clerk was republican. So she became republican, but even when she was elected to the office herself as a republican, she was a liberal.

    Not all republicans are conservatives.

    But there is a difference between the current democratic and republican parties. The republican party is actively purging non-conservatives from their upper ranks, and has been for years. The last even moderately liberal republican I can remember in the top ranks was Colin Powell, and look what they did to him. There were a few in Bush Senior’s cabinet, and a couple in Reagan’s.

    The democratic party still has a wide variety of views among it’s leaders, not all of them liberal. And the democratic party doesn’t punish members who are not liberal. In fact, the democratic party probably can’t punish non-liberal members, and I look on that as a positive trait.

    A liberal welcomes dissenting views because a liberal is aware that their own knowledge or opinions may be incomplete or wrong. Yet, somehow, when we liberals ask for evidence to support other viewpoints, it’s rarely provided. :P

  462. Feynmaniac, Chimerical Toad says

    Ayn Rand hated the libertarian movement

    True, but the libertarian movement seems (for the most part) to love her.

  463. semiapies says

    That’s great, but you also need to understand the Democratic Party is not majority liberal, not even in the mainstream US use of the word.

    Do you know whether “political party affiliation” is membership and involvement or just voting preference in this poll? “Not Strong Democrat” isn’t a party registration I’ve seen before, after all.

    But yes, if your claim is simply that people who vote for Democrats don’t mostly self-identify as “liberal”, absolutely granted. “Moderate” is one of the great political dodges in US society, along with “independent” (though I was impressed that this poll tried to break out the wings of independents in a plausible way).

    Semiapies, it appears you’re the cat.

    Probably right, mouse.

  464. semiapies says

    And we should make note of both distinctions. But that doesn’t go very far toward making the case that Rand’s views are not recognizable as libertarianism.

    No, but citing an obnoxious Rand quote doesn’t make the case that it is in the first place.

  465. 86Gator says

    Strange/semiapies — I appreciate you two hashing this out — giving me lots to think about :)

    Flex — thanks too for the pertinent insight

  466. semiapies says

    True, but the libertarian movement seems (for the most part) to love her.

    Eh. There’s a lot of friction between Objectivists and libertarians, and between Objectivist libertarians and other libertarians.

    Focusing too much on Ayn Rand strikes me as a particular error, though – as dogmatic as Objectivists often are, I’m one of those of the opinion that if brought back to life, Rand would freak out and excommunicate most of the people who call themselves Objectivists nowadays, especially the ones who stick with it for more than a few years in college. This is even more true for libertarians who just admire some things she wrote.

  467. semiapies says

    But there is a difference between the current democratic and republican parties. The republican party is actively purging non-conservatives from their upper ranks, and has been for years.

    To be fair, Flex, there’s rather a few self-described “conservatives” who’d claim the GOP has been purging conservatives in favor of theocrats, populists and ex-Trotsky fans. Terminology is slippery.

  468. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Do you know whether “political party affiliation” is membership and involvement or just voting preference in this poll? “Not Strong Democrat” isn’t a party registration I’ve seen before, after all.

    The question is phrased “Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as a Republican, Democrat, Independent, or what?”

    The graph is self-identification by political views vs self-identification by political party. This method gives broadly representative data, while limiting data sets to party membership does not. The reason for that is that party membership rules vary greatly by state.

    In some states, merely voting in a primary election makes you a member of the party whose primary you voted in. These states have huge party membership, but most members are not highly interested in the party and made no effort to formally “join”; some even self-identify with the opposite party. Other states with open primaries have very little party membership at all, and only hardcore party activists join. Neither method is great for producing representative data, and mixing the two is nigh impossible.

    Probably right, mouse.

    Not every cat is a good mouser. Now, would you like to offer any evidence that substantiates your claim that Ron Paul is not a libertarian?

  469. semiapies says

    86Gator – no problem.

    Going to have to vape for a bit, but I’ll check back.

  470. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Strange/semiapies — I appreciate you two hashing this out — giving me lots to think about :)

    I’m glad you’re finding it productive, 86Gator. I’m not, though, as long as this is limited to “who is a libertarian and who is a liberal.” It’s just SIWOTI and I’m starting to bore myself.

    I’m more interested in what you said:

    I took another look at the various political philosophies around — I identified as a Liberal until that point — and settled on Libertarianism as it desires limiting government involvement in many areas — one of which being my private matters (like my desire to be left alone with regard to *anything* religious-oriented!. I still grapple with the fiscal Libertarian orthodoxy — and even disagree with some of their positions in that arena — I will admit that.

    I would start by asking, is limiting government always the same as maximizing freedom? And if not, which of the two should we prefer?

    People living in poverty are less free than those who have the means to act according to their preferences, for freedom is the ability to act on one’s preferences.

    Can we make them more free by providing them with a larger material basis for their pursuit of happiness? Indeed we can, that’s uncontroversially true. The real question is at what trade-off:

    Wealth is not an end in itself, it is a means to other ends. What good is wealth except insofar as it allows the pursuit of happiness?

    Empirically, wealth does not have a strong correlation with happiness except for poor or sick people. If you’re poor, you’re likely to be unhappy, because of the stress of making ends meet, paying bills and putting food on the table. But once your needs are met, a lot more money brings only a little more happiness.

    Put another way, wealth itself has a diminishing marginal utility. So a progressive tax does not hurt people as much as a regressive or “flat” tax does.

  471. Feynmaniac, Chimerical Toad says

    I do think the case of the Native Americans brings up an important criticism of libertarianism, even if not all libertarians share Rand’s repugnant views.

    Libertarians generally agree that coercion to obtain property is wrong. However, a good chunk of the land on Earth was taken by violent means. That land was then passed down and much of the property owned nowadays is because of the use of force.

