10 Unfortunate Facts of Life

[Grundyke]

How about #11:

Incessant swearing in order to appear hip and/or shocking does not make you hip, cool, shocking or cutting edge. You're just showing off your limited vocabulary.


By the thread title, I thought we were going to talk about the time Jo ran away, or when Natalie thought about "going all the way", or when George Clooney joined the cast...

Funny stuff! I did not want to say sh*t because I do not want people to think I am stupid with a limited vocabulary.

[oladub]

humanmachinery, In post 89 you are defining libertarianism as anarcho-libertarianism in its purist form – sort of like defining mundane local public services as socialism and then going on to deride the history and problems of communism. You sort of set up a straw man and then argue against it. Many libertarians, for instance, are constitutionalists who use the Constitution as their last outpost on the road to anarchy even though they would be more comfortable with the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution is sort of a compromise for reasons I will attempt to explain.


If you were arguing against anarchism, I would agree with many of the things you wrote. However, the founders recognized that [[paraphrasing here) “government is a necessary evil� and that “That government is best which governs least.� Hamilton would disagree but we did get a Constitution which was designed to protect individuals from state power with the Bill of Rights included for good measure.


Libertarianism is a philosophy and direction and the opposite of authoritarianism. Its expressions include people like Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader – on the social side but not the economic side of libertarianism. There is even a small emerging movement being mentioned called 'progressive libertarianism'.

The beginning of the Progressive Libertarian movement http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/1/165223/613

Gerald Celente The Next American Revolution 13 aug 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMZsA...layer_embedded

humanmachinery wrote, "And that is why I reject the central economic assumptions of Libertarianism. Market values must never be allowed to dictate social policy. I hold it akin to the separation of church and state.


Remember Reagan's assertion that "government is not the solution, but the problem." Sorry Ron. Your use of a definite article is misplaced. Nothing is ever just one thing, especially when it's as vast and nebulous as a government.

How about “Market values should often, but not always, be allowed to dictate social policy�. “Must never� is just too absolutist. Or softening Reagan's quote to “government is often not the solution and often the problem� It doesn't have quite the same ring but considering the wars, dollar destruction, and burst bubbles recently incurred, quite accurate.


The statist Republican/Democrat government we have now is responsible for and a part of corporatism rather than libertarians as you suggest. Going back to Constitution 101, the 10th Amendment forbids the federal government from doing most of what it is presently involved in. However, states are given broad latitude. If state citizens want to set up a public garbage collection service or build public roads, they are free to do so. If a state wants to have a health care system, the Constitution doesn't stand in the way. So, at least one group of libertarians would have no problem with 'socialist' local solution although they would be totally opposed to anything but the leanest of a Federal government. Again, Hamilton's shadow so thoroughly dominates both major parties that they both imagine the 10th Amendment doesn't exist. Since corporatism depends on federal government collusion, libertarians could not support corporatism. Its the folks running the two major parties that do.


Neither “the perpetual war against the Indians� as you put it, nor the perpetual war in the middle-east are the fault of libertarians unless you consider Bush and Obama to be libertarians. True, they may be excesses of capitalism [[different topic) but the federal government is, or should be, constrained by the Constitution from doing fools' errands.


I don't think that Von Mises “would argue there should be no restrictions on the use of private property or enterprise.� My guess is that the argument would be that there should be fewer restrictions except if someone was being harmed; in which case the harmed party has every right to be compensated for harm done. State and local laws should prevent much of this anyway.


You are correct that “ Keynesianism is anathema to most Libertarians�. After Keyesians recent failure to head off or even predict the economic mess we are in that they created, Keynesianism should also be anathema to most Americans. While there is no 100% always right school of economics, the Keynesians should be rejected like Bush Republicans for screwing up big time. However, Keynesianism will probably retain its place at the table because of its rich patrons who need an economic philosophy propagated which rationalizes theft and the obfuscation of the Constitution. You see why I mention of the Constitution with regards to libertarians in this country. It is a remarkable backstop to prevent such abuses as the Keynesian inspired Wall Street bailout – when applied.


All in all, I am not contradicting your take on anarchy or anarcho-libertarianism. I am instead tying to provide additional perspective regarding libertarian vs. authoritarian choices and positions as one who is more comfortable on the libertarian side of the the spectrum.

[elganned]

What?? Two long, thoughtful and articulate posts [[oladub and humanmachinery) in one thread?? What is DYes coming to? This cannot stand!

Good post, oladub. Way to keep it respectful and on-topic.

