Sarah: Poll Shows She's for Real

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]orion wrote:

It is true that we are more Lockean than Hobbean in that we state that men can basically rule themselves, but that is not due to a naive belief in them being naturally “good” beings.

It is more like, since we are all drawn to certain vices it really does not make sense to couple that with a monopoly on coercive power. That means being flawed on steroids.[/quote]

You again miss the point. The first point is that, yes, we are drawn to certain “vices” that are not situational - they are problematic for society whether the individual thinks they are a “vice” or not.

That said, you mistakenly assume that I/we think that government is the antidote to those “vices” - not true. Government does have some role, but not much of one. Other institutions are primarily the antidote.

The problem with “libertarianism” is that it fails to recognize that an antidote is needed at all really, government or otherwise.

[quote]Also, Bastiat answered one of your points, so it is time time to post it yet again:

[quote]
Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain. [/quote]

Insofar you share something with socialists, you think that it has to be done by the state or it wont be done at all.[/quote]

You mess up again - the above quote squares exactly with my position that I stated earlier. I never said or even suggested that “it has to be done by the state or it won’t be done at all” - in fact, read above, I said the exact opposite.

Here again we see a recurring problem - you argue against a position of your own making. I expressly stated that certain roles must be fulfilled by institutions other than the state, but emphasized that these roles still must be fulfilled in contravention to the libertarian line that we need no such institutions, private or public.

You say that your brand of libertarianism permits private “institutions”, but that is impossible - given the central tenet of moral relativism of your brand of “liberty”, society is as good with a given institution (traditional marriage, as an example) as without. While your “libertarianism” permits the existence of said private institutions that help alleviate the dark side of Men, permission is not the same thing as promotion.

[quote]As for the market being pure unadulterated herd instinct. Well yes, it can be. That is not the same as a democratic coercive state though because you are not forced to be part of that herd. In fact the market will also provide for your more sophisticated needs if you are willing and able to pay for it. Democracies wont.

So, while democracies bring everything down to the lowest denominator, in a free market people voting with their wallets do not necessarily force you to partake in their decisions. [/quote]

Sure, markets do this all the time. And I did not advocate a democratic coercive state - which is why I instead advocate a constitutional republic.

When a “herd instinct” decides to organize a government and give it certain powers - as an agent of society - the same event is occurring as in your hallowed market: people decide of their own accord that certain aspects of society should be handled by the state.

If it bothers you that you don’t have the ability to “opt out” of a decision made by the people instituting certain powers within a government, well, that is precisely why libertarians and conservatives don’t see eye to eye on this issue - that ability to “opt out” is precisely one of the aspects of society that conservatives want to guard against.

The “opt out” option undermines the very social glue that conservatives are trying to conserve because the “opt out” is based on the notion that “vice” equals “virtue” if an individual wants it to, thus undermining the point of the social institutions that serve as antidote to Man’s dark side.

There’s your difference.

122

[quote]orion wrote:
Well you will have to understand that there will be no “conservative values” as long as conservatives try to legislate morality.
[/quote]

There’ll be no ‘libertarian values’ without conservative morality. You’ll never have a self reliant people without traditional moral institutions curbing the surrender to instant gratification and appetities. One of the silliest comments I see on this board is “what goes on in my bedroom is none of your business.” It could be the liberal/libertarian rallying cry, really. Except, guess what? It is our business, as we’re all stuck with the consequences of fatherless children, single mothers, and STD’s. Costly government welfare and health programs, crime, crude children and teens, and even cruder adults.

On the other end you have materialistic folks who are better off financially, but they can’t be bothered to reproduce. Not with the status of traditional families having been so weakened. When they do reproduce, that silly gender role stuff no longer applies. Mommy and daddy both work so they can have SUVs, big screen TVs, i-phones for everyone, and with a computer in every room. They barely have time to raise their own children (public schools do most of it for them). And you can forget about them caring for their own elderly family. So, guess what? We all take care of each other’s elderly through our represenative government.

