THe Libertarians are coming! The Libertarians are coming!

[kittynh]

From The Baltimore Sun...
as seen in the Keene Sentinel Sunday Feb.23,2003
byMarego Athens

"Wanted: 20,000 Libertarians and a sparse state"

"Plans are underway for an invasion of New Hampshire. Or Wyoming. Or maybe Delaware, Montana or Alaska. Sparsely populated and independent in spirit, they're all attractive targets for a certain bloodless coup in the making.
WIthin the next several years, according to the plan, 20,000 Libertarians would move to a single state and begin infiltrating. They'd get jobs, join civic groups, get elected and take a hatchet to taxes and laws. In this utopia called the Free State Project, schools would be severed from the state, gun control laws abolished, drugs legalized, health and social services privatized, most federal aid rejected."

So, I live in the "Live Free or Die" state, which already has a pretty Libertarian slogan!
Shanek, are you moving here???
If so, can I throw you a "welcome to the state and when do I get my school voucher?" party?
Can I help you infiltrate? I think it would be fun to be part of a "bloodless coup"! Do I get a secret code name, like Natasha ?

anyway, pack your parkas, and Welcome to New Hampshire!

[corplinx]

I would rather give the northeast states and Washington state to Canada. Then you give California back to Mexico. Voila, your ratio of libertarians to socialists becomes much better.

[Cecil]

Originally posted by corplinx
I would rather give the northeast states and Washington state to Canada. Then you give California back to Mexico. Voila, your ratio of libertarians to socialists becomes much better. Of course, that's assuming that we actually WANT those northeast states in the first place.

[shanek]

Originally posted by kittynh
Shanek, are you moving here???

If I were to move to another state, NH would certainly be near the top of the list. However, I don't think this "free state" project has a very good prospect for success (although I'd love to be proven wrong!), and at this point in my life it's just too difficult to uproot myself from my family and community here. Besides, I've made too much progress here at home to abandon it now.

As for the Libertarians participating in the "free state" project, I wish them the best of luck, even if I'm skeptical of their chances of success.

[DialecticMaterialist]

lol. Funny plan. Always wondered myself if humanists/secularists and skeptics could go and take over a small state. ;)

[kittynh]

well, looking around my state I would say it just might work here...
people have the misconception that the entire NE is very liberal.

They forget, "Live Free of Die"

or the unofficial slogan, "Tax us and you Die"

No income or sales tax, not now never gonna be one...
at least as long as my neighbor remains heavily armed.
Then I work in Vermont. It's a bit of a contrast!
both nice states, but we're talking more than ying and yang here.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by shanek
As for the Libertarians participating in the "free state" project, I wish them the best of luck, even if I'm skeptical of their chances of success.

I'm not sure I can wish them luck. Without wishing to discuss the practicalities of Libertarian politics, there's no doubt that it's a pretty radical programme. Legalising drugs, sweeping away restrictions on guns, allowing abortion on demand and refusing federal aid is a package that many will find unacceptable. Is it fair to hijack a state in this way and force it on those who have lived there for generations?

[kittynh]

the whole state is populated with people that have moved here recently for "quality of life" or "low taxes". Vermont is even worse, full of New York accents. It's rare to hear a real Vermont accent anymore, which is really sad.

well, I moved here for my kids too! so I'm as guilty as anyone. My home is built on an old farm that my neighbor owned for generations, but now that he is older his kids decided they don't want to live in such a "cold climate" (not sure I blame them). so, he split the farmland up for lots (mind you high acerage lots, but it's being allowed to go back to woodland, it's no longer farmed)

[fishbob]

Legalising drugs, sweeping away restrictions on guns, allowing abortion on demand and refusing federal aid You say this like it is a bad thing.:D

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
I'm not sure I can wish them luck. Without wishing to discuss the practicalities of Libertarian politics, there's no doubt that it's a pretty radical programme.

Is there something inherently wrong with being "radical"?


Legalising drugs, sweeping away restrictions on guns, allowing abortion on demand

So far so good.


and refusing federal aid

I might have a problem with this one myself. Since exemption from federal income taxes would not be a part of this scenario, it actually seems kind of un-libertarian to stand in the way of the citizens of a state actually receiving the federal services they're still having to pay for.


Is it fair to hijack a state in this way and force it on those who have lived there for generations?

Just depends on what you're going to be doing with it. If you're only going to bring an end to unfairness that probably shouldn't have been taking place to begin with, that certainly sounds like a worthy objective.

And regarding your use of the word "force", you might have a point regarding the rejection of federal aid. But on the other stuff, it seems misplaced, since those things are all about allowing individuals to make more of their own choices. Would anyone actually be forced to buy guns or drugs, or to have an abortion?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
I'm not sure I can wish them luck. Without wishing to discuss the practicalities of Libertarian politics, there's no doubt that it's a pretty radical programme. Legalising drugs, sweeping away restrictions on guns, allowing abortion on demand and refusing federal aid is a package that many will find unacceptable. Is it fair to hijack a state in this way and force it on those who have lived there for generations?

They're talking about removing force from their lives. They're doing this because they're sick and tired of people using government to force their ideologies on them. They're not forcing anything on anyone.

[shanek]

Originally posted by WMT1
I might have a problem with this one myself. Since exemption from federal income taxes would not be a part of this scenario, it actually seems kind of un-libertarian to stand in the way of the citizens of a state actually receiving the federal services they're still having to pay for.

Except that that money always comes with strings attached. And the Federal government makes it very difficult for a state to stop receiving Federal aid once they start.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by shanek
They're talking about removing force from their lives. They're doing this because they're sick and tired of people using government to force their ideologies on them. They're not forcing anything on anyone.

Once again, I'm not out to discuss the practicalities or dispute the merits of Libertarianism. Rather, I wish to question whether having a large group of like-minded people move to a specific area purely to change the political demographic is an infringement of the liberties of those already living there. After all, if they wanted to vote Libertarian, they could already do so.

I appreciate what you're saying about removing the force (no Star Wars pun intended) from their lives, but do they see it that way? Once again, they're already free to vote Libertarian if they wished to do so. The fact that large-scale immigration is required to turn the state Libertarian would suggest they don't do so.

Can you imagine how you'd feel if your least-favourite political movement shipped its followers into your neck of the woods and turned it into their idealogical utopia? They might well argue that their programme is good for you (which is effectively what you're saying in the paragraph quoted above), but does this give them the right to impose it on you?

Once again, this isn't about the merits of Libertariansim - comparisons between your politics and the hypothetical example in the previous paragraph are irrelevent. It's the methodology I wish to question.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
Rather, I wish to question whether having a large group of like-minded people move to a specific area purely to change the political demographic is an infringement of the liberties of those already living there.

In order to be an infringement of liberty, there must be some form of force applied. Are these Libertarians going to sieze land by force to live on? No. Are they going to force NH employers to give them jobs? No. Are they going to hold a gun to their neighbors in the ballot box and force them to mark straight Libertarian? No.

Where's the force?

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by shanek
In order to be an infringement of liberty, there must be some form of force applied. Are these Libertarians going to sieze land by force to live on? No. Are they going to force NH employers to give them jobs? No. Are they going to hold a gun to their neighbors in the ballot box and force them to mark straight Libertarian? No.

Once again, how would you feel if (for example) the Communist Party pulled a similar stunt in your home state, and immediately banned handguns, adopted a zero-tollerance drugs policy, enforced a minimum wage and raised taxes to subsidise public transport? Would you not resent this blatant breach of the spirit of democracy?

Remember, if the Libertarians succeed in swamping the polls, the entire state will have to live with their policies, not just the newcomers.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
Once again, how would you feel if (for example) the Communist Party pulled a similar stunt in your home state, and immediately banned handguns, adopted a zero-tollerance drugs policy, enforced a minimum wage and raised taxes to subsidise public transport? Would you not resent this blatant breach of the spirit of democracy?

Actually, I'd resent the blatant breach of the spirit of freedom.

(Is that difference starting to sink in yet?)



Remember, if the Libertarians succeed in swamping the polls, the entire state will have to live with their policies, not just the newcomers.

Um ... how long have libertarians been having to live with policies resulting from Democrats & Republicans swamping the polls?

[fishbob]

If enough Libertarians move to NH to swamp the polls, then there will not be enough of them left to influence elections anywhere else. . . oh.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
Once again, how would you feel if (for example) the Communist Party pulled a similar stunt in your home state, and immediately banned handguns, adopted a zero-tollerance drugs policy, enforced a minimum wage and raised taxes to subsidise public transport? Would you not resent this blatant breach of the spirit of democracy?

Yes, but not because of their methods; rather because they'd be flagrantly violating the Constitution. The Libertarians wouldn't be doing that. They would be restoring the Constitution.

[Reager]

Originally posted by shanek


Yes, but not because of their methods; rather because they'd be flagrantly violating the Constitution. The Libertarians wouldn't be doing that. They would be restoring the Constitution.

Or, at least, their conception of it. :)


Mike

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by WMT1
Actually, I'd resent the blatant breach of the spirit of freedom.

Again, you're defending the merits rather than the methods of the Libertarians. The Communists could certainly put forward a similar arguement supporting such actions - social justice, freeing the workers from oppression, etc. And I'm not advocating communism here, so let's not derail the thread by condemning it.

(Is that difference starting to sink in yet?)

Let's not bring it down to this level either.

Um ... how long have libertarians been having to live with policies resulting from Democrats & Republicans swamping the polls?

For as long as they've been beating you in elections without artificially manipulating the political demographic.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by shanek
Yes, but not because of their methods; rather because they'd be flagrantly violating the Constitution. The Libertarians wouldn't be doing that. They would be restoring the Constitution.

Then your position is a consistent and respectable one. We'll have to agree to disagree, though, because their methods would irritate me something chronic.

As a side note, which aspects of the hypothetical political package I outlined earlier would violate the constitution? I guess banning handguns could qualify, but would anything else?

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


I'm not sure I can wish them luck. Without wishing to discuss the practicalities of Libertarian politics, there's no doubt that it's a pretty radical programme. Legalising drugs, sweeping away restrictions on guns, allowing abortion on demand and refusing federal aid is a package that many will find unacceptable. Is it fair to hijack a state in this way and force it on those who have lived there for generations?

It is only radical if you believe government is entitled tell citizens how to conduct their own lives even when they are not interfering with anyone elses right to do the same thing. It is not really the Libertarian agenda to "legalize" drugs. Simply saying that presumes that "drugs" should be illegal and that the government should be in the business of telling citizens what they may or may not choose to ingest. Likewise, the second amendment is quite clear. Law should be based on the preservation of civil liberty and there should be legal sanctions against activities which specifically interfere with another's civil liberties. Some people are under the misapprehension that things should be legal or illegal based on whether they approve of them or not. It's not about whether or not one thinks guns or drugs are bad or good, it's about whether or not the government should be in a position to make that choice for you.

Originally posted by Ian Osborne



Can you imagine how you'd feel if your least-favourite political movement shipped its followers into your neck of the woods and turned it into their idealogical utopia? They might well argue that their programme is good for you (which is effectively what you're saying in the paragraph quoted above), but does this give them the right to impose it on you?

Once again, this isn't about the merits of Libertariansim - comparisons between your politics and the hypothetical example in the previous paragraph are irrelevent. It's the methodology I wish to question.

This would not be the first time this has happened in America.

Bleeding Kansas. (http://www.civilwaralbum.com/misc/kansas_bld1.htm)

[Reager]

Originally posted by billydkid


It is only radical if you believe government is entitled tell citizens how to conduct their own lives even when they are not interfering with anyone elses right to do the same thing. It is not really the Libertarian agenda to "legalize" drugs. Simply saying that presumes that "drugs" should be illegal and that the government should be in the business of telling citizens what they may or may not choose to ingest.

I don't think it warrants that presumption. Saying that certain drugs should be "legalized" is also a positioned one can take in response to their current status as "illegal," without addressing any grander notions of government.

Likewise, the second amendment is quite clear.

For an amendment that is "clear" there's certainly a whole lot of disagreement about what it means.

Mike

Law should be based on the preservation of civil liberty and there should be legal sanctions against activities which specifically interfere with another's civil liberties. Some people are under the misapprehension that things should be legal or illegal based on whether they approve of them or not. It's not about whether or not one thinks guns or drugs are bad or good, it's about whether or not the government should be in a position to make that choice for you.

[kittynh]

I always sort of assumed that Utah was run by the Mormons. Is this true?

[Libertarian]

I think the Libertarians are being optimistic on TWO points.

1. Getting 20,000 people to live in a particular state.

2. Thinking that a mere 20,000 is enough to be a "tipping point" in politics.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne

For as long as they've been beating you in elections without artificially manipulating the political demographic.

No, they've just been beating us by artificially manipulating the election system.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


Then your position is a consistent and respectable one. We'll have to agree to disagree, though, because their methods would irritate me something chronic.

As a side note, which aspects of the hypothetical political package I outlined earlier would violate the constitution? I guess banning handguns could qualify, but would anything else?

Without getting into it at a level that would require a whole other thread for each of them:

and immediately banned handguns,

Second Amendment violation.

adopted a zero-tollerance drugs policy,

Ninth Amendment violation.

enforced a minimum wage

Commerce Clause violation.

and raised taxes to subsidise public transport?

Tenth Amendment violation.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Libertarian
2. Thinking that a mere 20,000 is enough to be a "tipping point" in politics.

If even half that number end up being activist Libertarians, then it very well could be. I've seen first-hand the changes that can be brought about by a handful of activists.

Originally posted by shanek


Yes, but not because of their methods; rather because they'd be flagrantly violating the Constitution. The Libertarians wouldn't be doing that. They would be restoring the Constitution.

shanek, greater men than you and I have determined the Constitutionality of drug and gun laws already. As well as minimum wage laws, and so on.

I don't like some of these laws. But your calling them unconstitutional doesn't make it so, and you sound strident in your persistence in saying they are, and give the impression of extremism.

The Libertarians actually have some pretty good arguments about freedom. They match fairly consistently with the arguments made by our nation's forefathers.

But by always taking an extremist view, and labelling everything as unconstitutional, and wanting to decriminilaze every weapon and drug under the sun, they will never get anywhere. To blame the lack of success of Libertarians on Republicans and Democrats is being self-deluded. If you had a better, saner message, people would listen.

[Victor Danilchenko]

shanek

No, they've just been beating us by artificially manipulating the election system.get real. Republicans and democrats don't need to manipulate the election system to make sure that libertarians don't win.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
get real. Republicans and democrats don't need to manipulate the election system to make sure that libertarians don't win.

Apparently they think they do.

[shanek]

Originally posted by LukeT
shanek, greater men than you and I have determined the Constitutionality of drug and gun laws already.

Yeah, by "interpreting" the Constitution until it means something other than what it says. I'm going straight by the plainly worded language of the document.

But by always taking an extremist view,

It's called a "constructionist" view, not an "extremist" view. Constructionists are not extremists.

and labelling everything as unconstitutional,

I have provided support for these claims. It's not just a label.

To blame the lack of success of Libertarians on Republicans and Democrats is being self-deluded. If you had a better, saner message, people would listen.

People are listening. But every time we try to get ahead, the Democrats and Republicans pass more "campaign finance reform" laws that make it more and more difficult for us to get our message out. I have supported this, too, and provided verifiable examples.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
get real. Republicans and democrats don't need to manipulate the election system to make sure that libertarians don't win.

I have provided verifiable examples of this in the past. There's an existing thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14617) on one right now. We have to face so many restrictions that just don't apply to the Democrats and Republicans. Our party gets bankrupted every four years getting on the ballot while the Democrats and Republicans get a free ride. The Democrats and Republicans enjoy free advertising while we're restructed on the advertising we can purchase. They redo the districts so that they're guaranteed victory in the elections. They flat-out ignore votes (the way NC ignored Constitutionally valid votes for Ralph Nader in 2000). They control the Boards of Election, which deny Libertarians the right to run for office for reasons not permitted by the state Constitutions.

For crying out loud, man, HOW MUCH MORE EVIDENCE DO YOU NEED????

(edited to add link to other thread)

Originally posted by shanek


It's called a "constructionist" view, not an "extremist" view. Constructionists are not extremists.

I'm sure every extremist has another name for themselves. "Fundamentalist." Whatever.

I have provided support for these claims. It's not just a label.

Except for the support of the U.S. Supreme Court and the people of the United States.


People are listening. But every time we try to get ahead, the Democrats and Republicans pass more "campaign finance reform" laws that make it more and more difficult for us to get our message out. I have supported this, too, and provided verifiable examples.

No, people are not listening. And you are not listening to The People. And your claims sound just like any other extremists, or woo-woo's. (http://www.paranormalnews.com/article.asp?articleID=402)

Until the Libertarians get it through their heads that the vast majority of Americans don't want their coworkers to be able to legally buy crack cocaine, or for a local Neighborhood Watch to be able to legally purchase an M-1 tank, then they will always be extremists. That is what makes an extremist: they hold a tiny portion of the population's viewpoint.

When you can't garner many more votes than a guy wearing a tin foil hat who demands the government disclose what it knows about UFOs, then it is time to reassess some of your positions.

Geez, even Ross Perot managed to get 20 percent of the national vote!

A Libertarian vote is a throwaway vote. Everyone knows it. Some percentage of the votes they receive are from people who believe in their cause. The rest is the "I'm fed up with the whole system so I'm gonna vote for the guy in the tin foil hat" vote. You guys are fooling yourselves if you believe every vote you get is from a supporter.

Even a guy like Paul Bethke is capable of making sense once in a while. But nobody cares about that. He is an obvious loon.

You can continue to be stubborn, and hold on to your extremist views out of some misguided principle, or you can listen to the American people.

Buried in all your ridiculous platforms are some real valuable kernels which I think most Americans would agree with. I think we all feel like there is just too much government involvement in our lives. That doesn't mean we want zero involvement. I wish you guys would figure that out.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
Once again, how would you feel if (for example) the Communist Party pulled a similar stunt in your home state, and immediately banned handguns, adopted a zero-tollerance drugs policy, enforced a minimum wage and raised taxes to subsidise public transport? Would you not resent this blatant breach of the spirit of democracy?

Originally posted by WMT1
Actually, I'd resent the blatant breach of the spirit of freedom.

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
Again, you're defending the merits rather than the methods of the Libertarians.

Actually, I'm just responding to a question you asked. Did you want me to answer it or not?

Besides, the "methods" are analogous to a tool. As I said before, it just depends on what you're going to do with them. If you're going to use that tool to advance freedom, and without violating anyone else's in the process, then I see little to object to, and suspect that those complaining the loudest would only be doing so because of something they would no longer be able to force on someone else.

