Most Votes
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on February 28th, 2024 | 8481 votes
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 7637 votes
Most Comments
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 68 comments
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 20 comments
Oh come on (Score:3, Insightful)
Are the editors even trying to hide their flamebait/clickbait tendencies anymore?
Re:Oh come on (Score:5, Insightful)
Are the editors even trying to hide their flamebait/clickbait tendencies anymore?
Grow up.
These are just fun, meaningless polls. Nobody really expects anything meaninful from the results because people who respond do so for any of the following reasons:
Re:Oh come on (Score:5, Funny)
Does this mean Cowboy Neal will be the 45-th president of the United States or will the people of Pakistan vote Romney into the White House?
Cowboy Neal is a member of the Illuminati and doesn't bother himself with such paltry matters as head of state of some country or other. He's content to pull the strings from behind the curtain.
Birthday! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Birthday! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Birthday! (Score:4, Informative)
I tend to prefer the Bad Seeds, but Grinderman was great.
They all suck (Score:4, Informative)
They all suck donkey balls.
Re:They all suck (Score:5, Funny)
They all suck donkey balls.
Like hell they do, you evil liberal hack. They suck ELEPHANT balls.
Re:They all suck (Score:3, Informative)
Re:They all suck (Score:4, Funny)
They all suck donkey balls.
Like hell they do, you evil liberal hack. They suck ELEPHANT balls.
I never get invited to these kinds of parties
Re:They all suck (Score:5, Insightful)
In this highly politically charged environment no one seems to have a sense of humor anymore. Strange since we have two clowns running for President.
Re:They all suck (Score:5, Funny)
Re:They all suck (Score:3, Funny)
No, we're all stuck over on the right. That's the problem.
So we need a new song.
Well... (Score:4, Funny)
There must be some kind of way out of here.
Re:They all suck (Score:3)
All parties suck Democrats' balls? Wow. ;)
In related news: "The membership applications for the Democratic party have soared"
Depends (Score:5, Insightful)
Favorite party as in I agree more or less with their philosophy...
or
Favorite party as in I love to grab a big bucket of popcorn and watch them do/say something incredibly stupid...
Re:Depends (Score:5, Insightful)
Are they necessarily different? Consider, hypothetically:
"Republican in principle but holy fuck what happened with them!?"
Re:Depends (Score:5, Insightful)
They were pawned by the dixiecrats that jumped ship after the passage of the civil rights act in '64, which would not have passed were it not for many republicans in congress that voted for it. LBJ said, "There goes the South for a generation." when he signed it. Those same dixiecrats are what gave us the "Southern Strategy" during Nixon's campaign. All this is popular folklore. What really happened is that big business took more direct control of both sides to ensure that one or the other always remained in power for their benefit.
Re:Depends (Score:5, Insightful)
What really happened is that big business took more direct control of both sides to ensure that one or the other always remained in power for their benefit.
This hits the nail on the head.
Social Conservative Christians (Score:5, Informative)
Are they necessarily different? Consider, hypothetically:
"Republican in principle but holy fuck what happened with them!?"
Social Conservative Christians - that's what happened. And we can blame Ron Regan for that cluster fuck.
If you look at a Republican before the party was taken over by the Christian Taliban, Barry Goldwater for instance, you will see what is considered a Libertarian today.
Of course that's not the whole story and a book can be written about what went wrong and the multitude of things that happened other than Christian nuts who want to increase the size of Government, throw the Constitution in the trash, and have government regulate people's personal lives - all because of values written in a book of iron age myth.
And then there is the fact that the American people completely forgot what happened between 2002 - 2008: the Republicans controlled BOTH the Executive branch and the Legislative branch of our government and went apeshit with the spending AND had the brass to lie and say it was ALL because of the wars. Only then to blame it ALL on the Obama administration.
But wait there's more ... Paul Ryan when he was a Congressman, made a really ballsy move and said that we need to do something about Medicare - like cut $700 billion+.
Now as a VP candidate, he has gone 180 degrees and the republicans have completely forgotten what he wanted to do in Congress or they are so horribly uninformed, that they don't know.
TO get the Rep vote, just say, "No gay marriage. No abortion. Cut taxes and spending." Because contrary to what they hear from their leaders on Talk Radio and Fox News, they think most of the Federal budget is going for paying welfare mothers and their pink Cadillacs; even though the largest expenses in the Fed budget is Medicare and Interest on the debt that they got rolling.
But wait there's even more! You see the Reps are allegedly against wealth transfer - from "rich" to "poor", but they are ALL for wealth transfer from young to old (Medicare and SS) and from poor to rich (capital gains are taxed less, home mortgage deductions [rich have more than one house and therefore get more Government subsides], and all the other loopholes that are only available to the 1%)
The Republicans are laughed at for good reason, I'm afraid. They used to be a decent counter to the Democrat's Depression Era thinking, but now they're just too loony.
Obama on the 6th, baby!
Sorry, have to comment on their label (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, but named just like East Germany was the "German Democratic Republic" back in the day when it only nailed one out of three.
Social? Consider any social issue such as poor, homeless and anywhere that good Christian charity can help, and instead of doing what Jesus suggested they blame the victims and fill the jails with petty offenders. They are about creating social problems instead of solving them.
