The Dumb Masses Love Surprises

[Conan71]

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 90%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 80%.

No shocker there: Libertarian

[nathanm]

I wondered if I was the only one who thought that came off incredibly libertarian.

I am completely socially libertarian, FWIW.

I also like capitalism very much, I just think that we need sensible regulation to keep the impulses to do things that make lots of money but put our entire economy at risk at bay. And to keep people from shitting on the commons. As far as consumer protection, strict statutory liability as is found in laws like the FDCPA can be a real deterrent, if enough people are aware of it.

Basically, what I want is a baseline of dignity for everyone that lets them go out and take the risk of starting a business without fear of losing health insurance or becoming so destitute they can't recover. I may be biased on that point, as I saw first hand what can happen when market conditions turn against an entrepreneur. I remember very well going from having plenty of money to having no money thanks to the volatility of the natural gas market in the early 90s. (My dad drilled wells for a living)

Beyond that, I want the government the love out of our lives. I like programs that give people a helping hand to get them back on their feet after a failure at business, a run in with drugs, or whatever else. I like it when the government acts as an insurer, and I like it when it's there to rein in the excesses of capitalism. When it tells people what to do beyond that, I don't like it so much. When it gets into legislating morality, I really hate it.

Edited to add: That particular quiz is pretty one dimensional. It doesn't capture the nuance of wanting government to do less in general, but still help forge a society where individual action to improve one's lot is more easily attainable.

[Gaspar]

I am completely socially libertarian, FWIW.

I also like capitalism very much, I just think that we need sensible regulation to keep the impulses to do things that make lots of money but put our entire economy at risk at bay. And to keep people from shitting on the commons. As far as consumer protection, strict statutory liability as is found in laws like the FDCPA can be a real deterrent, if enough people are aware of it.

Basically, what I want is a baseline of dignity for everyone that lets them go out and take the risk of starting a business without fear of losing health insurance or becoming so destitute they can't recover. I may be biased on that point, as I saw first hand what can happen when market conditions turn against an entrepreneur. I remember very well going from having plenty of money to having no money thanks to the volatility of the natural gas market in the early 90s. (My dad drilled wells for a living)

Beyond that, I want the government the love out of our lives. I like programs that give people a helping hand to get them back on their feet after a failure at business, a run in with drugs, or whatever else. I like it when the government acts as an insurer, and I like it when it's there to rein in the excesses of capitalism. When it tells people what to do beyond that, I don't like it so much. When it gets into legislating morality, I really hate it.

Edited to add: That particular quiz is pretty one dimensional. It doesn't capture the nuance of wanting government to do less in general, but still help forge a society where individual action to improve one's lot is more easily attainable.

So you basically want government to be like a parent.

You talk of "risk without loss." 

You outline a system that stays out of our lives but in the same breath dictates a "baseline," and provides freedom from risk. 

People need the freedom to fail.  Without it you raise a nation of children who run to government with every skinned knee.

People also need the freedom to succeed without boundary.  Without it you remove the very incentive that capitalism is based in. . . the goal to be more than you are. . .to achieve more. . .to acquire more.  This is the very reason that no other form of economic system has been as successful in producing innovation.

You are clearly Liberal.  Far from embracing freedom. 

From what you said, your fear keeps you there.  As master Yoda said "Fear is the path to the dark side."

[Hoss]

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 90%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 80%.

No shocker there: Libertarian

wow

Your PERSO)NAL issues score is 100%
Your ECONOMIC issues score is 70%.

Libertarian as well.

I STILL say we should get an Oklahoma chapter of the Modern Whig party started...

[azbadpuppy]

Aren't Libertarians just Republicans who like to smoke pot?

[Townsend]

Aren't Libertarians just Republicans who like to smoke pot?

WHAMMO!!!, I'm a freakin' Libertarian

[Conan71]

Aren't Libertarians just Republicans who like to smoke pot?

Yeah, that's what my friends tell me, I wouldn't know from personal experience... 

[Gaspar]

Get off the drug issue.

It's basically. . .You have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. . .as long as your pursuit does not inhibit or infringe on anyone else's pursuit of the same.

It is not government's part to dictate what you do as long as you cause no harm, or place no limitation on the rights of others. 

Libertarians are considered on the conservative side of the fence because we believe in the very conservative application of government.  Government represents force, and should only be used to provide protection of citizen's rights, and national security.  Any other use of government is perverse, inefficient, and inhibits the rights of the very people it is empowered to protect.

