"Too" right or "too" left? Consider Libertarianism.

[Que]

http://www.realdissent.com/

Website above is Tom Woods book. The short clip hits home with me. He was a self described Rush Limbaugh listener by default. He knew he wasn't a liberal, so he figured that was the only other message.

Then it occurred to him that he trust the government about nothing, except the most destructive thing government does, war. It was time to reconsider.

There are so many good reasons to be opposed to spending time, money, men, and material on war, it's a wonder that anti-interventionism isn't a stronger movement.

There are good arguments on the left and the right opposed to war, and yet the right feeds the military industrial complex and the left doesn't want to look "weak."

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Libertarians are stingy doper bisexuals.

 

[Que]

Libertarians are stingy doper bisexuals.

Well there is that...

 

[Ishmael]

Neil Boortz used to have a link on his web site to the "ten minute political test' (or some similar name). The results of the test consistently showed that Americans leaned Libertarian, yet the Libertarian Party is the perennial 'also ran' by wide margins.

The reason why is, in a nut shell, the Libertarian attitude towards foreign policy, which is decidedly isolationist. While I and many others do not particularly like the role of the United States as being the worlds cop on the beat, we have to ask ourselves if not us then who, China? The UN General Assembly? Or even the UN Security Council?

In a world increasingly interconnected by the flow of goods and services who is going to be the guarantor of non-interference by bad actors? As we have seen time and time again even events in small nations that one would not count as being of any significance at all can have a rippling effect throughout the world economy. (The current Ebola scare is one example.)

And the simple fact is that in order to have an effective foreign policy one must have the military means to back it up and that is where the Libertarian platform starts to fall apart.

Ishmael

 

[Que]

Our biggest economic vulnerability to world disruption is is of our own choosing. We have chosen not to exploit our own rich natural resources. There is more than enough potential energy within the confines of the United States to never need any imports. Between our nuclear capability, especially were we to return to breeder reactor development, and oil reserves, what happens outside of this country is no consequence. From time to time it might be worth having a little excursion to get some rare earth minerals, but other than that we have more than sufficient resources to be internally completely self-contained there's not anything that we have to import, and other than a navy to ensure that our goods get to anybody can stabilize their economy sufficiently to buy our goods we don't really have a need for a military. I don't know about your neighborhood but my neighborhood and invading army wouldn't last 15 minutes.

 

[Ishmael]

Our biggest economic vulnerability to world disruption is is of our own choosing. We have chosen not to exploit our own rich natural resources. There is more than enough potential energy within the confines of the United States to never need any imports. Between our nuclear capability, especially were we to return to breeder reactor development, and oil reserves, what happens outside of this country is no consequence. From time to time it might be worth having a little excursion to get some rare earth minerals, but other than that we have more than sufficient resources to be internally completely self-contained there's not anything that we have to import, and other than a navy to ensure that our goods get to anybody can stabilize their economy sufficiently to buy our goods we don't really have a need for a military. I don't know about your neighborhood but my neighborhood and invading army wouldn't last 15 minutes.

First of all US energy independence is NOT the panacea that many think it is. It is a desirable goal worthy of pursuit, but it is not the end all, be all.

Energy independence is not going to bring manufacturing back to the US, especially relatively low value, labor intensive, products (the garment industry for example). Energy costs cannot drop below a certain number and most certainly not enough to offset labor costs.

Energy independence is NOT going to have any effect on China's claims to political, economic, and military control of vast swaths of the East and South China Sea. Claims that cut across major international trade routes, and put it in direct conflict with several of its neighbors in the region. None of which have the means to resist Chinese aggression with the possible exception of Japan. Any resulting conflict would be devastating to the worlds economy, US energy independence or not. Further if such Chinese encroachment were to be allowed to stand you can count on Japan going nuclear in a heart beat. The Japanese government(s) have been prepping their population for that possibility for several years now.

Energy independence would NOT provide us with certain raw materials that are absolutely necessary for us to produce many of our high value finished goods. The rare earths and chromium are but two on the list of such materials.

Piracy is still alive and well in certain regions of the globe and in spite of the draw downs the US Navy is still the most effective counter-force afloat.

The same goes for the Russian attempts to reassert dominance over the former Soviet states and to blackmail Western Europe with the withholding of energy products.