Conservative? No it's about reactionary rollback and almost Taliban style values instead of conserving how things were when they turned up. Which brings me to the next point.
Christian? Well, yes, very selectively and when it's to political advantage to be seen as one. Go ahead and cast the first stone and twisting passages of the Bible to the exact opposite, after all. Jesus threw the merchants out of the temple so you have to ignore that bit when you've got a franchise of a cult that thinks poor people are cursed by God and should stay that way - there's just no profit in helping them so a merchant in the temple won't even pretend to try.
Re:Social Conservative Christians (Score:5, Informative)
If you look at the deficit crisis, it has fuckall to do with religeion and everything to do with class. Republicans will not do shit that will upset a single person earning over 250k.
Mission option (Score:5, Funny)
Would have been way funnier with a "Lemon" option.
Re:Mission option (Score:5, Funny)
If it's gonna be THAT kind of party, I'm gonna stick my dick in the mashed potatoes.
Re:Mission option (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Mission option (Score:5, Funny)
Would have been way funnier with a "Lemon" option.
There ain't no party like a Liz Lemon party, 'cause a Liz Lemon party is mandatory
Pirate? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean really, this is Slashdot - how can we ignore the pirates?
Re:Pirate? (Score:5, Informative)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Pirate_Party [wikipedia.org]
Re:Pirate? (Score:3)
In which states do they have ballots?
Re:Pirate? (Score:5, Funny)
I pretty sure all states have ballots.
Dems vs Reps (Score:5, Insightful)
Dem: Do what you want in the bedroom, but we call the shots on your money.
Rep: Do what you want with your money, but we call the shots in your bedroom.
Re:Dems vs Reps (Score:5, Insightful)
Rep: Do what you want with your money (if you're rich), but we call the shots in your bedroom (if you're poor).
FTFY
Re:Dems vs Reps (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dems vs Reps (Score:5, Insightful)
And both of them seem to want draconian copyright laws, the TSA, the Patriot Act, and all that other fun stuff.
Re:Dems vs Reps (Score:4, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Dems vs Reps (Score:4, Insightful)
Libertarianism Is A Dream (Score:5, Informative)
For a Libertarian country to work the majority of the population has to be well educated, have resources, be well informed, be strong thinkers and have a sense of civic duty stemming for a sense of enlightened self interest.
That is the exact opposite of what we got in the U.S.
Libertarians don't talk about how they are going to get Americans ready to be libertarians.
The libertarians I have met have been Republicanish business types who want the government to leave them alone to abuse the environment and other poeple...........or.....they have been pot heads who want the government to leave them alone to do their drugs.
When I asked how would things like fire departments and libraries run in a liberatiran country they could never tell me and they would accuse me of being inflammatory. Well, even the worst democrats and republicans have a story to tell about how they are going to do things ( well, maybe not Mitt Romney, he doesn't think people need to know how he is going to pull off a mathematically impossible budget of tax cuts for the rich and military spending increases ).
Libertarians live in the world of ideas, without being burdeoned by how to make things work when the rubber hits the roads.
That is why Ron Paul has his popularity. Nobody knows more than he does that he isn't ever going to be POTUS, so he can uncomprising in his ideals, rather than someone who might actually have to do something.
Re:Libertarianism Is A Dream (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course "have resources" is a relative phrase, which means that income inequality is incompatible with sustaining a libertarian government, yet libertarianism explicitly promotes that inequality. That's why Libertarianism is totally untried as a form of government. They sometimes claim the US pre-Civil War, but the US pre-Civil War was a slave-holding country. The government was technically Libertaran in the sense that the official Federal government was not officially oppressing anybody, but that doesn't mean South Carolina was freer in 1850 then Moscow was in 1950.
Libertarians really do not understand that the greatest threat to freedom is not the US Army, it's your neighbors. To remain a free country the US Military has too have the power to intervene in private disputes. Which means taxes, the ability to break up huge concentrations of wealth (otherwise Bill Gates could hire his own army and beat the Feds), a welfare state that ensures everyone has the ability to ask the courts for help, etc.
Re:Libertarianism Is A Dream (Score:3)
I think the biggest think the libertarians overlook when it comes to the U.S. pre-Civil War is that was a time when a man could just travel westward and live off the land. You could buy land off the government for like a penny an acre. Even adjusting for inflation, that's nothing, especially considering that aside from desert areas the land had enough resources to sustain the owner and provide enterprising opportunities.
Freedom is such an abstract concept - I don't believe any person has every been 'free,' people have just had varying degrees of freedom. Even if one is free from the government's influence they're still not free from the influence of others. What about freedom from bad health? Freedom from ignorance?
I was talking to a libertarian the other day who claimed that all schools, K-12 and all, should be privately run for profit and parents should pay for their children's education. Of course, I objected saying that many kids would thus be unable to attend school and our lower class would start outputting many more criminals and less people would advance through the social hierarchy. Her response? "That's their parents fault, they shouldn't have had kids. If they grow up to become criminals then they should be put in prison."
