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.

 Manchu wrote:
Racism hasn't been "problematic" (a word that is pure rhetorical posturing) for libertarian thought

I think lots of people use it while rhetorically posturing, but that doesn't mean everyone who does is or that saying something is "problematic" is sleazy. There's a whole wealth of people out there sadly who are smart enough to say words but not critically minded enough to make sense of them. Maybe you should address the substance of a statement instead. Much easier than constantly circling posters like straw men while you express your indignation at anyone who wants to talk about issues of race in American politics.

that is part of the sleazy agenda of painting it as cover for racism.

Who in this thread, or linked in it, did such a thing? Certainly wasn't anyone I've noticed, or a certain article writer. You're arguing a straw man. Saying that a given ideology has baggage is different from saying it is a cover. Certainly someone accused the Republicans as becoming more and more racist, but then I think there's plenty to talk about there. Again I think there's only one person here rhetorically posturing here, and it's not me.

In reality, there is no inherent philosophical contradiction preventing libertarians from acknowledging that racism is a problem or addressing it as a matter of public policy

In my experience and reading, Libertarians ignore the implications (a markedly different word from contradiction), because there really isn't a as of yet convincing answer to the charge. Who claimed there was a philosophical contradiction? I didn't. There is a distinction between "inherent philosophical contradiction" and "implication" or "I don't want to deal with it stop talking about it." I'd actually suggest the answer might be that we don't have to worry about it. Kids these days are all so socially conscious I'm told that they won't ever be mean to anyone less their feelings get hurt but somehow I'm skeptical about putting the fate of anyone's rights in the hands of anyone's good will with no back up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Supertony51 wrote:
IDK, the left seems to be pretty racist to me, by proposing policies that keep minorities under their thumb (entitlements)

I wouldn't term the Democratic parties hang ups as racist. Really good movie about this recently called "Get Out." Pretty succulent stab at the issue. I think to many Democrats (and liberals) confuse pandering to minority groups with actually helping them. Affirmative actions have been completely ineffective, community building efforts half hearted at best and opportunistic at worst (namely how they are funded and organized on a borad scale), and the Democratic party hasn't proposed any meaningful legislation on the issue of actually helping perpetually poor minorities (or just the poor for that matter cause lots of whites are poor too) in a long time. Democrats and liberals I think too often follow social justice causes as fads, which isn't productive, and while I wouldn't call it racist, it's something frustrating and disappointing.

Its quite frustrating.

But that's all off this topic and better off in the other thread (there was a left/right one wasn't there?)

scaremonger tactics to acquire votes (OMG if you vote republican they will cut off your food stamps and grandma will die from starvation).

"We need Voter ID laws or all the illegals will vote in Democrats!"

But I digress.

 skyth wrote:

Spoiler:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Well, Libertarianism sees nothing inherently wrong with racism...

That's not true at all. Libertarianism doesn't condone or encourage racism, it simply doesn't want the State to use its monopoly of force to punish people for their beliefs, including racist beliefs. Libertarians place more value on individual freedom than on government enforced collectivist control over behavior. Private businesses, private property, your own private personhood should be protected by the government not intruded upon by it. The government should work to protect the freedom of the minority from the tyranny of the majority and the most important and vulnerable minority is the individual. The Libertarian opposition to the Civil Rights Act was a pro liberty stance consistent with their core beliefs. Private businesses should retain the right to set their own limitations on service, whether people can smoke or not, bring young children in with them, wear shoes or shirts, or only allow certain ethnicities, genders or skin tones that's your right as an individual business owner. If you want to be a racist business owner you put your racism on public display and let the market determine your success or failure. Public/State entities should be barred from discriminating against anyone because everyone is equal under the law and the state governs all equally but private individuals can't be forced to do business with anyone against their will, or forced to allow anyone on their property against their will or forced to endure any intrusion against their person against their will. Every individual owns their person, their labor and their property those are key tenets of Libertarianism and there's nothing racist in those beliefs.
You have the freedom to be as ignorant and as bigoted as you want, believe whatever ethnocentric supremacist garbage you want as long as you don't escalate those beliefs into actions that cause harm to another person. Libertarians were fine with ending segregation and ending discrimination by the state but trying to outlaw racism on the individual basis was a step too far. Libertarians would have the same objection to laws that would attempt to make it illegal for individuals to practice communism or fascism or chauvinism or any other kind of -ism because making ideas/beliefs illegal is impractical and excessively intrusive.

Actually, what I said is very true. And your comments just proved it true by agreeing with it even though you claim you weren't.. There is nothing in Libertarianism that finds any issue with racism. I'm not saying that they think it is a good thing (Though significant quantities of 'libertarians' are only Libertarians because they want the freedom to be holes to other people that are different than them.) However, thinking that it's somehow ethical for someone to be racist and make a 'no blacks allowed' establishment (Even if it's being quiet about it) leaves the whole movement ethically and morally lacking.

And for the record, (If you were reading the rest of the thread, . Libertarians were NOT 'fine with ending segregation'.

Libertarianism only works where there is no significant power differential in a society. However, once there is a power differential, it just makes the power differential worse and worse.

