FA+
Shop
Libertarians
13 years ago
General
So yeah, I talk a lot about politics but don't usually make my own journals about it. With the election going on now, I feel compelled to bitch a bit about an ideology which I feel is being hyped up into something it's not: Libertarianism.
My first big issue with libertarians is how much their ideology often seems be driven by disillusion in a different candidate. A lot of the people I talk to who politically identify themselves as libertarians often start off by telling me how they feel Obama let them down or that Romney isn't the candidate they wanted. I can understand people being disappointed in both candidates as they both leave a lot to be desired from any perspective, but (this is a generalization, but one I see a lot) too often this disappointment then gets turned into a warped view of the situation. What I mean by warped is that this manifests into a view that both candidates are essentially the same- or at least very similar.
Obama and Romney have two very different political ideologies. I'll try to make this sound as non-partisan as possible while addressing the issues. Some key issues the Obama administration has campaigned for a consistent role of government in the private sector, increased government oversight and regulation of healthcare, and extending civil laws regarding marriage to a new demographic. The Romney campaign contrasts directly by arguing for deregulation of the economy, more privatization of the healthcare system, and maintaining traditional social norms. Whichever viewpoint you think works better, those principals stand in stark contrast to one another.
What do Obama and Romney agree on? Well apparently both are pleased with the way sanctions on Iran have worked out and both like to turn a 30 second debate response into a 2 minute speech. Other comparisons I've heard regards their foreign policies, though I think it's blatantly stupid to blur the line between UAV surgical strikes and boots on the ground in foreign countries.
Okay yappyfox, you talked about the two party candidates ruining our democracy, but haven't said anything wrong with libertarianism. My problem with the basic ideology of libertarianism is that it combines some of the worst aspects of both parties into a hybrid who gets a free pass on his own bullshit. I can't really do this part of my assessment without sounding partisan, but here's why no rational person who previously considered supporting Obama should find libertarianism a viable alternative:
Economic deregulation: Libertarians like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are selling the same koolaid as Mitt Romney. This is exactly the sort of thing that after 8 years of reducing government oversight under Bush culminated into the biggest and most destructive financial collapse of decades. Free capitalism for our country is a very powerful force which has made us the most competitive nation in the world, but it also needs comprehensive regulation to make sure that people follow the rules. Ron Paul states directly in his platform that he wants to cut the US Department of Commerce. This would absolutely cripple our ability to hold businessmen accountable for their actions and make sure people follow fair rules. The same department also furnishes our economic statistics, which I assume means that a President Paul or Johnson would have us relying on a private company to tell us how they're doing. I think that's enough said.
For-profit law: Part of the Ron Paul budget plan is privatization of some security agencies like the TSA. Gary Johnson as governor of New Mexico was a huge advocate of private prisons operated for profit. I can understand people who have a hardon for business, but there are certain things which should remain government duties because they're too important for the profit motive. I want firefighters and cops who's jobs are managed based on the need of the community they serve, not based on what will bring in the most income. Private security companies at airports created an un-uniform and sometimes dangerously unsecured situation at our nation's airports. Private prisons have been linked to scandals of illegal incarceration, judicial misconduct, and runaway numbers of people locked up.
State vs federal power: The constitution delegates certain powers to the federal government and leaves all others to the states, we all know this. We also know how confusing this can be in application, which is why we (like the decisions they make or not) have a supreme court so that a legitimate governing body set forth by our founding fathers can determine the legality of legislation. The issue with the states is that they have the exact same potential to repress their population as the federal government; sometimes even more so. American history is littered with examples of the federal authorities stepping in to reign-back a local government. There are even cases, like the integration of mixed-race schools, where armed federal soldiers had to be sent in and enforce a federal law at gunpoint against the states. I can understand a healthy suspicion of the government in Washington, but we should also do well to curb our enthusiasm for powers being thrown down to state or local governments. When a libertarian candidate says they want to delegate a power away from the federal government, think very hard about what that lower government will do with said power.
International non-interventionism: One thing that I think always brings a few liberals to the libertarian camp is the enthuses the ideology has on keeping our troops out of foreign countries. To an extent, this is of course sound. There is no debate that a US tank rolling through some other nation's street can be a source of anti-Americanism. The problem I have here though is that when libertarian politicians speak it seems like they wear blinders to all the other factors. It's not just our inflated military swinging around the world which pisses people off, but also the actions of western businesses and incursion of elements of our culture which clash with local customs. Before 9/11 we weren't shooting machineguns at the locals of foreign countries in the middle east. It had been a decade since desert storm and years since Somalia and Bosnia were hot. The most fighting the US military was doing were the occasional support mission or shooting cruise missiles at training camps. It's very telling that the attacks on 9/11 weren't just conducted against our military command, but also the hub of our international commerce. The fact is that even if we institute public policy resolving to abstain from interfering with other countries, our business (which I should again point our would have their interactions deregulated under a libertarian president) would still operate outside our borders wherever profitable- including the violence and conflict abroad. A non-interventionist foreign policy is naive and short sighted.
