Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[pinecone]

Well..you know maybe someday they will get their dream, a society that will have no problem with gunning them down like mad dogs if they do anything goofy. I've noticed a lot of persons that think that a libertarian society would be a utopia, fail to consider their own likely fate in one.

[st barbara]

Um... Well... How shall I put this... Do you pay taxes?

Not being a citizen of the U S A the answer is no. In Australia I did when I was working (retired now). So, I assume that you are saying that the taxpayers (which in the U S seems to mean the middle class, not the wealthy) will , as usual, do the paying. Why am I not surprised ?

[Michael Hopcroft]

Well..you know maybe someday they will get their dream, a society that will have no problem with gunning them down like mad dogs if they do anything goofy. I've noticed a lot of persons that think that a libertarian society would be a utopia, fail to consider their own likely fate in one.

They simply believe they are the "alpha wolves", despite obvious evidence to the contrary. The systems the reactionaries admire all failed, and they failed for reasons that have not changed since they were tried.

 

I sometimes wonder what Gary Gygax's opinions were on the subject because a lot of the D&D paradigm assumes that society is based on the attitudes of those who wield power within in. 9th level characters in AD&D first edition, for example, were described as having accumulated wealth and political power as well as combat prowess. This was as a matter of course, and supposedly it did not interfere with them adventuring as their "fiefs" would essentially run themselves and the followers they attract by virtue of their level would be fanatically loyal no matter how you treated them. I imagine that in most actual games this was ignored and adventurers just went on adventuring. If the King is of a good alignment, so is his kingdom, and that is also true for an evil King.

 

Of course, everyone fantasizes about being a monarch on a throne at one point or another. It's a large part of the appeal of this hobby. It's when we develop notions that we really deserve ultimate power that we run into trouble, especially when we believe we belong to a nation/ethnicity/religion that is so inherently superior to all others that it's a gross injustice we're not in charge, I'm seeing that a lot now.

[Nolgroth]

I actually have more fantasies about being the Grandfather of Assassins. Or was the Grandmaster? Either way, not interested in ruling a mass of bleating sheep who are never satisfied. Better to be an agent of Chaotic Nihilism.

[Tom]

Given it feels like just about everyone feels let down by existing parties everywhere to at least some extent, I find my self wondering what it would take to even attempt to pull off what the media thinks Macron and the LREM are likely to do in France.

 

Yes, the US and France have different systems.  We're comparing apples to oranges at best.

 

Still, the LREM was supposedly formed slightly more than a year ago (I think I saw 14 months in an article).

 

The French National Assembly is 577 seats and there is a belief that the LREM could win ~400 (they need 289 seats for a majority) after the second round voting this weekend with a number of their candidates being complete novices.  I'm getting most of my news on this from the BBC, though I've read articles in both The Economist and on CNN's website.

 

If a group wanted to make even a comparative attempt, just how much of a logistical nightmare would it be to field a valid candidate in every US House seat in 2018.

[Heroic Halfwit]

Well..you know maybe someday they will get their dream, a society that will have no problem with gunning them down like mad dogs if they do anything goofy. I've noticed a lot of persons that think that a libertarian society would be a utopia, fail to consider their own likely fate in one.

 

Huh?  How exactly do you get from a libertarian society to people "gunning them down like mad dogs if they do anything goofy?"  Libertarianism is not simply armed anarchy.  Most Libertarians I know do not have any intention of engaging in vigilantism much less "mob justice."  Something that cannot be said about the radical left in the US ("riot is the voice of the voiceless"  "by any means necessary"  "direct action now!" etc.)

 

The hallmark of a libertarian utopia is a general acceptance of a standard of civility and privacy where, by and large, people leave each other alone.  I'm not sure how you get from civility and not interference to "mob justice."  

 

Please do enlighten. 

[Nolgroth]

I find that people who pursue any ideological utopia fail to consider their place within that Utopia. Personally, I don't think any form of Utopia is good. The very concept deprives us of the drive to be better. Stagnation follows.

