[DEBATE] Edumacating the FireDogLake Progressives on Libertarian Philosophy

[Sentient Void]

In response to a Facebook Link at fireDogLake titled: "little late to the party, but nonetheless..." posted in regards to the Nader/Napolitano interview on his book, 'Lies the Government Told You'.

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/07/13/right-wing-finally-talking-about-rule-of-law/


Bob Alberti: Yes, but WHY is it always up to the Right to set the agenda, and forward the discussions. Where the heck is the Left? I mean, yes, the Right owns our entire communications infrastructure, but still...
2 hours ago · Like · 4 people
· Flag

Me: Napolitano is *the man*.

understand, though - Napolitano isn't 'right-wing', whatever that means. He's a STAUNCH libertarian.
about an hour ago · Like ·

John Emerson: Libertarians are mostly right-wing.
about an hour ago · Like · Flag

Me: Wrong. You need to get out of the false right-wing vs left-wing dichotomy. It's just not that simple to classify someone on a one-dimensional scale. It's at *least* two-dimensional. You're only shooting yourselves in the foot when you perceive libertarians as 'right-wing' because it creates an automatic response to dislike them, when there's actually a *lot* that is agreed on.

True libertarians (like Napolitano) disagree on a LOT with your 'typical right-winger', especially neocons.
about an hour ago · Like ·

Tom Fleischman: Libertarians are Republicans who like to smoke dope and get laid.

They're not right or left, they're just selfish and greedy.
about an hour ago · Like · 1 person
· Flag

Bob Alberti: Selfish and greedy sounds like the definition of Right Wing to me.
about an hour ago · Like · Flag

Me: Wow, that was an extremely ignorant categorization of libertarians.

Interesting, considering I'm a libertarian who doesn't smoke dope nor do I get laid by anyone other than my girlfriend.

Are 'progressives' even more 'selfish and greedy' than libertarians because they want everyone elses money, too?

If you want to play the logical fallacy game - it can go round and round, buddy. I'd rather avoid it and have an intellectual discussion - that is, if you can manage.
about an hour ago · Like ·

Janice Anderson: ‎@Me...what is your problem? I mean being a libertarian and all?
Your 'party' makes no sense.
Your the fend for yourselves crowd
about an hour ago · Like · 1 person
· Flag

Donna Polster: Wow, progressives want everyone else's money? Funny, that's how I'd characterize libertarians, perpetually making it easier for the rich to steal everyone else's money.
about an hour ago · Like · Flag

Wanda Fayrene: I'm with both Donna and Janice here - I just read a lengthy article by a very well known libertarian and it backs what they've said - AND, Steve, you are telling someone not to categorize and what did you do when you called progressives selfish and greedy? As a progressive, we want people to be taken care of, for compassion to be a reason for our lives, not the mighty $$$$$$$ like most repubs AND libertarians.
about an hour ago · Like · Flag

Richard A. Waters: I thought smoking dope and getting laid was cross party lines. The blame game goes nowhere as we are all guilty of one thing or another.
about an hour ago · Like · Flag

Me: Firstly, I'm not a Libertarian, I'm a libertarian. I'm a registered independent, thank you very much.

We're the crowd who believe that radical christian fundamentalists have about as much right to impose their will on us and tell us how we can run our lives about as much as those who wish to take our money and property and give it to others. That is, *NONE*.

We're the crowd who believe it's wrong to impose your will, whatever it is, on *anyone*, down the barrel of a gun or whatever other means. We believe that civil and fiscal liberties are inextricably intertwined. We believe in equality through our differences, not equality through imposing 'sameness' as much as possible. We believe in the idea that 'My freedom extends to where yours begins', and that freedom to self-govern is not only the most moral solution, but the most practical and offers the greatest rise in prosperity and standard of living to everyone, across all races, creeds and social classes.

Donna, libertarian philosophy believes it's wrong to steal anything, period. I don't see how the rich could possibly steal everyone's money in a libertarian society - as this is against all principles libertarians believe in. However, in a corporatist big govt regulatory capture system like we have now - this is possible.

