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.

 azazel the cat wrote:
I've often said that anyone who believes in hardcore, you-can't-tell-me-what-I-can't-do Libertarianism should be forced to relocate to Centralia, PA.

It's a 5 hours and 15 minutes away from me... roadtrip? I feel like this would sum up my trip well:


Note: The sign no longer exists...

 Seaward wrote:

Why is it you folks don't trust government a jot but give absolute and unrestrained freedoms to private enterprise. On paper, governments must be elected, must seek to appease everyone with a vote, but private interest is driven by the accumulation of wealth and if left free, as proven in the past, will abuse the freedoms of the individual, both employee and those who's needs or wants contend with that of the business. I get the notions of encouraging folks to become business owners, start their own way into the capitalist dream, I actually find much to sympathize with there, but the multinationals now, the 'too big to prosecute' powers that be, how can they be libertarian, there is no liberty in what they bring, they bring order and inforcement of their will with every bit of zeal you accuse democratic governments of secretly harboring. Is it a true Darwinian capitalism you want? Because unrestrained, unregulated, the megacorps will crush human freedoms for all but a very small number, I see no liberty in it.

Why is big government terrible yet big business, mega-corps and monopolies, great news. Don't they carry just as much loss of individual freedom as big government?

No, they don't. They can't legislate, for one.

We are living in a country that has recognized corporations as people. Big business lobbies and buys politicians with billions of dollars.

So yeah, businesses can very effectively and are very effectively legislating.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
We are living in a country that has recognized corporations as people. Big business lobbies and buys politicians with billions of dollars.

So yeah, businesses can very effectively and are very effectively legislating.

So you'd prefer to leave lobbying only to super PACs?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

Why is it you folks don't trust government a jot but give absolute and unrestrained freedoms to private enterprise. On paper, governments must be elected, must seek to appease everyone with a vote, but private interest is driven by the accumulation of wealth and if left free, as proven in the past, will abuse the freedoms of the individual, both employee and those who's needs or wants contend with that of the business. I get the notions of encouraging folks to become business owners, start their own way into the capitalist dream, I actually find much to sympathize with there, but the multinationals now, the 'too big to prosecute' powers that be, how can they be libertarian, there is no liberty in what they bring, they bring order and inforcement of their will with every bit of zeal you accuse democratic governments of secretly harboring. Is it a true Darwinian capitalism you want? Because unrestrained, unregulated, the megacorps will crush human freedoms for all but a very small number, I see no liberty in it.

Why is big government terrible yet big business, mega-corps and monopolies, great news. Don't they carry just as much loss of individual freedom as big government?

No, they don't. They can't legislate, for one.

We are living in a country that has recognized corporations as people. Big business lobbies and buys politicians with billions of dollars.

So yeah, businesses can very effectively and are very effectively legislating.

True that, and not to our benefit.

As a moderate libertarian, its Interesting to see what other's view of libertarianism are.

 Seaward wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
We are living in a country that has recognized corporations as people. Big business lobbies and buys politicians with billions of dollars.

So yeah, businesses can very effectively and are very effectively legislating.

So you'd prefer to leave lobbying only to super PACs?

Can big business not fund a super PAC then?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Can big business not fund a super PAC then?

Sure they can. Pretending that super PACs go away if you keep businesses from funding politics is hilarious, though.

Money is political influence. I'm not sure why you're comfortable with George Soros or the Koch brothers buying it.

 Seaward wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Can big business not fund a super PAC then?

Sure they can. Pretending that super PACs go away if you keep businesses from funding politics is hilarious, though.

Money is political influence. I'm not sure why you're comfortable with George Soros or the Koch brothers buying it.

Presumably because people aren't 100% about profit, whereas big business is.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Presumably because people aren't 100% about profit, whereas big business is.

Business is 100% about self-interest, as are people.

 Seaward wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Can big business not fund a super PAC then?

Sure they can. Pretending that super PACs go away if you keep businesses from funding politics is hilarious, though.

Money is political influence. I'm not sure why you're comfortable with George Soros or the Koch brothers buying it.

I did not say that I was comfortable with super PACs, I'm amused that I say 'I do not like big business interfering in the political system' and you cite the owners of Soros Financial and Koch Industries funding and question why I am comfortable with them?

I'm not, I'd love to see individual funding restricted to a certain amount. I think this country would really benefit from all the bloody fireworks, bread and circuses removed from it's politics.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I did not say that I was comfortable with super PACs, I'm amused that I say 'I do not like big business interfering in the political system' and you cite the owners of Soros Financial and Koch Industries funding and question why I am comfortable with them?