 

No. I would rather have something to strive for than to be swaddled in the blanket of complacence.

[Michael Hopcroft]

I wonder if the one country closest to the libertarian ideal might be -- Russia,

 

Russia may be a dictatorship, but it's a dictatorship that favors business to high degrees. There are few regulations on finance or the environment, which has enabled some people and companies to become richer than they would have with an effective watchdog curbing their excesses. After the fall of Communism, many formerly state-run businesses were sold off to private enterprise. So companies like Gazprom have become very rich on infrastructure and facilities they had no part in building. 

 

In short, Russia is a great place to be if you want to make boatloads of money. Not so great if you want society to make even a pretense of fairness or responsibility, but surely an elite group becoming extremely wealthy makes up for that.

[Iuz the Evil]

Huh? How exactly do you get from a libertarian society to people "gunning them down like mad dogs if they do anything goofy?" Libertarianism is not simply armed anarchy. Most Libertarians I know do not have any intention of engaging in vigilantism much less "mob justice." Something that cannot be said about the radical left in the US ("riot is the voice of the voiceless" "by any means necessary" "direct action now!" etc.)

 

The hallmark of a libertarian utopia is a general acceptance of a standard of civility and privacy where, by and large, people leave each other alone. I'm not sure how you get from civility and not interference to "mob justice."

 

Please do enlighten.

Sure, happy to enlighten.

 

NRX is not libertarianism. They take from elements of libertarianism, nationalism, racial supremacist dogma, and fascism. They are most likely to put Libertarian labels on their ideology as it is the least radical and most accepted of their derivative sources.

 

And violent action is the Hallmark of both extreme ends of the spectrum. You are most likely to see said violence when one end sees themselves as disenfranchised. They're all crazy though, and when they feel unable to achieve their goals through political means you get violence.

 

I'm anticipating you may want an example: just one is you appear least likely to see targeted assassination of abortion providers when there appears to be a solid chance of overturning Roe v Wade (half dozen murders Clinton era, 1 Bush era, back up to 3 in Obama Administration).

 

https://5aa1b2xfmfh2e2mk03kk8rsx-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016-NAF-Violence-and-Disruption-Statistics.pdf

 

There are others. It seems that unstable and violent radicals are quick to reach for violence when their goals are thwarted, irrespective of political leaning.

[pinecone]

Huh?  How exactly do you get from a libertarian society to people "gunning them down like mad dogs if they do anything goofy?"  Libertarianism is not simply armed anarchy.  Most Libertarians I know do not have any intention of engaging in vigilantism much less "mob justice."  Something that cannot be said about the radical left in the US ("riot is the voice of the voiceless"  "by any means necessary"  "direct action now!" etc.)

 

The hallmark of a libertarian utopia is a general acceptance of a standard of civility and privacy where, by and large, people leave each other alone.  I'm not sure how you get from civility and not interference to "mob justice."  

 

Please do enlighten. 

My understanding is a libertarian utopia has no military, no police, no "laws" exept the honor, and judment of individguals. So if "Mr. "X"" sells stock in a fraud, a concerned wronged citizen points a pistol at him, and walks out onto the street, calls the passerbys as a jury, and a finding is reached. If the passer bys declare it was his own fault for not doing due dillagence the "fraudster" walks off...if the agreived party shoots him anyway...well thats murder! Of course it will be up to a concerned party to repeat the process etc...

 

Which part of this senarios is without both of our views being "correct"?

[Heroic Halfwit]

My understanding is a libertarian utopia has no military, no police, no "laws" exept the honor, and judment of individguals. So if "Mr. "X"" sells stock in a fraud, a concerned wronged citizen points a pistol at him, and walks out onto the street, calls the passerbys as a jury, and a finding is reached. If the passer bys declare it was his own fault for not doing due dillagence the "fraudster" walks off...if the agreived party shoots him anyway...well thats murder! Of course it will be up to a concerned party to repeat the process etc...