    It reminds me of an old anecdote. A man comes home to find a stranger living in his house. He tells the stranger that the house is his. The stranger asks what makes it his. The home owner responds that his family fought to for the land. The stranger replies ‘I’ll fight you for it now.’

  472. Knockgoats says

    Feynmaniac is exactly right. Rand’s racism is the only logically consistent way in which glibertarians can avoid saying that all non-native Americans should get the fuck out of the country, since the whole place, almost without exception, was stolen by force or fraud by European settlers.

  473. 86Gator says

    Strange@#470

    Well, it’s productive in the sense that you have made some salient arguments against Libertarianism that warrant some serious thought on my part as opposed to the non-substantive Libertarian-bashing that dominated the bulk of the earlier part of this thread. semiapies is doing a much better job than I could at countering your arguments then I could and the result has been a lot of good discussion for me to digest.

    I have gone back and visited the many links you have included to previous discussions and have found them enlightening. Suffice to say, I have done very little HP-UX administering today with all the reading I have been doing.

    In the only other time I posted on Pharyngula – in another Libertarian-bashing party – I called myself a “left-leaning Libertarian” and I kind of hinted at that same notion in this thread. I am willing to listen. FWIW, I am finding your arguments persuasive.

  474. Flex says

    semiapies @467 wrote,

    To be fair, Flex, there’s rather a few self-described “conservatives” who’d claim the GOP has been purging conservatives in favor of theocrats, populists and ex-Trotsky fans. Terminology is slippery.

    I wouldn’t argue that point. But before you make it a rallying cry, take a look at that graph again.

    86% of Strong Republicans self-identify as conservative.

    Even those if the republican party elites are tossing conservatives out, the conservatives are still voting republican.

    Please, to those few remaining rational conservative republicans, TAKE BACK YOUR PARTY!

    Us liberals like to be told, ‘whoa son, let’s think this over again for a moment’. We are often moving so fast with the ideas we think are great that we need a group questioning what we want to do. We may get frustrated at times, but having to explain why our ideas are good ones really helps us avoid mistakes.

    What do we have today? God-soaked theobots joined to imperialistic ninnies, declaring a Pax Americana because the cold war is over (won by default), funded by wealthy confidence artists whose jingoistic chants are designed to distract the citizens from noticing they are being robbed with too-good-to-be-true offers of cheap mortgages and *make*money*fast* stock jobbing while the government which once protected them is being dismantled to popular acclaim!

    It’s a real shame when we liberals have to turn in our propeller beanies for stove-pipes because the republicans can no longer be trusted with bubble-gum.

  475. semiapies says

    The question is phrased “Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as a Republican, Democrat, Independent, or what?

    Ah, thanks.

    Now, would you like to offer any evidence that substantiates your claim that Ron Paul is not a libertarian?

    Ooh, a negative to prove! Fun!

    For a random datum, I’d argue his deliberate pursuit of pork for his district in the form of riders for bills that he makes a show of voting against. If the contradiction and statist nature of that isn’t clear, you’ve been a socialist or whatnot too long. :)

    It’s just SIWOTI and I’m starting to bore myself.

    You’re still entertaining me, but I’d have to be the last person to claim you were obligated to participate in my SWY.

    Oh, but I’ll help you with the useful-to-86Gator bit via counterpoint:

    I would start by asking, is limiting government always the same as maximizing freedom? And if not, which of the two should we prefer?

    A fine question that’s open on the libertarian side, with the biggest split being between anarcho-capitalists and minarchists (as “no government” would be the ultimate limitation of it). Of course, the an-caps would tend to say they were synonymous. As a minarchist, I’d say they were correlated, but not the same thing; more concisely, “No, and maximizing freedom.”

    People living in poverty are less free than those who have the means to act according to their preferences, for freedom is the ability to act on one’s preferences.

    This naturally depends on one’s view on the meaning and moral context of “ability”, much like the question of whether what one person does “harms” someone else. I certainly support any adult’s right to have sex with another consenting adult, but if some charmless guy can’t get a date, that’s just too bad. His sexual rights aren’t being limited by nobody else being interested, any more than my freedom is impaired because nobody wants to give me a yacht. And for the same reason: that an ability to do something stops when the other person doesn’t consent.

    Mind, “people living in poverty” seems a remarkably restricted angle for discussing the proper size of government or what government generally does. Most of that terribly vital tax money governments spend goes nowhere remotely near the impoverished. Social Security (the vast majority of which is a generational money transfer that’s agnostic to the wealth and income of recipients) and the Department of Defense alone utterly dwarf all state and federal spending on the poor, homeless, disabled, and otherwise disadvantaged.

  476. semiapies says

    Clarification on last: SS and DoD each, not alone (which might imply to some “together”).

  477. strange gods before me ॐ says

    semiapies is doing a much better job than I could at countering your arguments then I could

    You will be much better served by old Walton comments than these. Here’s a 600 comment thread to keep you away from work.

    Since Mises’s devotees have done so much to define what people think when they hear the word “libertarian” these days, it’s not a particularly useful word anymore except for them. If you don’t hold right-wing economic views, everybody gets seriously confused when it’s applied (and you’re probably just as well described as a progressive).

    There are allegedly consistent libertarians who say they are also against government helping businesses, not just poor people. These folks are useful idiots. Policies starving corporate welfare will never be implemented in our capitalist system; donors and media gatekeepers will not allow that sort of legislative change. But policies starving humans of welfare can easily be implemented; the targets are nearly powerless themselves, already for the most part politically disenfranchised.

    So rhetoric that appears to target all forms of government assistance will not translate into action against wealthy business interests, and thus can be permitted and even encouraged in the mainstream media. Hence “libertarianism” is entertained as respectable while “socialism” is reviled and outside the bounds of cable news, when both would allegedly be deadly to the current power structure.

