Rand Paul's Guide to Improving the Grand Old Party - Polidicks

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40039588]guys guys guys i'm not defending right libertarianism, although i do take offense at the communism comment considering i'm a leftist. i'm just saying [I]why[/I] it is appealing to younger voters. young adults are generally interested in freedom to pursue their interests. libertarianism claims to offer that freedom.[/QUOTE] I understand, no offense intended. [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40039592]Why the hell does everyone assume libertarianism automatically equates to anarchy?[/QUOTE] Well, given that anarchy is defined as a state where the government is nonexistent, the less hands-on a government becomes the closer it's getting to anarchy in its purest sense. Some libertarian economic models are a flavor of anarchy where the function of the government is replaced with corporations fulfilling specific governmental functions. But I wasn't saying libertarianism = anarchy, just that as far as governments go, the most hands-off governments happen to coincide with some of the worst societies on Earth to live in.

Look, let me explain my point of view here. Libertarianism can't work because people with money, power and influence use that money, power and influence to get more money, power, and influence, and they also do their best to ensure that nobody else ever gains enough money, power and influence to become a threat to them. If there are others with money, power, and influence, these individuals will try to either ally with them or eliminate them. All bad news for the little guy, because the rich guys hold all the cards. Less regulation for corporations will let them fuck everyone else, their workers included, over. [editline]25th March 2013[/editline] There will be no chance for the poor to ever prosper because the rich will prevent them from doing it - And because there'll be no regulation, there'll be nobody to stop them.

[QUOTE=archangel125;40039620]Look, let me explain my point of view here. Libertarianism can't work because people with money, power and influence use that money, power and influence to get more money, power, and influence, and they also do their best to ensure that nobody else ever gains enough money, power and influence to become a threat to them. If there are others with money, power, and influence, these individuals will try to either ally with them or eliminate them. All bad news for the little guy, because the rich guys hold all the cards.[/QUOTE] honestly i would say it's not incredibly different than the way it is now. don't the rich hold all the cards as it is? [editline]25th March 2013[/editline] the rich, right now, hold power both in the private sector and the "parliament". in a libertarian system the rich would hold more power in the private sector but probably not as much in the government since the government is ineffective at increasing their power.

[QUOTE=catbarf;40039618]I understand, no offense intended. Well, given that anarchy is defined as a state where the government is nonexistent, the less hands-on a government becomes the closer it's getting to anarchy in its purest sense. Some libertarian economic models are a flavor of anarchy where the function of the government is replaced with corporations fulfilling specific governmental functions. But I wasn't saying libertarianism = anarchy, just that as far as governments go, the most hands-off governments happen to coincide with some of the worst societies on Earth to live in.[/QUOTE] There are just as many hands on governments that make their countries miserable to live in, like NK. Real libertarianism does not go to "the extreme" of absolutely no government. It's [I]less[/I] government, not [I]zero[/I] government. There is a distinguishable difference. [editline]25th March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=archangel125;40039620]Look, let me explain my point of view here. Libertarianism can't work because people with money, power and influence use that money, power and influence to get more money, power, and influence, and they also do their best to ensure that nobody else ever gains enough money, power and influence to become a threat to them. If there are others with money, power, and influence, these individuals will try to either ally with them or eliminate them. All bad news for the little guy, because the rich guys hold all the cards. Less regulation for corporations will let them fuck everyone else, their workers included, over. [editline]25th March 2013[/editline] There will be no chance for the poor to ever prosper because the rich will prevent them from doing it - And because there'll be no regulation, there'll be nobody to stop them.[/QUOTE] I identify myself as libertarian and see both big corporations and big government as a menace to society. Though I probably put more of my political focus on civil rights than economics.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40039643]honestly i would say it's not incredibly different than the way it is now. don't the rich hold all the cards as it is?[/QUOTE] Let's say now they have a massive advantage. Implement libertarianism and they'll literally OWN their workers. Like people used to own slaves. See, without regulation, companies don't have to pay their workers a minimum wage. They don't have to give them benefits, like insurance. They don't have to keep the working environment clean or safe. They don't have to pay them overtime, and they don't have to pay them for all their work, so long as a small, token amount is paid. Did you know workers in China make eighteen cents an hour? Workers immediately have no rights, and can be fired for refusing to do unsafe work. Hell, they can be fired for literally any reason. Without regulation, insurance companies can deny anyone insurance. [editline]25th March 2013[/editline] Libertarianism's a pretty word for Anarchy. Sorry, Emperor, but I maintain that people being people is the reason it'll never work on a large scale. A small village or a family unit, sure. Nationally? Look at Somalia.