 

Which part of this senarios is without both of our views being "correct"?

I don't know where you get your understanding of libertarianism, but it certainly is not mine.  The idea that a Libertarian candidate would consider much less support the idea of doing away with the military, police, courts and the rule of law is clearly not founded in anything that I have read or any of the Libertarian candidates for whom I have worked.  What you are describing is a "moral anarchy" where one relies on the "basic goodness of people" to prevent evil.  It is a radical position, even within the anarchist community.  

 

Libertarianism does put a premium on individual liberty and individual responsibility, but that liberty is bounded by each other person's rights, which rights are enforced through the use of force, via police, as informed by neutral and impartial courts with trials by juries.  The common short hand is "Your rights end at my nose."  Each person is largely free to do whatever takes that person's fancy unless and until it infringes on another's rights.  So, a libertarian would, for example, do away with usury laws, if a person wants to lend another money at 112% Annual Percentage Rate and another person wishes to borrow money at that rate, a Libertarian government would allow that contract to take place and enforce the breach of it.

 

If, however, a person committed fraud in procuring a contract, e.g. selling a painting claiming that it was in fact Da Vinci's Mona Lisa, when in fact it was not the Mona Lisa and the seller know it was not, the Libertarian government would not enforce that contract.

 

There is a significant difference in morality in law between a fraud where one party intentionally deceives another, and one party's failure to exercise reasonable caution and due diligence.  The first is a crime, the second is the individual responsibility of the person who failed to act reasonably.  

 

Please tell me where you got your "no military, no police, no laws" understanding from, because I can't think of a single Libertarian candidate, government, or philosophical writer who came anywhere close to such nonsense. 

[DShomshak]

As Iuz suggests, "Libertarian" is a broad label, ranging from people who seriously and rationally debate how and what government should do, to anarchist wackjobs. I know one of the former, so I do not tar all people who call themselves "libertarian" with the same brush. But there are also a fair number who simply regard it as intolerable that anyone else should tell them what to do.

 

(And as Heroic Halfwit alludes, "Libertarian" capitalized is a party with a platform and everything. Without capitalization, it could be anyone. For instance, my Libertarian-capitalized friend is quite vehement that Ayn Rand and her loopier devotees are not Libertarians..Not for me to say.)

 

Dean Shomshak

[Heroic Halfwit]

Sure, happy to enlighten.

 

NRX is not libertarianism. They take from elements of libertarianism, nationalism, racial supremacist dogma, and fascism. They are most likely to put Libertarian labels on their ideology as it is the least radical and most accepted of their derivative sources.

 

And violent action is the Hallmark of both extreme ends of the spectrum. You are most likely to see said violence when one end sees themselves as disenfranchised. They're all crazy though, and when they feel unable to achieve their goals through political means you get violence.

 

I'm anticipating you may want an example: just one is you appear least likely to see targeted assassination of abortion providers when there appears to be a solid chance of overturning Roe v Wade (half dozen murders Clinton era, 1 Bush era, back up to 3 in Obama Administration).

 

https://5aa1b2xfmfh2e2mk03kk8rsx-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016-NAF-Violence-and-Disruption-Statistics.pdf

 

There are others. It seems that unstable and violent radicals are quick to reach for violence when their goals are thwarted, irrespective of political leaning.

I have no idea about this NRX stuff, but I agree it isn't libertarian.

 

As to the "abortion murders" the sample size is really small, and with only 10 incidents in 20+ years I cannot think of a single statistical test that could turn such low magnitude data into anything.  Though if you do know of such a test, I'll calculate it.