Ok, don’t vote for us. The sooner the rift becomes permanent, the better, in my opinion. This battle of ideas is long overdue.

[quote]However, we are the only allies you have when it comes to cutting government spending and that is what it comes down to for both libertarians and conservatives.
[/quote]

I don’t think so. Instead, I think you guys are unwittingly big government. Much too naive about unbridled human nature and who ends up paying for it. And way too dissmisive about the absolute importance of the traditional morality and institutions that can foster local and self reliance.

123

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Well you will have to understand that there will be no “conservative values” as long as conservatives try to legislate morality.
[/quote]

There’ll be no ‘libertarian values’ without conservative morality. You’ll never have a self reliant people without traditional moral institutions curbing the surrender to instant gratification and appetities. One of the silliest comments I see on this board is “what goes on in my bedroom is none of your business.” It could be the liberal/libertarian rallying cry, really. Except, guess what? It is our business, as we’re all stuck with the consequences of fatherless children, single mothers, and STD’s. Costly government welfare and health programs, crime, crude children and teens, and even cruder adults.

On the other end you have materialistic folks who are better off financially, but they can’t be bothered to reproduce. Not with the status of traditional families having been so weakened. When they do reproduce, that silly gender role stuff no longer applies. Mommy and daddy both work so they can have SUVs, big screen TVs, i-phones for everyone, and with a computer in every room. They barely have time to raise their own children (public schools do most of it for them). And you can forget about them caring for their own elderly family. So, guess what? We all take care of each other’s elderly through our represenative government.

Ok, don’t vote for us. The sooner the rift becomes permanent, the better, in my opinion. This battle of ideas is long overdue.

[quote]However, we are the only allies you have when it comes to cutting government spending and that is what it comes down to for both libertarians and conservatives.
[/quote]

I don’t think so. Instead, I think you guys are unwittingly big government. Much too naive about unbridled human nature and who ends up paying for it. And way too dissmisive about the absolute importance of the traditional morality and institutions that can foster local and self reliance. [/quote]

Almost all of this is nonsense.

You have it completely backasswards.

It is not conservative values that creates a free society, it is a free society that creates conservative values.

If conservative values would not work in real live they would be pointless. Since they do not work in a welfare state, they are disappearing.

I am also not so convinced that conservative values are the only way. While some values are more or less a constant of human behavior if you want to live in peace with your neighbor, why not also a marketplace of values- That is todays reality anyway, and the genie is out of the bottle.

All you can really do is establish the principle that people should not be forced to pay for other peoples mistakes, step aside and see what happens.

It is inevitable that some set of rules will evolve and work as a common ground and as long as it prevents raping and pillaging, what more can you ask for?

Since those ideas will inevitably draw from a Judeo Christian background and since those ideas will have a somewhat realistic outlook on how human beings really are, it is very likely that it will be almost undistinguishable from “conservative values” anyway.

124

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

It is true that we are more Lockean than Hobbean in that we state that men can basically rule themselves, but that is not due to a naive belief in them being naturally “good” beings.

It is more like, since we are all drawn to certain vices it really does not make sense to couple that with a monopoly on coercive power. That means being flawed on steroids.[/quote]

You again miss the point. The first point is that, yes, we are drawn to certain “vices” that are not situational - they are problematic for society whether the individual thinks they are a “vice” or not.

That said, you mistakenly assume that I/we think that government is the antidote to those “vices” - not true. Government does have some role, but not much of one. Other institutions are primarily the antidote.

The problem with “libertarianism” is that it fails to recognize that an antidote is needed at all really, government or otherwise.

[quote]Also, Bastiat answered one of your points, so it is time time to post it yet again:

[quote]
Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain. [/quote]

Insofar you share something with socialists, you think that it has to be done by the state or it wont be done at all.[/quote]

You mess up again - the above quote squares exactly with my position that I stated earlier. I never said or even suggested that “it has to be done by the state or it won’t be done at all” - in fact, read above, I said the exact opposite.