[ccbatson]

How can you have social liberty if you don't have economic liberty? Government control of health care, industry, taxes, everything would require that government violate privacy, and control [[via resource availability, or not) access to things like abortions, etc.

This is why the primary axiom of a free and civil society is the right of individual property ownership.

[Stosh]

I'm going to add an 11th unfortunate fact, if it hasn't been posted already.

CC is still posting here. That is all. Resume your regular BS.

[elganned]

How can you have social liberty if you don't have economic liberty? Government control of health care, industry, taxes, everything would require that government violate privacy, and control [[via resource availability, or not) access to things like abortions, etc.

No one is speaking of "government control of everything" except in your slippery-slope mind. The position is that private enterprise is unequaled in some areas but overarching control is necessary and useful in maintaining rational limits. The Invisible Hand can't do everything; there are areas where it is not suited to give good results--the Doctrine of the Church of Objectivism notwithstanding.

And why would you bring up abortions? Another attempt to derail the conversation, perhaps?[/quote]

[ccbatson]

Completely wrong Elganned...Obama's radical socialist agenda is a progressive and gradual takeover bid of everything...HE HAS SAID SO HIMSELF in reference to health care in 2003 and 2007.

[ccbatson]

WHat do you think Obama means by his agenda to "effect fundamental change"?

[rb336]

Completely wrong Elganned...Obama's radical socialist agenda is a progressive and gradual takeover bid of everything...HE HAS SAID SO HIMSELF in reference to health care in 2003 and 2007.

no, he hasn't

[ccbatson]

Ignorance is only blissful until reality comes a knockin Rb...enjoy the peace while it lasts.

[alsodave]

Funny stuff! I did not want to say sh*t because I do not want people to think I am stupid with a limited vocabulary.

Oh, go ahead Grundyke! I'm just getting ornery and less impressed by empty attempts to be shocking. Sh*t away!

[East Detroit]

Completely wrong Elganned...Obama's radical socialist agenda is a progressive and gradual takeover bid of everything...HE HAS SAID SO HIMSELF in reference to health care in 2003 and 2007.

Provide the cite, or shut up.

[Lorax]

Batts brings up abortion since his take is that there should be no Roe v. Wade- a position taken by those on the fundamentalist right. I didn't know Batts was all that religious. We need amendments such as this to prevent the overarching religious dogmas present in our society from usurping the will of the majority.

Much as we need the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, Glass-Steagall, the Fairness Doctrine, a competent SEC, FDA, etc. to keep the unfettered greed of free enterprise somewhat collared.

As to the lengthy posts on the nature of Libertarianism/Authoritarianism- really well thought out and seemingly spot-on.

I, too, reject Rand, as her brand of Libertarianism could be considered Lib 101 in the grand scheme of things- completely naive in it's relevancy to society at large.

The biggest danger facing us as a governed body of people would, in my view, be corporatism. So-called "conservatives" in the Grover Norquist model view any and all government as an intrusion to personal "liberty", whatever that overused label is supposed to mean at this point.

There is really no difference in dealing on a day-to-day level with a giant wealthy corporation or a large government bureaucracy. Try getting help when you need it on the phone with either.

Ending monopolies, encouraging small business, and I mean mom & pop size businesses, not the SBA's bloated view of what a small business is. Imposing tarrifs- a little protectionism, as is being done with imported Chinese tires by the Obama Administration are small ways we can preserve jobs in this country in the short term.

Long term solutions are more problematic, but blunted by the imposition of government regulations on free enterprise. Embracing the socialism we already are living in would be a start. We could learn much from Europe and Japan on how to order society.

High speed rail as in the Japanese model has yet to be implemented here, and we have such large expanses of land to cross. Why is this? Our health care is woefully inadequate and is unsustainable in it's present form. Add to this the complete breakdown in the reportage of all of this, the responsibility of our fouth estate- and we have a rapid coarsening of not only our body politic, but of our society as a whole.

[ccbatson]

I brought up abortion Lorax?

East Detroit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk

How do you like your crow prepared ED?

[East Detroit]

I brought up abortion Lorax?

East Detroit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk

How do you like your crow prepared ED?

Cute YouTube "citation."

Where is the part where he said he is going to "take over everything," as you stated in your original one-liner?

Looks like you're going to have to take door B and shut up.

[EastSider]

Imposing tarrifs- a little protectionism, as is being done with imported Chinese tires by the Obama Administration are small ways we can preserve jobs in this country in the short term.

Add another "Unfortunate Fact" to the pile. Tariffs don't help.