Where in this thread was evidence provided that Libertarians were proponents of segregation or were accepting of institutionalized state mandated racism? Jim Crow laws are the antithesis of Libertarianism. A political philosophy founded on limited government and individual liberty doesn't condone or support government imposed oppression and suppression of rights of an entire demographic of people.

Goldwater was very clear in his opposition to segregation he simply objected to the federal overreach in the CRA and in Brown vs Board of Education. Justice Warren himself says right in the decision that there was nothing in the constitution or federal law that gave the federal govt jurisdiction over running states' public school systems but that the court agreed that segregated schools were wrong and should be struck down. Goldwater agreed that segregated schools were wrong and shouldn't exist but that a federal solution would require a new amendment to the constitution to give the federal govt power over state school systems or the states have to end segregated schools on the state level but you can't just give the federal govt control over state public school systems for the sake of a moral imperative. That isn't a defense of segregation or in any way a stance that segregation is ok, mora, ethical or justifiable it's simply a desire to clear legal and legislative obstacles to righting a wrong.

LOL "implication" is exactly the vehicle of this particular sleaze precisely because the evidence cannot support anything substantial. Again, I agree that there is more profit to be gained in dealing with real life rather than looney extremism (or sleazy electioneering "articles" like Ladd's). Skepticism of strong centralized power isn't the same thing as tearing up the federal and state constitutions and blocking all new legislation while mulching what's already on the books. American conservatism isn't actually about abandoning the lambs to the wolves, although you can easily find such sentiments on the fringe. But the same old tactic of "implying" that one's proposed solution is the only possible one, and that opposition amounts to (among other shameful things) racism, is tempting.

(or sleazy electioneering "articles" like Ladd's)

Just because he's talking about something you would rather ignore during election season doesn't make his article sleazy electioneering. You claimed he was trying undermine the Libertarian party, but that's not how I read it. Actually tackling and dealing with that issue would only make the Libertarian party stronger. They might actually get somewhere on both sides of the isle if they switched from a unilateral "repeal the CRA" position to something more nuanced, because so long as "repeal the CRA" is an actually espoused position of Libertarians they'll have to deal with people asking them questions about how civil rights with be safe guarded.

Skepticism of strong centralized power isn't the same thing as tearing up the federal and state constitutions and blocking all new legislation while mulching what's already on the books.

I didn't say it was.

American conservatism isn't actually about abandoning the lambs to the wolves

Are we talking about Libertarians or Conservatives? You seem to be struggling to actually follow the conversation coherently.

But the same old tactic of "implying" that one's proposed solution is the only possible one, and that opposition amounts to (among other shameful things) racism, is tempting.

What? Libertarians oppose the CRA and want it repealed. Sure that's not the only possible solution but it is the one that they propose, so I don't think it's unreasonable, sleazy, or dishonest to ask the follow up question "but what about when the North Dakota Morals Party wins all seats in the Standardsville, North Dakota town council and passes a law that bans any business from serving gay, trans, or non-Christian persons?" The CRA currently prevents such (EDIT: at least by common assumption and practice, guess SCOTUS will be tackling that one rather directly soon, nothing more glorious than a fist fight between religious freedom and civil rights laws XD), and it's hardly an implausible scenario today. I've asked this question myself and the response is "I support LGBT rights" which is fine and dandy good for you Tod have a high five, but that's not an answer to the question. Asking that question isn't accusing anyone of bigotry, or saying there's only one possible solution. It's a direct question to a directly stated legislative desire.

Do you have anything to actually say on the topic, in response to what I've actually said, or is ad hominem and straw man responses all you have? Much like Tod, you seem unable to actually address the topic and would much rather rant about something that I can only assume bugs you but isn't actually here in thread.

 Just Tony wrote:
I'm so confused here. In the US, Libertarians are right leaning, yet totalitarianism is always portrayed as far right politics. Am I missing something?

You're missing a few things. For starters, libertarianism is a niche within US politics, if a theory doesn't perfectly fit in libertarianism it doesn't matter too much. But the bigger thing you're missing is there is no shortage of criticisms of groups on the left as totalitarian. The world found its way in to common use because it was so frequently, and correctly, used to criticise the communist regimes in Russia and China.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Selym wrote:
It is because of people not agreeing with/understanding this principle that we sometimes see gender quotas - like in the Canadian cabinet.

Not quite. There are arguments for diversity outside of the opportunity/outcome concept. That argument is limited to achievement/reward after all, it doesn't factor in the best operation of the final group, which is the ultimate consideration of course. That is, even though the most accomplished 5 people might be white men, that doesn't mean the best group should be those five white men. Diversity of opinion has value, and so if two very well accomplished candidates come from diverse backgrounds then they are likely to help produce a better functioning group overall. This doesn't have to go as far as 50/50 gender splits in cabinets, of course, but doing things to make sure a diversity of voices contribute is a good thing in and of itself.

The other issue is that exactly where opportunity ends and outcome starts isn't that clear. Is college acceptance an outcome of highschool performance, or is it part of the opportunities for people to excel in their careers? And beyond that, there's a whole lot of situations where people will confuse outcomes and opportunities to guard their own economic interests. Look what happens if you suggest every primary school and secondary school should be equally funded to give all kids equal opportunity.

