2012 Election [All discussion here]

[Bible_Belt]

child labor laws DID NOTHING that the free market hadn't already accomplished.

Personally, I love the free market and always have some kind of business going. Being able to beat a giant corporation on price and quality is a great feeling. The free market works because it is the best system to pander to human nature.

But where libertarianism and laissez faire fail are their assumptions about human nature. They would say it's great that wealth and power should concentrate in the hands of very few people, because surely those people would never do anything to fvck over the rest of the world. It's not like that's the story of all of human history.

I don't know where the idea comes from that human nature is such a swell thing. It certainly does not come from any of the world's religions, nor history, nor art, literature, or science. The skepticism that libertarians have for government is not exactly wrong; government is made of humans, and what they're seeing is the dark side of human nature when manifested in 'guvment' form. But if you eliminate government, we end up with the richest people having all the power. Unfortunately, they're human, too, and they're even less accountable than the government.

 

[Leporello]

child labor laws DID NOTHING that the free market hadn't already accomplished.

Oh? And not a word about the number of children who were able to attend school (and so stay out of the mines or off the farm) due to free, compulsory education offered by the government?

Personally, I love the free market and always have some kind of business going. Being able to beat a giant corporation on price and quality is a great feeling. The free market works because it is the best system to pander to human nature.

But where libertarianism and laissez faire fail are their assumptions about human nature. They would say it's great that wealth and power should concentrate in the hands of very few people, because surely those people would never do anything to fvck over the rest of the world. It's not like that's the story of all of human history.

I don't know where the idea comes from that human nature is such a swell thing. It certainly does not come from any of the world's religions, nor history, nor art, literature, or science. The skepticism that libertarians have for government is not exactly wrong; government is made of humans, and what they're seeing is the dark side of human nature when manifested in 'guvment' form. But if you eliminate government, we end up with the richest people having all the power. Unfortunately, they're human, too, and they're even less accountable than the government.

BB, while I myself frequently succumb to the temptation to answer these Randian trolls, it's useless. Here we are in 2012 having an argument about child labor. The American Right has essentially become a vast museum where all the discredited systems and obsolete prejudices of the world can find refuge.

 

[Quiksilver]

child labor laws DID NOTHING that the free market hadn't already accomplished.

Personally, I love the free market and always have some kind of business going. Being able to beat a giant corporation on price and quality is a great feeling. The free market works because it is the best system to pander to human nature.

But where libertarianism and laissez faire fail are their assumptions about human nature. They would say it's great that wealth and power should concentrate in the hands of very few people, because surely those people would never do anything to fvck over the rest of the world. It's not like that's the story of all of human history.

I don't know where the idea comes from that human nature is such a swell thing. It certainly does not come from any of the world's religions, nor history, nor art, literature, or science. The skepticism that libertarians have for government is not exactly wrong; government is made of humans, and what they're seeing is the dark side of human nature when manifested in 'guvment' form. But if you eliminate government, we end up with the richest people having all the power. Unfortunately, they're human, too, and they're even less accountable than the government.

That's a fair point and I'd have to agree.

I wouldn't call myself Libertarian, but people understand that world slightly more than the term 'classical liberalism', which is how I pigeonhole myself.


I think human nature is fine, 99% of people are normal and influenced by their parents, culture and their own mind.



My only concern about government, is the proven fact that corruption integrates vertically into all human power structures. Given enough time, every human power structure will be corrupted to one degree or another.

Therefore I'd rather have a very limited power structure, than a very strong one.


Dangers do arise in the private sector and outside of government, yes. Just out of interest, could you please point out one such danger?

 

[backbreaker]

Comments removed by Quiksilver

 

[Who Dares Win]

Just deal with the fact that old white men die and are less year after year and they are replaced from either white liberals, minorities and women (who live more then men).

Women, minorities which make alone the majority of the population in the US will grant an everlasting democrats rules and its gonna be heavier and heavier, year after years given the chances in demography.

Just deal with that, the base or republicans are adult white men which are already now a minority in most of the states.

Get ready to have more rights for women and minorities and more taxes for providers, not a racial post just stating an existing fact.

