Silicon Valley Stays Quiet As Washington Implodes

dcblogs writes "In a better time, circa 1998, Cypress Semiconductor founder and CEO T.J. Rodgers gave a provocative speech, titled 'Why Silicon Valley Should Not Normalize Relations with Washington D.C.' This speech is still important to understanding the conflict that tech leaders have with Congress, and their relative silence during the shutdown. 'The metric that differentiates Silicon Valley from Washington does not fall along conventional political lines: Republican versus Democrat, conservative versus liberal, right versus left,' Rogers said. 'It falls between freedom and control. It is a metric that separates individual freedom to speak from tap-ready telephones; local reinvestment of profit from taxes that go to Washington; encryption to protect privacy from government eavesdropping; success in the marketplace from government subsidies; and a free, untaxed Internet from a regulated, overtaxed Internet.'"

Comments

Bah ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The only difference is which rich assholes get richer.

The tech companies want to be given the ability to do anything to make a profit. The government wants to be given the ability to do anything to spy on us.

It's douchebags on both sides fighting for their piece of the pie -- we all get fucked over in the end.

Re:Bah ...

[Austrian Anarchy]

The only difference is which rich assholes get richer.

The tech companies want to be given the ability to do anything to make a profit. The government wants to be given the ability to do anything to spy on us.

It's douchebags on both sides fighting for their piece of the pie -- we all get fucked over in the end.

Without a government that is forcing you to give your money to someone, those "assholes" have to compete with others for the privilege of serving you.

Re:Bah ...

[TWiTfan]

What "competition"? Maybe in your libertarian fantasy world. But here in the real-world, powerful corporations collude, buy monopolies, crush any smaller competitors--and generally do everything to ensure that there is no real competition, and never will be. The "free market" is a bunch of horseshit shoveled to gullible suckers.

Re:Bah ...

[operagost]

You forgot Somalia.

The "free market" is a bunch of horseshit shoveled to gullible suckers.

You're right, we don't have a free market. But pessimism isn't going to fix that, and inaction isn't going to result in a better situation. We're not going to end up in a socialist utopia, but state-run capitalism that rewards the elite, yet treats the worker as mere chattel.

Re:Bah ...

[HornWumpus]

You don't know what chattel means. I wouldn't want to own the flat foots that make up most of the working stiffs. You can't own someone who has multiple standing offers from your competitors.

Re:Bah ...

[smoot123]

No competition? Tell that to the old AT&T, which got crushed by it's children. Or Yahoo as it watches Goggle zoom ahead. Or Google, as it watches Facebook grow its mobile ad revenue like there's no tomorrow. Or Microsoft as even microsofties use iPads. Or PanAm as Southwest ate their lunch. In my company, I get a win/loss email every week about how we won a customer from our rivals and they beat us at another.

It's a mixed bag. Some markets are more open to competition than others. But competition is alive and well in many, many places.

Re:Bah ...

[CrimsonAvenger]

But here in the real-world, powerful corporations collude, buy monopolies, crush any smaller competitors--and generally do everything to ensure that there is no real competition

Here in the real-world, powerful corporations get limited legal liability from the government, buy monopolies from the government, and generally do anything to make sure the government doesn't allow any competition.

Note that there are some things that SHOULD be run by government. Which is not synonymous with "the government should hire a corporation to do this".

Re:Bah ...

[Austrian Anarchy]

What "competition"? Maybe in your libertarian fantasy world. But here in the real-world, powerful corporations collude, buy monopolies, crush any smaller competitors--and generally do everything to ensure that there is no real competition, and never will be. The "free market" is a bunch of horseshit shoveled to gullible suckers.

The competition that is possible when the police power of government is not playing favorites on who gets to do business. THAT competition. The only time monopolies persist is when governments protect them. When they are at the mercy of consumers and competition they are fleeting at best. One positive outcome of the persistent monopoly when government is not shoring them up is decreasing prices, increased quality, and increased efficiency of production. You cannot show one example of a business to support your theory. To support mine, I submit Standard Oil (broken up for the "sin" of selling petrol at a price too low to compete against) and The Aluminum Company of America (continually the lowest price for aluminum ingots, for decades).