Energy independence is NOT going to allow us to isolate ourselves from an increasingly inter-dependent world trade network. Since WWII US policy has been to purposely foment this trade and energy inter-dependence. The philosophy being that nations that are financially inter-dependent will not wage war against each other. And while we can debate the long term wisdom of that policy the fact remains that that is the world that we find ourselves living in today.

The fact also remains, US energy independence or not, that there are state actors out there, both large and small, that believe they can bully their neighbors to achieve economic, political, or both, gains with impunity and are willing to sacrifice large numbers of their population to do so. As a matter of fact some see the use of war to reduce their population as a positive benefit.

US energy independence is a worthy goal from the standpoint of national policy, but it is NOT a goal that will allow us any form of isolationism or allow us to disengage from the international trade networks. Not just for our own benefit but for the benefit of every nation that is part of the inter-dependent mesh that we have constructed.

Ishmael

 

[Que]

All true and all not our problem.

Just for example if piracy makes lanes impassable, (I already allowed we need a navy) that works both ways... her come the manufacturing jobs back if the cost of shipping becomes prohibitive.

Companies and countries will step up and solve the piracy problem just as it always has been handled. Hell issue letters of marque. I'll go target shoot some Somali sailors

Anyone wants to squabble with anyone else, let them. They want our help they can hire us.

We CHARGED the British for our help in WWII and they just finished paying us off. Everyone else we have done mercenary work for it has been free.

Blackwater is bigger than many countries' armies.

The world existed before the united States and our entry onto the scene hasn't made the world any more peaceable.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Clearly America doesn't need to be too far "right" or "left"

One of the sad things about Sir Ronald was his war on porn (Okay it wasn't his war but it was the war of the 'religious Right'). if Clinton didn't come into power, the would might have been a different place. Penthouse, Hustler, and Playboy were on the ropes and I think Bush I would have shut down those magazines.

If that would have happened, I think the internet wouldn't have happened or wouldn't be what it is today....for better or worse

 

[about_average]

The reason why is, in a nut shell, the Libertarian attitude towards foreign policy, which is decidedly isolationist.

While a part of it, maybe even a large part, I don't think that's the only reason.

Nearly everyone in the US gets some form of government welfare and they, nearly to a person I'm sure, want theirs while denying it to others.

Libertarians are, in general, opposed to government welfare. But from what I've seen they all talk about putting an end to it. Black and white. Bang, it's gone. I've never seen one talk about a realistic plan for phasing it out. Something actually doable.

You can't just pull the rug out from under the nation and not expect disaster to follow.

 

[Que]

Clearly America doesn't need to be too far "right" or "left"

One of the sad things about Sir Ronald was his war on porn (Okay it wasn't his war but it was the war of the 'religious Right'). if Clinton didn't come into power, the would might have been a different place. Penthouse, Hustler, and Playboy were on the ropes and I think Bush I would have shut down those magazines.

If that would have happened, I think the internet wouldn't have happened or wouldn't be what it is today....for better or worse

A bit of an interesting tangent. I read a piece somewhere about how porn has in a lot of ways driven the quest for technology as a delivery device.

 

[BotanyBoy]

The reason why is, in a nut shell, the Libertarian attitude towards foreign policy, which is decidedly isolationist.

You neocon republican fuckers always say this shit withing but a bunch of blowhard bullshit to back it up because anything, ANYTHING to keep your precious crusade in the middle fucking east going.

Dumb shits...

While I and many others do not particularly like the role of the United States as being the worlds cop on the beat, we have to ask ourselves if not us then who, China? The UN General Assembly? Or even the UN Security Council?

In a world increasingly interconnected by the flow of goods and services who is going to be the guarantor of non-interference by bad actors? As we have seen time and time again even events in small nations that one would not count as being of any significance at all can have a rippling effect throughout the world economy. (The current Ebola scare is one example.)

And the simple fact is that in order to have an effective foreign policy one must have the military means to back it up and that is where the Libertarian platform starts to fall apart.

Ishmael

No libertarian ever said we should defend our direct financial interest...(shipping lanes included) you fucking idiot.

Just that we shouldn't be meddling in in stupid, zero profit, no reason, whack job religious wars of the middle east to the economic detriment of our nation....

Unlike you and your band of MIC dick sucking republican buddies....fucking piece of shit.