"This question of legal plunder must be settled once and for all, and there are only three ways to settle it:

The few plunder the many.
Everybody plunders everybody.
Nobody plunders anybody.

We must make our choice among limited plunder, universal plunder, and no plunder. The law can follow only one of these three." - Frederic Bastiat

Libertarians are in the third group. Which group are you in?
about an hour ago · Like ·

Me: Wanda, I was making a point. I merely took what a previous commenter said to me about libertarians and used his same logic to turn it around on him to show how absurd it was.

Libertarians want people to be taken care of as well, we just look at history and economics and show that it can't be done by forcing people to do it. It's immoral, and extremely inefficient. We believe in charity and productivity (which contributes to a higher standard of living and quality of life for all) - and when you have a prosperous people, you have that much more charity.

In the end, you can't claim the moral highground of wanting to 'take care of people' while holding a gun to their heads. It doesn't matter whether you're a criminal, a large majority, or the government. It's wrong, period.

This is what it boils down to. Libertarians don't believe you can/should give any other individual any rights that you yourself do not have. Things such as theft, slavery and murder are wrong, period. It's safe to say that the *vast* majority of people, whether libertarian, republican, progressive, centrist, etc actually live their lives by libertarian principles. You don't try to impose your will directly on others. You don't steal from people, try to enslave them, or kill them or threaten to kill them merely because they want to engage in an activity you disapprove of and they reject your authority over their lives. But for some reason, when it comes to 'the state' (which is nothing but an abstraction anyways, the state is just a group of individuals), there is a logical disconnect.

Am I saying we should entirely abolish the government and any/all roles it has in our lives? No - but what I am saying is that we should work to maximize freedom and limit government, as much as possible.
53 minutes ago · Like ·

Bradford Jefferson: Libertarians are just tarted up plutocrats.
43 minutes ago · Like · 1 person
· Flag

Me: Bradford, your statement is not backed up by any precedent, whatsoever.

Corporatism, resulting through big govt like we have now, on the other hand...
29 minutes ago · Like · Dislike

I've joined/Liked some progressive facebook groups to comment and sew seeds of librty and dissent into some progressives. I don't expect to convert them all, or even most - but to at least get a number of them thinking.

I think it may be a good idea for many of us libertarians to join such groups to encourage actual debate and conversation on the issues. not only does it help us in spreading our propaganda and the truth, morality and logic of freedom and liberty, but also to help keep our debating skills sharp. Know what I mean?

Also, as everyone here knows, I do actually want to eventually completely abolish the government - but one step at a time, know what I mean? ;)

Thoughts?

[Epic]

Good job. What you did is really all you can do. Just plant seeds - it's doubtful any person is going to make a conversion in any one sitting or one day.

[phill4paul]

Bradford Jefferson: Libertarians are just tarted up plutocrats.

You cannot "win" people over to liberty through internet debate. There are too many idiots out there that will derail you at every opportunity. If by chance you successfully navigate the minefield and make a convincing argument and challenge their identity they will log off.

You must go out and engage people on a one on one basis.

This, however, is only my experience.

Kudos and best wishes in your endeavor though! Hope your experience is more profitable than mine have been.:)

[Sentient Void]

Update:


Tom Fleischman: Steve you can try and mischaracterize what I said all you want, but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that whether you like to smoke pot or frequent prostitutes or not, you'd argue against those activities being made illegal.

Libertarians care only about themselves. It's sociopathic.
21 minutes ago · Like · Flag

Sherman P. Nudelman: Higher levels of consciousness, awareness of the interconnectedness of all things and a desire for an empowered and creative life will soon become the characteristics of all humans on Planet Earth.
18 minutes ago · Like · Flag

Me: Tom, I didn't mischaracterize what you said - I took your fallacious logic and turned it around on you to show how absurd it really was.