Democracy is about those who are more numerous to decide what the others have to do, a government which rob paul to pay john and jane can always count on john and jane's vote.

 

[Quiksilver]

Just deal with the fact that old white men die and are less year after year and they are replaced from either white liberals, minorities and women (who live more then men).

Women, minorities which make alone the majority of the population in the US will grant an everlasting democrats rules and its gonna be heavier and heavier, year after years given the chances in demography.

Just deal with that, the base or republicans are adult white men which are already now a minority in most of the states.

Get ready to have more rights for women and minorities and more taxes for providers, not a racial post just stating an existing fact.

Democracy is about those who are more numerous to decide what the others have to do, a government which rob paul to pay john and jane can always count on john and jane's vote.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1RxKW-P5V8

^ 1:07-1:57

 

[Leporello]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1RxKW-P5V8

^ 1:07-1:57

Libertarianism is one of the most totalitarian ideologies out there.

 

[SXS]

The American People Outright Rejected Modern GOP Philosphy..

Okay, so the GOP lost a winnable election. The last 4 years the economy has been sluggish. Unemployment high. gridlock in Washington. Social Welfare increased. Etc etc. All of these things should have made it easy for a Republican to win the White House. Four years ago I assumed whoever won would be a 1 termer because the economy would not recover fast enough. I never thought the Republican philosophy would move so far to the right.

This isn't a thread to bash the GOP. But here is some truth. Mitt Romney lost badly among all minorities, single women, and single men. And all these voters are increasing while the others are decreasing. The old, married white vote cannot carry an election anymore.

Now, the GOP will still be relevant in local/state politics because they can cater to the constituency and same with the House. But their irrelevancy will grow among the Senate and the GOP without a major reform. Some have and will argue they need to move further right but that is actually their problem.

Anyway, IMO, this is what I believe the GOP will have to do to become a party of consequence again.

1. Stance on Homosexuals - 3 states just approved gay marriage and another denied a ban. That adds to the growing list. Newsflash: Gay Marriage is coming nationally and it's coming soon. The GOP is going to have to reform its position here because being gay is now in the mainstream. Maybe you don't have to accept gay marriage, but there should be a civil union movement at least nationally. And stop bashing them. You lost this battle.

I'm sure I missed some things, you're free to add to it or dispute what I say. I want this thread to be about more honest discussion about the GOP's need for self-reflection and what needs to change to become a mainstream party again.

If the GOP start to support all that stuff... then, simply saying, America will have a one party system.

 

[Quiksilver]

Libertarianism is one of the most totalitarian ideologies out there.

lol

the ideology of me having 100% ownership of my body and my labor, is totalitarian?

Sounds like a modern form of "freedom of the slave infringes on the freedom of the slave owner to own slaves" ... i hope there aren't people who actually think like this?




definition of totalitarian:

exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/totalitarian

 

[Bokanovsky]

Libertarianism is one of the most totalitarian ideologies out there.

This has got to be the most absurd statement ever uttered on this forum. Totalitarianism implies total government control over every aspect of public and private life. Libertarianism implies no government control over private life and only minimal control over public life. Saying that libertarianism is a totalitarian ideology is like saying that communism promotes free market enterprise. The two are mutually incompatible by definition.

 

[Leporello]

That's the dumbest non-sequitur I've ever heard. The US was founded on Libertarian ideas

On what planet?

The US was founded on Enlightenment ideals, which combined individual liberty with a deep social contract.

The Founders didn't object to taxation; they objected to taxation without representation.

They also instituted a representative democracy, which is a profoundly anti-libertarian system because it places power - though indirectly - in the hands of the people, who can then vote to put limits on individual power and wealth.

Their writings are also replete with attacks on inequality and exhortations to divide property (as long as it is done to reduce poverty and unemployment).

Libertarianism implies no government control over private life and only minimal control over public life.

Except that it doesn't. Libertarianism has always been about basically one thing: removing limits on how much power and influence can be concentrated in one person. What is that, if not an avenue to tyranny and totalitarian rule by a tiny minority or even a single autocrat? How on earth would that be maintained except by force and coercion?

An another note, for what it's worth.