Perhaps an example would help. What if interracial relationships were forbidden just about everywhere, but a relatively small group of like-minded people wanted to live where they would be allowed, and their only option was to specifically move somewhere and change the laws to allow them? I have no doubt that some of the locals would have a problem with it, but should their discomfort with the situation really be of much concern in that situation?

And, that example aside, just exactly what is it that you think someone should be able to do that an influx of libertarians into their state would no longer allow them to do?


The Communists could certainly put forward a similar arguement supporting such actions - social justice, freeing the workers from oppression, etc.

That's not a similar argument. The word I used was "freedom". Can't see many communists trying to make that one fly. And if any of them ever cares to be pinned down on their ideas about "social justice" or "oppression", I'd probably be happy to engage them there too.

If your point is that some people use bogus rhetoric to support their philosophy or agenda, then be clear about it, and we'll see where that takes us. But if you're attempting to suggest that the "spirit of freedom" I mentioned somehow does not apply to libertarians, well, good luck making that case.


And I'm not advocating communism here, so let's not derail the thread by condemning it.

I haven't, but if you're going to "derail the thread" by making comparisons between libertarianism and communism, just be prepared for someone to further "derail the thread" by pointing out the absurdities in any such comparisons.


(Is that difference starting to sink in yet?)

Let's not bring it down to this level either.

Then let's also not bring it down to the level of making absurd comparisons. Deal?


Um ... how long have libertarians been having to live with policies resulting from Democrats & Republicans swamping the polls?

For as long as they've been beating you in elections without artificially manipulating the political demographic.

Um ... have you noticed whether they've been "manipulating" anything else? Is there some reason you only object when libertarians consider fighting back with a little manipulation of their own?

[WMT1]

Originally posted by LukeT
shanek, greater men than you and I have determined the Constitutionality of drug and gun laws already. As well as minimum wage laws, and so on.

You mean more powerful men? If not, just what is it exactly that makes them "greater"? And are they so great that any dissenting opinion is automatically unworthy of consideration?


I don't like some of these laws. But your calling them unconstitutional doesn't make it so,

He did a bit more than that. You might want to take another look, and at least give credit where it's due.


and you sound strident in your persistence in saying they are,

That may be because no one's refuted his claims.


and give the impression of extremism.

Based on what?


The Libertarians actually have some pretty good arguments about freedom. They match fairly consistently with the arguments made by our nation's forefathers.

But by always taking an extremist view,

You earlier made a comment "your calling them unconstitutional doesn't make it so". Well, guess what. Your continuing to simply refer to someone's views as "extremist" don't make it so, either.


and labelling everything as unconstitutional,

As nearly as I can tell, he hasn't labelled everything unconstitutional, and for the items he has, he appears prepared to back up his comments. Are there any in particular you'd like to take issue with, and explain why you think he's wrong?


To blame the lack of success of Libertarians on Republicans and Democrats is being self-deluded.

Actually, the lack of success is more attributable to the people who keep voting for those Republicans and Democrats. Most of them don't know a damn thing about libertarianism. And many of the ones who do get caught up in the "wasted vote" nonsense. Allow libertarians into the debates, across the board, on a regular basis, and then see what happens.


If you had a better, saner message, people would listen.

Actually, some people are listening to that message. And you'd be hard pressed to actually make the case that it is any less "sane" than anything anyone else is putting out there. Do I need to remind you that you yourself said "The Libertarians actually have some pretty good arguments about freedom"?


Until the Libertarians get it through their heads that the vast majority of Americans don't want their coworkers to be able to legally buy crack cocaine,

Actually, libertarian philosophy isn't about catering to the desires of those who want to control their fellow human beings. It's about letting people make choices that are theirs to make.


or for a local Neighborhood Watch to be able to legally purchase an M-1 tank, then they will always be extremists.

Where did you get the idea that this is an objective of most libertarians?


That is what makes an extremist: they hold a tiny portion of the population's viewpoint.

Oh, so that's all you mean by "extremist"? Kinda like the first abolitionists or civil rights advocates, huh? Heck, I guess it could even be a badge of honor. Sometimes it's important to argue for what's right without checking to see which way the wind is blowing, or waiting for others to pave the way.


When you can't garner many more votes than a guy wearing a tin foil hat who demands the government disclose what it knows about UFOs, then it is time to reassess some of your positions.

When most of the arguments you can manage to come up with against a particular viewpoint are about its lack of popularity, maybe it's time to reassess yours.


Geez, even Ross Perot managed to get 20 percent of the national vote!

And how much money did he have to work with? And oh yeah, did he get a shot at debating the major candidates?


A Libertarian vote is a throwaway vote. Everyone knows it.

So is every vote. When's the last time yours swung a major election?


Some percentage of the votes they receive are from people who believe in their cause. The rest is the "I'm fed up with the whole system so I'm gonna vote for the guy in the tin foil hat" vote. You guys are fooling yourselves if you believe every vote you get is from a supporter.

And you're fooling yourself if you think nobody who votes for Democrats and Republicans would prefer it if Libertarians were a significantly bigger player in the game. Sorry, but your arguments against this philosophy you don't agree with need a hell of a lot of work.


You can continue to be stubborn, and hold on to your extremist views out of some misguided principle, or you can listen to the American people.

And do what? Become non-libertarians? Again, sometimes it's important to take a stand for what's right. If others insist on following the herd, that's their problem.


Buried in all your ridiculous platforms are some real valuable kernels which I think most Americans would agree with.

As I said, most Americans don't know a damn thing about the platform, nor have they heard the arguments. And for someone who thinks they're so "ridiculous", you're sure having a lot of trouble coming up with much of anything beyond "there are more of us than there are of you!"


I think we all feel like there is just too much government involvement in our lives. That doesn't mean we want zero involvement. I wish you guys would figure that out.

So what? Neither do most libertarians. Sounds like you may be getting some bad information. There's a lot of that going around.

[shanek]

Originally posted by LukeT
I'm sure every extremist has another name for themselves. "Fundamentalist." Whatever.

"Constructionist" is a well-accepted term in jurisprudence.

No, people are not listening. And you are not listening to The People.

Gee. I wonder why we have 30% more registered Libertarians in my home county than we did before I ran for office. I wonder why we had a record number of canidates last year with record vote totals. I wonder why we quadrupled the number of elected Libertarians in the state. :rolleyes:

And your claims sound just like any other extremists, or woo-woo's. (http://www.paranormalnews.com/article.asp?articleID=402)

Except that I've been able to back up my claims with evidence. You've heard of that, right?

That doesn't mean we want zero involvement. I wish you guys would figure that out.

When did I ever claim I wanted zero involvement? You're just blindly dismissing what I say without even trying to understand it, presumably because it contradicts your own personal views.

[Reager]

Hi everyone,

As this thread has gotten away from responding to Ian's question (which was an interesting one), I just thought I'd give my response to it:

Is it fair to hijack a state in this way and force it on those who have lived there for generations?

The question of "fairness" presumes that people whose families have resided in a state for generations have some right to prevent changes in that state's laws prompted by others who move to that state for the admittedly sole purpose of changing those laws.

It seems to me that any such right can either be founded on 1) political/legal or 2) moral principles.

I know of no legal or political principle that is violated by the above scenario (at least none that is supported by the US Cconstitution, our way of government, or our laws). Perhaps I'm wrong, but I can't think of one. Citizens are free to move to and reside in whichever state they choose, for whatever reason they choose, and participate in local government. A changing geopolitical demographic is neither inconsitent with the idea of democracy, nor is it incompatable with a federal republic form of government. Equal protection under the law, however, is incompatable with allowing particular citizens more rights than others, merely they or their ancestors have lived in a particular state for a particular length of time.

Morally, is it "fair" for one group to move into a state (or town or nation) for the sole purpose of changing the law? I don't think the notion of "fairness" can properly be applied here, as it implies that those 20,000 people are acting in such a way or taking advantage of something that the remaining citizenry cannot. We could just as easily ask if sit-ins are more "unfair" than a letter-writing campaign, or if donating to a politician's campaign is more "fair" than walking around town and handing out flyers. Perhaps "hijacking" a state is not the most noble way to affect change (it certainly has the detriment of bypassing reasoned political persuasion in a "marketplace of ideas"), but is it "unfair?" I'm thinking no (but I'm open to other opinions).

Mike

[shanek]

Originally posted by WMT1
Oh, so that's all you mean by "extremist"? Kinda like the first abolitionists or civil rights advocates, huh? Heck, I guess it could even be a badge of honor. Sometimes it's important to argue for what's right without checking to see which way the wind is blowing, or waiting for others to pave the way.

For that matter, the JREF is "extremist," by his definition.

Originally posted by WMT1


Where did you get the idea that this is an objective of most libertarians?



Are you denying that the Libertarian party is in favor of legalizing crack cocaine, or the "right" to own any weapon one chooses?

[Sanamas]

The whole idea of moving to a specific region for the sole purpose of changing the law doesn't quite sit right with me. It's like gerrymandering in reverse.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Sanamas
The whole idea of moving to a specific region for the sole purpose of changing the law doesn't quite sit right with me.

So you're opposed to the Iraq invasion then?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Sanamas
The whole idea of moving to a specific region for the sole purpose of changing the law doesn't quite sit right with me. It's like gerrymandering in reverse.

Why? Was not one reason our ancestors came here in the first place so that they could be free to form their own communities? What's so wrong with a group of like-minded people moving to the same area so they can form their own community?

[bignickel]

What the hell was that? I was typing my goddam post and then suddenly the screen changed and said "thank you for logging in"? And my post disappeared? Grrr!

Anyway short version:

Libertarian voters have been consistently outvoted in the 50 states by the majority of non-libertarian citizens. As a result, those who prize liberty have no state that they can go to enjoy the fruits of liberty, because in every single state, the majority there prefers to have the government regulate every little thing, even the chemicals you have in your brain.

Which is better: for the majority in all 50 states to consistently outvote it's libertarian members, or for those who value essential freedoms to make themselves the majority of a state for a change?

This very legal, and very ethical method of securing freedomes is exactly the way to go, and much more preferrable to the alternatives out there.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by WMT1
Besides, the "methods" are analogous to a tool. As I said before, it just depends on what you're going to do with them. If you're going to use that tool to advance freedom, and without violating anyone else's in the process, then I see little to object to, and suspect that those complaining the loudest would only be doing so because of something they would no longer be able to force on someone else.

In other words, it's okay to use those methods, as long as it's to further your agenda. However you dress it up, that's what you're saying.

exactly what is it that you think someone should be able to do that an influx of libertarians into their state would no longer allow them to do?

To borrow Luke's example, to live in a community where their co-workers can't by crack cocaine and the local neighbourhood watch can't buy an M1 tank. If those people were happy with that sort of community, thay'd be voting Libertarian already.

That's not a similar argument. The word I used was "freedom". Can't see many communists trying to make that one fly. And if any of them ever cares to be pinned down on their ideas about "social justice" or "oppression", I'd probably be happy to engage them there too.

Seconded, but again you're discussing the politics, when my point was to question the methods.

If you're going to "derail the thread" by making comparisons between libertarianism and communism, just be prepared for someone to further "derail the thread" by pointing out the absurdities in any such comparisons.

I did not compare Libertarians with Communists. In fact, I used Communism to illustrate my point because it's diametrically opposed to Libertarianism. I was questioning the methods we're discussing, and to illustrate my point, asked how you and Shane would feel if a political movement you had no truck with swamped your area specifically to change the political demographic.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by LukeT
The Libertarians actually have some pretty good arguments about freedom. They match fairly consistently with the arguments made by our nation's forefathers.

But by always taking an extremist view, and labelling everything as unconstitutional, and wanting to decriminilaze every weapon and drug under the sun, they will never get anywhere. To blame the lack of success of Libertarians on Republicans and Democrats is being self-deluded. If you had a better, saner message, people would listen.

I suspect that if the Libertarians ever gained a significant foothold in American politics, their programme would become a little less radical. After all, it's easy to uphold a looks-good-on-paper philosophy when you don't have to cope with the harsh realities of actually implimenting it.

And like you, I feel they have something to offer - I hope they do gain that foothold, but not through self-serving methods like the one discussed in this thread.

Originally posted by WMT1

You earlier made a comment "your calling them unconstitutional doesn't make it so". Well, guess what. Your continuing to simply refer to someone's views as "extremist" don't make it so, either.


Definition of extremist. (http://www.bartleby.com/61/45/E0304500.html)


NOUN: One who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm, especially in politics.


When most of the arguments you can manage to come up with against a particular viewpoint are about its lack of popularity, maybe it's time to reassess yours.

I am against the extremist Libertarian viewpoint for more than reasons of popularity. Their views, if implemented, would be a hazard to our society.

And do what? Become non-libertarians? Again, sometimes it's important to take a stand for what's right. If others insist on following the herd, that's their problem.

So The People are just a herd to you. That's pretty scary. They are a herd because they don't agree with the Libertarian extremist position. That makes them wrong, and the Libertarians right. Okay.


As I said, most Americans don't know a damn thing about the platform, nor have they heard the arguments. And for someone who thinks they're so "ridiculous", you're sure having a lot of trouble coming up with much of anything beyond "there are more of us than there are of you!"

I stated two examples quite plainly to your deluded eyes. Legalizing crack cocaine and unlimited weapons for all.

Originally posted by WMT1

Oh, so that's all you mean by "extremist"? Kinda like the first abolitionists or civil rights advocates, huh? Heck, I guess it could even be a badge of honor.

Or kinda like the first Brown Shirts. Or the first Bolsheviks. It could be a mark of shame.

[Ian Osborne]

I agree 100% that the Libertarians would be doing nothing illegal in making a move as discussed, but:

Originally posted by mfeldman
Morally, is it "fair" for one group to move into a state (or town or nation) for the sole purpose of changing the law? I don't think the notion of "fairness" can properly be applied here, as it implies that those 20,000 people are acting in such a way or taking advantage of something that the remaining citizenry cannot.

I can't agree that this is a valid definition of what's fair. Rather, the Libertarians are being unfair (IMHO) because they're denying the residents of the community they propose to join the right to determine their own politics. As Shane rightly said, no force is being applied, but as such a vast influx of like-minded voters would be difficult to resist through the usual political channels, I would regard it as a breach of the spirit of democracy.

Incidentally, in the UK, we have rules that say to vote in a political constituency, you must have resided there for a certain length of time (around six months, IIRC). If you move close to an election, you have to register for a postal vote and vote where you previously resided. I lost my right to vote in one General Election because I moved house and wasn't aware of the rule. Annoying, but better than letting 38 voters with sleeping bags hire a bedsit in a marginal for a week. Does the US have similar rules?

Perhaps "hijacking" a state is not the most noble way to affect change (it certainly has the detriment of bypassing reasoned political persuasion in a "marketplace of ideas"), but is it "unfair?" I'm thinking no (but I'm open to other opinions).

I'm thinking 'yes', especially as the Libertarians hold personal freedoms so dear.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by shanek
Why? Was [moving to a specific region for the sole purpose of changing the law] not one reason our ancestors came here in the first place so that they could be free to form their own communities? What's so wrong with a group of like-minded people moving to the same area so they can form their own community?

Ask a native American ;)

It's not a brilliant analogy, as there certainly was force applied in the dispossession of the Indians, but the lack of respect for those already living in the region is at least similar.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by bignickel
Libertarian voters have been consistently outvoted in the 50 states by the majority of non-libertarian citizens. As a result, those who prize liberty have no state that they can go to enjoy the fruits of liberty, because in every single state, the majority there prefers to have the government regulate every little thing, even the chemicals you have in your brain.

Which is better: for the majority in all 50 states to consistently outvote it's libertarian members, or for those who value essential freedoms to make themselves the majority of a state for a change?

This very legal, and very ethical method of securing freedomes is exactly the way to go, and much more preferrable to the alternatives out there.

I find your assumption that Libertarians lose elections because the rest of America is too stupid to realise you're right patronising in the extreme, and your reference to the move described in this thread as being 'ethical' without even mentioning those already living in your target state quite terrifying. Your attitudes have more in common with the Communits or Fascists than you realise (and WMT1, note I said attitudes, not politics, and you give more rational Libertarians a bad name.

I'd be interested to hear Shane's views on your post.

[Reager]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
I agree 100% that the Libertarians would be doing nothing illegal in making a move as discussed, but:



I can't agree that this is a valid definition of what's fair. Rather, the Libertarians are being unfair (IMHO) because they're denying the residents of the community they propose to join the right to determine their own politics. As Shane rightly said, no force is being applied, but as such a vast influx of like-minded voters would be difficult to resist through the usual political channels,

I think the same argument can be made for any form of political action. Moving en masse to one location is just a more extreme way of changing the laws, and it's an option that is available to everyone equally.


I would regard it as a breach of the spirit of democracy.


Perhaps, but the two may not be mutually consistent.


Incidentally, in the UK, we have rules that say to vote in a political constituency, you must have resided there for a certain length of time (around six months, IIRC). If you move close to an election, you have to register for a postal vote and vote where you previously resided. I lost my right to vote in one General Election because I moved house and wasn't aware of the rule. Annoying, but better than letting 38 voters with sleeping bags hire a bedsit in a marginal for a week. Does the US have similar rules?


As far as I'm aware, usually the only requirement to vote in a particular district is proof of residence (sleeping bags don't count...well, maybe in Chicago).

Mike

[bignickel]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne

I can't agree that this is a valid definition of what's fair. Rather, the Libertarians are being unfair (IMHO) because they're denying the residents of the community they propose to join the right to determine their own politics.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but how is it any more fair for the non-Libertarians to to deny the rights of the Libertarians the right to determine their politics.

The non-libs already outvote and outcontrol everyone in 50 states; the only thing here is a little citizen re-distribution, so that at least ONE state can exist where the citizens who most prize freedom can at least take advantage of it. Unless they want to create a 51st state for this purpose, I think they can stand the existance of at least 1 state that they don't control.

Some U.S. states do have a time period of residency requirement in order to vote in the elections there. See this link (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781452.html) for each state's requirements, and the Supreme Court ruling on this subject.

[Reager]

Originally posted by bignickel


Not to put too fine a point on it, but how is it any more fair for the non-Libertarians to to deny the rights of the Libertarians the right to determine their politics.

The non-libs already outvote and outcontrol everyone in 50 states; the only thing here is a little citizen re-distribution, so that at least ONE state can exist where the citizens who most prize freedom can at least take advantage of it. Unless they want to create a 51st state for this purpose, I think they can stand the existance of at least 1 state that they don't control.

