Well, I Considered doing a Post on the Link that was Left in the Comment Threat, of my Previous Post, by Grant Davies, yet it Contains such a Large Number of Issues that it has been Hard for me to get my Head Wrapped Around it, though, yes, I have Read it. I guess for now, I'll just Stick with what I said Briefly about it in my Previous Comment Thread, which is.
"So Far, I just Think that some of the Article that Grant Left a Link to represents Typical Libertarian Arguments and some of it represents Arguments that could have been Made by any Republican. I Agree with some of it and Find some of it to be Extreme. And then there are those Parts that are just plan Humorous because they are Nothing more then Responses to the Sort of Name Calling that could have come from anyone from any Party that is into that sort of Name Calling.
"Here's my Favorite...
"'92. Libertarians are closet secessionists and neo-confederates.
Response:
"'If anyone makes this objection to libertarianism, RUN LIKE HELL. Get out of there, before they eat your brains.'
"lol. That One Made me Laugh."
Posted by Lista, December 9, 2001, at 9:48 PM
I was going to Write more about this then that, but perhaps that is enough for now. Perhaps I'll have more Luck after Christmas. For now, I'm just Repeating Stuff that I have already said. Here is another something that I Wrote about it in one of the Comment Threads on Z-man's Blog. This Time I was Responding to a Comment of the Soapster that goes like this...
"If the people took the time to delve into libertarian philosophy and educate themselves instead of merely adopting as gospel what they hear from pundits and presstitutes they would come to realize that they themselves can place whatever restrictions and/or regulations upon themselves that they so desire.
"If, however, they wish the edicts and directives to come from on high, well then libertarianism isn't for them. They are better suited for any of other collectivist 'isms'"
Posted by the Soapster, 12/08/2011, at 3:45 PM
And Here is my Response...
"Soap,
I have not Learned about Libertarianism from Pundits, Presstitudes, Edicts or Directives. I have Learned about Libertarianism from you.
"Now that I have Read the Link that Grant Davies left on my Blog, though, I have come to Realize that not all Libertarians are as Extreme as you are, for there were a Few of your Ideas that were Listed as Controversial among Libertarians, such as Government Police Departments. In his Link, it says that 'Most libertarians believe police departments are a legitimate role of government and should be provided by the public sector.'
"The Restrictions that we are Free to Place on Ourselves is not the Issue. The Issue is the Restrictions that Need to be Placed on Others in Order to Protect us, (or Deter, if you like that Terminology Better), from the Harm and Injustice that Others may Inflict on us."
Posted by Lista, 12/08/2011, at 5:23 PM
And...
"When I Read another Link that was in the above Link and Related to Fire...
"http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger183.html
"...I found another Extreme that Libertarians are not in Agreement on. Here is a Quote from the Link about Fire Protection/Deterrence...
"'That's reason enough to reject such collectivist notions as government-owned fire departments, as well as such immoral and destructive socialist programs as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education grants, agricultural subsidies, bank bailouts, food stamps, foreign aid, and other welfare programs.'
"The Original Link to One of the Humble Libertarian Pages, though, says...
"'Libertarians absolutely do not advocate the government ripping off people who paid into Social Security. They deserve to get back the money that they put in.'
"If the First Quote is Misinformation, then it came Directly from a Libertarian, not from any Outside, 'Pundits, Presstitudes, Edicts' or 'Directives'.
Posted by Lista, 12/08/2011, at 6:01 PM
Like I said, I was going to Write more, but there are so many Issues in the Linked Piece, that I don't Hardly Know where to Begin. For now, I just want to Point Out how Odd it is that Libertarians seem to Think that just because I do not Agree with them, that I Know Nothing about the Issue, or that what I do Know has been Picked Up from "Pundits, Presstitudes, Edicts" and "Directives" that came from someone other then an actual Libertarian. In Reality, I have very Obediently Read something now, yet though I Found some of it Interesting, I have not Changed my Opinion on most of the Issues.
For anyone who is Curious about Libertarianism, though, this is a really good Link to Check Out and Read and I do not at all Mind Recommending it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
I was sort of curious that there seems to be a small population of
serious libertarians. Wondered it it related to personality type (wherein the symbols
are thus deliniated:
1. Extraverted Sensing (modern types: ESFP, ESTP)
2. Introverted Sensing (modern types: ISTJ, ISFJ)
3. Extraverted Intuition (modern types: ENFP, ENTP)
4. Introverted Intuition (modern types: INFJ, INTJ)
5. Extraverted Thinking (modern types: ESTJ, ENTJ)
6. Introverted Thinking (modern types: ISTP, INTP)
7. Extraverted Feeling (modern types: ESFJ, ENFJ)
8. Introverted Feeling (modern types: INFP, ISFP)
There is much data in their survey and I think libertarians tend either introverted/extroverted
intuitive types. On the other hand, you have studied psychology and I admit we science types are
best characterized by the goofy
personalities typical of the current comedy half hour 'The Big Bang Theory'....but it is interesting and perhaps you can
glean more from the stats?