Libertarians shouldn't even be a choice. They're a myth, like bigfoot.

there's on about 499,492 of them registered, and 30% of americans believe bigfoot is real. And in the states they are right wingers as almost all people who call themselves libertarians voted for trump instead of Johnson.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Libertarians shouldn't even be a choice. They're a myth, like bigfoot.

there's on about 499,492 of them registered, and 30% of americans believe bigfoot is real. And in the states they are right wingers as almost all people who call themselves libertarians voted for trump instead of Johnson.

Hi... I'm a right-winger that voted for Johnson (aka, 'Da Stoner).

But libertarians voting for El Trumpo doesn't make them right wingers any more than Hilary voters makes the left wingers.

My anecdotal exposure to libertarians seems like they want to be more contrarian of "the big parties" than over specific policy details.

 feeder wrote:
Libertarianism is just as pie in the sky as Communism. I have yet to see a version of Libertarian party platform that doesn't immediately result in hard plutocracy.

Libertarianism's great power is in its irrelevance. Any unintended consequence can be sidestepped by some new element to libertarianism made up on the spot and forgotten just as quickly, and any practical issue can be handwaved away. They can do this because they have never had to deal with the responsibilities of actual power, and trying to apply social and economic models to the messy reality of the real world.

This is very similar to communists, funnily enough. I guess one thing in defense of libertarian, though, is that they seem to know deep down that their ideas aren't real world concepts. Any time they get anything close to real world power they run the hell away, back in to the bubble of simple ideas that never have to be tested. Communists lacked that one bit of sense, so the libertarians are one up on them there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Supertony51 wrote:
IDK, the left seems to be pretty racist to me, by proposing policies that keep minorities under their thumb (entitlements) and using scaremonger tactics to acquire votes (OMG if you vote republican they will cut off your food stamps and grandma will die from starvation).

You've made an assumption that welfare programs are more likely to keep people in the lowest rungs of society. This is factually wrong. Hopelessly out of step with decades of analysis on the subject.

Just please, go and hunt down some stuff on google. Go type in 'social mobility and social welfare' or something like that. And then once you've learned what the literature says, think for a second about all the people who claimed to you that social welfare programs trapped people in dependancy. Realise those people were lying to you, and then stop listening to those people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
My anecdotal exposure to libertarians seems like they want to be more contrarian of "the big parties" than over specific policy details.

Yes, this exactly. The appeal of libertarianism to many is that it grants them an ideology without any kind of accountability for what that ideology does when in power, because it is never in power. It is the moral purity of powerlessness. In the US the socialist party has the exact same appeal.

 whembly wrote:

Hi... I'm a right-winger that voted for Johnson (aka, 'Da Stoner).

But libertarians voting for El Trumpo doesn't make them right wingers any more than Hilary voters makes the left wingers.

My anecdotal exposure to libertarians seems like they want to be more contrarian of "the big parties" than over specific policy details.

I think being fair we should point out that the Libertarian Party did 300% (or is it 200? w/e) better in 2016 than it did in 2012! Sure they just went from .99% to 3.24% of the vote, but that's a pretty impressive gain

This is very similar to communists, funnily enough. I guess one thing in defense of libertarian, though, is that they seem to know deep down that their ideas aren't real world concepts. Any time they get anything close to real world power they run the hell away, back in to the bubble of simple ideas that never have to be tested. Communists lacked that one bit of sense, so the libertarians are one up on them there.

Exalt that *click*

Are we talking about Libertarians or Conservatives? You seem to be struggling to actually follow the conversation coherently.

From my POV, that seems to be your problem. I mean, just specifically, you and I have been talking about Barry Goldwater - so it should be obvious, just based on that, that we have been talking about conservatism, right? But it should also be more obvious, generally. This thread proposes an ideological spectrum juxtaposing authoritarianism and libertarianism. One poster asked why, if these are polar opposites, both are associated with American conservatism. The answer is, very broadly speaking, that American conservatism variously emphasizes the importance of law and order on one hand and the importance of individual liberty on the other. Having to recapitulate the conversation, especially in response to the assertion that I'm the one who is "struggling," is tedious and frustrating so going forward I am just going to ignore your gradual derailment strategy.

They can do this because they have never had to deal with the responsibilities of actual power

I get that you are referencing Johnson et al., specifically, but libertarians, understood in the context of the authoritarian/libertarian spectrum we're using ITT, have always played a role in actually governing the United States. The trouble is framing "libertarians" as definitionally opposed to any kind of government power up to and including governing itself - or, worse, framing libertarianism as a kind of accountability-free third-party lobby (which may not be a terrible way to understand Johnson). I think a more useful understanding for our purposes would be that authoritarians, again as contemplated by the terminology of this thread, more readily embrace strong, direct application of government power whereas libertarians tend to be skeptical of this. Although Johnson may capitalize on making abstract, ideologically pure claims without needing to back them up with nitty gritty policy, libertarians generally emphasize the importance of mechanisms of accountability in policy making.