I agree with you up to a point. The reason I think it may be "fair" is because the Libertarians would be employing a method of political action that is available to everyone. But the idea that it's somehow a laudable goal to have one state set aside for Group X to control is abhorrent to both the Constitution and 200 years of American jurisprudence.

Mike

[fishbob]

It has happened on a smaller scale for many other groups. There are towns and counties with racist majorities, with Baptist majorities, with Native American majorities, with Liberal majorities, and many others. At the state level the impact will be greater, but what other difference is there? If things get out of hand, the less extreme viewpoints will pick up votes and the more extreme viewpoints will lose votes. If things get way out of hand, we refer back to the Constitution, and the courts. The whole idea sounds like an interesting social experiment.

[flannery]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


I suspect that if the Libertarians ever gained a significant foothold in American politics, their programme would become a little less radical. After all, it's easy to uphold a looks-good-on-paper philosophy when you don't have to cope with the harsh realities of actually implimenting it.

And like you, I feel they have something to offer - I hope they do gain that foothold, but not through self-serving methods like the one discussed in this thread.

You have said what I have been trying to say far better than me.

User fees in lieu of taxes, drug legalization, no-holds-barred weapons ownership.

They have to face the harsh realities of compromise. The more strident their views, the less chance of ever getting anywhere, and being forever relegated to the fringes.

Originally posted by flannery


You have said what I have been trying to say far better than me.

User fees in lieu of taxes, drug legalization, no-holds-barred weapons ownership.

They have to face the harsh realities of compromise. The more strident their views, the less chance of ever getting anywhere, and being forever relegated to the fringes.

I was posting from work in my earlier posts, and then came home to continue the conversation. Unfortunately, my wife was on here earlier today and so I was automatically logged on under her user name, flannery. Sorry about any confusion.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by LukeT
or for a local Neighborhood Watch to be able to legally purchase an M-1 tank, then they will always be extremists

Where did you get the idea that this is an objective of most libertarians?

Are you denying that the Libertarian party is in favor of legalizing crack cocaine,

No, I'm not. Why the hell would I want to? It's just part of the objective of bringing an end to Prohibition Part II.


or the "right" to own any weapon one chooses?

Not sure whether they've taken a position on the tank you mention, but what's the relevance? You do understand that libertarian thinking extends far beyond the Libertarian Party or its platform, right? And last time I checked, "for a local Neighborhood Watch to be able to legally purchase an M-1 tank" was not on the list of goals of any libertarians I know. Moreover, the scenario that started this thread only mentioned "gun control laws". It said nothing about allowing anyone to own tanks. You seem to be grasping for stuff to complain about.

Besides, so far, your only complaints seem to be about the prospect of no longer being able to restrict the choices someone else might want to make anyway. Can you come up with any objections where that is not a factor?


You earlier made a comment "your calling them unconstitutional doesn't make it so". Well, guess what. Your continuing to simply refer to someone's views as "extremist" don't make it so, either.

NOUN: One who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm, especially in politics.

Nowhere in your definition do I see anything indicative of anyone doing anything wrong, or unlawful, or using force, or anything else along those lines. And to think all this time I thought you meant it as an insult. Thanks for clarifying things.

(Incidentally, if this is the definition you want to go with, you might want to reconsider some of your own uses of it in this discussion, since it would not seem to apply.)


When most of the arguments you can manage to come up with against a particular viewpoint are about its lack of popularity, maybe it's time to reassess yours.

I am against the extremist Libertarian viewpoint for more than reasons of popularity. Their views, if implemented, would be a hazard to our society.

Well, if you say so, I guess it must be true. :rolleyes:

(Judging from your comments in the pledge thread, I'd say society has more to fear from you.)


And do what? Become non-libertarians? Again, sometimes it's important to take a stand for what's right. If others insist on following the herd, that's their problem.

So The People are just a herd to you. That's pretty scary. They are a herd because they don't agree with the Libertarian extremist position.That makes them wrong, and the Libertarians right. Okay.

Good grief. Where do I begin?

First, is there some reason you felt the need to mangle what I actually said, possibly in order to create the impression of having an actual point?

Second, here is one of those places where the word "extremist" is misused since, using the definition you cited, it does not apply to Libertarians generally.

And if you disagree with any portion of what I said, as worded, can you identify which part? Is it the thing about taking a stand for what's right?

Anyway, just to clarify, the "herd" in this case pretty much refers to a majority, and it can be right at times, and wrong at times. The herd itself isn't necessarily the problem. It is those who tend to find comfort in following the herd, and who base a lot of their views on whatever the herd happens to be thinking, without applying a lot of critical analysis, skepticism, etc. to formulate their own views. Put another way, the problem is that portion of the herd that is there primarily because it's the herd. Sadly, that applies to a hell of a lot of people. And just like you've done in this discussion, their arguments almost always rely heavily on the popularity of their position (or the lack of popularity of whatever they're opposing) rather than points based on actual merit.


As I said, most Americans don't know a damn thing about the platform, nor have they heard the arguments. And for someone who thinks they're so "ridiculous", you're sure having a lot of trouble coming up with much of anything beyond "there are more of us than there are of you!"

I stated two examples quite plainly to your deluded eyes.

(And oh yeah, herd-followers also tend to rely heavily on calling their opponents stuff like "deluded" to compensate for the weakness of their own arguments.)


Legalizing crack cocaine and unlimited weapons for all.

Yeah, you mentioned these as objections. Still haven't seen much in the way of argument, especially any to make the case for the characterization "ridiculous".

Incidentally, are you under the impression libertarians would prohibit employers from drug testing their employees, or would force them to hire drug addicts?

And your "unlimited weapons for all" characterization almost sounds like you think libertarians would provide weapons for everyone. But that aside, is there some reason that objections to gun ownership outweigh the concerns of those who want to be able to defend themselves or their families?


Oh, so that's all you mean by "extremist"? Kinda like the first abolitionists or civil rights advocates, huh? Heck, I guess it could even be a badge of honor.

Or kinda like the first Brown Shirts. Or the first Bolsheviks. It could be a mark of shame.

Uh-huh. Let's examine how well you thought this through before you posted it. Take a look at my examples. Now take a look at yours. If you try real hard, do you suppose you could tell me whose objectives actually have more in common with libertarians? And is it even a close call?

[WMT1]

Originally posted by WMT1
Besides, the "methods" are analogous to a tool. As I said before, it just depends on what you're going to do with them. If you're going to use that tool to advance freedom, and without violating anyone else's in the process, then I see little to object to, and suspect that those complaining the loudest would only be doing so because of something they would no longer be able to force on someone else.

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
In other words, it's okay to use those methods, as long as it's to further your agenda. However you dress it up, that's what you're saying.

If it help you get there, sure. Why not? You seem to be suggesting that this is a problem, but as I keep pointing out, it actually matters what the agenda is.


exactly what is it that you think someone should be able to do that an influx of libertarians into their state would no longer allow them to do?

To borrow Luke's example, to live in a community where their co-workers can't by crack cocaine

So basically, just like I said earlier, the complaint in this case would concern something they could no longer tell someone else to do - or in this case, not to do.


and the local neighbourhood watch can't buy an M1 tank.

Don't know where you guys are getting this one. I've never encountered any libertarians who argue for this. Have there been a lot of neighborhood watch groups calling for a change in the laws to allow this? Is this really a problem?

Besides, the initial scenario only made reference to "gun control laws". What else ya got?


If those people were happy with that sort of community, thay'd be voting Libertarian already.

Well, to be precise, if the majority were happy with that sort of community, they'd probably already be living in one. For all you know, there may already be a significant minority there who would welcome the addition of enough libertarians to make them the majority.

However, let's apply your point to a more extreme situation:

"If those people were happy with a community that didn't allow slavery, they'd be voting to repeal it already."

Does that help make it any clearer that it actually matters what the agenda is?


Seconded, but again you're discussing the politics, when my point was to question the methods.

And in responding to your questioning of the methods, some of us are pointing out that the acceptability of those particular methods depends on the politics.


If you're going to "derail the thread" by making comparisons between libertarianism and communism, just be prepared for someone to further "derail the thread" by pointing out the absurdities in any such comparisons.

I did not compare Libertarians with Communists.

Good. Then I apologize if I jumped the gun on that point, but there are libertarian critics who have tried to do just that.


In fact, I used Communism to illustrate my point because it's diametrically opposed to Libertarianism.

The fact that it's diametrically opposed is exactly why the point fails, because, once again, the acceptability of this particular method depends on the merit of the particular goal in question. I raised the following questions earlier, but I didn't see an answer:

What if interracial relationships were forbidden just about everywhere, but a relatively small group of like-minded people wanted to live where they would be allowed, and their only option was to specifically move somewhere and change the laws to allow them? I have no doubt that some of the locals would have a problem with it, but should their discomfort with the situation really be of much concern in that situation?


I was questioning the methods we're discussing, and to illustrate my point, asked how you and Shane would feel if a political movement you had no truck with swamped your area specifically to change the political demographic.

And as I keep telling you, it depends on what they're trying to do. Otherwise, your question is a little like asking someone whether they prefer door #1 to door #2, without telling them what's behind either one.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
I find your assumption that Libertarians lose elections because the rest of America is too stupid to realise you're right patronising in the extreme,

Does it make any difference to you that this isn't what he said?


and your reference to the move described in this thread as being 'ethical' without even mentioning those already living in your target state quite terrifying.

If you're going to try to make a point out of what someone else hasn't mentioned, then how about being a little more responsive in your own posts? I'm still waiting for you to respond to those questions I asked regarding the analogy about interracial relationships.


Your attitudes have more in common with the Communits or Fascists than you realise

And if you're going to keep associating libertarians with Communists or Fascists (even though you claimed earlier that's not what you were trying to do), then at least be specific about it. What, specifically, are these "attitudes" you're talking about? Particularly, can you identify any such attitudes that have more in common with Communists or Fascists than they would with, say, passionate abolitionists or civil rights workers?


(and WMT1, note I said attitudes, not politics

And you still don't seem to want to acknowledge that whether the attitude is warranted depends on the politics. It actually matters whether you're trying to give people the freedom to run their own lives, or exercise more control over them.


and you give more rational Libertarians a bad name.

:rolleyes: Yeah, I've gotten the "bad name" stuff before, too, always from people who already disagree with me anyway, and usually when they're losing on the arguments. I guess it's supposed to make me start second guessing myself or something.

But if you're going to start making statements about how "rational" I am, then be prepared to make your case. I suggest you provide any quotes from my posts that you think help justify this rather insulting characterization, and then explain how they do, and be prepared to answer any questions I have about your assessment. Then we'll see if your actual standard for "rational" is anything more significant than how popular one's views are. So, please, and I mean this with all due respect, put up or shut up.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by flannery
User fees in lieu of taxes, drug legalization, no-holds-barred weapons ownership.

You keep citing examples of the things you object to, but I'm not sure I've yet seen a single argument in any of your posts to explain your objections, other than some variation on "a lot of other people think so too!".


They have to face the harsh realities of compromise. The more strident their views, the less chance of ever getting anywhere, and being forever relegated to the fringes.

I hate to burst your bubble, but as long as the Democrats and Republicans retain their current stranglehold on the process, just about any movement that doesn't already have significant financial resources to work with is likely to be "forever relegated to the fringes".

[shanek]

Originally posted by bignickel
because in every single state, the majority there prefers to have the government regulate every little thing, even the chemicals you have in your brain.

When were the people ever given a real choice between the two?

I can think of only two times. One was when Ronald Reagan ran for office in 1980, and his detractors said that he'd want to get rid of all these Departments, the minimum wage, etc., and the people voted him in in a landslide (too bad he didn't live up to the image of his detractors). The other was in 1994 when Republican house candidates, independent of their party, ran under a platform of dramatically cutting government and getting rid of taxes. Again, they were elected in droves, but unfortunately very few of them actually meant it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by LukeT
Definition of extremist. (http://www.bartleby.com/61/45/E0304500.html)

And what's "the norm"? One could argue that since Libertarianism is, for the most part, codified in the US Constitution, then Libertarianism is the norm and the current big government is the extremist position, at least as far as the Constitutional Republic is concerned.

Their views, if implemented, would be a hazard to our society.

Why?

[shanek]

Originally posted by mfeldman
But the idea that it's somehow a laudable goal to have one state set aside for Group X to control is abhorrent to both the Constitution and 200 years of American jurisprudence.

It wouldn't be "set aside" for Libertarians. It would simply be that the state has a larger proportion of Libertarians to its population than other states.

[shanek]

Originally posted by flannery
They have to face the harsh realities of compromise.

I'd love to know where people get the idea that Libertarians aren't willing to compromise. We aren't willing to stop with the compromise, btu I for one will get behind any measure that reduces government intrusion into our lives.

[shanek]

Originally posted by WMT1
And you still don't seem to want to acknowledge that whether the attitude is warranted depends on the politics. It actually matters whether you're trying to give people the freedom to run their own lives, or exercise more control over them.

I think this is an excellent point. There is a difference, for example, between freedom fighters taking up arms against an oppressive government to set up a free Republic, and power-hungry people taking up arms against a free government to set up a tyranny.

[shanek]

LukeT: Why don't you respond to this?

Originally posted by shanek
Gee. I wonder why we have 30% more registered Libertarians in my home county than we did before I ran for office. I wonder why we had a record number of canidates last year with record vote totals. I wonder why we quadrupled the number of elected Libertarians in the state. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by shanek
LukeT: Why don't you respond to this?

Gee. I wonder why we have 30% more registered Libertarians in my home county than we did before I ran for office. I wonder why we had a record number of canidates last year with record vote totals. I wonder why we quadrupled the number of elected Libertarians in the state.


Have the Libertarians managed to implement all of their goals yet? If they do, after people see the consequences of them, then I'm sure your popularity would rapidly drop.

WMT1, if you want to turn this into a drug or gun control topic, we have several of those already. I am, in fact, participating in shanek's gun control topic right now.

What I have been discussing is an overview of Libertarian policies as a whole. I used drugs and guns and user fees as examples of what I think are the extremist positions that the Libertarians take. I believe the majority of Americans are, and always will be, opposed to those kinds of views.

I am not saying Americans are opposed to everything the Libertarians promote.

As for my objections or views being equated with not being able to tell other people what they can or can't do, that goes to the heart of the matter.

If you guys believe that society can function with no stops in place, then you are nuts. Plain and simple.

I would happily engage in a topic about user fees vs. taxes, too. And I am a big fan of privatization of some government programs.

Originally posted by shanek


When were the people ever given a real choice between the two?

I can think of only two times. One was when Ronald Reagan ran for office in 1980, and his detractors said that he'd want to get rid of all these Departments, the minimum wage, etc., and the people voted him in in a landslide (too bad he didn't live up to the image of his detractors). The other was in 1994 when Republican house candidates, independent of their party, ran under a platform of dramatically cutting government and getting rid of taxes. Again, they were elected in droves, but unfortunately very few of them actually meant it.

They meant it, shanek. But this is where the harsh realities that Ian Osborne referred to ran full force into their ideals.

Originally posted by shanek
LukeT: Why don't you respond to this?

Gee. I wonder why we have 30% more registered Libertarians in my home county than we did before I ran for office. I wonder why we had a record number of canidates last year with record vote totals. I wonder why we quadrupled the number of elected Libertarians in the state.


Have the Libertarians managed to implement all of their goals yet? If they do, after people see the consequences of them, then I'm sure your popularity would rapidly drop.

WMT1, if you want to turn this into a drug or gun control topic, we have several of those already. I am, in fact, participating in shanek's gun control topic right now.

What I have been discussing is an overview of Libertarian policies as a whole. I used drugs and guns and user fees as examples of what I think are the extremist positions that the Libertarians take. I believe the majority of Americans are, and always will be, opposed to those kinds of views.

I am not saying Americans are opposed to everything the Libertarians promote.

As for my objections or views being equated with not being able to tell other people what they can or can't do, that goes to the heart of the matter.

If you guys believe that society can function with no stops in place, then you are nuts. Plain and simple.

I would happily engage in a topic about user fees vs. taxes, too. And I am a big fan of privatization of some government programs.

[Reager]

Originally posted by shanek


It wouldn't be "set aside" for Libertarians. It would simply be that the state has a larger proportion of Libertarians to its population than other states.

Yes I know. That's not what I was responding to.

Mike

[Libertarian]

Forget the Libertarians. (I know, I know, some of you would love to do that!)

Groups are ALREADY banning together to pass laws that they favor. Or haven't you heard of AARP or the NAACP? Why is it perfectly okay for these groups to ban together and obby the lawmakers, but NOT okay for the Libertarians to ban together and VOTE for the lawmakers?

Originally posted by Libertarian
Forget the Libertarians. (I know, I know, some of you would love to do that!)

Groups are ALREADY banning together to pass laws that they favor. Or haven't you heard of AARP or the NAACP? Why is it perfectly okay for these groups to ban together and obby the lawmakers, but NOT okay for the Libertarians to ban together and VOTE for the lawmakers?

You are comparing apples to oranges. It is one thing to band together and lobby. It is another thing to band together in a central geographic location.

I know, I know. The AARP is trying to take over Florida. :D

[Reager]

Originally posted by LukeT


You are comparing apples to oranges. It is one thing to band together and lobby. It is another thing to band together in a central geographic location.

I know, I know. The AARP is trying to take over Florida. :D


I've been trying to follow this debate without getting too hyped up on rhetoric, but I don't understand your reasoning at all. WHY is it wrong/unfair/whatever for a group of like-minded people to move to a central location and then participate in local government? You can say "well they're imposing their will on the other residents." Yes, I suppose that's true. But that's done all the time in a democracy. When compared to (lobbying efforts, for example) what makes this action a difference of kind and not of degree?

Mike

[shanek]

Originally posted by LukeT
Have the Libertarians managed to implement all of their goals yet? If they do, after people see the consequences of them, then I'm sure your popularity would rapidly drop.

:rolleyes:

I believe the majority of Americans are, and always will be, opposed to those kinds of views.

And on what are you basing this belief, other than your own personal biases?

If you guys believe that society can function with no stops in place, then you are nuts.

Combination strawman and ad hominem. Show where any Libertarian authority has advocated a system with "no stops in place," "stops" which would presumably include police, national defense, and a justice system.

[shanek]

Originally posted by LukeT
They meant it, shanek.

Only some of them meant it. And although they put in a good try, they got too much opposition from their own party. It has nothing at all to do with how well the policies would work were they implemented.

Besides, it was offered as a rebuttal to the idea that people don't want this. I was pointing out that, whenever people have been given a real choice, they've chosen freedom and smaller government.

