|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
chellovek
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2012 8:52 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| comm wrote: |
| chellovek wrote: |
| I personally think how to deal with it requires careful thought, and will ultimately require some kind of public authority to keep these powerful forces in check. I agree for the most part with what Libertarians say about the vested interests and lobbyists, but then again, that isn't a uniquely Libertarian analysis. You can find the same stuff being said on the left. Pretty much everybody agrees on what the problem is, but Libertarianism just isn't the answer. |
So, rather than each side firing off at strawmen, or accidentally misunderstanding each other's positions (as Kuros pointed out, "Libertarianism" is potentially a quite broad concept for you to condemn).
Allow me to go first:
I see the massive cashflow into politics from financial institutions and other major corporations as a direct result of regulatory capture. These businesses aren't throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at Obama and Romney because they feel strongly about abortion and gun control. They make an investment, they get a return.
That return should be quite clear at this point. "Quantitative Easing" does all of its easing at the top of the economy, rather than starting at the bottom. Mega-corporations aren't broken up by the government, as you might expect, but instead are given endless cash to stay afloat despite gambling in the marketplace.
In answer to this ever-increasing problem, I (and I believe Gary Johnson as well) would like to dismantle some Federal regulatory programs and decentralize others. The EPA, HHS, DoE and DoEd could be replaced by local institutions more accountable to taxpayers and public stakeholders. The Federal Reserve could be eliminated in favor of a monetary system actually run by a government agency (that's right, MORE government there).
Feel free to comment, denigrate, or post your own solution. |
Well yes, that's basically what I'm driving at, in some areas cutting back government may well be better, whereas in others more government may be an improvement. Hence what I said about the need for careful thought and not just applying an ideology in a blanket fashion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2012 10:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chellovek wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
I see. You make the positive claim that free market economics is not workable or a solution to our problems, and the onus is on me to prove your assertion wrong? That sort of thing smacks of intellectual cowardice/laziness to me. Rather than making excuses, why don't you just admit you're not up to the task of backing your claim?
Rather than "calling bullshit", why don't you step up to the plate and offer some alternatives? I frankly couldn't care less about "converting" you to libertarianism, and I'm certainly not here to indulge you. If you want to debate, then put something on the table. |
Cor streuth! I have not made a positive claim, I've made a negative one. Libertarians say x. I deny x. This is a negative assertion, I've already vaguely said why- I don't think Libertarianism is fit for the modern world, it's just a yearning for simpler times that likes to blame all the complexities and injustice of this awful wicked world on one agent. You're right, I haven't made any assertions as to what might work because seemingly unlike ideologues like you I don't pretend to have all the answers ready-made.
Where haven't I backed my claim? My claim is a simple one- "Not Libertarianism". I've already said why, and will repeat. |
This is pretty disingenuous. You made the claim that libertarianism can't work. The onus is at least equally on you to show why. If you can't even provide a well reasoned argument backed by facts and evidence, then there is no indication that you know what you're talking about.
| Quote: |
| I have put something on the table- namely this: I think Libertarians are mistaken in their outlook on the world and offer an overly simplistic analysis of our problems. Then it goes on to offer an overly simplistic and ill-thought out solution. Like I said, I think Libertarianism is just another utopian disaster in the making. |
I was hoping you could do better than this. In fact, this is the positive assertion I was referring to. You positively claim that libertarianism is a utopian disaster in the making, and yet you don't provide evidence or demonstrate a reasoned understanding as to why it would be. This makes your position come off as a strawman, since most libertarians probably do not even hold the views you are claiming (i.e. utopian, or whatever it is that you think libertarian is - it's still not clear to me at this point).
| Quote: |
| Following that you've basically baited me and called me an idiot, an intellectual coward and whatnot, offering no real defence of your positive assertion that we should be subscribing to your claptrap. |
I'm quite certain it was you who started in with the ad hominems, if you go back and check. But anyway, no big deal..
| Quote: |
| Re: Adam Smith- yeah in the most simple terms he points out that the rapid development of European colonies in the Americas is due to plentiful and cheap land in a place that is thinly inhabited combined with an insufficient labour supply, which thus drives up wages. He also points out how cheap the cost of the government in the British colonies are. Individuals can thus easily get land and improve it. I think Libertarianism harks back to these days of heroic individualism and small government, and for sure grand days they were, but they just aren't how things are now. |
Adam Smith lived and died in the 18th century. The peak of American free market growth (when government expenditure was less than 3% of GDP) was at the turn of the 20th century, when the US became the greatest industrialized country in the world. So explain to me again how cheap land in the British colonies factored in to this?? I mean really, I'd like to discuss the point, but you still haven't explained its relevance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chellovek
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Visitorganisation-
Dave in his wisdom timed me out so I'll keep it short and sweet because I'm not re-typing verbatim-
I made a negative assertion, you know it. I think your idea is wrong. I also think the idea of God is mistaken. Are you going to ask me to prove that God doesn't exist too?