 Manchu wrote:
I get that you are referencing Johnson et al., specifically, but libertarians, understood in the context of the authoritarian/libertarian spectrum we're using ITT, have always played a role in actually governing the United States. The trouble is framing "libertarians" as definitionally opposed to any kind of government power up to and including governing itself - or, worse, framing libertarianism as a kind of accountability-free third-party lobby (which may not be a terrible way to understand Johnson). I think a more useful understanding for our purposes would be that authoritarians, again as contemplated by the terminology of this thread, more readily embrace strong, direct application of government power whereas libertarians tend to be skeptical of this. Although Johnson may capitalize on making abstract, ideologically pure claims without needing to back them up with nitty gritty policy, libertarians generally emphasize the importance of mechanisms of accountability in policy making.

Yes, there are many different groups who identify as libertarian, and yes my comment was directed at those in the formal Libertarian party, and those who claim on the internet to support them. There are other libertarian groups, including those who work on the fringes of the Republican party. I wish I could write pithy comments to make fun of all them at once, but I'm not that clever, I have to settle for making fun of one group at a time.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Libertarians shouldn't even be a choice. They're a myth, like bigfoot.

there's on about 499,492 of them registered, and 30% of americans believe bigfoot is real. And in the states they are right wingers as almost all people who call themselves libertarians voted for trump instead of Johnson.

American politicians are not renowned for their correct use of political terminology. Libertarianism here refers not to a specific political party or movement, but to the opposition to Authoritarianism. It resides on an axis perpendicular to the Left/Right axis, and thus implies no correlation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

Libertarianism's great power is in its irrelevance. Any unintended consequence can be sidestepped by some new element to libertarianism made up on the spot and forgotten just as quickly, and any practical issue can be handwaved away. They can do this because they have never had to deal with the responsibilities of actual power, and trying to apply social and economic models to the messy reality of the real world.

This is very similar to communists, funnily enough. I guess one thing in defense of libertarian, though, is that they seem to know deep down that their ideas aren't real world concepts. Any time they get anything close to real world power they run the hell away, back in to the bubble of simple ideas that never have to be tested. Communists lacked that one bit of sense, so the libertarians are one up on them there.

Well if you're going to believe in an ideal, it only makes sense to recognise that if you had your way everything would go to gak. I'm a Lib on this axis, but I am too practical to actually vote/argue that way. I like to see my authorities being monitored and questioned, but I find it to be foolish at best to take an Authoritarian measure like the UK's Surveillance State and reject it. It's just too useful, with too little meaningful impact on non-criminals.

 Manchu wrote:
I mean, just specifically, you and I have been talking about Barry Goldwater - so it should be obvious, just based on that, that we have been talking about conservatism, right?

Just specifically, we've gone from talking about a dozen different things, mostly straw men that don't remotely address anything I've said, and expressing your frustration that I won't follow you around the merry go round.

I don't have to derail something that was off the rails from the get go.

I'd like to revise my past statement. Libertarianism, while absolutely a long-term goal, is not feasible until multiple social and economic factors are resolved.

Paradoxically, to reach the ideal libertarian end, temporary authoritarian measures must be utilized to do the following.

• Establish education systems designed to eradicate prejudice.

• Establish laws, and using force, to protect democracy and individual rights as a concept, from those who would seek to oppress others.

• Establish measures to close wealth gaps, in preparation for money and class to be made obsolete.

• Using current economic incentives, incentivize the development technologies that would allow for the reduction of scarcity worldwide. This being fusion power, primarily.

• Implement measures to re-educate those who hold views actively harmful to society as a whole, or that would result in the infringement of other's individual rights.

Certain ideas must be limited or eradicated to work with libertarianism, as they inherently seek to strip individual rights, and control others. Any form of prejudice is incompatible with libertarianism, as is the majority of organized religion, as both of those ideas lead to oppression and restrictions on personal liberties, nearly all of the time.

So, I suppose that libertarianism can work, provided the people in our theoretical libertarian/anarchist society are all rational, reasonable people. Which isn't likely.

Here's a thought.

As covered, I freely identify as a lefty liberal socialist. I want equality of opportunity for all.

And when I consider the right wing's equivalent position - I just can't understand it.

Now that doesn't make my political opposites evil - I just can't get my heard round how one justifies an 'I'm alright, Jack' mindset.

We've got so much work to do as a society. Equality of opportunity encourages a well skilled, and thus productive workforce. The more people in work, the fewer people claiming benefits. The fewer people reliant on benefits, the less tax money is set aside for that purpose. The less tax money we need to raise, the more money businesses have. The more money businesses have, the harder it is for them not to pay a decent wage.

See, I get looking down on certain people. In my life, I've met people from privileged backgrounds who've thrown it all away with a decidedly severe drug habit. Not all of them are still with us. But to look down on any children they might've produced? That's not cool man. Nobody, not the poorest child nor one born into extreme wealth can help who their parents are. So cut them a break.

Sick of seeing homeless people? That's gonna take funding to sort out. Sick of seeing people lazing about? Me too - but that's gonna take a reworked education programme not solely focussed on academia, something which not everyone is cut out for.