[fishbob]

From mfeldman - I've been trying to follow this debate without getting too hyped up on rhetoric, but I don't understand your reasoning at all. WHY is it wrong/unfair/whatever for a group of like-minded people to move to a central location and then participate in local government? You can say "well they're imposing their will on the other residents." Yes, I suppose that's true. But that's done all the time in a democracy. I asked similar questions way back up the thread. Mine were ignored too.

[bignickel]

Originally posted by mfeldman

But the idea that it's somehow a laudable goal to have one state set aside for Group X to control is abhorrent to both the Constitution and 200 years of American jurisprudence.

I agree. It is abhorrent that all those who prize liberty would have to disrupt their whole lives and move en masse to another state just to enjoy liberties that they already possess under the U.S. Constitution.

It is annoying when the majority of people around you vote to take away your liberties on a regular basis.

As for the post about compromise: why the heck should I or anyone else allow the government the right to decide what chemicals should or should not be in my head?

"Well, how about the government only disallows a few chemicals? That's a good compromise, isn't it?"

NO NO NO! Un-frickin-acceptable!

All things are legal unless made so by law. The anti-legalizers have turned the battle into one where 'drugs are illegal' is the norm, and those who want an end to the 'Drug War' are advocating change, or have to prove their rights to decide their brain chemistry using the Bill of Rights.

NO! NO NO NO! It is the anti-legalizers, and everyone who has ever voted a pro-drug-war representative into office to prove THEIR case, not the other way around. It's up to them to justify the billions spent, the non-results, the non-constitutionality of these laws. It's not pro-drugs vs anti-drugs; it's anti-illegalizers vs illegalizers.

This stuff has always pissed me off for years, and I've never even used narcotics.

I gave up my illusions years ago about convincing the masses about the uselessness of the Drug War, it's high cost, it's inefficiency, it's non-results. It was then that I realized: the illegalizers already know that the whole thing's a sham. They know it doesn't work, that it's a costly experment in Extended Prohibition that's just as non-sensical as the last one.

You know what? They just don't care. Joe and Jane Sixpack want to keep the whole shebang going because it helps keep those people down, helps keep them afraid. You know: those people, with their crazy dancing, and music, and parades, and agendas. It's such a scary world these days, Joe and Jane are constantly afraid of who's gonna be knocking on their door next. But start up a 'Drug War' and then you can have as many of them being rousted, arrested, and thrown in prison as you could want, the whole time keeping them cowering, under control, and unable to vote.

Joe and Jane sleep better each night knowing that somewhere in America there is a policeman's boot on a young black man's neck.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by LukeT
Have the Libertarians managed to implement all of their goals yet?

Has anyone?


If they do, after people see the consequences of them, then I'm sure your popularity would rapidly drop.

Consequences like what?


WMT1, if you want to turn this into a drug or gun control topic, we have several of those already.

Sorry, but if you think it's relevant to criticize a philosophy in a particular thread, then it's certainly relevant for you to explain your concerns in that same thread.


What I have been discussing is an overview of Libertarian policies as a whole.

About all you've been doing is commenting on its lack of popularity.


I used drugs and guns and user fees as examples of what I think are the extremist positions that the Libertarians take. I believe the majority of Americans are, and always will be, opposed to those kinds of views.

Then you haven't been paying attention. There are apparently a hell of a lot more people in the libertarian camp on those particular issues than you think there are - perhaps not a majority at this point, but certainly enough to call into question any certainty that they will never be. The problem libertarians face is that those supporting gun rights tend not to be the same people as those opposing the war on drugs, but that's just a reflection of how inconsistent and selective most people are about liberty in the first place.


As for my objections or views being equated with not being able to tell other people what they can or can't do, that goes to the heart of the matter.

If you guys believe that society can function with no stops in place, then you are nuts. Plain and simple.

Great. Manufacture a characterization to completely misrepresent a view you disagree with, and then comment on it. It doesn't speak very well for libertarian critics that so many of them have to resort to this kind of stuff, does it?


I would happily engage in a topic about user fees vs. taxes, too.

Those kinds of discussions can take a hell of a lot of attention, but once we get past everything else on the table, it might be worth considering.

[Victor Danilchenko]

WMT1

Has anyone [managed to achieve their goals]?Well, yeah. Liberals regularly achieve their goals, and then create new ones. USA has been getting more and more liberal over time. yeah, i daresay that liberals as a group have consistently achieved a large number of their goals.

Consequences like what?You know, the consequences predicted by liberal economists -- wild economic swings, decreasing standard of living, growing wealth disparity, greater pollution, worse healthcare, etc.

Then you haven't been paying attention. There are apparently a hell of a lot more people in the libertarian camp on those particular issues than you think there are - perhaps not a majority at this point, but certainly enough to call into question any certainty that they will never be.how about a different perspective: there are lots of people in liberal and conservative camps, and libertarians happen to share some popular views from either side.

just because there are people out there who are against war on drugs, doesn't mean that they would ever want to vote libertarian. just because there are people out there who are against gun control, doesn't mean that they would ever vote libertarian.

The problem libertarians face is that those supporting gun rights tend not to be the same people as those opposing the war on drugs, but that's just a reflection of how inconsistent and selective most people are about liberty in the first place.Or that libertarian worldview is too simplistic for most people... :rolleyes:

You see, WMT1, you have one problem; there are plenty of people who understand what libertarianism is, and who desire freedom, yet who disagree with libertarians. I doubt you can really understand why that is so, though...

Originally posted by mfeldman



I've been trying to follow this debate without getting too hyped up on rhetoric, but I don't understand your reasoning at all. WHY is it wrong/unfair/whatever for a group of like-minded people to move to a central location and then participate in local government? You can say "well they're imposing their will on the other residents." Yes, I suppose that's true. But that's done all the time in a democracy. When compared to (lobbying efforts, for example) what makes this action a difference of kind and not of degree?

Mike

It isn't wrong/unfair/whatever for a group of like-minded people to move to a central location. If you can't win the hearts and minds of the majority, then that is about your only option. It is an act of desperation.

shanek, if you would legalize all drugs, then that is a policy with no stops. If you would legalize all weapons, then that is a policy with no stops.

We can argue the hypothetical consequences until this topic is 45 pages long, and that is because our society has thankfully never enacted such a policy. I understand if you are not thankful that has not occurred.

Our founding fathers understood all about freedoms. But they also understood social compacts, and that certain freedoms had to be surrendered when we no longer lived "in a state of Nature."
John Locke was all the rage at the time.

I don't believe it is possible to return to a state of nature and hold a society together simultaneously.

[Reager]

Originally posted by bignickel


[snip rant]


Joe and Jane sleep better each night knowing that somewhere in America there is a policeman's boot on a young black man's neck.

I happen to agree that the current "drug war" is practically useless and does more harm than good. But you've provided nothing to make me suspect it's all a big conspiracy to keep black people down.


Mike

Originally posted by mfeldman

I happen to agree that the current "drug war" is practically useless and does more harm than good. But you've provided nothing to make me suspect it's all a big conspiracy to keep black people down.


Mike

It would make more sense if you took some drugs.

[bignickel]

[begin tranmission] [we control the horizontal. we control the vertical]

Ah, but that's just one of my not-yet-patented catchphrases I use to end my posts. :)

My main thrust was IMHO, that us-vs-them tends to dominate the thoughts of the illegalizers. The explanation that I've developed over the years to explain their willingness to continually spend money on such a hopeless activity and send people to prison: they're constantly afraid of 'the other.' They sleep better at night knowing that 'the other' is constantly being harassed, arrested, raided, and imprisoned. Helps "keep 'em down."

What was it that that Southern sheriff said years ago? "Those cocaine n#ggers are hard to kill." Not too mention the anti-opium laws directed at Chinese immigrants. Or anti-marijuana laws directed at Mexican laborers. Or...

The case is theirs to make, not ours. All things are legal until made illegal; all freedoms possessed by the people until they are possessed by the government. Let them make their case for why people shouldn't have the freedom to decide what chemicals should be in their brains.

"Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof." And Extended Prohibition is the worst woo-woo action currently, IMHO. It's one thing when woo-woos hurt themselves; it's quite another when they send others to prison based on their woo-woo ideology.

[bignickel]

I generally like your posts LukeT, and sense you're a good kid, so I'm gonna assume you didn't read my original post.

Originally posted by bignickel
I generally like your posts LukeT, and sense you're a good kid, so I'm gonna assume you didn't read my original post.

I didn't. I have overextended myself and am participating in too many topics. As a result, I am just reading those posts from people I have been in direct conversation with.

My head hurts.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by WMT1, as quoted by Victor
Has anyone [managed to achieve their goals]?

First, let's review the actual exchange:

Have the Libertarians managed to implement all of their goals yet?

Has anyone?

So if accuracy were of any concern to you, what should have appeared in the brackets was "managed to achieve all their goals", which was consistent with the question I was responding to. Or, for that matter, you could have simply included the original question. But then, I guess that wouldn't have created the impression someone had actually asked the question you wanted to answer, would it?


Well, yeah. Liberals regularly achieve their goals, and then create new ones. USA has been getting more and more liberal over time. yeah, i daresay that liberals as a group have consistently achieved a large number of their goals.

You say that as if it's a good thing.


Consequences like what?

You know, the consequences predicted by liberal economists -- wild economic swings, decreasing standard of living, growing wealth disparity, greater pollution, worse healthcare, etc.

Well, at least you're admitting they're liberal economists.


Then you haven't been paying attention. There are apparently a hell of a lot more people in the libertarian camp on those particular issues than you think there are - perhaps not a majority at this point, but certainly enough to call into question any certainty that they will never be.

how about a different perspective: there are lots of people in liberal and conservative camps, and libertarians happen to share some popular views from either side.

No thanks. I can understand why you'd prefer that perspective, since it might make you feel better about the disregard for the liberty of others reflected in your views, but it appears to be yet another variation on the tired old theme of "there are more of us than there are of you". And my perspective is a lot clearer about who stands for what, and who is consistent about it. Yours simply covers for the inconsistent patchwork of permissions and prohibitions that those two camps have become. I can't say I'm surprised that, in your frustration to find things of substance to criticize libertarianism for, this is the kind of stuff you have to try and extract a point out of.


just because there are people out there who are against war on drugs, doesn't mean that they would ever want to vote libertarian. just because there are people out there who are against gun control, doesn't mean that they would ever vote libertarian.

I'm fairly sure I've made no predictions that they would. I've merely called into question the certainly of any predictions that they won't.


The problem libertarians face is that those supporting gun rights tend not to be the same people as those opposing the war on drugs, but that's just a reflection of how inconsistent and selective most people are about liberty in the first place.

Or that libertarian worldview is too simplistic for most people...

You see, WMT1, you have one problem; there are plenty of people who understand what libertarianism is, and who desire freedom, yet who disagree with libertarians. I doubt you can really understand why that is so, though...

You see, Victor, you have several problems. One of them is that you can't defeat libertarian arguments on the merits, so you have to rely on stuff like "simplistic" to create the impression of having valid criticisms. You also tend to make excuses and become insulting whenever your arguments fail, or whenever you get backed into a corner. You also rely far too heavily on the opinion of others to support your own. You have a tendency to mistake education with the ability to think critically, and it is quite clear that you formulate opinions from what you read without a hell of a lot of critical analysis. And when the result is that what you've read can't support your arguments, that's when the namecalling begins. Moreover, you fail to see your own hypocrisy, because when subjected to any serious scrunity, your defense of your own lack of respect for others' liberty boils down to that most simplistic of ideals - blind support for majority rule. With a little time, I'm sure I can add to the list.

[Thumper]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
WMT1


how about a different perspective: there are lots of people in liberal and conservative camps, and libertarians happen to share some popular views from either side.

just because there are people out there who are against war on drugs, doesn't mean that they would ever want to vote libertarian. just because there are people out there who are against gun control, doesn't mean that they would ever vote libertarian.

Or that libertarian worldview is too simplistic for most people... :rolleyes:

You see, WMT1, you have one problem; there are plenty of people who understand what libertarianism is, and who desire freedom, yet who disagree with libertarians. I doubt you can really understand why that is so, though...


Ok, it's time for me to weigh in on this topic, since we discussed this same thing in class the other day.

Victor: There is another possible reason... Maybe there are a lot of Libertarians out there, but they decide to vote Republican or Democrat because everyone tells them that a vote for any third party is a wasted vote.

Everyone else: And they really are wasted. BUT ONLY BECAUSE enough people out there believe it. Furthermore, if everyone who voted Republican or Democrat actually took the time to read and study their platforms, I'm sure they would get pretty scared. Both platforms are logically inconsistant wrt life.

We came to the conclusion that the Libertarians moving to New Hampshire would be akin to all those Swedish immigrants moving to Minnesota, and just as fair. People should have the right ot move to a place in which they feel comfortable. If it's Montana, fine. If it's New Hampshire, that's fine, too.

All of the debates against the Mass Immigration of the Libertarians reduce to Nativist arguments. And those ALWAYS scare me.

Before you ask how I would feel about a foreign presence coming to my area to change the election laws, read your 80's history a little. Focus on Wasco County, Oregon. Search for the Rajneeshes and what Sheila and the Baghwan attempted in that county. They woke us up to the value of our electoral system, and the value of the vote. Yes, every vote does count. Just ask the long-time residents of The Dalles.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Well, yeah. Liberals regularly achieve their goals,

And how many of those can be said to have actually worked?

You know, the consequences predicted by liberal economists -- wild economic swings,

Compare the economy in late 1999 to the economy a little more than a year later and then try to tell me about "wild economic swings."

decreasing standard of living,

With the Fed causing long-term inflation to rise at unprecedented rates, the government taking 48% of the National Income in taxes (while only supplying 20% of the GDP), a welfare system that keeps people at the poverty level for longer and longer times, a Medicare system that makes seniors pay twice as much out of pocket for medical expenses as they were paying before Medicare began (even after adjusting for inflation), on and on and on, exactly whose standard of living are you talking about? Certainly not those the government is purported to help.

growing wealth disparity,

The free market economy is actually making the poorest Americans much, much better off than they were decades ago, and much, much better off compared to the poor in many other countries. With that in mind, it hardly causes me to be sympathetic when they point to someone else and say, "Well, they have even more than I do!"

greater pollution,

Most of which is caused by the government, and most of the rest of which occurs on government property.

worse healthcare,

Health care costs are skyrocketing due to the high costs of complying with government regulations. Medicare etc. also contribute to greatly the rising costs, and the problems people point out are problems created by the government (such as HMOs, which, despite the latest government lie, is not a product of the free market but a creation of government with the 1973 HMO act).

how about a different perspective: there are lots of people in liberal and conservative camps, and libertarians happen to share some popular views from either side.

And some views not shared by either side, like with the War on Drugs.

[shanek]

Originally posted by LukeT
shanek, if you would legalize all drugs, then that is a policy with no stops.

I don't see it that way, because at the same time we would be holding people responsible for any actions they take while under the influence.

It also goes against your accusation that we're unwilling to compromise, since Libertarians all over the country are behind the legalization of medical marijuana.

Same with weapons: we'd hold people responsible for how they use them.

Also, picking out two examples of "no stops" does not go anywhere close to supporting your ridiculous claim that we want "no stops" across the board. I pointed out several counterexamples; I only needed one to refute you.

We can argue the hypothetical consequences until this topic is 45 pages long, and that is because our society has thankfully never enacted such a policy.

Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. All drugs (with certain exceptions at times, like opium) were legal before WWI, and it wasn't a problem except in the few times government did restrict it. Same with guns; people talk about the "wild west," well, the truth is that about the only time guns were a problem even in the old west was when the lawmakers tried to restrict them.

I suppose if you lived during Prohibition you'd be saying the same thing about alcohol; yet, thankfully, wiser heads prevailed and Prohibition was repealed, returning the country to the relative state of peace enjoyed before the insanity of Prohibition began.

Our founding fathers understood all about freedoms. But they also understood social compacts, and that certain freedoms had to be surrendered when we no longer lived "in a state of Nature."

Name one such freedom the framers agreed should be surrendered.

[shanek]

Originally posted by mfeldman
I happen to agree that the current "drug war" is practically useless and does more harm than good. But you've provided nothing to make me suspect it's all a big conspiracy to keep black people down.

Personally, I wouldn't say it's a conspiracy, but it certainly is racially targeted. Look at how much bigger the sentences are for "ghetto drugs" as opposed to drugs used by rich white people (e.g., crack vs. powdered cocaine).

[Reager]

Originally posted by shanek


The free market economy is actually making the poorest Americans much, much better off than they were decades ago, and much, much better off compared to the poor in many other countries. With that in mind, it hardly causes me to be sympathetic when they point to someone else and say, "Well, they have even more than I do!"



That's a wonderful attitude: All you poor people should be happy with what you've got! Nevermind that the income gap in the US has been growing for decades, and is the widest of any industrialized nation. And who cares if 10% of the population controls 70% of the nation's wealth. C'mon people! At least you're not emaciated and living in tents! (Yet!)

Mike

shanek, I did not say the Libertarians have no stops "across the board." If I believed that, I wouldn't have said that they also have some good ideas. It is just that those good ideas are overshadowed by the extremist ideas which have no stops. Guns and drugs.

On the libertarian party's web site (www.lp.org), medical marijuana is not all they are trying to get legalized.

We call for the repeal of all laws establishing criminal or civil penalties for the use of drugs and of "anti-crime" measures restricting individual rights to be secure in our persons, homes, and property; limiting our rights to keep and bear arms; or vote.

I actually just recently changed my mind about medical marijuana in the last week. I saw a local cable access show called "Cannibis Common Sense" scroll by on the tv guide channel, and went there out of humor and curiousity.

While the guys on there weren't exactly the brightest fellows, and can't hold a lighter to the debating and logic skills of the pro-drug people on here, they did make a fairly good case for medical marijuana. One good enough to convince me.

In fact, I am kinda angry that you have to grow your own marijuana if you are licensed in this state to use medical marijuana. That would be like having to culture your own penicillin if you came down with bronchitis.

There have been countless drug and gun debates on this forum. For my stance/arguments on guns, there is an active one right now at the top of this section of the forum.

For my stance/arguments about the legalization of drugs

go here. (http://66.192.47.137/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14374&highlight=AIDS)

And I really would like to see a topic about user fees vs. taxes. You have the advantage, as I know very little about the concept. From what little I know, I am dubious as to its chance of working, though.

I guess I could start such a topic. But not today. I'm really burnt out from participating in too many topics at the same time. I don't know how articpenguin averages 20.8 posts per day!