Our biggest economic vulnerability to world disruption is is of our own choosing. We have chosen not to exploit our own rich natural resources. There is more than enough potential energy within the confines of the United States to never need any imports. Between our nuclear capability, especially were we to return to breeder reactor development, and oil reserves, what happens outside of this country is no consequence. From time to time it might be worth having a little excursion to get some rare earth minerals, but other than that we have more than sufficient resources to be internally completely self-contained there's not anything that we have to import, and other than a navy to ensure that our goods get to anybody can stabilize their economy sufficiently to buy our goods we don't really have a need for a military. I don't know about your neighborhood but my neighborhood and invading army wouldn't last 15 minutes.

YES!!! Destroy all of our nice shit, spray everything in toxic waste!! No oversight because government bad!!!

Libertarians paradise would be wrecking Yellowstone....Denali....Yosemite...Rainier...all for a buck.

Companies get to enslave their employees 1903 style.....no oversight because government BAD!!! We don't need no stinking fire exits in this factory!!!

First of all US energy independence is NOT the panacea that many think it is. It is a desirable goal worthy of pursuit, but it is not the end all, be all.

US energy independence is a worthy goal from the standpoint of national policy, but it is NOT a goal that will allow us any form of isolationism or allow us to disengage from the international trade networks. Not just for our own benefit but for the benefit of every nation that is part of the inter-dependent mesh that we have constructed.

Ishmael

Well you're not tally broken....Congratulations.

All true and all not our problem.

Just for example if piracy makes lanes impassable, (I already allowed we need a navy) that works both ways... her come the manufacturing jobs back if the cost of shipping becomes prohibitive.

Companies and countries will step up and solve the piracy problem just as it always has been handled. Hell issue letters of marque. I'll go target shoot some Somali sailors

Anyone wants to squabble with anyone else, let them. They want our help they can hire us.

We CHARGED the British for our help in WWII and they just finished paying us off. Everyone else we have done mercenary work for it has been free.

Blackwater is bigger than many countries' armies.

The world existed before the united States and our entry onto the scene hasn't made the world any more peaceable.

Point to query....


Now how about private police forces with no oversight??? That sounds like a grand libertarian idea with no room for abuse because voodoo market magic right!!?!?!?

 

[BotanyBoy]

While a part of it, maybe even a large part, I don't think that's the only reason.

Nearly everyone in the US gets some form of government welfare and they, nearly to a person I'm sure, want theirs while denying it to others.

Libertarians are, in general, opposed to government welfare. But from what I've seen they all talk about putting an end to it. Black and white. Bang, it's gone. I've never seen one talk about a realistic plan for phasing it out. Something actually doable.

You can't just pull the rug out from under the nation and not expect disaster to follow.

Nuh huaaa!!! Voodoo market magic takes care of EVERYTHING!!! Government BAD!! didn't you know?

 

[Que]

YES!!! Destroy all of our nice shit, spray everything in toxic waste!! No oversight because government bad!!!

Libertarians paradise would be wrecking Yellowstone....Denali....Yosemite...Rainier...all for a buck.

Companies get to enslave their employees 1903 style.....no oversight because government BAD!!! We don't need no stinking fire exits in this factory!!!

HUGE difference between actual national parks and national "forests." Not all public land is equal.

Companies already have safety standards and practices for any task you can possibly think of. Deviate from that, get sued.

Of course in my utopia I'd put some hurting on trial lawyers but they do (rarely) have a useful place in society.

If you hate toxic waste you have to go nuke. Admittedly, the worst of the waste is pretty long term, but the sum total of that so far is a stack 3 feet high, fifty yards long and 3 feet wide Breeder reactors can run on it, so the really nasty stuff is fuel...it isn't waste at all

Now how about private police forces with no oversight??? That sounds like a grand libertarian idea with no room for abuse because voodoo market magic right!!?!?!?

Plenty of room for abuse. It happens over there-------------->

...where the worst contractor abuses pale by comparison of standards and practices of the culture.

As far as the what ifs like what if Mr. Blackwater suddenly decides he would like to run the country and executed a coup d'etat? Why would he if there is a sane functioning government efficiently providing a safe haven for him?

Besides, a nervous government is a government that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy about my station in life.

