Conservatives and Libertarians need to be allies

[NightFox]

Our most virulent self-proclaimed capitalists in the private sector benefit from a very powerful interventionist state. What do you think the patent system is? It's big government protecting the investments of the private sector by building and enforcing a monopoly fence around their products. It's pure nanny-state capitalism, and the Republican voter has been kept totally in the dark about it.

Republicans on this board have been kept so illiterate by the Republican Think Tank/media universe. They can't name the regulatory favors that are created by government on behalf of corporations at the behest of concentrated lobbying pressure. The US government is a dynamic advocate for capital – it opens global markets for US investment by "softening" regimes that seek to nationalize resources. It uses military force to protect the supply-chains of our global corporations. It fucking opened China so companies like Walmart could get their products manufactured there on the cheap. Exxon's profits would wilt away if were not for our considerable military buildup in parts of the Middle East.

The problem with talk radio Libertarians is that they can't name all the ways the government intervenes in the market on behalf of the private sector. While some people were in college studying patent law, others were driving around gripping their steering wheel in anger, agitated by talk radio pundits who manipulate them with scare stories about communists, gays and terrorists hiding under the bed.

We are living the consequences of movement conservatism's strategic but tragic decision to raise a generation of terribly uninformed voters.

God help us because they vote.

Well said Londoner, just to add some thoughts on one of the points you brought up.

The problem with talk radio Libertarians is that they can't name all the ways the government intervenes in the market on behalf of the private sector. While some people were in college studying patent law, others were driving around gripping their steering wheel in anger, agitated by talk radio pundits who manipulate them with scare stories about communists, gays and terrorists hiding under the bed.

I think the "problem" with some (many?) talk radio libertarians is the same "problem" that is reflected across the philosophical spectrum, specifically the root of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle, something that the vast majority of people practice and completely understand as the only moral position in their personal lives, however most people are unable to make the connection between what they believe is moral in their personal lives and what they support on a public policy level. This unfortunately includes many that consider themselves students and practitioners of libertarianism, the complexity of some questions (economic questions especially) often makes it difficult to connect back to the basis of the belief system they purport to ascribe to, especially when emotions are tossed into the mix.

We have to keep in mind that the majority of us were raised and educated in an environment to believe that violence by the state is the only feasible method of accomplishing objectives "for the greater good" and that programming is difficult for any person to overcome. You gave the example of talk radio which is mechanism largely designed to elicit emotional responses to intellectual questions and this a very effective way to break the connection between what we believe is moral on a personal level (non-violence) and what we will support on a public policy level. This emotional response to intellectual questions mechanism often either blinds people to the realities of statist methods or actually puts them into a mode of defending state methods that are in direct contradiction to what they believe is moral behavior in the own daily lives.

God help us because they vote.

Given that voting is a non-binding exercise does it really matter that they can vote? I would submit that most voters vote out of pure personal self-interest anyways (what goodies am I personally going to get out of voting for candidate X?) and the connection between promises and promotions made at campaign time most often are of no consequence once an elected office is secured (why would it since office holders are not legally bound to fulfill pre-election promises or even attempt to).

 

[editec]

Go fuck yourself, boy.

I've observed you liberoidal peckerheads treat Nader voters far more viciously than any of these neocon wimps have dumped on libertarians.

True dat!

 

[dblack]

The problem with talk radio Libertarians is that they can't name all the ways the government intervenes in the market on behalf of the private sector. While some people were in college studying patent law, others were driving around gripping their steering wheel in anger, agitated by talk radio pundits who manipulate them with scare stories about communists, gays and terrorists hiding under the bed.

I think the "problem" with some (many?) talk radio libertarians is the same "problem" that is reflected across the philosophical spectrum, specifically the root of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle, something that the vast majority of people practice and completely understand as the only moral position in their personal lives, however most people are unable to make the connection between what they believe is moral in their personal lives and what they support on a public policy level. This unfortunately includes many that consider themselves students and practitioners of libertarianism, the complexity of some questions (economic questions especially) often makes it difficult to connect back to the basis of the belief system they purport to ascribe to, especially when emotions are tossed into the mix.

We have to keep in mind that the majority of us were raised and educated in an environment to believe that violence by the state is the only feasible method of accomplishing objectives "for the greater good" and that programming is difficult for any person to overcome. You gave the example of talk radio which is mechanism largely designed to elicit emotional responses to intellectual questions and this a very effective way to break the connection between what we believe is moral on a personal level (non-violence) and what we will support on a public policy level. This emotional response to intellectual questions mechanism often either blinds people to the realities of statist methods or actually puts them into a mode of defending state methods that are in direct contradiction to what they believe is moral behavior in the own daily lives.