[Mike B.]

I remember ten years ago Libretarians used to boast they were the third largest party and the fastest growing party in the US.

I don't have figures, but I wonder if the Green Party has passed them in members or members.

The Green Party is the polar opposite of Libretarians when it comes to state intervention in the economy which is interesting.

Anyone know or have numbers on this?

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

According to the LP website (http://www.lp.org/organization/history/), they have passed 224,000 members.

Total Registered Greens Nationwide: (http://web.greens.org/stats/) 246,732 (and that's only in 22 states, the Libertarians are organized in all 50)

2000 Presidential Election (http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm)
Nader 2,882,955 2.74%
Buchanan 448,895 .42%
Browne 384,431 .36%

Libertarians currently hold 595 elected offices, while the Greens only have 71. However, in both cases most of the offices are "District Soil & Water Board" (http://www.greens.org/elections/) or "County Fence Viewer" (http://www.lp.org/organization/officials.php) etc.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by WMT1
What if interracial relationships were forbidden just about everywhere, but a relatively small group of like-minded people wanted to live where they would be allowed, and their only option was to specifically move somewhere and change the laws to allow them? I have no doubt that some of the locals would have a problem with it, but should their discomfort with the situation really be of much concern in that situation?

Firstly, interracial relationships don't affect those around you. Whatever the colour of the next-door neighbour and his wife, my life isn't affected at all.

Secondly, this is a single-issue agenda. The effect on the local community would be tiny. Libertariansim would make radical changes to people's lives.

Thirdly, this is a ridiculously extreme example that just isn't going to happen. Remember, moves to racial equality were made through democratic channels (slavery did not cause the American Civil War) not like-minded individuals flocking together.

Fourthly, there's a difference between politics and human rights. An appeal to an example such as this one is in poor taste when what you aim to do is pursue a political agenda.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by WMT1
And if you're going to keep associating libertarians with Communists or Fascists (even though you claimed earlier that's not what you were trying to do), then at least be specific about it. What, specifically, are these "attitudes" you're talking about?

That was intended solely for the person I was replying to, not Libertarians in general. The attitudes I had in mind was that we know what's best for the people, even if they don't agree, and that the ends justify the means whoever gets trodden on. He displayed both these attitudes in his post, which patronised anyone who didn't vote Libertarian.

:rolleyes: Yeah, I've gotten the "bad name" stuff before, too, always from people who already disagree with me anyway, and usually when they're losing on the arguments.

I owe you an apology for that. The only part of the post in question I was applying to you was that I was comparing Communist and Fascist attitudes not politics, but a missing close-bracket made it look like the 'bad name' comment was aimed at you too, which it wasn't. Sorry.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by LukeT
It isn't wrong/unfair/whatever for a group of like-minded people to move to a central location. If you can't win the hearts and minds of the majority, then that is about your only option. It is an act of desperation.

Personally, I'm uncomfortable with it as it's against the spirit of democracy, bypasses rational political debate and inflicts the Libertarian social experiment on non-Libertarians already living there, which surely is against the spirit of Libertariansim? I agree it's an act of desperation, but remember, the 'group' we're talking about is 20,000 people.

[shanek]

Originally posted by LukeT
shanek, I did not say the Libertarians have no stops "across the board."

Here's exactly what you said:

If you guys believe that society can function with no stops in place, then you are nuts. Plain and simple.

That was direct and pointed. You made no room for exceptions. You didn't say "almost no stops," or "few stops," you said "no stops." Period.

On the libertarian party's web site (www.lp.org), medical marijuana is not all they are trying to get legalized.

Of course not. But the LP does act for the legalization of medical marijuana, in obvious contradiction of your assertion that we are unwilling to compromise.

In fact, I am kinda angry that you have to grow your own marijuana if you are licensed in this state to use medical marijuana.

It's worse than that. Even if you're growing them for your own medicinal purposes, under the advice and supervision of a doctor, and even if this is completely legal under your state laws, the Feds can (and have) arrest you for possession. And if you decide to grow more than a few ounces to stock up for yourself, they can get you for "intent to sell." They get to portray you as a drug dealer in court, and you don't even get to tell the jury why you were growing the marijuana, or anything about your medical condition and your treatments.

And I really would like to see a topic about user fees vs. taxes.

The problem with that issue is that it's so individualistic. We can have a thread about paying for, say, a fire department with user fees instead of taxes (and there are places in the country that do this), but the things our taxes go for are so wide and diverse that it's hard to have a general discussion about the issue. It naturally movs towards talking about myriad individual examples.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
However, in both cases most of the offices are "District Soil & Water Board" (http://www.greens.org/elections/) or "County Fence Viewer" (http://www.lp.org/organization/officials.php) etc.

The highest, to my knowledge, are Libertarian Superior Court Judges in Arizona and California. (I also believe the 571 number includes appointed offices as well as elected.) But isn't it interesting that we have the easiest time getting elected to races where the campaign finance "reforms" don't really apply?

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by shanek
But isn't it interesting that we have the easiest time getting elected to races where the campaign finance "reforms" don't really apply?

Actually, you have the easiest time getting elected when there's no opposing candidate. :p That's true for everyone, but it's a big bonus for third party candidates.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
Actually, you have the easiest time getting elected when there's no opposing candidate.

Certainly that's easier; that's why the Democrats and Republicans have rigged the elections here in NC to make that more likely. But we've had Libertarians elected here with six opponents! Whenever we don't have to abide by the "reform" laws, we do great. People really do respond to our message.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by WMT1
What if interracial relationships were forbidden just about everywhere, but a relatively small group of like-minded people wanted to live where they would be allowed, and their only option was to specifically move somewhere and change the laws to allow them? I have no doubt that some of the locals would have a problem with it, but should their discomfort with the situation really be of much concern in that situation?

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
Firstly, interracial relationships don't affect those around you. Whatever the colour of the next-door neighbour and his wife, my life isn't affected at all.

Which could also be said about your neighbor's peaceful drug use, responsible firearms ownership, or choice to get an abortion. (Thanks for making that one so easy.)


Secondly, this is a single-issue agenda. The effect on the local community would be tiny. Libertariansim would make radical changes to people's lives.

Nonsense. The most "radical" changes would be to the degree to which people could control the lives of others. People could go right on living their own lives just as they wish.


Thirdly, this is a ridiculously extreme example that just isn't going to happen.

Do you really want to go on record claiming that is sufficient to invalidate an analogy? The very scenario being discussed in this thread is also a pretty extreme one, unlikely to actually happen. And I also seem to remember your asking shanek how he would feel about communists doing the same, which is also an extreme scenario, also unlikely to occur.


Remember, moves to racial equality were made through democratic channels (slavery did not cause the American Civil War) not like-minded individuals flocking together.

So what? That just happens to be the way history unfolded. Had such efforts been unsuccessful, and if a relatively small number of people who desired that equality all decided to move to a particular area to effect change in that area, would they have been wrong to do so or not? I'd like a clear answer on this point. And if your answer is "no", then I guess you'll have to at least admit that it does matter what the agenda is. And once that's established, we can further discuss which agendas justify such a practice, which do not, and why.


Fourthly, there's a difference between politics and human rights. An appeal to an example such as this one is in poor taste when what you aim to do is pursue a political agenda.

More nonsense. The objective of those working for racial equality is no less "political" than that of libertarians, and the agenda of libertarians is no less about "human rights" than anyone else's. Both movements involve political agendas about human rights. Sorry, but you'd have to be pretty selective and self-serving about such terminology to make this latest objection fly.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
That was intended solely for the person I was replying to, not Libertarians in general. The attitudes I had in mind was that we know what's best for the people, even if they don't agree, and that the ends justify the means whoever gets trodden on.

Does this mean you understand that libertarians do not claim to know "what's best for the people", but simply that individuals have the right to determine what's best for themselves?


He displayed both these attitudes in his post, which patronised anyone who didn't vote Libertarian.

Funny, that's not what I saw in his statements. Just to take another look, as originally posted:

Originally posted by bignickel
Libertarian voters have been consistently outvoted in the 50 states by the majority of non-libertarian citizens. As a result, those who prize liberty have no state that they can go to enjoy the fruits of liberty, because in every single state, the majority there prefers to have the government regulate every little thing, even the chemicals you have in your brain.

I don't see an attitude of "we know what's best for the people", but rather one of "we know what's best for ourselves, and prefer not to be bound by the attitudes of others who think they know what's best for us". And I certainly saw nothing about anyone else being "trodden on". That just seems to be using hyperbole to make the fact that some would no longer be able to 'tread' on others sound like something worse.

And if you consider these attitudes to be "patronising", then I'd say "patronising" may very well be warranted in some cases. In fact, before you characterized his comments in this way, I noticed you first paraphrased them with your own spin ("Libertarians lose elections because the rest of America is too stupid to realise you're right"). Was that to make that characterization seem more plausible?

I also saw a relevant question asked:

Which is better: for the majority in all 50 states to consistently outvote it's libertarian members, or for those who value essential freedoms to make themselves the majority of a state for a change?

But I didn't see your answer.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
Personally, I'm uncomfortable with it as it's against the spirit of democracy,

No more so than a bunch of people moving to a particular area and repealing laws that prohibit interracial or homosexual relationships, or which support institutionalized slavery.

bypasses rational political debate

You mean the "rational political debate" that libertarians are largely shut out of to begin with?

and inflicts the Libertarian social experiment on non-Libertarians already living there, which surely is against the spirit of Libertariansim?

It might be, if that's what they were doing. But notice how you have to keep relying on words like "inflicting" to suggest an aggressiveness that simply does not apply. Would you have said that the goal of abolitionists was to "inflict" their agenda on slaveowners? Would you accuse anyone defending someone else against a bully of "inflicting" their agenda on the bully?

If anything, libertarians would simply be curtailing the degree to which the non-libertarians would be "inflicting" their own ideas on others about how those others should live their lives. I'm pretty sure I still haven't seen a single example of something that somebody would be used to doing with their own lives that they would no longer be able to do.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by mfeldman
That's a wonderful attitude: All you poor people should be happy with what you've got!

How about "either be happy with what you've got, or work hard to earn more, so you can afford to get whatever you will be happy with"?

Nevermind that the income gap in the US has been growing for decades, and is the widest of any industrialized nation. And who cares if 10% of the population controls 70% of the nation's wealth.

Good question. I certainly don't.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves

According to the LP website, they have passed 224,000 members.

Total Registered Greens Nationwide: 246,732 (and that's only in 22 states, the Libertarians are organized in all 50)

Just to add a little perspective, I don't know about the Greens, but there are a lot more libertarians out here in the world than there are registered members of the Libertarian Party. I, and most of the libertarians I know, are not registered. And unfortunately, many of the ones I know don't even vote for the LP, specifically because they still buy into the whole "wasted vote" thing. Some of them have come around, and those who have are joining the rest of us in working on the others, but it seems to be an ego issue for many. Some people just seem to be too fragile to risk being perceived as part of anything "fringe", no matter how much they might actually agree with it. So there's a lot of libertarian-leaning voters out there waiting for enough others to take that plunge first to make them feel better about doing so themselves. And the result is, well, MKJ has provided the numbers. Sad commentary on conformity that the constant jabs about how small the LP is could actually play a significant role in keeping it from becoming anything more.


2000 Presidential Election

Nader 2,882,955 2.74%
Buchanan 448,895 .42%
Browne 384,431 .36%

I also can't help but wonder how much of a factor the name recognition of a third party's leading candidate is in determining its vote totals. Few would disagree that both Nader and Buchanan are far better known than Browne, just as they were long before any of them ever became associated with a third party. It is also worth noting that the two of them got a hell of a lot more free press coverage than Browne did.

In any case, I have no doubt that all three would have brought in considerably more respectable vote totals if nobody ever worried about their vote being "wasted" - not enough to have a realistic chance of winning of course, but possibly to provide enough of a shot in the arm to set their party up more favorably in subsequent elections. That "wasted vote" thing is a bitch, and being repeatedly shut out of the debates doesn't exactly help either.


Libertarians currently hold 595 elected offices, while the Greens only have 71. However, in both cases most of the offices are "District Soil & Water Board" or "County Fence Viewer" etc.

That's about all anyone could get elected to, no matter what their position on the issues, without the benefit of at least one of the following:

1. the backing of a major party
2. huge coffers
3. inclusion in debates with the major parties' candidates
4. built-in name recognition
5. incumbency

(It is worth noting also that Jesse Ventura at least had #3 and #4 going for him when he was elected governor.)


Actually, you have the easiest time getting elected when there's no opposing candidate.

Oh yeah, there's that too.

[Reager]

Originally posted by WMT1


How about "either be happy with what you've got, or work hard to earn more, so you can afford to get whatever you will be happy with"?

Oh, so if someone is poor it's because they haven't worked "hard enough" to get themselves out of poverty? That attitude is horribly callous, unrealistic, and insulting to millions of HARD-WORKING poor people struggling to survive.

Good question. I certainly don't.

And I actually have Libertarian friends who *wonder* why everyone thinks they're **********. Ok, suppose the income gap continues to increase, and 30 years from now 1% of the population controls 95% of the nation's wealth. Would that be perfectly fine with you also?


Mike

[WMT1]

Originally posted by mfeldman
That's a wonderful attitude: All you poor people should be happy with what you've got!

Originally posted by WMT1
How about "either be happy with what you've got, or work hard to earn more, so you can afford to get whatever you will be happy with"?

Originally posted by mfeldman
Oh, so if someone is poor it's because they haven't worked "hard enough" to get themselves out of poverty?

If you'll notice, my comment was a bit of advice, not an assessment of how hard anybody's worked. However, at the very least, it would certainly seem that if someone isn't happy with what they've got, then there's a good chance they haven't worked hard enough to acquire whatever they would be happy with. This is a simple, logical statement. Do you dispute it?


That attitude is horribly callous, unrealistic, and insulting to millions of HARD-WORKING poor people struggling to survive.

Since you seem to be saying all this negative stuff in response to my advice, and without anything in the way of explanation, can you tell me what yours would be? Would you suggest that people not work hard?


Nevermind that the income gap in the US has been growing for decades, and is the widest of any industrialized nation. And who cares if 10% of the population controls 70% of the nation's wealth.

Good question. I certainly don't.

And I actually have Libertarian friends who *wonder* why everyone thinks they're **********.

Then they can stop wondering. "Everyone" doesn't. It's mostly just those who are quick to resort to namecalling when confronted with views they disagree with. Besides, just as many conservatives think liberals are **********, & vice versa. You might want to point this out to your "Libertarian friends" to make them feel better. Of course, if they didn't already know this, they must be living under a rock.

In any case, you'd be hard pressed to actually make the case that I've said anything to justify this insult. But if namecalling is your thing, a much stronger case could be made that it applies to either conservatives or liberals. Just kinda proves how poorly founded namecalling can be, and how prematurely some people will resort to it. And it usually doesn't speak well for their confidence in their own views when they feel they have to resort to it so quickly.


Ok, suppose the income gap continues to increase, and 30 years from now 1% of the population controls 95% of the nation's wealth. Would that be perfectly fine with you also?

I see enormous disparity in how hard people work. I see enormous disparity in the judgment people exercise. I see enormous disparity in the responsibility people take for their own actions. So, until you can specifically identify someone who has (or "controls") something that doesn't rightfully belong to them, I see no basis for having any particular objections to the particular disparity you describe.

[Reager]

Originally posted by WMT1


If you'll notice, my comment was a bit of advice, not an assessment of how hard anybody's worked. However, at the very least, it would certainly seem that if someone isn't happy with what they've got, then there's a good chance they haven't worked hard enough to acquire whatever they would be happy with. This is a simple, logical statement. Do you dispute it?

Yes, I dispute it, because it is not a simple, logical statement. Of course it's possible people are poor because they haven't worked hard enough. It's also possible they have worked damn hard and are still poor. I'll admit I've never seen a study showing that the majority of poor people in this country are poor because they simply haven't put forth the effort to get themselves out of poverty. Perhaps one exists. It would certainly help your argument.

Since you seem to be saying all this negative stuff in response to my advice, and without anything in the way of explanation, can you tell me what yours would be? Would you suggest that people not work hard?

Of course people should work hard. I'm simply not laboring under the misconception that all it takes to be successful is "hard work." Race, sex, education, and socio-economic status have *something* to do with it too, don't you think? Just because it's possible for anyone to become succesful doesn't mean it's probable that they will, given those other factors.


Sorry about the name-calling, you're right , it wasn't warranted.

I see enormous disparity in how hard people work. I see enormous disparity in the judgment people exercise. I see enormous disparity in the responsibility people take for their own actions.

So, you really do think that if someone's poor it's their fault because they exercise poor judgment and don't work hard enough. And I suppose that means if you're wealthy and successful, it's because you have worked real hard and exercised good judgment? Hello...paging all Social Darwinists, you guys are alive and kicking!!


So, until you can specifically identify someone who has (or "controls") something that doesn't rightfully belong to them, I see no basis for having any particular objections to the particular disparity you describe.

The person you've described above is a thief (although, I guess follwing your logic, it would be anyone who hasn't "worked" for what they have, which would include lots of rich children with trust funds, including our President).

The purpose of my hypothetical was to see if you thought there was anything unjust about a system which allowed an elite minority to control all of a society's wealth (and by extension, all economic, political and social power). I guess you think that's perfectly swell. That's your perogative, just don't expect me to vote Libertarian anytime soon.

Mike

[shanek]

Originally posted by mfeldman
Oh, so if someone is poor it's because they haven't worked "hard enough" to get themselves out of poverty? That attitude is horribly callous, unrealistic, and insulting to millions of HARD-WORKING poor people struggling to survive.

The biggest reason why these hard-working poor people have to struggle to survive is the Welfare system. Before then, the standard of living even for the poorest Americans rose along with the rest of the economy.

[bignickel]

Nothing like a pro/anti-laissez faire capitalism debate to derail a thread, eh? :)

Anyways, out of the states that they're considering, Wyoming seems to be in the forefront. However: bit too chilly for my taste.

Delaware, on the other hand, seems to have weather alot closer to my home state, Missouri. And for all you fish lovers out there: lots of fish! Not too many saltwater fish out there in Wyoming (although Wyoming fish probably have alot less mercury :rolleyes: ).

Anyone have any thoughts on the states under consideration?:
Wyoming, Idado, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, Delaware, Vermont.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by WMT1
However, at the very least, it would certainly seem that if someone isn't happy with what they've got, then there's a good chance they haven't worked hard enough to acquire whatever they would be happy with. This is a simple, logical statement. Do you dispute it?