Use of government to take from one group and give to another is looting by definition.  No matter what the logical or emotional rationalization.  Looting always causes harm and is never a sustainable form of exchange.  No looting program created by any government has ever proven to be sustainable.    Looting programs always lead to bankruptsy.

Other services such as education and certainly healthcare are far beyond the roll of government.  We currently spend $8,701 a year to educate the average elementary student (according to the Census Bureau).  That amount increases every year, as the quality decreases.  Some states spend as much as $15,000 a year.  These prices will continue to go up, because prices always increase, and quality decreases, when competition is absent.  It is understood that once a program such as education is put in place it will never go away, so most libertarians embrace the idea of school vouchers, because it forces public schools to compete with private.  Most parents would have little problems finding private schools for between $8,700 and $15,000 a year, and thousands of new schools would sprout up to capitalize on the market.  This is what happened in Wisconsin, and as a result quality of education across the board increased, both public and private.

There are about a thousand other issues that yield to Libertarian reason, and the analysis is simple because the basic laws of economics, apply and the results are verifiable historically.

Every time that we try to lift a problem from our own shoulders, and shift that problem to the hands of the government, to the same extent we are sacrificing the liberties of our people. – JFK

[Conan71]

I am completely socially libertarian, FWIW.

I also like capitalism very much, I just think that we need sensible regulation to keep the impulses to do things that make lots of money but put our entire economy at risk at bay. And to keep people from shitting on the commons. As far as consumer protection, strict statutory liability as is found in laws like the FDCPA can be a real deterrent, if enough people are aware of it.

Basically, what I want is a baseline of dignity for everyone that lets them go out and take the risk of starting a business without fear of losing health insurance or becoming so destitute they can't recover. I may be biased on that point, as I saw first hand what can happen when market conditions turn against an entrepreneur. I remember very well going from having plenty of money to having no money thanks to the volatility of the natural gas market in the early 90s. (My dad drilled wells for a living)

Beyond that, I want the government the love out of our lives. I like programs that give people a helping hand to get them back on their feet after a failure at business, a run in with drugs, or whatever else. I like it when the government acts as an insurer, and I like it when it's there to rein in the excesses of capitalism. When it tells people what to do beyond that, I don't like it so much. When it gets into legislating morality, I really hate it.

Edited to add: That particular quiz is pretty one dimensional. It doesn't capture the nuance of wanting government to do less in general, but still help forge a society where individual action to improve one's lot is more easily attainable.

A government acting like an insurer is largely responsible for our huge deficit and debt.  It also rewards bad behavior by creating a safety net which rewards risky behavior that Democrats decry as being the result of Bush and Reagan era deregulation.  The more the government provides, the better the chances are for fraud and waste.  Basically, taxpayers wind up on the hook for other's greed and stupidity when the governemnt acts as an insurer.

I'm all for sensible programs which will help incubate sound small business ideas, don't get me wrong.  I also don't have a problem of government offering more in the way of paying for higher education.  Those are winning investments most of the time.  However, there's no place for government to make life risk-free for everyone.  It's bad policy as we can see what it's gotten us into now.

[Red Arrow]

Doesn't do much to create jobs either, but SIG's sure love it!

Hey, if Marshall's gets big enough, Eric will eventually hire some (more) people.  Think Positive!

[Red Arrow]

And one step further.  The hypothesis is that the second/third generation of many if not most enterprises are a total waste for the company and many times disastrous for the employees who actually built the thing to make it what it is/was.  Poster child of that thought;  Paris Hilton.


The "second" generation many/most times just doesn't get it.  Or doesn't care. Or whatever.  Does not deserve the "gift" that is given them.
Tax laws should be structured so that when the person who started company moves on, there is strong incentive to not sell out to outside opportunists (penalize strongly - inheritance tax levels) but let the employees have a shot at purchasing the outfit so their jobs and lives are less likely to be blasted by the "cash out" or worse, milking it to death - of the "Family".  This could have a threshold - say any company with more than 5, 10, 15 employees...pick one.

So if you have anything to leave to your kids you would advocate that the government dictate that someone else gets first shot?  I'll agree that some offspring don't deserve what they get but to tell someone who/what they can leave the fruit of their labor to is just wrong in my opinion.

[we vs us]

So as I understand it, Libertarianism sprang out of the Frontier culture of the 1800's, with a touch of agrarianism thrown in for good measure.  It comes from a time and place where American settlements were small and far apart, where the influence of the federal government was almost nil (weeks away by horseback), and the law was what the guy with the tin star and the deputies said it was.  Technology was limited to the steam engine, the railroad, the telegraph, and six shooters.  

