Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Albatross wrote:Hard to say - the tories have drifted towards the centre on SOME social issues, so in that respect definitely. They've also embarked upon the largest series of cuts undertaken for quite some time, in a period when Obama is briefing against such action. I'd go with a tentative yes.
No I wouldn't. Economically they are to the left of the Conservative party of course. Dolt!
Gailbraithe wrote:I have never made any claims that the Tea Party should be opposed by force...I don't think violence is necessary.
well I'm relieved to see that even you don't take this nazi idea seriously. Really.
You're putting words in my mouth and deliberately interpretting my comments in nonsensical ways. It is entirely possible to both consider the nascent fascism of the American right a serious issue and be committed to finding non-violent solutions.
The libertarians arent trying to end democracy in America. What are you even talking about? Some obscure far right theologian opining that democracy is against the word of God isnt a threat to democracy - its free speech. He can say whatever he wants. He just cant *act* on it.
Actually, almost all hardcore libertarians are anti-democracy. The University of Nevada's Hans Hoppe, a prominent libertarian thinker, wrote Democracy: The God The Failed, in which he argues that democracy is a failure because the people can vote to violate the supposed property rights of the propertied class. He even goes so far as to say that in a true libertarian society that all of the "socialists" (which he defines as anyone who thinks that human rights trump property rights) and homosexuals will have to be killed.
This is the fatal flaw of libertarianism: In order for libertarianism to work, there needs to be some means of preventing the greater mass of people from electing anti-libertarian candidates. There has to be a means to prevent socialists and leftists from gaining office -- and of course, if libertarians are able to enact their policies changes, that will lead to a lot of socialists getting elected. This is why libertarians are often heard denigrating democracy, calling it "two wolves and lamb deciding what is for dinner" and other such nonsense. Libertarianism is deeply terrified of democracy, as history has proven that when working people are enfranchised -- when they can vote in a meaningful way -- they vote for their own selfish interests -- choosing clean air and water, safe working conditions, public education, etc. -- which results in regulations on capitalists. Thus for libertarianism to succeed, it must inevitabely destroy democracy.
The sort of policy envisioned by libertarians is so harmful to working people that it cannot survive democracy. This is why the only place in the world where libertarian economic policies have ever been fully enacted is Chile under the murderous regime of Pinochet.
Are we talking about conservatives or libertarians? They're not really the same thing. Anyway I read Eco's article and I answered it point by point so if you think it's reasonable to call conservatives fascists then I think its reasonable for you to back that up.
Your point-by-point answer was more or less completely daft, and demonstrated severe reading comprehension problems and a total lack of logic or reason.
Gailbraithe wrote:
I can see these people gaining power, forcing through an agenda of massive spending cuts that cripple the government, leading to an explosion in poverty and crime, leading to the imposition of martial law, suspension of elections, and the end of democracy in America.
Whoa there slippery slope!
That is hardly a slippery slope argument.
I have a degree in criminal justice, and that is my area of expertise. I have seen numerous studies that demonstrate that spending on poverty relief is the single greatest crime deterrent there is. It is estimated that every dollar spent on the so-called "nanny state" translates into a savings of ten dollars in law enforcement costs. What this means is that if we remove the social programs that prevent tens of millions of Americans from slipping in poverty, there will be a massive explosion in crime. That is not a slippery slope, that is an easily predicted consequence of the policies supported by the right.
If there is a massive explosion in crime as a result of right wing policies, that will translate into a complete rejection of those policies by the next election cycle. Thus the only way that the right will be able to enact such policies and maintain power is by preventing elections. A massive explosion in crime -- particularly the riots that will occur as millions are forced onto the streets and made to starve -- creates the necessary conditions to justify the creation of a police state. Furthermore, by removing the ability to address social unrest through programs like subsidized housing, food stamps and welfare, the right leaves itself only the option to use the brutal force of the police to control society -- a police state.
This is exactly what happened in Chile when Pinochet implemented the exact same economic policies supported by the modern right.
Please, name one libertarian intellectual.
Fredrich Hayek, Hans Hoppe, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard. That's four.
Gailbraithe wrote:...and I made an analogy between the Nazi party of 1932 (before they took control of the government) and the current Tea Party movement.
Gailbraithe wrote:There is literally no difference between the Tea Party and the Nazi Party in 1932.
That's not an analogy, that's a direct statement of equivalence.
Oh fine, you got me. I was being hyperbolic. Now, please, address an actual point, instead of mindlessly harping on a poor choice of wording.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phryxis wrote:Yes, and please don't mock our pain. We have thoroughly screwed up our own political language, and this s really where it starts. "Liberal" basically means "libertarian," but because we're rhetorical giants over here, we decided to make it a slanderous epithet meaning "the exact opposite of a libertarian." It wasn't done out of irony either, they just decided to use the word completely incorrectly.
What makes this comment really funny is that libertarian originally meant the exact same thing as anarchist and socialist. Originally all three words were used to describe the same political movement, which today is the radical antiauthoritarian left. But in the 1970s, the term libertarian was co-opted by crypto-fascists to refer to a system of government in which property rights trump human rights, a system in which everyone without property is born into a state of eternal slavery to those with property.
You think it's reasonable to say a lot of things that are unreasonable. You also think it's reasonable to suggest, with no sense of irony, that we should silence Fox news and AM radio pundits as a means of preventing the spread of fascist ideas.
Except I never said anything of the sort, and that is a bold-faced lie. You, sir, are a liar.
There's a reason that Godwin made a law (or at least the corallaries) that the first person to mention Nazis loses. It's not because Nazis are so very ICKY that mention of them is just not allowed. It's not because mentioning Nazis is so bitingly accurate and fundamentally true, that the speaker is cheating by being so incredibly right, and thus has to lose.