Ad hominems? I'm not the guy bandying around phrases like "intellectual coward" and routinely calling people stupid.
I've already said how Smith fits into my analysis- I think your ideology is a throwback to colonial times when land and money were easy to get and the colonies got rich quickly. You then neatly shifted the goalposts to American industrialisation roughly 100 years later. You people think life is the same as back then, the heroic individual with no need for the state.
If you'd like to discuss Smith in a more neutral setting I'd be well up for it.
Look, man, modern life is made of large inter-dependent organisations, made of large numbers of people. It's an age of mass organisations, many people in many organisations. The Libertarianism shtick doesn't deal with that. It still pretends these are the 18th/early 19th centuries. Just cutting away the state and calling it "socialist evil" isn't going to deal with that reality. Somebody will need to keep an eye on it all, and for better or worse, that will need (for now) to be a democratically accountable public sector. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chellovek
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chellovek wrote: |
| Look, man, modern life is made of large inter-dependent organisations, made of large numbers of people. It's an age of mass organisations, many people in many organisations. The Libertarianism shtick doesn't deal with that. It still pretends these are the 18th/early 19th centuries. Just cutting away the state and calling it "socialist evil" isn't going to deal with that reality. Somebody will need to keep an eye on it all, and for better or worse, that will need (for now) to be a democratically accountable public sector. |
Now see this, this last bit is NOT a positive claim. I'm making a negative claim. I'm suggesting your ideology CANNOT properly accomodate this idea. That is to say, I'm saying "No!" to you. "Not", "cannot" and "no" are negative assertions. Not positive as you like to pretend. Day is not night, and up is not down.
Your job here is to show how your ideology deals the with the world of large and powerful organisations. You need to argue and show that your Libertarian idea beats my somewhat fatalistic idea that the State is best fitted to this task.
You've blasted my reticence in giving alternatives, but I've said before, I'm not the one pretending to have all the answers. So......
3..2..1.. visitorq... GO!
......tell us..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chellovek wrote: |
Visitorganisation-
Dave in his wisdom timed me out so I'll keep it short and sweet because I'm not re-typing verbatim-
I made a negative assertion, you know it. I think your idea is wrong. I also think the idea of God is mistaken. Are you going to ask me to prove that God doesn't exist too? |
I know that you made a positive assertion -- that libertarianism would result in a utopian disaster - which I already explained and you chose to ignore.
| Quote: |
| Ad hominems? I'm not the guy bandying around phrases like "intellectual coward" and routinely calling people stupid. |
I never call people stupid, so keep your slander to yourself. As for you starting the ad hominems, the record is clear:
| chellovek wrote: |
| You dafties think that people who doubt you don't understand history, but 'we' know it too well. Your Libertarianism is just another massive utopian failure in the making. |
| chellovek wrote: |
| Enjoy your 'regression-session' if you must, but the rest of the thinking world needs to wrestle with the serious question |
| Quote: |
I've already said how Smith fits into my analysis- I think your ideology is a throwback to colonial times when land and money were easy to get and the colonies got rich quickly. You then neatly shifted the goalposts to American industrialisation roughly 100 years later. You people think life is the same as back then, the heroic individual with no need for the state.
If you'd like to discuss Smith in a more neutral setting I'd be well up for it. |
No, it's just that you know nothing about economics. Free market economics in the modern context has basically nothing to do with colonial times. This is just your laughable ignorance on the matter shining through.
But anyway, go ahead and explain how land prices in 18th century British colonies apply to free markets that propelled America to the forefront of innovation and industrial production in the 19th century 
| Quote: |
| Look, man, modern life is made of large inter-dependent organisations, made of large numbers of people. It's an age of mass organisations, many people in many organisations. The Libertarianism shtick doesn't deal with that. |
Actually, yeah, it does deal with it. Again, your ignorance shines through.
| Quote: |
| It still pretends these are the 18th/early 19th centuries. Just cutting away the state and calling it "socialist evil" isn't going to deal with that reality. Somebody will need to keep an eye on it all, and for better or worse, that will need (for now) to be a democratically accountable public sector. |
This is far more naive than anything I've ever written. Public sector bureaucrats (like the IRS) are democratically accountable? The Federal Reserve? The FDA?
