[quote]Dustin wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Can any libertarian answer as to what replaces Social security and medicare? Anyone? No, they can’t.
[/quote]
What existed before all this?
Were old people dying in the streets because they didn’t have SS or medicare?
The answer is private charity, hand outs from churches, care from family members/friends, etc.
I wonder if some of you would have survived back in the “olden days”.
[/quote]
Push?
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Can any libertarian answer as to what replaces Social security and medicare? Anyone? No, they can’t.
[/quote]
Why can’t a private company do it? Listen here is the best part about social security, its going do die out and everyone that has been on the dole is going to find themselves screwed.
Medicare is one of the main reasons health care is so expensive, get rid of that program.
[/quote]
Push?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
No contradiction at all. I simply realize that if libertarianism was to take the lead of the GoP it would become a dead party. [/quote]
You are clearly contradictory. Your posts speak for themselves. You simply can’t endorse the Democratic Party and claim you are a small government guy. You cannot do it.[/quote]
Sure I can. If I think the possibility of a more socially conservative, decentralized/locally controlled–but mandated–entitlement plank could grow within the Democrat platform…that it has a better chance of preventing the further expansion of, even shrinking, a huge centralized entitlement state is more viable then the libertarian platform.[/quote]
Your fear of libertarianism is staggeringly paranoid if you are willing to chase this pie in the sky.[/quote]
It’s not in fear of libertarianism. You misunderstand what I’m saying. Libertarianism is dead at the starting line. I don’t fear a libertarian society, as there won’t be one.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
No contradiction at all. I simply realize that if libertarianism was to take the lead of the GoP it would become a dead party. [/quote]
You are clearly contradictory. Your posts speak for themselves. You simply can’t endorse the Democratic Party and claim you are a small government guy. You cannot do it.[/quote]
Sure I can. If I think the possibility of a more socially conservative, decentralized/locally controlled–but mandated–entitlement plank could grow within the Democrat platform…that it has a better chance of preventing the further expansion of, even shrinking, a huge centralized entitlement state is more viable then the libertarian platform.[/quote]
Your fear of libertarianism is staggeringly paranoid if you are willing to chase this pie in the sky.[/quote]
Oh, and as for pie in the sky thinking, it most likely is. It’s just that libertarian pie is at an even higher altitude.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I am realizing more and more that “More government is THE answer” is one of the arrows in your quiver. I am surprised. Sincerely surprised.[/quote]
That’s because you don’t read closely and you invent phantoms to chase. What a preposterous claim that I advocate “more government” as “THE answer”.
I’ve consistently argued for limited government, and as a corollary, a reduction in the federal government. The problem, of course, which is completely lost on ideologically blinkered libertarians - is that “limited government” is not and has never, ever, ever been the same as “no government” (or its functional equivalent) or a hatred of the very existence of government.
I ain’t a libertarian. Nor am I a “statist”. I don’t think “more government is THE answer” - and of course, were you to read better, you’d know that that was precisely my complaint w/r/t social conservatism and social liberalism - that because social liberalism has essentially decimated the vital non-government institutions that hold our civilization together (families, church, communities, fraternities, etc.), the “nanny-state” has been invited to fill the void that inevitably occurs. This, in my view, is something to lament and be upset about - i.e., we got too much government where it doesn’t belong - and it is, well, the exact opposite of thinking “more government is THE answer!”.
crikey. That is what is so disappointing - every post from the non-libertarians has to provide a tedious, color-by-numbers explanation to the libertarians that has to deal with armies and armies of straw men.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
In its LIFTI-described essence, yes, you are correct.[/quote]
How is different in your version of libertopia?
Exactly right - it should be used to perpetuate a return to social conservatism, virtue and responsibility. Neither Sloth nor I are trying to perpetuate statism by pointing this out - we are warning that the libertarian’s fantasy of social liberalism/libertinism/hedonism leads to a bad, bad place and we need to start repairing this libertarian fool’s errand.
