Extreme views are relative to the time and don't necessarily have anything to do with real-world experience, particularly someone's own moral code. Unless your moral code is based on what's potentially convenient to you, I don't see how you can make that argument seriously.
At one time, in some place, having a complete anti-slavery position was "extreme." Hell, *democracy* was once an extreme position. Looks like -you- haven't been challenged by real-world experience if we compare you to some earlier, more depraved time.
While I'm not saying that piracy doesn't hurt content-producers, or that all the people that pirated wouldn't have bought it, a lot of people pirate games to play them risk-free, games they wouldn't have bought otherwise. Those numbers don't really tell us what the lost sales are, because many pirates were never going to purchase the game to begin with.
A worthless anecdote that says NOTHING, though: I randomly downloaded Neverwinter Nights when it came out because I was bored and wanted to play an RPG. I soon went out, bought the game, later, each expansion back when they came out, and bought NWN2 and its expansions as well.
I do think my case was not the norm. But piracy is an odd thing; freely distributing something can act almost like word-of-mouth and give it success it didn't have. So many music groups, smaller ones, benefit from online distribution by getting the word out. Surreal British comedy show The Mighty Boosh recently came to Adult Swim; if not for clips and episodes being uploaded to youtube (illegally), I doubt it'd have any American fanbase at all and certainly wouldn't be on TV here in the States. Instead, some nerdy Americans actually know who Old Gregg is!
But of course, like I said, that does not mean that is true in every case, or even most.
Government loans. Not "loans." I'm talking FAFSA. You're right, they have no objection to the existence of loans whatsoever (you'll see this when someone argues that rich people with all their money in the bank contribute nothing to society--in fact, that money is being used to back loans!)
All in all, I don't think that not wanting to take state-funded grants is a particularly strong excuse for avoiding college.
Heh. If a libertarian argues against something they benefit from, they're a hypocrite. If they argue against something they don't benefit from, they're selfish or stupid. There's really no way a libertarian can win, can they?
Anyway, the person in question I'm talking about is saving up money to go, but his job cut back hours and he is looking for a new one. He's not at all a rich kid, he's not well-off at all. He's far, far, far from one of the "rich wolves" in your sig, he does blue-collar work. The libertarian focus isn't about trying to find excuses to keep everything you have (again, I will stress that the type does exist) but simply maximizing individual freedom.
I suspect, but cannot prove, that a lot of libertarians are wary of taking on debt themselves much as they bemoan the national debt. Libertarians, I've seen, are more the type to save up their money.
Strips of anarchism are often described as wanting to "get rid of government", but I find that they tend to define government a particular way. Basically, anarchists tend to want to maximize voluntary consent, and in their eyes, government is what you have when you have a ruling system that people are put under without voluntary consent.
Libertarians aren't focused on keeping poor people away from voluntary handouts (even though they think that mere handouts doesn't help them in the long run), it's just that they oppose government doing it, out of principle.
Obviously you can have degrees to which a society imposes on its individual members, and I agree with the idea that it's worth working to minimize that. The problem is if you also want to curb the degree to which individuals can impose on each other, you have inevitable tension between those two principles.
Minarchists believe the state is an evil necessity and want simply minimize government as much as is possible.
So far, I haven't seen a stripe of Libertarianism that acknowledges and engages that problem effectively.
I think that's a problem that every ideology based on individual freedom is going to have, whether it's libertarian, socialist, or social democrat, or republican. I don't think it has a real solution.
I don't consider Paul nutty, though I don't blindly trust him (for example, he's too comfortable with the Constitution Party). I consider many of his supporters to be nutty, though; often they don't know what he stands for. C'mon, you've seen the "911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!" type. And don't get me started on how they would bring up that awful Zeitgeist movie and Freedom to Fascism. Ugh.
Rand was noxious. A lot of libertarians hate her, some respect or like some of the things she's written but find her to be a bit of a crazy cult leader and bitch. If you're unfamiliar with many libertarians hating Barr then you haven't followed them at all closely. Many of the "good" libertarians still associate with the LP, of course, but there was quite an outcry, yes, even on slashdot!