Very well put. It's amazing what people will endorse when they can hide in the voting booth - things they wouldn't dream of taking responsibility for as a personal act.

 

[editec]

Interesting thread.

It's good to see some people breaking out of the all partisan all the time mode.

The masters have set up the game such that they cannot lose. They are masters of both parties and both parties do their bidding while maintaining the illusion of being different simply by overstating the SOCIAL issues that basically are not very important to the economy.

Both right leaning and left leaning Libertarians understand that all to well.

Sadly many of them still vote for the Ds or Rs because why?

Because each is voting for what they KNOW is basically the good cop.

Millions of us who voted for Obama knew perfectly well he would continue to dop the MASTERS bidding.

But we also knew that he could mitigate to some extent, the horrible effects of the meltdown for the working class.


Meanwhile this"good cop" is signing sxtill more FREE TRADE agreements, continued to suppor the banksters and is even proposing to make LARRY let me see.. how else I can fuck the working class SUMMERS for the chair of the FED.

It is SO good to read some naunced posts from the likes of Londoner and Nightfox.

 

[NightFox]

The problem with talk radio Libertarians is that they can't name all the ways the government intervenes in the market on behalf of the private sector. While some people were in college studying patent law, others were driving around gripping their steering wheel in anger, agitated by talk radio pundits who manipulate them with scare stories about communists, gays and terrorists hiding under the bed.

I think the "problem" with some (many?) talk radio libertarians is the same "problem" that is reflected across the philosophical spectrum, specifically the root of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle, something that the vast majority of people practice and completely understand as the only moral position in their personal lives, however most people are unable to make the connection between what they believe is moral in their personal lives and what they support on a public policy level. This unfortunately includes many that consider themselves students and practitioners of libertarianism, the complexity of some questions (economic questions especially) often makes it difficult to connect back to the basis of the belief system they purport to ascribe to, especially when emotions are tossed into the mix.

We have to keep in mind that the majority of us were raised and educated in an environment to believe that violence by the state is the only feasible method of accomplishing objectives "for the greater good" and that programming is difficult for any person to overcome. You gave the example of talk radio which is mechanism largely designed to elicit emotional responses to intellectual questions and this a very effective way to break the connection between what we believe is moral on a personal level (non-violence) and what we will support on a public policy level. This emotional response to intellectual questions mechanism often either blinds people to the realities of statist methods or actually puts them into a mode of defending state methods that are in direct contradiction to what they believe is moral behavior in the own daily lives.

Very well put. It's amazing what people will endorse when they can hide in the voting booth - things they wouldn't dream of taking responsibility for as a personal act.

Thanks for putting what I was trying to get at in much more succinct verbiage dblack.

 

[RKMBrown]

I think the "problem" with some (many?) talk radio libertarians is the same "problem" that is reflected across the philosophical spectrum, specifically the root of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle, something that the vast majority of people practice and completely understand as the only moral position in their personal lives, however most people are unable to make the connection between what they believe is moral in their personal lives and what they support on a public policy level. This unfortunately includes many that consider themselves students and practitioners of libertarianism, the complexity of some questions (economic questions especially) often makes it difficult to connect back to the basis of the belief system they purport to ascribe to, especially when emotions are tossed into the mix.

We have to keep in mind that the majority of us were raised and educated in an environment to believe that violence by the state is the only feasible method of accomplishing objectives "for the greater good" and that programming is difficult for any person to overcome. You gave the example of talk radio which is mechanism largely designed to elicit emotional responses to intellectual questions and this a very effective way to break the connection between what we believe is moral on a personal level (non-violence) and what we will support on a public policy level. This emotional response to intellectual questions mechanism often either blinds people to the realities of statist methods or actually puts them into a mode of defending state methods that are in direct contradiction to what they believe is moral behavior in the own daily lives.

Very well put. It's amazing what people will endorse when they can hide in the voting booth - things they wouldn't dream of taking responsibility for as a personal act.

Thanks for putting what I was trying to get at in much more succinct verbiage dblack.