The bottom line that I'm getting at here is that the libertarian party isn't some kinda new and cool solution to a sometimes droll two party system. Libertarian candidates differ only marginally on the worst economic doctrine of the GOP and don't offer anything that other liberal political organizations don't already support. The only difference between libertarians and the GOP or tea party is that most libertarians I know are at least well intentioned.
My first big issue with libertarians is how much their ideology often seems be driven by disillusion in a different candidate. A lot of the people I talk to who politically identify themselves as libertarians often start off by telling me how they feel Obama let them down or that Romney isn't the candidate they wanted. I can understand people being disappointed in both candidates as they both leave a lot to be desired from any perspective, but (this is a generalization, but one I see a lot) too often this disappointment then gets turned into a warped view of the situation. What I mean by warped is that this manifests into a view that both candidates are essentially the same- or at least very similar.
Obama and Romney have two very different political ideologies. I'll try to make this sound as non-partisan as possible while addressing the issues. Some key issues the Obama administration has campaigned for a consistent role of government in the private sector, increased government oversight and regulation of healthcare, and extending civil laws regarding marriage to a new demographic. The Romney campaign contrasts directly by arguing for deregulation of the economy, more privatization of the healthcare system, and maintaining traditional social norms. Whichever viewpoint you think works better, those principals stand in stark contrast to one another.
What do Obama and Romney agree on? Well apparently both are pleased with the way sanctions on Iran have worked out and both like to turn a 30 second debate response into a 2 minute speech. Other comparisons I've heard regards their foreign policies, though I think it's blatantly stupid to blur the line between UAV surgical strikes and boots on the ground in foreign countries.
Okay yappyfox, you talked about the two party candidates ruining our democracy, but haven't said anything wrong with libertarianism. My problem with the basic ideology of libertarianism is that it combines some of the worst aspects of both parties into a hybrid who gets a free pass on his own bullshit. I can't really do this part of my assessment without sounding partisan, but here's why no rational person who previously considered supporting Obama should find libertarianism a viable alternative:
Economic deregulation: Libertarians like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are selling the same koolaid as Mitt Romney. This is exactly the sort of thing that after 8 years of reducing government oversight under Bush culminated into the biggest and most destructive financial collapse of decades. Free capitalism for our country is a very powerful force which has made us the most competitive nation in the world, but it also needs comprehensive regulation to make sure that people follow the rules. Ron Paul states directly in his platform that he wants to cut the US Department of Commerce. This would absolutely cripple our ability to hold businessmen accountable for their actions and make sure people follow fair rules. The same department also furnishes our economic statistics, which I assume means that a President Paul or Johnson would have us relying on a private company to tell us how they're doing. I think that's enough said.
For-profit law: Part of the Ron Paul budget plan is privatization of some security agencies like the TSA. Gary Johnson as governor of New Mexico was a huge advocate of private prisons operated for profit. I can understand people who have a hardon for business, but there are certain things which should remain government duties because they're too important for the profit motive. I want firefighters and cops who's jobs are managed based on the need of the community they serve, not based on what will bring in the most income. Private security companies at airports created an un-uniform and sometimes dangerously unsecured situation at our nation's airports. Private prisons have been linked to scandals of illegal incarceration, judicial misconduct, and runaway numbers of people locked up.
State vs federal power: The constitution delegates certain powers to the federal government and leaves all others to the states, we all know this. We also know how confusing this can be in application, which is why we (like the decisions they make or not) have a supreme court so that a legitimate governing body set forth by our founding fathers can determine the legality of legislation. The issue with the states is that they have the exact same potential to repress their population as the federal government; sometimes even more so. American history is littered with examples of the federal authorities stepping in to reign-back a local government. There are even cases, like the integration of mixed-race schools, where armed federal soldiers had to be sent in and enforce a federal law at gunpoint against the states. I can understand a healthy suspicion of the government in Washington, but we should also do well to curb our enthusiasm for powers being thrown down to state or local governments. When a libertarian candidate says they want to delegate a power away from the federal government, think very hard about what that lower government will do with said power.
