Yup, the GOP is bought lock, stock and barrel. Still think both parties are the same?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/23/1301470/-GOP-files-paperwork-to-become-wholly-owned-subsidiary-of-Koch-Industries?detail=email (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/23/1301470/-GOP-files-paperwork-to-become-wholly-owned-subsidiary-of-Koch-Industries?detail=email)
QuoteRepublicans want to get their hands on all that Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson cash:
The Republican National Committee on Friday sued the Federal Election Commission in an effort to raise unlimited cash like super PACs do.Specifically, Republicans want to be able to set up independent accounts that are unbound by current limits. That would enable them to essentially create their own equivalent of Super PACs, albeit with more disclosure requirement, effectively turning the RNC into a subsidiary of whomever will pay them for the privilege.
Adding to the absurdity is the GOP's explanation for why they are filing this suit:
"The patchwork of limits on political speech undermines the First Amendment and puts high transparency, full-disclosure groups like the RNC on an unequal footing with other political entities," RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said in a statement. "We are asking that political parties be treated equally under the law."Basically, they are complaining that it's unfair that Super PACs can raise unlimited sums from donors while they can't. But the only reason that's true is because that's what conservativesâ€"including the GOPâ€"have been pushing for. And now that they've gotten what they wanted; they're saying that they are the victims of their own success, and so even more clean campaign laws need to be eviscerated. And you can be sure that if they win this round, the next thing they'll demand is that limits to individual campaigns be repealed as well.
That can't be legal!
The Widening Gyre Of Top Koch-Hating Democrats Who Took Koch Money (Hint: Obama’s On The List) (http://personalliberty.com/widening-gyre-top-koch-hating-democrats-took-koch-money-hint-obamas-list/)
Actually, that's quite a list of notable Democrats.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on May 28, 2014, 11:42:05 AM
The Widening Gyre Of Top Koch-Hating Democrats Who Took Koch Money (Hint: Obama’s On The List) (http://personalliberty.com/widening-gyre-top-koch-hating-democrats-took-koch-money-hint-obamas-list/)
Actually, that's quite a list of notable Democrats.
$316,000 LOL r u srs?
I'll bet Obama gave them premium access for $5500.
Yeah jason, only libtards are certifiably honest. Yawwwwn. You're 9/10th rube.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on May 27, 2014, 06:48:39 PM
Yup, the GOP is bought lock, stock and barrel. Still think both parties are the same?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/23/1301470/-GOP-files-paperwork-to-become-wholly-owned-subsidiary-of-Koch-Industries?detail=email (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/23/1301470/-GOP-files-paperwork-to-become-wholly-owned-subsidiary-of-Koch-Industries?detail=email)
The Liberals used to be more blinded by ideology but now its the conservatives. They've swallowed a libertarian fantasy and can't see the harm it's doing.
Does this mean the GOP will adopt Koch positions like being pro-ACLU and pro-gay-marriage?
Quote from: Berati on May 31, 2014, 11:05:57 PM
The Liberals used to be more blinded by ideology but now its the conservatives. They've swallowed a libertarian fantasy and can't see the harm it's doing.
They've swallowed a
what fantasy?
It takes being blinded by ideology to see libertarianism anywhere in the GOP. As Santorum recently stated, there's no room for libertarianism anywhere in the GOP.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 01, 2014, 12:41:51 PM
They've swallowed a what fantasy?
It takes being blinded by ideology to see libertarianism anywhere in the GOP. As Santorum recently stated, there's no room for libertarianism anywhere in the GOP.
A libertarian fantasy.
Libertarians are the biggest abusers of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.
No matter which one you speak to they claim you don't know what a true libertarian is and that all the others who claim to be libertarian actually aren't.
Quote from: Berati on June 01, 2014, 06:07:30 PM
A libertarian fantasy.
A
what fantasy? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Quote from: Berati on June 01, 2014, 06:07:30 PMLibertarians are the biggest abusers of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.
The "No True Scotsman fallacy"? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Hint - if you meet a guy, born in Korea, to parents born in Korea, to grandparents born in Korea, going back at least 20 generations, with nobody in that lineage even having visited Scotland, it is very unlikely that you can say he is a Scotsman. Sometimes a person really actually honestly isn't a Scotsman.
But then a conservative reactionary Republican like you would never realize that. Now I dare you to tell me you aren't a conservative reactionary Republican so that I can accuse you of using the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Quote from: Berati on June 01, 2014, 06:07:30 PMNo matter which one you speak to they claim you don't know what a true libertarian is and that all the others who claim to be libertarian actually aren't.
When a conservative says "nope, libertarians don't belong in my Republican party", it's not just the libertarians who recognize the two are different.
The illusion has been gone for a long time. (http://aynrkey.blogspot.com/2014/02/sorry-republicans-illusion-is-gone.html) It has been revealed that those of a libertarian persuasion are not wanted in the GOP. The GOP does not want the participation of libertarians. There is no patching it up, plastering it over, and hoping that the illusion can be recreated from nothing. That is like saying you can try to fix a balloon by wrapping it in sufficient layers of cheese cloth. That is like saying that after a house is completely collapsed all it needs is a fresh coat of paint. Sorry, the illusion of common ground disappeared a long time ago. There is no educated person remaining who still believes the illusion. It is gone.
I know, it is your duty to report as if the illusion remained. But it doesn't. And even you know it.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 01, 2014, 06:37:10 PM
A what fantasy? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
There’s that No true Scotsman fallacy again.
I’ll repeat… A libertarian fantasy.
QuoteThe "No True Scotsman fallacy"? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
It’s a not a word. It’s a fallacy that applies to libertarians.
Hint. If a libertarian claims that a stop sign is a violation of his rights, another libertarian will tell you that of course libertarians accept certain basic regulations.
That other guy was no true libertarian.QuoteBut then a conservative reactionary Republican like you would never realize that. Now I dare you to tell me you aren't a conservative reactionary Republican so that I can accuse you of using the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Why do you keep trying to guess what I am? Didn’t you incorrectly guess I went to public school?
QuoteI know, it is your duty to report as if the illusion remained. But it doesn't. And even you know it.
Conservatives have been backing every libertarian view. That regulations are bad, government is bad, taxes are theft, and so on down the line of every libertarian claim.
But let me guess! They’re not
true libertarian views because true libertarians don’t express those views in exactly those ways, therefore
those aren't true libertarian views. Only true libertarians know what libertarian means.
I've been down this useless road many times.
Only Jason knows what Jason means cuz I sure as fuck don't.
Quote from: Berati on June 02, 2014, 12:06:14 AMConservatives have been backing every libertarian view. That regulations are bad, government is bad, taxes are theft, and so on down the line of every libertarian claim.