[QUOTE=catbarf;40039618] Well, given that anarchy is defined as a state where the government is nonexistent, the less hands-on a government becomes the closer it's getting to anarchy in its purest sense. Some libertarian economic models are a flavor of anarchy where the function of the government is replaced with corporations fulfilling specific governmental functions. But I wasn't saying libertarianism = anarchy, just that as far as governments go, the most hands-off governments happen to coincide with some of the worst societies on Earth to live in.[/QUOTE] some of the most hands-on governments do as well. i don't think the presence of government is the defining factor of the livability of a society, but how authority and hierarchy are organized in a very pure sense. you don't need a government to oppress the people if you have warlords or gangs doing it instead. an "anarchist"(i use that term loosely) system where there is still a small class of people with some form of power over everyone else is going to be, in principle, very similar to any statist society.

When there is a power vacuum, when government is too small, certain elements that have the resources and manpower to usurp that government take command. In Somalia, the current Islamist government overthrew the last one because it was too small. In the USA, you're likely to see a Christian theocratic power rise.

Most workers can be fired for absolutely no reason already and there's not any great hype about it, so I don't see how that's even an issue.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40039738]Most workers can be fired for absolutely no reason already and there's not any great hype about it, so I don't see how that's even an issue.[/QUOTE] You're ignoring the big issue deliberately. The corporations now have a small amount of regulation. Things fucking suck, but they're still redeemable. Corporations in Canada have more regulation, and things are better here. Take away all regulation and things go to shit, and I've already explained why. [editline]25th March 2013[/editline] By the way, the dumb rating really, really help your credibility, Scorpious. Good job.

[quote]Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, said Sunday he doesn't think the United States fits into a left-right paradigm[/quote] Well, he's right on that. It's much closer to a Right-More right paradigm.

[QUOTE=archangel125;40039701]Let's say now they have a massive advantage. Implement libertarianism and they'll literally OWN their workers. Like people used to own slaves. See, without regulation, companies don't have to pay their workers a minimum wage. They don't have to give them benefits, like insurance. They don't have to keep the working environment clean or safe. They don't have to pay them overtime, and they don't have to pay them for all their work, so long as a small, token amount is paid. Did you know workers in China make eighteen cents an hour? Workers immediately have no rights, and can be fired for refusing to do unsafe work. Hell, they can be fired for literally any reason. Without regulation, insurance companies can deny anyone insurance.[/quote] i don't disagree that completely unregulated capitalism is bad. however, i'm just saying that libertarianism wouldn't necessarily be the end of the worker when our system is still pretty bad anyways. and libertarians aren't some homogenous group that are all against worker's rights or minimum wage. there are plenty of libertarians that believe those forms of regulation are necessary. [quote]Libertarianism's a pretty word for Anarchy. Sorry, Emperor, but I maintain that people being people is the reason it'll never work on a large scale. A small village or a family unit, sure. Nationally? Look at Somalia.[/QUOTE] this is like saying that nazi germany, the ussr, cambodia, north korea, etc. were bad, that government can never work out.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40039738]Most workers can be fired for absolutely no reason already and there's not any great hype about it, so I don't see how that's even an issue.[/QUOTE] It's an issue in BOTH cases. The government fucking up doesn't mean we need less government, it means we need a government that doesn't fuck up.

[QUOTE=archangel125;40039729]When there is a power vacuum, when government is too small, certain elements that have the resources and manpower to usurp that government take command. In Somalia, the current Islamist government overthrew the last one because it was too small. In the USA, you're likely to see a Christian theocratic power rise.[/QUOTE] Prior to the Somali Civil War, their government was a military dictatorship (when are they ever small?). They erupted in war because of outside groups came in and caused trouble, especially from Ethiopia.

[QUOTE=archangel125;40039729]In the USA, you're likely to see a Christian theocratic power rise.[/QUOTE] Hahaha, what the fuck? This is one of the worst statements on politics there is. Worse then "communism will never work because the USSR failed".

[QUOTE=archangel125;40039752] [editline]25th March 2013[/editline] By the way, the dumb rating really, really help your credibility, Scorpious. Good job.[/QUOTE] By the way, the funny rating really, really help your credibility, archangel. Good job.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40039768] this is like saying that nazi germany, the ussr, cambodia, north korea, etc. were bad, that government can never work out.[/QUOTE] Too much government is bad, and small or no government is worse. Nazi Germany, the USSR, Cambodia and North Korea all are known for one thing - Their crackdowns on civil liberties. We're talking economics here, so that's a shit analogy. What I'm trying to explain here is that the reason regulations are in place is to prevent the economy from taking a nosedive and to prevent those who have power using that power abusively. Reduce the size of government and they'll take more liberties. There are some people who only want to claim enough resources to let them and their families live comfortably. Multibillionaires are NOT among those people. [editline]25th March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40039796]By the way, the funny rating really, really help your credibility, archangel. Good job.[/QUOTE] Sure, ignore the issue again. I think we both know who won.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40039796]By the way, the funny rating really, really help your credibility, archangel. Good job.[/QUOTE] That was me [editline]25th March 2013[/editline] No wait different post never mind