What do you have?

Re:Bah ...

[Obfuscant]

No, AT&T was "broken up" because they *asked* to stop being the exclusive national long distance phone service utility.

You have no clue. AT&T was broken up as part of a consent decree where they divested themselves of the LOCAL telephone services (the RBOC -- regional Bell operating companies) so they could KEEP the long distance operation. This consent decree came about as the result of an anti-trust lawsuit from their vertical integration of everything from local to long distance to telephone equipment.

MCI also helped the breakup by filing anti-trust lawsuits.

To claim that AT&T asked to be broken up is just ridiculous.

Re:Bah ...

[Penguinisto]

...and your comment about "standing offers" is hardly the norm in a corporate culture that views employees as largely interchangeable "resources" rather than people.

Depends on a few things...

1) the job. If we're talking about a burger-flipper or "barista", then yeah they are mostly interchangeable. If we're talking about a sysadmin or developer with a solid professional reputation, then good luck with finding one, and don't be surprised if he bails the moment a company really pisses him off.

2) experience. Retail salespeople that can stock shelves at the local mall clothing store are approximately 8 cents per baker's dozen. A top-notch sales pro with a huge client list who can routinely and profitably work with multi-million-dollar clients? That person is going to be a bit tougher to get hold of.

3) the market. A developer who specializes in some popular language (.NET, C++, Java, whatever) is going to have an easier time finding a job than an Ethnic Gender Studies Professor whose specialty centers around people living in Madagascar.

4) reputation. Mentioned in 1), but bears repeating: If you have a solid reputation in your local professional network, you're going to be prized. If no one knows who you are ( or worse - you wound up blackballed; say, you're a Linux developer who worked at SCOX before it blew up?), then good luck with that.

In other words, such a simple screed of all companies treating employees like chattel really doesn't hold true. Those which do tend to degrade over time as quality employees with the experience and skills 'pull the D-ring' to work in greener pastures. They leave the deadwood, newbs and screw-ups behind, and quality/productivity suffers accordingly.

If only...

[RobertM1968]

It's an interesting attitude that I wish more companies would take. I think many of our laws would be better designed to protect "we the people".

Re:If only...

[PaddyM]

The Anti-SOPA stance was a good day.

But by and large, I think these organizations have been too quiet. If they have not normalized relationships with Washington, then why did it take a leak by someone from Washington for some of these organizations to admit what vast information has been shared?

And it's ludicrous to not-normalize relationships with Washington. That's where the laws are defined. There should be pro-privacy politicians with the backing of these companies. With Citizens United, shouldn't tech organizations have the strong advantage of getting the word out about what kind of society we want to create?

The stance of burying heads in the sand is no better than those fools who talk of secession, or try to create their own militia societies. The brain drain occurring today in Russia, is likely to reoccur here in the United States due to gerrymandering if we stay disengaged.

Re:Stay strong President Obama

[interkin3tic]

Stay strong apathetic non-voters. Don't bother. It's cool. Or whatever.

Re:Stay strong President Obama

[Megane]

Stay strong, zero-information voters. Kim Kardashian, Beyonce, and Lady Gaga will do your bothering for you.

Bullshit

[TheRaven64]

You know why the NSA was able to search social graphs and emails so easily? Because all of those pro-freedom Silicon Valley companies (Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Microsoft, and so on) had already built infrastructure for doing so for the purpose of selling adverts. The NSA just piggybacked on existing system to look for other information. If Silicon Valley had really cared about individual freedom, Google would have been pushing federated, decentralised services with no single point where you can insert a tap. Instead, what has happened since we've learned about the NSA's involvement? Google has replaced federated XMPP in GTalk with non-federated XMPP in Google Hangouts.

Re:Bullshit

[RobertM1968]

While that may be the case (sans the drama), the simple fact is that in order for much of the web to work in a decent fashion, such "infrastructure" had to be built in one form or another.