Godwin's Law does not imply in any way that the first person to mention Nazis loses. Godwin's Law states that as any discussion on the internet grows in length, the probability that someone will accuse their opponent of being a Nazi approaches one to one. Godwin's Law is meant to be a joke, and is properly invoked when the argument is on trivial issues -- like vegans calling meat-eaters Nazis. When one is discussing extreme right-wing political movements, comparisons to famous fascist movements are not only likely, they are appropriate.
The reason is because mentioning the Nazis is invariably wrong, idiotic and done by a ridiculous ideologue with no idea of what he speaks.
And I'll continue to maintain my position that the best thing we can do to ensure the rise of fascism is to make it impossible to address the rise of fascism.
The Tea Party is not the Nazis, it's not analogous to the Nazis, it doesn't even hint at the Nazis. The same is true of the American left, the Democrats, the Republicans, etc.
They're not like the Nazis.
Sure they are. The American right's entire political platform is based on hatred, and the target of that hatred is the exact same target as the Nazis: foreigners, homosexuals, socialists, union members, liberals, leftists, the avant-garde, the entertainment industry, etc.
The first thing all fascists do is attempt to divide a nation against itself. To turn white against black, Christian against Muslim, straight against gay, rural against urban, etc. And that is what the modern right is dedicate to: a politics of division and hatred, all masking a political agenda that is designed to only benefit a very small, very wealthy elite.
Don't be a sucker.
Now, to be fair to my past comments on this issue, I do have to admit that I see a greater degree of authoritarianism in the American left than in the American right. It's a fairly minor distinction, both sides are excessively authoritarian in my mind, but the desire to legislate and expand government is more present on the left than on the right.
Which only demonstrates that you know absolutely nothing about the left in America.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/08/29 02:19:54
Gailbraithe wrote:
That is hardly a slippery slope argument.
Uh, yes it is.
X ->Y, Y ->Z, Z ->W...
You must prove each interceding variable, or its an abuse of the transitive property.
Gailbraithe wrote:
I have a degree in criminal justice, and that is my area of expertise. I have seen numerous studies that demonstrate that spending on poverty relief is the single greatest crime deterrent there is. It is estimated that every dollar spent on the so-called "nanny state" translates into a savings of ten dollars in law enforcement costs. What this means is that if we remove the social programs that prevent tens of millions of Americans from slipping in poverty, there will be a massive explosion in crime. That is not a slippery slope, that is an easily predicted consequence of the policies supported by the right.
No, that's not a slippery slope, but its also not the argument that I referenced.
Gailbraithe wrote:
If there is a massive explosion in crime as a result of right wing policies, that will translate into a complete rejection of those policies by the next election cycle. Thus the only way that the right will be able to enact such policies and maintain power is by preventing elections.
So many errors. First, you can't use your classification to explain the classification of others. Second, you are making an economic inference without proof. Third, you are making a psychological inference without proof. I could drag this into semantic matters, but I won't do that if you don't make me.
Gailbraithe wrote:
A massive explosion in crime -- particularly the riots that will occur as millions are forced onto the streets and made to starve -- creates the necessary conditions to justify the creation of a police state.
It does? Cannot the state also allow its own failure?
Gailbraithe wrote:
Furthermore, by removing the ability to address social unrest through programs like subsidized housing, food stamps and welfare, the right leaves itself only the option to use the brutal force of the police to control society -- a police state.
Or non-brutal force, jailing and what-not, the sort of thing we see now.
Gailbraithe wrote:
This is exactly what happened in Chile when Pinochet implemented the exact same economic policies supported by the modern right.
Nope, sorry, try again. Pinochet has very little in common with the American Right. You may be able to illustrate a comparison, but simply stating it as fact is laughable.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Fredrich Hayek, Hans Hoppe, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard. That's four.
None of them are libertarians. You might try referncing political theorists if you wish to reference libertarians; notably:
Rothbard: critical of corporatism.
Hayek: favored tyranny of the majority
Mises: critical of consumerism.
Hoppe: criticizes democracy, especially American democracy.
It seems your definition needs revision.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Oh fine, you got me. I was being hyperbolic. Now, please, address an actual point, instead of mindlessly harping on a poor choice of wording.
No, you weren't being hyperbolic, you made an error. There is a clear difference.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Nazis were, after all, National *Socialists*. If the tea party has any common platform at all, it certainly isn't socialism.
Sorry dude, they're just not much like Nazis or Fascists. They have to potential to harness angry populism, sure, but they're not just not Nazis, no matter how much you want them to be.
Gailbraithe wrote:You're putting words in my mouth and deliberately interpretting my comments in nonsensical ways. It is entirely possible to both consider the nascent fascism of the American right a serious issue and be committed to finding non-violent solutions.
True. However, you your self started the round of suspicion when you wrote: "Does the right accept that this is a democracy and they lost the middle by embracing their extreme, or are they so extreme that they believe their own rhetoric and attack the Tyrant Obama and his Imperial Death Democrats to Save The Republic From Itself? When they have convinced themselves that anyone opposed to their agenda is a traitor to America, and that they are the only Real Americans, what happens if they lose?"
Your point here is basically that while the vast majority of the Tea Partiers may claim to "be committed to finding non-violent solutions", this sort of pacifism is inconsistent with their extremist rhetoric. However, we now you have you declaring that the movement is analogous to one that murdered millions of people. How come you suddenly deserve the benefit of the doubt?