Originally posted by mfeldman
Yes, I dispute it, because it is not a simple, logical statement.

Sure it is. And as simple as it is, you apparently didn't read it closely enough ...


Of course it's possible people are poor because they haven't worked hard enough. It's also possible they have worked damn hard and are still poor.

But that wasn't the standard. Take another look. The standard was "hard enough to acquire whatever they would be happy with". Now, with that in mind, can you tell me where my statement fails logically?


I'll admit I've never seen a study showing that the majority of poor people in this country are poor because they simply haven't put forth the effort to get themselves out of poverty. Perhaps one exists. It would certainly help your argument.

Sorry, but I can't convey my observations and experiences in the form of a "study". And I can't imagine how anyone could conduct one that would take into account these other factors in any meaningful or reliable way. But from what I've seen, it's pretty much a slam dunk that, to a large degree, that is among the primary reasons some people remain poor, along with poor judgment and a lack of responsibility. Your experiences and observations may suggest otherwise.


I'm simply not laboring under the misconception that all it takes to be successful is "hard work."

Nor am I. I'm pretty sure I also mentioned things like responsibility and judgment.


Race, sex, education, and socio-economic status have *something* to do with it too, don't you think?

Race and sex - No, at least not enough to be worthy of significant consideration. I'd say discrimination against people who are too short, too tall, too fat, too thin, or just plain ugly is almost as much of a factor. For people who are qualified and present themselves well, obstacles based on race and sex are negligible.

Education - Yes, but that would be one of those things that could be overcome with hard work and responsibility.

Socio-economic status - No, not by itself. In most individual cases where this would be cited as a barrier, you could probably find some lapses in the area of hard work and/or responsibility.


Just because it's possible for anyone to become succesful doesn't mean it's probable that they will, given those other factors.

I'm confident that the factors I cited are considerably more relevant to the equation than the ones you cited.


So, you really do think that if someone's poor it's their fault because they exercise poor judgment and don't work hard enough.

In most cases, yes.


And I suppose that means if you're wealthy and successful, it's because you have worked real hard and exercised good judgment? Hello...paging all Social Darwinists, you guys are alive and kicking!!

You know, it doesn't help much to apologize for resorting to namecalling if you're basically going to continue to engage in it. Moreover, it would be sporting of you to not attribute conclusions to me that I have not expressed only to then comment unfavorably on them.

In any case, if you're wealthy and successful, and you didn't inherit your wealth, I'd say it is at least considerably more likely that you've worked hard and exercised good judgment than it is if you remain in poverty most of your life.


So, until you can specifically identify someone who has (or "controls") something that doesn't rightfully belong to them, I see no basis for having any particular objections to the particular disparity you describe.

The person you've described above is a thief (although, I guess follwing your logic, it would be anyone who hasn't "worked" for what they have, which would include lots of rich children with trust funds, including our President).

Again, could you identify what portion of my logic you're talking about? You're not making much sense here. You just seem to be making your own leaps of logic to invent points that wouldn't be there otherwise. As far as I can tell, nothing I've said would disqualify inherited wealth as being rightfully owned.


The purpose of my hypothetical was to see if you thought there was anything unjust about a system which allowed an elite minority to control all of a society's wealth (and by extension, all economic, political and social power).

All of it? Do you really know of such a society? And if you do, how did such a situation come about?

In any case, I find no particular injustice in a system which allows everyone to control all of whatever wealth they have earned (or inherited from someone who has earned it, for that matter).


I guess you think that's perfectly swell.

Again, could you wait for my response before speculating on what you think it will be?


That's your perogative, just don't expect me to vote Libertarian anytime soon.

Huh??? What does one thing have to do with the other? You rail on and on about this great disparity in wealth that's occured with Republicans and Democrats running things, and your response is hostility toward Libertarians?

[Reager]

Originally posted by WMT1


Sure it is. And as simple as it is, you apparently didn't read it closely enough ...




But that wasn't the standard. Take another look. The standard was "hard enough to acquire whatever they would be happy with". Now, with that in mind, can you tell me where my statement fails logically?

Oh, sorry, it's not that the poor don't work "hard" to, say, get out of poverty, but that they don't work "hard enough" to acheive that goal. I see. Big difference.


Sorry, but I can't convey my observations and experiences in the form of a "study". And I can't imagine how anyone could conduct one that would take into account these other factors in any meaningful or reliable way.

Then how can you say with a straight face that your perceptions about the laziness and poor judgment of the poor are at all realistic?


But from what I've seen, it's pretty much a slam dunk that, to a large degree, that is among the primary reasons some people remain poor, along with poor judgment and a lack of responsibility. Your experiences and observations may suggest otherwise.

*Some* people, yes. But to validly say that's why *most* people are poor requires more than simply your singular observations and experience.



Nor am I. I'm pretty sure I also mentioned things like responsibility and judgment.

Oh yes, that's right. Not only don't poor people work hard, they also lack responsibility and good judgment.


Race and sex - No, at least not enough to be worthy of significant consideration.

I cannot believe you're serious.


I'd say discrimination against people who are too short, too tall, too fat, too thin, or just plain ugly is almost as much of a factor. For people who are qualified and present themselves well, obstacles based on race and sex are negligible.

That must explain why there are so many black females heading Fortune 500 companies, but there is a significant lack of short, white, male CEO's.


Education - Yes, but that would be one of those things that could be overcome with hard work and responsibility.

Socio-economic status - No, not by itself. In most individual cases where this would be cited as a barrier, you could probably find some lapses in the area of hard work and/or responsibility.

How you can make these general assertions about the motivations of, and causes for, millions of poor people based only on your personal opinion is beyond me.



I'm confident that the factors I cited are considerably more relevant to the equation than the ones you cited.

In any case, if you're wealthy and successful, and you didn't inherit your wealth, I'd say it is at least considerably more likely that you've worked hard and exercised good judgment than it is if you remain in poverty most of your life.

It's a good thing you're confident, that almost makes up for the lack of evidentiary support for your position.



All of it? Do you really know of such a society? And if you do, how did such a situation come about?

The hypothetical presumed the income gap continues to grow in the coming decades, as it has for the preceding decades.


In any case, I find no particular injustice in a system which allows everyone to control all of whatever wealth they have earned (or inherited from someone who has earned it, for that matter).

And the resulting political, economic, and social inequality that would inevitably result doesn’t bother you at all? That would be a “just” society in your eyes?



Again, could you wait for my response before speculating on what you think it will be?

So you *don’t* think such a society would be swell? You just stated you’d have no problem with it. I think speculating on your response is perfectly fine when it’s based on something you’ve already said.



Huh??? What does one thing have to do with the other? You rail on and on about this great disparity in wealth that's occured with Republicans and Democrats running things, and your response is hostility toward Libertarians?

I assumed you were arguing a Libertarian position which would advocate an untrammeled free market, without any political or social controls to prevent a wealthy few from ruling the multitude of poor.

Mike

***Edited to change "untrampled" to "untrammeled."

[Thumper]

Hmmmm...

Interesting turn of events in this discussion.

Both sides have good points.

So, there's this incredible income gap now with the Dems and Reps in charge. And you (mfeldman) are going to say that under Libertarians it will get worse? Got any empirical data to back that up?

Oh and WMT1, I do assume your generalizations are to cover the vast majority of the cases, not all the cases?

Also, mfeldman, I didn't realize that it took being the CEO of a Fortune 500 company before you were no longer poor.

Working hard doesn't just mean going out there and working your fingers to the bone. Education is a huge part of it. Count my leaving the gutter down as a success for education. My friends that stayed did so because they decided that education wasn't as important as were other things. I know it sounds heartless, but in the vast majority of cases, working harder and smarter will get you out of poverty. The exceptions are physical and mental handicaps. Skin color and gender do not fall under either category. Just because you aren't a CEO doesn't mean you are poor.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by WMT1
But that wasn't the standard. Take another look. The standard was "hard enough to acquire whatever they would be happy with". Now, with that in mind, can you tell me where my statement fails logically?

Originally posted by mfeldman
Oh, sorry, it's not that the poor don't work "hard" to, say, get out of poverty, but that they don't work "hard enough" to acheive that goal. I see. Big difference.

It may be a minor point, but in your zeal to use sarcasm, you're still getting it wrong. Once again, that was "whatever they would be happy with", which is absent from your version. You're starting to demonstrate one of the other traits of people who don't have a lot of confidence in their position - badly paraphrasing someone else's statements, so they can then comment sarcastically on the paraphrased version as if that's what was actually said. If you want to be taken seriously, you should probably avoid doing this.

And remember, if you dispute my statement, you are essentially claiming that even if someone isn't happy with what they've got, they probably have worked hard enough to acquire whatever they would be happy with. Do you want to go on record taking that position?


Sorry, but I can't convey my observations and experiences in the form of a "study". And I can't imagine how anyone could conduct one that would take into account these other factors in any meaningful or reliable way.

Then how can you say with a straight face that your perceptions about the laziness and poor judgment of the poor are at all realistic?

Again, that would be my experiences and observations, as well as those of many others I've encountered over the years. Have you ever formed any strong opinions about anything that's going on in the world just by paying attention, without the benefit of a "study"?

In fact, how can you say with a straight face that these perceptions are unrealistic? What is that opinion based on other than your observations and experiences? Have you seen any studies that specifically prove me wrong?


But from what I've seen, it's pretty much a slam dunk that, to a large degree, that is among the primary reasons some people remain poor, along with poor judgment and a lack of responsibility. Your experiences and observations may suggest otherwise.

*Some* people, yes. But to validly say that's why *most* people are poor requires more than simply your singular observations and experience.

No, it does not. The only thing that would require more would be if my goal were to prove it to anyone. People express valid opinions all the time, based solely on their own observations and experiences. But again, if you disagree, can I take it you have more than your observations and experiences to back up the opinion that these are not among the primary reasons most poor people remain so?


Nor am I. I'm pretty sure I also mentioned things like responsibility and judgment.

Oh yes, that's right. Not only don't poor people work hard, they also lack responsibility and good judgment.

I'm quite confident that, to a large degree, they do lack responsibility and judgment. But you can say it again with sarcasm if it will help you think you have a point.


Race and sex - No, at least not enough to be worthy of significant consideration.

I cannot believe you're serious.

I cannot believe you cannot believe I'm serious.


I'd say discrimination against people who are too short, too tall, too fat, too thin, or just plain ugly is almost as much of a factor. For people who are qualified and present themselves well, obstacles based on race and sex are negligible.

That must explain why there are so many black females heading Fortune 500 companies, but there is a significant lack of short, white, male CEO's.

I thought we were talking about poverty, not heading up Fortune 500 companies. Oh well, just to address this point ...

If there are hardly any black females in these positions, it might have something to do with a lack of them in executive positions from which to draw. And that might be because of a lack of them at the next level, etc. ... and ultimately, when you get down to a level where there are plenty of them, you may very well still find an additional factor at work that I have not yet mentioned - choices. Many may simply not be prepared to make the sacrifices necessary for those advancements, and many may have already made choices in life - having kids, bypassing education, etc. - that put them at a distinct disadvantange in terms of even being able to make those sacrifices. Of course, that does not in itself reflect bad judgment or a lack of responsibility, unless their goal all along was to head up a Fortune 500 Company. I hope that helps clear things up for you.


Education - Yes, but that would be one of those things that could be overcome with hard work and responsibility.

Socio-economic status - No, not by itself. In most individual cases where this would be cited as a barrier, you could probably find some lapses in the area of hard work and/or responsibility.

How you can make these general assertions about the motivations of, and causes for, millions of poor people based only on your personal opinion is beyond me.

Then maybe you're still not reading carefully enough, because I've mentioned more than just my "personal opinion". I've also mentioned observations and experiences.

I also asked the following earlier in this post, but I want to be sure you don't miss it. Have you ever formed any strong opinions about anything that's going on in the world just by paying attention?


It's a good thing you're confident, that almost makes up for the lack of evidentiary support for your position.

Again, same applies to you. (You don't want to be accused of having a double standard, do you?)

Besides, there may be a "lack of evidentiary support" in terms of proving anything to anyone. As I said before, I can't imagine how such proof would manifest itself anyway, for either side of the kind of stuff we're discussing. But given the "lack of evidentiary support" for anything to the contrary, those experiences and observations I've mentioned are more than enough to provide the "evidentiary support" for my confidence in my own opinion, which is what you seem to be commenting on here anyway.


In any case, I find no particular injustice in a system which allows everyone to control all of whatever wealth they have earned (or inherited from someone who has earned it, for that matter).

And the resulting political, economic, and social inequality that would inevitably result doesn’t bother you at all? That would be a “just” society in your eyes?

You haven't established anything about political or social inequality in your scenario. As to the economic inequality, well, that just kinda comes with the territory of some people having more money than others. And no, that part of it does not bother me in the least. Sorry.


Again, could you wait for my response before speculating on what you think it will be?

So you *don’t* think such a society would be swell? You just stated you’d have no problem with it. I think speculating on your response is perfectly fine when it’s based on something you’ve already said.

But that's the problem. It's not based on anything I've already said. You're the one who threw all that stuff in there about "by extension, all economic, political and social power", and then speculated that I'd think it was "swell", without waiting for me to comment. In most cases, such patterns in someone's posts tend to reflect either sloppiness or dishonesty. In your case, I can't tell which applies yet. If you'll start being more careful and precise with your responses from this point on, we may not have to find out.


Huh??? What does one thing have to do with the other? You rail on and on about this great disparity in wealth that's occurred with Republicans and Democrats running things, and your response is hostility toward Libertarians?

I assumed you were arguing a Libertarian position which would advocate an untrampled free market, without any political or social controls to prevent a wealthy few fromruling the multitude of poor.

Another tendency I'm noticing is your use of hyperbolic rhetoric, without being very specific about what you're really talking about. What do you mean, for instance, with your use of the word "ruling"? You may be completely mischaracterizing libertarianism, but until you make yourself clearer, it's hard to tell for sure. Same for "without any political or social controls". And relying heavily on these kinds of comments also suggests you may just be parroting what you've heard from others, without having thought any of it through very thoroughly.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Thumper
Oh and WMT1, I do assume your generalizations are to cover the vast majority of the cases, not all the cases?

Yep.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by WMT1
[It would affect no one else's life] could also be said about your neighbor's peaceful drug use, responsible firearms ownership, or choice to get an abortion. (Thanks for making that one so easy.)

I'm not going to quote your posts in full and answer every point - feel free to re-post certain paragraphs and scream 'you didn't answer this! You didn't answer this!', but that's the way it is.

If you think unrestricted access to drugs and weapons wouldn't significantly change the communities that adopted those policies, you're living in a dream world. It's as simple as that. And no one mentioned abortion before you did.

Also, in offering three Libertarian policies instead of the entire programme, you're being intellectually dishonest. The *whole* of your example (mixed-race marriages) would have no effect on those living around a couple in that sort of a relationship. Even if we accept the same is true for the three aspects of the Libertarian manefesto you offer (which I don't), when you take the *whole* of the programme, we must introduce an economics model that would change the very fabric of society. For the better? Maybe, but it's your job to convince people that this is the case.

I would not *choose* to live in a Libertarian society for several reasons. For example, I have been unemployed in the UK through no fault of my own on more than one occasion. On each occasion, I worked very hard to find a new job, and was ultimately successful (I am *not* lazy). While unemployed, I received benefit. I currently earn more money than at any time previously, and I don't begrudge paying taxes to support those 'between' jobs. I used the benefit system when I needed it, and I'm not going to pull up the ladder now I don't. If Libertarians swamped my community and voted on mass to end benefits, I would feel this is a breach of my L-I-B-E-R-T-Y. The democratic process is bypassed, and I am forced (yes, forced) to take part in a social experiment I wanted no part of.

WMT1, you never really grasped the fact that this thread is about the methods adopted by one particular group of Libertarians, not about Libertarian politics in general. Are those methods right, or are they wrong? Shanek offered a consistent position when he said if a political movement he opposed did the same thing, he would not object to their methods, only their politics. You seem hell-bent on arguing it's OK for you and yours to do this, but not anyone else. When you take a step back and come to understand the dishonesty of this position, you might come to an understanding of why someone on another thread called Libertarianism a cult.

[Reager]

Originally posted by WMT1


It may be a minor point, but in your zeal to use sarcasm, you're still getting it wrong. Once again, that was "whatever they would be happy with", which is absent from your version. You're starting to demonstrate one of the other traits of people who don't have a lot of confidence in their position - badly paraphrasing someone else's statements, so they can then comment sarcastically on the paraphrased version as if that's what was actually said. If you want to be taken seriously, you should probably avoid doing this.


Ok, no sarcasm this time. Your standard of whether person X has "worked hard enough" to acheive goal Y is "person X has acheived goal Y." For example, if someone wants to live in a house and not a homeless shelter, and they don't, your position is, "well, obviously they haven't worked hard enough or made the necessary sacrifices so they could live in a house." That fails theoretically as a logical fallacy, and it fails as a description of how the real world works.

***Edited to add: Actually, I'm mistaken. Your reasoning is not really circular, but presumes that all it takes to acheive a goal is hard work and sacrifices. I don't think that presumption is warranted.


And remember, if you dispute my statement, you are essentially claiming that even if someone isn't happy with what they've got, they probably have worked hard enough to acquire whatever they would be happy with. Do you want to go on record taking that position?


No, because that position doesn't make any sense. There is no objective measurement that can determine if someone's "worked hard enough" to get something. What I'm saying is that their are many other factors that influence any kind of "success," including: race, sex, education, class, income, luck(!), mental and physical illness, hell I'll even include physical appearance since you think it's more important than those other factors, and the political and economic system in operation. According to the most recent census, the US poverty rate for blacks and hispanics is more than double that of whites. Are all those blacks and hispanics more lazy and irresponsible than their white counterparts? The southern US also has a much higher poverty rate than other areas of the country. Are those Southern folk' just lazier than the rest of us? Hey, maybe they are, but I've never heard of anything to suggest that's the case.




Again, that would be my experiences and observations, as well as those of many others I've encountered over the years. Have you ever formed any strong opinions about anything that's going on in the world just by paying attention, without the benefit of a "study"?
...
In fact, how can you say with a straight face that these perceptions are unrealistic? What is that opinion based on other than your observations and experiences? Have you seen any studies that specifically prove me wrong?
...
No, it does not. The only thing that would require more would be if my goal were to prove it to anyone. People express valid opinions all the time, based solely on their own observations and experiences. But again, if you disagree, can I take it you have more than your observations and experiences to back up the opinion that these are not among the primary reasons most poor people remain so?