Re:Bullshit

[plopez]

Let look at the rest of the statement in the write up:
1) Freedom vs. control. How do we reconcile this with patent trolls, DRM, and de facto unlimited copy rights?
2) Local reinvestment of profit from taxes that go to Washington. Yeah right, reinvestment. If reinvestment means CEOs line their pockets. What I see is a bunch of freeloaders not paying taxes to support the educational system that benefits them. And also such basic research institutes such as DARPA, NASA, and a host of others.
3) A free untaxed unregulated internet. It is regulation which prevents the internet from becoming a captured, by business interests, internet.
4) Success in the marketplace from government subsidies. LMAO, see point 2 above as well as how many tech companies have their snouts in the government trough.

That's probably just a start.

Re:Bullshit

[mrchaotica]

Bullshit. Plenty of decentralized services (including, but not limited to HTTP, email, IRC, etc.) work just fine and centralizing them like Google attempted with XMPP has no conceivable benefit (except to the likes of advertisers and the NSA).

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Re:Bullshit

[sjames]

Ever eaten a burger with reasonable confidence that it wouldn't give you TB?

Re:Nerds Should Shut Up About Politics

[interkin3tic]

The marketplace of ideas is enriched by every additional voice no matter the background, as long as that additional voice doesn't silence another voice. If they're saying "let them eat cake" type nonsense, then everyone will ignore them and the effect will be the same. If people take their dumb ideas to heart, they're probably not making good moves in the absence of nerds talking. If what the nerds are saying is better than what the alternatives are saying, like religious organizations, organizations dedicated to ignorance, or corporations interested in nothing more than money, then it will be a good thing that they talked.

Alternatively, everyone else should shut up too and give all power to a benevolent saintly king who will rule fairly. Oh, we don't have one of those? Well then, how about everyone gives their opinion and we don't resort to ad-homenim attacks.

Silence until NSA spying hurts sales

[ScottCooperDotNet]

They'll stay silent until America's reputation, and the NSA spying specifically, starts to impact sales. Until then, Silicon Valley's lobbying policy seems to be "pray they don't affect us".

Since TFS doesn't list it, here's Why Silicon Valley Should Not Normalize Relations With Washington, D.C. from the libertarian think tank Cato Institute.

Re:Don't pay your taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah I like jail too

Who elected this guy to speak for Silicon Valley?

[clarkkent09]

There is no such thing as what "silicon valley wants". It's not even a valley and it is definitely not made of silicon. But, that's beside the point. He basically makes it sound as if everybody there is libertarian without mentioning the word, but it is far from the truth. People who matter are involved with the government up to their necks, including all the things he says silicon valley is against: eavesdropping, subsidies, protectionism, non-free internet. All major tech companies maintain nice and expensive lobbyists in Washington. Not that I blame them, they have to live in real world and deal with the biggest and most powerful gorilla in the jungle and that is the government. And it's getting bigger.

It isn't any different elsewhere

[the eric conspiracy]

There are those who have fallen for the false, artificially created dichotomy of Republican-Democrat and those who have realized that the real problem is politics as an industry.

What really needs to be done is to wipe out the concept of two parties both of which are so ossified in untenable positions that the combination is destroying the Republic.

1. Term limits for Congress. 12 years.
2. Campaign Finance Limits. 100 dollars per candidate/person.
3. Eliminate Gerrymandering. Districts must be drawn that are representative of the state's demographics.
4. Eliminate the electoral college.

Re:It isn't any different elsewhere

[the eric conspiracy]

50K max would mean a Congress with 6000 representatives. There is no way this would be workable.

Re:It isn't any different elsewhere

[thoth]

There's no way to eliminate gerrymandering. There will always be someone who draws the boundaries, and whoever draws them, no matter what rules he follows, will be able to find some way to make some districts lean more than they should.

