Emotions and Politics

[TripleB]

Before you go off in search of "new gun control" as a emotional response to the CT shooting, think about the last time in recent history where a significantly emotional event let to new horrific political maneuvering.

September 11th, 2001 - led to:

1) Unjust war in Iraq
2) Unjust war in Afganistation
3) Patriot Act 1
4) Patriot Act 2
5) TSA molesting children at airport
6) Suspension of Habeas Corpus / Infinite Detention without trial, legal representation, or charges

Consider:

Did any of those make us safer?

Did the public's emotional response to the tragedy of Sep 11 allow politicians to devastate the Constitution with new legislation?

Will any new proposed gun control, short of 100% confiscation, have prevented the CT shootings?

[smurff]

Don't forget:

7) Torture (renamed "enhanced interrogation techniques")

[Benko]

If you haven't already, read Doodles posts in the school shooting thread and look at his implicit assumptions.  A lot of people believe those things and although I applaud your appealing to reason, that is not the way many people make decisions (as you point out in this thread title).

I may be entering black helicopter area, but a lot of the policies that liberals want to institute seem to fit their overall agenda, with crises merely excuses to get them implemented.  For example I presume that Obama is intelligent enough to know that his increasing taxes on the wealth is only going to increase revenue by a trivial amount (compared to what is being  spent) but his worldview is that the rich must be "punished" (phrase it any way you wish) so he wants it.  An armed public is really a threat to those who wish to totally centralize control (control seems to be one of the central tenets of liberals) so guns have got to go.

[doodle]

Benko,

Actually there are a lot of libertarians who are finding quite a bit of common ground with liberals. I think this particular seminar was most enlightening about what this common ground looks like and what some central areas of disagreement are between the two camps. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0nnLGbniZ4

EDIT: You can fastforward to about the 5th minute....to get past introductions.

[Benko]

Over the weekend, Houston Democrat Precinct Chair John Cobarruvias tweeted, "Can we now shoot the #NRA and everyone who defends them?"

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... RA-Members

There are good reasons that the number of such comments by democrats far exceeds the number of such comments by republicans.

[doodle]

I recommend you watch the video. I think you would be surprised by the common ground that can be found....

[doodle]

For less of a "common ground" style debate that touches on thornier issues....Sam Seder vs. Stefan Molyneux is pretty good.

I think Mr. Molyneux (although brilliant) comes off sounding a little uptopic when describing what a purely libertarian state would look like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vVW1t900Jg

[Benko]

Doodle,

I have libertarian tendencies.  As far as I know, libertarians are very live and let live, and are not into forcing their views on other people.

Best I can tell liberals are sure they are always right, and wish to shove their views down everyone's throat and make everyone believe, and act as they do, not to mention silencing dissent, (and character assination of their enemies).  You are a walking poster person for liberals.

[doodle]

I'm not shoving my views down anyones throat. I just think that certain issues must be hashed out in a society through the process of government involvement.

I would be more libertarian...if the philosophy was more consistant. The brand of "libertarianism" in the United States is really state sponsored corporatism. Corporations after all are an entity of the state. They are given personhood and the owners of such a corporation have limited liability. Society benefits greatly from this structure, but this structure also needs to be regulated.

What American libertarians want to do it seems, is maintain the state sponsored corporate structure, and eliminate any laws and regulations protecting other groups of people.

[Benko]

So it is laughable to accuse only liberals of such behavior.

Straw man anyone?  Doodle was saying how alike libertarians and liberals were, and I replying to his post pointing out that I did not believe that to be the case.  You put silly words in my mouth and then point out how silly they are.  Bravo.

Of course republicans do that sometimes, but nowhere near to the overwealming extent liberals do.  911 is also a special case and I'm not totally sure what my feeling are on all the responses to that (well aside from the airport securty threater). 

[doodle]

Benko,

Again, I encourage you to watch that video that talks about common ground between liberals and libertarians. We need a little kumbaya every once in a while. 