Here again we see a recurring problem - you argue against a position of your own making. I expressly stated that certain roles must be fulfilled by institutions other than the state, but emphasized that these roles still must be fulfilled in contravention to the libertarian line that we need no such institutions, private or public.

You say that your brand of libertarianism permits private “institutions”, but that is impossible - given the central tenet of moral relativism of your brand of “liberty”, society is as good with a given institution (traditional marriage, as an example) as without. While your “libertarianism” permits the existence of said private institutions that help alleviate the dark side of Men, permission is not the same thing as promotion.

[quote]As for the market being pure unadulterated herd instinct. Well yes, it can be. That is not the same as a democratic coercive state though because you are not forced to be part of that herd. In fact the market will also provide for your more sophisticated needs if you are willing and able to pay for it. Democracies wont.

So, while democracies bring everything down to the lowest denominator, in a free market people voting with their wallets do not necessarily force you to partake in their decisions. [/quote]

Sure, markets do this all the time. And I did not advocate a democratic coercive state - which is why I instead advocate a constitutional republic.

When a “herd instinct” decides to organize a government and give it certain powers - as an agent of society - the same event is occurring as in your hallowed market: people decide of their own accord that certain aspects of society should be handled by the state.

If it bothers you that you don’t have the ability to “opt out” of a decision made by the people instituting certain powers within a government, well, that is precisely why libertarians and conservatives don’t see eye to eye on this issue - that ability to “opt out” is precisely one of the aspects of society that conservatives want to guard against.

The “opt out” option undermines the very social glue that conservatives are trying to conserve because the “opt out” is based on the notion that “vice” equals “virtue” if an individual wants it to, thus undermining the point of the social institutions that serve as antidote to Man’s dark side.

There’s your difference.[/quote]

Well you do the exact same thing you accuse me of doing. Nobody with some weight in the libertarian movement holds that position, only libertines like Maher. Not that I would have any problems with it, he pays for pot and hookers with his own money and will probably pay for his medical care too if that ever should become a problem.

Also, if you had read up on Ron Pauls position you would know that he is very much against the use of drugs, abortion and also shares a lot of other positions with conservatives, but, even in those cases he is against a prohibition though his stance on abortion is a tad more complicated-

Also, and I think my reply to Sloth answers this to a large extent so why drone on endlessly, we do not think that vice is virtue depending on the person, we just do not believe that you or I can possibly know what works for someone else.

While most people are born conformists and will stick to even unwritten rules (which is why I do not think that we will experience chaos if we are not constantly beaten into submission) you make it hard if not impossible for those who know better than you to teach the next generation because it is far too easy to portray them as evildoers to quote the recent most sophomoric example.

Need I remind you that Socrates was killed for corrupting the young?

125

[quote]orion wrote:

It is not conservative values that creates a free society, it is a free society that creates conservative values.[/quote]

And, I say thee nay!

126

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

It is not conservative values that creates a free society, it is a free society that creates conservative values.[/quote]

And, I say thee nay! [/quote]

And I answer thee, study history!

A lot of virtues you take for granted like punctuality and, to some degree, polite behavior are the result of industrialization.

127

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

It is not conservative values that creates a free society, it is a free society that creates conservative values.[/quote]

And, I say thee nay! [/quote]

And I answer thee, study history!

A lot of virtues you take for granted like punctuality and, to some degree, polite behavior are the result of industrialization.[/quote]

I’d respond that much of what one would refer to ass conservative ideas allowed for this. The ordering of society in such a way as to free up leisure time for intellectual persuits. Then leading to industrialization and so on, and so forth, and so on, and…

128

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

It is not conservative values that creates a free society, it is a free society that creates conservative values.[/quote]

And, I say thee nay! [/quote]

And I answer thee, study history!

