Reagan's Childhood Home To Be Bulldozed for Obama Public Library

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#51 Posted by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -
Obama has no respect for this country's history or for its past leaders. He only cares about change. He only cares about moving "forward" to his collectivist dystopia. He wants people to forget what happened before him. He wants people to forget that things can be different, and were different.Laihendi
How can any libertarian look at Obama and see anything other than a status-quo politician? The fact that so many self-described libertarians have swallowed all these conservative memes about Obama's supposed radicalism is a bad thing for the LP and the libertarian movement.
#52 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7924 posts) -

Why would Reagan's childhood home be important enough to keep? 

Wasdie
This. It isn't. Lets move on people.
#53 Posted by TheFallenDemon (13933 posts) -

cool

#54 Posted by GreySeal9 (25460 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]Obama has no respect for this country's history or for its past leaders. He only cares about change. He only cares about moving "forward" to his collectivist dystopia. He wants people to forget what happened before him. He wants people to forget that things can be different, and were different.Rhazakna
How can any libertarian look at Obama and see anything other than a status-quo politician? The fact that so many self-described libertarians have swallowed all these conservative memes about Obama's supposed radicalism is a bad thing for the LP and the libertarian movement.

Well, Laihendi thought that Obama beating Hillary was likely a conspiracy, so he's not too good at seeing things as they are.

Also, there is a good chunk of Libertarians who are merely generic rightwingers in disguise. Not sure if Laihendi is one of these types, but there are many of them out there.

#55 Posted by Rich3232 (2628 posts) -
Reagan is an overrated piece of sh*t, so I really don't care.
#56 Posted by Slashless (9515 posts) -
"The "childhood home" is an apartment Reagan lived in for less than a year as a young child, and its planned demolition is part of an expansion by the University of Chicago that has nothing to do with President Obama's presidential library. Obama hasn't chosen which state his presidential library will eventually be in, let alone where people will need to park for it." loltagyhag
My sides. It's okay kk.
#57 Posted by Sajo7 (14049 posts) -
I'm surprised Fox cares about the legacy of that leftist.
#58 Posted by NEWMAHAY (3812 posts) -

Why would Reagan's childhood home be important enough to keep? 

Wasdie
#59 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"]Obama has no respect for this country's history or for its past leaders. He only cares about change. He only cares about moving "forward" to his collectivist dystopia. He wants people to forget what happened before him. He wants people to forget that things can be different, and were different.Rhazakna
How can any libertarian look at Obama and see anything other than a status-quo politician? The fact that so many self-described libertarians have swallowed all these conservative memes about Obama's supposed radicalism is a bad thing for the LP and the libertarian movement.

Obama has spent his presidency focusing on the fallacy of social progress. He has a clear social agenda that he is forcing on this country by restricting individual rights. Many presidents have restricted individual rights before, but they rarely do it it the name of "social progress". He has his followers actively supporting his anti-individual policies for the sake of creating a collectivist dystopia. That is what distinguishes him from many other presidents.
#60 Posted by BossPerson (9131 posts) -
its just some bland apartment building.
#61 Posted by theone86 (20555 posts) -

Sweet, take that Reagan!

Seriously, Reagan is one of the worst things to happen to this country in a while.  If it weren't for the whole making a mockery out of the office of president he'd be worse than Nixon.  Also, if we preserved the childhood homes of every president we'd start running out of homes eventually.  Not anytime soon of course, but still I don't think every president's house should be sacrosanct.

#62 Posted by theone86 (20555 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]Obama has no respect for this country's history or for its past leaders. He only cares about change. He only cares about moving "forward" to his collectivist dystopia. He wants people to forget what happened before him. He wants people to forget that things can be different, and were different.Rhazakna
How can any libertarian look at Obama and see anything other than a status-quo politician? The fact that so many self-described libertarians have swallowed all these conservative memes about Obama's supposed radicalism is a bad thing for the LP and the libertarian movement.

Only Lai can get me to agree with Rhaz.

#63 Posted by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -
[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]Obama has no respect for this country's history or for its past leaders. He only cares about change. He only cares about moving "forward" to his collectivist dystopia. He wants people to forget what happened before him. He wants people to forget that things can be different, and were different.Laihendi
How can any libertarian look at Obama and see anything other than a status-quo politician? The fact that so many self-described libertarians have swallowed all these conservative memes about Obama's supposed radicalism is a bad thing for the LP and the libertarian movement.