International non-interventionism: One thing that I think always brings a few liberals to the libertarian camp is the enthuses the ideology has on keeping our troops out of foreign countries. To an extent, this is of course sound. There is no debate that a US tank rolling through some other nation's street can be a source of anti-Americanism. The problem I have here though is that when libertarian politicians speak it seems like they wear blinders to all the other factors. It's not just our inflated military swinging around the world which pisses people off, but also the actions of western businesses and incursion of elements of our culture which clash with local customs. Before 9/11 we weren't shooting machineguns at the locals of foreign countries in the middle east. It had been a decade since desert storm and years since Somalia and Bosnia were hot. The most fighting the US military was doing were the occasional support mission or shooting cruise missiles at training camps. It's very telling that the attacks on 9/11 weren't just conducted against our military command, but also the hub of our international commerce. The fact is that even if we institute public policy resolving to abstain from interfering with other countries, our business (which I should again point our would have their interactions deregulated under a libertarian president) would still operate outside our borders wherever profitable- including the violence and conflict abroad. A non-interventionist foreign policy is naive and short sighted.
The bottom line that I'm getting at here is that the libertarian party isn't some kinda new and cool solution to a sometimes droll two party system. Libertarian candidates differ only marginally on the worst economic doctrine of the GOP and don't offer anything that other liberal political organizations don't already support. The only difference between libertarians and the GOP or tea party is that most libertarians I know are at least well intentioned.
I guess what it boils down to is that altruism is NOT a valid incentive for people to always do what is right, ergo I do not trust my fellow countrymen to always make the right choice. I don't want government to interfere with people's lives any more than is necessary to make sure everyone plays nice and doesn't fuck people over. I'm a liberal because I'm a pragmatist.
They don't believe in being altruistic all of the time. Quite the contrary. Actually, the theory is that if we all act in our rational self-interest, society as a whole will prosper. The theory is that corporations will not screw customers over and cut corners because doing so would give them a bad reputation and destroy their customer's faith in them, ruining their business. It also says that the only necessary gov't should be in policing the basics, meaning no murder, theft, protection of intellectual properties, etc. and also maintaining a good infrastructure. Everything else should be left to the people and to businesses to self-regulate and enforce.
Make of that what you will. I am not endorsing it, just telling you what I know. I personally don't agree that this could ever work. History proves otherwise.
My perspectives are derived from an ivory tower mindset; I often do not vote in elections because ninety nine percent of the issues at stake are insignificant(according to my own concerns); I have a "laissez faire"(defined as: the non-interference of others) approach to politics, and I only become involved in politics when there are issues of great concern at the table; war, losing liberties, freedoms, and rights are issues of great concern.
When Obama stated that the constitution is an imperfect document; I wanted to send a message directly to him which states "you are an imperfect president for these reasons: #1#2#3#4#5#6 ect lol"
If you do not mind, may I ask you about which end of the spectrum that you will be voting for?
Economic deregulation: Multiple reputable news agencies had a field day on the proposed budget of Ron Paul. Here's one random article which makes mention about his plan to slash several US departments, including DoC (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20121485-503544.html). The DoC website has on it's front page some of the bureaus which I noted as essential for us to monitor our economy (http://www.commerce.gov/). You'll notice the Bureau of Economic Analysis and Economics and Statistics Administration immediately as two which are of critical importance to generating our numbers on progress. National Institute of Standards and Technology is another key regulatory agency which makes up the DoC. NOAA is of course our premier agency for weather data and far more, and the Census Bureau needs no further comment.
For-profit law: Ron Paul calls for the privatization of the TSA's functions on his own website (http://www.ronpaul.com/2012-01-24/ron-paul-to-tsa-stop-irradiating-our-bodies-and-fondling-our-children/) and an article done by CBS after an interview with Gary Johnson reiterates his feelings on the privatization of correctional facilities (http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/19971785/presidential-candidate-talks-guns-prisons).
State vs federal power: I don't think there's much I need to cite here as we all know about the state-level immigration laws, state level-voter ID laws, and other such initiatives which had to be shot down by courts as unconstitutional. There are plenty of recent examples of this that require no references or links, but here's a cool article from when the president ordered state troops withdrawn and sent in the 101st airborne division to enforce rule of law in the south (http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0925.html).