Not only are libertarians consistently against war, not just against it when the wrong person is in office...
Not only are libertarians against the drug war...
Not only were libertarians in favor of gay marriage before the progressives were...
Not only were libertarians in favor of interracial marriage before the progressives were...
Not only do libertarians want to legalize prostitution...
Not only are libertarians even stronger in defense of the 1st Amendment...
Not only do libertarians oppose every single instance of police abuse that libertarians become aware of (which in this day and age can lead to outrage fatigue because these instances are far too common)...
Not only do libertarians want to slash the military budget...
Not only are a super-majority of libertarians pro-choice...
Not only are libertarians opposed to business subsidies...
Not only are libertarians opposed to business bailouts...
Not only are libertarians opposed to corporate welfare...
The real gripe that conservatives and progressives have with libertarians is that libertarians won't admit that libertarians are conservatives.
Quote from: Berati on June 02, 2014, 12:06:14 AMBut let me guess! They’re not true libertarian views because true libertarians don’t express those views in exactly those ways, therefore those aren't true libertarian views.
Only true libertarians know what libertarian means.
I've been down this useless road many times.
Really?
In that case you would know by now what a real libertarian view is. The evidence does not indicate.
Oh, and I wasn't guessing that you were a conservative reactionary Republican. I know you're not. I was calling you one in order to get you to deny that you are one so that I could accuse you of trying to play the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Oh, do you deny being a conservative Republican?
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 02, 2014, 09:23:26 AM
Not only are libertarians consistently against war, not just against it when the wrong person is in office...
Not only are libertarians against the drug war...
Not only were libertarians in favor of gay marriage before the progressives were...
Not only were libertarians in favor of interracial marriage before the progressives were...
Not only do libertarians want to legalize prostitution...
Not only are libertarians even stronger in defense of the 1st Amendment...
Not only do libertarians oppose every single instance of police abuse that libertarians become aware of (which in this day and age can lead to outrage fatigue because these instances are far too common)...
Not only do libertarians want to slash the military budget...
Not only are a super-majority of libertarians pro-choice...
Not only are libertarians opposed to business subsidies...
Not only are libertarians opposed to business bailouts...
Not only are libertarians opposed to corporate welfare...
Not only are libertarians presenting taxes as theft
Not only are libertarians in favor of laissez faire capitalism
Not only are libertarians in favour of abolishing all government assistance
(All conservative talking points)
I'm not making the point that conservatives = libertarians but rather that many conservatives have fallen hook line and sinker for the libertarian fantasy that government is always the problem and the government is to blame for whatever is making you unhappy.
Libertarianism is a religion chasing a utopia.
It is no surprise that libertarians will never admit that another party has tried to use some of their central views (like those listed above) but that those failures don't count because they weren't true libertarians.
QuoteIn that case you would know by now what a real libertarian view is. The evidence does not indicate.
QuoteA libertarian fantasy.
Libertarians are the biggest abusers of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.
No matter which one you speak to they claim you don't know what a true libertarian is and that all the others who claim to be libertarian actually aren't.
Quote from: Berati on June 02, 2014, 12:48:48 PM
Not only are libertarians presenting taxes as theft
Not only are libertarians in favor of laissez faire capitalism
Not only are libertarians in favour of abolishing all government assistance
(All conservative talking points)
I'm not making the point that conservatives = libertarians but rather that many conservatives have fallen hook line and sinker for the libertarian fantasy that government is always the problem and the government is to blame for whatever is making you unhappy.
Libertarianism is a religion chasing a utopia.
It is no surprise that libertarians will never admit that another party has tried to use some of their central views (like those listed above) but that those failures don't count because they weren't true libertarians.
I notice that you didn't answer my question. Are you a conservative Republican?
Also I notice you didn't say that any items on my list of disagreements between conservatives and libertarians were wrong.
So to go back to your main point - that conservatives are following a libertarian philosophy about government. I think I've already disproven that, given my list. But you simply quoted my list and repeated your assertion. So let me help you out with your own argument, and try to point out what is the basis of your argument (if you have one other than rooting for your team and bashing the other team).
It is true that at one point in the past the Republicans did like to borrow libertarian rhetoric. That was in the past, so it doesn't apply today, but it is true that it happened in the past. The problem was, there was no follow through. It is well known that Republicans love government, but only when they are in charge of it. That makes them different from Democrats who love it no matter who is in charge. But when the Republicans have government all to themselves ... well, to use a sappy metaphor, they dim the lights, put on soft music, and try desperately to get government's bra off.
So they borrowed rhetoric but did not act in accord with the rhetoric. Remember, though, this was in the past. We're not talking about right now. But back in the day when they borrowed rhetoric, libertarians would bang their head against a brick wall saying "but why don't you vote the way you speak?" They never backed up their rhetoric with votes.
That led to an interesting debate between liberals and libertarians as to how to define conservatives - by their words or by their actions. Those who are living in the past, the way you appear to be doing, say you define them by their words. Who are you going to believe, what they say or your lying eyes? Libertarians would say "but the way they vote..." only to be met with "oh that's just a No True Scotsman." But remember, that was in the past.
Now, still in the past, let us fast forward to 2000. Bush Jr. Starting with Bush Jr, there was no longer even any rhetoric borrowing. He ended the practice. There has been no rhetoric borrowing since 2000. So even if you say that we should judge them by their words instead of their actions, their words show that they are not following any libertarian ideas.
Now let's look at your attempted rebuttal points. You write "Not only are libertarians in favor of laissez faire capitalism" and "Not only are libertarians in favour of abolishing all government assistance" - exactly! Conservatives are not in favor of those. Libertarians are, conservatives are not. Those are points where libertarians and conservatives disagree. Libertarians and conservatives do not agree on laissez faire capitalism. Conservatives believe in government and business working hand in hand, with subsidies, protectionism, and bailouts for the elite. Libertarians do not believe in that. Your rebuttal proves MY point, and is exactly what I meant when I wrote "Not only are libertarians opposed to business subsidies", "Not only are libertarians opposed to business bailouts", and "Not only are libertarians opposed to corporate welfare". What you've just done is tell me that I'm right that libertarians and conservatives do not share economic common ground. No, laissez faire is not a conservative talking point, and if you favor corporate welfare you don't oppose government assistance. And the conservative position on taxes is that the top rate should be 36% instead of 39%. Seriously. That was the debate. Do you remember when McCain ran against Obama? The debate was 36% or 39%. That's not anti-tax, no matter how much you try to dress it up.