Yes, as they were involved with funneling massive amounts of private money into the hands of politicians prior to the much-maligned "corporations are people!" fracas. Not much changed, in other words, yet somehow that ruling now means we're all living in Shadowrun and we just don't know it, apparently.

I'm not, I'd love to see individual funding restricted to a certain amount. I think this country would really benefit from all the bloody fireworks, bread and circuses removed from it's politics.

Oh, come on. You'd love to see a lot more than that.

 Seaward wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I did not say that I was comfortable with super PACs, I'm amused that I say 'I do not like big business interfering in the political system' and you cite the owners of Soros Financial and Koch Industries funding and question why I am comfortable with them?

Yes, as they were involved with funneling massive amounts of private money into the hands of politicians prior to the much-maligned "corporations are people!" fracas. Not much changed, in other words, yet somehow that ruling now means we're all living in Shadowrun and we just don't know it, apparently.

We are entering an age where corporations are becoming too big to prosecute, back to the time of the Hursts, the Cotton mill bosses, the new financial kings and queens who might be benevolent, but given their hunger for profit, will likely be malevolent. A government has to appease a percentage of the population to get back into power, the corporation is not so restricted, it simply exists to consume and defeat it's rivals. It's moral compass is more dangerously broad.

 Seaward wrote:

I'm not, I'd love to see individual funding restricted to a certain amount. I think this country would really benefit from all the bloody fireworks, bread and circuses removed from it's politics.

Oh, come on. You'd love to see a lot more than that.

What do you mean?

 azazel the cat wrote:

Seaward wrote:Neither side represents me, but the Republicans are at least a little closer, philosophically, and they try to pull less nanny state gak.

Just so we're clear, when you say "nanny state gak", exactly what are you referring to? Because in order for your statement to be even remotely correct, you must be referring to only petty crap like those assinine soft drink laws, and not the orwellian, hyper-instrusive planks that comprise the GOP platform.

Erm... what would "hyper-instrusive planks that comprise the GOP platform" that be?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
We are entering an age where corporations are becoming too big to prosecute, back to the time of the Hursts, the Cotton mill bosses, the new financial kings and queens who might be benevolent, but given their hunger for profit, will likely be malevolent. A government has to appease a percentage of the population to get back into power, the corporation is not so restricted, it simply exists to consume and defeat it's rivals. It's moral compass is more dangerously broad.

I'm amused that you believe we ever left that age once it started.

Yes, that is what corporations exist for. To produce profits. Some win, some lose. It's no different among people. I think you have this hazy notion in your head that if everyone's slate was completely blank when they started out, and had the same access to everything, all would succeed equally. That's not the way it works. Never has been, never will be. Some rise, some fall.

What do you mean?

I'll shorthand with 'the rise of the proletariat'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Erm... what would "hyper-instrusive planks that comprise the GOP platform" that be?

Opposition to abortion, gay marriage, and drug legalization, I'm betting.

 Seaward wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Can big business not fund a super PAC then?

Sure they can. Pretending that super PACs go away if you keep businesses from funding politics is hilarious, though.

Money is political influence. I'm not sure why you're comfortable with George Soros or the Koch brothers buying it.

And don't forget that The Tides Foundation out spends Koch/Soros multiple times over...

It's not just businesses MGS.

Anybody that claims to be a moderate and also equates welfare with a nanny state is lying about one of those things...

 whembly wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Seaward wrote:Neither side represents me, but the Republicans are at least a little closer, philosophically, and they try to pull less nanny state gak.

Just so we're clear, when you say "nanny state gak", exactly what are you referring to? Because in order for your statement to be even remotely correct, you must be referring to only petty crap like those assinine soft drink laws, and not the orwellian, hyper-instrusive planks that comprise the GOP platform.

Erm... what would "hyper-instrusive planks that comprise the GOP platform" that be?

I think he's referring to the "death before disco" plank. A party that can't do the hustle is just wrong.

 d-usa wrote:
Anybody that claims to be a moderate and also equates welfare with a nanny state is lying about one of those things...

Frazzled claimed to be a moderate, I equated welfare with a nanny state.

So I have to admit I'm not entirely sure who you're talking about. Do you know?

Pretty much just a summary of a couple of posters based on posts they have made over the last year.

No need to feel singled out.

 Seaward wrote:
Opposition to abortion, gay marriage, and drug legalization, I'm betting.

Interestingly, until the last twelve months, the Democrats opposed everything except abortion as well. But Democrats can do the funky chicken, so they're ok. Not like the Republicans, who've never even see the electric boogaloo, much less done it.

 Seaward wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
We are entering an age where corporations are becoming too big to prosecute, back to the time of the Hursts, the Cotton mill bosses, the new financial kings and queens who might be benevolent, but given their hunger for profit, will likely be malevolent. A government has to appease a percentage of the population to get back into power, the corporation is not so restricted, it simply exists to consume and defeat it's rivals. It's moral compass is more dangerously broad.