  478. semiapies says

    Libertarians generally agree that coercion to obtain property is wrong. However, a good chunk of the land on Earth was taken by violent means

    Actually, there are vanishingly few regions of the world that weren’t. Thinking hard, Iceland had no inhabitants before being colonized, nobody was displaced to set up Antarctic research stations…That’s all I got – feel free to jump in with any other examples you know. I’m probably missing some islands colonized in the historical era.

    Even aside from the European empires, the US, etc. any land that’s been inhabited for very long has gone through a number of hands, and sadly, many of those exchanges were probably violent.

    Rand’s racism is the only logically consistent way in which glibertarians can avoid saying that all non-native Americans should get the fuck out of the country, since the whole place, almost without exception, was stolen by force or fraud by European settlers.

    Hrm. Going with your premise for the moment, what’s the sort of racism you must apply to justify opposing that – or do you support the idea?

    Interestingly, there are Georgist libertarians (weird, but true – non-libertarian Georgists exist too, IIRC) who make such an argument against any right to land as permanent property.

  479. semiapies says

    I wouldn’t argue that point. But before you make it a rallying cry, take a look at that graph again.

    Make it a rallying cry? I’d have to actually buy it, now wouldn’t I?

    Also, I think you read too much into the self-identification of “conservatives” and “moderates”. In the run-up to the next GOP presidential victory, you’ll see many more “moderates” and proportionally fewer “conservatives” on their side of the chart – that’s how the system works.

  480. semiapies says

    Policies starving corporate welfare will never be implemented in our capitalist system; donors and media gatekeepers will not allow that sort of legislative change. But policies starving humans of welfare can easily be implemented; the targets are nearly powerless themselves, already for the most part politically disenfranchised.

    I’d counter that the fact of the status quo is that both will get periodically squeezed, but that in a democratic system, any squeezes are temporary. Naturally, it’s rougher on some people to deprive them of welfare benefits by cutting budgets, add restrictions, etc. than it is to trim a bit from fat subsidies.

    So rhetoric that appears to target all forms of government assistance will not translate into action

    Sorry to cut you off like that, but that’s the more correct version. Republicans are always quiet on the angle of corporate welfare, and they and Democrats are the only ones who have the power to affect welfare to the disadvantaged. If you think a pittance of libertarians opposing all welfare has any real effect on what government does, I’m a bit mystified as to why. Fringe political persuasions are terrible cover.

    If I had my druthers on the subject, I’d be happy to compromise with pro-welfare folks by slashing corporate welfare and exchanging the current version of the welfare system with Milton Friedman’s take on the Negative Income Tax (basically, a minimum guaranteed income, for folks not wanting to Google). I think that would be more helpful and less restrictive to the people it’s designed to help, and it’s hard to cut in any but the most blatant way. However, nothing like this will ever happen.

    At the risk of being a downer to anyone, I’m entirely aware that libertarianism is a total loser in the political market of ideas. It lacks the necessary selling point: reasons and rationales for exercising power over others, to help and/or to hurt (or to control for either of those reasons).

    (Of course, I presume the real solution would be a socialist system of some sort, where there’d never be any government oligarchs benefiting themselves and their loyal supporters. :) )

  481. dooglio says

    I’m a libertarian, I have a sense of humor, but I really don’t find this comic very amusing.. Just a bit insulted that I got compared to a house pet.

    Now, if you want funny, no one beats Monty Python:

  482. Flex says

    semiapies at #479, wrote,

    Make it a rallying cry? I’d have to actually buy it, now wouldn’t I?

    ;)

  483. semiapies says

    Ooh, good call, Dooglio. Even if it was originally meant to be a satire of smaller British left-wing groups, it’s a perfectly funny poke at libertarians, too.

  484. semiapies says

    I am suddenly puzzled as to why the original artist didn’t show a hamster in a cage saying, “But I wasn’t hurting anybody!” ;)

  485. strange gods before me ॐ says

    For a random datum, I’d argue his deliberate pursuit of pork for his district in the form of riders for bills that he makes a show of voting against.

    That might be a change, if you could show that he did otherwise prior to 1988.

    His website responds to your charge: “As long as the Federal government takes tax money from his constituents, he will make every effort to return that money to his district.”

    There’s a good argument to be made that this is how libertarianism has to work right now, pragmatically, because there is no way for Ron Paul alone to eliminate those taxes in practice.

    This naturally depends on one’s view on the meaning and moral context of “ability”,

    It depends on neither. No moral judgment is made by invoking either ability or freedom, and ability could not be simpler: you are either able to do something or not.

    My freedom to commit assault is limited by laws punishing assault. My ability to commit assault is limited by the presence of police and bystanders. These are just facts; nothing moral is said yet about whether or not I should commit assault.

    much like the question of whether what one person does “harms” someone else.

    With the exception of mental distress, harm is an uncontroversial fact, trivial to recognize. And I’m willing to say that most forms of mental distress are to be preferred as the price of free speech.

    I certainly support any adult’s right to have sex with another consenting adult, but if some charmless guy can’t get a date, that’s just too bad.

    And so we outlaw rape, because the ownership of one’s body (or the bodily integrity of the self, for those who complain that ownership of one’s body is dualism) is a far more important interest than one’s freedom to force sexual activity.

    His sexual rights aren’t being limited by nobody else being interested,

    Rights are another thing altogether. Don’t needlessly complicate the discussion. Be certain that you need to go there, rather than relying on habit.

    any more than my freedom is impaired because nobody wants to give me a yacht.

    Of course your freedom is impaired by not having a yacht. (‘Tis Himself can tell you just how much.) Are you free to walk down the street? Presumably so. Are you free to flap your arms and fly like a bird? No, and so here’s a meaningful distinction: freedom must include ability. You cannot be said to be free to do something if you are not able to do it. We call these distinctions degrees of freedom.

    The question is whether your freedom to sail at will is worth the cost of making other people give you a yacht. In this case we’ll agree it’s not.