AYUP putting a frigging lock on the pilots cabin of airplanes was just too complicated a task. We had to go out and fight a decades long war against our fear. We had to create a nazi like department of homeland security complete with a domestic army that is armed every bit as good as our military. We had to throw out due process and start executing American citizens and accosting them at airports and in their homes on their computers. We even elected a known communist sympathizer as our President, twice. Both political parties are for the most part, nothing but authoritarian ass holes.

 

[kaz]

Our most virulent self-proclaimed capitalists in the private sector benefit from a very powerful interventionist state. What do you think the patent system is? It's big government protecting the investments of the private sector by building and enforcing a monopoly fence around their products. It's pure nanny-state capitalism, and the Republican voter has been kept totally in the dark about it.

What a stupid argument. Interventionist by definition refers to government controlling markets.

Patents are protecting intellectual property rights. If people don't benefit from their own ideas because other people turn around and steal them, then you're disincentive people investing their time and money into things like developing drugs and technology that require billions of dollars and years of time.

Liberals always use this stupid argument of whenever socialism is challenged, you go to things that even libertarians support, like roads and firemen to justify your massive government beliefs.

Oh, if you want people to have their intellectual property protected, then I get to confiscate with guns and redistribute any amount of anyone's wealth that want to.

Rejected as the crap argument that it is.

 

[kaz]

exactly Repubs love affair w/ war corporatism

As someone who doesn't belong to either of your shit parties, you say this then support the party who's love affair with unions and special interests easily meets the exact same manipulation of that which you attack. Look at Republicans, now look in a mirror. Notice you're seeing the exact same thing.

 

[NightFox]

Patents are protecting intellectual property rights. If people don't benefit from their own ideas because other people turn around and steal them, then you're disincentive people investing their time and money into things like developing drugs and technology that require billions of dollars and years of time.

Kaz, I don't think anybody is suggesting that an individual/organization can't benefit from their own ideas, I think the point of contention is the very notion that ideas can be "owned" by anyone. It's not the same concept as mixing ones labor with property delineating ownership it's more akin to claiming "ownership" of the English language because you were the first one to speak it and thus claiming you have a right to all royalties on any book written in it.

IMHO we need to differentiate "idea" from "I labored to develop such and such process, or engineer such and such implementation of an idea" when discussing patent law because what we have now is far too broad to make for a Just system whereby ones labor is not "stolen" and one does not get a lock on the labor of others simply because one happens to come upon an "idea" that the product of the labor of others is derived from and is fortunate enough to be the first one in line to patent that "idea".

Hope that makes sense.

 

[kaz]

Patents are protecting intellectual property rights. If people don't benefit from their own ideas because other people turn around and steal them, then you're disincentive people investing their time and money into things like developing drugs and technology that require billions of dollars and years of time.

Kaz, I don't think anybody is suggesting that an individual/organization can't benefit from their own ideas, I think the point of contention is the very notion that ideas can be "owned" by anyone. It's not the same concept as mixing ones labor with property delineating ownership it's more akin to claiming "ownership" of the English language because you were the first one to speak it and thus claiming you have a right to all royalties on any book written in it.

IMHO we need to differentiate "idea" from "I labored to develop such and such process, or engineer such and such implementation of an idea" when discussing patent law because what we have now is far too broad to make for a Just system whereby ones labor is not "stolen" and one does not get a lock on the labor of others simply because one happens to come upon an "idea" that the product of the labor of others is derived from and is fortunate enough to be the first one in line to patent that "idea".

Hope that makes sense.

I was actually responding to a post from a socialist on a specific point, which you don't really address

However, as to your point, patents last for 17 years. While there is no magic, perfect number, that's time to make money off their idea without "owning" it forever.

In fact that's why companies such as coca cola and KFCnever patented their "secret recipes," in 17 years they would belong to anyone.

 

[Redfish]

Our most virulent self-proclaimed capitalists in the private sector benefit from a very powerful interventionist state. What do you think the patent system is? It's big government protecting the investments of the private sector by building and enforcing a monopoly fence around their products.

Republicans on this board have been kept so illiterate by the Republican Think Tank/media universe, that they can't name the regulatory favors that are created by government on behalf of corporations at the behest of concentrated lobbying pressure. The US government is a dynamic advocate for capital – it opens global markets for US investment by crushing regimes that seek to nationalize resources. It uses military force to protect the supply-chains of our global corporations. Exxon's profits would wilt away if were not for our considerable military buildup in parts of the Middle East.