So you get to make a small compact with your neighbors . . .you probably live miles from them so "live and let live" is easy and practical.  The economy moves at the pace of harvests and cattle drives.  There's no need for anything more complex governmentally than a town meeting, or at best (and as monumentally) a rowdy session at the statehouse.  Because there's space and your contact with everyone is limited, you can afford maximum freedom, a completely unfettered economy, and a government that can raise a militia to defend itself if need be . . . and that's about it.  

Contrast that with Liberalism, the modern version of which arose out of the cities of the Industrial Revolution.  (And it's true:  to this day, you won't find libertarians living in most major American cities; out in the suburbs, yes, but definitely not in the city).  If you figure that space and resources are limited in industrial cities, it stands to reason that there should exist an entity (government) with enough power to settle disputes and ensure a relatively equitable distribution of those resources.  Otherwise, what do you have?  Riots, chaos, slaughter.  

So, Big City Governments are big, intimate, and pervasive (ward captains on every block).  And yeah, they take a bunch of your money for public works.  It's the only way the place can function.  

Anyway, all of this is to say that the two ideologies grew out of very different historical environments and are each addressing an entirely different set of problems.    

Here's my contention:  as a society, we're moving towards more complexity (scientifically, technologically, economically), not less, and I don't see complex or achievable solutions from anyone on the Libertarian front.  I see idealism, circa 1898.  I think we're entering an era where individual liberty is going to be increasingly compromised on every front, by larger and ever more implacable organizations -- primarily corporations -- and the only entity which we have any hope of controlling -- the government -- happens to be the only entity with the levers of power to keep us free.

[Red Arrow]

So as I understand it, Libertarianism sprang out of the Frontier culture of the 1800's, with a touch of agrarianism thrown in for good measure.  It comes from a time and place where American settlements were small and far apart, where the influence of the federal government was almost nil (weeks away by horseback), and the law was what the guy with the tin star and the deputies said it was.  Technology was limited to the steam engine, the railroad, the telegraph, and six shooters.  

So you get to make a small compact with your neighbors . . .you probably live miles from them so "live and let live" is easy and practical.  The economy moves at the pace of harvests and cattle drives.  There's no need for anything more complex governmentally than a town meeting, or at best (and as monumentally) a rowdy session at the statehouse.  Because there's space and your contact with everyone is limited, you can afford maximum freedom, a completely unfettered economy, and a government that can raise a militia to defend itself if need be . . . and that's about it.  

Contrast that with Liberalism, the modern version of which arose out of the cities of the Industrial Revolution.  (And it's true:  to this day, you won't find libertarians living in most major American cities; out in the suburbs, yes, but definitely not in the city).  If you figure that space and resources are limited in industrial cities, it stands to reason that there should exist an entity (government) with enough power to settle disputes and ensure a relatively equitable distribution of those resources.  Otherwise, what do you have?  Riots, chaos, slaughter.  

So, Big City Governments are big, intimate, and pervasive (ward captains on every block).  And yeah, they take a bunch of your money for public works.  It's the only way the place can function.  

Anyway, all of this is to say that the two ideologies grew out of very different historical environments and are each addressing an entirely different set of problems.    

Here's my contention:  as a society, we're moving towards more complexity (scientifically, technologically, economically), not less, and I don't see complex or achievable solutions from anyone on the Libertarian front.  I see idealism, circa 1898.  I think we're entering an era where individual liberty is going to be increasingly compromised on every front, by larger and ever more implacable organizations -- primarily corporations -- and the only entity which we have any hope of controlling -- the government -- happens to be the only entity with the levers of power to keep us free.

So all of our problems are caused by trying to be an urban society.  We should return to the rural/agrarian society that we were 100 (or more) years ago.  Kind of goes against the philosophy of this forum.

[we vs us]

I'm not hankering for the old days, but I get the distinct sense that Gassy is talking about the halcyon days of 1873 when he's pontificating about the free market.  And that's what I'm getting at:  the way he thinks we should run our country isn't possibly unless there's a rip in the space time continuum and we all are flashed back to Dodge City during the cattle drives.

And hey, I'm the liberal here.  I'm all ABOUT looking forward.

[Red Arrow]

I'm not hankering for the old days, but I get the distinct sense that Gassy is talking about the halcyon days of 1873 when he's pontificating about the free market.  And that's what I'm getting at:  the way he thinks we should run our country isn't possibly unless there's a rip in the space time continuum and we all are flashed back to Dodge City during the cattle drives.

And hey, I'm the liberal here.  I'm all ABOUT looking forward.

No problem with looking forward.  We don't all have the same vision of forward. Makes our country interesting.