I don't endorse communism though. If you've worked hard, you deserve your perks. But socialism isn't communism. It's about caring about those around you, and wanting to build the strongest, most cohesive society we can manage - for the good of all.

After all, the lower the poverty rates, the lower the crime rates, especially violent crime (white collar crime, perhaps not so much).

But we can get there. We just need to pull together and recognise that the good of society trumps the good of the individual every time.

 Verviedi wrote:
I'd like to revise my past statement. Libertarianism, while absolutely a long-term goal, is not feasible until multiple social and economic factors are resolved.

Paradoxically, to reach the ideal libertarian end, temporary authoritarian measures must be utilized to do the following.

• Establish education systems designed to eradicate prejudice.

• Establish laws, and using force, to protect democracy and individual rights as a concept, from those who would seek to oppress others.

• Establish measures to close wealth gaps, in preparation for money and class to be made obsolete.

• Using current economic incentives, incentivize the development technologies that would allow for the reduction of scarcity worldwide. This being fusion power, primarily.

• Implement measures to re-educate those who hold views actively harmful to society as a whole, or that would result in the infringement of other's individual rights.

Certain ideas must be limited or eradicated to work with libertarianism, as they inherently seek to strip individual rights, and control others. Any form of prejudice is incompatible with libertarianism, as is the majority of organized religion, as both of those ideas lead to oppression and restrictions on personal liberties, nearly all of the time.

So, I suppose that libertarianism can work, provided the people in our theoretical libertarian/anarchist society are all rational, reasonable people. Which isn't likely.

What libertarian in the universe wants the bolded? I mean, honestly, this is the major push of every socialist and communist platform. Class warfare is a Marxist thing, freedom to pursue your life is a libertarian thing. Lacking opportunity or any motivating factors to succeed is definitely a Marxist thing.

Libertarianism only works with a small wealth/power gap between people.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

After all, the lower the poverty rates, the lower the crime rates, especially violent crime (white collar crime, perhaps not so much).

I agree with most of what you're saying, but this isn't quite accurate. Wealth inequality causes crime. The greater, the worse. If everyone is poor, there is nothing to steal. If everyone is rich, there is no discernible advantage. Crime can only be eliminated in a post-capitalist society. Why post-capitalist? Because we need active incentives to motivate people to progress so that we can reach a post-scarcity era.

Rewarding people based on success is a capitalist measure, and it works. Unfortunately, the can-do's will become rich, while the can-not's will become envious. Capitalism thus causes crime, but is necessary for human advancement.

 skyth wrote:
Libertarianism only works with a small wealth/power gap between people.

No it just requires a reliable means to constrain government within set limitations of its authority.

The government isn't run by experts, they don't come up with the best policies or smartest solutions, they're just the people that won elections. Would you want Mitch McConnell, Chuck Shumer, Ted Cruz, Maxine Waters or Jeff Sessions to baby sit your kids? Balance your checkbook? Run the company that employs you? It's fething scary the people we elect and appoint to be in charge of everything and the less power they have over our lives the better off we all would be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Selym wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

After all, the lower the poverty rates, the lower the crime rates, especially violent crime (white collar crime, perhaps not so much).

I agree with most of what you're saying, but this isn't quite accurate. Wealth inequality causes crime. The greater, the worse. If everyone is poor, there is nothing to steal. If everyone is rich, there is no discernible advantage. Crime can only be eliminated in a post-capitalist society. Why post-capitalist? Because we need active incentives to motivate people to progress so that we can reach a post-scarcity era.

Rewarding people based on success is a capitalist measure, and it works. Unfortunately, the can-do's will become rich, while the can-not's will become envious. Capitalism thus causes crime, but is necessary for human advancement.

We don't need capitalism to have envy and crime. We'll have crime as long as people believe that criminal actions are the easiest and surest way to get that which they want. If somebody wants to get rich they'll look for the surest path to achieve that goal whether it's being a broker on Wall St or selling subprime mortgages or selling heroin on the street or stealing cars or creating a new app or becoming a professional athlete etc. People will always be different individuals in different circumstances with different attitudes, skillsets and desires and some will view crime as a viable option to get what they want and some won't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skyth wrote:

 Supertony51 wrote:


IDK, the left seems to be pretty racist to me, by proposing policies that keep minorities under their thumb (entitlements) and using scaremonger tactics to acquire votes (OMG if you vote republican they will cut off your food stamps and grandma will die from starvation).

They have also created entitlement programs which favor unwed mothers and encourage women to have children in a one parent home.

Are you trying to conflate minorities with unwed welfare mothers?

And really, single mothers need the help. Especially poor ones. The policies are not to encourage that. The policies are there to make sure that children don't starve and have clothes and a place to live.

Subsidizing something is not an effective way to get less of something.

Very good point, Prestor Jon. Way too much is being made of this pseudo mythological Libertarian "end state" when all that we're really talking about ITT as far as "libertarian" goes is a counterpoint to authoritarianism. Simply put, this is the difference between believing government tends to be a better or worse solution to social problems. It's not about any kind of utopia.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Libertarianism only works with a small wealth/power gap between people.