    But how about a starving child’s freedom to live another day? It would be a very small thing to take $5 from you without your consent, but an enormous thing to feed that kid another day. Better still if the kid is likely to grow up, get a productive job, and provide the same opportunity to another.

    Mind, “people living in poverty” seems a remarkably restricted angle for discussing the proper size of government or what government generally does.

    No, it isn’t. This is a common right-wing libertarian trick.

    “Wouldn’t you like to end the war on drugs?” Sure! (All decent people want to end the war on drugs.)

    “Wouldn’t you like to stop our nation’s military aggression?” Sure! (All decent people want to stop our nation’s military aggression.)

    “Wouldn’t you like to quit funneling public money into wealthy business corporations?” Sure! (All decent people etc.)

    “Then you should be a libertarian!” No! You can just as easily be a green or a progressive or a socialist and agree on all that.

    There is no point in arguing when we already agree, and libertarians do not get to claim that political territory exclusively.

    The serious problem with your libertarianism is the harm it causes to poor people, so that is the proper ground for discussion.

    Social Security (the vast majority of which is a generational money transfer that’s agnostic to the wealth and income of recipients)

    I would be in favor of replacing Social Security with real redistribution of wealth. It does have at least one benefit though. People who feel guilty and undeserving of direct aid can more readily feel that they have earned their Social Security benefits. That means fewer proud workers turning down money that they really need, and consequently less poverty. Fewer old people eating dog food makes for a better place to live.

    Let’s talk about force and consent. Pretend I have a starving dependent child, am living outside of the reach of welfare services, and have been unable to find charity. Should I steal a loaf of bread from a wealthy merchant to save my child’s life?

  486. strange gods before me ॐ says

    Make it a rallying cry? I’d have to actually buy it, now wouldn’t I?

    If you don’t understand how to generate that graph using GSS data, I’ll show you how.

    (I’d link to it, but the server uses POST instead of GET.)

  487. https://me.yahoo.com/a/c8vgv20epfOnyZYgaPKrcYfDk4TekTh7#ed6d2 says

    A quick run down of morphing political terminology over US history:

    1700s, The two main groups are federalists and anti-federalists, seperated over issues of how to organize a federal government and citizens rights. Conservative means someone who wants the laws to say the same. Radical means someone who wants the laws to change. Liberal means a social constract theorist, especially a Lockian.

    1800s the two main groups are Republicans and Democrats. Republicans in general favour more civil rights, democrats want to maintain system. Post civil war, Progressive becomes a term to advocate change/reform without the now negative connotation of radical. Repubs tend to be progressives, Dems tend to be conservatives (still using the 1700s definition). Liberals here are generally conservatives and still contract theorists.

    Pre ww2 1900s, Democrats and Republicans start to become less clearly deliniated across progressive vs conservative lines, in the north, Dems often more progressive, in the south they are conservative and vice versa for the Repubs. The term radical is now rare outside of pergorative. Liberals are rejecting many parts of traditional contract theory and are adopting elements of progressivism. Lockian views are altered again and labeled libertarianism.

    WW2-1960’s. Dems become more progressive and more leftist (which moves them from right to center), Repubs become more conservative and more right wing. The term liberal is now rarely related to contract theory and is often associated with progressive. Libertarian takes on more elements of right wing belief and become more militarized.

    Post ‘Reagan Revolution’ Redefines term ‘conservative’ so that it no longer means resisting legal change and now means being right wing. Republicans lean more heavily to the right. Democrats begin using the term liberal interchanably with progressive, but do not always advocate reform, the traditional progressive stance. Democrats are centrists. Libertarian means a right of center, staunch capitialist, pro-militarization Lockian-esque position.

    The issue is that the person who was called a liberal radical in the 1700s is now called a conservative or a libertarian. Until recent years, liberal did not mean progressive or left wing and some branches of ‘liberalism’ maintain certain traditional right wing Lockian notions while other who would have been called left wing progressives a century ago also use the term. This means that though ‘liberals’tend to be more left in general than ‘conservatives’, not all liberals are leftists and some are in fact rather right wing. As a socialist, I do not call my self liberal, I call myself a radical and a leftist.

  488. lunchstealer says

    Well, I’m a libertarian, and this is clearly not funny.

    But that’s not because it’s wrong about libertarians, or mean to libertarians, or exposes truths libertarians don’t want to hear, but because it’s a political/ideological cartoon, and 90% or more of political ideological cartoons are lame as shit.

    If you don’t believe me, check out the Friday Funnies over at Reason Magazine. Libertarian-friendly, and almost uniformly unfunny.

    So yeah, libertarians have a sense of humor, and this isn’t funny. If my sense of humor were better, I’d be able to re-write it to be funny, but I’m not that good a writer.

  489. semiapies says

    [WRT Ron Paul’s pork:] That might be a change, if you could show that he did otherwise prior to 1988.

    Now, now – hands off the goal-posts. I was answering a different question of yours. :)

    There’s a good argument to be made that this is how libertarianism has to work right now, pragmatically, because there is no way for Ron Paul alone to eliminate those taxes in practice.

    As I haven’t seen one, let me know if you come up with one – I’m curious.

    It depends on neither. No moral judgment is made by invoking either ability or freedom, and ability could not be simpler: you are either able to do something or not.

    My freedom to commit assault is limited by laws punishing assault.

    Not by that definition you just gave.

    With the exception of mental distress, harm is an uncontroversial fact, trivial to recognize.

    Tsk. Why go so untenably simplistic? You’d been doing so well.

    Is the “harm” to recording artists by MP3 downloaders really so uncontroversial? What about the “harm” to neighbors when someone decorates eir yard in a way that they fear will lower property values? What about the “harm” caused by the dreaded illegal aliens?

    I fear you might not be paying enough attention to what people disagree about.