Actually, almost all hardcore libertarians are anti-democracy. The University of Nevada's Hans Hoppe, a prominent libertarian thinker, wrote Democracy: The God The Failed, in which he argues that democracy is a failure because the people can vote to violate the supposed property rights of the propertied class. He even goes so far as to say that in a true libertarian society that all of the "socialists" (which he defines as anyone who thinks that human rights trump property rights) and homosexuals will have to be killed.
While this is interesting, I don't see its relation to the Tea Party. I doubt more than a handful of the people who comprise it have read Hans Hoppe. The Tea Party is pretty consistently pro-democracy (they continuously point out that the job of congress is to serve We The People, and so forth), although this is probably fed by an overly-optimistic view of how widespread support for their movement actually is.
But in the 1970s, the term libertarian was co-opted by crypto-fascists
Really? Libertarians are now "crypto-fascists"? You're like von Mises with socialism.
Anuvver fing - when they do sumfing, they try to make it look like somfink else to confuse everybody. When one of them wants to lord it over the uvvers, 'e says "I'm very speshul so'z you gotta worship me", or "I know summink wot you lot don't know, so yer better lissen good". Da funny fing is, arf of 'em believe it and da over arf don't, so 'e 'as to hit 'em all anyway or run fer it.
Gailbraithe wrote:
That is hardly a slippery slope argument.
Uh, yes it is.
X ->Y, Y ->Z, Z ->W...
You must prove each interceding variable, or its an abuse of the transitive property.
Okay...
Gailbraithe wrote:
I have a degree in criminal justice, and that is my area of expertise. I have seen numerous studies that demonstrate that spending on poverty relief is the single greatest crime deterrent there is. It is estimated that every dollar spent on the so-called "nanny state" translates into a savings of ten dollars in law enforcement costs. What this means is that if we remove the social programs that prevent tens of millions of Americans from slipping in poverty, there will be a massive explosion in crime. That is not a slippery slope, that is an easily predicted consequence of the policies supported by the right.
No, that's not a slippery slope, but its also not the argument that I referenced.
...but then when I do that, you claim it's not the argument I was making.
So when I give a more detailed explanation of the argument, you claim its no longer the same argument.
Gailbraithe wrote:If there is a massive explosion in crime as a result of right wing policies, that will translate into a complete rejection of those policies by the next election cycle. Thus the only way that the right will be able to enact such policies and maintain power is by preventing elections.
So many errors. First, you can't use your classification to explain the classification of others. Second, you are making an economic inference without proof. Third, you are making a psychological inference without proof. I could drag this into semantic matters, but I won't do that if you don't make me.
I have no idea what your first point means.
As for your second point, the only "economic inference" I am making is that cutting spending on social programs -- which is a frequently stated, defining point of the right's agenda -- will increase crime. This is a point so transparently obvious and so easily proven that it hardly demands proving. It is a simple fact that in the absence of a social safety network to provide for the of people cut off from subsistence farming (i.e. urban populations) and employment opportunities, crime will flourish. It is necessarily so, because while I'm generally loathe to cite human nature arguments, the fact remains that humans are adaptive survivors, and its well-established that when forced to choose between obeying rules and total deprivation, humans overwhelmingly choose life over law.
As for your third point, I am not making any psychological inferences. I'm simply citing a political reality: If a party takes power and enacts policies that result in a collapse of society into deprivation, that party will not survive the next round of elections if those elections are remotely fair. If ultra-right conservatives got into power and criminalized abortion, ended welfare, ended unemployment, eradicated OSHA, the EPA and the Department of Education, privatized social security, and all these other ultra-right positions (which have made their way into dozens of state party platforms) the inevitable consequences of such policies would be disastrous from the perspective of the 80% of people who just barely get by thanks to the massive government subsidization of poverty in America. And historically when working people have been the victims of aggressive class warfare by elites, they have turned to the left for remedy.
Gailbraithe wrote:A massive explosion in crime -- particularly the riots that will occur as millions are forced onto the streets and made to starve -- creates the necessary conditions to justify the creation of a police state.
It does? Cannot the state also allow its own failure?
I suppose it's theoretically possible that, given a massive explosion in crime, domestic terrorism, and general anarchy the state could decide to just pack it in and give up, allowing America to dissolve into the worst kind of nightmare of anarchy imaginable, but I don't consider that very likely. The apparatus of a police state already exists, all that is necessary is the will to use it and a justification for the middle class -- much as 9/11 allowed the Bush administration to engage in some pretty serious violations of civil liberties with only the mildest of rebuke. Anyways, ff the poor are rioting for food, the people whom the state actually benefits will demand that police use deadly force to control riots before they'll acquiesce to letting the poor simply raid the supermarkets and tear down the apparatuses of oppression.
Gailbraithe wrote:Furthermore, by removing the ability to address social unrest through programs like subsidized housing, food stamps and welfare, the right leaves itself only the option to use the brutal force of the police to control society -- a police state.
Or non-brutal force, jailing and what-not, the sort of thing we see now.
Yeah, that's what I was talking about when I said "the brutal force of the police." Jailing and what-not. There is really no such thing as "non-brutal force" when you're talking about using the police to oppress the poor, hungry and desperate masses.
Gailbraithe wrote:This is exactly what happened in Chile when Pinochet implemented the exact same economic policies supported by the modern right.
Nope, sorry, try again. Pinochet has very little in common with the American Right. You may be able to illustrate a comparison, but simply stating it as fact is laughable.
The economic policies advocated by the right, Austrian Economics from the "Austrian School" exemplified by the Chicago Boys, were put in place by Pinochet after the '73 coup. Modern tea party manifestos call for the adoption of Austrian economics. In Chile the imposition of these polices lead to a surge in revolutionary leftism and years of violent state oppression, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the effect in America would be any different.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Fredrich Hayek, Hans Hoppe, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard. That's four.