No it just requires a reliable means to constrain government within set limitations of its authority.

Funny how most 'Libertarians' concentrate on tearing down the protections the little guy has against the big guy.

If there is a wealth/power disparity it will only get worse with libertarianism.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Selym wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

After all, the lower the poverty rates, the lower the crime rates, especially violent crime (white collar crime, perhaps not so much).

I agree with most of what you're saying, but this isn't quite accurate. Wealth inequality causes crime. The greater, the worse. If everyone is poor, there is nothing to steal. If everyone is rich, there is no discernible advantage. Crime can only be eliminated in a post-capitalist society. Why post-capitalist? Because we need active incentives to motivate people to progress so that we can reach a post-scarcity era.

Rewarding people based on success is a capitalist measure, and it works. Unfortunately, the can-do's will become rich, while the can-not's will become envious. Capitalism thus causes crime, but is necessary for human advancement.

We don't need capitalism to have envy and crime. We'll have crime as long as people believe that criminal actions are the easiest and surest way to get that which they want. If somebody wants to get rich they'll look for the surest path to achieve that goal whether it's being a broker on Wall St or selling subprime mortgages or selling heroin on the street or stealing cars or creating a new app or becoming a professional athlete etc. People will always be different individuals in different circumstances with different attitudes, skillsets and desires and some will view crime as a viable option to get what they want and some won't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skyth wrote:

 Supertony51 wrote:


IDK, the left seems to be pretty racist to me, by proposing policies that keep minorities under their thumb (entitlements) and using scaremonger tactics to acquire votes (OMG if you vote republican they will cut off your food stamps and grandma will die from starvation).

They have also created entitlement programs which favor unwed mothers and encourage women to have children in a one parent home.

Are you trying to conflate minorities with unwed welfare mothers?

And really, single mothers need the help. Especially poor ones. The policies are not to encourage that. The policies are there to make sure that children don't starve and have clothes and a place to live.

Subsidizing something is not an effective way to get less of something.

As a socialist, it may surprise you that I'm not actually opposed to capitalism.

I am however opposed to how it's developed.

To excel, we do need more carrot, less stick. There should be a reward for hard work - but that doesn't mean there should be punishment for the opposite.

But right now? Opportunities are too controlled. They're reserved for the 'worthy', a shorthand for the 'already wealthy'. Look at The Old Boy Network. So long as you went to the Right School, your chances to end up on the bones of your arse are extremely limited, and chances of walking into a decently paid career job increased. If you went to the local comp and got straight A's, you're still at a disadvantage to someone who got lesser grades, but attended Eton, Tonbridge School or any other well thought of educational establishment. And that's a bullpoop way to run things. It rewards the wrong people for the wrong thing.

But hey. People are, and always will be, idiots. If I had a magic wand to wave, and could evenly distribute all the world's collective wealth between each man, woman and child, by the end of that day you'll still have Rich and Poor. Some just can't help but make boneheaded decisions, and some can't help but be clever buggers.

All I want to do is knock away societal support and acceptance of the current class system. Equality of opportunity. Everyone standing on their own two feet. Then, and only then, will we see if the cream truly does rise to the top, or if instead gak Floats.

The current sociological construct of self replicating classes is utterly ponk. It needs to be dismantled for the good of humanity, and the economy.

 skyth wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Libertarianism only works with a small wealth/power gap between people.

No it just requires a reliable means to constrain government within set limitations of its authority.

Funny how most 'Libertarians' concentrate on tearing down the protections the little guy has against the big guy.

If there is a wealth/power disparity it will only get worse with libertarianism.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Selym wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

After all, the lower the poverty rates, the lower the crime rates, especially violent crime (white collar crime, perhaps not so much).

I agree with most of what you're saying, but this isn't quite accurate. Wealth inequality causes crime. The greater, the worse. If everyone is poor, there is nothing to steal. If everyone is rich, there is no discernible advantage. Crime can only be eliminated in a post-capitalist society. Why post-capitalist? Because we need active incentives to motivate people to progress so that we can reach a post-scarcity era.

Rewarding people based on success is a capitalist measure, and it works. Unfortunately, the can-do's will become rich, while the can-not's will become envious. Capitalism thus causes crime, but is necessary for human advancement.

We don't need capitalism to have envy and crime. We'll have crime as long as people believe that criminal actions are the easiest and surest way to get that which they want. If somebody wants to get rich they'll look for the surest path to achieve that goal whether it's being a broker on Wall St or selling subprime mortgages or selling heroin on the street or stealing cars or creating a new app or becoming a professional athlete etc. People will always be different individuals in different circumstances with different attitudes, skillsets and desires and some will view crime as a viable option to get what they want and some won't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skyth wrote:

 Supertony51 wrote:


IDK, the left seems to be pretty racist to me, by proposing policies that keep minorities under their thumb (entitlements) and using scaremonger tactics to acquire votes (OMG if you vote republican they will cut off your food stamps and grandma will die from starvation).

They have also created entitlement programs which favor unwed mothers and encourage women to have children in a one parent home.