    And so we outlaw rape, because the ownership of one’s body (or the bodily integrity of the self, for those who complain that ownership of one’s body is dualism) is a far more important interest than one’s freedom to force sexual activity.

    Ah, so it’s interests, interesting…

    Rights are another thing altogether

    *shrug* Sexual freedom, sexual interests, however you’re comfortable phrasing it.

    The question is whether your freedom to sail at will is worth the cost of making other people give you a yacht. In this case we’ll agree it’s not.

    Ah, here we get into another useful distinction for the ‘Gator. The general libertarian case is that that’s simply the wrong question to ask; no matter how much the strange guy underestimates my burning need to go sailing in a bitchin’ yacht, there’s no justification for making other people give me one.

    But how about a starving child’s freedom to live another day? It would be a very small thing to take $5 from you without your consent, but an enormous thing to feed that kid another day. Better still if the kid is likely to grow up, get a productive job, and provide the same opportunity to another.

    Indeed, and in practice it’s one of the least objectionable things a government does in my eyes. It’s also one of the smallest things they tend to do. As a point of principle, it’s still unjust (and unnecessary – I’m an easy mark for someone who needs help) – but I’ve got far bigger statist things to resent. As mentioned, I’d be fine with aid to the needy with fewer strings attached than the current system.

    No, it isn’t. This is a common right-wing libertarian trick.

    And here I was thinking it was a common left-wing trick to try to equate all government activity with helping people who need it. :)

    All decent people want to…! All decent people want to…! All decent people want to…!

    Ha!

    OK, thank you for that. :D

    If any libertarian reading this had been at all dubious that you’d ever had a place in our camp, well, you’ve put that suspicion to rest.

    Me, I don’t so strictly define “decent people” as “those who agree with me, even on major political positions”, but it takes all kinds.

    “Then you should be a libertarian!”

    Eh, if someone really wants to. I’ve known plenty of people who agreed with me on various ones of those points who were all sorts of political persuasions. I’d much rather mainstream statists start buying into such ideas – beneficial things could happen. One more libertarian doesn’t change a damn thing. (No offense to anyone who wants to become one – I’m not saying don’t, just don’t come in expecting to “advance” libertarianism as a whole.)

    There is no point in arguing when we already agree, and libertarians do not get to claim that political territory exclusively.

    I miss any flag I planted, stranger, so easy with the twitching. :) It does my heart good – well, no particular good, let’s just say that it’s kinda nice – that some random fringe leftist with a big hate-on for libertarians holds some good positions.

    The serious problem with your libertarianism is the harm it causes to poor people, so that is the proper ground for discussion.

    Is this like how the real problem with your socialism is that it forces us all to eat gruel and wear really ugly brown jumpsuits?

    Back to this strange land, stranger. ;)

    Pretend I have a starving dependent child, am living outside of the reach of welfare services, and have been unable to find charity. Should I steal a loaf of bread from a wealthy merchant to save my child’s life?

    Why a dependent child? Why not your being near starvation, unable to find work, disabled by an injury, etc.?

    You’re not going for cheap sentimentality, are you? ;)

    Counter-question: If a big, burly employee of the “wealthy merchant” corners you, should you stab him with a knife, or should you go to jail and let your kid starve?

    Should you steal it from a smaller and less dangerous target, say a poor person who’s walking home with her family’s groceries? What if she resists you taking her kids’ bread, even if they could live without one loaf?

    As for the answer, I’ll paraphrase one of Rand’s not so deranged lines – you don’t base political principle on lifeboat scenarios, because we don’t live in lifeboats. I have thoughts about what I’d be willing to do in that scenario, and what I’d correspondingly be willing to forgive in others’ actions if they were in such a circumstance, even against me as an innocent victim. “Should” is not something you can blithely apply to desperation.

    If you don’t understand how to generate that graph using GSS data, I’ll show you how.

    Thanks!. It won’t be necessary, though – in the bit you quoted, I was talking about self-identifying “conservatives” who disagreed with others’ self-identification as such. I don’t think the GSS data would help, there.

  490. semiapies says

    Peculiar; I tinkered with the HTML in preview for a bit, but I couldn’t get rid of the odd spacing.

    *shrug*

  491. Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom says

    Now, now – hands off the goal-posts. I was answering a different question of yours. :)

    Since when are you guys republicans? I thought they were the ones who threw people out for any violation of the party line, not the other parties. I don’t disagree that using the money is against libertarian principles, but it seems insufficient to throw the guy out of the party. Again, unless you’re Republican.

    As I haven’t seen one, let me know if you come up with one – I’m curious.

    Really? You think you can do it all at once, not in stages? Really?

    Pragmatically, you’d have to work slowly to dismantle the current setup in favor of something with smaller state government. I’m going to assume you had just forgotten that in 160 years, we still have institutionalized racism, despite the best efforts of a much larger segment of the population then just the libertarian party.

    Ah, here we get into another useful distinction for the ‘Gator. The general libertarian case is that that’s simply the wrong question to ask; no matter how much the strange guy underestimates my burning need to go sailing in a bitchin’ yacht, there’s no justification for making other people give me one.

    Um, too bad there are. I mean, you disagree on its validity, but “My right to live is more important then your right to an extra designer shirt” is in fact a justification…

    And here I was thinking it was a common left-wing trick to try to equate all government activity with helping people who need it. :)

    Personally I usually think of regulation. This may be the effects of the recent depression (Which, thank you for that, by the way).

    It’s also one of the smallest things they tend to do.

    Thank you for that too.

    As a point of principle, it’s still unjust

    On what grounds do you base this claim of injustice? In my book, a second (Or first!) HDTV is less important then enforcing government health or safety regulations, maintaining roads, funding a military, or yes, keeping someone from starving.

    Is this like how the real problem with your socialism is that it forces us all to eat gruel and wear really ugly brown jumpsuits?