 

[BotanyBoy]

HUGE difference between actual national parks and national "forests." Not all public land is equal.

Companies already have safety standards and practices for any task you can possibly think of. Deviate from that, get sued.

Of course in my utopia I'd put some hurting on trial lawyers but they do (rarely) have a useful place in society.

If that evoll EPA wasn't around they would slash and burn all of our forest and strip mine everything they could....which is exactly what the libertarians want.

The safety standards and land management/protection? All evoll gubbmint shit libertarians want GONE. The whole "Market will take care of the people and environment." bullshit is the biggest thing working against libertarians....because we know that's bullshit, we created these agencies and programs because the markets do no such thing to protect our natural lands and the people from commercial ruin.

If it weren't for BLM/EPA/USFS etc. we would look just like China...big industrial dump of a shit hole.

If you hate toxic waste you have to go nuke. Admittedly, the worst of the waste is pretty long term, but the sum total of that so far is a stack 3 feet high, fifty yards long and 3 feet wide Breeder reactors can run on it, so the really nasty stuff is fuel...it isn't waste at all

I'm fine with that....I'm also ok with the regulations put into place forcing companies to clean their shit up appropriately (horrible atrocity according to the RW I know) as well.

What I'm not ok with is "The market will take care of that." because bullshit.

Plenty of room for abuse. It happens over there-------------->

...where the worst contractor abuses pale by comparison of standards and practices of the culture.

As far as the what ifs like what if Mr. Blackwater suddenly decides he would like to run the country and executed a coup d'etat? Why would he if there is a sane functioning government efficiently providing a safe haven for him?

Besides, a nervous government is a government that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy about my station in life.

As long as they aren't used for private policing here (popo SHOULD be civil servants, not mercenaries) but I agree with you on the "hire them out to other nations requesting services." bit....

But our holy wars in the middle east dictate that WE pay the mercenaries....so still failing at the whole war in the middle east thing.

 

[Learnsmith]

There are good arguments on the left and the right opposed to war, and yet the right feeds the military industrial complex and the left doesn't want to look "weak."

That has been my largest complaint - not about progressivism in general, but in the almost traumatized way that Democrats have embraced progressive causes. It's like they never got over the betrayal of the Boomers during the era of Reagan. Any progressive issue is still considered "weak." Hell, even the smug assholes I run into assume it's "weak" to give a shit about the poor, to want people to have good schools and healthcare, to not want to piss away money and lives bombing someone else's country. They assume you're weak if you don't pick a target to push around - women, gays, immigrants.

I grew up surrounded by working-class, Rust-Belt democrats, in a time when unions still had a shred of power and when people still remembered Detroit as a place where working men and women, working together, could build something great. We don't have that anymore. We don't believe it anymore. Instead we have this caricature of liberals as some twenty-year-old Berkeley student with white-girl dreads, that isn't representative and frankly seems stuck as a stereotype back in the '90s. It's sad.

 

[Que]

If that evoll EPA wasn't around they would slash and burn all of our forest and strip mine everything they could....which is exactly what the libertarians want.

The safety standards and land management/protection? All evoll gubbmint shit libertarians want GONE. The whole "Market will take care of the people and environment." bullshit is the biggest thing working against libertarians....because we know that's bullshit, we created these agencies and programs because the markets do no such thing to protect our natural lands and the people from commercial ruin.

If it weren't for BLM/EPA/USFS etc. we would look just like China...big industrial dump of a shit hole.



I'm fine with that....I'm also ok with the regulations put into place forcing companies to clean their shit up appropriately (horrible atrocity according to the RW I know) as well.

What I'm not ok with is "The market will take care of that." because bullshit.



As long as they aren't used for private policing here (popo SHOULD be civil servants, not mercenaries) but I agree with you on the "hire them out to other nations requesting services." bit....

But our holy wars in the middle east dictate that WE pay the mercenaries....so still failing at the whole war in the middle east thing.

If we were energy independent we would be giving exactly as much fuck about what happens in the mid-east as we currently do about africa, taiwan, or tibet

 

[Que]

That has been my largest complaint - not about progressivism in general, but in the almost traumatized way that Democrats have embraced progressive causes. It's like they never got over the betrayal of the Boomers during the era of Reagan. Any progressive issue is still considered "weak." Hell, even the smug assholes I run into assume it's "weak" to give a shit about the poor, to want people to have good schools and healthcare, to not want to piss away money and lives bombing someone else's country. They assume you're weak if you don't pick a target to push around - women, gays, immigrants.