Are you trying to conflate minorities with unwed welfare mothers?

And really, single mothers need the help. Especially poor ones. The policies are not to encourage that. The policies are there to make sure that children don't starve and have clothes and a place to live.

Subsidizing something is not an effective way to get less of something.

Not providing assistance is closing the barn door after the horses already left. All it does is punish children for being born to the wrong parents.

Prestor Jon wrote:


Why are you so focused on the wealth gap? The wealth gap is a red herring, the difference between the highest and the lowest isn't important, what's important is the amount of wealth on the low end. If I waved a magic wand and doubled everyone's income instantly everyone would be better off, the lowest earners would see the most significant improvement in their lives, the wealthiest wouldn't see much change at all and the wealth gap would also double. If people on the low end can earn enough to achieve financial stability and help create opportunities to try to better themselves then that would be awesome and great for society regardless of the fact that people like Bill Gates and Lebron James would still be orders of magnitude wealthier than the people on the low end of the spectrum.

Nobody is arguing that low income unwed mothers shouldn't receive assistance but if low income unwed mothers are a problem for society than simply handing them a check from the govt every month isn't a solution to that problem. The goal of govt assistance should be to help people not need govt assistance anymore not to create govt dependencies that perpetuate generational cycles of a disadvantaged poverty stricken underclass.

How exactly (lacking magic wands of course), does the low end earn enough to achieve financial stability and create opportunity when most of the new wealth being generated is going straight to the top, while the amount of wealth available to the bottom is increasingly shrinking? That's all the widening of the wealth gap represents in the end so okay we'll skip the "red herring" and go straight to the... turf? Indeed the exact difference between the highest and lowest probably isn't that important, but as they say money doesn't grow on trees so how exactly is pointing out that more and more wealth is focused on the top and less and less is at the bottom a red herring when discussing economic outcomes? I mean sure it's nice to ignore inconvenient facts, but inconvenience is a poor measure of relevance.

Thanks to Reagan, we've learned that basically any form of assistance given to anyone will simply be reduced into a non-taxable lump sum by skeptics of welfare programs so there's really no form of assistance that will not be characterized as "handing them a check from the govt" even though ironically simply giving people a check would be a lot cheaper for tax payers than all the hoops we're currently jumping through. It's nice to say govt assistance should be to help people not need it anymore, but unless there's a booming job market the reality is that a good chunk of people on welfare will always be on welfare and what do you do with them? Like drugs and poor people, unwed mothers are something that will always exist so what does it even matter if it's a problem? That seems like a real red herring. Problem or no problem it's a reality and you are either going to engage it or ignore it. On the bright side Libertarianism gets a leg up on Social Conservatives in my book because at least it'll legalize abortion before bitching at someone for being an unwed mother on welfare.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Why are you so focused on the wealth gap? The wealth gap is a red herring, the difference between the highest and the lowest isn't important, what's important is the amount of wealth on the low end. If I waved a magic wand and doubled everyone's income instantly everyone would be better off, the lowest earners would see the most significant improvement in their lives, the wealthiest wouldn't see much change at all and the wealth gap would also double. If people on the low end can earn enough to achieve financial stability and help create opportunities to try to better themselves then that would be awesome and great for society regardless of the fact that people like Bill Gates and Lebron James would still be orders of magnitude wealthier than the people on the low end of the spectrum.

Key word: magic. People are focused on the wealth gap because, in practical terms, the (lack of) wealth on the low end is a direct result of that gap. The finite amount of wealth is being distributed incredibly unevenly, and opportunities for improvement on the low end are limited. And that distribution is a result of policies that encourage it, the magic doubling of income is never going to happen in the real world because the wealthiest few percent would rather increase their own paychecks and continue to pay their lowest employees poverty-level wages. So when you're talking about practical policy decisions that improve the situation for people on the low end of the wealth gap the means to doing so is reducing the wealth gap.

Also, the wealth gap concept is usually expressed in relative terms, not absolute. Doubling everyone's income would keep the wealth gap the same.

Nobody is arguing that low income unwed mothers shouldn't receive assistance but if low income unwed mothers are a problem for society than simply handing them a check from the govt every month isn't a solution to that problem. The goal of govt assistance should be to help people not need govt assistance anymore not to create govt dependencies that perpetuate generational cycles of a disadvantaged poverty stricken underclass.

So what do you do then? Conservative/libertarian proposals for preventing dependency on government assistance tend to be little more than "remove the assistance and people will magically improve their own situation because they have no choice" handwaving. At some point you have to accept the fact that, short of massive changes to society, some people are realistically never going to self-improve their way out of poverty. They lack the ability to do high-paying jobs (and there's a finite amount of those jobs anyway), and the jobs they are capable of doing pay poverty-level wages because our system allows employers to do it (and have taxpayers subsidize the cost of living of their employees). So you can either accept this fact and give them money, or leave them to suffer and die.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, many of these welfare programs exist for the benefit of the children, not the parents. It's nice to talk about "not being dependent on the government", but what do you do when the parents continue to fail to earn enough money to escape that dependence? You have two choices: you can either accept that you're going to have to give money to people for extended periods of time because it's the only way to protect their children, or you can punish the children for the sins of their parents and leave them to starve. Or, I guess, you can have a policy that anyone below a certain income level can have their children taken away and given to wealthier parents, but I think the problems there should be obvious.