I think the main point is that both groups want liberty, they just have slightly different ideas on what that word means. It is interesting to listen to both side explain their philosophies...

[Benko]

I think the main point is that both groups want liberty, they just have slightly different ideas on what that word means.

Words have meanings.  You can not make liberty mean what you wish.

[Benko]

Why is 911 a special case? 

Seriously?  Because thousands of people died.  Because it was a foreign attack on US soil.  Meaning effective (i.e. screw political correctness) measures to prevent future attacks in terms of things done withing this country are something I am in favor of.

I am not defending the wars, or the TSA.

"Suspension of Habeas Corpus "
Does that apply to non-citizens or people who are terrorists?  Would you have tried bin laden in US court?

[RuralEngineer]

Have to agree, the reaction to 9/11 was at least as bad, if not worse, than what's happening now. The Republicans are just as bad as the liberals at forcing their agenda on people. I just happen to be impacted less by the Republican agenda than the Democrat's.

End of the day they're both enemies of freedom.

[doodle]

Have to agree, the reaction to 9/11 was at least as bad, if not worse, than what's happening now. The Republicans are just as bad as the liberals at forcing their agenda on people. I just happen to be impacted less by the Republican agenda than the Democrat's.

End of the day they're both enemies of freedom.

I think that ultimately society is the enemy of individual freedom. If I want to walk naked through manhattan and piss on the bronze bull, it is social standards of decency that limit my freedom to do so...not republicans or democrats.

[murphy_p_t]

I'm not shoving my views down anyones throat. I just think that certain issues must be hashed out in a society through the process of government involvement.

why?

I would be more libertarian...if the philosophy was more consistant. The brand of "libertarianism" in the United States is really state sponsored corporatism.

I think your perception is inaccurate. Libertarian people like Lew Rockwell lament the combination of state and corporate power.

Even people like the Koch brothers want less involvement of governement in industry.

[RuralEngineer]

I think that ultimately society is the enemy of individual freedom. If I want to walk naked through manhattan and piss on the bronze bull, it is social standards of decency that limit my freedom to do so...not republicans or democrats.

You have a point only in so far as the Republicans and Democrats are representative of the majority of our society.  However, I reject the notion that the only way to have individual freedoms is to go live in the wilderness like Grizzly Adams.  You can have a society that espouses individual freedom.

It may be telling that your example of how you'd exercise your individual freedom involves public urination.  I like to think that I'm mature enough to live in a society with very few laws.  I don't need laws to keep me from urinating on public landmarks.  However, I do concede that society is never comprised fully of mature individuals and so certain "freedoms" must be restricted through the use of law and forceful coercion.

[TripleB]

I would be more libertarian...if the philosophy was more consistant. The brand of "libertarianism" in the United States is really state sponsored corporatism. Corporations after all are an entity of the state. They are given personhood and the owners of such a corporation have limited liability. Society benefits greatly from this structure, but this structure also needs to be regulated.

HB discusses the fallacy of political regulation frequently. He states that the first level of regulation is personal regulation. A person can freely decide whether to do business with a certain company. If the company can't prove their product is safe, or if the company engages in activities the person does not like, then the person can simply choose to spend their dollars with another company.

The second level is consumer regulation. Other consumers will be posting reviews on social networking sites or on Amazon for example. If a product or business sucks, you'll know in advance from other previous customers.

The third level is industry regulation. This does not mean that industries regulate themselves, but it means that competitors will spring up to provide the demands the consumer asks for. So if Company A is not providing a good service/product, then Company B will spring up and meet that unmet need. Thus, competition is the basis for this level of regulation.

The fourth level of regulation is political, by the government and it NEVER works. The argument that we need political regulation is like saying "I can't figure out what products are good for myself, and neither can anyone else. We need politicians to find an appropriate product mix and force it on everyone else."

For example, I might choose to fly on an airliner that does allow private citizens with documented training to carry concealed firearms on the plane. As such, I wouldn't need to be hit with cancer-causing radiation or be subject to a patdown, and I'd be able to defense myself on a plane if necessary (side note, the plane will NOT immediately explode or decompress if a bullet goes through the hull... that's nonsense they do in movies).