The problem with talk radio Libertarians is that they can't name all the ways the government intervenes in the market on behalf of the private sector. While some people were in college studying patent law, others were driving around gripping their steering wheel in anger, agitated by talk radio pundits who manipulate them with scare stories about communists, gays and terrorists hiding under the bed.

We are living the consequences of movement conservatism's strategic but tragic decision to raise terribly uninformed voters.

God help us because they vote.

exactly Repubs love affair w/ war corporatism. Never ending wars enrich the weapons manufacturers and they, in turn, fill the politician's campaign coffers and offers of future positions as members of the board if they are ever defeated or retire. Milking the taxpayers for everything they're worth.

The so-called war corporations provide good paying jobs for millions of americans. Being ready for war and waging war are two completely different things.

I do agree that we have engaged in stupid wars beginning with korea, viet nam, and now iraq and afghanistan. Our loss of young americans and billions of dollars went for nothing.

But, that should not convince us to give up our military superiority and our security----or the millions of jobs created by defense spending.

 

[NightFox]

I was actually responding to a post from a socialist on a specific point, which you don't really address

I apologize Kaz, didn't mean to put words in your mouth or attempt to make your argument into something that it wasn't intended to be.

"A mistake is always forgivable, rarely excusable and always unacceptable." -- Robert Fripp

 

[Pheonixops]

Liberals only support "freedom" when it undermines religious morality and destabilizes social normality.

What constitutes ‘religious morality,’ and what religion, exactly?

And who determines what constitutes ‘social normality’? Conservatives?

This is yet another example of conservative authoritarianism, where most on the right seek to impose their subjective moral and religious beliefs on society as a whole.

And indeed liberals advocate for individual liberty by opposing conservative efforts to legislate morality, by supporting the Framers’ original intent that church and state remain separate.

The Liberty Clause of the Fifth Amendment guarantees every American the right to realize his own personal liberty, to define himself as an individual as he sees fit, free from government interference, despite what conservatives might perceive to be ‘social normality.’

Excellent points. I think that true Liberals need to take Our name back and be proud of it.

 

[Oddball]

Liberals only support "freedom" when it undermines religious morality and destabilizes social normality.

What constitutes ‘religious morality,’ and what religion, exactly?

And who determines what constitutes ‘social normality’? Conservatives?

This is yet another example of conservative authoritarianism, where most on the right seek to impose their subjective moral and religious beliefs on society as a whole.

And indeed liberals advocate for individual liberty by opposing conservative efforts to legislate morality, by supporting the Framers’ original intent that church and state remain separate.

The Liberty Clause of the Fifth Amendment guarantees every American the right to realize his own personal liberty, to define himself as an individual as he sees fit, free from government interference, despite what conservatives might perceive to be ‘social normality.’

Except when liberoidal assholes want to declare eminent domain, so that they can better stuff gubmint coffers with more money for their Utopian "smart growth" central planning and other general do-goodery.

Pious hypocrite.

 

[Pheonixops]

Interestingly, in the wake of Snowden/NSA surveillance programs, it’s liberals and libertarians who have become allies.

ROFLMAO!!!!, thanks for the laugh, much appreciated.

Libertarians and "liberals" becoming "allies" is about as feasible as The Pope publicly agreeing to dine in hell with Satan. When "liberals" disavow all the methods, practices and purpose of the leviathan authoritarian state then maybe an alliance can be formed, but that ain't happened yet, not even close.

I think the problem occurs when some people automatically equate democrat with being a Liberal. For instance, I don't think that the current President is a Liberal, in fact one of my main gripes with him, is that he seems to act more like a republican instead of a Liberal.

 

[Pheonixops]

"Conservatives" (whatever the fuck that's suppsed to mean anymore) need to knock it off with the Wilsonian international warmongering and nation building, "war on terror" nonsense, drug war thuggery and general police state bullshit to have a prayer of attracting libertarians.

Then they need to quit campaigning like fiscal libertarians and governing like socialists.

IOW, they don't have a prayer.

I'm on the same page with you regarding "Wilsonian international warmongering", we have troops all over the world in many places our citizens don't even know exist. I will point out that we didn't declare the Jihad, and even if it happened because we support Israel, we didn't deserve what happened on 9/11, either one. I'm a vet of OIF, and I'm proud of what we did. I still have Iraqi contacts online who are struggling to keep their country together. They've always been appreciative that Saddam is no longer standing on their throats.

