SPC (and other libertarians) Political Views Discussion Thread

[Earth]

Libertarians on the board, what make you of Rand's Objectivist philosophy?

Good except for her foreign policy views.

Really? And I thought her foreign policy was tame compared to her ramblings.

[dead0man]

So we're all on the same page:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It comes across as a little selfish and it's certainly not how I define my own libertarian beliefs, but I don't have any major problems with it either.

[Earth]

Even if I were a libertarian (I sympathize with their social leanings), I would still have problems with her ideas even aside from her selfish, and somewhat fascist tendency to exalt the individual.

On a philosophical level, I can't even get behind these statements:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

On a more personal level, she held some despicable beliefs about natives:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I bring up Rand because of an overlap in ideology between her followers and libertarians, but even Rothbard grew hostile towards her.

[Bacon King]

I am interested in your response to the following, yet did not want bump that thread and prevent a vote from happening or whatever.

To the Senators supporting this repeal:

how do you instead propose the Atlasian government rectify the 'tragedy of the commons' situation that would otherwise exist regarding Earth's fragile atmosphere and climate?

I would propose a system to privatize Atlasia's roads and highways, thus getting rid of the tragedy of the commons situation.

Pray tell, how does transferring roadways to private ownership in any way provide a consequence for dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere?

Because a lot of CO2 is released through driving. Because private road owners will wish to make a profit, they will charge money for road usage, thus bringing driving down and increasing the incentive to carpool or use alternative forms of transportation.

By that logic, one could argue that car registration fees eliminate the tragedy of the commons effect- they increase the cost of driving so they discourage emissions! In reality, a lot of driving isn't very flexible- you have to go to work, to the grocery store, etc. regardless of how much some guy is charging you to use his road. See driver behavior after gasoline price doubled last summer- everyone still drove plenty.

Besides, your plan has no effect on carbon emissions from sources other than vehicles. Cars cause what, 20%, of total emissions? Your proposal would do nothing to remove incentives from the creation of the vast majority of carbon pollution.

[SPC]

I am interested in your response to the following, yet did not want bump that thread and prevent a vote from happening or whatever.

To the Senators supporting this repeal:

how do you instead propose the Atlasian government rectify the 'tragedy of the commons' situation that would otherwise exist regarding Earth's fragile atmosphere and climate?

I would propose a system to privatize Atlasia's roads and highways, thus getting rid of the tragedy of the commons situation.

Pray tell, how does transferring roadways to private ownership in any way provide a consequence for dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere?

Because a lot of CO2 is released through driving. Because private road owners will wish to make a profit, they will charge money for road usage, thus bringing driving down and increasing the incentive to carpool or use alternative forms of transportation.

By that logic, one could argue that car registration fees eliminate the tragedy of the commons effect- they increase the cost of driving so they discourage emissions! In reality, a lot of driving isn't very flexible- you have to go to work, to the grocery store, etc. regardless of how much some guy is charging you to use his road. See driver behavior after gasoline price doubled last summer- everyone still drove plenty.

Besides, your plan has no effect on carbon emissions from sources other than vehicles. Cars cause what, 20%, of total emissions? Your proposal would do nothing to remove incentives from the creation of the vast majority of carbon pollution.

I recall last summer when gas prices were high, that the roads were a lot emptier than they usually are. While necessary trips will still be done, I think that when people have to pay to use a road, they will think twice about making a trip. Even if I accept the MMGW hypothesis, which I am skeptical of, I think that a reduction of 20% of total emmisions would still have a great effect.

[k-onmmunist]

I find it deeply ironic that SPC is pro peace AND anti-gun control.

[SPC]

I find it deeply ironic that SPC is pro peace AND anti-gun control.

How else are you supposed to maintain peace?

[dead0man]

I find it deeply ironic that SPC is pro peace AND anti-gun control.

I find it funny that you find that ironic.

[Torie]

I find it deeply ironic that SPC is pro peace AND anti-gun control.

An armed society is a polite society is the brief here. YMMV.

[Ban my account ffs!]

     Secession is a fundamental right of any political entity. No individual or group should be forcibly bound to a despotic authoritative body.

You're right... but if it is only one state threatening to leave the "despotic authoritative body" then it says more about the seceding party than it does about the other.  Especially when they have a history of doing such a thing in order to preserve the institution of slavery.

[SPC]

Bump. Feel free to discuss anything.

[Хahar 🤔]

Courts of law.

[dead0man]

I'm (apparently) a LINO.  Discuss.  WITH MAPS!

[CJK]

I have a question.

Your signature states that more than 1 million Iraqis have died "due to the U.S. invasion". Isn't that something like saying that hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki died due to the attack on Pearl Harbor?

And I mean what's your point? Even if that figure was accurate (its not even remotely plausible) it doesn't change the minds of the many people who supported the war but thought its execution, at least initially, was hopelessly flawed. Saying that supporting the war = supporting the deaths of 1 million people (as you no doubt intend to insinuate) is arguing a straw man.

[SPC]

I have a question.

Your signature states that more than 1 million Iraqis have died "due to the U.S. invasion". Isn't that something like saying that hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki died due to the attack on Pearl Harbor?

And I mean what's your point? Even if that figure was accurate (its not even remotely plausible) it doesn't change the minds of the many people who supported the war but thought its execution, at least initially, was hopelessly flawed. Saying that supporting the war = supporting the deaths of 1 million people (as you no doubt intend to insinuate) is arguing a straw man.