This is what scares me about libertarian ideals. They envision some sort of utopian Galt's Gulch while completely neglecting any negative consequences of implementing the policies they support. The one thing this woman kept harping on and on about is how food stamps aren't fair. It's not fair that she's taxed to feed worthless bums. My retort: fair or not, it's been historically demonstrated that masses of starving people will resort to violence and they often topple the government. If you're not taxed to feed them, a mob will descend upon every Wal-Mart in the country and they'll just take their food. Her response: put them in prison.
How many Americans must end up in prison before we finally admit that there's some value to the government taking measures to nurture society? One doesn't have a worthwhile degree of freedom in this society without education and decent health care - without those things one is a peon and most peons would rather be gangsters. Proposing that the government should be responsible for the health and education of the populous isn't an assault on the free market anymore than having the government responsible for defense is.
Libertarianism is community (Score:3)
Even if one is free from the government's influence they're still not free from the influence of others.
Libertarianism is all about the respecting the rights of others, and having your respected also. It does not pretend anyone lives alone, it's for addressing what happen when people live together.
all schools, K-12 and all, should be privately run for profit and parents should pay for their children's education.
But come on, the reality is there will always be some kind of subsidy for the poorest - even if that comes in the form of charity admissions or groups that pay for admission through charity.
You cannot imagine how it is possible to have such a system; when it's possible and very very likely lead to a much lower rate of children falling into crime, which is a huge problem today where we in theory give free schooling to everyone.
How many Americans must end up in prison before we finally admit that there's some value to the government taking measures to nurture society?
All of them? Because it's an uncaring government trying to nurture society that causes huge problems in crime. What you are asking of is far more of the thing that has brought forward the thing you claim to hate.
Re:Libertarianism Is A Dream (Score:3)
> income inequality is incompatible with sustaining a libertarian government, yet libertarianism explicitly promotes that inequality.
Anyone who uses the words "income inequality" seriously, without irony, automatically gets labelled a moron in my brain. Income inequality is so fucking stupid to talk about, that it's insane that people still use the term uncritically. The USSR had great income equality - everyone was equally poor, as they say.
>but that doesn't mean South Carolina was freer in 1850 then Moscow was in 1950.
In South Carolina 1850, 60% of the population was free.
In Moscow 1950, less than 1% of the population was free.
>Libertarians really do not understand that the greatest threat to freedom is not the US Army, it's your neighbors.
Uh, what? Libertarianism is all about individual liberty, and understands quite well that neighbors love to stick their noses into your business.
>To remain a free country the US Military has too have the power to intervene in private disputes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act [wikipedia.org]
Re:Libertarianism Is A Dream (Score:4, Informative)
Like most people, you seem to think that the only Libertarians are *RADICAL* Libertarians.
Few people who would call themselves "Libertarian" are anywhere near that extreme and do believe there is a place and need for public services and protecting the environment.
Re:Libertarianism Is A Dream (Score:3, Insightful)
Then what use if the word "libertarian" if it's so flexible it can mean just about...anyone?
Re:Libertarianism Is A Dream (Score:3)
Of course some people will quibble at the royalist bit, but that's really what setting up a feudal style system where the rich can do whatever they want is (Koch style libertarianism). The money stays in the most powerful families and it fits the definition like a glove within a generation or two. It should be obvious, but some people just cannot see where what they are advocating is going to lead.
Re:Libertarianism Is A Dream (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Libertarianism Is A Dream (Score:4, Informative)
What use is any label, in that case? Republicans can be pro-choice, for instance. You don't have to agree with everything your political party does, you know.
Ah, but they line up and VOTE together. There is practically no dissent in Republican party when voting comes! Democrats sometimes scatter on both sides, but Republicans never do. The recent "give veterans jobs" bill failed with 4 Republicans dissenting (and Olympia Snow is retiring because she is sick of dealing with other Republicans), so it will be 3 dissenters next time.
I will hold them responsible for how they vote. The fact that they may privately/officially disagree is useless if that is not how they vote.
Re:Libertarianism Is A Dream (Score:3)
Since your argument is so flimsy: "Republicans never do;" I'll point out that I'm a registered Republican that voted for two Democrats and a D/R in the last two local elections. QED.
Sorry, that was not my point. I wasn't talking about voters -- I was talking about elected congressmen. Care to come up with at least a couple of legislations proposed by Democrats where more than 2-3 Republican congressmen went along? (recently)
By the way, we all know that Olympia Snowe really should have switched parties like Specter, but she didn't for political advantage.
I would assume that cases such as Snowe are rare to unprecedented - I believe Specter changed affiliation because he needed the Democrat votes (or money?). Snowe was on track to win - she would need very little effort to get reelected as-is. I am not even sure she'd have to campaign to get re-elected. Here we have someone who is (presumably) in good health and need to do practically nothing to keep her office - and she decides to quit. How often does it happen?
Re:Libertarianism Is A Dream (Score:3)
Yes, look what happened to Bob Inglis (R-SC). His voting record was reliably conservative but because he said he believed the scientists about global warming he got primaried and lost 29%-71%. To be fair it wasn't only about GW because he was against the troop surge in Iraq and voted for the Economic Stabilization Act or 2008 (more commonly known as the bailout).