    Back to this strange land, stranger. ;)

    Hi, are you not familiar with people dying early, with lower quality of life from only getting emergency room care? We’re still talking real world when we say “Libertarianism hurts people”.

    And again, we had your glory days already. It sucked if you were not at or near the top. Look up any information on the Gilded Age. People were at the mercy of the boom and bust cycle (Or as that gal who runs the senate oversight committee on TARP money so eloquently said, the ‘Bust or not so bust cycle’). They had shitty workplace conditions, shitty working hours, no guarantee of a job between days..

    Why a dependent child? Why not your being near starvation, unable to find work, disabled by an injury, etc.?

    You’re not going for cheap sentimentality, are you? ;)

    Are you a robot? People generally agree that the responsibility to feed a child is greater then the responsibility to feed yourself.

    Counter-question: If a big, burly employee of the “wealthy merchant” corners you, should you stab him with a knife, or should you go to jail and let your kid starve?

    So are you going to answer the question? Here, I’ll be nice and go first:
    Stab. Preferably not in the heart or neck; You just need to cause massive pain, you don’t need to kill the guy. However, children are a bit odd for me.

    Should you steal it from a smaller and less dangerous target, say a poor person who’s walking home with her family’s groceries?

    No. The poor woman can not afford a loaf as easily as a large business. Have you ever worked in a restaurant? If so, you should be somewhat familiar with how much food is thrown out (IE wasted, meaning they can afford waste).

    As for the answer, I’ll paraphrase one of Rand’s not so deranged lines – you don’t base political principle on lifeboat scenarios, because we don’t live in lifeboats.

    Thank you. I couldn’t ask for a better showcase of Libertarian Sociopathy. Someone is in a lifeboat, right now. Beyond cheap emotional sentiment, there are tons of americans in peril, varying by degrees of immediacy. And many more are living paycheck to paycheck, which is not very far from that immediate peril either, even if right now they are (Or think they are) fine. You don’t live in a lifeboat. Neither do I. That’s great. It really is. We’re also not the only people ever.

  492. Walton says

    I Am The Very Model of A Modern Libertarian

    I am the very model of a modern libertarian;
    I’m at the Diamond’s farthest corner from ‘Authoritarian’.
    I’m of the view, in short, that we should do away with all the laws,
    Except the ones that thwart the sort who’d harm or take my things by force.

    The socialists demand that we ought really to redistribute
    The money made by businessmen to help support the destitute.
    But those of us who set less store by looting than by Liberty
    Would say a man’s well-being is his own responsibility!

    Would say a man’s well-being is his own responsibility,
    Would say a man’s well-being is his own responsibility,
    Would say a man’s well-being is his own responsibili-bili-ty!

    An alternative, rather less pro-libertarian version:

    I am the very model of a modern Libertarian:
    I teem with glowing notions for proposals millenarian,
    I’ve nothing but contempt for ideologies collectivist
    (My own ideas of social good tend more toward the Objectivist).
    You see, I’ve just discovered, by my intellectual bravery,
    That civic obligations are all tantamount to slavery;
    And thus that ancient pastime, viz., complaining of taxation,
    Assumes the glorious aspect of a war for liberation!

    [Chorus:]
    You really must admit it’s a delightful revelation:
    To bitch about your taxes is to fight for liberation!

    To be sung, of course, to this tune.

  493. Walton says

    Sorry about the epic linebreak-fail at #492. Should have previewed. :-(

  494. Flex says

    The strangest thing I’ve found about libertarians is that I’ve not encountered one which is pro-union.

    And this is another area where I think they have a knee-jerk reaction to collectivism.

    Look, there is a disparity of power between employer and employee. Even libertarians can see it (even if they often don’t admit it).

    As far as I can tell, there are only three solutions which have historically worked to balance out this disparity in power.

    1. There are cultural aspects to society which encourage decent treatment of employees by employers. There are a few examples, mainly in very homogeneous societies, where it is accepted that employers limit the working hours, share in the profits, allow time off, pay for health treatments, etc. This, I suppose is the ideal of the benevolent, patriarchal company owner treating his employees (slaves) like his children.

    The problem is that relying on culture to restrain employers can easily lead to employers shifting from the benevolent slave-owner sitting on his porch to the absent factory owner unaware that his employees work twelve hour days without breaks. And this is viewing the employer in the best possible light. More often, the employer is well aware of the horrors his employees are suffering, just like the benevolent slave-owner can just as often be the man with a whip, and the judge/executioner of his slaves (property).

    2. The second option which has been historically successful in reducing the disparity of power between the employer and employee is collective bargaining. Without state or cultural support, workers have individually decided to band together and request better working conditions. Where one employee demanding to only work 10 hours a day rather than 12 would be summarily dismissed, when all the workers in a plant agree that this is a good idea, and down tools together, the loss of revenue will get the employers attention. Now this doesn’t work in all jobs. The entire staff of a Denny’s could quit and within a couple days it could be replaced. But the principle of collective bargaining is sound.

    This doesn’t mean there aren’t other flaws with unions. Unions have to tread the line between balancing the power disparity and closing the company. But off the top of my head it seems like unions generally err on the side of caution in that situation. While I know of historical cases where the employer simply closed the company because they didn’t want to deal with the union, I can’t think of one where it could be shown that the union itself killed the company. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are cases, but even the union members would generally rather work than be laid off.

    3. The third way to balance the power disparity between employers and employees is through state intervention. The state can codify the culture as found in the first option. The state can look at the successful collective bargaining agreements from the second option. Or the state can listen to the employees complaints and suggestions directly. Then the state (which is us) can pass laws to limit the number of working hours, ensure a living wage, ensure safety in the workplace, etc.