The oldest states in the Country (meaning the oldest average populations) tend to vote democrat.

Sort of throws a monkey wrench in that "old white men's party" mantra.

Um, no. You do know that old women and old minorities vote too, right? If you look at the exit polls and who people actually voted for (instead of looking at the votes by county, which is bizarre) you'll find that old white men broke for Romney by at least 75%.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

But where libertarianism and laissez faire fail are their assumptions about human nature. They would say it's great that wealth and power should concentrate in the hands of very few people, because surely those people would never do anything to fvck over the rest of the world. It's not like that's the story of all of human history.

Nowhere does libertarianism say that wealth should be concentrated in the hands of a few. Nor does it say anywhere that humans are "swell."

In fact, libertarianism states that BECAUSE humans are corrupt, they NEED TO BE CONSTRAINED by the free market.

In an ideally libertarian world, nobody would be able to acquire ANY wealth, let alone accumulate it, unless they were consistently producing goods and services that people would voluntarily pay for.

But if you eliminate government, we end up with the richest people having all the power. Unfortunately, they're human, too, and they're even less accountable than the government.

The power of the wealthy would vanish if they (or somebody in their family) didn't provide something that somebody voluntarily paid for.

Most corporations and individuals are rich today BECAUSE of corrupt government. Crony capitalism, state granted contracts, etc.

And most importantly, anybody connected to BANKS.

In an ideally libertarian society, banks would be allowed to fail, there would be no lender of last resort, and there'd even be different currencies circulating side by side.

There'd be no jacking the system like there is today,

 

[Who Dares Win]

The irony about the anti-capitalists is they say that wealth and power should not be allowed to accumulate in the hands of the few. They feel this supports their argument.

Yet, for some reason, they fail to see that they instead have just concentrated the power and wealth into the Government position. I personally would rather have a few rich people out there if the other option is to have an omnipotent Government.

Socialists are not against the concept of someone standing above all in power and means, they are against of the concept of someone winning independently that its the resulf of his hard work or not.

They are more than fine with someone standing above all and rule others(government) as long as that one is not one of their pairs but instead reminds more of a mother figure which estabish moral and decide punishments, they are fine in quitting their own freedom and wealth under the promise of a parental eye taking are of them.

I believe that their lack of self confidence force them to see themselves unable to deal with life with their own forces therefore they want to quit everything to someone who lead them, and therefore sometime for envy sometime for fear want everybody to do the same.

Wheter is relying on the government to defend your own family and territory (see gun ownership) or administer wealth (taxation and a market).
Their concept of freedom stands to real freedom as much as the concept of democracy to chinese stands to real democracy.

The sad thing is that non socialist people would have no problem at all to have thousands of socialists to unite themselves and live by their rules in a region while socialist people cannot accept anyone who doesnt accept their standard yet they talk about freedom.

Personally I cannot explain myself how a wealthy rich clever white man could identify himself into women or minorities and therefore go against his own interest just to win a "morality" contest by voting for far leftists parties
which in most Europe are hostile to him and have to problem to make it clear.
(these last lines are not connected to the previous post, and the only target of that are those named)

 

[Bible_Belt]

The irony about the anti-capitalists is they say that wealth and power should not be allowed to accumulate in the hands of the few.

But when that happens, it destroys competition, and what we end up with is not very capitalist, either. Without anti-trust laws and government regulation, there's more conspiracy than there is competition. Government as a concept is not evil; it can be used to foster capitalism. For example, a lot of the SEC rules over securities basically make it illegal to lie to and deceive other market participants, all of which was normal behavior prior to 1929. Laissez Faire would say all of that is ok, and it's your own damn fault if you got tricked. But if we let it happen, we'd never have worldwide participation in an electronic market, because no one would trust it.

And there will always be people who simply can't contribute to society. Either we hurl them off a cliff, or someone has to take care of them. Trusting the rich people of the world to do that on their own seems a little naive. Maybe some people deserve the cliff, but all of us are only a blow to the head away from being there ourselves. People slip and fall in the shower all the time and turn into walking vegetables, even right-wing libertarians. What do you do with those people and who pays for it?