Obama has spent his presidency focusing on the fallacy of social progress. He has a clear social agenda that he is forcing on this country by restricting individual rights. Many presidents have restricted individual rights before, but they rarely do it it the name of "social progress". He has his followers actively supporting his anti-individual policies for the sake of creating a collectivist dystopia. That is what distinguishes him from many other presidents.

Obama is a collectivist, but not anymore than Bush or any modern president. It seems your main problem with him is his rhetoric. His governing is very much the same as what Bush did, and whoever succeeds Obama will in turn be very similar to both of them. I don't see why his rhetoric to justify his statism is any worse than Bush's rhetoric of "fear the terrorist, protect America".
#64 Posted by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]Obama has no respect for this country's history or for its past leaders. He only cares about change. He only cares about moving "forward" to his collectivist dystopia. He wants people to forget what happened before him. He wants people to forget that things can be different, and were different.theone86

How can any libertarian look at Obama and see anything other than a status-quo politician? The fact that so many self-described libertarians have swallowed all these conservative memes about Obama's supposed radicalism is a bad thing for the LP and the libertarian movement.

Only Lai can get me to agree with Rhaz.

You don't have the intellectual capacity to even understand my opinions let alone determine whether you agree with them or not.
#65 Posted by sSubZerOo (44405 posts) -
The hilarious thing is Reagan would have no place in the current Republican party, and would be deemed as "too liberal"..
#66 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -
[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"] How can any libertarian look at Obama and see anything other than a status-quo politician? The fact that so many self-described libertarians have swallowed all these conservative memes about Obama's supposed radicalism is a bad thing for the LP and the libertarian movement.

Obama has spent his presidency focusing on the fallacy of social progress. He has a clear social agenda that he is forcing on this country by restricting individual rights. Many presidents have restricted individual rights before, but they rarely do it it the name of "social progress". He has his followers actively supporting his anti-individual policies for the sake of creating a collectivist dystopia. That is what distinguishes him from many other presidents.

Obama is a collectivist, but not anymore than Bush or any modern president. It seems your main problem with him is his rhetoric. His governing is very much the same as what Bush did, and whoever succeeds Obama will in turn be very similar to both of them. I don't see why his rhetoric to justify his statism is any worse than Bush's rhetoric of "fear the terrorist, protect America".

The fallacy of social progress is ultimately more destructive than fear mongering because its proponents believe that they are forces of good and that they are making the world a better place, while the victims of fear mongers are merely frightened into submission. Proponents of social progress are highly motivated and consequently very destructive. Obama has a strong base of support that will never leave him. People who use fear mongering always fade away (like with Bush), but the charismatic leader who advocates social progress is always remembered and glorified. He will be remembered as a great president and a hero who brought us closer to a collectivist ideal. Others will use him as a starting point, inspiration, and justification for further anti-individual social progress, just as he did with FDR.
#67 Posted by Yusuke420 (2770 posts) -

What will libertarians do in the event of a global crisis? Certainly you believe that people working together to develop a strong space program and ideally a way to protect against or escape from a diasterous event (I.E. a large asteroid). is a good idea? There's only so much one can achieve by himself, like it or not we all benefit more from working together!

#68 Posted by Ace6301 (21389 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] Obama has spent his presidency focusing on the fallacy of social progress. He has a clear social agenda that he is forcing on this country by restricting individual rights. Many presidents have restricted individual rights before, but they rarely do it it the name of "social progress". He has his followers actively supporting his anti-individual policies for the sake of creating a collectivist dystopia. That is what distinguishes him from many other presidents.

Obama is a collectivist, but not anymore than Bush or any modern president. It seems your main problem with him is his rhetoric. His governing is very much the same as what Bush did, and whoever succeeds Obama will in turn be very similar to both of them. I don't see why his rhetoric to justify his statism is any worse than Bush's rhetoric of "fear the terrorist, protect America".

The fallacy of social progress is ultimately more destructive than fear mongering because its proponents believe that they are forces of good and that they are making the world a better place, while the victims of fear mongers are merely frightened into submission. Proponents of social progress are highly motivated and consequently very destructive. Obama has a strong base of support that will never leave him. People who use fear mongering always fade away (like with Bush), but the charismatic leader who advocates social progress is always remembered and glorified. He will be remembered as a great president and a hero who brought us closer to a collectivist ideal. Others will use him as a starting point, inspiration, and justification for further anti-individual social progress, just as he did with FDR.