Use a garden variety splitline algorithm - see http://rangevoting.org/GerryExamples.html

Re:It isn't any different elsewhere

[Obfuscant]

1. Past history of Presidents elected despite not having a plurality of votes.

This ignores the fact that there is no national election for President. There are a lot of smaller elections in which the States decide who wins the State electors. You cannot have a "plurality" in a vote unless there is a real total to count. Just taking the results of fifty or more individual elections and summing them up isn't how the system was designed to work, and it doesn't accomplish the goals that drove that design.

2. Proposal by Rance Priebus describing a method to corrupt the election process by tying electoral college votes to gerrymandered congressional districts.

I could come up with a lot of dreamscape systems for corrupting the existing system, none of which is a valid reason for getting rid of it. On the other hand, the States are free to determine how their electors are chosen, which is how it should be. Any State that falls for the "add the entire country up and assign the electors based on that" nonsense is violating their responsibility to their residents and disenfranchising them in favor of larger states with more people.

There are huge problems with the current gerrymandering system. For example, we have a Republican majority in Congress despite the fact that 55% of the votes for Congressmen in the last election were for Democrats.

What does "55% of the votes for congressmen" mean? Are you seriously trying to argue that because democrats in some states got more votes than the republicans in others, that those republicans shouldn't be there? Let's use a simple example to see if you really mean what you are saying or not.

In State A, a democrat congressman wins with a vote of 200,000 to 100,000. In State B, a republican wins with a vote of 50,000 to 40,000. The "total" vote for democrats was 240,000, the total for republicans was just 140,000. Should the republican be replaced by a democrat because of this? Or would that be stripping the right to representation from those in state B?

This difference may have nothing at all to do with Gerrymandering, it simply has to do with the relative populations of various states and districts. And natural differences in population density and proclivities. For example, Oregon has two major population centers, half a dozen medium ones, and lots and lots of empty space. The major centers, and some of the mediums, are heavily democratic. A lot of the rest of the state is republican. It is impossible to draw reasonable district boundaries that completely balance voter numbers without also making those districts heavily biased one way or the other.

By the way, the last Oregon redistricting was done by a Democrat controlled Oregon Senate and a Democrat Governor, with an evenly split House. You can't blame "republican bias" in the US Congress on gerrymandering by nasty republicans. And you can't claim that the evil Republicans in Congress did the gerrymandering that keep them there, since the US Congress doesn't decide the district boundaries.

You seem to think that the USA is one homogenous federal area where the federal government is in total control. National elections for president must naturally be a simple tally of all the votes, under that imaginary system. But the system that exists should be a red flag indicating that your simplistic view is the wrong view. Those of us in smaller states appreciate very much the ability to have some say in the Presidential election, and would even go so far as to call for a system where that small say is made larger, not eliminated altogether. Don't feel too bad about your ignorance, it is propagated by the mainstream media who seem to think that there is some significance to the "national vote total" and strive to be the first to tell you what it is.

WASHINGTON NOT IMPLODING

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Stage management. Drama. Theatrics.

In the end? The powerful will be more so - you will pay more, and get less.

Mission accomplished, and your expectations diminished, as planned.

Re:WASHINGTON NOT IMPLODING

[interkin3tic]

Eh, why so cynical? Look at history: there's good things to come out of every bad thing and bad things that come out of every good thing. Perhaps this will shock people into realizing that gerrymandering isn't something they can ignore. Perhaps tea party voters will start to question whether forcing people to buy healthcare is actually at all similar to fascism. Perhaps actual small government conservatives will take back control of their party, and we can actually cut wasteful spending rather than just cutting taxes and pretending that makes sense.

Don't say the sky is falling simply because you could see one way in which it COULD fall. For one thing, it's not going to cancel it's plans to fall simply because you discovered them. If the shutdown causes the worst to happen, you'll be able to say "Told ya so!' and everyone else in your shantytown will roll their eyes. If it doesn't, you just stressed yourself out, made everyone more cynical about politics, and less likely to take steps to prevent your prophecy from coming true.

Granted, the chances of anyone reading your post doing anything about it are really low anyway... Fuck, I think I just talked myself into looking up my house of reps number and considering calling them.... goddamn desire not to be a hypocrite...