 

[Leporello]

Libertarianism has always been about the right to your life and the product of your life. It is about freedom. If you don't like the wealth someone has accumulated, you have two options. Rob him, or refuse to make him wealthier. One is free and the other is not. You endorse the path that leads to tyranny.

Only in your head. Taxation is not robbery; if you think it is, you are an anarchist who should be living in a cave somewhere.

How full of minorities is Maine? I am just showing that the "oldest" states overwhelmingly voted for Obama, yet the youngest ones tended to vote Romney.

In any case, please show links to support your assumptions.

You asked for it:

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president

As you can see, whites over 40 voted for Romney by 60-40…and since men voted for Romney 62-38, we can assume the proportion of old white men voting Republican was much higher. Maine is an exception.

No offense but its obvious you're just regurgitating Chris Matthews

I have never watched Chris Mathews so I wouldn’t know what he thinks on the subject. It’s somewhat silly to apply economic principles to the Founders; the urbanized, industrial economy we have now is so different from the agrarian economy of 1776 that we can hardly make comparisons.

They are more than fine with someone standing above all and rule others(government) as long as that one is not one of their pairs but instead reminds more of a mother figure which estabish moral and decide punishments, they are fine in quitting their own freedom and wealth under the promise of a parental eye taking are of them.

I believe that their lack of self confidence force them to see themselves unable to deal with life with their own forces therefore they want to quit everything to someone who lead them, and therefore sometime for envy sometime for fear want everybody to do the same.

Do you even want to get into a psychological discussion of libertarians? Even relatively sane ones – much less Randians? What kind of stunted man-child says ‘I don’t need ANYBODY – and I’m so mad that society doesn’t realize how great I am’?

As BB was saying, the natural inclination of capitalism is towards monopoly and consolidation – untrammeled competition inevitably leads to ZERO competition, at least in some areas. It’s also staggeringly inefficient – check health care spending in the US versus ‘socialist’ systems in Europe or Canada.

Under a capitalist system, there will always be unemployment. It’s no use getting angry at them; that’s how the system is designed. Remember the late 90s, when unemployment was down to 4%? Business leaders were furious – they attacked Bill Clinton endlessly because low unemployment forces business to pay more and offer more benefits.

Economics is NOT a morality play. We should be talking about what works to reduce poverty, raise employment, and pay off the debt with the real existing United States and real existing human nature – not a utopian fantasy where everyone produces their success out of sheer determination and magical thinking.

 

[Who Dares Win]

Do you even want to get into a psychological discussion of libertarians? Even relatively sane ones – much less Randians? What kind of stunted man-child says ‘I don’t need ANYBODY – and I’m so mad that society doesn’t realize how great I am’?

It's not exactly like that and I guess you can get by yourself why self helping successful people is inclined toward such thinking while passive envious people is not.

As BB was saying, the natural inclination of capitalism is towards monopoly and consolidation – untrammeled competition inevitably leads to ZERO competition, at least in some areas. It’s also staggeringly inefficient – check health care spending in the US versus ‘socialist’ systems in Europe or Canada.

Danger made it pretty clear in his post that the only monopolies existing are such because those who own it are sided from the government, without such help those keeping prices too high with disadvantagious condition would open the way to others who would see an opportunity to cut themselves some market therefore creating competition and decrease in prices and increases in quality.

Im european, lived in many of the nations and I can tell you that the "free public healthcare" is so slow and ineffective that its almost as if it doesnt exist for most people.

Sure old people can check their blood every month at a low cost but god save you if you suspect something and need a MRI, you will be told to wait weeks or even months or simply meet the same doctor in his private clinic the following day by private paying.

Needless to tell you that when something is public you simply cannot get rid of incompetant workers, oh well talking about monopolies, whats better than a monopoly which leaves by the gov forcing you to pay for it wheter you use it or not?

Under a capitalist system, there will always be unemployment. It’s no use getting angry at them; that’s how the system is designed. Remember the late 90s, when unemployment was down to 4%? Business leaders were furious – they attacked Bill Clinton endlessly because low unemployment forces business to pay more and offer more benefits.

