|
Post by jdredd on Jul 16, 2014 10:39:32 GMT -5
www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/us/politics/left-and-libertarians-unite-to-amend-house-spending-bills.html?hpw&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpHedThumbWell&module=well-region®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well"WASHINGTON — From abortion to electronic privacy to background checks for gun purchases, a strange thing has been happening on the floor of the House as it debates its spending bills for the coming fiscal year: the stirrings of liberalism. The House on Thursday voted 221 to 200 to approve an amendment by one of its most vocal liberal members, Representative Rosa DeLauro, Democrat of Connecticut, to ban federal contracts for companies that set up sham headquarters in offshore tax havens like Bermuda. Thirty-four Republicans bucked their party to push it to passage.That was only the most recent stirring of life on the House’s left flank. Democrats have long hoped they could find common cause on at least some issues with the Republican conference’s libertarian wing. That is starting to happen, fueled by rising distrust of government on the right, a willingness of Democrats to defy the Obama administration in some instances and a freewheeling amendment process on appropriations bills." There seems to be a slow but steady wearing down of the traditional left/right political spectrum, replaced with the Libertarian idea of one end being statist and the other anarchist (libertarian). Even Libertarians can't be wrong all the time. Though it does seem odd that Libertarians would support a bill to punish corporations hiding their money overseas.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jul 26, 2014 17:03:49 GMT -5
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/25/hudgins-rand-paul-revolution-in-silicon-valley/"In the past, the GOP has been perceived, with some truth, as the party pimping for business privileges. Today, however, Democrats want to blur this distinction between the two systems so they can punish achievers with taxes and regulations, all the while taking the lead from Republicans by giving special favors to their business buddies. Again, Mr. Paul and the GOP can offer the new entrepreneurs clarity about the crony system and the honest, free-market alternative. More important in the long run than the political support these new entrepreneurs might offer the GOP are the values they hold and are promoting in our culture. First, they respect the power of human reason, which gives us an almost infinite capacity to change the world for the better. Second, they understand that individuals matter — that individuals, not government bureaucracies, are the driving force behind human progress. Third, they love their work and seek personal fulfillment through productive achievement. Fourth, they know that their efforts help to create a world as it can be and should be. To put it in Ayn Rand language, they have the values and spirit of a Howard Roark and now need the politics of a John Galt. These are just the values that must triumph over the pernicious entitlement culture that today is replacing proud, personally responsible citizens with whining, servile subjects. In the end, only these values can provide the foundation for the restoration of individual liberty." I like "in the past, the GOP has been perceived, with some truth, as the party pimping for business privileges". Ya think? But since the GOP seems to be the party of choice for business owners (And who doesn't want to be one...if they could? It's much more fun to do the hiring and firing instead of being the victim of it), it should appeal to many Silicon Valley types. Yes, Ayn Rand lives, unfortunately. Like we need an ideological excuse to be even more self-centered. And I got a good ckle out of "...human reason, which gives us an almost infinite capacity to change the world for the better". People do forget Ayn Rand was an atheist. (By the way, wasn't John Galt the head of Enron? Maybe not) Do Silicon Valley types "love their work"? Well, I'm sure it's nice to be a brilliant software developer, but that option is closed to most of us. I tried to get "personal fulfillment" out of cleaning toilets but somehow it eluded me. Alas, the idea that "...their efforts help to create a world as it can be and should be" requires me to believe that the individual can make a difference, something I am a little skeptical of.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Aug 11, 2014 0:17:29 GMT -5
www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/aug/10/vaquita-porpoise-brink-extinction-gulf-california/"SAN FELIPE, Mexico — For years, scientists have warned of the declining numbers of vaquita porpoise, a small and elusive sea mammal endemic to the muddy waters of the Upper Gulf of California. With fewer than 100 vaquita believed alive today, the species is now facing a new threat to its survival: growing demand for another endangered species in the region, the giant totoaba fish, whose swim bladder is valued in China for its perceived medicinal value." This is the third thread I've posted this on because it's something that seems more important to me than most of what passes for news. Yet today I was just reading an article how Rand Paul's libertarianism is appealing to more and more young people. What does Libertarianism have for a solution to extinctions caused by market forces like this? Not a thing, in fact it's against government protecting any species. If that's what the Millennials want, so be it.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Sept 3, 2014 21:56:55 GMT -5
www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/03/rand-paul-iraq_n_5762270.html"Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) raised eyebrows this weekend when he endorsed one of the most hawkish positions toward the Islamic State militants currently wreaking havoc in Iraq and Syria. "If I were president, I would call a joint session of Congress," Paul told the AP. "I would lay out the reasoning of why ISIS is a threat to our national security and seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily." That put the self-professed non-interventionist to the right of many of his fellow presidential hopefuls, who sounded more tentative notes when asked about the proper U.S. response. Seeking to "destroy ISIS militarily" would require some sort of ground presence in the region, and involve far greater American involvement in another Middle East conflict." Looks like Rand Paul is headed for the LINO (Libertarian In Name Only) department. How predictable was that? His one shining moment, when he stood up against killer drones is being washed away, and all the GOP Presidential wannabees will just be even more peas in a pod, policy-wise. The Reps will be stuck picking one on personality alone. Of course, that might be enough to beat Hillary, since she is likability challenged.
|
|
|
Post by oerdin on Sept 4, 2014 13:58:24 GMT -5
Rand Paul is a clown and it is pathetic that some people are dumb enough to think he's a serious candidate. The man just loves to lie, it's his default position on most topics, but he sticks too his lies tenaciously. It is hilarious when there is video tape showing Paul saying exactly what he just denied ever saying.