International non-internationalism: This is a massive subject in itself and probably deserving of more than a journal. Most of what I posted here isn't so much built on quantifiable studies or statistics I know, but more just some critical thinking and my own personal experience from being outside the US and talking to foreigners. That doesn't make for the most convincing argument I can give you, so I'd like to defer to an interesting article I read which had plenty of actual referenced publications. The subject of this article isn't so much the economic or business implications, but more so driving the point that it's not merely our military which infuriates the rest of the world (http://www.vexen.co.uk/USA/hateamerica.html). What I can however cite directly from my argument in this paragraph is that our influence in fighting around the world won't stop with the withdrawal of soldiers by our government, thanks to the private sector so hailed by libertarians. Here's a publication by Reuters from last month about exactly that. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/21/us-usa-arms-contractors-idUSBRE89K02B20121021)
I do my best to stay on top of politics and have very strong feelings on the matter. I'd say that almost everything about the government of our country directly effects each and every one of us and maintaining a passive attitude here is what allows certain groups to abuse us quietly. We all pay taxes, so we should give a damn what they're spent on. We all need jobs, so we should know what the government's role in our economy is. It's a far more difficult task to figure out a political subject that doesn't effect us than name one which does. With the affairs of government, it all comes back to each and every one of us regardless of if we want to pay attention or not.
As for the constitution, I think it's naive to think that a document +200 year old document holds all the keys to effective government. Hell, our current constitution wasn't even our founding fathers first try and certainly doesn't represent the alpha and omega. The constitution should be regarded as a living document which is subject to change with the times; hence why it's open to amendments and revamping.
I disagree.
Government agencies are large scale controlling systems. A small part of their functions is directing the usage of armed forces against any sort of target, whether that target is legitimate terrorists and war criminals, or citizens who outright oppose corruption in government is entirely decided by the ruling body. China and Russia have very intimidating governments.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asi.....china-17661224
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18284727
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asi.....china-18517402
In my own thoughts, monetary issues are of minor concern when compared to the outright physical capability of a regime to control and/or massacre populations.
"I believe in strong government regulation in oversight with reasonable transparency to keep public confidence. If someone asks I'm a socialist,"
I also believe in strong government regulation in oversight; however, scanning my hard drive from a remote location without my permission is completely unacceptable. This just occurred within the past few days.
"I do my best to stay on top of politics and have very strong feelings on the matter. I'd say that almost everything about the government of our country directly effects each and every one of us and maintaining a passive attitude here is what allows certain groups to abuse us quietly."
I should strive to have your motivation for "remaining on top"(being well informed?) of politics. The patriot acts, NDAA 2012, and many other pieces of legislation seem to fall into the abuse category. I am rather opposed to viewing the creation of a slave nation.
http://welikeitraw.ning.com/profile.....rights-we-have
"As for the constitution, I think it's naive to think that a document +200 year old document holds all the keys to effective government. Hell, our current constitution wasn't even our founding fathers first try and certainly doesn't represent the alpha and omega. The constitution should be regarded as a living document which is subject to change with the times; hence why it's open to amendments and revamping."
There are 2,000 + year old documents which hold the keys to living a "right" and "correct" life. Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not kill... , Related concepts of these commandments are found in our laws, for good reasons, and they should stay there, permanently. Our constitution puts restrictions on government for legitimate reasons, and those restrictions should stay in effect. (unless World War 3 occurs, then survival of the fittest/intelligent is the only rule.)
As for your hard drive thing, I'm going to be blunt here and say I highly doubt it. I know from our previous discussions that you have a very interesting assumption about the capabilities of our intelligence and security agencies, but they're not accurate. Just because we have the means to check out your computer remotely doesn't mean we are- namely because we don't have friggen' time for shit like that. When it comes to cops per population, the US lags behind most of the western world with only 233 per 100,000 citizens- far less than most eurpean nations (http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=crim_plce&lang=en#). Few of these are in investigative positions, even fewer in an investigative position related to cybersecurity, and I'd wager not a single one interested in the acts of someone on furaffinity who's actions don't constitute or aren't likely to constitute a crime. Seriously dude, the intelligence community is up to their necks and drowning in data as it is. The resources to do the sort of domestic surveillance you're so spooked about just isn't there.
As for your reference to a 2000+ year document holding the keys to living right, I'm also militantly atheist. I have some choice words about the virtue and worth of the christian bible and other scriptures, but in the interest of keeping vulgarity out of this discussion I'll leave it at that. The constitution contains strong limitations on government because the anti-federalists were paranoid and didn't want anyone infringing on their business. Those hardliners wouldn't of had any part with the constitution as it stands today, except for the fact that their previous attempt at the Articles of Confederation proved to be such a disastrous clusterfuck of laissez faire chaos that anything weaker than our current constitution would have been impractical. The constitution is an imperfect document. This is why we add to it and change interpretations.