[Lectryk]

My understanding is a libertarian utopia has no military, no police, no "laws" exept the honor, and judment of individguals. So if "Mr. "X"" sells stock in a fraud, a concerned wronged citizen points a pistol at him, and walks out onto the street, calls the passerbys as a jury, and a finding is reached. If the passer bys declare it was his own fault for not doing due dillagence the "fraudster" walks off...if the agreived party shoots him anyway...well thats murder! Of course it will be up to a concerned party to repeat the process etc...

 

Which part of this senarios is without both of our views being "correct"?

 

 

I don't know where you get your understanding of libertarianism, but it certainly is not mine.  The idea that a Libertarian candidate would consider much less support the idea of doing away with the military, police, courts and the rule of law is clearly not founded in anything that I have read or any of the Libertarian candidates for whom I have worked.  What you are describing is a "moral anarchy" where one relies on the "basic goodness of people" to prevent evil.  It is a radical position, even within the anarchist community.  

 

.....

 

Please tell me where you got your "no military, no police, no laws" understanding from, because I can't think of a single Libertarian candidate, government, or philosophical writer who came anywhere close to such nonsense. 

 

 

Science Fiction writer and Libertarian activist, philosopher, candidate, and general walking advertisement for libertarian-ism L Neil Smith espouses almost this identical scenario for his vision of how a Libertarian 'future' would look and function - no formal agencies/authorities - appeals to ad hoc formations as needed - everyone armed to the teeth and ready to defend their liberty at the drop of a cartridge - no standing military (since there was no standing government) - if you wanted police protection you paid private firms for security, and so on.

 

I read 'The Probability Broach' and at least one follow up book in the 70's and very early 80's, and he had more books detailing this universe.  Basically his alternate history diverges from ours during the period after the revolutionary war, and the period of initial unrest during the Whiskey Rebellion leading to an an intensified personal liberty, faster technological development, the recognition of simians and cetaceans as intelligent with full citizenship, etc.... the standard s-f 'wow, lookit how the world is different!' fare (the book was set in the far off future of the late 90's/early 00's, at least the start of it).

 

The book/author notes even plugged the Libertarian Society and gave you addresses to write to for more literature.

 

I don't know if this was pinecone's inspiration for his post, but it does answer the '... I can't think of ...' part of yours.

 

I am not saying that Smith's work is indicative of general libertarian thought, any more than the stable of similarly themed or motivated Baen writers in the later 90's forward is.  But, to those who read it, and were interested in more of his particular brand of libertarian-ism who sought out and read other works of Smith, you'd find a world view consistent with his writings. 

 

Also, you could make an argument that pinecone's scenario could be distilled out of the essentials of Rand-ism, at least carried to a logical conclusion of her arguments, and she would be a much more widely read author than Smith..  

[Iuz the Evil]

I have no idea about this NRX stuff, but I agree it isn't libertarian.

 

As to the "abortion murders" the sample size is really small, and with only 10 incidents in 20+ years I cannot think of a single statistical test that could turn such low magnitude data into anything. Though if you do know of such a test, I'll calculate it.

Targeted assassination in the name of abortion prevention is only a single observable example. There's no statistical metric showing left wing political preference for violent action, though if you can demonstrate one I'd be interested to see it.

[pinecone]

Thanks! Yes I was noting what a Utopia would look like, any party that wants to gain support, will ask for less than Utopia. As a Starting point. Communism also seeks a socialist Utopia, but so far setles for something less.

 

And that exact senario was one I read many years ago, during my readings of various philosophies, and political theories. Like most, if not all Utopias it sounds hard to make work. But when I read staements by libertarians, I often feel that it boils down to exactly that, a State without a State. Only Citisans.

[assault]

The key problem with a Libertarian utopia is that it is based on inequality.

 

This means that it requires violence to maintain, and is thus dystopian for those at the receiving end of that violence.

 

I shouldn't say this, but in a Libertarian society, all citizens are equally free to chose to live in a fire trap, or under a bridge.

[Heroic Halfwit]

Targeted assassination in the name of abortion prevention is only a single observable example. There's no statistical metric showing left wing political preference for violent action, though if you can demonstrate one I'd be interested to see it.