A lot of virtues you take for granted like punctuality and, to some degree, polite behavior are the result of industrialization.[/quote]

I’d respond that much of what one would refer to ass conservative ideas allowed for this. The ordering of society in such a way as to free up leisure time for intellectual persuits. Then leading to industrialization and so on, and so forth, and so on, and…[/quote]

That cannot be because without industrialization there was no leisure time for the masses worth speaking of.

In order to eat they had to be on time though.

And get along with their coworkers and superiors.

129

Let’s put it like this. Blacks are hovering at about 70% of births to unmarried women. Hispanics are now up to 50%, and whites have climbed to (I believe) 30%. You think you can even begin to roll back the welfare state with those numbers? Nuh-uh. Good luck with that. Your best bet is a good old fashioned revival of traditional norms. Marriage vows actually meaning something, not using marriage to recognize alternative lifestyles (sorry, marriage serves a purpose, and must be exclusive to recapture it’s presitge), teen sex and out of wedlock births being shameful (oh, I’m so mean!), moms being home for the kids, ect., etc.,

But you know what? I admit there may be no going back. But that just means we’re stuck with bigger, and bigger, government.

130

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Let’s put it like this. Blacks are hovering at about 70% of births to unmarried women. Hispanics are now up to 50%, and whites have climbed to (I believe) 30%. You think you can even begin to roll back the welfare state with those numbers? Nuh-uh. Good luck with that. Your best bet is a good old fashioned revival of traditional norms. Marriage vows actually meaning something, not using marriage to recognize alternative lifestyles (sorry, marriage serves a purpose, and must be exclusive to recapture it’s presitge), teen sex and out of wedlock births being shameful (oh, I’m so mean!), moms being home for the kids, ect., etc.,

But you know what? I admit there may be no going back. But that just means we’re stuck with bigger, and bigger, government.[/quote]

I have seen the results of these things up close. Children raised by single mothers (usually) CANNOT COMPETE academically with children raised in a two-parent home. Those children further are at a slight disadvantage to children who have a stay-at-home mom. This is based upon 30 years of teaching.

Breed like animals → animals for children

Nothing can be done about it now though. The world is devolving into mental midgets and the few elite who really run things.

131

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Let’s put it like this. Blacks are hovering at about 70% of births to unmarried women. Hispanics are now up to 50%, and whites have climbed to (I believe) 30%. You think you can even begin to roll back the welfare state with those numbers? Nuh-uh. Good luck with that. Your best bet is a good old fashioned revival of traditional norms. Marriage vows actually meaning something, not using marriage to recognize alternative lifestyles (sorry, marriage serves a purpose, and must be exclusive to recapture it’s presitge), teen sex and out of wedlock births being shameful (oh, I’m so mean!), moms being home for the kids, ect., etc.,

But you know what? I admit there may be no going back. But that just means we’re stuck with bigger, and bigger, government.[/quote]

That there is no going back is almost a necessary conclusion if you accept my premises, yes, and I never denied this.

I remember that some people had a field day when I posted that I would not “rebel” at all, but suirrel money so that I could survive the coming storm. I have given up on this system, I would never work for this system and the best I hope for is to see the signs early enough to be able to avoid the worst atrocities that will undoubtedly happen. The unwashed masses get so unpleasant when their illusions get shattered by cold, hard reality and I doubt that a lifetime of pampering by a welfare state will help them cope.

However, when SS systems really break down, and we both know that they inevitably will, there should be at last one movement with a track record of having predicted that and of having stated the reasons why it would break down decades before politicians had to face that fact.

132

What I find really interesting is how, in the face of mathematical certitude that this system is goat-fucked long term, people still want their Medicare and Social Security checks. “I paid in and I want my money!!” You can show them how they are asking the impossible but they still vote for con artists who promise them utopia.

I have long contended that prosperity and voting are incompatible, since voters will always want free stuff from others. Goat-fucked…and soon.

133

[quote]orion wrote:
However, when SS systems really break down, and we both know that they inevitably will, there should be at last one movement with a track record of having predicted that and of having stated the reasons why it would break down decades before politicians had to face that fact.