A reminder that you're for taking away more peoples rights than Obama is.
#69 Posted by SUD123456 (4546 posts) -

Haha.  One idiot posts a false headline topic and the rest of the herd of idiots blindly believe it.  Just another day in OT.

#70 Posted by Jazz_Fan (29516 posts) -

rumplerThis is the greatest headline ever
rumplerAll it needs is mention of Obama breaking the neck of a bald eagle

#71 Posted by Abbeten (3132 posts) -
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"] Obama is a collectivist, but not anymore than Bush or any modern president. It seems your main problem with him is his rhetoric. His governing is very much the same as what Bush did, and whoever succeeds Obama will in turn be very similar to both of them. I don't see why his rhetoric to justify his statism is any worse than Bush's rhetoric of "fear the terrorist, protect America".

The fallacy of social progress is ultimately more destructive than fear mongering because its proponents believe that they are forces of good and that they are making the world a better place, while the victims of fear mongers are merely frightened into submission. Proponents of social progress are highly motivated and consequently very destructive. Obama has a strong base of support that will never leave him. People who use fear mongering always fade away (like with Bush), but the charismatic leader who advocates social progress is always remembered and glorified. He will be remembered as a great president and a hero who brought us closer to a collectivist ideal. Others will use him as a starting point, inspiration, and justification for further anti-individual social progress, just as he did with FDR.

A reminder that you're for taking away more peoples rights than Obama is.

nah because the mentally disabled and the young aren't actually people
#72 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"] Obama is a collectivist, but not anymore than Bush or any modern president. It seems your main problem with him is his rhetoric. His governing is very much the same as what Bush did, and whoever succeeds Obama will in turn be very similar to both of them. I don't see why his rhetoric to justify his statism is any worse than Bush's rhetoric of "fear the terrorist, protect America".Ace6301
The fallacy of social progress is ultimately more destructive than fear mongering because its proponents believe that they are forces of good and that they are making the world a better place, while the victims of fear mongers are merely frightened into submission. Proponents of social progress are highly motivated and consequently very destructive. Obama has a strong base of support that will never leave him. People who use fear mongering always fade away (like with Bush), but the charismatic leader who advocates social progress is always remembered and glorified. He will be remembered as a great president and a hero who brought us closer to a collectivist ideal. Others will use him as a starting point, inspiration, and justification for further anti-individual social progress, just as he did with FDR.

A reminder that you're for taking away more peoples rights than Obama is.

Children don't have rights, they're property.

#73 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"] Obama is a collectivist, but not anymore than Bush or any modern president. It seems your main problem with him is his rhetoric. His governing is very much the same as what Bush did, and whoever succeeds Obama will in turn be very similar to both of them. I don't see why his rhetoric to justify his statism is any worse than Bush's rhetoric of "fear the terrorist, protect America".

The fallacy of social progress is ultimately more destructive than fear mongering because its proponents believe that they are forces of good and that they are making the world a better place, while the victims of fear mongers are merely frightened into submission. Proponents of social progress are highly motivated and consequently very destructive. Obama has a strong base of support that will never leave him. People who use fear mongering always fade away (like with Bush), but the charismatic leader who advocates social progress is always remembered and glorified. He will be remembered as a great president and a hero who brought us closer to a collectivist ideal. Others will use him as a starting point, inspiration, and justification for further anti-individual social progress, just as he did with FDR.

A reminder that you're for taking away more peoples rights than Obama is.

No, I am in favor of not giving people make-believe "rights" such as free houses, free healthcare, free food, etc. that all have to be paid for by someone else. They are all funded through theft and slave labour. Those are not rights at all - they are privileges given to some people at the expense of others.
#74 Posted by LordQuorthon (5388 posts) -

What will libertarians do in the event of a global crisis? 

Yusuke420

SHUT UP! SMALL GOVERNMENT AUTOMATICALLY FIXES EVERYTHING! 

 

 

 

#75 Posted by lordreaven (7239 posts) -

HA HA HA........*cough* Ha.....HA....Ha.