Basically the one living in a fantasy is you. Somebody needs to "keep an eye on it all"? Who watches the watcher? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chellovek wrote: |
| chellovek wrote: |
| Look, man, modern life is made of large inter-dependent organisations, made of large numbers of people. It's an age of mass organisations, many people in many organisations. The Libertarianism shtick doesn't deal with that. It still pretends these are the 18th/early 19th centuries. Just cutting away the state and calling it "socialist evil" isn't going to deal with that reality. Somebody will need to keep an eye on it all, and for better or worse, that will need (for now) to be a democratically accountable public sector. |
Now see this, this last bit is NOT a positive claim. I'm making a negative claim. I'm suggesting your ideology CANNOT properly accomodate this idea. That is to say, I'm saying "No!" to you. "Not", "cannot" and "no" are negative assertions. Not positive as you like to pretend. Day is not night, and up is not down. |
Now you're just baiting Visitorq.
The problem I have: you haven't engaged anything Gary Johnson has proposed. Here are four proposals Nick Gillespie suggests Obama adopt to win Libertarian votes:
1) Gov't Transparency
2) End the Drug War
3) End the Foreign Wars (including assassinations of US citizens on foreign soil)
4) Cut Defense Spending
Notice the U.S. spends more than the next 15 countries combined on its military. But rather than engage this, you come out telling us how something Adam Smith once said debunks libertarianism as a whole. Its bizarre. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 2:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Put me down as supporting those four policies 100% |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Too bad Obama stands for the exact opposite of those 4 proposals...
He extended the PATRIOT Act, signed the NDAA, routinely massacres civilians in drone attacks, and has a secret kill list, but he came up with a clever campaign slogan and comes off as a "nice guy", so we better vote for him anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
Too bad Obama stands for the exact opposite of those 4 proposals...
He extended the PATRIOT Act, signed the NDAA, routinely massacres civilians in drone attacks, and has a secret kill list, but he came up with a clever campaign slogan and comes off as a "nice guy", so we better vote for him anyway. |
Obama has been doing everything that Bush did, but with a nicer smile. It's amazed me that he and the media have been able to keep up the myth of "Everyone loves America now" for so long. Even after days of protests and violence with shouts/signs of "Death to America and Israel", news agencies are still claiming that the crowds are enraged over a low budget movie, not American foreign policy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
Too bad Obama stands for the exact opposite of those 4 proposals...
He extended the PATRIOT Act, signed the NDAA, routinely massacres civilians in drone attacks, and has a secret kill list, but he came up with a clever campaign slogan and comes off as a "nice guy", so we better vote for him anyway. |
Obama has been doing everything that Bush did, but with a nicer smile. |
No. He didn't invade another country (please don't say Libya was the equivalent to Iraq). That alone makes him an improvement. I was also going to say he didn't cut taxes, but he did do that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
...
Last edited by caniff on Wed Sep 19, 2012 8:18 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
....
Last edited by caniff on Wed Sep 19, 2012 8:20 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote=]
Obama has been doing everything that Bush did, but with a nicer smile.[/quote]
Basically true (just don't tell Ya-Ta). Also does anywhere know where I can get some of what chellovek's got cuz I could sure use a little helper about now.
Thx.
(this website is bush league Kom-Pyu-Tah-challenged. Probably the NSA or some entity actually giving a shit what we think.)
Last edited by caniff on Wed Sep 19, 2012 8:27 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 1:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
I love how all the Libertarian types suddenly want to go from what some guy Gillespie says Obama SHOULD do to court Libertarian votes to Obama is the same as Bush. I just don't get the logic unless you are really saying that you are not open minded and you just want to hate Obama, which I guess is your right whether it is logical or not.
While Obama did continue some Bush policies, he has shown on a number of issues, making the Republicans in Congress, froth at the mouth in anger, his difference with Bush and other Republicans.
Obama is far from perfect, I have plenty of disagreements, but he has been considerably different and at least in my humble opinion way-better than Bush, who I consider quite possibly the worst President in U.S. history. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 3:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Unposter wrote: |
| While Obama did continue some Bush policies, he has shown on a number of issues, making the Republicans in Congress, froth at the mouth in anger, his difference with Bush and other Republicans. |
Like what? 
Obama is terrible president. How could you possibly reconcile kill lists, trillions in bailouts to his Goldman-Sachs friends, and drone attacks massacring children with him being "pretty good"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