I grew up surrounded by working-class, Rust-Belt democrats, in a time when unions still had a shred of power and when people still remembered Detroit as a place where working men and women, working together, could build something great. We don't have that anymore. We don't believe it anymore. Instead we have this caricature of liberals as some twenty-year-old Berkeley student with white-girl dreads, that isn't representative and frankly seems stuck as a stereotype back in the '90s. It's sad.

If Democrats were honest about their lack of enthusiasm towards military solutions (not an untenable position, by the way) it wouldn't be as easy a case as it is to point democrats towards libertarianism.

I have a buddy from detroit. His dad was the UAW photog and he was also a ford employee. Buddy is HUGE union booster, anti-Republican because of Reagen and air traffic controllers. Was apolitical really when I met him...then somehow he joined the tinfoil hat wearing ant-GMO crowd. Hates big business, banks, wall street, the war on drugs, the militarization of police, the justice department, has family on mom's side on the other side of the border and under assault from fast and furious guns...is suddenly also pro-NRA.

He is all over the map. But really, unless you start with the idea that people ought to keep their hands and laws off of other people unless and until there are no other options, what is there that ties all of the above together?

Botany Boy raises valid concerns. Our water and air ARE cleaner after the clean air act.

Is anyone going to make pollution LEGAL? that's not a winning platform. Law is one thing, regulatory administrative law is something else.

I like to blame unions for the loss of manufacturing but it is no coincidence that the jobs went places where regulations are non-existent.

Balance is a good thing and sadly lacking on both sides.

 

[JohnnySavage]

If Democrats were honest about their lack of enthusiasm towards military solutions (not an untenable position, by the way) it wouldn't be as easy a case as it is to point democrats towards libertarianism.

I have a buddy from detroit. His dad was the UAW photog and he was also a ford employee. Buddy is HUGE union booster, anti-Republican because of Reagen and air traffic controllers. Was apolitical really when I met him...then somehow he joined the tinfoil hat wearing ant-GMO crowd. Hates big business, banks, wall street, the war on drugs, the militarization of police, the justice department, has family on mom's side on the other side of the border and under assault from fast and furious guns...is suddenly also pro-NRA.

He is all over the map. But really, unless you start with the idea that people ought to keep their hands and laws off of other people unless and until there are no other options, what is there that ties all of the above together?

Botany Boy raises valid concerns. Our water and air ARE cleaner after the clean air act.

Is anyone going to make pollution LEGAL? that's not a winning platform. Law is one thing, regulatory administrative law is something else.

I like to blame unions for the loss of manufacturing but it is no coincidence that the jobs went places where regulations are non-existent.

Balance is a good thing and sadly lacking on both sides.

I would have said the water is cleaner because of the Clean Water Act, but if you want to go with the Clean Air Act, who am I to quibble.

 

[Que]

I would have said the water is cleaner because of the Clean Water Act, but if you want to go with the Clean Air Act, who am I to quibble.

I stand corrected.

I believe industry is safer now than it has ever been, both for the workers and the environment. There is no going back. You know how the UL rates about everything? I get confused by all the alphabet ratings agencies but ISO9000 (sp?) has all sorts of rules and regs beyond anything government makes you do and you have to get the certification if you want other large ISO9000 companies to do business with you and preserve their little label.

Industry likely took my Dad's life. He was careful but we knew less then. Benzene exposure probably was the reason his bone marrow quit functioning at 76. Nowdays it is still used but appropriate PPE is required.

 

[JohnnySavage]

I stand corrected.

I believe industry is safer now than it has ever been, both for the workers and the environment. There is no going back. You know how the UL rates about everything? I get confused by all the alphabet ratings agencies but ISO9000 (sp?) has all sorts of rules and regs beyond anything government makes you do and you have to get the certification if you want other large ISO9000 companies to do business with you and preserve their little label.

Industry likely took my Dad's life. He was careful but we knew less then. Benzene exposure probably was the reason his bone marrow quit functioning at 76. Nowdays it is still used but appropriate PPE is required.