#76 Posted by Ace6301 (21389 posts) -
[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] The fallacy of social progress is ultimately more destructive than fear mongering because its proponents believe that they are forces of good and that they are making the world a better place, while the victims of fear mongers are merely frightened into submission. Proponents of social progress are highly motivated and consequently very destructive. Obama has a strong base of support that will never leave him. People who use fear mongering always fade away (like with Bush), but the charismatic leader who advocates social progress is always remembered and glorified. He will be remembered as a great president and a hero who brought us closer to a collectivist ideal. Others will use him as a starting point, inspiration, and justification for further anti-individual social progress, just as he did with FDR.

A reminder that you're for taking away more peoples rights than Obama is.

nah because the mentally disabled and the young aren't actually people

How irrational and altruistic of me.
#77 Posted by Yusuke420 (2770 posts) -

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

What will libertarians do in the event of a global crisis? 

LordQuorthon

SHUT UP! SMALL GOVERNMENT AUTOMATICALLY FIXES EVERYTHING! 

 

 

 

I'm going to look forward to seeing them trying to access government safe houses or other resources. It'll be the ultimate way to prove that we being an individual is all well and good, but we NEED each other to survive and thrive!

#78 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -

What will libertarians do in the event of a global crisis? Certainly you believe that people working together to develop a strong space program and ideally a way to protect against or escape from a diasterous event (I.E. a large asteroid). is a good idea? There's only so much one can achieve by himself, like it or not we all benefit more from working together!

Yusuke420

Hypothetical disaster scenarios that have less than a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of happening in our lifetimes is not a justification for statism.

#79 Posted by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] Obama has spent his presidency focusing on the fallacy of social progress. He has a clear social agenda that he is forcing on this country by restricting individual rights. Many presidents have restricted individual rights before, but they rarely do it it the name of "social progress". He has his followers actively supporting his anti-individual policies for the sake of creating a collectivist dystopia. That is what distinguishes him from many other presidents.

Obama is a collectivist, but not anymore than Bush or any modern president. It seems your main problem with him is his rhetoric. His governing is very much the same as what Bush did, and whoever succeeds Obama will in turn be very similar to both of them. I don't see why his rhetoric to justify his statism is any worse than Bush's rhetoric of "fear the terrorist, protect America".

The fallacy of social progress is ultimately more destructive than fear mongering because its proponents believe that they are forces of good and that they are making the world a better place, while the victims of fear mongers are merely frightened into submission. Proponents of social progress are highly motivated and consequently very destructive. Obama has a strong base of support that will never leave him. People who use fear mongering always fade away (like with Bush), but the charismatic leader who advocates social progress is always remembered and glorified. He will be remembered as a great president and a hero who brought us closer to a collectivist ideal. Others will use him as a starting point, inspiration, and justification for further anti-individual social progress, just as he did with FDR.

Bush was all about making the world a better place by making it safer. I do agree to an extent that Obama has a vociferous base that will support him no matter what he does (foreign policy alone proves that), and that base is probably larger than Bush's group of true believers. However, by that same token, Obama at his most popular never had the kind of complete support that Bush had directly after 9/11. Fear mongering may or may not last as long as the cause of "social justice", but fear leads people to cling to existing power structures. Bush (so far) has done more to advance the expansion of the American state than Obama did simply because of how overwhelming his support was. I do agree on that last point, awful people are often remembered as great leaders because they contributed to what would later become the status-quo. Bush is worse in the short term, it remains to be seen who's worse in the long term.
#80 Posted by Yusuke420 (2770 posts) -

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

What will libertarians do in the event of a global crisis? Certainly you believe that people working together to develop a strong space program and ideally a way to protect against or escape from a diasterous event (I.E. a large asteroid). is a good idea? There's only so much one can achieve by himself, like it or not we all benefit more from working together!

Laihendi

Hypothetical disaster scenarios that have less than a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of happening in our lifetimes is not a justification for statism.

 Just answer the question, also this includes intra global events that have a much greater chance of happening. Earthquake, volcano, and tsunami are all very real events that if on a large enough scale demand a strong central government to prevent chaos.

#81 Posted by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -

What will libertarians do in the event of a global crisis? Certainly you believe that people working together to develop a strong space program and ideally a way to protect against or escape from a diasterous event (I.E. a large asteroid). is a good idea? There's only so much one can achieve by himself, like it or not we all benefit more from working together!