I absolutely am against them being illegal. Doesn't mean I do them. It means I *respect* someone else's right to do them. If someone else wants to engage in such activities, that's their business, as long as it's voluntary consent between adults and does not directly harm anyone else.

That's the moral argument - the utilitarian argument is that prohibition doesn't work. period. Alcohol prohibition was tried and failed. And we get the same result with other drugs, prostitution, etc. If there is a demand with something - it will be met, one way or another. It just gets driven underground and raises crime while reducing quality. Also, if you can't keep drugs out of a prison - what makes people think they can be kept out of a free society? Of course, I could go on.

Libertarians do *not* only care about themselves - and this is more fallacious logic, a strawman and a hasty generalization. Sure, I'm sure there are some that do - but libertarians and libertarian philosophy is about the *respect* of *all* individuals rights to self-ownership.

Exactly, Epic.

Phil, I've actually converted a small number of people through online discussion. Definitely mostly in RL one-on-one and group discussions by significantly more, but getting people to think, even online, helps IMO. I don't think they'll admit it online- but I do believe they will think about it more in their minds and reflect more and consider libertarianism more. Particularly those who are lurking the debates and not engaging in them. The ones who are listening, confused, or even a little interested. These are really the ones I'm targetting.

There's 10,500+ ppl who 'Like' and thus see the links posted and debates under FireDogLake. That's a solid audience for debating the issues/views. This is also why I think it's a great idea for many of those on this forum who are solid on debating libertarian philosophy (and spend a LOT of time on the forums preaching to the choir or lurking) to jump in and Join or 'Like' groups like FDL on facebook, among others, to not only stay sharp, but to debate in front of such a wide audience.

I have also done my part during the RP 2008 election in spreading paraphernalia such as books, signs, bumper stickers, etc, and donating hundreds of dollars to his and other liberty candidate campaigns.

[ClayTrainor]

Good work man. Keep updating us with that discussion.

[dannno]

Wow, way to have patience!! Great job..

[heavenlyboy34]

I wouldn't call the judge a "staunch" libertarian, dude. ;) "Staunch Constitutionalist" is more accurate.

[heavenlyboy34]

You cannot "win" people over to liberty through internet debate. There are too many idiots out there that will derail you at every opportunity. If by chance you successfully navigate the minefield and make a convincing argument and challenge their identity they will log off.

You must go out and engage people on a one on one basis.

This, however, is only my experience.

Kudos and best wishes in your endeavor though! Hope your experience is more profitable than mine have been.:)

My experience has been the same as yours. Most people aren't willing to read and accept their institutional bias as "truth"-any other ideas serve to threaten their "truth". :p Hell, we've even got people like that on RPFs! ;) lolz

[phill4paul]

Update:



Exactly, Epic.

Phil, I've actually converted a small number of people through online discussion. Definitely mostly in RL one-on-one and group discussions by significantly more, but getting people to think, even online, helps IMO. I don't think they'll admit it online- but I do believe they will think about it more in their minds and reflect more and consider libertarianism more. Particularly those who are lurking the debates and not engaging in them. The ones who are listening, confused, or even a little interested. These are really the ones I'm targetting.

There's 10,500+ ppl who 'Like' and thus see the links posted and debates under FireDogLake. That's a solid audience for debating the issues/views. This is also why I think it's a great idea for many of those on this forum who are solid on debating libertarian philosophy (and spend a LOT of time on the forums preaching to the choir or lurking) to jump in and Join or 'Like' groups like FDL on facebook, among others, to not only stay sharp, but to debate in front of such a wide audience.

I have also done my part during the RP 2008 election in spreading paraphernalia such as books, signs, bumper stickers, etc, and donating hundreds of dollars to his and other liberty candidate campaigns.

Believe me I'm not trying to discourage you! I merely interjected my personal experience. And when I say "Good luck!" I mean kick their ass! :)

[jkr]

we enable, they disable

[Sentient Void]

Haha, thanks guys, will do!