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Sept 7, 2014 3:20:39 GMT -5
www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/us/politics/left-and-libertarians-unite-to-amend-house-spending-bills.html?hpw&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpHedThumbWell&module=well-region®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well"WASHINGTON — From abortion to electronic privacy to background checks for gun purchases, a strange thing has been happening on the floor of the House as it debates its spending bills for the coming fiscal year: the stirrings of liberalism. The House on Thursday voted 221 to 200 to approve an amendment by one of its most vocal liberal members, Representative Rosa DeLauro, Democrat of Connecticut, to ban federal contracts for companies that set up sham headquarters in offshore tax havens like Bermuda. Thirty-four Republicans bucked their party to push it to passage.That was only the most recent stirring of life on the House’s left flank. Democrats have long hoped they could find common cause on at least some issues with the Republican conference’s libertarian wing. That is starting to happen, fueled by rising distrust of government on the right, a willingness of Democrats to defy the Obama administration in some instances and a freewheeling amendment process on appropriations bills." There seems to be a slow but steady wearing down of the traditional left/right political spectrum, replaced with the Libertarian idea of one end being statist and the other anarchist (libertarian). Even Libertarians can't be wrong all the time. Though it does seem odd that Libertarians would support a bill to punish corporations hiding their money overseas. Both parties have been moving left for years. Such was the message of Pres. Regan that the Democrats left him. The Republicans, in an effort to fight the give aways that the Democrats use to buy votes, move in behind them to attempt to get a piece of the pie. That is part of the reason the Tea Party is so popular, they are pulling back in the realm of big government and fiscal responsibility. Some Democrats support the Tea Party because they are fiscally conservative AND minimizing government tends to allow a liberal social policy.
|
|
|
Post by oerdin on Sept 7, 2014 18:48:11 GMT -5
My ass. Compare where either party was in 1970 or 1980 to today. BOTH parties are far, far, faaaaaaaarrrrrrr to the right of where they historically were.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Sept 8, 2014 3:06:09 GMT -5
OK, now you guys have me totally confused. Have the parties moved to the left or right? Sadly, from my reading of history, the Democrats moved over to the right a long time ago, about the time of Truman, when they bought the Republican's "Anti-Communist Crusade" and intervened in Korea. There was some movement back to the left for the Dems about 1968-1972, but that fizzled out with McGovern's defeat. The Dems were perceived as leftist anyway, even though they still backed the Cold War, until it ended. Then Clinton got the Dems back on top by moving them to the right in 1992, where they have been pretty much since. I would not call Obamacare leftist in any way, it is a giveaway to the health insurance industry IMHO. Real leftist health care reform would be like Britain's. As for foreign policy, from where I sit the Dems and the GOP are indistinguishable. And as I see it, both parties are beholden to Wall Street. The Tea Party pretends to oppose Wall Street, but in fact they are doing it's bidding.
|
|
|
Post by oerdin on Sept 9, 2014 1:44:21 GMT -5
What he said.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Sept 9, 2014 2:11:14 GMT -5
Uh-oh! Anyone who agrees with me is doomed to the scorn and contempt of the vast majority of their fellow man!
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Sept 25, 2014 0:27:02 GMT -5
Ya know, if I thought I could trust a Libertarian to stick to their non-interventionist philosophy, I might be able to put up with their economic idiocy and environmental head-in-the-sand policies and vote for one. But even Rand Paul has been backtracking on his isolationism and cutting back on Pentagon over-spending, so to heck with them.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Sept 26, 2014 16:21:00 GMT -5
I renamed this thread "Libertarianland", because a Libertarian society is a fantasy utopia.
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Sept 26, 2014 21:05:38 GMT -5
I renamed this thread "Libertarianland", because a Libertarian society is a fantasy utopia. and how to did you come to that conclusion?
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Sept 27, 2014 1:00:21 GMT -5
I renamed this thread "Libertarianland", because a Libertarian society is a fantasy utopia. and how to did you come to that conclusion? Hey, hi Turk! Wassup? In my humble opinion, libertarianism taken to it's logical conclusion equals anarchy, which everyone knows doesn't work. People need laws, it's just a matter of which ones. The social and economic free-for-all of Libertarianism just doesn't appeal to me.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Sept 30, 2014 12:42:46 GMT -5
www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/09/hayek-and-libertarianism"According to Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek and everyone else who knows what he or she is talking about, well-functioning markets depend, inter alia, upon clear property rights and a judicial system that enforces agreements and resolve disputes. These institutions set the basic rules that govern the elements in the system (eg, you and me, in our capacity as buyers and sellers of goods, services, and labour) and account for its stable, higher-level emergent properties, such as allocative efficiency. The "rules of the game" determine the pattern or order that emerges when we, the players, play by those rules." So that's the deal? Government force will still be around in the Libertarian Utopia, but just to enforce the "rules of the game" such as property rights? Well, excuse me if I'm not that fond of the "game" itself. Perhaps mankind needs a new "game" to survive the next hundred years.
|
|