 

My point was merely that so few incidents are unlikely to be numerous enough to draw statistically significant conclusions, at least by any statistical analyses of which I am aware.  I'm not sure that all of the "abortion assassins" were politically motivated, I suspect some may have been simply delusional or religiously preoccupied.  I do not doubt that, at least for those who were not legally insane at the time, it is fair to attribute a political aspect or motive to the killing, but your conclusion that it relates to the likelihood of Roe v. Wade being overturned because of who sits in the White House is attenuated at best.  In the history of abortion cases, the primary vehicle to get to the Supreme Court was a state law or provision, because Congress rarely takes up the abortion issue outside of funding.  Consequently, the influence of the President of the United States is limited to the appointment of a Justice to the Court.  The balance of the Supreme Court on abortion, from reading their decisions, hasn't really changed during these past 20 some odd years.  If anything the replacement of Justice Scalia with Justice Gorsuch makes overturning Roe v. Wade even less likely. 

 

 

As to whether there's a preference for violent political action on the left, that's a pretty murky issue.  Certainly you will agree with me that there have been a large number of Marxist revolutionary/rebellious/terrorist groups out there, Fidel Castro, FARC, Action Directe, etc.  One can argue whether these and other Marxists groups "preferred violence" or "forced to resort to violence" in order to obtain their ends.  

 

There were also a number of reactionary/terrorist/conservative groups that used violence in the same conflict as the aforementioned leftist groups.  Even during the American Revolution we had Revolutionaries and Loyalists (not sure how you would left wing/right wing that conflict;  it seems more right wing v. more right wing).

 

My opinion is that political violence is simply unjustifiable at this time.  I would call all who use violence or the threat of violence for political aims in America terrorists.  Once upon a time, I thought this was a consensus view, but I believe now that there is at least a significant minority who believe "it's okay to hit Fascists" and rioting and arson are reasonable responses to a police involved shooting.  

 

Anyone care to walk me through the analysis where it's okay to use violence for political ends in this country?

[Iuz the Evil]

My point was merely that so few incidents are unlikely to be numerous enough to draw statistically significant conclusions, at least by any statistical analyses of which I am aware. I'm not sure that all of the "abortion assassins" were politically motivated, I suspect some may have been simply delusional or religiously preoccupied. I do not doubt that, at least for those who were not legally insane at the time, it is fair to attribute a political aspect or motive to the killing, but your conclusion that it relates to the likelihood of Roe v. Wade being overturned because of who sits in the White House is attenuated at best. In the history of abortion cases, the primary vehicle to get to the Supreme Court was a state law or provision, because Congress rarely takes up the abortion issue outside of funding. Consequently, the influence of the President of the United States is limited to the appointment of a Justice to the Court. The balance of the Supreme Court on abortion, from reading their decisions, hasn't really changed during these past 20 some odd years. If anything the replacement of Justice Scalia with Justice Gorsuch makes overturning Roe v. Wade even less likely.

 

 

As to whether there's a preference for violent political action on the left, that's a pretty murky issue. Certainly you will agree with me that there have been a large number of Marxist revolutionary/rebellious/terrorist groups out there, Fidel Castro, FARC, Action Directe, etc. One can argue whether these and other Marxists groups "preferred violence" or "forced to resort to violence" in order to obtain their ends.

 

There were also a number of reactionary/terrorist/conservative groups that used violence in the same conflict as the aforementioned leftist groups. Even during the American Revolution we had Revolutionaries and Loyalists (not sure how you would left wing/right wing that conflict; it seems more right wing v. more right wing).

 

My opinion is that political violence is simply unjustifiable at this time. I would call all who use violence or the threat of violence for political aims in America terrorists. Once upon a time, I thought this was a consensus view, but I believe now that there is at least a significant minority who believe "it's okay to hit Fascists" and rioting and arson are reasonable responses to a police involved shooting.