And another individual might actually prefer if EVERYONE got patted down and frisked because they feel the current system isn't safe enough. However, politicians have decided for us what the "best" level of safety on an airplane is and stripped us of the freedom to make that decision.

Liberty is lost because I can no longer decide that I want to buy unfiltered cigarettes, or that I want to buy a car without a seatbelt, or that I can take an experimental drug that might cure my rare fatal disease. Even if I rip the filters off the cigarettes before use, I'm required to pay extra for cigarettes that have a filter. Even if I never wear a seatbelt while driving, I'm required to pay extra for a car that has one. Even if I'm going to die without access to an un-FDA approved medicine that works in Europe, I'm required to die without the option to try it.

Government regulation is the equivalent of loss of liberty and it insults our abilities to decide things for ourselves. Imagine there was no FDA. Would you simply let your children die rather than taking medicine that hasn't been federally approved? Or would you do your own research and find out what previous results are? Would you ask other parents how it worked with their kids? Perhaps you'd demand that the pharmaceutical company submit their drug for testing through a private trusted non-biased 3rd party.

Perhaps your level of perceived safety in a drug is different from mine. Why force me to comply with your choices?

HB put out an incredible 2 hour long radio episode titled "Regulation" and I highly recommend it. I summarized the major points above.

[CA PP]

Hi tripleB,

Would you have the link to the radio show you refer to? thanks.

[TripleB]

Hi tripleB,

Would you have the link to the radio show you refer to? thanks.

The specific episode on Regulation is:

ftp://radio.harrybrowne.org:3031/04-01-03a.mp3
ftp://radio.harrybrowne.org:3031/04-01-03b.mp3

The general archive is:
http://www.harrybrowne.org/Archives/Archives.htm

I changed my mindset after listening to a few of these radio shows and reading "Why Government Doesn't Work." - I was more of a moderate libertarian and the more I learn/listen to HB, the more I realize how wrong I was and why government can never work. Not just the US government but any government.

[doodle]

I would be more libertarian...if the philosophy was more consistant. The brand of "libertarianism" in the United States is really state sponsored corporatism. Corporations after all are an entity of the state. They are given personhood and the owners of such a corporation have limited liability. Society benefits greatly from this structure, but this structure also needs to be regulated.

HB discusses the fallacy of political regulation frequently. He states that the first level of regulation is personal regulation. A person can freely decide whether to do business with a certain company. If the company can't prove their product is safe, or if the company engages in activities the person does not like, then the person can simply choose to spend their dollars with another company.

The second level is consumer regulation. Other consumers will be posting reviews on social networking sites or on Amazon for example. If a product or business sucks, you'll know in advance from other previous customers.

The third level is industry regulation. This does not mean that industries regulate themselves, but it means that competitors will spring up to provide the demands the consumer asks for. So if Company A is not providing a good service/product, then Company B will spring up and meet that unmet need. Thus, competition is the basis for this level of regulation.

The fourth level of regulation is political, by the government and it NEVER works. The argument that we need political regulation is like saying "I can't figure out what products are good for myself, and neither can anyone else. We need politicians to find an appropriate product mix and force it on everyone else."

For example, I might choose to fly on an airliner that does allow private citizens with documented training to carry concealed firearms on the plane. As such, I wouldn't need to be hit with cancer-causing radiation or be subject to a patdown, and I'd be able to defense myself on a plane if necessary (side note, the plane will NOT immediately explode or decompress if a bullet goes through the hull... that's nonsense they do in movies).

And another individual might actually prefer if EVERYONE got patted down and frisked because they feel the current system isn't safe enough. However, politicians have decided for us what the "best" level of safety on an airplane is and stripped us of the freedom to make that decision.