Re:WASHINGTON NOT IMPLODING

[thomst]

Jeremiah Cornelius snorted:

Stage management. Drama. Theatrics.

In the end? The powerful will be more so - you will pay more, and get less.

Mission accomplished, and your expectations diminished, as planned.

Oh, horseshit.

The "drama and theatrics" of which you so dismissively speak is ALL on the Tea Party side. The House clowns behind this public tantrum ARE the agents of plutocrats - but they are unwitting ones, blinded to the control of their puppetmasters by their ideology and prideful ignorance. That's an argyle horse, because all their non-TP peers understand EXACTLY who has purchased them.

The Tea Party currently controls the Republican Party - and, because of gerrymandering and the fact that most Democrats only vote once every four years, that is unlikely to change any time soon. It is unlikely to change, because mainstream Republican voters don't turn out in significant numbers for primary elections. Instead, they're happy to cast their vote for a Republican slate in the general election, and go away satisfied that they've done their duty to party and (only incidentally) country. So it's the "base" - the evangelicals that Ronald Reagan's campaign strategy so empowered - the NRA lifers, and the slack-jawed Fox News addicts that turn out for the primaries. Those are the identical constituencies of the Tea Party, and they'll uncritically accept and vote in accordance with any propaganda effort that gets them sufficiently riled up over abortion, gun rights, taxes, and "socialism" (all while happily depositing their Social Security checks, and leaning as heavily on their Medicare coverage as they do on their walkers and canes).

Cue the Koch brothers - the oil billionaires who have (thanks to the Roberts Court's decisions that money and speech are somehow equivalent, that "corporations are people" for purposes of political speech, and that unlimited secret spending on political campaigns - as long as it pretends to be "educational" and "issue-based" - is a bastion of fr-r-ee-dom!) essentially bankrolled the entire Tea Party monster from its inception, as a proxy for their personal business interests.

Only now the monster has escaped their control - as Victor Frankenstein could have told them it inevitably would. And it's far too late to chain it back up in the basement, because the Tea Party is now a self-sustaining reaction.

THAT's the difference. Washington's establishment pols are self-aware. The Tea Party is not. It's all id - and the Republican superego has left the building, so its ego, the career Republican establishment, has been left to fend for itself. The result is that the career Republican pols are falling all over themselves to embrace all things Tea, in perfectly-justified panic over being "primaried" (a nonce verb that owes its very existence to the Tea Party) out of their comfy jobs as shills for whoever pays them to be.

It's the triumph of arrogant ignorance over calculated self-interest - and that is Not A Good Thing for the country. Or you and me, for that matter, because the Tea Party is the very definition of a faith-based movement. And I'm not talking about their Christian evangelism, here. I'm talking about their blind hatred of "socialism" - despite their personal dependence on it - of taxes - even though our tax rates are still near historic lows (and FAR lower than during the Eisenhower administration, which is a Golden Era in the Tea Party credo) - and of all things Obama - regardless of the fact that our 44th president is an enthusiastic centrist, and ardent supporter of the status quo.

Your sneering dismissal of all pols as corrupt representatives of corporate plutocracy represents a faux-sophisticate's rhetorical overreach: they're NOT all the same. The Tea Partiers are DANGEROUS, precisely because they're NOT subject to the "business-as-usual" corruption of Washington politics. They're True Believers - and not in the good, Marvel-comics way, but in the terrible Spanish-Inquisition-and-Crusades way.

Vulgar libertarian propaganda

[benjfowler]

I see the Ayn Rand science fiction book club are quite busy today.

Yawn. As always. Nothing to see here. Move on.
.

Re:Vulgar libertarian propaganda

[TheSync]

We are glad your non-libertarian Democrats and Republicans in Congress and the White House are doing such a great job!

Re:Who elected this guy to speak for Silicon Valle

[mrchaotica]

It's not even a valley and it is definitely not made of silicon.

Actually, I'm sure that silicon makes up about 30% of the land in Silicon Valley (just like it does everywhere else), and San Francisco Bay was a valley until the end of the last ice age (when it filled up with ocean).