Once you acknowledge that point that conservatives aren't even borrowing libertarian rhetoric anymore, and since 2000 even liberals and progressives have admitted it (except for a few uneducated holdouts), then we can get on to the spurious claim of it being utopian. But seriously, nobody thinks that Republicans have any use for or any liking of libertarian ideas. It's been a decade and a half since the last incident of rhetoric borrowing, and even in that bygone era there was no follow through.
So, since you are living in the past, are you a conservative Republican?
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 02, 2014, 02:36:36 PM
I notice that you didn't answer my question. Are you a conservative Republican?
Wouldn’t you like to know? I post a lot on here, see if you can guess.
QuoteAlso I notice you didn't say that any items on my list of disagreements between conservatives and libertarians were wrong.
Lots are wrong.
QuoteNot only are libertarians opposed to business subsidies...
Not only are libertarians opposed to business bailouts...
Not only are libertarians opposed to corporate welfare...
All supported by multitudes of conservatives.
QuoteNot only do libertarians oppose every single instance of police abuse that libertarians become aware of
This one doesn’t even make sense. Can you show conservatives who are in favor of police abuse?
QuoteSo to go back to your main point - that conservatives are following a libertarian philosophy about government. I think I've already disproven that, given my list. .
No you didn’t.
My point was†They've swallowed a libertarian fantasy and can't see the harm it's doing.â€
That means chasing the fantasy of laissez fair capitalism, chasing the fantasy that any deregulation is good deregulation, chasing the fantasy that any govt. involvement is always bad.
All things conservatives are now chasing after.
So a laundry list of libertarian ideas (Many of which I support) does not even address my point. In fact you have proven my point that even if someone else holds many of the central views of libertarianism and tries to implement them you don’t count those as libertarian because those doing the implementing are not “true libertariansâ€.
Same as the Scotsman who denies that the other guy is Scotsman because he puts brown sugar on his oatmeal, while forgetting everything else.
QuoteNow let's look at your attempted rebuttal points. You write "Not only are libertarians in favor of laissez faire capitalism" and "Not only are libertarians in favour of abolishing all government assistance" - exactly! Conservatives are not in favor of those.
Sure they are. Conservatives were not always blinded by ideology like libertarians but they have swallowed the libertarian fantasy that govt assistance is always evil, that deregulation is always good, and that market fundamentalism actually makes sense. All primary libertarian views.
We end up with disastrous deregulation of the financial sector and a supreme court that that sees any regulation on money in government as an infringement on freedom.
These are libertarian fantasies (adopted by conservatives) that are harming the country
in the present.
I notice that this time when you actually noticed my list, you said "lots are wrong" and then immediately quoted three points that libertarians and conservatives disagree on. Three points, all economic, which show a stark contrast and a stark divide between libertarians and conservatives.
How can they "swallow a libertarian fantasy" when they disagree with libertarians on the very things you are most likely to accuse them of agreeing on, the very same things you agreed they disagree on? You agreed that the conservatives like business subsidies, and then accused them of liking laissez faire, which mean you are contradicting yourself.
Over and over you contradict yourself. One cannot at the same time support laissez faire on the one hand, and protectionism, subsidies, and bailouts on the other hand. Supporting laissez faire means opposing protectionism, subsidies, and bailouts. Conservatives love them, and what is more they always have.
I guess that leads to a different question - do you think that protective tariffs, business subsidies, and business bailouts are laissez faire? If you do, then we've got much bigger problems than thinking that libertarians who oppose those and conservatives who support those are somehow following the same ideas.
You've agreed over and over that libertarians and conservatives disagree on economic ideas, and then you go ahead and repeat that in spite of all of their disagreements that they somehow have the same vision, and when your own inconsistencies and contradictions are exposed you call it a "No True Scotsman." Do you even know what the fallacy means? Based on your posting history, one would have to conclude you don't.
Do you think that protective tariffs, business subsidies, and business bailouts are laissez faire? Conservatives support those practices, libertarians oppose those practices, so according to you the two have the same vision.
Conservatives that support protective tariffs, business subsidies, and business bailouts are accused by you of thinking that government assistance is always evil. How can they think that government assistance is always evil when they support and promote government assistance? Do you think they actively support things they consider evil? Do you think they consider themselves evil and say "since I think government assistance is evil therefore I will support it?" Don't you see how absurd your own position is?
Finally, are you a conservative Republican? Let's see if you have the courage to answer that with a "yes" or "no." You probably don't. I'm not interested in guessing, I'm interested in you answering.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 03, 2014, 01:50:39 AM
I notice that this time when you actually noticed my list, you said "lots are wrong" and then immediately quoted three points that libertarians and conservatives disagree on. Three points, all economic, which show a stark contrast and a stark divide between libertarians and conservatives.
Read it again as you misunderstood what I said.
I said that libertarians and conservatives are on the same side on those issues. “Lots are wrong†refers to your assuming every item on the list is a point of disagreement between libertarians and conservatives.
Multitudes of conservatives are:
opposed to business subsidies...
opposed to business bailouts...
opposed to corporate welfare...
QuoteYou agreed that the conservatives like business subsidies, and then accused them of liking laissez faire, which mean you are contradicting yourself.
No I didn't. You misunderstood what I wrote. Your list was written in a sort of double negative way so it's no biggy that a misunderstanding occurred.
QuoteOver and over you contradict yourself.
I have not contradicted myself once. You misunderstanding what I said in one post is not contradicting myself over and over.
In your list you included some small stuff they disagree about and left out the big things they have in common. These are the fantasies I'm referring to.
Once again, the point is that conservatives are chasing the fantasy of laissez fair capitalism, chasing the fantasy that any deregulation is good deregulation, chasing the fantasy that any govt. involvement is always bad.
These are libertarian fantasies that conservatives are now chasing after to the detriment of the nation.
Quote from: Berati on June 03, 2014, 01:13:12 PMMultitudes of conservatives are:
opposed to business subsidies...
opposed to business bailouts...
opposed to corporate welfare...
Ah, I see. You're redefining the word "conservative" in order to prove that your hypothetical conservatives behave in the way you say conservatives do, unlike real world conservatives.
I was right, we've got a much deeper problem here than merely thinking people who disagree on many issues are actually in alignment. Without redefining the terms, it is perfectly clear that conservatives do indeed like economic intervention, just for their benefit instead of someone elses benefit.
Also, notice we've been discussing the differences in economic ideology. There are three main categories of policy: economic policy, domestic civil policy, and foreign policy. Would you care to go for the trifecta and prove that libertine libertarians agree with theocratic conservatives and hawkish conservatives agree with anti-war libertarians?
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 03, 2014, 02:54:48 PM
Ah, I see. You're redefining the word "conservative" in order to prove that your hypothetical conservatives behave in the way you say conservatives do, unlike real world conservatives.
Ever heard of the Tea Party.