Yusuke420
Most libertarians do not believe that people shouldn't work together. Friedman's pencil illustrates that their idea of capitalism is pretty cooperative. The idea that libertarians think that all people are islands and should get by with no one else is a caricature.
#82 Posted by Yusuke420 (2770 posts) -

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

What will libertarians do in the event of a global crisis? Certainly you believe that people working together to develop a strong space program and ideally a way to protect against or escape from a diasterous event (I.E. a large asteroid). is a good idea? There's only so much one can achieve by himself, like it or not we all benefit more from working together!

Rhazakna

Most libertarians do not believe that people shouldn't work together. Friedman's pencil illustrates that their idea of capitalism is pretty cooperative. The idea that libertarians think that all people are islands and should get by with no one else is a caricature.

To admit that though is to admit that states are just a large scale effort to pool our collective resources to provide a better environment for everyone. If that's the case, why the struggle against funding said endervors through taxation? Is it because you don't agree with every decision being made? If so, how can you justify ANY expenditure that you make if you need to have complete say in where that money goes and what exactly it does?

#83 Posted by Rich3232 (2628 posts) -

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

What will libertarians do in the event of a global crisis? Certainly you believe that people working together to develop a strong space program and ideally a way to protect against or escape from a diasterous event (I.E. a large asteroid). is a good idea? There's only so much one can achieve by himself, like it or not we all benefit more from working together!

Yusuke420

Most libertarians do not believe that people shouldn't work together. Friedman's pencil illustrates that their idea of capitalism is pretty cooperative. The idea that libertarians think that all people are islands and should get by with no one else is a caricature.

To admit that though is to admit that states are just a large scale effort to pool our collective resources to provide a better environment for everyone. If that's the case, why the struggle against funding said endervors through taxation? Is it because you don't agree with every decision being made? If so, how can you justify ANY expenditure that you make if you need to have complete say in where that money goes and what exactly it does?

He's an anarchist, iirc. I like some ideas wrt to anarchy, but am woefully uneducated on the concepts and ideas of anarchy.
#84 Posted by CrimzonTide (12187 posts) -
A Fox news article that takes the most inflammatory part from a Washington Times article...the mastery of journalism is represented flawlessly here.
#85 Posted by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -
[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

What will libertarians do in the event of a global crisis? Certainly you believe that people working together to develop a strong space program and ideally a way to protect against or escape from a diasterous event (I.E. a large asteroid). is a good idea? There's only so much one can achieve by himself, like it or not we all benefit more from working together!

Yusuke420

Hypothetical disaster scenarios that have less than a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of happening in our lifetimes is not a justification for statism.

 Just answer the question, also this includes intra global events that have a much greater chance of happening. Earthquake, volcano, and tsunami are all very real events that if on a large enough scale demand a strong central government to prevent chaos.

I'm not a libertarian (not in the modern sense at least), but this is a bad criticism to say the very least. It's pretty easy to offer a defense from a right-libertarian perspective. 1. Common policy should not be made by outlandish and absurd hypothetical scenarios. Torture isn't justified by the theoretical ticking bomb scenario, this shouldn't justify statism. 2. Firms would be incentivized to provide solutions to disasters such as this, since people will pay for it and it is greatly valued. 3. The only thing the State would do in such a situation is be able to save the political class, at best. The idea that the State could or would try to save everyone is utopian. Even if under a capitalist solution only the rich could afford to be saved, this would likely be the exact same if it was managed by the State. This kind of criticism based on unrealistic scenarios is on the same level as lefties who criticize Ayn Rand by saying "go play Bioshock" (yes, I have heard that argument actually used).
#86 Posted by BossPerson (9131 posts) -

Rhazanka,

briefly, whats your general opinion of chomsky? 

#87 Posted by chrisrooR (9027 posts) -
that's hilarious if trueAbbeten
#88 Posted by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

What will libertarians do in the event of a global crisis? Certainly you believe that people working together to develop a strong space program and ideally a way to protect against or escape from a diasterous event (I.E. a large asteroid). is a good idea? There's only so much one can achieve by himself, like it or not we all benefit more from working together!

Yusuke420

Most libertarians do not believe that people shouldn't work together. Friedman's pencil illustrates that their idea of capitalism is pretty cooperative. The idea that libertarians think that all people are islands and should get by with no one else is a caricature.