Re:Who elected this guy to speak for Silicon Valle

[unixisc]

Given how overwhelmingly the entire counties of San Mateo, Alameda, Santa Cruz, Santa Clara - not just San Francisco - vote Democrat in every election, thereby making the entire state of CA a 'blue' state, it's ridiculous to claim that Silicon Valley wants the sort of things that Libertarians or even Conservatives champion. TJ, Scott McNealy, John Chambers are really exceptions in an industry that leans overwhelmingly LEFT.

real dichotomy

[globaljustin]

The only difference is which rich assholes get richer....It's douchebags on both sides fighting for their piece of the pie -- we all get fucked over in the end.

I sympathize with your frustration but, no you're wrong.

Look at *policy*...Dem's and Repub's are very, very different. One party has a coordinated effort to end all abortion (including fertitlity tests in Louisiana) and teach young-earth creationism.

That's Repbublicans, that's "libertarians"...don't kid yourself....you want to criticize money in politics? welcome to the fucking club...the rich get richer **in any situation** fact is, even the best case scenario, with two functional, representative parties, money in politics will still be just as much of a problem...

no....the fact that humans can be corrupt does not validate your argument

In the end, the defeatist "Bah...it's all bullshit...meh" is immature and reductive. It's not an intellectual conclusion....it's the opposite...the refusal to engage a complex situation...something that requires mental effort to dig below the rhetoric.

Your position reminds me of Dr. Zeus in Planet of the Apes...covering his ears and screaming so he doesn't hear the human speak.

Democrats are the only people trying to do anything resembling professional governance right now. **accept and deal with that fact** if you think about it, the Chinese idea of 'crisis/opportunity' applies...

I'm surprised at Republicans...for 'free market' people their party is remarkable bereft of any new ideas.

trolls: if you want to express your hate for what I've said, please use blockquote to specify which part of my post you are criticizing

Re:real dichotomy

[Quila]

I'm surprised at Republicans...for 'free market' people their party is remarkable bereft of any new ideas.

The point of a free market is that the politicians don't have the ideas. They keep government from interfering with others who do have the good ideas. Of course the Republicans aren't very good at that either. They're just as meddling as the Democrats.

On the contrary, it's an obligation

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Intelligent educated people have a duty to speak, especially about science and technology issues. It's this whole "democracy" idea that only works when people participate.

Re:We're screwed.

[LordLimecat]

As long as people continue this mentality of my guy is better than yours we're screwed.

Welcome to the human race?

Re:Stay strong President Obama

[FrankSchwab]

Look, Obama isn't involved here. Congress is the legislative body(s). Until they pass a bill and send it to the White House, they haven't done their job.

If Obama is vetoing bill after bill, and Congress can't override, then it's time for the Congress and the White House to confer and compromise. That's not the case right now. If the Congress was doing their job, Obama would be just another asshole with an opinion (although, surely, an asshole with a "bully pulpit"). Placing responsibility for this mess on the President is simply another tactic by the lunatic fringe to deflect blame from their actions.

Re:Stay strong President Obama

[Salgak1]

Rumor has it, Miley and Justin are breeding the first generation of NEGATIVE-information voters. . . .

grumble-grumble

[globaljustin]

Of course the Republicans aren't very good at that either. They're just as meddling as the Democrats.

trying not to freak out here...but you *did* make a coherent point and used blockquotes as requested...so here goes:

The point of a free market is that the politicians don't have the ideas. They keep government from interfering with others who do have the good ideas

this is Ayn Rand revisionism...Paul Ryan type stuff...people who understand economic theory through the lense of **ONE** theorist only...that's your mistake.

the 'free market' is a heuristic of human behavior....it is independent of political/social systems (ex: the huge black market in Soviet Russia, street vendors, etc)

the 'free market' applied to government means a competition of ideas...