Regarding financial stability, yes. Regarding other various security issues, no. Large scale business wrong doings come to mind.(Enron)
When I used my analogy about uniformed persons repressing a population I wasn't talking about the military. What the analogy was intended to convey is that when a government entity wielding it's authority it's usually a highly visible ordeal. Be it seeing cops on the street clear a protest or news reports about a legislated decision, the acts of government are often highly visible and publicized. Private entities are harder to detect and reported on less comprehensively.I agree. However, I have read far too many whistleblower reports to know enough to not entirely put my trust in the military and government. The acts of government include much more than simple business though,
As for your hard drive thing, I'm going to be blunt here and say I highly doubt it. I know from our previous discussions that you have a very interesting assumption about the capabilities of our intelligence and security agencies, but they're not accurate. Just because we have the means to check out your computer remotely doesn't mean we are- namely because we don't have friggen' time for shit like that.
I've built computers since the age of 16. I have over a decade of experience, and I am very aware about situations in which my data on my own machine is compromised. Whoever did this recent scan was very intelligent; they made my hard drive (read/write) activity appear to be caused from an application that I was running. Very Tricky. I appreciate the numbers that you have disclosed, but please forgive me if I choose to think otherwise.
Also,
Fusion centers come to mind; however, they are only the official centers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_center
I can only imagine what the CIA/NSA/FEDS and other agencies have installed into our networks. I remember reading about whistle blower from AT&T awhile back.
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/307/mark-klein.html
Here is the person: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Klein
The intelligence agencies are of concern, and I think that it is illegal to scan my hard drive without my permission from a remote location.
As for your reference to a 2000+ year document holding the keys to living right, I'm also militantly atheist. I have some choice words about the virtue and worth of the christian bible and other scriptures, but in the interest of keeping vulgarity out of this discussion I'll leave it at that.
Being an incredibly open minded polytheist myself, I would love to read about your religious viewpoints and perspectives. You could call me a paranormal investigator of some sort. *laughs*
The constitution contains strong limitations on government because the anti-federalists were paranoid and didn't want anyone infringing on their business. Those hardliners wouldn't of had any part with the constitution as it stands today, except for the fact that their previous attempt at the Articles of Confederation proved to be such a disastrous clusterfuck of laissez faire chaos that anything weaker than our current constitution would have been impractical. The constitution is an imperfect document. This is why we add to it and change interpretations.
You must also consider the population of humanity in the U.S. at the time of its creation. Our numbers are increasing at an alarming rate. New situations call for new legislation, I suppose. Still, legal and indefinite detention without trial is something which can and will be greatly abused.
Addressing your last comment about the provisions in this year's defense budget, this is the exact same stuff we got worked up over in the PATRIOT act and turned out to be unfounded fears. The PATRIOT act has been in effect for damn near a decade now and, in spite of what many people (myself included) believed to be extremely exploitable language, we've seen few if any cases of this law being abused. The fact of the matter is that just because something could be used in a ridiculous manner doesn't mean that the government will lose their marbles and start behaving like Nazis. You can keep throwing out the extreme paranoid "what if's" all you want, but in my opinion that's worthless. What we should do instead is ask the "what's likely" scenarios and determine the legitimate application of these bills. Take a few deep breaths and don't go into thinking about these things with such urgent paranoia; you'll find it all makes a lot more sense then. =P
"
I have more than enough reason and evidence to validate my fears of worst case scenarios. This doesn't mean that I am "freaking out". I logically and rationally process all of these wonderful tidbits of information from whistle blowers and conspiracy theorists; I extract the factual data and make my own conclusions.
What is blatantly obvious is that an uneducated and sheepish mass of U.S. citizens have gradually lost their freedoms and protection from war mongering corrupt governments over the past few decades.
Probability of success for any action or objective supports those who are prepared for the unknown and unlikely. So forgive me if I am a critical thinker, I do not plan to start any sort of mass paranoia; however, I will inform the public of important issues.(like the loss of their freedoms and constitutional rights by legislation, which has questionable statements, that was intentionally passed on certain dates to avoid media coverage.)
I was under the impression that Obama and Mittens had different views on Iran. Obama thinks sanctions are working while Mitt wants to invade and put boots on ground. That's what I got from the debates anyway.
It might seem crazy, but it makes the most sense. One man can't change his mind that much and be sincere. :Þ
As for libertarian-ism in concept, I tend to view it in a way that I view total socialism. It's a great ideal in theory, but in practice it is far too impractical to implement. The only way is a combination of free market principals and smart, skillfully applied regulation to keep it in check.
They should be allowed to veto each other. *laughs*
THANK.
And I can't wait to see your face :3c