The 1 million figure was reached at through extrapolating a survey from Johns Hopkins University. The point of the signature was to show the fatal consequences of the War in Iraq.

[SPC]

Courts of law.

Interesting. I've gained greater knowledge of this issue through reading The Market for Liberty by the Tannehills. It states that contracts would often specify which court would decide in the event that there was a dispute between the two parties regarding the contract.

[Scam of God]

The problem with right-libertarians (henceforth referred to as 'minarchists') is that they literally only believe the way they do because it benefits them.

Which isn't to say this is a bad thing prima facie: I wouldn't befault a working-class liberal for wanting what he wants, or, conversely, a Southern hick. But unique among the ideologies is the fact that the minarchists are remarkably pro-State for being such a group of 'radical' 'individualists' who are going to 'change everything (when) (if) they get into power'.

For instance, if one wanted to be philosophically true to his roots, a genuine minarchist could make a fine case that the root of all war is the State, and hence to totally defund the State is to defund the State's ability to wage war - for the betterment of humanity. But that would threaten the Military Keynesianism so favored by men of the Right - "we'll happily inflate the economy to stimulate artificial jobs - in the military-industrial compex" - since the Eisenhower Administration. And so Reagan runs massive deficits to 'defeat' an 'enemy' that had been on the brink of collapse since détente, and the radical minarchist! cheers and calls for funneling more money into black-ops projects.

In other words, the philosophy of the American minarchist is a philosophy of 'buts'. Liberty for all!... but the gays, when they prove to be politically inconvenient to a forsaken marriage with the Republican Party. Self-ownership to all!... save the self-ownership of the woman over her means of sexual reproduction; those must be overseen by her local and Religious authorities. Government isn't the answer to our problems; government is the problem - except in the foreign arena, where our State-funded military is the answer, and there we need a Victory Tax to Support Our Boys. And above all, you will be patriotic: there's no socialism like national socialism!

The right-minarchist is the one-dimensional man: the sole, only, and defining reason he hates the State is because the State is a threat to his stock options. Hence removing the State from the market has become his raison d'existence; he is quite literally incapable of thinking about the other ways that the State threatens its own citizens (he is willfully oblivious because, quite frequently, he agrees with the oppression of State-enforced social norms - the right-minarchist is usually a retrograde reactionist, blissful in ignorance, whose so-called "ideology", if not physical form, seem fresh out of the fetid boonies of Cajun country).

Would a worthless mouth like dead0man have any use in totally neutering the United States military as a threat to the future existence of the species? Of course not. For one, the idea is reprehensible to him; his anti-State rhetoric is a posture, a social function designed to set him aside from "the masses". And two, that's how he feeds himself: intellectual honesty is secondary to filling his belly. He is more than content after eating to rub his tummy, burp, and return to his idiot-dreams. What does the jackboot care about the size of the foot walking over it? It can't think, and neither can the minarchist.

That's the problem with the joke that is libertarianism, American-style: not that it's radical, but that it's a half-asses collage of every worthless and reactionary idea under the sun. By so perverting the root nature of libertarianism, these jackasses have made it politically useless.

[SPC]

I'm (apparently) a LINO.  Discuss.  WITH MAPS!

While you're not as radical as I would like, I think you'd generally fit the plumb line.

[dead0man]

Awwww, Einzige, I feel honored.  If I had my way (with the Federal budget), I would certainly lose my job.  I'm cool with that.  Keep trying.

[Vepres]

In other words, the philosophy of the American minarchist is a philosophy of 'buts'. Liberty for all!... but the gays, when they prove to be politically inconvenient to a forsaken marriage with the Republican Party. Self-ownership to all!... save the self-ownership of the woman over her means of sexual reproduction; those must be overseen by her local and Religious authorities. Government isn't the answer to our problems; government is the problem - except in the foreign arena, where our State-funded military is the answer, and there we need a Victory Tax to Support Our Boys. And above all, you will be patriotic: there's no socialism like national socialism!

You're confusing libertarianism with conservatism, big difference.

[Associate Justice PiT]

In other words, the philosophy of the American minarchist is a philosophy of 'buts'. Liberty for all!... but the gays, when they prove to be politically inconvenient to a forsaken marriage with the Republican Party. Self-ownership to all!... save the self-ownership of the woman over her means of sexual reproduction; those must be overseen by her local and Religious authorities. Government isn't the answer to our problems; government is the problem - except in the foreign arena, where our State-funded military is the answer, and there we need a Victory Tax to Support Our Boys. And above all, you will be patriotic: there's no socialism like national socialism!

You're confusing libertarianism with conservatism, big difference.

     It's worth noting that Reagan himself was rather libertarian. The only thing is that he sold out his ideology for political gain & came to espouse dangerous ideas in regards to social freedoms & miltary spending while in the White House, all while continuing to claim that the government shouldn't be taking our money.

[Хahar 🤔]

Courts of law.

Interesting. I've gained greater knowledge of this issue through reading The Market for Liberty by the Tannehills. It states that contracts would often specify which court would decide in the event that there was a dispute between the two parties regarding the contract.

I'm interested. Explain.

[SPC]

Courts of law.

Interesting. I've gained greater knowledge of this issue through reading The Market for Liberty by the Tannehills. It states that contracts would often specify which court would decide in the event that there was a dispute between the two parties regarding the contract.

I'm interested. Explain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Earth]

What if there's clearly malice or fraud in a situation before the court? What's done in that case?

[SPC]

What if there's clearly malice or fraud in a situation before the court? What's done in that case?

Could you clarify please? Thank you.