A couple thoughts:

[hommedeterre]

I know I'll deserve some flack for not providing more/better evidence to the following.

1. Why does every point Ron Paul has to make come down to "property rights"? Libertarianism is annoying and I'm not seeing much evidence otherwise. It seems like he/his supporters love to counter arguments with, "Well, that's irrelevant. The world is black

Comments

[itsalljustaride]

One really funny argument I always hear libertarians make is regarding government charity/social security/etc, which ultimately takes the form of "if I want to help people I'll make the donations myself! I don't want the government doing that, its inherently inefficient!"

It makes some sense, since creating a government program to handle it would cost money on top of the cost of donations. The problem is that it assumes people would donate the same amount without the government leading the charge. Which I find highly improbable. That and groups that are on the finges of society wouldn't get the attention they'd need. You don't donate to people you don't care about. They're not in your MonkeySphere.

It would be an interesting experiment to see just how much money people donated to charities if all social programs were removed. I have a sneaking suspicion it wouldn't be much more than it is now. Rather there'd be a lot more money going to police forces to "lock those damn criminals (i.e. poor, desperate people) up!".

[itsalljustaride]

Also, I'd like to take a poll on how many people say things like, "economically speaking I'm a libertarian, but socially I consider myself to be conservative."

Meaning when it comes to money they want everything hands-off, but have trouble applying that principle to things like gay sex.

[hommedeterre]

I'd be interested in hearing that, too. Libertarians I know personally and most people I see online consider themselves socially liber[al, tarian].

And I remember something in either 'Shock Doctrine' or 'Affluenza', but I'm pretty sure it was 'Shock Doctrine', that basically said what you did about when 'the market' is left to take care of needs instead of the government it doesn't happen. I wish I could truly cite it, but I can't.

[itsalljustaride]

The example I'm always reminded of is Pre-Revolution France. Things got really bad then, but even in those darkest times the rich didn't magically become sympathetic to those who got shafted. In fact, the very opposite happened. They withdrew even further into their walls and locked up their assets until it was finally too much for the average peasant to bear and they just ended up revolting.

"The Market" doesn't have any compassion for people who have nothing to offer in return for cash. The poorest of the poor have little to offer a system that already sees them as useless.

I've been trying to form a clearer picture of this theory I have lately. Its based around this word I've coined (I think I have anyway) thats called "social inertia", which is basically the idea of "the rich get richer..." only taking into account racism, prejudice, classism, etc. Maybe some awesome person has already elaborated on the subject and I just havn't come across it yet.

i am lame and inevitably pro-establishment, it would seem

[rksdf]

Ron Paul is sort of refreshing to listen to on a very basic level, but I do think he would be terribly ineffective as a president. It's fun to get down and dirty in classical liberal theory and insist by the fiat of Locke or Mill that it all comes down to individual rights and life liberty and property and not doing harm to others, but when you try to wrap that thinking around modern problems, you end up with a sort of liberalism like what we've seen develop in the last century--i.e., a welfare state that is concerned at some level about not only people in other countries (e.g., through environmental controls and humanitarian relief) but about the future of humankind itself (like looking to sustainable practices and nuclear disarmament). [Or, I suppose, I should say, if you properly wrap classical liberal theory around modern problems, you get to what we have seen develop in the last hundred years; by saying that, I make a tad more explicit my otherwise implicit assertion that Ron Paul is getting it all wrong

Re: i am lame and inevitably pro-establishment, it would seem

[hommedeterre]

I think that all makes sense with those before us cobbling together the systems. But I believe it's also important not to rest on our laurels and always explore and test other options.

I'm curious about the reasons you found the consumption tax would suck. It seems appealing to me, but I'm not informed enough.

[sturgeongeneral]

Libertarians are buttheads. And I'm also unconcerned about this so-called "recession". It's about time we take a fucking break, you know?

On your earlier post, why don't you try a tiki party? It's faux-sunshine. It might do the trick. Also, just to rub it in, I recently ate an orange picked off a tree on my sunny campus. Tee hee.

[hommedeterre]

I'll try that tiki party. And eat lots of oranges because they make me feel better. Then I think about far they came to get here and I sob.

The Birthing Will Begin In Five Minutes

[thelastrobot]

Didn't like Reagan or retroactively don't like Reagan.

Re: The Birthing Will Begin In Five Minutes

[hommedeterre]

Didn't like Reagan because my parents told me not to, didn't like him while he was alive and don't like what he was about.

[epathamerkerson]

I like the libertarian view that the government should have no say in what I do to myself, what I own, how I live my life, what I eat/drink. I find myself falling more towards the view that federal government should be about the roads and the military and, and other basic things like that. So insofar as personal freedoms, I feel like the libertarians are the only ones getting it right. Democrats want to be my 2nd parents, and republicans want to be be my 1st dictators. And my priests

[epathamerkerson]

oh, and i especially agree with the libertarian view (i think it's libertarian) that the government should keep out of the economy & business. incentives, or anything that artificially injects shit into the market just fucks it up. trying to force the market to go in a particular direction (ethanol... christ) never works out. it's insane.

[hommedeterre]

Education and health care don't work on their own. And yeah, I think one of the coolest parts about Obama is how much the world will respect him, and in turn all of us.