[QUOTE=archangel125;40039812]Too much government is bad, and small or no government is worse. Nazi Germany, the USSR, Cambodia and North Korea all are known for one thing - Their crackdowns on civil liberties.[/quote] and their unique economic systems. [quote]We're talking economics here, so that's a shit analogy.[/quote] your economic freedom is linked to your social freedom in very fundamental ways. [quote]What I'm trying to explain here is that the reason regulations are in place is to prevent the economy from taking a nosedive and to prevent those who have power using that power abusively. Reduce the size of government and they'll take more liberties. [/quote] but what happens in a system like ours where the people writing the regulations are the ones being regulated? i mean there are some regulations that may be necessary in the current system, i think almost everyone would agree with that statement. however, would you say most regulation is necessary? would you even say a lot of the regulation is necessary? [quote]There are some people who only want to claim enough resources to let them and their families live comfortably. Multibillionaires are NOT among those people.[/QUOTE] that is an argument against government intervention as well. [editline]26th March 2013[/editline] the corruption that you see in the private sector is corruption that can clearly be seen in the public sector as well. when you trade free markets for government intervention you are really trading the "capitalist dictator" for the "parliamentary dictator". sometimes that might be preferable, sometimes not. it is still functionally similar though. you have your economic freedom taken in favor of profit, efficiency, and cohesion.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40039871]and their unique economic systems. your economic freedom is linked to your social freedom in very fundamental ways. but what happens in a system like ours where the people writing the regulations are the ones being regulated? i mean there are some regulations that may be necessary in the current system, i think almost everyone would agree with that statement. however, would you say most regulation is necessary? would you even say a lot of the regulation is necessary? that is an argument against government intervention as well.[/QUOTE] ALL that regulation is very necessary. In fact, in the USA, I'd say corporations need even more of it. The reason policymakers in the USA are regulated is to ensure that the policies they pass are not going to infringe upon the rights of Americans and the mandate of the country as set out by its constitution. Yes, regulation slows things down considerably, but it keeps any single element from gaining so much power that it can take control and shape the system to suit its sole interests. Government in a way needs to project its power, or it's no longer the government. The party in the country with the most wealth/power becomes that government, and there's likely to be a bloody power struggle. That is what libertarianism is inviting, and that is what, again, you're seeing in Somalia.

[QUOTE=archangel125;40039952]ALL that regulation is very necessary. In fact, in the USA, I'd say corporations need even more of it. The reason policymakers in the USA are regulated is to ensure that the policies they pass are not going to infringe upon the rights of Americans and the mandate of the country as set out by its constitution. Yes, regulation slows things down considerably, but it keeps any single element from gaining so much power that it can take control and shape the system to suit its sole interests. Government in a way needs to project its power, or it's no longer the government. The party in the country with the most wealth/power becomes that government, and there's likely to be a bloody power struggle. That is what libertarianism is inviting, and that is what, again, you're seeing in Somalia.[/QUOTE] what about government subsidies of big oil companies? would you say those are necessary "regulations" of our economy? [editline]26th March 2013[/editline] what about the subsidies and price controls in place on corn?

If I had to sum this up in two words: Libertarianism isn't. Why? Because as I said before, that power vacuum will soon be filled by the one wealthy entity that takes the initiative, and because other wealthy entities will literally shed blood to take its place. Your 'freedom' will only ultimately exist for the richest and most powerful group within the country, and be denied to EVERYONE else. At least in a parliamentary state, even one which is a dictatorship, you'll usually see some semblance of accountability.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40039871]and their unique economic systems. your economic freedom is linked to your social freedom in very fundamental ways. but what happens in a system like ours where the people writing the regulations are the ones being regulated? i mean there are some regulations that may be necessary in the current system, i think almost everyone would agree with that statement. however, would you say most regulation is necessary? would you even say a lot of the regulation is necessary? that is an argument against government intervention as well. [editline]26th March 2013[/editline] the corruption that you see in the private sector is corruption that can clearly be seen in the public sector as well. when you trade free markets for government intervention you are really trading the "capitalist dictator" for the "parliamentary dictator". sometimes that might be preferable, sometimes not. it is still functionally similar though. you have your economic freedom taken in favor of profit, efficiency, and cohesion.[/QUOTE] What economic freedom are you talking about? The freedom for corporations to lie to, bully and rip off consumers?

so freedom cannot exist because humans can't be free? are you coming from the assumption that humans need people to rule over them?