 

Anyone care to walk me through the analysis where it's okay to use violence for political ends in this country?

On balance I would agree with you. Violence or the threat of violence is not an acceptable way to motivate political change in our system.

 

I can pretty easily envision political systems that would warrant violent resistance, but thankfully I don't presently live in one.

[Heroic Halfwit]

The key problem with a Libertarian utopia is that it is based on inequality.

 

This means that it requires violence to maintain, and is thus dystopian for those at the receiving end of that violence.

 

I shouldn't say this, but in a Libertarian society, all citizens are equally free to chose to live in a fire trap, or under a bridge.

Which Libertarian utopia?

 

What inequalities?  People are inherently unequal in everything but human dignity.  There is no need to use violence to create inequalities between people, because people are always unequal.  I guess (because you haven't written much) that there would be some people who have a lot of something in a "Libertarian utopia" and that other people with less would ignore their conscience (or have a morality which justifies theft) and simply take it.  The resulting conflict between those with more and those with less would in the final analysis require violence to maintain because people at bottom basically suck.

 

News flash, any system of public order will necessarily be maintained by violence.  Even a pacifist commune is maintained by violence.  Granted it's usually a gentler kind of violence, but those who take more than they are allotted and/or shirk their responsibilities to the commune are shunned, asked to leave, and sometimes even escorted from the premises by a couple of Sheriff's deputies who explain to the person what a Protective Order is.

 

Humans aren't angels, if they were there would no need of governments.  But so long as people are imperfect, you will always need to have a way of removing the cancer from the body politic.  To date, violence has been the method used.  I'd love to have another one, but I haven't found anything that has worked.

[Michael Hopcroft]

Some news I don't even read for fear of what it will inspire in terms of intrusive thought. But according to headlines in the local paper's website, Portland's homeless population has jumped by 10% over the last few years. Now it's difficult to determine how many people are homeless in a city because by the very nature of their status homeless people are hard to track down.

 

The right-wing trolls, who have a near-genocidal hatred for the poor, are probably having a field day. They live under the delusion that people are most likely to improve their condition if nobody helps them. I remember a quote from someone who stated that compassion itself is merely an insidious form of contempt.

 

I have a disorder which has intrusive thought as one of its primary symptoms. I hope it has not spilled into my interactions here (too much -- I remember a few times when something I said on the boards did not reflect what I believe). Things like this are very triggering. I've even had to revise this post a couple of times before submitting it because of the directions it was taking me. So I will have to be very careful about this topic,

[Old Man]

I find that the attitude of the right towards the poor is usually rooted in some mistaken assumptions.

[Old Man]

An analysis of the secret Senate Republicare bill which was finally released today.

 

 

 

But the main outcomes are clear. The wealthiest people would get a large tax cut. The poorest would be the most likely to lose their insurance. The cost of insurance would go down for some, particularly younger adults. For middle-income, older adults who aren’t yet eligible for Medicare, premiums would go up.

[Lord Liaden]

To me, there's a clear socio-economic demographic for both the Democrats and the Republicans toward which each is philosophically oriented. I wouldn't say either one is wholly justified, or wholly unjustified; but the parties appear to have lost the willingness to find a compromise that addresses both demographics. Their positions have become all-or-nothing.

[Lord Liaden]

I also have to say I'm disappointed by the comments from Democratic party officials in the aftermath of their loss in the Georgia special election. Their emphasis sounds to me very much like, "What strategy do we use to beat the Republicans and regain power?" I don't get any sense that they're thinking, "How do we regain the support and trust of our voters that we've obviously lost?" No consideration of their past and present conduct, or their obligation to good governance and serving the public, whether or not they're the governing party.

 

I don't know how to make both parties understand that responsibly representing their constituents and executing the functions of their offices are the surest routes to becoming the party in charge. That's what we cast our ballots expecting to see. Nobody's voting for them to watch them play their power games in a Washington vacuum.