I'm amused that you believe we ever left that age once it started.

Yes, that is what corporations exist for. To produce profits. Some win, some lose. It's no different among people. I think you have this hazy notion in your head that if everyone's slate was completely blank when they started out, and had the same access to everything, all would succeed equally. That's not the way it works. Never has been, never will be. Some rise, some fall.

I'm glad I provided you with amusement, I classify the creation of the welfare state, the removal of workhouses, healthcare, unemployment benefits, state education and improved individual rights in legislation and the market as signs that we did leave that all behind, and recent activities as worrying signs of slipping backwards into that time again.

 Seaward wrote:

What do you mean?

I'll shorthand with 'the rise of the proletariat'.

I am happy with a regulated free market, I believe business must be monitored to ensure it practices in keeping with the morality of the nation, I believe every citizen should be able to receive the protection of the military from external threat, the protection of the police from internal threat, an education to degree level according to capability instead of being crippled with debt for years for daring to be a poor person seeking higher education, universal healthcare with emergencies as priorities, a capable state pension and the support of the state in situations of unemployment or long term sickness, both of which cases the citizen will be assessed for their capabilities to work for the state toward the betterment of the people, ensuring that they continue to contribute, keep their self respect and the respect of their peers. I believe taxation should be a percentage of income, increasing on a sliding scale of percentage according to income increase, the more you earn, the more tax you pay, so that a situation of a millionaire paying less % tax than his secretary is made a thing of the past.
I absolutely believe that initiative, hard work and innovation should be rewarded, but the current situation does not reward that and instead enforces a new aristocracy, trickledown has failed and we have a financial elite so powerful and so rich that it is nigh on impossible to breach it.

So, less of the 'reds under the beds' from you, sunshine.

 Seaward wrote:

What do you mean?

I'll shorthand with 'the rise of the proletariat'.

So anyone who disagrees with you is a communist. Are you for real?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

What do you mean?

I'll shorthand with 'the rise of the proletariat'.

So anyone who disagrees with you is a communist. Are you for real?

Thats not what he said or meant.

I believe what he meant is that these ideals put us at risk of slipping into a heavily socialist way of government, which is just about the worst thing that could happen. Its not an intentional conversion on the part of the proponents, but they may willfully ignore the danger they are causing.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
So anyone who disagrees with you is a communist. Are you for real?

What would make you believe something said in response to a quoted post applies to everyone who disagrees with me?

I don't think I know more than a handful politicians that haven't done the funky chicken. Most of them say one thing, then do another once in office. All special interest groups want theirs and don't want to give anything up. I've been swarmed with "tell Obama not to negotiate on Social Security and Medicare!" emails from the same people that complain about the Republicans refusing to compromise.

Politics do what they need to do to stay elected, they serve themselves, then their donors, then the people.

But the electorate is no better than them.

I've worked with a guy who believed 100% that Federal taxation was unconstitutional and refuses to pay taxes (don't ask me how he does it), and when I asked him how he can believe that and still work for the federal government and cash his taxpayer funded pay check every week he got pissed off and called me a communist.

I worked with a Tea Party nutter who was in the Army National Guard and worked for the Department of Veterans Affairs. She claimed to be extremely educated in all things politics and knew everything that was going on. But somehow she thought that the Department of Veterans Affairs was an agency that belonged to the Department of Defense, didn't know that we were a cabinet level agency and argued with we that we were not, and believed that we were in a different branch of the FOUR branches of government (I do believe that is some Glenn Beck influenced ignorance there). How can you claim to be politically educated and not even know who the feth you work for?

In general, the amount of people I work with that think the government is evil and should be spending less money but who work for the Government and bitch when the pay freeze gets extended another year is just mind blowing.

In Oklahoma we have a lot of people who claim to be small government/libertarian and at the same time push for a socially conservative government. Those two things just don't go together. How can you claim to be small government when you want the government to regulate away things that make you feel icky?

Politics, feth me...

 Seaward wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
So anyone who disagrees with you is a communist. Are you for real?

What would make you believe something said in response to a quoted post applies to everyone who disagrees with me?

Because you have a tendency to pull that argument when people disagree with you. It's getting old.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
So anyone who disagrees with you is a communist. Are you for real?

What would make you believe something said in response to a quoted post applies to everyone who disagrees with me?

Because you have a tendency to pull that argument when people disagree with you. It's getting old.