Here is how they define themselves:
"Commonsense,
Conservative, Constitutional Self-Governance Is Our Mode Of Operation"
From their webpage, here is one of their stated core values:
"Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal." (This covers business subsidies... business bailouts... and corporate welfare..)
QuoteI was right, we've got a much deeper problem here than merely thinking people who disagree on many issues are actually in alignment.
The fact that they disagree on many issues is not a problem for my premise, since my premise was never that they were identical.
QuoteAlso, notice we've been discussing the differences in economic ideology.
You have, I haven’t.
I've been discussing similarities in economic ideologies. The most damaging of which are now shared by conservatives and libertarians.
As a libertarian liberal, I don't think either one of you knows what a libertarian is.
You people and your fine little talking points pretending you're the one true patriot or your splinter group of libertarianism is the one true way and none of you stand a chance at real power. Jason, you're full of shit. Libertarian party is going absolutely nowhere because the Democratic party and the Republican party control the vast majority of all the wealth in the world. Like it or not that's the way it is and it's not going to change in our lives. You can preach it till the cows come home, but in the end unless you vote for one party or the other you're voting to give your vote to someone else.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on June 04, 2014, 03:08:03 AM
You people and your fine little talking points pretending you're the one true patriot or your splinter group of libertarianism is the one true way and none of you stand a chance at real power.
I find it amusing that there are a lot of accusations that conservatives or liberals behave differently in office than what they're ideologies say. The implication is that libertarians or whoever is complaining would not fall into that trap. Their ideology is just too strong.
The reality is that when ideology meets money... money usually wins.
The conservative supreme court has followed a libertarian view when it comes to allowing money into the political process and I can't see any good outcome no matter who gets elected.
The United States now has the best government that money can buy. Yeah freedom :hang:
What I find amusing is that Jason thinks Liberitarians can do no wrong because they're Liberitarians, when â€"if they do manage to become a force to be reckoned withâ€" they'll be flooded with money and money-grubbing politicians wanting to bamboozle the increased Liberitarian block, a block that has swelled with voters no more educated than the rank and file Democrat or Republican. And if his fantasy does come to pass and one or both of the major parties are destroyed, where does he think all those former democrats and republicans will go and take their politics with them, and if the money that used to chase them won't follow close behind? Or does he believe those bad men/women will simply stop politicking?
Berati, a page ago I wrote about how, once upon a time, conservatives were known for doing one thing and saying another.
You missed that. I know why you missed it.
So, if a conservatives, say Paul Ryan, were to give a speech about how he wants to slash government spending and services, and then that same Paul Ryan voted yes on TARP, yes on Economic Stimulus HR 5140, yes on $15billion bailout for GM and Chrysler, yes on $192billion additional anti-recession stimulus spending, yes on federalizing rules for drivers licenses to hinder terrorists, yes on making the USAPATRIOT Act permanent, yes on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant, yes on authorizing military force in Iraq, yes on emergency $78Billion for war in Iraq and Afghanistan, yes on declaring Iraq part of the War on Terror with no exit date, no on reducing US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days, yes on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients, yes on providing $70million on Section 8 Housing vouchers, yes on extending unemployment benefits to 59 weeks, yes on No Child Left Behind, and yes on Head Start Act, where does that position him?
According to those who judge by speeches alone (you) that makes him following a "libertarian" (loosely defined) vision. According to those who judge by what people actually do, that makes him anything but libertarian (by any definition other than speeches alone).
By the way, we have both been discussing differences in economic ideologies, not similarities in economic ideologies. The reason that statement is correct instead of your insistence that we have been discussing similarities is because I've been bringing up actual examples of where Republicans act and vote on the issues. You have yet to do that.
So, are you a conservative Republican?
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on June 04, 2014, 03:08:03 AMYou people and your fine little talking points pretending you're the one true patriot or your splinter group of libertarianism is the one true way and none of you stand a chance at real power. Jason, you're full of shit. Libertarian party is going absolutely nowhere because the Democratic party and the Republican party control the vast majority of all the wealth in the world. Like it or not that's the way it is and it's not going to change in our lives. You can preach it till the cows come home, but in the end unless you vote for one party or the other you're voting to give your vote to someone else.
None of that has anything to do with our current discussion. The current discussion is if the Republicans, who are corporatists and not capitalists, are following any sort of extremely loosely defined libertarian vision.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 04, 2014, 03:17:57 PMWhat I find amusing is that Jason thinks Liberitarians can do no wrong because they're Liberitarians, when â€"if they do manage to become a force to be reckoned withâ€" they'll be flooded with money and money-grubbing politicians wanting to bamboozle the increased Liberitarian block, a block that has swelled with voters no more educated than the rank and file Democrat or Republican. And if his fantasy does come to pass and one or both of the major parties are destroyed, where does he think all those former democrats and republicans will go and take their politics with them, and if the money that used to chase them won't follow close behind? Or does he believe those bad men/women will simply stop politicking?
I am not claiming that an elected libertarian would never get corrupted, but when you have a consistent pattern of behavior stretching over 30 years that shows Republicans
consistently vote a certain way in spite of speeches saying they support a different direction, a thinking person would say "I think perhaps their votes indicate what they really feel." After over 30 years (or more), even a minimally thinking person would say that.
Yet here once again we have someone saying "I don't care what they do, I care about the speeches they make." Berati refuses to believe his lying eyes. The evidence contradicts his faith.
Whether or not an elected libertarian would be corrupted, that is a good question. I don't claim that they would not. But that has nothing to do with the key question before us: do you judge Republicans by their words or by their 30 years worth of deeds?
Libertarians want a minimal government. So long as that government is powerless, it'll be hard for it to become corrupted.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 05, 2014, 11:10:05 AM
Berati, a page ago I wrote about how, once upon a time, conservatives were known for doing one thing and saying another.
You missed that. I know why you missed it.
I didn’t miss it, it’s just that it isn’t relevant to what I’ve said.
QuoteAccording to those who judge by speeches alone (you) that makes him following a "libertarian" (loosely defined) vision. According to those who judge by what people actually do, that makes him anything but libertarian (by any definition other than speeches alone).
By the way, we have both been discussing differences in economic ideologies, not similarities in economic ideologies. The reason that statement is correct instead of your insistence that we have been discussing similarities is because I've been bringing up actual examples of where Republicans act and vote on the issues. You have yet to do that.
Again, you focus just on the differences and act like the similarities therefore don’t matter. I’m talking about are the similarities.
Jason, a page ago I wrote about how Conservative judges have made decisions following a libertarian ideology that is going to cause added corruption.
I guess you missed that.
My original post was:
QuoteThe Liberals used to be more blinded by ideology but now it’s the conservatives. They've swallowed a libertarian fantasy and can't see the harm it’s doing.