In the real world... I try my best (though, I am human and get passionate sometimes) to take the 'Socratic Method' approach of asking questions and maneuvering the discussion/debate to bring the person I'm talking with to the conclusion of liberty themselves. Although I find this to be the best method... unfortunately - online and especially in a forum of delayed non-real-time responses, it's impractical. So I try as best I can to be noncombative and start with as much overlapping agreement as possible.

Again, it's all more for the audience that is watching/listening than it is for those who are 'set in their ways' (who usually won't have their minds changed no matter what).

Again, I encourage everyone to engage themselves the same way too while they're online and browsing the forums! I really think it'll sharpen our debating skills better while being more productive in spreading the philosophy of liberty while online not doing much else.

I could also use some backup, yknow ;) :D

[nobody's_hero]

It's a great effort. Even if you didn't convince them, you might have convinced some readers at FireDogLake.

And with that, I'll leave you with a clip from one of my favorite movies of all time, "Thank you for Smoking", and a lesson in the art of debate:

YouTube - Nick Naylor - Ice Cream (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLS-npemQYQ&feature=related)

[Sentient Void]

I wouldn't call the judge a "staunch" libertarian, dude. ;) "Staunch Constitutionalist" is more accurate.

You sure? On 'Stossel', he said this...


ALL taxation is theft!

He's also a strong defender of all civil liberties as well, from what I've heard. Is he an AnCap? No... but he still sounds pretty staunchly libertarian to me!

Perhaps even just a few steps away from AnCap... he has been interviewed y a number of AnCaps online as well, and he continuously had Llew Rocjwell on his Online 'FreedomWatch' show :)

[Sentient Void]

It's a great effort. Even if you didn't convince them, you might have convinced some readers at FireDogLake.

And with that, I'll leave you with a clip from one of my favorite movies of all time, "Thank you for Smoking", and a lesson in the art of debate:

YouTube - Nick Naylor - Ice Cream (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLS-npemQYQ&feature=related)

'Thank you for Smoking' was a *GREAT* fuckin' movie... and that's one of my favorite scenes :) Thanks for bringing that scene up... that's basically exactly what I was trying to do.

A good book to recommend to people is also 'How to Win Friends and Influence People' by Dale Carnegie

http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/0671723650

Oh, and you guys may be surprised... but there are either more libertarians on FDL than we know, or some 'progressives' like the philosophy of liberty... because I do get some 'Like's on my comments :D

[someperson]

That was great stuff, I'd love to see more :)
Thanks, Sentient Void

[Sentient Void]

Update... this one's a bit longer... haha - but only took me 5 minutes or so to type out.


Bradford Jefferson: ‎@Steve: If the wealthy and corporations are free to do whatever they want, without government restriction, then you have a plutocracy, regardless of what you call it.
about an hour ago · Like · Flag

Me: I really didn't want to have to engage it this deeply, but so be it. if you've got a few minutes, I'll try to explain how such systems work and what results...

Bradford, a *legitimate* free market, under actual capitalism (far from what we have), creates a level playing field for all companies to compete with eachother. Consumer choice is the ultimate regulator, and many private agencies contribute to regulation through certifications, endorsement, private brand approval ('ADA Approved', for example), and other methods. Private Brand certification, for example, requires certain conditions to be met before they put their seal of approval on a product/service. Usually, the product/service requesting that seal are the ones that pay/fund the approval company. In order to maintain their reputation as a good approval brand, they make sure those they put their approval on products that are of quality, and check up on them frequently. All taken care of by the market, without the need for significant govt intervention.

Another example - have you ever used EBay? EBay buyers/sellers are completely unregulated by the govt with it's many companies and individual sellers - but they are regulated privately by EBay and the EBay consumers through their rating system that they've developed - and it's very effective at finding out who sells good products, ships quickly, is trustworthy, etc. I've actually gotten much better customer service (and higher value or the same products) from these transactions than I have from the much larger and regulated big box retail companies.

There are tons of websites like this online, all regulated privately. We now have safe payment methods like PayPal, affordable insurance for packages and transactions, etc. All taken care of by the market and without significant govt intervention.