I do agree however it's time for us to withdraw as "world police". We can't afford it first of all, but it's time for the rest of the world to pitch in. Conservatives will argue that without such "strong global presence" we risk having another "hitler" rise to power and start a 3rd world war. That may even be true, but stalin was worse than hitler. Pol Pot didn't try and conquer the entire continent either, but we didn't stop him from killing 2 million people. So there has to be a happy medium.

The drug war is complete bullshit. I think conservatives could get behind ideas such as decriminalizing pot. I think as long as they didn't see deadbeat hippies laying around all over the parks doing bong hits all day they'd be fine. Arguing for legalization across the board though? Not so much. I'll never believe unregulated dispensing of shit like heroin and meth is a good idea. I've known too many people who were addicts. However just like anything else, the libertarians need to incrementally advance these ideas. If they work in small steps, they'll eventually be accepted. This all or nothing approach serves to alienate people who are otherwise in agreement on a lot of other issues.

Conservatives share your frustration with republicrats pandering to their agenda, and then becoming democrooks when they get into office. I think guys like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz can help push the party in the right direction. Libertarians could be extremely helpful in that endeavor.

If conservatives would STFU about insignificant shit like gay marriage, abortion and drugs, so we can find common ground with people who are extremely protective of individual liberty, they can only help empower themselves. Then they can advance all their pet issues at a state level.

LOL, the problem with the above, is that what you are objecting to, does seem to be on the top of the agenda for "conservatives" and republicans alike.

 

[Pheonixops]

Interestingly, in the wake of Snowden/NSA surveillance programs, it’s liberals and libertarians who have become allies.

ROFLMAO!!!!, thanks for the laugh, much appreciated.

Libertarians and "liberals" becoming "allies" is about as feasible as The Pope publicly agreeing to dine in hell with Satan. When "liberals" disavow all the methods, practices and purpose of the leviathan authoritarian state then maybe an alliance can be formed, but that ain't happened yet, not even close.

Liberals have to use a leviathan federal force to advance their agenda. Take gay marriage for instance. If most of the people in a state do not want it to be allowed, why would libertarians want to take that power away from them? The individuals who do want to marry other gays can do so in other states. Yet the bed wetters get the federal government to dictate that the state has too accept what the voters do not want.

LOL, conservatives have done the same damn thing! see the "War on Drugs", Patriot Act, etc.

 

[Pheonixops]

I agree that personal responsibility is an integral part of liberty, otherwise the term would be anarchy.

However, there is too much undeserved animosity from the so called conservatives toward other people groups that has nothing to do with personal responsibility.

Excuse me?

Have you considered the animosity of the bed wetting liberals who go out of their way to suppress our abilities to buy a certain wattage of light bulb? They regulate our toilets, invent "endangered species" that prevent people from developing their lands, they interfere with communities that celebrate religious holidays, they oppose gun rights.

Whatever issues conservatives interfere with individual rights on pales in comparison to the hostility liberals have for an individual's rights.

Excuse me? I am a Liberal, I don't care what wattage of bulb a person uses in their own home, I don't care what toilets they use, I'm not a "tree hugger", I don't care if a community has a Ramadan or other religious celebration, and I am very pro second Amendment as well as the rest of the Bill of Rights.

 

[RKMBrown]

I agree that personal responsibility is an integral part of liberty, otherwise the term would be anarchy.

However, there is too much undeserved animosity from the so called conservatives toward other people groups that has nothing to do with personal responsibility.

Excuse me?

Have you considered the animosity of the bed wetting liberals who go out of their way to suppress our abilities to buy a certain wattage of light bulb? They regulate our toilets, invent "endangered species" that prevent people from developing their lands, they interfere with communities that celebrate religious holidays, they oppose gun rights.

Whatever issues conservatives interfere with individual rights on pales in comparison to the hostility liberals have for an individual's rights.

Excuse me? I am a Liberal, I don't care what wattage of bulb a person uses in their own home, I don't care what toilets they use, I'm not a "tree hugger", I don't care if a community has a Ramadan or other religious celebration, and I am very pro second Amendment as well as the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Well then you are a "classical" liberal not one of the modern progressive liberals such as Obama.

 

[kaz]

I was actually responding to a post from a socialist on a specific point, which you don't really address

I apologize Kaz, didn't mean to put words in your mouth or attempt to make your argument into something that it wasn't intended to be.

"A mistake is always forgivable, rarely excusable and always unacceptable." -- Robert Fripp

No biggie, NightFox. I was just pointing out my statements were being addressed a bit out of context. I knew no harm was intended.