The differences are not the issue I'm addressing, it's the similarities.
Conservative judges followed a libertarian ideology in the Citizens United case as well as in the McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission case.
Both are real world examples of conservatives embracing libertarian ideology to the detriment of the Nation. This is not what they've talked about,
it’s what they actually have done.Then there is deregulation for the sake of deregulation.
Which has actually occurred. Deregulation can have both positive and negative effects… unless you believe in a Libertarian fantasy that it’s all just positive like many conservatives now believe. (Having bought a Libertarian fantasy)
Tons of deregulatory acts have been passed in the last 40 years. This is not what people just talk about;
it’s what has actually been done in pursuit of a laissez fair fantasy.
e.g. the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and many others. The most damaging have been the deregulation of the financial sector. Like the Garnâ€"St Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 and the the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 which undid the stability that the Glass-Steagall act provided for nearly 70 years.
(Again, I’m not against deregulation, I’m against mindless deregulation)
There is also the fact that conservatives are
actively blocking any regulation when it is clearly needed. Again, in the pursuit of libertarian fantasy.
Are you familiar with derivatives, Collateralized Debt Obligations and Credit Default swaps?
The unregulated derivatives market alone could easily destroy the entire global economy. Because it isn’t regulated the exact size of the market is not known but is estimated at around $700 trillion. (no that's not a typo) This is larger than the entire global economy. A burst of this bubble will make the 2008 housing crisis look a soap bubble in comparison. Warren Buffet refers to derivatives as weapons of financial mass destruction.
So why is no one doing anything about this enormous and unproductive risk? Answer: Libertarian Fantasy.
Conservatives (and even some liberals) have not just been talking about laissez faire capitalism and the destruction of important safety regulations and important regulations controlling money in politics…
they have actually implemented legislation to accomplish this.Just as bad is the failure to act. The unregulated financial instruments I mentioned above are going to come home to roost and when they do we will have the Libertarian daydream to blame.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 05, 2014, 11:17:44 AM
Whether or not an elected libertarian would be corrupted, that is a good question. I don't claim that they would not. But that has nothing to do with the key question before us: do you judge Republicans by their words or by their 30 years worth of deeds?
I judge by their deeds, which is why I have never voted Republican. But I don't vote Libertarian either, because â€"as Berati points outâ€" the most damaging deeds those Republicans commit... are Libertarian-based policy.
This libertarian nonsense has nearly created a situation where government cannot act when it is in the nations interest to act even to protect the people of the nation.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on June 06, 2014, 08:04:13 PM
This libertarian nonsense has nearly created a situation where government cannot act when it is in the nations interest to act even to protect the people of the nation.
Very succinctly put.
Libertarians lack pragmatism and will put ideological purity ahead of a very real and pressing need to act.
There has never been and will never be a democratic open and free society built on libertarian philosophy because there are no free lunches. Everything has a cost and that includes democratic, open and free societies. (By "free" I mean freedom of thought and expression, NOT free of cost)
Libertarians want the responsibilities of a hermit while simultaneously having all the advantages that society brings.
Not to hear Jason Jason put it Berati. If everyone just adopted the libertarian philosophy the whole world would just have one big puppy, but of course nobody would ever clean up after it because there would be no taxes to pay anyone to do it. It would be one giant Clifford the big red dog shitting on everyone.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on June 06, 2014, 08:04:13 PM
This libertarian nonsense has nearly created a situation where government cannot act when it is in the nations interest to act even to protect the people of the nation.
So you can point out any time since the Libertarian Party was founded (1971) that it has controlled a branch of congress?
Quote from: Berati on June 05, 2014, 10:08:53 PMSo why is no one doing anything about this enormous and unproductive risk? Answer: Libertarian Fantasy.
Conservatives (and even some liberals) have not just been talking about laissez faire capitalism and the destruction of important safety regulations and important regulations controlling money in politics… they have actually implemented legislation to accomplish this.
Just as bad is the failure to act. The unregulated financial instruments I mentioned above are going to come home to roost and when they do we will have the Libertarian daydream to blame.
I'd correct you again and point out that you mean "conservative fantasy" but it seems you actually honestly really refuse to know the difference.
Sad, really. Trying to point out the differences to you is like trying to explain fossils to a creationist.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 09, 2014, 12:46:59 AM
I'd correct you again and point out that you mean "conservative fantasy" but it seems you actually honestly really refuse to know the difference.
Sad, really. Trying to point out the differences to you is like trying to explain fossils to a creationist.
You still don't understand why its the similarities that bother me and not the differences.
It doesn't matter to me as the point was to explain my reasoning to those who may be following the thread and wondering what I meant. I've explained it as clearly as I can and everyone else seems to understand. The point was never to get you to see the problem as your a True Believerâ,,¢. Trying to get you to understand the problems with libertarianism is like trying to get Casparov to see the problems with solipsism.
Actually, your most recent post on the subject, with your "examples", is an interesting one because you've gone from one error to another. Instead of saying "Republicans follow libertarian positions" you are now saying "libertarians follow Republican positions." The Citizen's United case is a perfect example of that, to the point where it is an example of the "No True Libertarian" fallacy.
It is a relative of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, but not in the way you would like.
Step one: take a positions that libertarians do not subscribe to. Even better, take one that is actually antithetical to libertarian thought.
Step two: say libertarians hold that position. Wait for libertarians to say "but we don't hold that position."
Step three: erroneously say that the libertarian is committing a No True Scotsman fallacy.
Step four: when the error is pointed out, accuse the libertarian of being a True Believer.
For instance, suppose there was another Berati on this board making claims similar to this Berati.
Berati2: And that is why libertarians believe in redistributing wealth.
Libertarian: But libertarians don't believe in redistributing wealth.
Berati2: Libertarians always abuse the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Libertarian: But as you can see, that premise is actually contrary to libertarian thought.
Berati2: Now you're just a True Believer.
Look, there may very well be some very serious problems with libertarianism, and if implemented I'd be shocked and dismayed at how it turned out. But you won't get to that point as long as you keep ascribing to libertarianism points not found within libertarianism.
Now there are 300 million people in the US, and some of them are libertarian. Let us assume that it is very low, say 1%. That still leaves 3 million people who are libertarian. Not all of them are straight down the line libertarians, some of them deviate on some issues. That still doesn't change the core of what libertarianism is, and those who do deviate on some issues still are libertarian on most issues - otherwise they wouldn't be libertarians. So I suppose you could try to find in that minority within a minority those who self-identify as libertarian who you would like to use as an example of what libertarians believe, but that would be a Hasty Generalization.