It's not my job to prove you *wrong* when you've given no reason to think you're *right.*




I thought we were talking about poverty, not heading up Fortune 500 companies. Oh well, just to address this point ...


It was an extreme example, to make a point.


If there are hardly any black females in these positions, it might have something to do with a lack of them in executive positions from which to draw. And that might be because of a lack of them at the next level, etc. ... and ultimately, when you get down to a level where there are plenty of them, you may very well still find an additional factor at work that I have not yet mentioned - choices. Many may simply not be prepared to make the sacrifices necessary for those advancements, and many may have already made choices in life - having kids, bypassing education, etc. - that put them at a distinct disadvantange in terms of even being able to make those sacrifices. Of course, that does not in itself reflect bad judgment or a lack of responsibility, unless their goal all along was to head up a Fortune 500 Company. I hope that helps clear things up for you.

What you fail to understand (and I don't see why it's such a difficult point to concede) is that people can make those sacrifices and still, due to circumstances and factors beyond their control, not succeed. That's all I'm trying to say.



Then maybe you're still not reading carefully enough, because I've mentioned more than just my "personal opinion". I've also mentioned observations and experiences.

I also asked the following earlier in this post, but I want to be sure you don't miss it. Have you ever formed any strong opinions about anything that's going on in the world just by paying attention?


Sure, but I've never made sweeping judgments about 30 million+ people based only on my own personal experience, without any empiral data to back me up.



Again, same applies to you. (You don't want to be accused of having a double standard, do you?)

Besides, there may be a "lack of evidentiary support" in terms of proving anything to anyone. As I said before, I can't imagine how such proof would manifest itself anyway, for either side of the kind of stuff we're discussing. But given the "lack of evidentiary support" for anything to the contrary, those experiences and observations I've mentioned are more than enough to provide the "evidentiary support" for my confidence in my own opinion, which is what you seem to be commenting on here anyway.


I never questioned your confidence in your own opinion. I'm questioning the validity of your opinion.



You haven't established anything about political or social inequality in your scenario. As to the economic inequality, well, that just kinda comes with the territory of some people having more money than others. And no, that part of it does not bother me in the least. Sorry.


We can see in our own society how economic power translates very easily into political and social advantage. I think it's fair to speculate that if the economic disparity continues to increase, so will those other discrepancies.


But that's the problem. It's not based on anything I've already said. You're the one who threw all that stuff in there about "by extension, all economic, political and social power", and then speculated that I'd think it was "swell", without waiting for me to comment. In most cases, such patterns in someone's posts tend to reflect either sloppiness or dishonesty. In your case, I can't tell which applies yet. If you'll start being more careful and precise with your responses from this point on, we may not have to find out.

It seemed to be a logical outgrowth of your stated position. If you don't think that economic power translates into political and social power (without adequate equalizers), that's an interesting position to take (and defend).



Another tendency I'm noticing is your use of hyperbolic rhetoric, without being very specific about what you're really talking about. What do you mean, for instance, with your use of the word "ruling"? You may be completely mischaracterizing libertarianism, but until you make yourself clearer, it's hard to tell for sure. Same for "without any political or social controls". And relying heavily on these kinds of comments also suggests you may just be parroting what you've heard from others, without having thought any of it through very thoroughly.

By "ruling" I mean one group having such a great influence on politics and the economy of others that it effectively takes away their liberty, and their opportunity for equality in society.

Mike

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
Firstly, interracial relationships don't affect those around you. Whatever the colour of the next-door neighbour and his wife, my life isn't affected at all.

Originally posted by WMT1
Which could also be said about your neighbor's peaceful drug use, responsible firearms ownership, or choice to get an abortion. (Thanks for making that one so easy.)

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
I'm not going to quote your posts in full and answer every point - feel free to re-post certain paragraphs and scream 'you didn't answer this! You didn't answer this!', but that's the way it is.

Can't say I'm surprised. Most libertarian critics aren't too fond of subjecting their criticisms to any real scrutiny, and it's particularly understandable in your case, since answering those questions would almost certainly force you to confront the fact that it does matter what the agenda is. What is disappointing, though, is the degree to which so many of you pretend to be taking the high road by not answering questions, particularly in this forum. And of course, I guess you think it somehow mitigates your evasiveness if you can express some sarcasm about the prospect of someone else complaining about it, right?



If you think unrestricted access to drugs and weapons wouldn't significantly change the communities that adopted those policies, you're living in a dream world. It's as simple as that.

And you're apparently living in a paranoid world. It's as simple as that. In case you hadn't noticed, there is a drug war going on now, and many communities are worse off because of it. Those that are better off as a result of it are virtually nonexistent.

Moreover, there are plenty of communities in this country with plenty of guns, and virtually no crime. Or do those communities exist only in my dream world?



And no one mentioned abortion before you did.

Does the following quote refresh your memory?

"Legalising drugs, sweeping away restrictions on guns, allowing abortion on demand and refusing federal aid is a package that many will find unacceptable."



Also, in offering three Libertarian policies instead of the entire programme, you're being intellectually dishonest.

You are being intellectually dishonest to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty for simply choosing to make a point with the three examples that you yourself cited as areas of concern from the very beginning. (See previous comment.)



The *whole* of your example (mixed-race marriages) would have no effect on those living around a couple in that sort of a relationship.

And continuing to point this out only suggests that you agree that it matters what the agenda is, you just lack the forthrightness to come right out and say it. So, if that was the agenda, would you object to the methods being discussed or not?

Besides, this argument has already been covered anyway. As I said earlier, neither would responsible gun ownership, peaceful drug use, or your neighbor's choice to get an abortion, those three concerns you expressed early on. You can try to find other examples of libertarian policy to make your case if you like, but unless you can come up with something that isn't just about libertarians curtailing the degree to which you can tell your neighbor how to live his life, the interracial relationship analogy holds up just fine.



Even if we accept the same is true for the three aspects of the Libertarian manefesto you offer (which I don't), when you take the *whole* of the programme, we must introduce an economics model that would change the very fabric of society.

Sorry, but there is no case here. There would be nothing stopping the people who already lived in any of these communities from pooling their own resources to keep whatever programs going that they felt were necessary for themselves. If they wanted to, they could even hire the same people to run them who had been doing so. They simply could not force anyone's participation.



For the better? Maybe, but it's your job to convince people that this is the case.

Does that mean you think it was the abolitionists' "job" to convince slaveowners that society would be better off without slavery? Or in my analogy, would it have been the "job" of those who wanted to be able to marry people of a different race to convince others that they would somehow be better off to allow it? Well, like it or not, these are the same themes we're dealing with when talking about libertarianism. You either respect the right of people to run their own lives, or you do not.



I would not *choose* to live in a Libertarian society for several reasons. For example, I have been unemployed in the UK through no fault of my own on more than one occasion. On each occasion, I worked very hard to find a new job, and was ultimately successful (I am *not* lazy). While unemployed, I received benefit. I currently earn more money than at any time previously, and I don't begrudge paying taxes to support those 'between' jobs. I used the benefit system when I needed it, and I'm not going to pull up the ladder now I don't.

These are all excellent points, if what you're arguing for is a group (of any size) of like-minded individuals voluntarily committing a portion of their resources to sustain a system to handle the benefits you seem concerned about. I don't see why they couldn't even pay government to run it, if they thought that would work best. Not a single thing you said, however, justifies forcing any individual to contribute or participate who does not wish to. To defend that would be to basically argue that individuals exist to serve the state, whether you want to admit it or not.



If Libertarians swamped my community and voted on mass to end benefits, I would feel this is a breach of my L-I-B-E-R-T-Y.

If you're referring to benefits funded by compulsory contribution, then you have a perverted view of the word "liberty", and an inflated sense of entitlement. Liberty isn't accompanied by a claim on someone else's labor or property.



The democratic process is bypassed,

Not if they "voted on mass to end benefits" (your words).



and I am forced (yes, forced) to take part in a social experiment I wanted no part of.

Yes, in the same sense that a racist would be forced (yes, forced) to "take part" in the "social experiment" of allowing interracial relationships, or slaveowners would be forced (yes, forced) to "take part" in the "social experiment" of doing without slavery. It would be so refreshing if you could come up with some specific complaints that don't have to do with telling someone else how to live his life or spend his money.

And regarding your absurd use of the word "force" in this case, remember, if absolutely everyone who already lived in your community felt as you do, your new libertarian neighbors would not stand in the way of the rest of you committing your own resources (the same resources you had been previously handing over to government) to the sustenance of a system to handle the programs you're so concerned about. They would simply not allow you to force anyone to contribute or participate who did not wish to. Now, with that in mind, can you explain your objections?

Of course, I'm pretty sure I've asked more than once what you would want to do with your own life that libertarians would not allow you to do. So this would be an example where not answering the questions you've been asked is what allows you to keep invalid arguments on life support.



WMT1, you never really grasped the fact that this thread is about the methods adopted by one particular group of Libertarians, not about Libertarian politics in general.

You don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that you opened the door to the "politics" yourself, the moment you cited examples of libertarian goals as part of your objection. So until you retract every complaint you've had about those goals, and plainly state, once and for all, that you'd object to this method no matter who is doing it, or what their agenda is, the politics remains on the table for discussion.



Are those methods right, or are they wrong?

Asked and answered many times - it depends on what you're using them for. Otherwise, you could just as easily expect people to take a position on "is it right to throw people in jail?" without allowing them to make any distinctions based on whether the "people" in question have engaged in any criminal behavior.



Shanek offered a consistent position when he said if a political movement he opposed did the same thing, he would not object to their methods, only their politics.

If you think this justifies calling my position "inconsistent", then something tells me we would be able to demonstrate that yours is too - that is, if you were more willing to answer questions about it. (Kinda makes it easier to manufacture criticisms of someone else's position when you're unwilling to answer for your own, doesn't it?)

Incidentally, regarding the "jail" question I mentioned in the previous point, if someone's answer was "yes, if they've committed a crime, no if they haven't", would that make him inconsistent?



You seem hell-bent on arguing it's OK for you and yours to do this, but not anyone else.

What is it with people having to cover for the weaknesses in their own position by mischaracterizing someone else's? I've made no statements whatsoever to the effect that it would only be okay for me and mine, but not "anyone else". For the umpteenth time, my position is not based on who is doing it, but what their agenda is. And if you were truly forthcoming, I'm fairly sure that would be your position as well. So far, you've been unwilling to take a clear position objecting to these methods for things like the interracial thing, so at the very least, that suggests that you agree that it matters what the agenda is. So again, wouldn't that make you inconsistent too?



When you take a step back and come to understand the dishonesty of this position, you might come to an understanding of why someone on another thread called Libertarianism a cult.

First, there is nothing the least bit dishonest about my position, and it is both irresponsible and intellectually dishonest of you to refer to it in this way, particularly when you yourself have dodged questions concerning the integrity of your own position.

Second, I know why someone on another thread called Libertarianism a cult. That's the sort of stuff its critics have to resort to in the absence of arguments based on merit, to create a negative impression of the philosophy for the casual observer. It's the same thing as when people start using words like "manifesto", or making allusions to Communism or Fascism, without coming right out and making direct comparisons they know would be exposed as ridiculous on closer inspection. The more negativity you can generate about a relatively unknown philosophy, the more effectively you can deter most people from even wanting to take a closer look.

Libertarianism is about as un-cult-like as it gets. Remember, this was the same guy who also used the word "anarchy", so it's not as if we're dealing with a lot of credibility there. But then again, given the lack of care you've taken with some of your own comments, I can see why you might relate to that.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by mfeldman
Ok, no sarcasm this time. Your standard of whether person X has "worked hard enough" to acheive goal Y is "person X has acheived goal Y." For example, if someone wants to live in a house and not a homeless shelter, and they don't, your position is, "well, obviously they haven't worked hard enough or made the necessary sacrifices so they could live in a house." That fails theoretically as a logical fallacy, and it fails as a description of how the real world works.

***Edited to add: Actually, I'm mistaken. Your reasoning is not really circular, but presumes that all it takes to acheive a goal is hard work and sacrifices. I don't think that presumption is warranted.

No, it does not. If you want to make this case, then please quote some statement of mine (in my own words, of course) that you think makes this presumption, and I can probably show you where you've gone wrong.



And remember, if you dispute my statement, you are essentially claiming that even if someone isn't happy with what they've got, they probably have worked hard enough to acquire whatever they would be happy with. Do you want to go on record taking that position?

No, because that position doesn't make any sense.

And yet amazingly, you challenged the logic of the opposite position earlier. I wish you'd make up your mind.



There is no objective measurement that can determine if someone's "worked hard enough" to get something.

Good. Then you should have no problem understanding why that would be something that would be difficult for any "study" to prove anything about, one way or the other. Now, in your mind, does that mean nobody should ever have an opinion on the subject? Or is it the expression of the opinion you take issue with?



What I'm saying is that their are many other factors that influence any kind of "success," including: race, sex, education, class, income, luck(!), mental and physical illness,

Sure, but for the most part, all these factors take a back seat to (or, as with education, are significantly affected by) hard work, sound judgment, and responsibility.



hell I'll even include physical appearance since you think it's more important than those other factors,

So, should I just go ahead and get used to the idea that if I want my statements accurately represented, I'm just going to have to be prepared to keep correcting you every so often?



and the political and economic system in operation.

All my comments so far have been with the current US system in mind.



According to the most recent census, the US poverty rate for blacks and hispanics is more than double that of whites.

And is it your position that most of this is not attributable to irresponsibility, bad judgment, a lack of hard work, or a combination of all three?



Are all those blacks and hispanics more lazy and irresponsible than their white counterparts?

My guess would be that the percentage of blacks/hispanics below the poverty level who are lazy is probably roughly the same as that of whites below the poverty level who are lazy. But more to the point, among everyone (regardless of race) who remains below the poverty level for any significant period of time, it would certainly seem that the chances are greater that either they are not working very hard, or they have made some bad choices (or both), than it is for those who do not remain in poverty.



The southern US also has a much higher poverty rate than other areas of the country. Are those Southern folk' just lazier than the rest of us? Hey, maybe they are, but I've never heard of anything to suggest that's the case.

I don't know whether they are or not, but if you'll recall, hard work is not the only factor I've mentioned. I live in the southern US, and with every situation I have ever encountered involving long term economic struggle, at least one of the factors I've mentioned is quite clearly present. The most common themes among the worst cases are a lack of educational preparation and having kids too soon.



It's not my job to prove you *wrong* when you've given no reason to think you're *right.*

I'll agree that it's not your job to prove me wrong, as long as proving me wrong is not what you want to accomplish. But I have given reasons. As I've pointed out more than once now, those would be my experiences and observations. Not sure why you keep forgetting about them.


It was an extreme example, to make a point.

Was it a point that is specifically in conflict with any of the statements I've made?



What you fail to understand (and I don't see why it's such a difficult point to concede) is that people can make those sacrifices and still, due to circumstances and factors beyond their control, not succeed. That's all I'm trying to say.

I'm pretty sure I never said otherwise, so why would you think I "fail to understand" it? And since it does not conflict with anything I've said, why would it occur to me to "concede" it? You almost seem to be looking for things to argue about.



I also asked the following earlier in this post, but I want to be sure you don't miss it. Have you ever formed any strong opinions about anything that's going on in the world just by paying attention?

Sure, but I've never made sweeping judgments about 30 million+ people based only on my own personal experience, without any empiral data to back me up.

Then you either seem to be contradicting yourself, or you've found some really subtle distinction in the relative merits of "strong opinions about anything that's going on in the world" and "sweeping judgments about 30 million+ people" that apparently makes you feel justified in criticizing one while admitting to the other. This is particularly bizarre since what you're referring to as "sweeping judgments" have all been about what I thought was likely, or probable, or applied to most cases, stuff like that. I'm not even sure you've specifically disagreed with any of those statements.

In any case, you did ask for my opinions. Did you forget that little detail? Were you only pretending to want them? Was I supposed to say "no thanks, because nobody has ever done a study about these things, and without that I don't dare express any opinions"?



I never questioned your confidence in your own opinion.

I never said you did.



I'm questioning the validity of your opinion.

If you want to do so effectively and credibly, then the best way to do that would probably be to clearly identify exactly which parts I'm wrong about (preferably without putting them in your own words first, of course), and explain exactly why you think so. Simply declaring that you're questioning their validity doesn't amount to much.



We can see in our own society how economic power translates very easily into political and social advantage. I think it's fair to speculate that if the economic disparity continues to increase, so will those other discrepancies.

You're still not being very clear about this stuff. Depending on what you mean by social advantage, I may or may not have a problem with it. I'd have to see some clear examples of what you think falls into this category. But if it's just that people who have more money can afford more stuff, well, that's really economic advantage.

And a good step toward removing the political advantage would be to actually get some libertarians elected to office.



But that's the problem. It's not based on anything I've already said. You're the one who threw all that stuff in there about "by extension, all economic, political and social power", and then speculated that I'd think it was "swell", without waiting for me to comment. In most cases, such patterns in someone's posts tend to reflect either sloppiness or dishonesty. In your case, I can't tell which applies yet. If you'll start being more careful and precise with your responses from this point on, we may not have to find out.

It seemed to be a logical outgrowth of your stated position. If you don't think that economic power translates into political and social power (without adequate equalizers), that's an interesting position to take (and defend).

I'm pretty sure I haven't said one way or the other yet. (You just can't help yourself, can you?) I'm still waiting on you to clarify your terms, like that whole "social power" thing. And while I might be bothered by the idea of economic power equating to political power, that's a problem with voters, not with a discrepancy in wealth. Last time I checked, you didn't have to have a minimum balance in your bank account in order to vote. And the more you get government out of areas it has no business being in to begin with, the less this is a problem.



By "ruling" I mean one group having such a great influence on politics and the economy of others that it effectively takes away their liberty, and their opportunity for equality in society.

Then I don't see this as a problem at all. I've known people of various backgrounds and income levels over the years, and I've never met a single person - not one - who has lost their liberty, or their opportunity for equality, as a result of anyone else's political or economic influence, or anything else for that matter. Sorry, but this just seems to be more of that hyperbole I was talking about.

[Reager]

I tried grouping the different points, so I didn’t have to repeat basically the same reply multiple times. Hope it helps streamline things a bit:

Originally posted by WMT1

No, it does not. If you want to make this case, then please quote some statement of mine (in my own words, of course) that you think makes this presumption, and I can probably show you where you've gone wrong.
...
So, should I just go ahead and get used to the idea that if I want my statements accurately represented, I'm just going to have to be prepared to keep correcting you every so often?
...
I'm pretty sure I never said otherwise, so why would you think I "fail to understand" it? And since it does not conflict with anything I've said, why would it occur to me to "concede" it? You almost seem to be looking for things to argue about.
...
If you want to do so effectively and credibly, then the best way to do that would probably be to clearly identify exactly which parts I'm wrong about (preferably without putting them in your own words first, of course), and explain exactly why you think so. Simply declaring that you're questioning their validity doesn't amount to much.