Prestor Jon wrote:

No it just requires a reliable means to constrain government within set limitations of its authority.

The government isn't run by experts, they don't come up with the best policies or smartest solutions, they're just the people that won elections. Would you want Mitch McConnell, Chuck Shumer, Ted Cruz, Maxine Waters or Jeff Sessions to baby sit your kids? Balance your checkbook? Run the company that employs you? It's fething scary the people we elect and appoint to be in charge of everything and the less power they have over our lives the better off we all would be.

Neither are all companies run by experts. You could turn this whole argument around with all the failures in the open market. Do you want to the people who were responsible for Deepwater Horizon to get even more opportunities to create environmental disasters or the bankers who caused the 2008 recession to balance your checkbook? Statistically you don't want the people who run companies to actually run companies (most companies end in bankruptcy)?

It's fething scary to see all these people free to do all the bad stuff and we can't even vote them out of office. The less power they have over our lives the better off we all would be.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Why are you so focused on the wealth gap? The wealth gap is a red herring, the difference between the highest and the lowest isn't important, what's important is the amount of wealth on the low end. If I waved a magic wand and doubled everyone's income instantly everyone would be better off, the lowest earners would see the most significant improvement in their lives, the wealthiest wouldn't see much change at all and the wealth gap would also double. If people on the low end can earn enough to achieve financial stability and help create opportunities to try to better themselves then that would be awesome and great for society regardless of the fact that people like Bill Gates and Lebron James would still be orders of magnitude wealthier than the people on the low end of the spectrum.

If you doubled everyone's income, you'd devalue the currency. A person's wealth is based on what proportion of the world's available money they have, not the hardcount. That's why in post WW1 Germany, with hyperinflation making everyone's pay skyrocket, people just continuously got worse off.

 Selym wrote:
Well if you're going to believe in an ideal, it only makes sense to recognise that if you had your way everything would go to gak. I'm a Lib on this axis, but I am too practical to actually vote/argue that way. I like to see my authorities being monitored and questioned, but I find it to be foolish at best to take an Authoritarian measure like the UK's Surveillance State and reject it. It's just too useful, with too little meaningful impact on non-criminals.

Government accountability isn't inherently libertarian. It's one area (of many) that these kinds of single axis charts fall down. For instance, a person who believes in wide ranging government power, but insists on absolute transparency... are they more libertarian than someone who believes in a more hands off government, but is okay with a broad definition of state secrets?

 sebster wrote:

 Selym wrote:
Well if you're going to believe in an ideal, it only makes sense to recognise that if you had your way everything would go to gak. I'm a Lib on this axis, but I am too practical to actually vote/argue that way. I like to see my authorities being monitored and questioned, but I find it to be foolish at best to take an Authoritarian measure like the UK's Surveillance State and reject it. It's just too useful, with too little meaningful impact on non-criminals.

Government accountability isn't inherently libertarian. It's one area (of many) that these kinds of single axis charts fall down. For instance, a person who believes in wide ranging government power, but insists on absolute transparency... are they more libertarian than someone who believes in a more hands off government, but is okay with a broad definition of state secrets?

"n-dimensional hypervolume" indeed.

 sebster wrote:

 Selym wrote:
Well if you're going to believe in an ideal, it only makes sense to recognise that if you had your way everything would go to gak. I'm a Lib on this axis, but I am too practical to actually vote/argue that way. I like to see my authorities being monitored and questioned, but I find it to be foolish at best to take an Authoritarian measure like the UK's Surveillance State and reject it. It's just too useful, with too little meaningful impact on non-criminals.

Government accountability isn't inherently libertarian. It's one area (of many) that these kinds of single axis charts fall down. For instance, a person who believes in wide ranging government power, but insists on absolute transparency... are they more libertarian than someone who believes in a more hands off government, but is okay with a broad definition of state secrets?

This occurred to me earlier as well but in the context of CRA.

I don't really give a gak what people do with their lives, or in their heads. I might have an opinion to share about it but as far as government power does I don't think it belongs there. Go be racist if you want. Be gay. Be an absolute man whore. Really just... don't care. I don't like hate speech but I don't want to ban it. I don't like "at will" laws, but I'm not really interested in forcing employers to keep around employees they don't want either. All of that sounds awfully Libertarian socially (I'm definitely more authoritarian than libertarian on economics). I like government transparency and want more if it, and I've increasingly come to the opinion that if you have to keep something secret from the public then you probably shouldn't be doing whatever the feth it is you're doing (exceptions for military technology and intelligence gathering, but still kind of iffy there).

But then I'm all for banning people from refusing to serve someone on account of skin color and such not simply because of the social ramifications of how that can spiral out of control.

Is that more Libertarian, or Authoritarian? Just enough Authoritarianism that the Libertarianism doesn't collapse in on itself? Applied Authoritarian / Limited Libertarian? Horseshoe Effect? XD Don't know. It's kind of funky.