This corporatist system we have now is and can only be resultant from big govt, regulations, and subsidies to special interests at the expense of consumers and other businesses that either are not (as) connected, or do not have the economies of scale to absorb the regulations and taxes, along with compete with the subsidies that bigger companies get from the government at the expense of the taxpayer. Once you realize that the majority of regulations are written or supported by those largest corporations who will get 'regulated' as a result themselves, then you're one step closer to the truth.

Under a free-market, companies can't do 'whatever they want', this is a misinformed position, and once again - one based on a misunderstanding on how a market actually works with legitimate consumer choice. If a company did 'whatever it wanted', it would go out of business fairly quickly. Also, history has shown that natural monopolies are *extremely* rare, and don't last long (depending on if/when they decide to try to take advantage of their position) - the vast majority of monopolies are either mandated by federal/state/local governments, or are a result of govt intervention.

Under our system of regulation, subsidization, special interests and corporatism - they get bailed out - at our expense.

Some say the answer is that we need *more regulations* or *more power* to the regulators for them to be effective. This will accomplish nothing, because of regulatory capture.

Here's an example to help illustrate my point... you have a general (president) who hires an agent (regulator(s) / regulatory agency). The general gives the agent 100 troops armed to the teeth, a tank, and a plane (regulations) to go watch over a filthy rich guy (the large corporation to be regulated), and to pick him up if he does anything bad. When the agent gets there with his army, the rich guy does bad stuff, and when approached by the agent, pays him off to leave and the rich bad guy escapes. This process repeats until something goes very wrong (financial collapse). The general calls the agent to find out what happened, but he's empty-handed. The general and those above him (the people) are naturally and rightfully pissed off, and want to know what went wrong. The agent says - I didn't have enough firepower (need more regulations/power)! I need MORE troops, MORE tanks, MORE planes, and an ICBM! As before, this won't fix the problem, and this is basically what happens.

Also, because smaller or less-connected companies don't have the political capital (social connections), or economies of scale to also bribe these regulators, they have no choice but to abide by these punishing regulations - further raising their costs of doing business and making them less 'competitive'.

Not to mention that regulators are mostly hired from their respective industries because only they best understand that industry/system. What happens is they are highly connected to those in the biggest companies, having worked with some of them on some level. This makes them more open to letting things slip. You also have a sort of 'reverse stockholm syndrome' that happens, where those regulators who used to work in whatever industry actually feel empathy those they should be regulating.

This all contributes to a distorted system favoring the largest corporations, punishing consumers and smaller businesses in the process.

For federal govt regulations - the only ones you really need are to enforce contracts, and protect against fraud and theft. Simple. But such simple (and libertarian) laws need to be *enforced*. Otherwise, leave it up to the states to regulate - they do it already anyways according to what is wanted by their people. Creating a complex regulatory system and vast bureaucracy will only make things inefficient, confusing and ineffective.

If anything, our corporatist system leads to plutocracy - a libertarian ideal of increased voluntary interaction, does not. And once again, there is no precedent in history that supports your claim.

[Sentient Void]

Oooo, it's catching on! :D ;)



Ryan Mann: I know one thing, I would rather vote for a Libertarian than Heather Beaven or John Mica, the democrat and republican candidates in my district. They think it's OK to keep putting people in jail for using Marijuana. Why, because they don't like it? That seems selfish to me. The republicans and democrats need to stop telling me how to run my life as long as I don't hurt anybody else.
Authoritarian republicans and democrats, screw you! I've had enough of your authoritarian BS.
29 minutes ago · Like · 1 person
· Flag

John Steiner: It's a ruse. They don't really mean rule of law, but rule of THEIR "law" and not to themselves. It's people like the far right wing [both parties' worth] are why the founding fathers had to stipulate that no one is above the law.
28 minutes ago · Like · 1 person
· Flag

Nice! You don't usually see comments like *that* on FDL! :D

[someperson]

Great work :)