Completely off-topic: I noticed, Lista, that you discovered my old photo blog that never really got off the ground. Seeing as I've taken thousands of shots since the last one I posted (2008), I'm going to have to start posting more. Thanks for that.
BB,
I Studied Psychology such a long Time ago and have Forgotten a lot of it. I just Think that Libertarians are Missing Part of the Picture, for not Everyone Thrives in a Capitalist Society and this is why a Few Government Programs are not such a Bad Idea. I'm Probably going to be more into this Subject after Christmas. Right now I'm just Responding Lazily.
It's too Bad, sort of, that Iowa's Primary is in January. I don't Know how People can really Think Deeply about something such as Politics at Christmas Time. Oh well.
IAMB,
It's Ok that you are Off Topic. I Know that sometimes it is just Necessary to say something and as long as it's Brief, what ever Post is on Top is a Fine Place to Say it. Thanks for Dropping by again.
I have a Habit of not Checking the Dates of Posts before Commenting. By the Time I Realized that the last Picture that you Posted was in 2008, it was too Late. I didn't Mean to Wake you Up while you were Sleeping. lol.
You Obviously haven't Left the Blogophere, though, for here you are.
"...not Everyone Thrives in a Capitalist Society and this is why a Few Government Programs are not such a Bad Idea."
And everyone is thriving now?
Consider the irony in your statement Lista. Government at present is seriously throwin' down on programs designed to aid and assist the least among us and what has it gotten us?
A record number of Americans on food stamps that's what.
I don't for a minute think that it is designed to "help" people. It is designed to make people dependent. I've seen the manner in which these sorts of programs by their very design are intended to keep people on the dole not liberate them from off of it.
I've taken the Myers Briggs multiple times over the years and depending on my relationship with the world at the time I am either an INFP or an ENFP.
Research has been done that's correlated various jobs/career choices with personality types. I think I have it here somewhere. I went to an inservice about it once.
My husband is an INTJ. It's very interesting how accurate these types are.
Interesting link. #25, return education to the way the Puritans
did it. Odd, for libertarians to
say, considering the Puritans hung a woman for being a Quaker and to
paraphrase H. L. Mencken, "Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy". If Puritans were libertarians, Stalin was Ronald
McDonald....
Soap,
No One is Starving, Like they do in other Countries. Remember, I am Talking about a Few Government Programs, not Full Blown Communism or even Socialized Medicine.
Extremes Lead to Problems and that is why this Country is in Bad Shape. Basically, Obama has Over Done it and he needs to be stopped.
Consider the Supply and Demand Curve in Relation to Prices. When the Price is too High, People Stop Buying, when they are too Low, the Retailer isn't Making any Money. Now Consider two Extreme Views on the Matter held by two People that are Arguing with each other.
The One Who Believes in High Prices says, "Well your System doesn't Work. You are not Making Money, because your Prices are too Low." In Response, the one who Believes in Low Prices says, "Well, your System doesn't Work. You are not Making Money, because your Prices are too High."
Who is Right? They both are, for in Order to Make Maximum Profits, the Price has to be at the Exact Spot at which the Price Plus the Demand (Amount Sold) Equals the Maximum Number. This Price is at Neither the Highest, nor the Lowest Extreme, but somewhere in the Middle.
It is my Belief that the Ideal Size of Government is a Similar Percentage Number that is at Neither Extreme. We are not at that Ideal Place Right now. The Problem at this Moment in History is that the Government is too Large, yet admitting that is in no way Showing Support for the Opposite Extreme.
"I've seen the manner in which these sorts of programs by their very design are intended to keep people on the dole not liberate them from off of it."
You are Absolutely Right, Soap. This is a Sickness that is usually Pushed by Democrats, but again, this Reality does not Justify the Other Extreme.
Satyavati,
I've Taken this Test Several Times as well, yet have to Keep Retaking it, because I don't Remember the Letters that Apply to me.
BB,
Oh Good someone Choose one of the Issues in the Linked Article. It is too Hard to Talk about all of it at Once, so I was Hoping that someone would Center in on One of the Issues.
I Believe in the School Voucher System. It would Take care of the Separation of Church and State Problem, for every Private School would be able to Teach Morality in Accordance with the Religion of Choice and the Parents and Students would be Able to Choose the One that Matches their Beliefs.
The Only Restriction that I can Think of that would be Appropriate to Place on such Schools would be that they should not Teach Actual Terrorism and Violence. The Belief, though, that a Certain Life Style or Behavior is not Morally Appropriate is not the Same as Teaching Violence. Unfortunately, this is the Issue that Keeps Christians from Voting for the Voucher System and it's too Bad, cause I would Love to see a Voucher System put in Place.