I think you are only seeing what you want to see. He never said anybody that disagreed with him is a Communist.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I am happy with a regulated free market, I believe every citizen should be able to receive the protection of the military from external threat, the protection of the police from internal threat, an education to degree level according to capability instead of being crippled with debt for years for daring to be a poor person seeking higher education, universal healthcare with emergencies as priorities, a capable state pension and the support of the state in situations of unemployment or long term sickness, both of which cases the citizen will be assessed for their capabilities to work for the state toward the betterment of the people, ensuring that they continue to contribute, keep their self respect and the respect of their peers. I believe taxation should be a percentage of income, increasing on a sliding scale of percentage according to income increase, the more you earn, the more tax you pay, so that a situation of a millionaire paying less % tax than his secretary is made a thing of the past.
I absolutely believe that initiative, hard work and innovation should be rewarded, but the current situation does not reward that and instead enforces a new aristocracy, trickledown has failed and we have a financial elite so powerful and so rich that it is nigh on impossible to breach it.

Acting for the "good" is voluntary. Morality is personal. You can't control human nature through legislation. Those are three facts that stand in the way of that bright, shining utopia on your particular hill. Another inconvenient truth, to coin a phrase, is that only you are responsible for you. It's not the government's job to make sure you're alright except in the strictest sense of preventing harm coming to you from others. Protecting you from your own bad choices, or lifting you up to be more than you are? Not the government's job.

So, less of the 'reds under the beds' from you, sunshine.

That's a rather ironic thing to say after a socialist screed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
In Oklahoma we have a lot of people who claim to be small government/libertarian and at the same time push for a socially conservative government. Those two things just don't go together. How can you claim to be small government when you want the government to regulate away things that make you feel icky?

You can't, of course, which is why I said earlier that libertarianism can pull No True Scotsman like few other political philosophies. Unfortunately, it simply sounds good to a lot of people, so they claim to be it. Especially when Republicans are polling badly.

 Seaward wrote:

Not entirely sure where you got that from, but what the hell, I'm feeling charitable towards the less fortunate.

From the article you cited.

It was attempting to lionize libertarians, this...



...gave it away.

whembly wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Seaward wrote:Neither side represents me, but the Republicans are at least a little closer, philosophically, and they try to pull less nanny state gak.

Just so we're clear, when you say "nanny state gak", exactly what are you referring to? Because in order for your statement to be even remotely correct, you must be referring to only petty crap like those assinine soft drink laws, and not the orwellian, hyper-instrusive planks that comprise the GOP platform.

Erm... what would "hyper-instrusive planks that comprise the GOP platform" that be?

Anti-abortion, DOMA, Patriot Act (I'm well aware of who passed the legislation, but it was admittedly voted on out of ignorance). The difference is that the Dems don't claim to be about small government. The GOP does. That makes the Dems slightly less liars about it.

Seaward wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I am happy with a regulated free market, I believe every citizen should be able to receive the protection of the military from external threat, the protection of the police from internal threat, an education to degree level according to capability instead of being crippled with debt for years for daring to be a poor person seeking higher education, universal healthcare with emergencies as priorities, a capable state pension and the support of the state in situations of unemployment or long term sickness, both of which cases the citizen will be assessed for their capabilities to work for the state toward the betterment of the people, ensuring that they continue to contribute, keep their self respect and the respect of their peers. I believe taxation should be a percentage of income, increasing on a sliding scale of percentage according to income increase, the more you earn, the more tax you pay, so that a situation of a millionaire paying less % tax than his secretary is made a thing of the past.
I absolutely believe that initiative, hard work and innovation should be rewarded, but the current situation does not reward that and instead enforces a new aristocracy, trickledown has failed and we have a financial elite so powerful and so rich that it is nigh on impossible to breach it.

Acting for the "good" is voluntary. Morality is personal. You can't control human nature through legislation. Those are three facts that stand in the way of that bright, shining utopia on your particular hill. Another inconvenient truth, to coin a phrase, is that only you are responsible for you. It's not the government's job to make sure you're alright except in the strictest sense of preventing harm coming to you from others. Protecting you from your own bad choices, or lifting you up to be more than you are? Not the government's job.

I think Canada, Norway, Sweden, Germany and France would all disagree with you.

And you whole "man is an island" bit? It's actually quite childish. And I don't mean that as an insult; I mean that in terms of psychological development. It's an earlier stage that honestly considered things so black & white as that, more akin to the mindsets of adolescents than adults.

 azazel the cat wrote:

And you whole "man is an island" bit? It's actually quite childish. And I don't mean that as an insult; I mean that in terms of psychological development. It's an earlier stage that honestly considered things so black & white as that, more akin to the mindsets of adolescents than adults.

I have found that it usually is a 50/50 mix of self delusion and wishful thinking.

People pretend that they have never benefited from public institutions and got here entirely on their own, and that they will never have any problems that they cannot solve themselves without any help.