Citizens United ... libertarians had little to say about it because neither option represents our opinion on campaign finance. We would not have ruled either way on that question, because the issue is tangential to where we really fall on the issue of campaign finance.
You appear to know what libertarians believe better than the 100% of libertarians who would say you are wrong about what libertarians believe. I guess everyone is out of step except you. Considering that 100% of libertarians are wrong about what they believe, it makes me wonder what is the proper name for the beliefs held by 100% of those who identify themselves as libertarians.
The Wrong $25 Million? (http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/06/09/uncf-receives-25m-koch-brothers-prompting-praise-and-anger#sthash.grrjCVQb.dpbs)
QuoteThe United Negro College Fund, the primary fund-raising organization for private, historically black colleges, is a revered institution for many African Americans. Its successes are points of pride to many, and are vital to many black colleges.
When the UNCF announced one of its largest gifts ever on Friday, several took to Twitter to express shock and anger. One person wrote: "#UNCF Literally Sells Their 'Souls To The Devil' Accepting Checks From The #KochBrothers W/Out Knowing Their Evil History. Craziness." Another tweet: "#Koch donation to @UNCF tells children everywhere that money is first and integrity is unnecessary. Sends the wrong damn message. Period."
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 09, 2014, 02:00:43 PM
Actually, your most recent post on the subject, with your "examples", is an interesting one because you've gone from one error to another.
I see no errors and you haven't pointed any out.
QuoteInstead of saying "Republicans follow libertarian positions" you are now saying "libertarians follow Republican positions."
No. I’ve never said that. I’ve said that conservatives follow libertarian positions, then proved it by giving examples.
QuoteLook, there may very well be some very serious problems with libertarianism,
So why argue if you agree?
QuoteBut you won't get to that point as long as you keep ascribing to libertarianism points not found within libertarianism.
Except that I haven’t done that.
I’ve given real examples of libertarian ideology being implemented by conservatives such as:
- Laissez faire capitalism
- Removal of regulations on campaign finance
- Refusal to regulate financial instruments
QuoteYou appear to know what libertarians believe better than the 100% of libertarians who would say you are wrong about what libertarians believe. I guess everyone is out of step except you. Considering that 100% of libertarians are wrong about what they believe, it makes me wonder what is the proper name for the beliefs held by 100% of those who identify themselves as libertarians.
And there’s the typical and overused libertarian shuffle.
Libertarians are against regulations except when they’re not.
Libertarians are for "limited" government except when they’re not.
Libertarians are for laissez faire capitalism except when they’re not
This is the No true Scotsman fallacy in action.
Every discussion with Libertarians (seriously
every single one to a sickening degree) always ends with the accusation that “you just don’t understand the true libertarian positionâ€.
No one understands the true libertarian position, not even libertarians! And the main reason is...
Because “limited government†is a meaningless phrase. The only thing it means is limited to whatever the current libertarian/conservative feels it should be limited to.
Quote from: Berati on June 09, 2014, 09:02:53 PMI see no errors and you haven't pointed any out.
You've ascribed to Republicans a liking for laissez faire, and you've ascribed to libertarians a liking for corporatism.
Quote from: Berati on June 09, 2014, 09:02:53 PMNo. I’ve never said that. I’ve said that conservatives follow libertarian positions, then proved it by giving examples.
And your examples were refuted. And counter-examples were provided, and you pretended you didn't see them.
Quote from: Berati on June 09, 2014, 09:02:53 PMI’ve given real examples of libertarian ideology being implemented by conservatives such as:
No you haven't.
Quote from: Berati on June 09, 2014, 09:02:53 PM- Laissez faire capitalism
Not a Republican position.
Quote from: Berati on June 09, 2014, 09:02:53 PM- Removal of regulations on campaign finance
You think that Citizens United is a removal of regulations? I still see plenty of other regulations.
Quote from: Berati on June 09, 2014, 09:02:53 PM- Refusal to regulate financial instruments
Again with the inability to distinguish between corporatism and laissez faire. Do you ever get tired about being wrong on subjects you know nothing about?
Quote from: Berati on June 09, 2014, 09:02:53 PMAnd there’s the typical and overused libertarian shuffle.
Yes, you're the only one in the whole world who know what libertarians actually believe, and libertarians are wrong about what they believe.
Quote from: Berati on June 09, 2014, 09:02:53 PMLibertarians are against regulations except when they’re not.
Libertarians are for "limited" government except when they’re not.
Libertarians are for laissez faire capitalism except when they’re not
When you lump libertarians with Republicans, you'll find that the differences between the two ideologies will produce results like the ones you describe. Next time try lumping libertarians with socialists, you'll get
Quote from: Berati2Libertarians are in favor of wealth redistribution except when they're not.
This is the No True Libertarian fallacy in action.
Every discussion with you (seriously
every single one to a sickening degree) always ends with the accusation that libertarians don't understand the true libertarian position.
Quote from: Berati on June 09, 2014, 09:02:53 PMNo one understands the true libertarian position, not even libertarians! And the main reason is...
You are not a plural
Quote from: Berati on June 09, 2014, 09:02:53 PMBecause “limited government†is a meaningless phrase. The only thing it means is limited to whatever the current libertarian/conservative feels it should be limited to.
And there is why you don't understand it - you think that you can lump two disparate ideologies together with nothing more than a slash.
So tell me about your anarchist/statist positions, you conservative Republican you.
By the way, I'm sure others noticed how quickly you ran from the subject of the differences between libertarians and Republicans on the issues of civil liberty and foreign policy. It is pretty obvious that you know that if you actually respond to those two topics then you will end of up saying "sure they only agree in one out of three areas, but that still makes them identical". And you've made such a hash of proving that one out of three area that you've basically proved for me that libertarians and Republicans don't even agree on that one area. You have conceded two out of three and proven for me the third, making it three for three on libertarians and Republicans disagreeing.
Perhaps you might do better if you try to learn the difference between corporatism and capitalism. Perhaps you might do better if you learn the difference between business subsidies and no business subsidies. Perhaps you might do better if you learn the difference between actual deregulation (which means there are actually less regulations) and regulations written to remove liability from businesses (which actually means more regulations, but they're the wrong regulation so you pretend they aren't there).
And since you cannot tell the difference, no matter how many times it is patiently explained, no matter how many examples are given, therefore "nobody can understand it." And since you cannot tell the difference, no matter how many times it is patiently explained, no matter how many examples are given, you think the two are therefore somehow mysteriously the same in spite of the many differences. And the same in spite of the serious foreign policy and civil liberty differences that you've conceded by trying to only discuss your failed attempt to prove that libertarians and Republicans agree on one out of three major policy areas.
If you were right, you'd have shown agreement on one out of three areas. You didn't even do that much, and you ran away from discussing the other two areas.