To admit that though is to admit that states are just a large scale effort to pool our collective resources to provide a better environment for everyone. If that's the case, why the struggle against funding said endervors through taxation? Is it because you don't agree with every decision being made? If so, how can you justify ANY expenditure that you make if you need to have complete say in where that money goes and what exactly it does?

A State is a hierarchical geographic monopoly on violence (and other services) not tied to labor. It is not simply a mass-scale pooling of resources, that's absurd, and I don't know why you think my post admitted that. The idea that states exist to "provide a better environment for everyone" is shockingly naive. I am not even arguing for that conception of capitalism, that's just what most right-libertarians believe. A right-lib would argue that the State is an inefficient way of distributing those pooled resources. The problem with taxation are many, but one of them is that the pooled resources are doled out by and to bureaucracies who have no incentive to use those resources efficiently, and every incentive to expand their scope and power regardless of their results. That's just one.
#89 Posted by chrisrooR (9027 posts) -
[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"] Most libertarians do not believe that people shouldn't work together. Friedman's pencil illustrates that their idea of capitalism is pretty cooperative. The idea that libertarians think that all people are islands and should get by with no one else is a caricature.Rhazakna

To admit that though is to admit that states are just a large scale effort to pool our collective resources to provide a better environment for everyone. If that's the case, why the struggle against funding said endervors through taxation? Is it because you don't agree with every decision being made? If so, how can you justify ANY expenditure that you make if you need to have complete say in where that money goes and what exactly it does?

A State is a hierarchical geographic monopoly on violence (and other services) not tied to labor. It is not simply a mass-scale pooling of resources, that's absurd, and I don't know why you think my post admitted that. The idea that states exist to "provide a better environment for everyone" is shockingly naive. I am not even arguing for that conception of capitalism, that's just what most right-libertarians believe. A right-lib would argue that the State is an inefficient way of distributing those pooled resources. The problem with taxation are many, but one of them is that the pooled resources are doled out by and to bureaucracies who have no incentive to use those resources efficiently, and every incentive to expand their scope and power regardless of their results. That's just one.

Isn't that last part an assumption that those who control the pooled resources would be unwilling to work toward a 'common good'?
#90 Posted by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -

Rhazanka,

briefly, whats your general opinion of chomsky? 

BossPerson
He has some good things to say, and his research on the connections between corporations and political groups is very thorough and well-researched. He also has many contradictory opinions. He'll talk about how the State is what creates maintains corporate power (as his own research shows), but will then say that the State is the only thing protecting us from corporate tyranny. In general, he buys into the mainstream leftist idea that State power and corporate power are separate entities, instead of part of the same power structure (this idea is also supported by rightists, but from the opposite perspective). The research he's done contradicts this, but he doesn't internalize the implications of that.
#91 Posted by Yusuke420 (2770 posts) -

I disagree, it makes more sense to gather natural resources and distribute them in a rapid manner. Left up to private enterprise, things like public transportation and our railway frieght infrastructure wouldn't exist because individuals do not and can not have the same buying power or effective legislative means to fund or complete projects like these. 

The sheer size and scope of our infrastructure is such that it would not be possible to be privately funded by individual persons because no one has that amount of liquid capital to throw around. You need a centralized body to deal with issues that are too large for individuals to deal with. 

#92 Posted by pie-junior (2866 posts) -

I'm not a libertarian (not in the modern sense at least), but this is a bad criticism to say the very least. It's pretty easy to offer a defense from a right-libertarian perspective. 1. Common policy should not be made by outlandish and absurd hypothetical scenarios. Torture isn't justified by the theoretical ticking bomb scenario, this shouldn't justify statism. 2. Firms would be incentivized to provide solutions to disasters such as this, since people will pay for it and it is greatly valued. 3. The only thing the State would do in such a situation is be able to save the political class, at best. The idea that the State could or would try to save everyone is utopian. Even if under a capitalist solution only the rich could afford to be saved, this would likely be the exact same if it was managed by the State. This kind of criticism based on unrealistic scenarios is on the same level as lefties who criticize Ayn Rand by saying "go play Bioshock" (yes, I have heard that argument actually used).Rhazakna

1) natural disasters are not necessarily outlandish and hypothetical. considering the levels of potential damage- statism can very well be the effective solution.

2) Private firms compete with each other; they don't pool expertise together and they don't share resources. the private market, a lot of the time, can't offer an organized remedy in a timely fashion that would atleast have the chance of mitigating the possible damage. Not to mention, a lot of the times- dealing with a natural disaster would create a public good which would disincentivize private firms from creating it in the first place.