None of them are libertarians. You might try referncing political theorists if you wish to reference libertarians; notably:
Are you effing kidding me? That's your counter-argument, a completely bold faced, easily dispelled lie? Just to give one quick example of how ridiculous you are, here's the wikipedia page for libertarianism. On the sidebar it has links to many other articles, divided by article type. Here's the list of articles linked to under the subject people, as in libertarian people. I'll highlight the important ones:
Oh hey, there's all four of the dudes I mentioned. Including Murray Rothbard. Who is that? Only the man often credited as being the founder of modern libertarianism, the mentor of Ron Paul, and the man who defined the core values of libertarianism for a generation.
How am I supposed to take you seriously when you say garbage like this? You're being totally ridiculous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orkeosaurus wrote:
Gailbraithe wrote:You're putting words in my mouth and deliberately interpretting my comments in nonsensical ways. It is entirely possible to both consider the nascent fascism of the American right a serious issue and be committed to finding non-violent solutions.
True. However, you your self started the round of suspicion when you wrote: "Does the right accept that this is a democracy and they lost the middle by embracing their extreme, or are they so extreme that they believe their own rhetoric and attack the Tyrant Obama and his Imperial Death Democrats to Save The Republic From Itself? When they have convinced themselves that anyone opposed to their agenda is a traitor to America, and that they are the only Real Americans, what happens if they lose?"
Your point here is basically that while the vast majority of the Tea Partiers may claim to "be committed to finding non-violent solutions", this sort of pacifism is inconsistent with their extremist rhetoric. However, we now you have you declaring that the movement is analogous to one that murdered millions of people. How come you suddenly deserve the benefit of the doubt?
I'm sorry, I don't see why I need the benefit of the doubt. There is no logical justification for the leap you are making. That I recognize the right has succumbed to fascism doesn't in any way imply that I think we should kill them. That's just silly. You are, without any cause, denying any possibility that I could be a rational person and that there can be a middle ground.
While this is interesting, I don't see its relation to the Tea Party. I doubt more than a handful of the people who comprise it have read Hans Hoppe. The Tea Party is pretty consistently pro-democracy (they continuously point out that the job of congress is to serve We The People, and so forth), although this is probably fed by an overly-optimistic view of how widespread support for their movement actually is.
Except the Tea Party lives in complete denial of the fact that the government does serve the people...who won the elections. Because the Tea Party considers itself the real America, and thus the only people who actually matter. The Tea Party only believes in democracy when they win the elections.
It's relation to the tea party is this: The Tea Party is fundamentally libertarian in its economic view, having started in part in the Ron Paul movement, and embraces Austrian economics. Hans Hoppe is a professor of economics (University of Nevada) who subscribes to Austrian economics, and his book specifically deals with the problem of asserting libertarian economic policies in a free society, wherin "socialists" are allowed to vote. And his conclusion, following logically from Von Mises and Hayeck, is that democracy is counter to his ideal of liberty.
But his ideal of liberty is literally a world where every square inch of land is owned by a capitalist, and that all of the people who are forced to live on that land should be entirely subject to his law as he declares it, as his property is his right -- and he makes it explicitly clear that the property rights of landlords includes the right to execute renters on their property for the crime of being homosexual. It is literal serfdom, with fuedal lords and knights replaced by property owners and their private security forces.
But in the 1970s, the term libertarian was co-opted by crypto-fascists
Really? Libertarians are now "crypto-fascists"? You're like von Mises with socialism.
Not all libertarians are crypto-fascists, but libertarians like Hayeck and Hoppe certainly are, as are the fantastists of the heroic individualist like Ayn Rand. Rand Paul, the would-be senator from Kentucky, is a crypto-fascist. Bill Maher, also a libertarian, is not a crypto-fascist. He's just a schmuck.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/08/29 04:31:08
Gailbraithe wrote:I'm sorry, I don't see why I need the benefit of the doubt. There is no logical justification for the leap you are making. That I recognize the right has succumbed to fascism doesn't in any way imply that I think we should kill them. That's just silly. You are, without any cause, denying any possibility that I could be a rational person and that there can be a middle ground.
I'm not actually saying that I think you're a violent person; the thrust of my point is that your appraisal of the Tea Party is unfair as well. There has been very little violence associated with them, given the size of the movement, and the economic conditions that triggered it.
To sum it up, extremist rhetoric isn't a sign of impending violence. You aren't likely to take up arms against the people you say you perceive to proto-Nazis, and the Tea Party is unlikely to take up arms against the people they perceive to be Marxist saboteurs of the American government.
Except the Tea Party lives in complete denial of the fact that the government does serve the people...who won the elections. Because the Tea Party considers itself the real America, and thus the only people who actually matter. The Tea Party only believes in democracy when they win the elections.
No, as far as I can tell there's no real contest over Obama's election. There was that one complaint about Black Panthers intimidating voters, and there's a lot of complaining about Obama being a demagogue who bedazzled everyone with his talk about "change", but there isn't any equivalent to, say, the liberal declaration that Bush's first term was stolen. The Tea Party still remembers how unpopular Bush was in his second term, and they'll begrudging accept that Obama won fairly.
Now, if Obama wins in 2012, things are going to get interesting. The Tea Party doesn't believe that "real Americans" didn't vote for Obama, but they do believe, to a large extent, that "real Americans" are tired of him now.
It's relation to the tea party is this: The Tea Party is fundamentally libertarian in its economic view, having started in part in the Ron Paul movement, and embraces Austrian economics. Hans Hoppe is a professor of economics (University of Nevada) who subscribes to Austrian economics, and his book specifically deals with the problem of asserting libertarian economic policies in a free society, wherin "socialists" are allowed to vote. And his conclusion, following logically from Von Mises and Hayeck, is that democracy is counter to his ideal of liberty.