You know I love you, Query, but you are one master bullshitter. Your posts contain key words and tricky phrases that you think makes others think you know what you're talking about. But you almost always use those "terms of art" incorrectly or out of context.

ISO 9000 is nothing more than a management standard. All of the ISO standards are voluntary and are largely marketing gimmicks... like "organic" or "eco friendly" They allow companies with the bucks to pretend to have "standards" that their competitors don't have - which is nonsense. The pay the ISO to come in and certify that the company is following whatever ISO standard they are trying to meet... like paying to be in whatever "Who's Who" publication for whatever professional industry you are a part of. The ISO standards fill in the gaps of the ASTM or NIST (or many other "official" standards) standards that are meaningful.

There's nothing wrong with being a bullshitter though, and in fact, a few of my stories have a small grain of truth to them.

 

[Que]

You know I love you, Query, but you are one master bullshitter. Your posts contain key words and tricky phrases that you think makes others think you know what you're talking about. But you almost always use those "terms of art" incorrectly or out of context.

ISO 9000 is nothing more than a management standard. All of the ISO standards are voluntary and are largely marketing gimmicks... like "organic" or "eco friendly" They allow companies with the bucks to pretend to have "standards" that their competitors don't have - which is nonsense. The pay the ISO to come in and certify that the company is following whatever ISO standard they are trying to meet... like paying to be in whatever "Who's Who" publication for whatever professional industry you are a part of. The ISO standards fill in the gaps of the ASTM or NIST (or many other "official" standards) standards that are meaningful.

There's nothing wrong with being a bullshitter though, and in fact, a few of my stories have a small grain of truth to them.

Yes the standards you are trying to achieve you write for yourself. Who is going to write (and pay to have audited) a standard, "We will do the absolute minimum to avoid harming our environment. We hope to get away with as much abuse as possible."

Guess what. Having that bullshit label means getting a few pennies more a pound. We have to have an environmental impact plan and show that targets for compliance are being met.

I suppose you could just assume that at our locations in America we are in compliance with the EPA and assume they get around enough to check all 84 square miles of the property. Of course without having to certify and record keep for the ISO standards we would have ZERO accountability for our overseas operations.

By the way when we DO see government regulators actually observing and testing they are from the state, not the feds. You know, one of those western states that tell the feds to fuck off? We seem to be more concerned with our groundwater than the feds are. But plenty of federal paperwork to fill out to be filed by lawyer bureaucrats that have never seen any of the things they regulate.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Good Libertarians consider the FairTax.org.

 

[BotanyBoy]

If we were energy independent we would be giving exactly as much fuck about what happens in the mid-east as we currently do about africa, taiwan, or tibet

That doesn't address their delusional "Government bad, bare minimum, private contractors>government because capitalism = so much personal responsibility" borderline anarchist views that work nowhere in the world in all of recorded history?

 

[Que]

That doesn't address their delusional "Government bad, bare minimum, private contractors>government because capitalism = so much personal responsibility" borderline anarchist views that work nowhere in the world in all of recorded history?

We aren't over there or involved if we have our own oil. If we aren't there, (in theory) we starve the military industrial complex beast that Eisenhower warned about.

Which is exactly why we will never get to that sort of foreign policy, or the oil policy that would make that foreign policy feasible.

Your knowledge of military history no doubt far exceeds my own. Have there been successful mercenary traditions that didn't eventually just take power?

 

[BotanyBoy]

We aren't over there or involved if we have our own oil. If we aren't there, (in theory) we starve the military industrial complex beast that Eisenhower warned about.

Which is exactly why we will never get to that sort of foreign policy, or the oil policy that would make that foreign policy feasible.

We haven't even gotten as far as foreign policy....I'm talking about libertarianism in general.

The privately hired merc police force they advocate right on up to EPA needs to be dissolved along with OSHA and child labor laws because they are ruining things,because capitalism = magical responsibilities that magically just take care of shit.

What about that side of libertarianism? You know the one that makes the party a micro population widely regarded as bat fucking shit crazy???

Or is this strictly a middle east/energy policy discussion??

Your knowledge of military history no doubt far exceeds my own. Have there been successful mercenary traditions that didn't eventually just take power?

Only really in very narrow and specific topics....and no I can't think of any off the top of my head. Using merc's is playing with fire.