**competition of ideas**

my point was/is, that of the two, the Repubs and their supporters talk often and loudly about their love of the 'free market'

if you apply 'free market' ideas to politics, logically you would expect a lively debate of new ideas and old ideas adapted in interesting ways...

also, what is the difference if Robert Oppenheimer makes the A-bomb for Boening or for the DoD? does it really matter who signed his paycheck? he went in and did his work...

the 'free market' isn't any better or worse than the 'government' at doing any one project...that's comparing apples and oranges...b/c the 'free market' isn't an economic system its a heuristic of human behavior

They keep government from interfering with others who do have the good ideas

that is a drastically reductive idea of what government does...based on Ayn Rand...a bad reading of Rand even...

The US Constitution spells out why our government exists, and it makes alot of sense.

I certainly agree that **YES** you are right, one function of government (of many, many functions) is to protect the 'idea people' from unfair competition!!!

I really want you to know that you're right on there...but I think your premise is wrong...

Re:Stay strong President Obama

[amicusNYCL]

We've got your back. Don't negotiate with the Republican terrorists.

Stay Strong Conservatives, don't negotiate with the libtard fascists.

Yes, everyone just "stay strong" (a weird choice of speech, because you have to actually be strong in order to stay strong) and never negotiate! We don't need to negotiate! Negotiation accomplishes nothing!

I think the American people need to stay strong and kick out everyone in Washington who would rather hold the country hostage by refusing to negotiate instead of doing their actual jobs. Their job, by the way, is to negotiate.

Re:Stay strong President Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure it is. As long as you're on the right side. Otherwise you're a terrorist.

reclaim 'libertarian'

[globaljustin]

Republicans are not libertarians.

In common usage, yes they sure as hell are ;) this is measurable...

However I agree that using proper definitions, yes Libertarian ideas are wholly independent (and in conflict with) most of what Republicans do.

I always liked the Political Compass

It identifies 'authoritarian/libertarian' and 'left/right' dichotomies on a two axis scale (instead of just a binary)

Sure it has its weaknesses, but its a great converstation fixer when things go off the rails over definitions...

I'm a 'left-leaning libertarian' according to academic definitions...

Your problem: You have bought into Republican/Tea Party propaganda that to be "libertarian" means to oppose whatever Democrats do

All libertarians...except strongly totalitarian leaning...should logically support the Democrats right now on a ***POLICY basis***

policy basis...look at what the GOP actually proposes as law...go ahead...on virtually every issue voted upon, the Democrat side is the more rational side of the two

I would love to reclaim the word "libertarian" from the maw of the GOP/Fox brainwash machine...

Re:Goals vs Means

[intermodal]

That's where it gets tricky. Your abortion example is about a method used as a solution, as opposed to a problem to be "solved." The problem in this case would be how to handle unwanted or unintentional pregnancy, not abortion itself. To me, it comes down more to each side having certain views on what is effective and what is counterproductive. I think a better example would be reducing gun violence.

Everyone wants to see an end to these senseless shootings, but both sides disagree on what will be effective.

Some people want to outlaw or heavily restrict guns, which some believe would make the shootings less likely by reducing the availability to those who would commit acts, while others believe it leaves potential victims unable to fight back and increase the number of victims when shootings occur.

Others believe that having more people armed is more effective, believing it would deter shootings by making victims more likely to fight back, while opponents of this idea believe it would just make it easier for these mass shootings to happen.

For me, it boils down to the need to not become so entrenched that you cannot look at your position or the opposing position honestly. I consider it vital to pay close attention to whether the effect matches the intent.

Re:Goals vs Means

[linuxguy]

I do not know if this is a good example. I have occasionally wondered if the abortion problem is mostly a manufactured problem used by the parties to divide people into groups. It appears to me that the majority supports a compromise of sorts. Late term abortions not OK, very early term abortions OK. There are people on the fringes, and they are loud but they are in minority.

Re:Don't pay your taxes

[WindBourne]

Acutally, you CAN pay with VISA in the USA.

And with CONgress being what it is, I suspect that if you approach the right type of congressmen (vitter, Duke Cunningham, Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Spitzer, Springer, Tom Evans, Newt Gingrich, etc), you can use hookers to get out of paying taxes.