An emasuclated state won’t lead to liberty fluorishing - it will lead to tyranny. The state must be strong enough to resist tyranny from without and anarchy within. Libertarians - somehow completely ignorant, no, immune to history - and it’s a damn good thing they aren’t in charge of anything useful.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
<<< that because social liberalism has essentially decimated the vital non-government institutions that hold our civilization together (families, church, communities, fraternities, etc.), the “nanny-state” has been invited to fill the void that inevitably occurs. >>>[/quote]
This is so simple, so excruciatingly obvious, that only deliberate self deception adequately accounts for one’s failure to recognize it.
Social liberalism IS nanny statism in it’s various stages of gestation.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Like I said, there is weight here and it has needled at me when thinking about this. Could I trouble you for a quick rundown of what you have considered good and just, and, bad and overreaching?[/quote]
I didn’t want to leave you hanging here. Basic, broad answer:
I think legislation that has promoted equality of opportunity as generally good. I think any legislation that promotes equality of result as generally bad. Markets can’t be a solution, because markets presuppose certain things outside of the market to already be in existence - and with respect to newly freed slaves, none of those pre-conditions existed. They could not avail themselves of the market - so the market couldn’t possibly remedy the problem. So, remedial legislation was necessary to help the process along.
I think legislation that is designed to promote transparency and information dissemination in commerce is generally good (these laws can promote commerce by reducing transaction costs and risks and potential for fraud). I think legislation that looks to redistribute wealth is bad (real bad).
I think legislation that provides welfare for those who cannot help themselves in necessary (it is always the obligation of the strong to protect the weak). I think this help should be limited and should more local.
I am pro-market, but with the proliferation of commerce across state lines, the growth of the federal government was largely inevitable. Doesn’t mean I agree with all of it or its scope, but it is unrealistic to think the national regulation of commerce would not (and should not) grow with the growth of national commerce.
I decentralization in lots of areas, including both state and market functions.
A good, prosperous, free civilization is made up of a bunch of institutions - family, church, communities, fraternities, and yes, market and yes, state. All of these serve a role and they must all remain in balance (and within their sphere). When one of these institutions begin encroaching on the others where it shouldn’t, the civilization begins to show weakness and sickness, as none of the institutions can be replaced by any of the others. Society degrades and is debased without a proper healthy balance (and even tension) between these institutions and the individual.
Conservatives are the conservators of this thought and tradition, warn against airheaded recipes to experiment with it, and thus are put at odds with communists, most socialists, and yes, as we have seen, libertarians.
People who worship the “market” are just as foolish, naive, and detached from reality as the people who worship the “state”. In fact, though they act like it, they aren’t very different at all. But, they don’t like to be told that.
Short version.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Wrong. Dead wrong. An emasculated state can still be an effective one. [/quote]
Nonsense - and you don’t have a single historical example to reference or an argument to make on this count. If you have an argument, make it. You haven’t yet.
An “emasculated” state couldn’t adequately defend itself from foreign invaders, nor could it protect itself from anarchy and chaos within. Liberty would evaporate because there would be inadequate security.
Don’t take my word for it - go to any zone where there is inadequate security (think Africa) and you won’t find “liberty fluorishing” anywhere, just armed gangs and short-life expectancies.
I grew up working on a horse farm, sparky - can the histrionics. Don’t take my ignoring your hokey metaphor as not understanding it.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I do not see how voting Democrat over a Libertarian, as Sloth mentioned he would do (don’t know what you would do but surmise you would do likewise) is a step toward limited government.[/quote]
I will quickly address this, as this is a major sticking point for you (even as John S. said he would gladly pull the lever for Obama if he didn’t get the candidate he wanted, but I digress).
As for me, I’d say it depends on the Democrat and it depends on the Libertarian. I once admired Libertarians more than I do now - there was a smart strain of “socially liberal/fiscally conservative” folks who didn’t delve into the extreme of either prong of the philosophy. They were smart and reasonable, even as I didn’t agree with them on everything.