It's not my fault that you can't tell the difference between subsidies and no subsidies. It's not the fault of libertarians anywhere that you can't tell the difference between subsidies and no subsidies. It's not the fault of libertarianism that you can't tell the difference between subsidies and no subsidies.
Hell, you actually think our core value is "limited government", when that is only a means to a core value. The core value, which isn't shared by Republicans, dictates our means to the point where if government would actually be a useful tool to reach our core value we'd use the government to reach it. I'm sure you'd call that a shuffle or equivocation, but in truth that is your admission that you don't even know what the core value is. If you knew what that value is, you wouldn't be confused by what I just wrote, you wouldn't call it a shuffle, you wouldn't call it an equivocation.
And you also wouldn't make your idiotic mistake about lumping libertarians with conservatives anymore.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 10, 2014, 02:26:44 AM
You've ascribed to Republicans a liking for laissez faire, and you've ascribed to libertarians a liking for corporatism.
Nope, those are your words not mine. This is the same tactic you have tried in every reply and it never works.
QuoteAnd your examples were refuted. And counter-examples were provided, and you pretended you didn't see them.
This-> “Actually, your most recent post on the subject, with your "examples", is an interesting one because you've gone from one error to anotherâ€
Is not a refutation nor is it a counter example.
Just saying “you’re wrong†is not a refutation
Putting your words in my mouth is not a counter example.
Differences in foreign policy do not negate similarities in deregulating financial institutions
QuoteYou think that Citizens United is a removal of regulations? I still see plenty of other regulations.
Yes, Citizens United as well as McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission are a roll back of regulation on campaign finance.
This is exactly the same mistake you make every time. If conservatives roll back regulations it’s not libertarian ideology, it’s corporatism because the conservatives did it. This is a flawed argument. It won’t suddenly become a logical argument just because you repeat it ad nauseum.
QuoteAgain with the inability to distinguish between corporatism and laissez faire. Do you ever get tired about being wrong on subjects you know nothing about?
I own a company (incorporated) that provides financial services and I own lots of real estate. I know more about how the real world works than you could ever hope to understand. Do you see me begging for money?
QuoteBy the way, I'm sure others noticed how quickly you ran from the subject of the differences between libertarians and Republicans on the issues of civil liberty and foreign policy.â€
And you also wouldn't make your idiotic mistake about lumping libertarians with conservatives anymore.
NOT THE POINT!The idiotic mistake is not seeing that libertarians share stupid ideas with conservatives and
IT DOESN’T MATTER IF THEY DISAGREE ON OTHER IDEAS!I seriously don’t know how you can keep making the same mistake no matter how often it’s pointed out.
You and every libertarian I’ve ever wasted my time talking to follows this line of reasoning:
If a conservative slashes regulations in an effort “limit government†or to “maximize liberty†it doesn't count as libertarian ideology because he doesn't support gay marriage, and legalized drugs, etc…
When a conservative removes regulations on companies he’s a corporatist, when a libertarian does exactly the same thing… he’s a champion of freedom.IT DOESN’T MATTER THAT LIBERTARIANS AND CONSERVATIVES DON’T SEE EYE TO EYE ON EVERY SUBJECT. THAT IS NOT THE POINT, IT WAS NEVER THE POINT, AND IT WILL NEVER BE THE POINT.Let me repeat that this line of reasoning is FLAWED:
If a conservative slashes regulations in an effort “limit government†or to “maximize freedom†it doesn't count as libertarian ideology because he doesn't support gay marriage, and legalized drugs, etc…
When a conservative removes regulations on companies he’s a corporatist, when a libertarian does exactly the same thing… he’s a champion of freedom.This is the one and only argument you have made. It’s a flawed argument and yet you continue to make it. I don’t know if you’re just slow or if you’re trolling but either way, try to think of something else to say.
Quote from: Berati on June 10, 2014, 06:17:08 PMIT DOESN’T MATTER THAT LIBERTARIANS AND CONSERVATIVES DON’T SEE EYE TO EYE ON EVERY SUBJECT. THAT IS NOT THE POINT, IT WAS NEVER THE POINT, AND IT WILL NEVER BE THE POINT.
If, out of the myriad of hundred of issues they agree on one thing, you say that is proof that they are fellow travelers. Then you back up and say "but it doesn't matter if they agree on everything." Nice back-tracking and moving the goalposts. It's a new fallacy for you, and another way to say "everyone is out of step but Berati."
By the way, by your standard, what does it say about Democrats if a Democrat and a libertarian agree on something?
Quote from: Berati on May 31, 2014, 11:05:57 PM
The Liberals used to be more blinded by ideology but now its the conservatives. They've swallowed a libertarian fantasy and can't see the harm it's doing.
No backtracking. A consistent message from start to finish.
Destructive examples have been provided.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg0Axyvlkm0
Quote from: Berati on June 16, 2014, 08:21:52 PMNo backtracking. A consistent message from start to finish.
You went from "they are fellow travelers and agree on so much" to "it counts if they agree on even just a few things." And then neglected to tell me what it means when a Democrat and a Libertarian agree.
Your goalposts are mobile, your generalizations are hasty, your proofs are empty, your responses to counter-proofs are absent, your Scotsmen are all Korean. Your Reagan video just reiterates a point I made, that when faced with a choice between "what they say" or "what they do" you decided long ago that you "can't trust your lying eyes."
Me: But look at how they
voteYou: But they said they'd do something else, so I know they did.
Do you always believe what Republicans say? Really?
Fascinating! "Money talks, and BS walks." And we wonder why our government is broke---ideologies fighting ideologies of what is best for the country's people while being in a quagmire of BS? Solitary
Quote from: Solitary on June 21, 2014, 12:13:28 PM
Fascinating! "Money talks, and BS walks." And we wonder why our government is broke---ideologies fighting ideologies of what is best for the country's people while being in a quagmire of BS? Solitary
But we're not even fighting about which ideology is best here. The whole discussion is over the mistaken idea that what everyone knows to be two ideologies are, from his point of view, the same ideology.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 21, 2014, 10:54:58 AM
Me: But look at how they vote
You: But they said they'd do something else, so I know they did.
Me: Here are examples of what they have actually done.
You: But they don't support gay marriage so it doesn't count.
Quote from: Berati on June 21, 2014, 12:32:44 PM
MeJason: Here are examples of what they have actually done.
YouBerati: But they don't support gay marriage so it doesn't count.They say something different so it doesn't count.
Fixed it for you.
They vote for more spending. Even you can agree to that. If you were talking to a conservative instead of a libertarian you'd mention the Regan and Bush deficits. But you don't mention that now. I know why you don't mention it now. Fascinating how you mention gay marriage though, since it must truly gall that libertarians were there long before progressives were.