Hayek and von Mises were of the opinion that all forms of governance ran counter to the ideal of liberty; however, I don't remember either of supporting any form of governance in preference to democracy. My understanding of von Mises was that he begrudgingly decided that a democracy was the best form of government due to its stability. However, I haven't read much of either of their works first hand.
In any case, I still think you're mistaken in the belief that the Tea Party is paying close attention to the views of the Austrian school. Even Ron Paul, who is something of a "moderate" as far as people associated with the Austrians go, is starting lose control of the party to the likes of Palin and Beck. The opinions of someone like Hans Hoppe are simply not entering into their worldview, except in a few rare cases. The Tea Party is far more concerned with constitutionalism, and American exceptionality, both concepts that go hand in hand with support of democratic republicanism and separation of powers.
But his ideal of liberty is literally a world where every square inch of land is owned by a capitalist, and that all of the people who are forced to live on that land should be entirely subject to his law as he declares it, as his property is his right -- and he makes it explicitly clear that the property rights of landlords includes the right to execute renters on their property for the crime of being homosexual. It is literal serfdom, with fuedal lords and knights replaced by property owners and their private security forces.
This problem may be the death knell of (right) libertarian philosophy. However, this is all, once again, going over the heads of most people in the Tea Party (and of mainstream politics in general).
Not all libertarians are crypto-fascists, but libertarians like Hayeck and Hoppe certainly are, as are the fantastists of the heroic individualist like Ayn Rand. Rand Paul, the would-be senator from Kentucky, is a crypto-fascist. Bill Maher, also a libertarian, is not a crypto-fascist. He's just a schmuck.
I'm still going to have to declare this proposition to be ridiculous. While I don't fully agree with Eco's concept of "ur-fascism", the first two points traits he describes (traditionalism and irrationalism) are certainly core concepts in any look at fascism. However, I don't see any strong traditionalist elements in Austrian or Objectivist theory. To the contrary, laissez-faire economics are frequently criticised for their lack of real world testing. Austrian or Objectivist theory cannot be considered "irrationalist" by any stretch of the imagination, they're among the most rationalist theories around (Objectivism and Praxeology both purport to be derived entirely by deductive reason, with no further observation required besides "a man acts" and "A=A").
Anuvver fing - when they do sumfing, they try to make it look like somfink else to confuse everybody. When one of them wants to lord it over the uvvers, 'e says "I'm very speshul so'z you gotta worship me", or "I know summink wot you lot don't know, so yer better lissen good". Da funny fing is, arf of 'em believe it and da over arf don't, so 'e 'as to hit 'em all anyway or run fer it.
Well, it's a photoshop... So, to quote Albatross, "The answer is yes and no."
Libertarianism is deeply terrified of democracy
It's funny you state it this way, but also entirely congruent with your bizzare "everyone that's not me is evil" ideology.
I prefer to say that libertarianism is unsustainable, for the reasons you outline, and thus can never really exist on any large scale. It depends on people remaining committed to its ideals, and if enough people decide to dispense with it, it has no means to defend itself.
In this respect it's the exact opposite of what you pretend it is, but it's pretty typical of you to identify things you don't agree with as the most devolved, corrupted and bastardized mutation of the thing in question.
The sad news for you, is that similar corruptions of your beloved leftist/Marxist ideals are all of the worst mass murdering dictatorships in history. And they're also very real, and very material, unlike the obscure lunatics you pretend represent all ideologies besides your own.
How many libertarians do you think have even HEARD of Hans Hoppe?
And how many Marxists do you think have heard of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot?
Stop playing the exaggerated boogeyman game. It's not one that you have any chance of winning.
I have a degree in criminal justice, and that is my area of expertise.
DUDE. Enough with the credentialism. You have a criminal justice degree from a community college. Pulling rank on people is obnoxious and petty. Doing it when you don't even have any rank to begin with adds "pitiable" to the list of adjectives.
What this means is that if we remove the social programs that prevent tens of millions of Americans from slipping in poverty, there will be a massive explosion in crime.
I wasn't aware that people were calling for and end to the "social programs that prevent tens of millions of Americans from slipping in poverty." Did I miss the Republican "drive people into poverty" plank?
Nobody has this intention. The rhetoric actually tends to focus on waste and corruption. For example, why are we ALL paying for ACORN to go around registering Democrat voters? Why is federal money going to bail out unions, when the unions then use their money to help Democrats get elected?
This is exactly what happened in Chile when Pinochet implemented the exact same economic policies supported by the modern right.
Nice! That's what a two year community college degree buys you... The wit and wisdom to circumvent the common man's Hitler reference, and replace it with a Pinochet reference.
I can't wait for the Republicans to start disappearing people. I hope they start in the Northwest.
Except I never said anything of the sort, and that is a bold-faced lie. You, sir, are a liar.
And you, sir, are a TREASURE!
Godwin's Law does not imply in any way that the first person to mention Nazis loses.
I wonder why I mentioned the corrollaries then?
But, thanks for reminding us that you've already lost the debate. We know.
To turn white against black
And who is doing that more aggressively than the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson? It's an industry for them, a powerbase. The Americ right wishes racism would just go away and stop being an issue. It's the American left, the race-baiters like Sharpton and Jackson, that seek to maintain it as an issue.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/08/29 06:21:36
Phryxis wrote:It's funny you state it this way, but also entirely congruent with your bizzare "everyone that's not me is evil" ideology.
That's ridiculous. I don't think the moderate liberal supporters of capitalism that make up the bulk of the Democratic mainstream are evil, even though I fundamentally disagree with their position. This is nothing more than character assassination. And unlike Godwin's Law, which is a joke, the argument ad hominiem is an actual fallacy that actually does invalidate the argument.