    Now, which option should a libertarian support? Most of them like the idea of option 1. Employer/employee relations should be bound by culture. But most of them can easily see the abuse that can occur. Further, most libertarians have a dislike of government intervention so option 3 is out. But all libertarians appear to have a great love of contracts. Everything is a contract is one of their mantras.

    Well, collective bargaining is a series of contacts. Contracts between the various employees when they form/join a union. Contracts between unions and employers. Contracts which are argued about and debated and analyzed to the point that everyone involved are aware of the smallest details. It sounds to me like the collective bargaining option fits snugly into the libertarian philosophy.

    But, according to all the libertarians I’ve talked to, unions are an evil to be stamped out. They are socialist and communist and just plain wrong. According to the libertarians I’ve met, unions, with their contracts, trample on the rights of employers to do whatever they want to their employees.

    It seems inconsistent with their philosophy, individuals should be free to choose to enter into collective bargaining agreements.

    But very consistent with their worship of employer rights.

  495. lunchstealer says

    The strangest thing I’ve found about libertarians is that I’ve not encountered one which is pro-union.

    This depends on the framework of the union. A lot of libertarians (typically left-libertarians) like the idea of unions, but don’t like some of the more coercive aspects of unions.

    It seems inconsistent with their philosophy, individuals should be free to choose to enter into collective bargaining agreements.

    Individuals should absolutely be free to enter into collective bargaining agreements. But individuals should also be free not to enter into collective bargaining agreements. Which sucks, because it tends to undermine the choice of the others to engage in collective bargaining.

    Card check, where individuals are required to make binding commitments to join unions in public. This is problematic, because both unions and employers have, from time to time, used intimidation and coercion to pressure workers to vote their way, or have engaged in retaliatory acts (firing, harassment, vandalism, or even violence) after the fact. Choices to enter into collective agreements, even if binding on those who vote no, are personal choices and should not be available to either employers or union supporters.

    Libertarians support less coercive guilds which do things like bond workers, endorse working standards and so forth.

    Some libertarians are perfectly OK with regulations to limit externalities, if necessary. We oppose limits on compensatory damages – and the universal consensus amongst the libertarians I know is that BP should be forced to repay fishermen, tourism/hotel operators, etc, even if it means selling all their assets and closing up shop. They screwed up big-time, and if the damages are more than they can bear, they should fail. Same for Massey Energy.

  496. semiapies says

    I don’t disagree that using the money is against libertarian principles, but it seems insufficient to throw the guy out of the party.

    What party of mine? You are aware Ron Paul is a Republican in good standing, right?

    Really? You think you can do it all at once, not in stages? Really?

    *peers up at his prior posts*
    You’re …coming in late, aren’t you?

    But no, I don’t think one guy making a show of voting “no” a lot and funnelling pork to his district advances anything at all.

    The general libertarian case is…no matter how much the strange guy underestimates my burning need to go sailing in a bitchin’ yacht, there’s no justification for making other people give me one.

    Um, too bad there are. I mean, you disagree on its validity, but “My right to live is more important then your right to an extra designer shirt” is in fact a justification…

    You’re not reading what you’re responding to too closely, are you? :)

    This may be the effects of the recent depression (Which, thank you for that, by the way).

    Aw, how sweet! I’ll print that thanks and put it up on the bulletin board in our Secret Lair, from which we libertarians and our friends, the Elders of Zion, control the world. We like to be recognized.

    On what grounds do you base this claim of injustice?

    You’d have had to be paying attention to pick up on this.

    We’re still talking real world when we say “Libertarianism hurts people”.

    So when far more people suffer from action by the US government and state governments, are we talking “real world” when I say “socialism hurts people”? :)

    People were at the mercy of the boom and bust cycle

    Oh, thank goodness you’ve fixed that! :D

    Oh, wow, thanks. It took the strange guy quite a while to say anything so hilarious. And he didn’t even have the style to both blame libertarianism for current economic problems and say it had to be defeated to get rid of economic problems of yore.

    Are you a robot? People generally agree that the responsibility to feed a child is greater then the responsibility to feed yourself.

    Except I wasn’t starving in either scenario.

    Are you saying you’re fine letting people to starve if they aren’t children? Hell, I’m not even fine with that, and I’m an eeeeeevil libertarian.

    Interesting knife tactics, though, Stabby.

    So are you going to answer the question?

    Ah, you don’t actually read a comment before starting to answer it.

    Actually, it’s clear you don’t read the entirety of something after knee-jerking, either. :)

  497. lunchstealer says

    Oh, and to all those who ascribe to libertarians “I’ve got mine, so fuck you” style selfishness, I should point out that I believe that protecting Americans at the expense of other countries is morally wrong. There should be no difference in my mind between an American worker and an Indian worker, or a Cameroonian worker, or a Venezuelan worker.

    I work in GIS – and find myself competing with workers in the US, Canada, South Africa, India, Tunisia, France, Brazil, Indonesia, and China. My support for free markets in labor could easily cost me my job, and has certainly made me have to scramble a lot harder for work. I’ve had to redefine my role more than a few times. Sucks for me. I’ve had a much more stressful career because of free markets in knowledge workers, but I feel that that’s the price I pay for something I believe in. And I and some of my cow-orkers have seen first hand how these jobs are improving the lives of people in India and South Africa. I think it would be selfish of me to try and force companies to do business with me and exclude some of the smart, eager Canadians, Indians, and South Africans I’ve worked with.

    I also almost ended up being an economic refugee, when my previous job was moved to Canada.

    But I stand behind those convictions, though they don’t directly benefit me.

  498. semiapies says

    The strangest thing I’ve found about libertarians is that I’ve not encountered one which is pro-union.

    Bluntly, Flex, you seem like a reasonable person, but I don’t think you’ve talked to terribly many libertarians. Maybe just a lot of Republicans who like to call themselves that and who don’t even come as close as Ron Paul.