You are Right, BB, that Puritans were not Libertarians, yet I don't Think that that was the Point being made. Instead, the Point was that Private Schools can and do Produce very good Literacy Rates, just as the Article says...
"Colonial Puritans educated their children without government, producing a universal literacy rate, a feat that bests that of present day America in the era of public schooling."
Apparently a School Voucher Program was tried in D.C., Which Produced better Results at a Quarter of the Cost. I haven't Read all the Links that Relate to this Particular Link, but I do not at all Doubt this Claim.
While I'm at this, I Might as well add that after Interacting a lot with Libertarians, I'm not so sure that if the Post Office were to Close Down, as they Sometimes Threaten, this would be quite as much of a Negative as many People Think. So the Mail is Handled by UPS or Fed-EX. So What? We'll Still have Email. I Think I could Actually Live with that.
On school vouchers, I abhor them just as I abhor charter schools.
To me, neither is representative of educational choice.
It's akin to suggesting that someone has choice when offering them Coke or Pepsi.
As for the post office, it should be noted that the post office is Constitutionally legitimate as outlined in Article I Section 8.
Yep, you are Consistently so Extreme that it Defies all Logic. Like we have Choice now. I wonder if you will ever Realize that People who have an all or Nothing Attitude usually end up with Nothing. I really do wish that I could Persuade a more Logical Libertarian to Talk to me.
Perhaps I should Seek Out Silverfiddle again. It's Christmas, though, so I've been Putting Off such Pursuits until after Christmas. Even Grant Davies has been Acting a little Shy. He is Probably Waiting for me to Address a Question he has asked me. I guess everything is on Hold until After Christmas; Except for my Die Hard Talkers, which I do Appreciate, yet Occasionally the Continuous Conflict makes me Tired.
"As for the post office, it should be noted that the post office is Constitutionally legitimate as outlined in Article I Section 8."
Whatever, Soap. They are in no Way Required to Deliver Mail in a Timely Manner. If they would Cut Back on their Staff and the Days in which they are Opened and we had to go to some Private Company in Order to Get Mail Delivered Faster, this would not be the End of the World.
The Part of the Constitution that is Actually more Important is the Part that Limits Big Government and Restores Power to the States. In my Opinion, the Post Office is Considerably Less Important than Police and Fire Protection/Deterrent, so Your Focus is on the Wrong Thing.
"Yep, you are Consistently so Extreme that it Defies all Logic."
Really? Let me ask you a simple question.
Suppose you start a job with a new company. One of the things that this company does is on the last Friday of the month they hold a pizza party. Now let us suppose that in order to fund this pizza party, $2 is withheld from everyone's paycheck.
Now, let us further suppose that you don't particularly like pizza or that maybe you have different eating habits and wish to simply bring your own food of choice on that last Friday of the month.
Should you still be required to pay the $2 even if you don't enjoy the benefit of the pizza party?
Extreme or not (label as you wish) this is precisely what the public school system is all about.
Parents can decide to send their children to private schools or homeschool. BUT, regardless of whether they do so, they still must pay into the public school system (the pizza party if you will). People who don't even have kids still have to pay into the public school system. People that have 5 children pay the same property taxes (assuming their dwelling is roughly the same) as their neighbor who maybe only has 1. Vouchers are simply a subsidy. Tuition tax credits would be choice in education which would allow parents to send their children to the educational institution of their desire without also having to pay into the public school system.
Secondly, you talk a good game about the "Part that limits big government" but you don't really walk the walk.
The powers delegated to the United States government are enumrrated in the Constitution. I have always held that those items which are layed out are thus proper and just causes for the Federal government to undertake and anything not explicitly listed is reserved to the states. If me taking a consistent position in that regard gets labeled "extreme" (as it seemingly ALWAYS does with you) then the truth is that you don't really care one iota about limiting the scope and jurisdiction of the United States Government.
One cannot eat their cake and have it too Lista.
I've assumed that libertarians are
generally fiscally conservative/socially liberal, in that they want less gov't and more individual freedom. But, I visited a site where the fellow claimed to be a libertarian: he
was for less government, but more restrictions on people. Commenters
(correctly) accused him of being
a plain ol' conservative. But, hey,
here's some more stats
..these ones gathered by a libertarian group.
As Time Progresses and Christmas Draws Closer, I'm going to have less and less time for this Discussion and eventually I will actually be Ignoring my Blog, so don't allow that to Take you by Surprise when it Happens. For now, I am going to Try and Respond to Soap later Today.
As for BB, Yeh, that Person does not Sound like a Libertarian to me. Those Stats might be Interesting to look at at a Later Date. Perhaps that will be put off until After Christmas as well.
Well, Ok. I'll Write a Response to Soap.