Then, there came other Libertarians - complete morons who have done nothing but discredit limited government principles since they opened their mouths. Though purported proponents of limited government, liberty and freedom, etc., these bozos don’t do anything but make European Social Democracy actually look reasonable and moderate. They are so bad, so idiotic, and so ignorant, they actually hurt the case for limited government instead of helping it. And true limited government types have become apoplectic at these fools for discrediting the very movement we need most these days.
Short answer - it would depend, but it wouldn’t be a no-brainer on my part. My disdain for what passes for libertarianism these days is becoming unchartable.
[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
Ron Paul! Lew Rockwell! Ahhhh!!!
“The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.” [/quote]
What do you think of this statement seeing how you posted it?[/quote]
I agree with it. Racial harmony is produced from understanding what ‘is’, not from being forced into what ‘should be’.
[/quote]
Oh. Racial harmony (L) vs what “should be” (R)
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sometimes you need a dose of intervention now, to negate the need for much larger intervention later.[/quote]
So your a fascist?[/quote]
Yeah. I’m a fascist for supporting intervention against widespread segregationist society. Have I ever discussed my role model here? Musolini?
[/quote]
You fail to mention that segregation was a direct result of government creating laws to enforece what you are now giving them credit for getting rid of. When you take a step back and look at the whole story what you are trying to give them credit for actually makes no sense.[/quote]
Perhaps you should rethink this.
Like…segregation existed as a tenet of racism; it was institutionalized by a powerful majority, using government and law as instruments to enforce its bigotry. The governments created what the majority of their voters directed or in which they consented or acquiesced.
Sort of changes one’s view of history doesn’t it? Sort of more like reality, rather than the way you imagine reality must be.[/quote]
If the government was chained to the constitution like they where supposed to racism would have died out.[/quote]
This utterance is so uninformed, so blind, so monumentally obtuse as to be impossible to even caricature.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
…because social liberalism has essentially decimated the vital non-government institutions that hold our civilization together (families, church, communities, fraternities, etc.), the “nanny-state” has been invited to fill the void that inevitably occurs. This, in my view, is something to lament and be upset about - i.e., we got too much government where it doesn’t belong - and it is, well, the exact opposite of thinking “more government is THE answer!”.
pushharder wrote:
Agreed.[/quote]
Wait, I’ve been saying just that. And, the above is exactly the reason why the nanny state will not see any serious threat to it’s existence. Voters know there’s a void that won’t be filled by local/civic institutions. If anything, we will see a single payer health care system before I kick the bucket. If we can’t promote and support social conservative ideals first, somehow, the voter isn’t going to have the confidence to let go of his safety nets. It’s just not going to happen. Not only are the American people unwilling to entertain talk of drastically reducing the welfare state, they are frightened by language such as ‘phase out.’ I’m sorry, but the cart is being put in front of the horse here. We just don’t have the society needed.
[quote]
Push wrote:
I do not see how voting Democrat over a Libertarian, as Sloth mentioned he would do (don’t know what you would do but surmise you would do likewise) is a step toward limited government.[/quote]
I don’t know that voting Democrat would be a step toward a limited government. It mostly likely wouldn’t be (as I’ve said). I just know a libertarian platform GoP would stand in place, off in the wilderness.
And you have a very good reason to suspect such a thing. Everyone wants to party, they just don’t want to suffer the hangover. Social liberalism is an easy sell. But, Economic liberalism? No damn way. If it was, the Libertarian party would be the second major party. Democrats on the other hand promise social liberalism, while providing generous safety nets to blunt consequences. There’s a reason why that party, which also champions social liberalism, is a major party, while the LP is a bit player.
Let me ratchet up the turncoat Sloth controversy. If the GoP runs a candidate who says anything like “We’re going to be in Afghanistan until we win,” yeah, not voting GoP. Won’t necessarily vote for a Democrat (Clinton will be the nominee), but the GoP won’t get my vote. So, most likely this a wasted controversy, as I’m fairly confident the GoP will give me good reason not to vote for their candidate.