Liberty is lost because I can no longer decide that I want to buy unfiltered cigarettes, or that I want to buy a car without a seatbelt, or that I can take an experimental drug that might cure my rare fatal disease. Even if I rip the filters off the cigarettes before use, I'm required to pay extra for cigarettes that have a filter. Even if I never wear a seatbelt while driving, I'm required to pay extra for a car that has one. Even if I'm going to die without access to an un-FDA approved medicine that works in Europe, I'm required to die without the option to try it.

Government regulation is the equivalent of loss of liberty and it insults our abilities to decide things for ourselves. Imagine there was no FDA. Would you simply let your children die rather than taking medicine that hasn't been federally approved? Or would you do your own research and find out what previous results are? Would you ask other parents how it worked with their kids? Perhaps you'd demand that the pharmaceutical company submit their drug for testing through a private trusted non-biased 3rd party.

Perhaps your level of perceived safety in a drug is different from mine. Why force me to comply with your choices?

HB put out an incredible 2 hour long radio episode titled "Regulation" and I highly recommend it. I summarized the major points above.

TripleB, there was another famous philosopher who thought that the State was unnecessary....his name was Marx. You see, once the proletariat or lowest class of people gained control, there would be no one under them to be exploited and so the state would wither away.

Libertarianism operates on the same type utopic principles regarding human nature that Communism showed don't exist yet. I believe that possibly humans might one day experience a shift in consciousness away from our ape like mentalities and be able to function under such a system as you describe, but it is before its time.

I mean, at the very least we need a court system to resolve disputes and then have someone to enforce these court resolutions. If that is the case, then we need to have at least some government. Otherwise people would just solve problems like the mafia. We need institutions of public safety, police departments, fire departments etc. Or should companies and individual neighborhoods create their own private police forces? What happens if I purchase fire insurance and my next door neighbor in the attached townhouse doesn't. When his house burns down, do I just have to resign myself to the fact that mine is a goner as well?

I think you have been drinking a little too much of the libertarian kool-aide...

When the Libertarians come to town
Everything will turn upside down
No one will wear a frown
When the Libertarians come to town

The government will shrink to naught
Your coffee will always be hot
And it will be the cheapest you've ever bought
When the Libertarians come to town

You won't have to pay income taxes
No need to worry about downsizers' axes
The best companies will send you faxes
When the Libertarians come to town

The invisible Hand of Nature will keep
Every business exec and veep
On the straight and narrow, and we all will reap
Peace and plenty when the Libertarians come to town

The free market will improve every school
Child geniuses will become the rule
Our learning will make every nation drool
When the Libertarians come to town

When the Libertarians to Washington come
The streets will clear of vandal and bum
Pimps and pushers will get to run
Safe and legal businesses for everyone
When the Libertarians come to town

Send in the Libertarians...
Send in the Libertarians...
Won't someone, please, send in the Libertarians...

[Pointedstick]

Doodle, I actually half agree. Libertarianism in many ways does kind of require libertarians, whereas back in the real world a lot of people are afraid of choice and make terrible decisions.

However, prosperity and freedom create libertarians. The more wealth and choices people have access to, the less social institutions determine one's fate or place in society, the more empowered people become. America of today is a far more libertarian society than it was in 1950, 1900, 1850, 1800, or even the founding. That's why I favor less government regulation; it tends to diminish freedom and prosperity, and therefore the tendency of people to become more libertarian is itself narrowed as people increasingly bicker over who the government should subsidize, which industries need The Benevolent Touch Of Government, whose wealth should be redistributed to whom, etc. We increasingly fight over slicing the pie rather than baking a bigger one.

As for the court system thing… in the feudal ages, there were many private courts. In fact, petitioners often chose the court they wanted to appeal to. And we actually have a lot of private dispute-resolution services in mainstream America today. What remains a monopoly is the criminal court.

[doodle]

Doodle, I actually half agree. Libertarianism in many ways does kind of require libertarians, whereas back in the real world a lot of people are afraid of choice and make terrible decisions.