In this respect it's the exact opposite of what you pretend it is, but it's pretty typical of you to identify things you don't agree with as the most devolved, corrupted and bastardized mutation of the thing in question.
So, I take it character assassination is the sum total of your counter-argument?
The sad news for you, is that similar corruptions of your beloved leftist/Marxist ideals are all of the worst mass murdering dictatorships in history. And they're also very real, and very material, unlike the obscure lunatics you pretend represent all ideologies besides your own.
Except that I'm not a Marxist in any sense...
How many libertarians do you think have even HEARD of Hans Hoppe?
I don't know. The more knowledgeable ones I've encountered all know of him.
And how many Marxists do you think have heard of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot?
I don't know many Marxists.
What this means is that if we remove the social programs that prevent tens of millions of Americans from slipping in poverty, there will be a massive explosion in crime.
I wasn't aware that people were calling for and end to the "social programs that prevent tens of millions of Americans from slipping in poverty." Did I miss the Republican "drive people into poverty" plank?
Nobody has this intention. The rhetoric actually tends to focus on waste and corruption.
Dude, please. Reality. I pay attention to the news, I see the things the GOP says about unemployment and entitlements. I know who Grover Norquist is and how much influence his group has on the right's economic agenda. I've seen Paul Ryan's Roadmap for American Ruin. You can keep deluding yourself that the actual conservative movement isn't on record, but it only makes me think you're a disingenuous waste of time. Which is becoming painfully obvious.
For example, why are we ALL paying for ACORN to go around registering Democrat voters?
We aren't. The government provides funding for community voter registration drives, to help ensure that everyone who wants to register knows how to both register and how to have their vote counted. ACORN is one of many groups that helps the government administer these programs. If ACORN registers more Democrats than Republicans, then it is almost certainly because ACORN is situtated primarily in poor, urban minority communities...which trend strongly Democratic. But we are also paying for numerous right-wing organizations to do the same thing.
Also, this is not an example of waste or corruption.
Why is federal money going to bail out unions, when the unions then use their money to help Democrats get elected?
What federal money goes to unions?
Godwin's Law does not imply in any way that the first person to mention Nazis loses.
I wonder why I mentioned the corrollaries then?
I wonder why too, since internet jokes are not logical fallacies.
But, thanks for reminding us that you've already lost the debate. We know.
This isn't a debate. You have no real argument. Your entire fake argument consists of pretending an internet meme (Godwin's Law) is a logical fallacy (it is not), and attacking my character. You can't win a debate that way.
To turn white against black
And who is doing that more aggressively than the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson? It's an industry for them, a powerbase. The Americ right wishes racism would just go away and stop being an issue. It's the American left, the race-baiters like Sharpton and Jackson, that seek to maintain it as an issue.
Right, because racism doesn't actually exist. If "race-baiters" like Sharpton and Jackson would just stop pointing out all the racism in American society, then it would just Magically Disappear. Dude, I know right-wingers want to stick their heads in the sand about race, but *gasp* its still an issue in America, and it won't go away by pretending it doesn't exist.
So, I take it character assassination is the sum total of your counter-argument?
What you perceive as "character assassination" is just me telling you how you come across. If it's not an accurate representation of your beliefs, then you might want to learn how to express yourself better.
For example, you seem incapable of discussing the American right with any degree of moderation or even sanity. They're Nazis, they're like Pinochet, they're racists, they're haters...
The reality is that they're just people, American people, who have a slightly different ideology from you.
I'm not trying to assassinate your character. You're doing that to yourself. I'm simply telling you that you're doing it.
I know who Grover Norquist is and how much influence his group has on the right's economic agenda. I've seen Paul Ryan's Roadmap for American Ruin.
Yeah, and there are also people on the left, closer to real power than they should be, who have left-equivalent ideas. There are crazies out there. The right doesn't have a monopoly on them, and they don't speak for the right, just as Bill Ayers doesn't speak for the left.
I wonder why too, since internet jokes are not logical fallacies.
Who said it was a logical fallacy?
I was quite clear that I was referring to a corrallary of the law, and you missed it. Realizing that you messed up, you tried to pretend I was saying something I wasn't...
I never said you had violated a rule of logic. What I'm saying is that you're not just wrong, you're doing it in a very cliched fashion.
If "race-baiters" like Sharpton and Jackson would just stop pointing out all the racism in American society, then it would just Magically Disappear.
Racism has almost totally disappeared in America on the interpersonal level. There has never been a population in human history more concerned with "not being racist" than white Americans.
Now, that's not to say that there are not racist white Americans. That's not to say there aren't unintentionally racist white Americans. But, in a huge majoriy, white Americans feel it's a VERY BAD thing to be racist.
I also don't mean to imply that racism doesn't have a legacy that goes on today. The negative factors impacting the black community (for example) are very real. They aren't the product of anybody's specific intentions, though. Nobody (relevant) is planning and designing the oppression of the American black man. Instead, this oppression comes from circumstance, from established mechanisms, from demographic realities, etc. etc. etc
There's no question at all that more needs to be done...
But Jackson and Sharpton aren't living in that reality. It's hard to get people angry at nebulous concepts and tangled networks of social interactions. So Sharpton and Jackson keep it personal. They want every black person to walk out of their house and see white people that hate them, and are out to get them. In that sort of a world, you really NEED a guy like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton to get your back. There are REAL enemies out there.
I was listening to Alveda King talk the other day, and the difference between her and the race-baiters is just ludicrous. It's same as the difference between them and her uncle.