[QUOTE=archangel125;40039952]That is what libertarianism is inviting, and that is what, again, you're seeing in Somalia.[/QUOTE] ??? Libertarianism (that's apparently not a word but fuck it #YOLO) isn't working towards a bloody Wars of the Roses esque power struggle, it's just small government in favor of increased public ability to choose. That's all it's about, choice. And please shut the fuck up about Somalia. It's a failed state now ruled by various different groups of warlords and semi-legitimate governing groups, not an actual example of anarchy as yawmen and other self-described anarchists (I mean, I'm pretty sure yawmen is an anarchist. Then again i was pretty sure he was a left-libertarian like Scorp so I have no idea) so passionately loves.

[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;40040027]What economic freedom are you talking about? The freedom for corporations to lie to, bully and rip off consumers?[/QUOTE] freedom to work and associate freely. the ability for workers to form their own democratic unions, people to own their work, etc.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40040008]what about government subsidies of big oil companies? would you say those are necessary "regulations" of our economy? [editline]26th March 2013[/editline] what about the subsidies and price controls in place on corn?[/QUOTE] Do you know why these price controls and subsidies are even necessary? I mean, the big economic recession triggered by the banks fucking shit up, even the great depression of the 1930s, was caused because there really wasn't enough regulation. Regulation is the key to stability. Even dictators like the Nazi regime made Germany's economy flourish. People prospered in a big way. And it was stable as hell until the government was overthrown. Choosing regulation does not automatically make one an authoritarian. Either extreme is retarded. Government regulation, social security, and the freedom to pursue personal fortunes are the middle ground. Socialism.

[QUOTE=DaysBefore;40040035]??? Libertarianism (that's apparently not a word but fuck it #YOLO) isn't working towards a bloody Wars of the Roses esque power struggle, it's just small government in favor of increased public ability to choose. That's all it's about, choice. And please shut the fuck up about Somalia. It's a failed state now ruled by various different groups of warlords and semi-legitimate governing groups, not an actual example of anarchy as yawmen and other self-described anarchists (I mean, I'm pretty sure yawmen is an anarchist. Then again i was pretty sure he was a left-libertarian like Scorp so I have no idea) so passionately loves.[/QUOTE] i'm a libertarian socialist aka a leftist anarchist aka a dirty commie [editline]26th March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=archangel125;40040043]Do you know why these price controls and subsidies are even necessary?[/QUOTE] why do you find them necessary?

[QUOTE=archangel125;40040043]Do you know why these price controls and subsidies are even necessary? I mean, the big economic recession triggered by the banks fucking shit up, even the great depression of the 1930s, was caused because there really wasn't enough regulation. Regulation is the key to stability. Even dictators like the Nazi regime made Germany's economy flourish. People prospered in a big way. And it was stable as hell until the government was overthrown. Choosing regulation does not automatically make one an authoritarian. Either extreme is retarded. Government regulation, social security, and the freedom to pursue personal fortunes are the middle ground. Socialism.[/QUOTE] You realize that a great deal of the Nazi regime's economic plans were fueled by fortunes completely seized from Jews and other minorities, right? It wasn't good planning, it was outright theft and murder of who they stole it from.

[QUOTE=DaysBefore;40040035]??? Libertarianism (that's apparently not a word but fuck it #YOLO) isn't working towards a bloody Wars of the Roses esque power struggle, it's just small government in favor of increased public ability to choose. That's all it's about, choice. And please shut the fuck up about Somalia. It's a failed state now ruled by various different groups of warlords and semi-legitimate governing groups, not an actual example of anarchy as yawmen and other self-described anarchists (I mean, I'm pretty sure yawmen is an anarchist. Then again i was pretty sure he was a left-libertarian like Scorp so I have no idea) so passionately loves.[/QUOTE] You ignored the rest of my argument. Again. Slowly and clearly this time. Your war-of-the-roses-esque power struggle will happen EVERY TIME there is a power vacuum, because when the government isn't present enough, the dollar becomes king, and whomever has the most wealth has the most power. Unfortunately for all of us, people in the United States or anywhere in the world who have massive wealth generally like to keep that massive wealth, and so they'll do whatever they have to to make sure the system protects their interests - At the cost of everyone else. Remove government and you're inviting someone to barge in and set up their own. And please, for fuck's sake, look at WHY Somalia is a failed state.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40040031]so freedom cannot exist because humans can't be free? are you coming from the assumption that humans need people to rule over them?[/QUOTE] Once again, this sounds like you're advocating anarchism. The primary job of the government is to keep people's freedoms from being infringed upon by other people. We NEED the government to do this. We NEED the government to remove our neighbors "freedom" to murder so that we can retain our freedom to not be murdered. We need the government to remove a corporation's freedom to poison us so that we can retain our freedom to not be poisoned.