Re:Libertarianism Is A Dream (Score:3, Insightful)
>When I asked how would things like fire departments and libraries run in a liberatiran country they could never tell me and they would accuse me of being inflammatory.
I'm not a libertarian, but what? Who did you even talk to? They don't always have specific answers for fire (but then again they are not proposing administrative systems top-down do they do not need a single one to settle on) but they do have answers and their answer for libraries is obvious enough from their beliefs--fund it like any other system, like Blockbuster did for movies or what have you.
I will say one thing, the left (I am not left, no, but I am not right either--I don't really believe in anything, having given up on ideology and saving the world and stuff) always touts libraries and universities as the hallmark of civilizations but libraries are frequently under-used as it is (increasingly less so in this digital age so the appeal is more increasingly of aesthetics and signaling to other liberals) and universal university education just means yet another step on the ladder to get a job as degrees have become increasingly devalued for most fields--and for the cases that aren't, once people start filling up those fields, they too will be over saturated. All that talk about needing to be well-educated to be a good citizen is just that, talk, it is a means to instill one ideology over another (what is a "good citizen" anyway, who decides that?) knowledge has nothing to do with moral OPINIONS anyway, and well-educated people will still go ahead and deny human-caused climate change and what have you.
I will say something in the libertarian's defense--they are not positing top-down systems but a more organic system grown bottoms-up so the true ideological libertarian's motivation is not something greed-based. The libertarian's ideology is individualistic but believes true just governance is a sort of emergent process, so whenever I hear the left talk about libertarians just being rich or spoiled without understanding the basis of their ideology (however naive or unrealistic it may or not may not) makes me question the supposed intellectual superiority they claim to have in online debates since their entire approach is a strawman designed to make them feel morally superior from the onset.
For my part I think the libertarian view sounds aesthetically pleasing, but, as horrible as a world where the gods exist and DEMAND blood sacrifice, it may simply not be feasible with common human stock. That won't change the libertarian's view though, even if they agree, because they do not believe that just rule emerges out of collective agreement of society on imposing on the individual or that government "just is" a true moral authority.
Bottom up better because it helps at least one (Score:3)
So, the bottom-up is better than the top-down; Give your reason why.
It's pretty obvious - because bottom-up solutions address real problems. They see one or more things that need solving, and start some kind of program or action or group to resolve them.
And in the process, if they make any headway at all things get better.
In a top-down approach it's quite easy for problems to be made up just to get funding, and in the end millions spent with no-one actually helped. That's a waste of resources that could have gone for real efforts.
Consider just one example, the environment. I think "Earth Day" is a crock, a kind of Green "Christmas" designed to extract people from money using guilt. Year round I take walks and clean up stream sides or trails; One day a year the "Earth Day" people gather and pollute a field. Who has done more for the environment? By spreading the notion among people that see me how easy it is to simply pick up trash you see even if it's not your own, I have truly created a better community both locally, and wherever the idea spreads. Meanwhile those subscribing to a big "Earth Day" thing think they contribute a bit of money (which goes to paying administrators or glossy pamphlets destined for me to pick up alongside streams) so they figure it's OK to spend very little effort the rest of the year, instead of realizing that small but constant and incremental effort is what makes the real difference.
Bottoom-up organizations get things done with minimal resources, top-down groups are inherently wasteful.
In truth you cannot name a single successful group that started top-down.
Re:Libertarianism Is A Dream (Score:4, Insightful)
Really? Not a single one of them was able to point out to you that early U.S. fire departments and libraries were privately organized and funded? That there are still private fire departments and libraries in existence in the U.S. right now?
I agree, you apparently don't talk to many actual libertarians.
Re:Libertarianism Is A Dream (Score:3)
The principle of Libertarianism is nice, but the vast majority of them act more like anarchists, and an anarchy is the antithesis of freedom: it's a world where might makes right.
I believe in what I call Socialtarianism - a libertarian who believes in social responsibility. We form societies to cooperate for the common good, in which people do their best when they have maximal freedom, but there are always those whole will freeload given the choice. It's also often more efficient to centralize a lot of services.
There's a tightrope to walk: you need to regulate to keep the powerful from taking away others' freedoms, and you need to regulate to ensure that people contribute their fair share to the society, but beyond that, let people live their lives as they see fit.
Small "L" libertarianism (Score:3)
A lot of people seem to confuse the platform of the Libertarian Party with the philosophy of libertarianism. As others have pointed out, the party seems to have more in common with anarchists than anything else. True liberarianism is about both individual freedom and individual responsibility. It doesn't mean eliminate government, it just means that the goal should be to have the minimum "amount" of government necessary to have a successful society. That's the ideal that Ron Paul and some others like me are looking for and why we can be uncompromising on that ideal while still being pragmatic about trying to make it happen.
You'll find it's absolutely amazing how many rationales for expanding government sound ludicrous when rephrased from "the government ought to do something about..." to "taxpayers ought to pay for..." There is also a strong argument that those who benefit from something ought to be the ones who pay for it and, if you don't benefit from something, you ought to have the option of not paying for it. Now mix into these two ways of looking at the role of government the knowledge that government creates no wealth; it can only inefficiently redistribute wealth created by individuals. That inefficiency is composed of both wealth redistributed to the "wrong" people and the wealth consumed by the bureaucracy that does the redistribution. I find this to be a pretty strong argument for minimal, limited government.
This doesn't mean I'm against every single community action like bulding roads and libraries, etc. I do draw a line though when it comes to building stadiums, subsidizing particular businesses, etc. The bar of common benefit should be set very high before we tax everyone for anything.
Cheers,
Dave
Re:Libertarianism Is A Dream (Score:2, Insightful)
What I find funny about Anarchists/Libertarians is that if true Anarchy came they'd probably be the first ones to get pwned by roving gangs of thugs.
Being a skinny street punk or obnoxious capitalist won't save you from that.
Re:Libertarianism Is A Dream (Score:3)
As the parent post to this thread pointed out Libertarianism will only work if the populace is well educated and willing to engage in civic duties. Far too much of the populace is not and never will be to make that form of idealism work. What I see working is a pragmatism to realize that no pure ideology will ever work and the best possible outcome will be realized somewhere in the middle with a mixture of different ideologies.
Re:Libertarianism Is A Dream (Score:3)
Missing option (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Missing option (Score:5, Insightful)
And why isn't the American Communist Party there?
Or anything else to the left of global moderate?
Has the person setting up the poll been so thoroughly indoctrinated that he only sees shades of blue, and consider the greens the far left?
Re:Missing option (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, you can leave boxes blank. You can show up, vote for 3 out of X of the local/state propositions and leave the presidency blank if you want.
I tend to leave boxes blank for issues or offices that I didn't (for whatever excuse...what? It happens) properly research and thus only vote on what I feel I have an informed opinion on. I've only broken this on a few propositions in the past that crept up on me that were obvious bald faced horseshit.
Bullmoose? (Score:2, Funny)
I am, after all, voting for Teddy Roosevelt this time around.
Why would you want to? (Score:4, Interesting)
from James Killough's excellent article 'Do Republicans Dream of Electric Elephants':
http://purefilmcreative.com/killough-chronicles/do-republicans-dream-of-electric-sheep.html [purefilmcreative.com]
But the U.S. Has A Two Party System (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:But the U.S. Has A Two Party System (Score:5, Insightful)
This type of apathy is why Big Money runs the country. The funny thing is the people who spout this idea tend to be those who know the least when it comes to politics. It's a convenient excuse to be ignorant: "Oh, why should I learn about these politicians and their policies when they're all just the same?"
Like it or not, but the things our congresscritters do have matter. You know one of the difference between Big Money and no money? People with big money vote. People who work for oil companies vote. People who work for the military-industrial complex vote. People who think that embryos are a precious life form the government is ethically bound to protect vote.
Yet it's the people who are most victimized by these policies that say, "Oh, gee, these forces are so insurmountable that my vote doesn't count for shit. It's raining today and the voting booth is a whole mile away and since my vote doesn't matter anyway, I'm going to jerk off and watch reality TV instead."
When you encourage this type of apathy you're part of the problem. Stop being part of the problem and do something constructive instead, such as encouraging people to vote.
Do Libertarians == Republicans? (Score:2)
Re:Do Libertarians == Republicans? (Score:3)
>I remember during the Chick-Fill-A thing, a libertarian friend of mine who posts political stuff on their facebook feed made an about face when people started protesting the business. Actually, no, to his/er credit, s/he changed attitude when a governor (GUBERMINT) decided to enact policies against the business...which is understandable because that is plain wrong, still, his/er attitude changed towards the whole issue when that happened close to sympathizing with the business instead of protestors (who unlike the governor, had a right to protest).
Given how many libertarians I know, and especially seeing the same thing happen on my facebook feed, I'm pretty sure it was because the protesters from the get-go were arguing that Chick-Fil-A should not be allowed to have these policies. So naturally the libertarian would side with the business; why wouldn't they given their ideology? It's not "business vs protesters" as you try to frame it (deceptively so, I might add). It was the libertarians and those such as Ron Paul that were the loudest in opposing the bank bail outs and letting them fail. You even acknowledge why they opposed the protesters but since you can't think of another example offhand you still run with this one. Unbelievable, and I'm not even a libertarian so I have no horse in this race!
To libertarians there is no real division between business/economic relations and any other. I think this is partially why they have a fetish for describing so many things in market/economical terms.
You also create a false dichotomy here:
>Most libertarians I meet seem to feel more strongly about the business side than the individual liberty side
But how a business is conducted is itself, in the libertarian framework, an issue of individual liberty. The government to them has no moral authority over telling an organization whom they can hire anymore than they have would have a moral authority ordering Chick-Fil-A to remain open on Sundays. The main fact is that you disagree with them there on a fundamental level and instead of being charitable you try to read it into the most Snidely Whiplash way imaginable so you can try to claim they're inconsistent no matter what they say.
As for global warming, they just tend to deny it occurs, and they believe what they say even though they are wrong.
>In the great depression, FDR and others decided the opposite, that the freedom of the individual is more important the rights of the businesses
That's funny, the "Being Liberal" page just posted a quote form Hillary Clinton stating that ""We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." Shifting rhetoric to fit the situation is not exactly the hallmark of honesty; it is the left that seems to argue against individualism more than anything else. The left is for the individual except when they're for society. What?
Arguing that libertarians are being inconsistent because their view of rights is incongruent with your framework is just dishonest. Start at the beginning and claim they start from a flawed place, don't be misleading about it.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151114330741275&set=a.180479986274.135777.177486166274&type=1&theater [facebook.com]
None (Score:2)
Political parties are a crutch for people who can't think for themselves.
$2 Billion in electioneering (Score:3)
Obligatory missing option (Score:3)
There's an option missing (Score:3)
Royalist (Score:5, Funny)
I voted whig, but only because royalist and unionist (in the Irish sense) were missing. When you rebellious colonists come back to accept the supremacy of the crown and parliament you will cure all the social, welfare and cultural ills that are prevalent throughout "America".
Constitutional monarchy rules. OK
Missing choice? (Score:3, Funny)
I was looking for the American Christian Fascist Party, and I'll admit that it took me a minute to realise that you still call them Republicans.
Missing option: (Score:3)
Re:It couldn't be more obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
Democrats will become the new Stalinists.
Ha ha ha ha ha...
Dumbest thing I have read in a while. Democrats are the right-wing of the corporate party. Republicans are the far-right, proto-fascist wing of the corporate party. There is no "left" in the Democratic party or the fucking country for that matter.
You need to turn off the right-wing hate radio, and look around at reality a bit.
There is no political representation of the left in this country at all. Obama is to the right of Nixon, as was Clinton. Facts. Not a bunch of propaganda by far-right blowhards talking out their asses.
Love that the far-right complains about Obama's health insurance company bailout plan, aka Obama Care. Which is the same damn thing as Romney Care. Which is the same fucking thing as the far-right Heritage foundation came up with in the 90s. The health insurance co bailout plan is a right-wing initiative. Hell it is a right-wing wet dream come true. Forcing folks to pay money to private entities under penalty of law. Couldn't get more true right-wing ideology than that.
This country is descending into fascism. And it is ignorant who are paving the way.
Re:1st vote? (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, I prefer the ostrich approach and find my world a much better place than that of those pissing and moaning over a world barreling down the rails, out of control, and no one competent at the wheel. Life is good!
Re:1st vote? (Score:5, Funny)
Political discussion is an activity for fools. It's like arguing which brand of anal lube or who's servant of satan is better.
Editors, there's two future polls right there! My money is on Prep-H and Lucifer.
Re:1st vote? (Score:3)
spit and Tony Bliar.
Re:1st vote? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:1st vote? (Score:3)
ouch! and explains a lot...
Re:1st vote? (Score:3)
My buddy works at the prison in Lancaster, Ohio, and he told me a story about an inmate nicknamed "Applesauce." I won't go into details, but I will say that he didn't earn that nickname by using it on himself.
Re:1st vote? (Score:3)
Political discussion is an activity for fools. It's like arguing which brand of anal lube or who's servant of satan is better.
Editors, there's two future polls right there! My money is on Prep-H and Lucifer.
Ummm, Prep-H is for hemorrhoids not lubrication and Lucifer IS satan. Try Anal-eze and Azreal. Or, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Both work better.
Re:1st vote? (Score:5, Funny)
Ummm, Prep-H is for hemorrhoids not lubrication and Lucifer IS satan. Try Anal-eze and Azreal. Or, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Both work better.
I did not know that George W. Bush is a brand of anal lube.
Re:1st vote? (Score:3)
I did not know that George W. Bush is a brand of anal lube.
Plenty of people got fucked up the arse with number 42, though I'm not sure he was a very effective lubricant.
Re:1st vote? (Score:5, Funny)
Would Santorum count as an answer to both?
Re:1st vote? (Score:5, Interesting)
Although I understand your sentiment and while I also share your disillusion, did you know that the origin of the word "idiot [wikipedia.org]" is someone who stayed clear of political life?
Please don't take it as an insult. By this definition, I'm the foremost idiot here.
Re:1st vote? (Score:3)
Not all personal lubricants are the same, silcon based are more effective in the short run but have the nasty side effect of hanging around for days. Water-based lubes are easier to wash off but need to be re-applied more frequently.
Even in thoose categories, the lubes widely differ beteween manufacturers, some are too viscous, others are too thin..
So I must wholeheartedly disagree that putting thought into your choice of anal lubricant is a fool's task.
Re:1st vote? (Score:5, Funny)
Hate America and go liberal? I always thought that the liberals were the ones that loved America. You know, the real America. The one they taught us about in school. I don't remember them teaching me that America was a country of torturing, free-speech inhibiting, third-world-country suppressing people. But you probably went to a different school than I did.
Pardon me if you were being facetious and I missed the joke.
Re:1st vote? (Score:3, Insightful)
Your administration is not liberal.
The Democratic party is not liberal (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fascism (Score:3)
Obama ordered Gitmo closed day 3. Blame Congress. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, one of the first acts of the Obama administration was ordering the closure of Gitmo [cnn.com], ordering military interrogations to return to the policies in the Army Field Manual pre-Bush, and shutting down Bush's secret overseas torture centers. However, the authority of the Executive branch is limited by the United States Constitution, making it possible for Congress to delay funding allocated to move prisoners until the Republican majority elected in 2010 passed legislation making it unlawful to move the remaining prisoners to either the US or other countries [guardian.co.uk].
The continued travesty of Gitmo is on Congress, the truly impressive part is how many effective measures Obama has put in place [typepad.com] despite massive willful obstruction from the Legislative branch.
Re:Obama ordered Gitmo closed day 3. Blame Congres (Score:5, Informative)
They didn't have a super-majority for 2 years, idiot. Between the time Franken was allowed to assume his seat (7 July 2009) and when Kennedy died (25 August 2009), they had their 60 votes in the Senate for around six weeks, and most of that time was used in negotiations for the healthcare law.
Re:Obama ordered Gitmo closed day 3. Blame Congres (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
The reason they needed 60 votes in the Senate to get a damned thing done is the GOP's party discipline and willingness to abuse the filibuster. 60 votes are needed to break filibusters and the only time they had the ability to get anything done without the GOP scuppering it was during that six weeks, because the Republicans could and did filibuster anything with their 41 votes.
The filibuster rules were changed in IIRC the '70s. You don't need one senator standing up and reading from the DC phonebook for 24 hours straight to block action anymore. You just need 41 votes and bam, that house is at a standstill until the minority (you know, the people who lost the '08 election badly because America was tired of them) gets what they want, which in this case was usually thumbs in the eye like completely unacceptable amendments offered just so they could say next election "Senator X voted to allow imprisoned sex offenders to get Viagra".
I get that you're unhappy with the Dems (I am too, but probably for different reasons), but it's stupid and ignorant to blame them for things outside their control. Do try to educate yourself some more about how things are really done in this country before you vote next week.
Only partially true (Score:3)
The might get a few things done. However when congress goes Republican the Democratic President becomes a lame duck.
He is unable to do anything important. As a result, the country suffers.
Does this sound familiar?
The US political system is broken (like its legal system). It is no wonder that US standing in the rest of thw rold is plummetting like SCO shares once did.
The republicans in congress/Senate are out to stop any Democratic President from doing anything worthwhile. Thie is why IMHO, if Obama gets re-elected the US will spend 4 years with another lame duck president. That said, Romney is an even scarier proposition for those of us who live outside the US.
Re:Useful poll (Score:3)
Because now I'll know what percentage of the comments to dislike.
Interesting to see the distribution. I figured that /. is mostly democrat-leaning (whatever that means nowdays)...
but 21% Democratic, 19% Libertarian and 14% Green followed by 7% Republican is quite a surprise. Is there really 3x Libertarian and 2x Green support vs Republicans here?
Republicans aren't too popular here, with the party now dominated by the evangelicals. The slashdot crowd tends toward 'liberal' when it comes to social issues, which puts a heavier emphasis on either Democrat and Libertarian. After that it's a matter of whether you think taxes are evil or the only way to fund necessary programs.
Re:Useful poll (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it also needs to be taken into consideration that the majority of those who clicked 'libertarian' on the poll will vote Republican in the election. The Republican party is more a coalition of anti-Democrats than a coalition formed around a common political philosophy. They get the evangelicals by playing on their opposition to abortion, homosexuality, marijuana, etc. They get the libertarians by playing on their opposition to socialism/Rawlsian economics. The sad thing is that the power brokers who fight to keep this coalition intact do so to achieve objectives that aren't particularly helpful to either of these groups: corporate welfare (sorry libertarians) and actively trying to make criminals of the poor by limiting their opportunities so the police/prison systems have livestock to deal with (sorry Christian values).
Yeah, those evangelicals aren't likely to hang out around /., but very few of those 'libertarians' put their vote where their mouth is. Also, the libertarians around here are by far the most vocal group when it comes to discussing politics, but their rants usually conclude that it's best to vote Republican.
Re:Useful poll (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Interesting Results So Far (Score:3)
I interpreted the 'adolescent joke' option as a vote of "no confidence" for any of the parties, which is why I chose it. My political leanings are libertarian, but I have been unimpressed and disappointed with the LP machinery during this election cycle.
So called "tech heads" may be more introverted than the population at large, but that doesn't translate into "detached from reality". I would argue that they are also more intelligent, more adept at problem solving and more self reliant than the population at large. This would naturally lead one to endorse public policies that would place the same expectations on their fellow citizens. Is that being "introverted" or is it accepting personal responsibility and adopting a "I won't bother you if you don't bother me" attitude?
"Tech heads" may generally deal with abstract problems, but those problem solving skills translate well to real world implementations. Do I have enough memory resources to spawn a sub-process = Do I have enough financial resources to start a family?
FYI, Ron Paul has been elected to Congress 12 times and has voted on his principles consistently. Doing the RIGHT thing is more important than getting "things" (The Patriot Act, wars, $15T in debt, etc.) done.
I was dismayed to see ANY support for the 'R's and 'D's that have screwed up the country so thoroughly.
Re:My dream party - anti-Republican coalition (Score:3)
This is much like my dream party as well. What I would like to see if for all the socially liberal parties -- Democrats, Green, Libertarians, etc -- to get together and beat the shit out of the socially conservative religious right. That alone would be a huge, huge step forward.
If you watch the third party debates, you will see that except for the Constitution party candidate, all major third parties agree with each other on a large swath of issues, and between the two major parties the Democrats come closest to agreement with them (more historically than actively today, maybe), so I could see some kind of coalition there to accomplish a lot of their common goals being really workable.
Then, maybe, they could all agree that, whatever we spend on whatever government programs we have, we have to pay for them, and we have to pay down our debt, and until we come up with a better way, taxes are the only source of revenue to do that with, and that necessarily evil is lessened -- we do less harm in taxing people -- when the burden is borne by those more able to bear it, thanks to the principle of marginal utility. So one way or another we have to tax enough to pay for whatever we spend, and those taxes must be levied progressively. I imagine the Libertarians might have a problem with the latter, but if sold in that way -- taxes are evil, yes, but this minimizes the evil -- it might still be plausible.
Then we can get into the issues where there is real, substantial disagreement: what programs do we keep, and which do we cut; how much do we spend, and on what? This is a point of major contention between the various parties that would make up this fantasy coalition, with Libertarians arguing for cutting most everything but the military, Greens arguing for more extensive social programs and a reduced military, and Democrats arguing... whatever they think will get them the most votes, probably.
And then there is another issue that nobody is asking yet, but which I think is the real issue to be solved in politics, beyond plain common pragmatic sense like all of the above: isn't there any other way we can fund social programs besides extracting money from people at gunpoint? Answer that, and you can reconcile libertarians and socialists.
I am a libertarian-socialist myself (and not even mainstream by libertarian-socialist standards, getting there via a kind of radical propertarianism), so I don't really have any party representing me. But a coalition between Everyone Not Republicans would come close to representing the four planks of my dream party:
- Libertarianism; doing and permitting as little coercion as possible
- Socialism; seeing to it that everyone gets a fair chance in life
- Pragmatism; doing what it necessary to keep our shit together and compromise between those two ideals
- Idealism; reaching for a way to achieve both of those ideals without having to compromise either
Re:My dream party - anti-Republican coalition (Score:3)
Oh, and bad taste as it is to reply to myself, it occurs to me I should weigh in on where my real dream party would settle on how much we should be spending on what, and other assorted issues:
- Reduce overseas military spending drastically and focus on maintaining a strong national defense, based predominantly on the National Guard and Coast Guard. Maintain development of military technology (focusing also on nonmilitary applications of that same technology to maximize bang for buck, see below) so that we can project power if need be, but lets not be in the habit of always constantly projecting that power. But don't be isolationist; leave an open offer to assist in international interventions, if our assistance is requested and we agree with the requesting party on the dispute and we can afford to get involved on the level requested of us.
- Focus scientific research on "space" as a long-term goal, but with two major and more immediate side-benefits. On one hand, continue development on propulsion, navigation, and robotics technology. This has obvious overlap with military research needs and so has a big, more immediate benefit to it. Then on the other hand, focus on energy management and literal climate and environmental control technologies (e.g. recycling everything), with the long-term goal of being able to build self-sustaining colonies in the harsh environments of other worlds, but with the more immediate benefit of being able to control our impact on this world and increase the use we can get out of it. Work on self-reliant towns in comfortable parts of Earth first; then self-sustaining cities in the harshest deserts, the coldest poles, the bottom of the sea. Once we can do all that, then we can strap that kind of tech to a rocket and go to another world, but in the meantime it will let us take better care of this one.
- More domestically, offer needs-based assistance programs for all the things people need to be healthy and productive citizens: food, water, clothing, shelter, and medicine. Do not have the government in the business of providing these itself or dictating who anyone must buy them from, let people choose who they want to buy from to keep competitive pressure on prices, but offer progressively larger stipends to cover the costs to progressively poorer people. Either a "here use this coupon/card at your favorite provider" type of program, or a "show us the receipts and we'll give you cash or a tax credit" type of system would work. The latter would make it easier to assess how much assistance to give at the same time as giving it, but might require people to go into debt in the meanwhile. Speaking of which...
- An issue nobody is really discussing: anything spent on rent or interest should be completely tax-deductible. Rent and interest are how wealth accumulates more wealth; money spent on them is money someone else made at your expense just because they had more wealth than they needed, which you needed but didn't have, and which they still have even after you paid for it, plus what you paid them. I have more detailed objections to them than I want to go into here, but this tax deduction would suffice to start.
- On a related note that should have gone among the points of general agreement: greatly simplify the tax code. Every entity, natural person or corporation, should be able to just tally up their books, adding up income from any source and subtracting any applicable expenses, to get one figure of net profits, then punch that into a simple formula or look it up in a table to see what taxes they owe. No loopholes, no expensive bureaucracy. We can talk about what's taxable income and what's a deductible expense, but whatever answers we come up to about that, that income minus those expenses, run through a progressive formula, is what you owe, simple as that.
- And lastly (er, almost), an issue less of how to tax or what to spend on, but who to tax and spend on: immigration. Let anyone without an ugly criminal record come into the country,