3) That is not true for any of real world, often occuring, natural disasters. see 1.

#93 Posted by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -
[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="Yusuke420"] To admit that though is to admit that states are just a large scale effort to pool our collective resources to provide a better environment for everyone. If that's the case, why the struggle against funding said endervors through taxation? Is it because you don't agree with every decision being made? If so, how can you justify ANY expenditure that you make if you need to have complete say in where that money goes and what exactly it does?chrisrooR
A State is a hierarchical geographic monopoly on violence (and other services) not tied to labor. It is not simply a mass-scale pooling of resources, that's absurd, and I don't know why you think my post admitted that. The idea that states exist to "provide a better environment for everyone" is shockingly naive. I am not even arguing for that conception of capitalism, that's just what most right-libertarians believe. A right-lib would argue that the State is an inefficient way of distributing those pooled resources. The problem with taxation are many, but one of them is that the pooled resources are doled out by and to bureaucracies who have no incentive to use those resources efficiently, and every incentive to expand their scope and power regardless of their results. That's just one.

Isn't that last part an assumption that those who control the pooled resources would be unwilling to work toward a 'common good'?

No, just that they have no real incentive to. They may even think they are working toward some "common good", seeing as that's a completely subjective evaluation. The desire to do good doesn't translate into good actually being done, which is why the actions of do-gooders should be limited until their results are proven. Sadly, that's often not the case.
#94 Posted by pie-junior (2866 posts) -
idk why I felt the need to enter into an argument (and half assed at that). bored i guess
#95 Posted by chrisrooR (9027 posts) -
[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="chrisrooR"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"] A State is a hierarchical geographic monopoly on violence (and other services) not tied to labor. It is not simply a mass-scale pooling of resources, that's absurd, and I don't know why you think my post admitted that. The idea that states exist to "provide a better environment for everyone" is shockingly naive. I am not even arguing for that conception of capitalism, that's just what most right-libertarians believe. A right-lib would argue that the State is an inefficient way of distributing those pooled resources. The problem with taxation are many, but one of them is that the pooled resources are doled out by and to bureaucracies who have no incentive to use those resources efficiently, and every incentive to expand their scope and power regardless of their results. That's just one.

Isn't that last part an assumption that those who control the pooled resources would be unwilling to work toward a 'common good'?

No, just that they have no real incentive to. They may even think they are working toward some "common good", seeing as that's a completely subjective evaluation. The desire to do good doesn't translate into good actually being done, which is why the actions of do-gooders should be limited until their results are proven. Sadly, that's often not the case.

But again, is that not an assumption of their personal motivating factors? And if some form of pooling resources to build roads, schools and hospitals to create a social safety net isn't present, what alternative would you suggest? And I agree with your second point; we need to be more critical of everyone who controls government spending.
#96 Posted by Guybrush_3 (8308 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] The fallacy of social progress is ultimately more destructive than fear mongering because its proponents believe that they are forces of good and that they are making the world a better place, while the victims of fear mongers are merely frightened into submission. Proponents of social progress are highly motivated and consequently very destructive. Obama has a strong base of support that will never leave him. People who use fear mongering always fade away (like with Bush), but the charismatic leader who advocates social progress is always remembered and glorified. He will be remembered as a great president and a hero who brought us closer to a collectivist ideal. Others will use him as a starting point, inspiration, and justification for further anti-individual social progress, just as he did with FDR.Laihendi
A reminder that you're for taking away more peoples rights than Obama is.

No, I am in favor of not giving people make-believe "rights" such as free houses, free healthcare, free food, etc. that all have to be paid for by someone else. They are all funded through theft and slave labour. Those are not rights at all - they are privileges given to some people at the expense of others.