Unemployment exist anytime being unemployed is convenient and supported through welfare, sure there are system problems but by giving unemployed people everything they need for a "decent life" you surely dont push them to improve themselves and look for a job.

Economics is NOT a morality play. We should be talking about what works to reduce poverty, raise employment, and pay off the debt with the real existing United States and real existing human nature – not a utopian fantasy where everyone produces their success out of sheer determination and magical thinking.

Economic is a morality play, anytime a socialist run out of points he starts with ad homine "what about old people,ahhh you hate old people", "you greedy bastard you think only about yourself" , "what if something happens to you?" and many more we all know.

Sure we should all be talking about solution to improve the lifes of EVERYBODY and society globally, but its not robbing to those who work to give to those who do not that we create such.

The only utopian dream I heard about is the one where everybody independantly of their value and result gets the same gain and is happy to do so.
Actually more a distopian nightmare if you ask me, since all is dragged to the bottom to make sure nobody stands above others.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Without anti-trust laws and government regulation, there's more conspiracy than there is competition. Government as a concept is not evil; it can be used to foster capitalism. For example, a lot of the SEC rules over securities basically make it illegal to lie to and deceive other market participants, all of which was normal behavior prior to 1929. Laissez Faire would say all of that is ok, and it's your own damn fault if you got tricked. But if we let it happen, we'd never have worldwide participation in an electronic market, because no one would trust it.

Your assertions are incorrect. Wikipedia defines Laissez Faire as follows:

Laissez Faire is an economic environment in which transactions between private parties are free from tariffs, government subsidies, and enforced monopolies, with only enough government regulations sufficient to protect property rights against theft and aggression.

What you described, Fraud, would not be considered part of Laissez Faire, and would be covered under the government regulations sufficient to protect property rights.

And there will always be people who simply can't contribute to society.

These people are very few in number, and would easily be taken care of by families, private charities, churches, etc. It's a matter of record that charitable contributions, church donations etc, dramatically dropped off after the creation of the New Deal.

Trusting the rich people of the world to do that on their own seems a little naive.

As I mentioned before, rich people only get rich by creating products and services that people are willing to pay for. They can only do this if they hire people to help them build it, like Henry Ford hired plenty of people, gave them a good wage (all without government prompting). Very FEW people would NOT have the skills to get a job working in a factory to help produce those products that would make people rich.

Rich people don't exist in a vacuum. They have to consistently produce products, for which they need labor.

People slip and fall in the shower all the time and turn into walking vegetables, even right-wing libertarians. What do you do with those people and who pays for it?

There's something called INSURANCE which would pay for such insurable events.

The money would come from people who VOLUNTARILY buy insurance polices to insure against such events.

 

[Leporello]

Im european, lived in many of the nations and I can tell you that the "free public healthcare" is so slow and ineffective that its almost as if it doesnt exist for most people.

Well maybe you had a bad experience - no system is perfect - but every comparative survey shows that European universal health care systems have better outcomes. lower costs, and display greater patient satisfaction that the US system.

Needless to tell you that when something is public you simply cannot get rid of incompetant workers, oh well talking about monopolies, whats better than a monopoly which leaves by the gov forcing you to pay for it wheter you use it or not?

That's an organizational problem - every organization will have workers who don't pull their weight but don't get fired because they successfully game the organizational culture. How many incompetent business executives get shuffled around, endlessly paying themselves huge bonuses while their companies go bankrupt?

Sorry you're paying for things you don't use, that's the price you pay for civilization. I'm guessing you use plenty of things you don't pay for, unless you're paying taxes literally everywhere you have ever been.

Unemployment exist anytime being unemployed is convenient and supported through welfare

Actually that's exactly backward; the notion of 'welfare' arose to deal with the masses of people who suddenly found themselves unemployed with the advent of industrial capitalism. Besides, how do you explain unemployment in poor countries without welfare?

Economic is a morality play, anytime a socialist run out of points he starts with ad homine "what about old people,ahhh you hate old people", "you greedy bastard you think only about yourself" , "what if something happens to you?" and many more we all know.

It has a moral component but it's essentially a practical argument; what are you going to do when millions of people are starving in the street? Do you want us to become like Columbia or one of those places where rich people live behind barbed wire and machine gun nests and armed gangs rule the cities?