[/quote]

I want to make a prediction now. If, as I believe will happen, noone touches these entitlements out of fear for their political lives, and total failure becomes imminent, it’ll be capitalists who’ll be blamed. And, it will be eaten up by the public. I can recall articles/blog posts by libertarian/Conservative authors resigned to the fact that we’ll have to wait for financial ruin in order to “get our country back.” A big wake up call to the people that big government fails. This, I think is misquided.

Instead, I think said collapse will lead to outright centralization. For those who think capitalism is going to profit from the coming crises, I’d say way put away the champagne. You’re going to be sorely disapointed.

134

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
However, when SS systems really break down, and we both know that they inevitably will, there should be at last one movement with a track record of having predicted that and of having stated the reasons why it would break down decades before politicians had to face that fact.

[/quote]

I want to make a prediction now. If, as I believe will happen, noone touches these entitlements out of fear for their political lives, and total failure becomes imminent, it’ll be capitalists who’ll be blamed. And, it will be eaten up by the public. I can recall articles/blog posts by libertarian/Conservative authors resigned to the fact that we’ll have to wait for financial ruin in order to “get our country back.” A big wake up call to the people that big government fails. This, I think is misquided.

Instead, I think said collapse will lead to outright centralization. For those who think capitalism is going to profit from the coming crises, I’d say way put away the champagne. You’re going to be sorely disapointed.[/quote]

I dont think that capitalism will benefit either.

I hear though that the Bahamas are nice and warm and have practically no income tax- I am sure that other Europeans and/or Americans will join me there.

Which is why I need some money outside of my governments grasp.

Which is of course much easier than to hide it from yours, since we are a speck on the globe really, as Chushin constantly reminds me.

Well, lets see how he will enjoy his mighty government when the shit hits the fan.

135

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

No, we’re not allies. Well, I’m obviously not speaking for Thunderbolt. But to me, no we’re not allies. If anything, Libertarians now bother me more than liberals. [/quote]

A very interesting point, one I am afraid to say I have to agree with. I once saw “libertarians” as somewhat of fellow travelers - now, I find a good deal of them as irritating and frivolous as far-left-wingers.

[quote]Want a smaller, leaner government? Self reliance and responsibility? Social conservatism is the answer. Otherwise, it’s, “Social liberalism? Sure! But, I’ll pass on the fiscal conservatism. It’s cradle to grave safety nets for me, thanks!”

Everyone wants to be ‘free’ (or, follow base instincts) to do as they wish. Not so much when it comes to shouldering the consequences of their ‘freedom’ all by their lonesome. Mix in the right to vote, or a “people’s revolution” in the absence of the vote, and you’ll end up with a can’t pay the bills-nanny state eventually.[/quote]

I think this is an excellent observation - the ethic of “follow your base instinct” typically leads to some very unfortunate consequences which, humans being what they have always been, simply won’t permit people to truly suffer the consequences of their choices.

After all, the nanny-state is, at its core, this impulse writ large, and built to save people from themselves - which only comes as a result of them failing miserably and destroying their lives through their bad choices (subsidized by social liberalism’s encouragement).

Does an adherence to “social liberalism” inevitably lead to the nanny-state? By gum, Sloth - I think you’ve raised the question (and suggested an answer) quite well.[/quote]

Yes and Yes.

Without an ascendant socially conservative morality, voluntarily participated in by the preponderance of a society’s citizens no society of lasting freedom and or strength is possible. Morality cannot indeed be legislated which is why I specified the necessity of it’s voluntary private nature. The founders based the whole of their thinking, even where they disagreed, on the assumption that a certain kind of morality would be in place to see to the upkeep of their handiwork and did not cease to warn us of what would happen if that were to one day no longer be the case.

We are at this moment in the process of finalizing the realization of their most horrific fears. This tyrannosaurus of a nanny state disaster is the inevitable direct result of liberal/libertarian license.

John Adams said once quite prophetically:

[quote]
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.

* Letter to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts (11 October 1798)[/quote]