Ok, we have a problem here. You think I am (intentionally or not) misstating your position. Fair enough. However, any misrepresentation is certainly unintentional. Exactly WHY I seem to be misunderstanding your position is up for debate. I would suggest two possibilities: Either I am incapable of comprehending your position, or you have not stated your position clearly or specifically enough. As you’ve taken issue with every speculation about beliefs you may hold that haven’t been stated explicitly, I’d suggest it’s the later possibility. This would be a much more productive thread if, when someone misstates your position, you attempt to clarify what you believe, instead of sitting back and proclaiming, “Nope! Sorry, that’s not what I think at all…try again!”


And yet amazingly, you challenged the logic of the opposite position earlier. I wish you'd make up your mind.


You’ve presented a false dilemma. It’s possible there are more than two (exactly opposite) possibilities.


Good. Then you should have no problem understanding why that would be something that would be difficult for any "study" to prove anything about, one way or the other. Now, in your mind, does that mean nobody should ever have an opinion on the subject?


Of course not. But, if that’s the case, you’ve expressed an opinion that cannot be refuted and there’s no point in rational debate. However, it *is* possible to study the factors that correlate with and influence poverty, and measure *their* effect on one’s chances for economic prosperity, without resorting to illogical presumptions about whether someone’s “worked hard enough” to achieve a goal.


Or is it the expression of the opinion you take issue with?


Never have, never will.


And is it your position that most of this is not attributable to irresponsibility, bad judgment, a lack of hard work, or a combination of all three?


No, that’s not my position. I don’t know for certain what does or does not cause poverty. However, since even you have admitted that those other factors (race, education, etc.) do have an impact, it’s not unreasonable to ask you for objective, empirical data supporting your argument that laziness and irresponsibility are the predominant causes of poverty.


My guess would be that the percentage of blacks/hispanics below the poverty level who are lazy is probably roughly the same as that of whites below the poverty level who are lazy.


I would guess that as well. However, if laziness really causes poverty, then the data doesn’t bear this out. The percentage of blacks and hispanics in poverty is more than double that of whites, not the raw numbers. Unless, again, you are arguing that blacks and Hispanics are more lazy and irresponsible than whites.

Here’s the link: http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty01/povrac01cht.gif


Sure, but for the most part, all these factors take a back seat to (or, as with education, are significantly affected by) hard work, sound judgment, and responsibility.
…
But more to the point, among everyone (regardless of race) who remains below the poverty level for any significant period of time, it would certainly seem that the chances are greater that either they are not working very hard, or they have made some bad choices (or both), than it is for those who do not remain in poverty.
…
I don't know whether they are or not, but if you'll recall, hard work is not the only factor I've mentioned. I live in the southern US, and with every situation I have ever encountered involving long term economic struggle, at least one of the factors I've mentioned is quite clearly present. The most common themes among the worst cases are a lack of educational preparation and having kids too soon.
…
I'll agree that it's not your job to prove me wrong, as long as proving me wrong is not what you want to accomplish. But I have given reasons. As I've pointed out more than once now, those would be my experiences and observations. Not sure why you keep forgetting about them.
…
Then you either seem to be contradicting yourself, or you've found some really subtle distinction in the relative merits of "strong opinions about anything that's going on in the world" and "sweeping judgments about 30 million+ people" that apparently makes you feel justified in criticizing one while admitting to the other. This is particularly bizarre since what you're referring to as "sweeping judgments" have all been about what I thought was likely, or probable, or applied to most cases, stuff like that. I'm not even sure you've specifically disagreed with any of those statements.

In any case, you did ask for my opinions. Did you forget that little detail? Were you only pretending to want them? Was I supposed to say "no thanks, because nobody has ever done a study about these things, and without that I don't dare express any opinions"?


I’m not “forgetting” about your observations and experience, nor did I not want your opinion. But you’ve given no reason why your observations and experience provide adequate support for your opinion. Lots of people make lots of observations (“I saw a UFO!”) and have lots of experiences (“The black man raped me!”). That doesn’t mean all opinions based on them are correct (The UFO’s was an alien spacecraft! All black men are rapists!).


You're still not being very clear about this stuff. Depending on what you mean by social advantage, I may or may not have a problem with it. I'd have to see some clear examples of what you think falls into this category. But if it's just that people who have more money can afford more stuff, well, that's really economic advantage.
...
And a good step toward removing the political advantage would be to actually get some libertarians elected to office.
...
I'm pretty sure I haven't said one way or the other yet. (You just can't help yourself, can you?) I'm still waiting on you to clarify your terms, like that whole "social power" thing. And while I might be bothered by the idea of economic power equating to political power, that's a problem with voters, not with a discrepancy in wealth. Last time I checked, you didn't have to have a minimum balance in your bank account in order to vote. And the more you get government out of areas it has no business being in to begin with, the less this is a problem.
...
Then I don't see this as a problem at all. I've known people of various backgrounds and income levels over the years, and I've never met a single person - not one - who has lost their liberty, or their opportunity for equality, as a result of anyone else's political or economic influence, or anything else for that matter. Sorry, but this just seems to be more of that hyperbole I was talking about.

As this is a very different debate than the poverty issue, I suggest we either start a new thread or wait until we’ve concluded the poverty debate.


Mike

[WMT1]

Originally posted by mfeldman
Ok, we have a problem here. You think I am (intentionally or not) misstating your position. Fair enough. However, any misrepresentation is certainly unintentional. Exactly WHY I seem to be misunderstanding your position is up for debate.

It's pretty clear to me. Your tendency toward paraphrasing my words, rather than sticking to what I actually said, would be the primary source of the "misunderstanding".


I would suggest two possibilities: Either I am incapable of comprehending your position, or you have not stated your position clearly or specifically enough. As you’ve taken issue with every speculation about beliefs you may hold that haven’t been stated explicitly, I’d suggest it’s the later possibility.

That seems a little self-serving, since my doing so is just as consistent with the former possibility. There is also another possibility you did not mention - if you confined yourself to commenting on what I've actually said, without trying to put my opinions in your own words first, or speculating about my position on a particular point before I've even expressed it ("I guess you think that's perfectly swell."), you wouldn't have nearly as much to say about them.



This would be a much more productive thread if, when someone misstates your position, you attempt to clarify what you believe, instead of sitting back and proclaiming, “Nope! Sorry, that’s not what I think at all…try again!”

This would be a much more productive thread if, whenever you want to make reference to my position, you use my own words to do so. Own up to your own problems. You're the one who's chosen to make use of bad paraphrasing to make points that wouldn't otherwise be there, and amazingly enough, you just did it again. Sorry, but I'm not interested in having to "clarify" my position each time you misrepresent it.



And remember, if you dispute my statement, you are essentially claiming that even if someone isn't happy with what they've got, they probably have worked hard enough to acquire whatever they would be happy with. Do you want to go on record taking that position?

No, because that position doesn't make any sense.

And yet amazingly, you challenged the logic of the opposite position earlier. I wish you'd make up your mind.

You’ve presented a false dilemma. It’s possible there are more than two (exactly opposite) possibilities.

Really? Let's take a closer look.

1. If someone isn't happy with what they've got, there's a good chance they haven't worked hard enough to acquire whatever they would be happy with.

2. If someone isn't happy with what they've got, there's a good chance they have worked hard enough to acquire whatever they would be happy with.

Now, what were the other possibilities that would be "exactly opposite" to either of these statements?



Good. Then you should have no problem understanding why that would be something that would be difficult for any "study" to prove anything about, one way or the other. Now, in your mind, does that mean nobody should ever have an opinion on the subject? Or is it the expression of the opinion you take issue with?

Of course not. But, if that’s the case, you’ve expressed an opinion that cannot be refuted and there’s no point in rational debate.

Who said I wanted to debate it? Once again, you asked for my opinion. And you've kept asking, and asking ...



However, it *is* possible to study the factors that correlate with and influence poverty, and measure *their* effect on one’s chances for economic prosperity, without resorting to illogical presumptions about whether someone’s “worked hard enough” to achieve a goal.

But I haven't resorted to any such illogical presumptions. The presumptions I've made are perfectly logical and reasonable, based on years of experience and observation. Whatever that may be lacking in evidentiary value to someone who hasn't shared those experiences and observations, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it damn sure trumps your completely unfounded declarations that my conclusions are "illogical".



And is it your position that most of this is not attributable to irresponsibility, bad judgment, a lack of hard work, or a combination of all three?

No, that’s not my position. I don’t know for certain what does or does not cause poverty. However, since even you have admitted that those other factors (race, education, etc.) do have an impact, it’s not unreasonable to ask you for objective, empirical data supporting your argument that laziness and irresponsibility are the predominant causes of poverty.

That might be true if it was indeed an argument. But once again, it was an opinion, which you asked for. And it is unreasonable for you to then discount that opinion as "illogical" in the absence of "empirical data", when you yourself admitted:

"There is no objective measurement that can determine if someone's 'worked hard enough' to get something."



My guess would be that the percentage of blacks/hispanics below the poverty level who are lazy is probably roughly the same as that of whites below the poverty level who are lazy.

I would guess that as well. However, if laziness really causes poverty, then the data doesn’t bear this out. The percentage of blacks and hispanics in poverty is more than double that of whites, not the raw numbers. Unless, again, you are arguing that blacks and Hispanics are more lazy and irresponsible than whites.

I'm not. In fact, the opinions I've been expressing have had nothing to do with race, unless you've specifically asked. You're the one who seems hung up on it for some reason. I'm fairly confident, however, that laziness is more prevalent among those of any race who remain in poverty for a long time than it is among those who do not. If you disagree with that assessement, as worded, then plainly say so, and feel free to explain your position. But if you want to debate your ideas about the relative merits of different races, find someone else.



I’m not “forgetting” about your observations and experience,

You're certainly leaving that impression, when you say things like "when you've given no reason to think you're *right.*".



nor did I not want your opinion.

Then why have you kept asking for it?



But you’ve given no reason why your observations and experience provide adequate support for your opinion.

Are you serious?



Lots of people make lots of observations (“I saw a UFO!”) and have lots of experiences (“The black man raped me!”). That doesn’t mean all opinions based on them are correct (The UFO’s was an alien spacecraft! All black men are rapists!).

Well, when you factor in that the observations and experiences we're talking about have taken place over many years, in many locations, involving people from a variety of backgrounds, where the conclusions formed are soundly based on consistent and reliable patterns, and where there is absolutely no evidence refuting these conclusions, and almost no one except little old you who has ever taken issue with them and expected to be taken seriously, that would all certainly make it likely that they're correct, wouldn't it?



As this is a very different debate than the poverty issue, I suggest we either start a new thread or wait until we’ve concluded the poverty debate.

I'm not particularly interested. You're the one who keeps bringing up all this crap about the political and social advantage linked to wealth disparity. Since you seemed to want to know what I thought about it, I was just trying to get you to clarify your terms, which you have yet to do.

[Reager]

Originally posted by WMT1


[QUOTE]
Really? Let's take a closer look.

1. If someone isn't happy with what they've got, there's a good chance they haven't worked hard enough to acquire whatever they would be happy with.

2. If someone isn't happy with what they've got, there's a good chance they have worked hard enough to acquire whatever they would be happy with.

Now, what were the other possibilities that would be "exactly opposite" to either of these statements?



I never said there were other possibilities exactly opposite either of those statements (whatever that means), so stop misrepresenting my position. See how stupid that sounds? Now, I COULD have simply explained what I meant and moved on, but hey, going in circles is fun...



Who said I wanted to debate it? Once again, you asked for my opinion. And you've kept asking, and asking ...


Don't flatter yourself. What I've kept asking for is ONE SHRED OF OBJECTIVE, RELIABLE EVIDENCE YOU'RE CORRECT - Evidence you've been unwilling or unable to provide without excuses like, "This isn't a debate, you just asked for my opinion!"** Sorry pal, that is lame. The (primary) purpose of this forum is debate and discussion. If you have no interest in defending your opinion then just say so up front. It will save everyone else the energy they'll wast responding to you.

**Why do I get the feeling there's another accusation of "bad paraphrasing" on the way.


Well, when you factor in that the observations and experiences we're talking about have taken place over many years, in many locations, involving people from a variety of backgrounds, where the conclusions formed are soundly based on consistent and reliable patterns, and where there is absolutely no evidence refuting these conclusions, and almost no one except little old you who has ever taken issue with them and expected to be taken seriously, that would all certainly make it likely that they're correct, wouldn't it?


This MIGHT qualify as the type of evidence I asked for if it WERE MORE THAN YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. My god is this such a difficult concept to grasp?! Personal experience is practically WORTHLESS without a) evidentiary or empirical support or b) some other reason why it should be given authority (for example, you are a recognized expert on the poor and the causes of poverty). You seem to think otherwise.

I'd like to say this has been fun, rather than frustrating and silly. But I can't. There is no point in continuing this.

Mike

[WMT1]

Originally posted by WMT1
1. If someone isn't happy with what they've got, there's a good chance they haven't worked hard enough to acquire whatever they would be happy with.

2. If someone isn't happy with what they've got, there's a good chance they have worked hard enough to acquire whatever they would be happy with.

Now, what were the other possibilities that would be "exactly opposite" to either of these statements?

Originally posted by mfeldman
I never said there were other possibilities exactly opposite either of those statements (whatever that means),

Then what the hell were you talking about when you said "You’ve presented a false dilemma. It’s possible there are more than two (exactly opposite) possibilities", right after I had just made reference to those two possibilities? This just seems to be a way to avoid admitting that you backed yourself into a corner. So let's try this again, just to try and pin you down. Do you agree with both of the above two statements, neither of them, or only one of them? And if only one, which one?



so stop misrepresenting my position. See how stupid that sounds?

Well, you've certainly demonstrated how stupid it sounds when you get it wrong. Do you want to go on record claiming it's a stupid complaint when someone is actually right about it?



Now, I COULD have simply explained what I meant and moved on, but hey, going in circles is fun...

Can't say I'm surprised that you would think so.



Who said I wanted to debate it? Once again, you asked for my opinion. And you've kept asking, and asking ...

Don't flatter yourself.

Ahem ...


Oh, so if someone is poor it's because they haven't worked "hard enough" to get themselves out of poverty?

Ok, suppose the income gap continues to increase, and 30 years from now 1% of the population controls 95% of the nation's wealth. Would that be perfectly fine with you also?

Race, sex, education, and socio-economic status have *something* to do with it too, don't you think?

So, you really do think that if someone's poor it's their fault because they exercise poor judgment and don't work hard enough.

And I suppose that means if you're wealthy and successful, it's because you have worked real hard and exercised good judgment?

Then how can you say with a straight face that your perceptions about the laziness and poor judgment of the poor are at all realistic?

And the resulting political, economic, and social inequality that would inevitably result doesn’t bother you at all? That would be a “just” society in your eyes?

Are all those blacks and hispanics more lazy and irresponsible than their white counterparts?

The southern US also has a much higher poverty rate than other areas of the country. Are those Southern folk' just lazier than the rest of us?


Does that help refresh your memory?



What I've kept asking for is ONE SHRED OF OBJECTIVE, RELIABLE EVIDENCE YOU'RE CORRECT -
Evidence you've been unwilling or unable to provide without excuses like, "This isn't a debate, you just asked for my opinion!"** Sorry pal, that is lame.

Sorry, pal, but your swagger is what is lame, particularly while trying to manufacture phony criticisms from the lack of evidence accompanying opinions that you kept asking for. And you won't find one respected skeptic in this forum who would back you up on that particular criticism. Further, you've exposed your own hypocrisy by trying to extract that point over a lack of proof for something about which you yourself admitted "There is no objective measurement that can determine if someone's 'worked hard enough' to get something".



The (primary) purpose of this forum is debate and discussion. If you have no interest in defending your opinion then just say so up front. It will save everyone else the energy they'll wast responding to you.

Uh-huh. Get back to me when you've decided to hold up your end of the discussion - that is, when you're prepared to provide proof for your opinions, and when you're ready to stop dodging the points I've raised about evidence.



**Why do I get the feeling there's another accusation of "bad paraphrasing" on the way.

Why do I get the feeling that you're under the impression that if you express sarcasm about someone complaining about your screwups, it will somehow make them less obvious?



Lots of people make lots of observations (“I saw a UFO!”) and have lots of experiences (“The black man raped me!”). That doesn’t mean all opinions based on them are correct (The UFO’s was an alien spacecraft! All black men are rapists!).

Well, when you factor in that the observations and experiences we're talking about have taken place over many years, in many locations, involving people from a variety of backgrounds, where the conclusions formed are soundly based on consistent and reliable patterns, and where there is absolutely no evidence refuting these conclusions, and almost no one except little old you who has ever taken issue with them and expected to be taken seriously, that would all certainly make it likely that they're correct, wouldn't it?

This MIGHT qualify as the type of evidence I asked for if it WERE MORE THAN YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.

Sorry, but you apparently have me confused with someone who actually gives a rat's ass about the "type" of evidence you asked for. :rolleyes:

The issue I'm responding to here is the one you yourself raised with your own hyperbolic nonsense about UFOs & black men - the likelihood of whether those observations and experiences are actually correct. For all your sounding off about it, you did not bother to answer the question I responded with, so I'm guessing it's a point you would now prefer to avoid.

Moreover, the type of evidence you asked for is evidence for which you yourself admitted "there is no objective measurement" anyway. For some reason, you don't seem to want to address this point either. What a surprise.



My god is this such a difficult concept to grasp?! Personal experience is practically WORTHLESS without a) evidentiary or empirical support [b]or b) some other reason why it should be given authority (for example, you are a recognized expert on the poor and the causes of poverty). You seem to think otherwise.

I'll do you one better. I know otherwise. To most people (hell just about anyone), when forming their own opinions, their own personal experiences and observations are, in and of themselves, just about the most powerful evidentiary support there is. So, I'd say that to suggest that personal experience is practically worthless is not so much a difficult concept to "grasp" as it's just plain stupid. I hope I haven't been too ambiguous on this point.



I'd like to say this has been fun, rather than frustrating and silly. But I can't. There is no point in continuing this.

I'm inclined to agree. You started right out of the gate with a post of poorly thought-out whining, and you've never deviated too far from that.