Capitalism is also based on taking from others what you did not produce. Would you call it theft and slave labor? The right to food is no more made up than the right to private property is. (as are all rights. They only exist because we say they exist, that doesn't make them wrong per se, but it is true)

#97 Posted by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"] I'm not a libertarian (not in the modern sense at least), but this is a bad criticism to say the very least. It's pretty easy to offer a defense from a right-libertarian perspective. 1. Common policy should not be made by outlandish and absurd hypothetical scenarios. Torture isn't justified by the theoretical ticking bomb scenario, this shouldn't justify statism. 2. Firms would be incentivized to provide solutions to disasters such as this, since people will pay for it and it is greatly valued. 3. The only thing the State would do in such a situation is be able to save the political class, at best. The idea that the State could or would try to save everyone is utopian. Even if under a capitalist solution only the rich could afford to be saved, this would likely be the exact same if it was managed by the State. This kind of criticism based on unrealistic scenarios is on the same level as lefties who criticize Ayn Rand by saying "go play Bioshock" (yes, I have heard that argument actually used).pie-junior

1) natural disasters are not necessarily outlandish and hypothetical. considering the levels of potential damage- statism can very well be the effective solution.

2) Private firms compete with each other; they don't pool expertise together and they don't share resources. the private market, a lot of the time, can't offer an organized remedy in a timely fashion that would atleast have the chance of mitigating the possible damage. Not to mention, a lot of the times- dealing with a natural disaster would create a public good which would disincentivize private firms from creating it in the first place.

3) That is not true for any of real world, often occuring, natural disasters. see 1.

Natural disasters on a society-destroying scale are extremely rare (an asteroid was the orginal example), certainly rare enough to not make decisions based on their theoretical possibility. Even if this was a valid argument, it would at best be an argument for a minarchic state with disaster relief, not a state on the scale that exists today. Private firms pool resources if the incentive is there. I'm not even arguing for this position, but the idea that libertarians have no way of dealing with this is silly. In an ancap society, a free market of insurance companies could absolutely mitigate a natural disaster, and would have every incentive to if all or most people were insured. I'm not an ancap at all, but free market disaster relief has been written on pretty extensively, you should at least do some googling. Really? You mean the political class doesn't get preferential treatment when it comes to evacuation or aid from disasters? Are you actually arguing that? That's simply absurd. Moreover, yusuke's original example was an asteroid that would destroy societies. If that was the case, the first people to be saved would be the political class, to think anything else is asinine.
#98 Posted by Guybrush_3 (8308 posts) -

A Fox news article that takes the most inflammatory part from a Washington Times article...the mastery of journalism is represented flawlessly here.CrimzonTide

I think Fox nation is like a news posting board for Fox News viewers.

#99 Posted by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -
[QUOTE="chrisrooR"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="chrisrooR"] Isn't that last part an assumption that those who control the pooled resources would be unwilling to work toward a 'common good'?

No, just that they have no real incentive to. They may even think they are working toward some "common good", seeing as that's a completely subjective evaluation. The desire to do good doesn't translate into good actually being done, which is why the actions of do-gooders should be limited until their results are proven. Sadly, that's often not the case.

But again, is that not an assumption of their personal motivating factors? And if some form of pooling resources to build roads, schools and hospitals to create a social safety net isn't present, what alternative would you suggest? And I agree with your second point; we need to be more critical of everyone who controls government spending.

No, it's simply an evaluation of what bureaucratic incentives are. It's no more an assumption of personal motivation than saying "corporations care about making money". Shareholders and CEOs may have all sorts of motivations, but incentives are incentives. I am not against pooling resources to fund those things, I'm against those resources being controlled by bureaucratic interests. The centralized funding of these things often crowds out innovation and experimentation, leaving a one-size-fits-all infrastructure that fails a lot of people (me included).
#100 Posted by chrisrooR (9027 posts) -
[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="chrisrooR"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"] No, just that they have no real incentive to. They may even think they are working toward some "common good", seeing as that's a completely subjective evaluation. The desire to do good doesn't translate into good actually being done, which is why the actions of do-gooders should be limited until their results are proven. Sadly, that's often not the case.

But again, is that not an assumption of their personal motivating factors? And if some form of pooling resources to build roads, schools and hospitals to create a social safety net isn't present, what alternative would you suggest? And I agree with your second point; we need to be more critical of everyone who controls government spending.

No, it's simply an evaluation of what bureaucratic incentives are. It's no more an assumption of personal motivation than saying "corporations care about making money". Shareholders and CEOs may have all sorts of motivations, but incentives are incentives. I am not against pooling resources to fund those things, I'm against those resources being controlled by bureaucratic interests. The centralized funding of these things often crowds out innovation and experimentation, leaving a one-size-fits-all infrastructure that fails a lot of people (me included).

So how would you control it differently? Just curious.