Ever doubt the law of unintended consequences? Recall the hoopla about imported steel during Bush's presidency. The steelworkers begged and pleaded with Bush to save the domestic steel industry from cheaper imports. After some time, Bush agreed.

But then the companies that use steel, primarily the automakers, complained because the higher cost were negatively affecting their industry.

Let's not forget that tariffs played a significant role in creating the Great Depression.

[Lorax]

Actually tariffs do work when they are used across the board. Picking and choosing small areas of a single industry is too little, too late.

A trade policy that uses tariffs universally will do more to keep jobs than anything else.

Admittedly it will be difficult to achieve after thirty years of systematically removing them, but with one of two tough choices facing us as a nation- either bring down our standard of living including wages to third world levels to meet the marketplace demand of 2 billion inexpensive laborers, or retreat into a protectionist mode for our core industries where the most jobs can be preserved- we are stuck with the lesser of two evils.

The current economic collapse is indicative of how corporatism has decided the outcome of this- we're living through the breakdown of our system, where we will have no choice, unfortunately, but to accept the lower standard of living, per the "New World Order" of the Bush Crime Family and their cohorts.

I would really have no problem with this in theory, if they bring filet mignon down to 25 cents a pound, and penthouses here in Miami sell for 30,000 bucks, and new Cadillacs were no more than 4 thousand bucks. Then our current economic model would make sense. Now, if that is the soon-to-be outcome, then I'm all for it. I won't hold my breath.

[ccbatson]

Really? When did tariffs "work"?

I suppose it depends on the goals...if, like Obama, you are a radical revolutionary marxist, then success is destroying the American system to be reformed in Stalin's likeness. From Obama's perspective Tariffs could "work" as Lorax says....remember what they did in the 20-30s?

[elganned]

Tariffs only are useful to protect industries which are vital to national defense. In the case of steel it could possibly be justified on that basis; it's hard to be the "arsenal of democracy" if you don't have anything to build with.

In the case of tires, microwaves, toothbrushes--it's difficult in my mind to make a national defense case for tariffs.

Cc, I find it curious that you are anti-tariff. You are aware that lowering trade barriers serves the inextricable intertwining of international commerce and promotes the "one-world" philosophy? Especially in light of the fact that the vast majority of the world thinks your strict version of capitalism is anathama? Or don't you have any problem with that?

What does the Holy Book of Rand have to say on the matter?

[Detroitej72]

Really? When did tariffs "work"?

Before the dismantling of the Glass-Steagall Act.

[Detroitej72]

I brought up abortion Lorax?

Since you obviously were either drunk or have a short term memory, check out your post #54 to refresh your mind.

Once again, no need to thank me, Bats old boy. I'm just here to help a fellow chap out, and keep them from embarrassing themselves.

[ccbatson]

Tariffs caused the great depression. They are anti free trade. I am for free [[but just) trade.

Lorax, I am flattered that you pay such close attention to my words. However, you missed the context. I was explaining that government controls people via economic methods...ie the costs of a choice like abortion[[I was neither endorsing or deriding it here...it was an example of what is considered a social liberty) could put the real decision in the hands of government. In this way economic enslavement is inextricable from social liberty.

[Lorax]

Tariffs caused the great depression. They are anti free trade. I am for free [[but just) trade.

Lorax, I am flattered that you pay such close attention to my words. However, you missed the context. I was explaining that government controls people via economic methods...ie the costs of a choice like abortion[[I was neither endorsing or deriding it here...it was an example of what is considered a social liberty) could put the real decision in the hands of government. In this way economic enslavement is inextricable from social liberty.

Gee, I didn't know abortions were covered by United Health Care, or any other private for profit nazi organization, and I'm sure at lower cost than the feds could provide. NOT.

When private insurance covers this at lower cost than the feds could provide, then we can talk. They don't, and they won't.

[ccbatson]

Sigh...as with any elective [[choice) procedures, abortions are an out of pocket cost item...similarly, insurance does not cover cosmetic surgery that is purely elective.

[Lorax]

Sigh...as with any elective [[choice) procedures, abortions are an out of pocket cost item...similarly, insurance does not cover cosmetic surgery that is purely elective.

Thanks for admitting you're not a doctor. I'll be sure to share your revelation with the rest of the posters from this point forward.

Any genuine doctor would recognize that not all abortions are "elective" as you put it. In cases where the health of the mother is threatened, abortions are medically necessary. If your position is that for-profit nazi health care shouldn't pay for such abortions then you are sadly misguided.

You should have your license revoked, if indeed you are a "doctor."