However, prosperity and freedom create libertarians. The more wealth and choices people have access to, the less social institutions determine one's fate or place in society, the more empowered people become. America of today is a far more libertarian society than it was in 1950, 1900, 1850, 1800, or even the founding. That's why I favor less government regulation; it tends to diminish freedom and prosperity, and therefore the tendency of people to become more libertarian is itself narrowed as people increasingly bicker over who the government should subsidize, which industries need The Benevolent Touch Of Government, whose wealth should be redistributed to whom, etc. We increasingly fight over slicing the pie rather than baking a bigger one.

As for the court system thing… in the feudal ages, there were many private courts. In fact, petitioners often chose the court they wanted to appeal to. And we actually have a lot of private dispute-resolution services in mainstream America today. What remains a monopoly is the criminal court.

I'm a live and let live person (although I have a reputation here as a totalitarian dictator). I agree with a lot of libertarian positions. I also think that the libertarians fail to seriously address a lot of other issues that I find very important such as environmental protection, equality of opportunity, tragedy of the commons...to name a few.

The Libertarian vision seems a bit utopic to me. People are people and if you get rid of the government there are going to be other powerful entities with even less public accountability that fill the power vacuum. With a properly enlightened group of individuals, libertarianism might be a very successful system. Trying to implement libertarian principles into the world we live in today will in my mind result in many less than desirable outcomes. I think Enron might be a case example of how corporations royally took advantage of a deregulated market to screw over the customer for their own personal profit.

[Pointedstick]

The Libertarian vision seems a bit utopic to me. People are people and if you get rid of the government there are going to be other powerful entities with even less public accountability that fill the power vacuum. With a properly enlightened group of individuals, libertarianism might be a very successful system. Trying to implement libertarian principles into the world we live in today will in my mind result in many less than desirable outcomes. I think Enron might be a case example of how corporations royally took advantage of a deregulated market to screw over the customer for their own personal profit.

I think this is where the disagreement lies. Libertarians such as myself don't see government as being very accountable to the public at all. In the elections at the local level where the policies have the most direct impact, usually less than 20% will vote. Even in national elections, usually barely more than half manage to drag themselves to the polls.

We think that firms are more accountable because they need to be constantly satisfying their customers or else they go out of business. People vote with their dollars every day by choosing to purchase some things and not others, to patronize some establishments and avoid the alternatives.

There are many arguments that can be made for government, but I don't think accountability to the people is among the better ones. Binary yes-no voting every few years is one of the worst information transfer mechanisms I can think of, especially for the sophisticated issues governments face.

I'm not sure I follow your Enron example. They made mistakes, they went bankrupt, and now they're not around anymore. What was the problem again?

[doodle]

The California electricity crisis, also known as the Western U.S. Energy Crisis of 2000 and 2001, was a situation in which California had a shortage of electricity caused by market manipulations and illegal shutdowns of pipelines by Texas energy consortiums. The state suffered from multiple large-scale blackouts, one of the state's largest energy companies collapsed, and the economic fall-out greatly harmed Governor Gray Davis's standing.

Drought, delays in approval of new power plants,[4] and market manipulation decreased supply. This caused 800% increase in wholesale prices from April 2000 to December 2000.[5] In addition, rolling blackouts adversely affected many businesses dependent upon a reliable supply of electricity, and inconvenienced a large number of retail consumers.

California had an installed generating capacity of 45GW. At the time of the blackouts, demand was 28GW. A demand supply gap was created by energy companies, mainly Enron, to create an artificial shortage. Energy traders took power plants offline for maintenance in days of peak demand to increase the price.[6][7] Traders were thus able to sell power at premium prices, sometimes up to a factor of 20 times its normal value. Because the state government had a cap on retail electricity charges, this market manipulation squeezed the industry's revenue margins, causing the bankruptcy of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and near bankruptcy of Southern California Edison in early 2001.[8]

The financial crisis was possible because of partial deregulation legislation instituted in 1996 by Governor Pete Wilson. Enron took advantage of this deregulation and was involved in economic withholding and inflated price bidding in California's spot markets.[9]
The crisis cost between $40 to $45 billion.[