Soap,
Taxes Generally have to do with Multiple Issues, not just one, and it would be Rare for a Person not to Make Use of any of the Programs that are Offered by the Government, especially when you consider the Indirect Benefits, such as a Reduction in Crime, due to a Few Assistance Programs offered to the Poor, or After School Programs that Give Kids Extra Things to do, so that they are not Wondering the Street Feeling Bored and Causing Mischief, or for that Matter, School, Period, since that is what we are Talking about.
This is why your Example is Over Simplified and not an Adequate Example of what Taxes and Government is all about.
If you Insist on a Response to your Example, though, Perhaps it would be Good if all of those who Put $2.00 in the Pot can Vote on the Food Served at the Party, the Time in which it will be held, and what ever other Details there are that come up. I would Gladly give a $2.00 Donation if there are others who can not Afford to, but Want to, go to the Party and this would Remain True even if I was not Planning on Personally Attending the Party.
What I Object to is being Required to Pay for things that I do not Approve of, such as Abortion.
I guess if there was a Moral Objection to Pizza because it is bad for you and there was a Significant Group of People who Felt that Way, then a Protest of the Mandatory $2.00 Fee would be Totally Appropriate.
The Topic that was just being Discussed, though, was School Vouchers, which is a Program that is Designed to Expand, not Limit Choice and it Addresses the Very Problem that you have Brought Up, yet even so, you do not Like it. It Takes Far too much to Satisfy you, Soap.
Giving an Education Tax Break to those who do not have Kids might be an Idea Worth Considering.
"People that have 5 children pay the same property taxes (assuming their dwelling is roughly the same)"
People with 5 Children Generally do have to Purchase Larger Homes, yet you are Right that Property Taxes may not be the Best Place to get the Funds, because just because a Person Owns Property does not mean that they have Kids.
Sometimes, though, it is not Possible to Deal with all of the Issues at Once and if something can be done on the Distribution end (Vouchers), the Taxation Issue can be Dealt with at a later date.
Remember, though, that the Education of the Public is something that will Benefit all of us, whether we have Kids or not. For One Thing, Lack of Good Education has Political Consequences and it has an Effect on the Economy as well.
I haven't Actually Read Up on the Tuition Tax Credit Idea. Perhaps that Issue is a Better One, but I'd have to Read Up on it before I would Know for sure what my Opinion is on the Matter.
"Secondly, you talk a good game about the 'Part that limits big government' but you don't really walk the walk."
That is because "Limiting Big Government" is a Relative Thing and "Limiting" is not the Same as Practically Illuminating and the Opposite of "Big" is not Practically Non-Existent.
A lot of Our Misunderstanding, in Relation to this Issue, Soap, is Related to the Fact that you Assume that Everything that I say has to do with the Federal Government and yet what I am Mostly Opposed to is People who Feel that there also should not be that much Government in the States.
I have Never Liked the Statement "Have your Cake and Eat it too", Soap. It makes no sense because the Whole Reason for Cake is for Eating, so the Statement is just an Nonsense Phrase that has no Meaningful Life Application.
The phrase "Have your cake and eat it too" makes perfect sense to anyone common sense.
It simply means that you cannot have the entire cake while at the same time eating it.
That whole law of identity thing that you didn't quite grasp the last time.
Not that tough to figure out.
The Phrase, "Have your Cake and Eat it too", Soap, is a Cliche' and Cliches' do not Need to Make Sense. Not Every Thing that is "Common" Makes "Sense".
Just because a Person can not Eat an Entire Cake all at Once, does not Mean that there are not Situations in which a Person can not Possess an Entire Cake. Due to Compromise, as well as Basic Generosity, it Often is Appropriate to Share the Cake with Others.
I just don't Happen to Think that this Cliche' Makes much sense as Stated. If what is Meant by it is that we shouldn't Hog the Whole Cake and Refuse to Share it with Others, then Perhaps we should say it that Way.
"Not that tough to figure out."
Yep, Insulting like Usual. Perhaps you should just have a Piece of Cake, Soap, and try to enjoy the Holiday.
It's not insulting to point out the truth. For whatever reason you seem unable to understand this simple old proverb. If it's insulting to point that out then I'm guilty.
The proverb's meaning is similar to the phrases, "you can't have it both ways" and "you can't have the best of both worlds."
In effect what it is establishing is that one cannot consume a cake while at the same time preserving it.
The Saying in relation to Cake is Silly, Soap. The other Two that you just Quoted are Better and make much more Sense.
The Real Problem, though, is that I don't see the Relevance of any of these Sayings to anything that I have Said, so it is not Clear what it is that you mean by it.
Don't you have some Christmas Shopping to do, Soap? Or is it just more Fun for you to Hang Out Here and be Insulting by Implying that your Speech is always Flawlessly Crystal Clear and thus, "Not that tough to figure out."
Oh Well. Merry Christmas anyway.
Post a Comment