I've watched King's speech (yesterday was the anniversary) and it was powerful in a way that nothing is today. But it was also about acceptance, tolerance and cooperation. The dream that King spoke of is a dream that puts Sharpton and Jackson out of a job.
The reason black people still struggle in our society is that, since MLK, they have had to suffer under the likes of Sharpton, Jackson and Farrakhan. They have no leadership, only exploiters.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/08/29 07:43:48
Gailbraithe wrote:
So when I give a more detailed explanation of the argument, you claim its no longer the same argument.
Yes. If you were at all familiar with academic argument, you would know this.
Gailbraithe wrote:
I have no idea what your first point means.
I expected as much. Sad, really.
Gailbraithe wrote:
As for your second point, the only "economic inference" I am making is that cutting spending on social programs -- which is a frequently stated, defining point of the right's agenda -- will increase crime.
Again, there is a lot wrong with this. Even at he most fundamental level, you must support the relationship you are describing.
Gailbraithe wrote:
This is a point so transparently obvious and so easily proven that it hardly demands proving. It is a simple fact that in the absence of a social safety network to provide for the of people cut off from subsistence farming (i.e. urban populations) and employment opportunities, crime will flourish.
No, that's not a simple fact. That may be what they teach in Community College, but no one who is at all versed in the subject cares about that.
Gailbraithe wrote:
It is necessarily so, because while I'm generally loathe to cite human nature arguments, the fact remains that humans are adaptive survivors, and its well-established that when forced to choose between obeying rules and total deprivation, humans overwhelmingly choose life over law.
Has it now? What studies can you cite?
Gailbraithe wrote:
I suppose it's theoretically possible that, given a massive explosion in crime, domestic terrorism, and general anarchy the state could decide to just pack it in and give up, allowing America to dissolve into the worst kind of nightmare of anarchy imaginable, but I don't consider that very likely. The apparatus of a police state already exists, all that is necessary is the will to use it and a justification for the middle class -- much as 9/11 allowed the Bush administration to engage in some pretty serious violations of civil liberties with only the mildest of rebuke. Anyways, ff the poor are rioting for food, the people whom the state actually benefits will demand that police use deadly force to control riots before they'll acquiesce to letting the poor simply raid the supermarkets and tear down the apparatuses of oppression.
Why? Sorry, but social science does not allow that sort of correlation.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Yeah, that's what I was talking about when I said "the brutal force of the police." Jailing and what-not. There is really no such thing as "non-brutal force" when you're talking about using the police to oppress the poor, hungry and desperate masses.
Ok, exemplify it.
Gailbraithe wrote:
The economic policies advocated by the right, Austrian Economics from the "Austrian School" exemplified by the Chicago Boys, were put in place by Pinochet after the '73 coup. Modern tea party manifestos call for the adoption of Austrian economics. In Chile the imposition of these polices lead to a surge in revolutionary leftism and years of violent state oppression, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the effect in America would be any different.
Evidence?
Gailbraithe wrote:
Are you effing kidding me? That's your counter-argument, a completely bold faced, easily dispelled lie? Just to give one quick example of how ridiculous you are, here's the wikipedia page for libertarianism. On the sidebar it has links to many other articles, divided by article type. Here's the list of articles linked to under the subject people, as in libertarian people. I'll highlight the important ones:
Oh hey, there's all four of the dudes I mentioned. Including Murray Rothbard. Who is that? Only the man often credited as being the founder of modern libertarianism, the mentor of Ron Paul, and the man who defined the core values of libertarianism for a generation.
How am I supposed to take you seriously when you say garbage like this? You're being totally ridiculous.
How am I supposed to take you seriously when yo rely on Wikipedia?
Seriously, none of the above are ideologically consistent with modern libertarianism. You might know that if you had actually read anticking regarding politics.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/08/29 08:50:37
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Gailbraithe wrote:
So when I give a more detailed explanation of the argument, you claim its no longer the same argument.
Yes. If you were at all familiar with academic argument, you would know this.
This is just ridiculous bullying tactics that you are engaging in because you have no actual point.
Gailbraithe wrote:
I have no idea what your first point means.
I expected as much. Sad, really.
More of the same.
Since your arguments are bereft of any sort of evidence, your arguments are always abusive, and you engage constantly in disingenuous, irrational argument -- like insisting Murray Rothbard isn't a libertarian intellectual -- I'm done wasting my time engaging with you. Welcome to my killfile, dogma.
Gailbraithe wrote:
This is just ridiculous bullying tactics that you are engaging in because you have no actual point.
Are you really going to engage me regarding the ethics of debate, CRT 'theorist'?
Gailbraithe wrote:
Welcome to my killfile, dogma.
Kill file? Are you threatening my life? I', guessing this is the last we'll be hearing from you for, at least, some time. Enjoy your self-imposed exile.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Ah, well then I have learned something. Still, Gailbraithe's arguments, being theoretical at the core, lack any sort of tacit support. As such, it is odd, and hilarious, to be criticized for positing anything that lacks evidence.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Gailbraithe wrote:...the argument ad hominiem is an actual fallacy that actually does invalidate the argument.
No, Phryxis didn't use ad hominem. It isn't ad hominem to label one's position regarding a given topic, in this case your presentation of yourself. Ad hominem involves substituting personal attacks for an argumenative premise, Phyxis hasn't done that; its simply that you are acting in that fashion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gailbraithe wrote:
Actually, almost all hardcore libertarians are anti-democracy. The University of Nevada's Hans Hoppe, a prominent libertarian thinker, wrote Democracy: The God The Failed, in which he argues that democracy is a failure because the people can vote to violate the supposed property rights of the propertied class.