    I have no fundamental problem with unions, myself. Yes, some of them gain outsize political power, apply dishonest or even violent methods to get their way, and even get laws kinked in their favor, but so do various corporations, partnerships, etc., and I’m not fundamentally against those methods of organization, either.

    I’ll actually kinda disagree with the Lunchstealer, there. Many of those things sound nice, but I see no need to get rid of unions as they exist. Particularly, I’m not alone among libertarians in supporting the removal of “right-to-work” laws that prevent unions and businesses from reaching agreements to require union membership for new hires. I find such agreements a little iffy, they can certainly go bad directions, and I might not want to work in such a place, depending. However, that’s the right of the people in those unions and businesses to decide and the right of customers and potential new hires to avoid contributing to.

    Ultimately, when it comes to labor, I just want to junk laws that try to bias things in either the direction of “labor”, “management”, or “swift resolutions” handed down by the government. As long as nobody’s getting violent themselves and/or bringing out gangsters and Pinkertons, the government shouldn’t get involved.

  499. semiapies says

    Oh, and to all those who ascribe to libertarians “I’ve got mine, so fuck you” style selfishness

    They sort of alternate, Lunchstealer. One moment, they try to paint libertarians as rich monsters who are trying to grab the last three crumbs portioned out for the starving masses. The next moment, they try to paint them as dumb, Nietzschean schlubs who’d be skinny, unemployed corpses in a gutter somewhere if not for government assistance and protection.

    (Not all of you here, of course, but let’s be straight – most of you.)

    It’s peculiar, but not atypical.

    Myself, I’m a programmer. As a reasonably pale American guy, I “should” be demanding that the government protect me from “unfair” competition from my Indian coworkers, or from people still over in India. As someone in a border state, I “should” be angry at all those immigrants “stealing jobs” (I won’t even say “illegal” immigrants, because I’m not up to pretending folks really care about the legal status).

    I say fuck that racist, protectionist bullshit, whether it’s coming from someone speaking for a company, someone speaking for a union, or some idiot off the street.

  500. Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom says

    What party of mine? You are aware Ron Paul is a Republican in good standing, right?

    Yup. Are you aware that he’s the poster boy of Libertarians anyway? See: The Tea Party (Libertarian half, that was there first before it was appropriated by the Republicans).

    You’re not reading what you’re responding to too closely, are you? :)

    You’re not reading what you write too closely, are you? You specifically said there was no justification. Spoiler alert…

    Aw, how sweet! I’ll print that thanks and put it up on the bulletin board in our Secret Lair, from which we libertarians and our friends, the Elders of Zion, control the world. We like to be recognized.

    I see you’re not familiar with the role deregulation of the markets have played in the latest financial fuck up. The deregulation your party of jackasses has been calling for since forever.

    You’d have had to be paying attention to pick up on this.

    So you’re going to choose not to tell me. That’s an interesting way to state your point. Don’t.

    So when far more people suffer from action by the US government and state governments, are we talking “real world” when I say “socialism hurts people”? :)

    Really? You’re going to call the current US government socialist? The one that barely passed a flaccid, corporate-whore version of health care? REALLY?

    Putting that aside for a moment, why would you invoke US Imperialism to talk about socialism, again? Why not the imperialism of soviet russia? At least that way, a socialist government might actually have had a say at some point in the equation.

    Shit, why not be a little more specific. I delineated 55 million who are being hurt. And it’s not like that was it.

    Oh, thank goodness you’ve fixed that! :D

    We did. 30 years post the great depression before a major economic hit at all, based not on any obvious stupidity in runaway value, but in OPEC deciding it hates us and would block a critical resource. We had a recession in the late 80s, but not a bust like one of the many repeated ruinations of the entire fucking nation like we had prior.

    Oh, wait, please, PLEASE tell me you mean the shit we’ve had in the last 3 years, after we started picking out the threads of the economic regulation sweater. I want to smile from this discussion.

    Fucking moron.

    Oh, wow, thanks. It took the strange guy quite a while to say anything so hilarious. And he didn’t even have the style to both blame libertarianism for current economic problems and say it had to be defeated to get rid of economic problems of yore.

    I’m glad you’re going out of your way to explain your points. Really. It really displays the amount of substance your position has.

    Except I wasn’t starving in either scenario.

    Your point would be? You’re acting like Flex’s question was based on cheap sentiment; It isn’t. I already explained why children were used.

    Are you saying you’re fine letting people to starve if they aren’t children? Hell, I’m not even fine with that, and I’m an eeeeeevil libertarian.

    I answer the questions I’m asked. You asked, “Would you stab someone if your child was starving and you needed to to get them bread?” I would. I don’t condone it, but I am pretty sure I would end up doing so in that situation. Further, you didn’t ask me whether it was okay for people to starve (It’s not). It’s not okay to violence someone to avoid starvation, though; Ideally (Well, ideally in a world where you can’t go get a government dole) if it was just you, with no children involved, and you were confronted, and you couldn’t run, you’d accept arrest. You won’t starve in jail, at least.

    Interesting knife tactics, though, Stabby.

    I wanted it to be clear that I would (like to think I would) not kill someone just to keep my kid from starving. Just hurt them, move along quickly. There’s no sense in violence to begin with, but if you must try to limit the permanent effects.

    Ah, you don’t actually read a comment before starting to answer it.

    Actually, it’s clear you don’t read the entirety of something after knee-jerking, either. :)

    You didn’t answer the question. You evaded it, saying that we can’t work with that question in deciding policy. I note that my counter-point to that hasn’t been responded to. It’s the same bullshit as when politicians say “Let me answer that by asking you this…”

    A similar response from me would like “Why would you need to stab the guy? Obviously there is sufficient government aid, and I won’t have to worry about my child starving”. Thus, I avoid the thrust of the question while claiming I answer it. Claiming I answer a question isn’t the same as actually answering it.