60-40 is hardly enough of a margin to call something the "Old white man party", and still you avoid the fact that the younger states voted for Romney.

You're not very good at math, are you? And why are you looking at the average age of whole states instead of who actually voted? Some of the states with the highest black populations voted for Romney too, because the white vote broke for him so decisively - it doesn't mean African-Americans are turning away from Obama.

And your health care comment would be useful if it did not ignore this....

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul339.html

There's an awful lot Dr. Paul isn't telling you - such as why medical care is so expensive. Part of it is technology; as tech becomes more advanced and specialized, it naturally becomes more expensive. Part of it is the cost of medical training; due to the lack of public higher education in the US, doctors have to take out huge student loans (half a million or more) to get through med school. Then, they have to pay off those debts, which forces them to charge huge fees for medical care. Older doctors obviously don't want to lower their prices because then they'd screw over young doctors and their own income.

Then, drugs. Most countries have price controls; in the US drug companies can charge whatever they want, and they certainly do.

Finally, insurance companies. As you probably know, the average private insurance company spend 6 to 7 times as much on bureaucracy as Medicare, as the need to constantly decide who should get care and who shouldn't is extremely expensive.

Health insurance is also not like most other goods as nobody really knows what kind of coverage they're going to need, when.

Alas, Paul believes in the 'market fairy', that everything would be solved if you got rid of regulation. Cute story, no evidence.

 

[ArcBound]

Leoporello:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/health/policy/too-few-doctors-in-many-us-communities.html

Obama's new health care system is going to increase the already big shortage of doctors, both family practitioners and specialists. It's going to have the adverse effect of decreasing the quality and quantity of service.

This isn't from faux news either, even the more liberal new sources are starting to say this.

 

[Who Dares Win]

Well maybe you had a bad experience - no system is perfect - but every comparative survey shows that European universal health care systems have better outcomes. lower costs, and display greater patient satisfaction that the US system.

Yeah I had bad experiences so most of europeans except some scandinavian, surely the survey count more than people, right?

That's an organizational problem - every organization will have workers who don't pull their weight but don't get fired because they successfully game the organizational culture. How many incompetent business executives get shuffled around, endlessly paying themselves huge bonuses while their companies go bankrupt?

When something is planned poorly it obvious there will be organization problem, especially when something which shouldnt be is created.

Private companies which waste money of thei executives, dont use my money, u get the difference?

Sorry you're paying for things you don't use, that's the price you pay for civilization. I'm guessing you use plenty of things you don't pay for, unless you're paying taxes literally everywhere you have ever been.

Not thats the price I pay for a inefficient government and society which doesnt grant me any freedom of choice, and yes I pay everything I use and much as I pay for what I dont and others do.

As said you're required to to, not have the faculty to.

Actually that's exactly backward; the notion of 'welfare' arose to deal with the masses of people who suddenly found themselves unemployed with the advent of industrial capitalism. Besides, how do you explain unemployment in poor countries without welfare?

I explain it the same way you do, as much as I understand that given a generous welfare the number would be even highter.

It has a moral component but it's essentially a practical argument; what are you going to do when millions of people are starving in the street? Do you want us to become like Columbia or one of those places where rich people live behind barbed wire and machine gun nests and armed gangs rule the cities?

That condition happens simply because the corrup government allows those connected to it to take advantage of others therefore leading the country in such condition.
I dont recall American at the beginning of her life to be what you describe for example, yet I dont recall any welfare state either, somebody correct me if Im wrong.

A real economic freedom would allow people to prosper much more than a over regulated,over taxed market.

Nobody is preeching anarchy, we all agree on the importance of the state to enforce law and protect his citizens (related to your line about gangs and criminals), we just ask less intervention and less intrusion in the economic freedom of a private citizen which doesnt want to be part of certain systems being them unfair to him.

But danger explained the whole points much better in the previous post, just like thr fact that sick and old people did pretty well before the welfare state when charity, church and families provided for them instead of society.


Im replying only to paraphs directed at me since the others you quoted above are from danger and not from me.