As a conservative you are far too embarrassed to mention the Reagan and Bush deficits now.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 21, 2014, 12:39:45 PM
They vote for more spending. Even you can agree to that. If you were talking to a conservative instead of a libertarian you'd mention the Regan and Bush deficits. But you don't mention that now.
I don't think he's mentioned that, period, because his thrust wasn't about the deficit. From what I could see, Berati was mainly pointing towards
deregulation, taxes, and other libertarian favorites. Sure, maybe he was engaging in a bit of hyperbole when he said that Republicans have swallowed
every part of the "libertarian fantasy," but his point is clear. So why won't you say something about deregulation and stuff, instead of the deficit?
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 21, 2014, 12:39:45 PM
I know why you don't mention it now.
Enlighten us, because I'm sure it'll be interesting.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 21, 2014, 12:39:45 PM
Fascinating how you mention gay marriage though, since it must truly gall that libertarians were there long before progressives were.
Until you have to actually speak up against real discrimination against gays (http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=5047.msg1022512#msg1022512) in the real world. Then you're on the side of the bigots, which is â€"you knowâ€" where the gay discrimination really exists, festers, and grows.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 21, 2014, 08:31:56 PMSure, maybe he was engaging in a bit of hyperbole when he said that Republicans have swallowed every part of the "libertarian fantasy," but his point is clear. So why won't you say something about deregulation and stuff, instead of the deficit?
You hit the nail on the head however, I never said they swallowed EVERY part of the libertarian fantasy. That is what Jason is stupidly arguing. That if they don't swallow EVERY part... It doesn't count.
Quote from: Berati on June 22, 2014, 09:06:26 AM
Since when is lying fixing anything?
Good question. Will you stop lying?
Wow. Snappy comeback three weeks later.
So about that deregulation stuff...
Yes, I already addressed the "deregulation" stuff.
When a regulation is written to shield businesses from consequences, that's not deregulation, that's malregulation. It would benefit you to learn the difference.
Someone ignoring the difference is like a Christian saying that Atheists and Satanists are synonymous.
Berati thinks that regulation is always good. Therefore a bad regulation cannot exist and must be a deregulation. No stain must be allowed to tarnish the reputation of his god.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on July 15, 2014, 07:18:51 PM
Yes, I already addressed the "deregulation" stuff.
When a regulation is written to shield businesses from consequences, that's not deregulation, that's malregulation. It would benefit you to learn the difference.
How is the repelation of parts of the Glass-Steagall act an example of "regulation being written to shield businesses from consequences?" That's an example of "deregulation" that I have in mind when I use the term â€" when government controls on businesses are removed. It's also malregulation â€" inappropriately formulated regulation, here characterized by a
lack of regulation when it is needed.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on July 15, 2014, 07:18:51 PM
Someone ignoring the difference is like a Christian saying that Atheists and Satanists are synonymous.
Berati thinks that regulation is always good. Therefore a bad regulation cannot exist and must be a deregulation. No stain must be allowed to tarnish the reputation of his god.
I think you are strawmanning Berati when you say this, Jason. I read the same posts you did and nowhere did he say or even imply that 'regulation is always good.' What he was pointing out was
indiscriminate deregulation was bad â€" tearing down regulation just because it gets in the way of businesses is not always a good thing. The idea of proper regulation is that it prevents businesses from doing things that they shouldn't do. Only in your own mind does this mean that regulation is always good.
In Jason's fantasy world corporations are all great citizens and wouldn't dare exploit people because there is no such thing as a corrupt libertarian...or something like that.. Of course corporations are by their very nature regulated.. Oh that dirty word again. :eek:
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on July 16, 2014, 12:24:45 AM
In Jason's fantasy world corporations are all great citizens and wouldn't dare exploit people because there is no such thing as a corrupt libertarian...or something like that.. Of course corporations are by their very nature regulated.. Oh that dirty word again. :eek:
People who have read actual libertarian writings know that libertarians count of people acting in their own selfish interest to make things work. We expect greed. This contrasts sharply with philosophies that preach some sort of "new man" that is necessary to make things work.
They also count on people behaving as near-perfect agents, who decide actions to satisfy their greed according to the principles of decision theory and reason, but we know that doesn't happen. You libertarians need that "new man" because the only kind of men who can make a libertarian society work are ones that are reasonably rational in their decision making. Actual people are provably very poor on that score.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 16, 2014, 10:25:46 AM
They also count on people behaving as near-perfect agents, who decide actions to satisfy their greed according to the principles of decision theory and reason, but we know that doesn't happen. You libertarians need that "new man" because the only kind of men who can make a libertarian society work are ones that are reasonably rational in their decision making. Actual people are provably very poor on that score.
Bingo.
Market fundamentalism fails for the same reason. The false belief that humans are logic engines. Self interest exists. Rational self interest is a pipe dream.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 21, 2014, 12:18:51 PM
But we're not even fighting about which ideology is best here. The whole discussion is over the mistaken idea that what everyone knows to be two ideologies are, from his point of view, the same ideology.
Their methods may be the same, but I don't think their ideologies are the dame.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on July 15, 2014, 07:18:51 PM
Berati thinks that regulation is always good. Therefore a bad regulation cannot exist and must be a deregulation. No stain must be allowed to tarnish the reputation of his god.
Wrong,
I never said any such thing.
QuoteGood question. Will you stop lying?
You just lied above. So now we have proof as to who is doing the misrepresenting.
QuoteBut we're not even fighting about which ideology is best here. The whole discussion is over the mistaken idea that what everyone knows to be two ideologies are, from his point of view, the same ideology.
Wrong
I never said they were the same ideology. In fact I went out of my way several times to explain why it is illogical to hide behind the idea that you can't count failures of libertarian ideology by conservatives just because conservatives don't implement EVERY aspect of libertarian ideology.
You are once again lying about what I've said. You need to cut this out and deal with the arguments made, not the made up arguments in your head.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 16, 2014, 12:12:31 AM
I think you are strawmanning Berati when you say this, Jason. I read the same posts you did and nowhere did he say or even imply that 'regulation is always good.
This goes beyond stawmanning.
Jason has been flat out lying about what I've said. The part that is really getting on my nerves is that he replies to others instead of me with these fabrications and people are falling for it. Iv'e seen replies where people say something like 'I don't agree with him on that' when I never said any such thing.
If anyone or any mod thinks I'm exaggerating just say so. I'll put up all the posts where Jason says I've said one thing, followed by the post of what I actually said. This lying BS is getting out of control.
Jason shouldn't be a mod being mods are in essence regulators.. :lol: