Earth Day: The History of A Movement

[Pointedstick]

Even Murray Rothbard cant explain what the hell a libertarian actually is...This article still leaves me confounded http://mises.org/daily/2801

To get back on topic... I am very curious to know your response to my post #21 in this thread.

[doodle]

That sorta sounds like, "Darn it, I think you're right, but I reeeeeally want to believe otherwise!" 

Expanding productive capacity is important. But IMHO, it's not the most important thing. There are many things the government could do to expand productive capacity that we would find totally unacceptable, such as bulldozing national parks for strip-mining, enslaving foreigners, and the like. That fact that we don't let it do these things implies that we all see trade-offs in government efforts to expand productive capacity.

If you agree with my overall premise that the government must always be slower and less agile than the private sector due to its responsiveness to political forces rather than market forces (IMHO this is pretty uncontroversial), then it doesn't matter that these trade-offs exist--clearly they do. What matters is that the balance between interests and overall social preferences can change based on many factors, but the government is incredibly insensitive to them, while the private sector isn't.

This ultimately leads to the government mis-allocating the scarce resources it controls, which has the strong potential to actually reduce productive capacity. You want to talk about left lanes and getting to work; imagine how many billions of collective hours people spend stuck in traffic could be prevented if mass transit weren't priced out of the market by free highways. I don't know what traffic is like in Mineappolis, but try driving in LA or the San Francisco bay area some time. It's appalling how much wasted time these tax-supported transit nightmares cause.

Okay...but transportation leads to monopoly or oligopoly like situations. How do you deal with those? I mean, how many competing roads can you possibly build? Also, i dont care if the government or the private sector is involved...when you have massive infrastructure in place, change is slow. A transportation system that has been in place for 50 years doesnt shift on a dime irrespective of how it is built and controlled.

There are also other considerations...

Ive been to Chile which has many private roads which are contracted to private corporations by the government subject to certain terms and conditions. In other words they are a public private partnership. As you drive on these roads you pay an electronic toll every few miles. However, what if a poor neighborhood doesnt have the money to build a road and get their children to school? Is freedom to access educational opportunities irrespective of birthplace not important? Does promoting equality of opportunity not carry any weight?

[Benko]

1.

Problem is, most bureaucracies are simply a result of groups of people working together.

Sure, and it is a problem in the private sector as well.  This has to do with the people involved not having a direct stake in outcomes, and the fact that larger groups have this more than smaller groups.  I guess it is like being governed by some far off person in DC vs being governed by the guy in your town. 


2.

The fact that several "socialist" countries can deliver care that results in a healthier society at far lower a cost...

Not sure which country you're referring to, but how sure are you that the healthier society is the result of that health care system, or more the result of fewer krispy creme donut stores and a society which does not indulge as much in krispy kreme donuts.

3.  Part of the problem in the US health care is the mentality of the US citizens which ain't the same as other countries.  This means everything from:
-- we want everything done for grandma no matter what the cost to
--we don't like to wait to e.g. the British and Canadians queue up in an orderly manner for all sorts of things.  Care to try that in e.g. NYC or parts of LA?
--doctors used to order a diagnostic test if e.g. they were not sure and there was a 50% chance of a patient having something or they thought the patientt had a 90% chance of having something and wanted it confirmed.  The mentality of docs is now that if a patient has a 0.05 % chance of having something, they have to order a diagnostic test to exclude that possibility.  No idea why i.e. is that change all because of the lawyers?  I dunno.  But that change in doc mentality is here to stay and even tort reform will not change it.

All talk of health care systems which "work" in other cultures is irrelevant here when you factor in the people in this country.

[Mountaineer]

Interesting discussion.  Oh to discover the "God particle" and determine it was described in a book written a couple of thousand years ago.  Read that book and notice how we humans have changed so very little.  Still greedy, still blame everyone and every thing other than ourselves for our misery, still rebel, still refuse to acknowledge there is only one way out of this mess let alone pursue that way, still don't want our neighbors to have more than we do, still think the snail darters are more important than humans, still think that life should be fair, still want something for nothing, etc. etc. etc.  Of course, I'm not talking about the enlightened members of this forum in that description  , it is all those "other" people with the issue.  Seriously, I really do enjoy this forum, people are mostly objective and express their opinions respectfully. 

I read an interesting perspective (right wing) today that illustrates a possible cause of the immediate mess (warning - emperor worshipers may take issue):

http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/americans-sn ... -millions/#

[Reub]

"Earth Day co-founder killed, ‘composted’ his ex-girlfriend"

http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/22/earth ... irlfriend/

[MachineGhost]

What do libertarian anarchists do other than rant and rave?

I can't speak for other libertarians, put I personally put my money where my mouth is, i.e. the Institute for Justice who is racking up legal wins left and right for individual liberty.  What do you do, sir?

[MachineGhost]

Even Murray Rothbard cant explain what the hell a libertarian actually is...This article still leaves me confounded http://mises.org/daily/2801

A libertarian is a minarchist statist.  An anarchist is an anti-statist.  Stop conflating the two!

[MachineGhost]

http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/22/earth ... irlfriend/

LOL!  Another black mark for vegetarianism/veganism.  Like Hitler, it is liable to make you SNAP, probably due to your brain crying out for some fish oil!

[doodle]

What do libertarian anarchists do other than rant and rave?

I can't speak for other libertarians, put I personally put my money where my mouth is, i.e. the Institute for Justice who is racking up legal wins left and right for individual liberty.  What do you do, sir?

Not as much as you evidently.  I guess I need to get to work so that I can start notching some victories into my teams belt. 

BTW, since we have been talking so much about cars and transportation, Mr. Money Mustache had a particularly off the handle rant the other day on this topic: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/04/ ... car-habit/

[doodle]

Even Murray Rothbard cant explain what the hell a libertarian actually is...This article still leaves me confounded http://mises.org/daily/2801

A libertarian is a minarchist statist.  An anarchist is an anti-statist.  Stop conflating the two!

I just get confused because people tend to jump all over the board. A while ago your handle quoted Mikhail Bakunin who was a collectivist anarchist which wikipedia defines as this:

Collectivist anarchism (also known as anarcho-collectivism) is a revolutionary[1] doctrine that advocates the abolition of both the state and private ownership of the means of production. It instead envisions the means of production being owned collectively and controlled and managed by the producers themselves.
For the collectivization of the means of production, it was originally envisaged that workers will revolt and forcibly collectivize the means of production.[1] Once collectivization takes place, money would be abolished to be replaced with labour notes and workers' salaries would be determined in democratic organizations based on job difficulty and the amount of time they contributed to production. These salaries would be used to purchase goods in a communal market.

Yet, you dont strike me as the type who would advocate for the abolition of private means of production. So you can see where the confusion comes in...

Collectivism is defined thusly: Again this doesnt strike me as your position either...

Collectivism is any philosophic, political, religious, economic, or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human being in a society or civilization. Collectivism is a basic cultural element that exists as the reverse of individualism in human nature (in the same way high context culture exists as the reverse of low context culture). Collectivist orientations stress the importance of cohesion within social groups (such as an "in-group", in what specific context it is defined) and in some cases, the priority of group goals over individual goals.

So why do you quote a collectivist anarchist if you totally disagree with what they stand for?

[MachineGhost]

BTW, since we have been talking so much about cars and transportation, Mr. Money Mustache had a particularly off the handle rant the other day on this topic: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/04/ ... car-habit/

Good rant.  I share his exact sentiments.  What I don't share is the desire to be seen as a hippie riding a bicycle lugging groceries outside.  Everyone is inwardly laughing or rolling their eyes at that hippie.  Or using public transportation which only the poor/low income/disadvantaged/suspended license people use.  There is large social stigma involved in the decision not to own a car and pretending it doesn't exist doesn't change reality.  The only place where it would not be seen as being "outside the group" weirdo are places where the community is intentionally not planned around the car.  I don't believe they exist in the good ol' USA excluding smaller military installations, though it seems to be the ongoing wet-dream of every Progressive city-planner statist.  If you know of a place, sign me up!  I'm afraid I'll have to leave the country.

EDIT: American don't want to give up their individual liberty.  That especially includes having a car and driving.  Not having one severely limits your life opportunities unless you live in a place where you can walk to literally everything which is not possible (Walk to Costco?  Walk to SuperWalmart?  etc.  Fat chance.).  Such places, unfortunately, are also more uberly expensive to live in than the boring monoculture of the suburbs.  So the irony isn't lost on me that you've got to be wealthy already to achieve a practical no-car lifestyle without ascetism.  How about one of those supertall complete-cities-in-a-tower skyscrapers?

[Pointedstick]

Unlike MG, I have no prejudices against being seen accomplishing tasks without a car and really enjoy walking to the grocery store. Sometimes I take my kid and store the groceries in the bottom shelf of his stroller. The distance is so short and there are so many stoplights that driving is barely faster anyway, especially during rush hour.

[MachineGhost]

So why do you quote a collectivist anarchist if you totally disagree with what they stand for?

I don't disagree with with anarcho-collectivists stand for.  Bakunin was a voluntaryist, his arch-enemy Marx was a coercivist.  That makes all the difference.  We could say that Bakunin is to anarchism, what Marx is to statism.  The split is epic, comparable to Luther nailing his Reformation to the Church of England.  Some day in the future when the muppets stop acting like muppets, Bakunin will be lionized.

[doodle]

BTW, since we have been talking so much about cars and transportation, Mr. Money Mustache had a particularly off the handle rant the other day on this topic: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/04/ ... car-habit/

Good rant.  I share his exact sentiments.  What I don't share is the desire to be seen as a hippie riding a bicycle lugging groceries outside.  Everyone is inwardly laughing or rolling their eyes at that hippie.  Or using public transportation which only the poor/low income/disadvantaged/suspended license people use.  There is large social stigma involved in the decision not to own a car and pretending it doesn't exist doesn't change reality.  The only place where it would not be seen as being "outside the group" weirdo are places where the community is intentionally not planned around the car.  I don't believe they exist in the good ol' USA excluding smaller military installations, though it seems to be the ongoing wet-dream of every Progressive city-planner statist.  If you know of a place, sign me up!  I'm afraid I'll have to leave the country.

Screw what other sheeple think!  Your political philosophies certainly fall outside the norm, why not your transportation habits? What are they laughing at... your efficiency?

[MachineGhost]

Screw what other sheeple think!  Your political philosophies certainly fall outside the norm, why not your transportation habits? What are they laughing at... your efficiency?

I live in suburbia.  Explain to me why the the delays, the inconvenience, the hassle and the stigma of trying to use public transportation (walking is ridiculously infeasible) to get the most simplest of tasks done is warranted above having a car that gets you there and back with a minimum of fuss and complexity?  Wasting your life on inefficiencies is exactly how you stay poor, in more ways than just financial.  Its also dangerous in a car heavy culture with muppet drivers (!!!) to be riding a bicycle (or a motorcycle, for that matter) outside.

If I lived in the Big City with practical access to low-cost groceries, etc., I may feel entirely differently.  But there are costs and compromises to doing so which you don't have to make living in suburbia.  Unfortunately.  I blame the government do-gooders for its decades policy of urban sprawl.  One of the reasons Oregon is so attractive is due to its strict zoning codes.  Cities are cities.  Suburbs are suburbs.  Farms are farms.  But that isn't quite enough to get to the promised land.

[Pointedstick]

Yeah, I'm with doodle on this one. Who cares what other people think? MG, it sounds more like YOU--not other car-drivers--are the one who scoffs at cyclists and bus-riders, associating them with people you hold negative views about. I would hazard a guess that you avoid their modes of transportation because your self-image does not include "poor people" and "hippies", but this is veering awfully close to terrotory carved out by liberals who say things like, "I won't buy a gun because gun owners are stupid uneducated cousin-humping right-wing militia redneck hicks."

Just prejudice, plain and simple. If you want to save gas money and get more exercise, just do it! 

I live in a suburb, too. A bicycle makes it easy to go a distance less than 5 miles or so. Dunno where you live, but in the SF bay area (not even SF itself), traffic is so awful and there are so many stoplights that driving is often the least efficient way of getting from point A to point B as long as that distance is less than a few miles. To me, the sweet spot is owning a car but driving it only 3 or 4 times a week, when you need to haul a load, travel far, or the like.

[Pointedstick]

This seems appropriate to share: http://www.artofmanliness.com/2013/04/2 ... y-walking/

[rocketdog]

A libertarian is a minarchist statist.  An anarchist is an anti-statist.

Jeez, I've been a Libertarian for 15 years and I've never even heard the term "minarchist"! 

[Pointedstick]

IMHO, the libertarian movement gets too caught up with labels and ideological purity. What matters most is that regardless of what we call ourselves, we all want less government control. Where we stop is less relevant and can be addressed once we get there.

[Benko]

IMHO, the libertarian movement gets too caught up with labels and ideological purity. What matters most is that regardless of what we call ourselves, we all want less government control. Where we stop is less relevant and can be addressed once we get there.

+++

I think there is far too much discussion of labels (rather than what people believe or wish to have done) here.  I think part of this is people overly enamored of the state (and imposing their wishes on others) trying to muddy the waters.  Or perhaps I'm just being too cynical.

[Reub]

That is why liberals are successful politically. They carry a false narrative to get elected and then brutally insert their real agenda whenever they can get away with it. 

[MachineGhost]

I think there is far too much discussion of labels (rather than what people believe or wish to have done) here.  I think part of this is people overly enamored of the state (and imposing their wishes on others) trying to muddy the waters.  Or perhaps I'm just being too cynical.

Labels are necessary to communicate and communicating with people that don't have labels for referrants that you do in your own mind makes it an eventual reductionist proposition to sound bites at the worst.  I don't think you're being cynical; idealogues intentionally confuse language because that is their power over the muppets.  I've been guilty of this myself except I don't have an ulterior agenda of muppet control, so I assume I can be forgiven.

If anything, I'm becoming more and more troubled by the lack of diversity in the forum.  We tend to drive away more liberal-leaning members because we set a high barrier for effective communication and tend to circle jerk around the forum's center-right ideaology.  That's getting boring.

My participation in the forum has actually moderated my own ideaology (real not utopian).  Facts are brutal.

[Pointedstick]

My participation in the forum has actually moderated my own ideaology (real not utopian).  Facts are brutal.

Same here. I used to be a pretty hardcore austrian anarchist. Now I understand MR and think that anarchy is a nice principle that most of the world isn't ready for. If anything, the intellectual titans on this forum have pulled me from the brink of extreme libertarianism and closer toward mainstream libertarianism.

[MachineGhost]

Same here. I used to be a pretty hardcore austrian anarchist. Now I understand MR and think that anarchy is a nice principle that most of the world isn't ready for. If anything, the intellectual titans on this forum have pulled me from the brink of extreme libertarianism and closer toward mainstream libertarianism.

So, we are all minarchists now? 

[RuralEngineer]

The Bad:  The EPA transformed into a bureaucracy interested mainly in its own survival and growth instead of its original mission.  Many industries (and subsequent jobs) have moved off-shore.  Way too many snail darters and spotted owls cluttering the earth  Millions more human malaria deaths due to banning of DDT.

I'm sure the spotted owl's feel the same about humans. If you ask me, there are too many of our species cluttering the earth. :-)

Dear God, I agree with Doodle about something?  I need a drink...