Hoppe isn't a libertarian. Really, he isn't The book your referencing is essentially Hoppe's Communist Manifesto; advocating a sort of utopia based on what he calls the natural order (basically anarcho-capitalism). This runs directly against American libertarianism which explicitly predicates itself on American political conditions; especially the Constitution.
I guess you could posit that Hoppe falls into the academic category of 'libertarian' but that isn't at all useful with respect to political commentary, nor is it useful on an academic level as the breadth of what constitutes a 'libertarian' doesn't allow one to use someone like Hoppe to characterize the whole of the theory group.
Gailbraithe wrote:
This is the fatal flaw of libertarianism: In order for libertarianism to work, there needs to be some means of preventing the greater mass of people from electing anti-libertarian candidates.
That's the nature of all forms of government when the state is predicated on a democratic process.
Gailbraithe wrote:
The sort of policy envisioned by libertarians is so harmful to working people that it cannot survive democracy. This is why the only place in the world where libertarian economic policies have ever been fully enacted is Chile under the murderous regime of Pinochet.
Pinochet wasn't a libertarian. He liberalized the economy, and downsized the state, but he also instituted a fixed exchange rate, which cuts strongly against the monetarist theory that dominated the Chicago Boys. Additionally, the economic measures instituted by Pinochet were continued and strengthened following Chile's transition to democracy, which fairly well does away with your argument that free market capitalism cannot survive contact with the electorate.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/08/29 22:41:15
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
How am I supposed to take you seriously when yo rely on a Wikipedia article with warnings about accuracy at the top of the page?
Fixed that
Never touch a Wikipedia article with warnings on it. I can tell you from experience that they're usually there for a reason
Of course, I wasn't actually citing a wikipedia article. I was just showing that the wikipedia series of articles on libertarianism included every single one of the names I mentioned as important libertarians. It's easy to attack wikipedia, as dogma did, but it misses the real point: Those four men I named are all famous libertarian thinkers, who are oft-cited by other libertarian thinkers, and whose work was vital to the development of libertarianism.
And dogma's counter-argument is to say "Nuh-uh, you're stupid!" without any sort of substance to his argument. It's beyond ridiculous. I mean Murray Rothbard is called "the father of libertarianism," and is widely regarded as one of the major proponents of the modern libertarian movement. Here, this is Rothbard's biography on Mises.org, one of the most prominent libertarian sites on the web. Read through it and decide for yourself if Rothbard is fairly described a libertarian thinker.
Dogma claiming that Rothbard (or any of the men I mentioned) is not a libertarian thinker is absurdity of the highest order. It really isn't all that different than Dogma claiming that the sky is orange, cows gives gasoline and parrots rule from far Arcadia. It's pure, unadulterated nonsense.
And yet, he expects me to take him seriously. He's a complete joke. And this is how he acts in every single argument, he just sits there adopting a condescending, know-it-all attitude in which he smugly derides people for not understanding his vague and incomprehensible statements while simultaneously denying clear and evident facts of which there can be no serious denial. And he boldly and falsely misrepresents complex theories in such a way that actual communication with him is impossible (such as the ridiculous nonsense he has spouted regarding critical race theory).
He, like many right-wing psuedo-intellectuals, relies entirely on being smary and disingenuous to "win" arguments by frustrating whomever he is arguing with. He is intellectually bankrupt and completely dishonest to his core, and there is nothing to be gained at all from engaging with his ilk. He's a liar and a fraud, and that is all he is.
That's the nature of all forms of government when the state is predicated on a democratic process.
Exactly. You could have a democratic vote that decides to abolish the democratic vote.
Does that mean the democracy is anti-democratic?
Additionally, the economic measures instituted by Pinochet were continued and strengthened following Chile's transition to democracy, which fairly well does away with your argument that free market capitalism cannot survive contact with the electorate.
He also practiced disappearing, torture and general brutality. These are not tenets of libertarianism, they're tenets of dictatorship/crazy.
He is intellectually bankrupt and completely dishonest to his core, and there is nothing to be gained at all from engaging with his ilk. He's a liar and a fraud, and that is all he is.
Wow, classy. Put people on ignore, and then spend five paragraphs attacking them personally and directly.
I won't pretend I have anything but contempt for your ideology and delivery, but I can at least constrain my criticism to your ideas, to their lack of merit, and to the abrasive way you present your ideas.
You just spent five paragraphs insulting dogma personally, calling him a liar and a fool.
Good luck with this guy, Mods. Your best hope is that he discovers that we're ALL racist and puts as ALL on ignore, so we don't have to listen to him anymore.
Honestly, you can ban him now, or you can ban him after he's accused everyone here of being a racist liar. He's not going to let you off without banning him, though.
Phryxis wrote:Wow, classy. Put people on ignore, and then spend five paragraphs attacking them personally and directly.
I won't pretend I have anything but contempt for your ideology and delivery, but I can at least constrain my criticism to your ideas, to their lack of merit, and to the abrasive way you present your ideas.
You just spent five paragraphs insulting dogma personally, calling him a liar and a fool.
Good luck with this guy, Mods. Your best hope is that he discovers that we're ALL racist and puts as ALL on ignore, so we don't have to listen to him anymore.
Honestly, you can ban him now, or you can ban him after he's accused everyone here of being a racist liar. He's not going to let you off without banning him, though.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Phryxis...
Why don't you flood my inbox with some more of your hate-filled personal attacks. Because attacking my family, my painting skills, and my physical appearance all because we disagree on politics was truly, truly classy.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/08/29 23:45:06
[quote=dogma}
Please, name one libertarian intellectual.
.
Here's three taken shamelessly from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Edward Fesser- "What Libritarianism isn't" http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/feser2.html Tibor R. Machan-Neither Left nor Right
Robert Nozick- Anarchy, State, and Utopia