The type of libertarians I talk about are ones that usually like philosophers such as Rothbard, Hazlitt, Bastiat, Mises, and so on. Examples of them include people you probably haven't heard of, like Wendy McElroy, Roderick T. Long, and others. I can't say I endorse them--I don't endorse anyone to think for me--but I at least sympathize with much of their views, although I'm not at all an optimist or a romantic towards change, nor do I blindly trust libertarian economic arguments (I find the Austrian school of economics' methodology to be silly, at best) or some of the utopian arguments sometimes made. I don't believe in "natural rights", either, although I'd say I believe in the principle behind the idea.
Rand, Barr, and Paul are not "big names" of libertarianism. Well, Paul might be at the moment, he's far more respected that Barr and to many, Rand, in libertarian circles. Rand didn't even like libertarians herself, her philosophy is very close to libertarianism but differs in various ways and either you agreed with her 100% or were an outcast (despite what she would say or her admirers will tell you).
By the way, if you want to know what Rand's status is with a lot of libertarians, looked up the hilarious play written by Rothbard, Mozart was a Red. You don't have to be a libertarian to enjoy it.
That's a big of an unfair characterization. I certainly know about exactly what you're talking about case 2. You missed the anarcho-capitalist type that like Rothbard, Bastiat, Spooner, and others. They're as extreme as can be, and sometimes a bit dogmatic with a silly metaphysics they use with their ethics, but they are principled if not jaded.
I'm not a member of the LP, nor do I wish to be. They're a joke. Bob Barr was last election's punchline.
No, I know Berkeley is particularly bad. And again, maybe many "libertarians" do fit the stereotype. But that is not at all what libertarianism has to be about.
You miss my point. People do not allow for flaws in free-market capitalism, which is far more representative of inhibited personal choice than anything else--yet once you speak of government, there's nothing wrong with admitting its imperfections.
No, just the opposite--I'm arguing that human beings are very irrational. I'm taking that to its logical extension--what does that say about our very foundation of government!?
If human irrationality is an argument against free markets because people will make bad economic decisions, doesn't that also apply to political ones? I think it does.
My point was is that too many people call themselves libertarian when their only concern is pot--ones that don't even believe that all drugs should be legalized based on the notion of personal choice. Bill Maher is simply far from a libertarian but he seems to fancy himself one.
(since ultimately we all need some support structure in our lives, and not everyone is lucky enough to have it
There's a difference between mandatory, government other-people-decided-it-for-you social support and voluntary social support. Libertarians say that only voluntary social support is "just", not because they think that the poor don't deserve help and thus it should only be "optional", but because they simply think all relationships should be built on a framework of mutual consent.
As before, I am corrected; my main point that universities tend to be staunchy liberal, however, stands. Libertarians do not dominate -anywhere- in academia, state colleges to ivy league.
I have a feeling you're twisting "libertarian" to mean "moderate Republican"; that's not what I'm talking about at all. I've seen very few wealthy libertarians. Those that are, are not really the ideological ones.
I'm not denying the "poor people are lazy" libertarians exist. They do; the Ayn Rand sector of libertarianism is particularly noxious. But I often find those that claim they are libertarian simply adopt the label because they are the nuttier kind of Ron Paul supporter, moderate Republicans, or simply thing pot should be legal. I mean, look at Bill Maher, again--he claims to be libertarian, but he sure as hell isn't, and I find a lot of "libertarians" fit that mold. The libertarian party itself, for example, has lost a lot of credibility with many of the more staunch libertarians by nominating Bob Barr, who is probably more the type of libertarian you're thinking of than I am. My libertarian friends STILL crack Bob Barr jokes (just an hour ago one IMed me one).
It's also curious that all the libertarians I know (I'm talking minarchists and anarcho-capitalists, here) do not have big-business aspirations. Whatever the case, no libertarian I know thinks the poor deserve to be poor, or are just lazy, or don't deserve help--many of the libertarians I know are poor, and they tend to lean towards extremity. They just don't believe that government and society are the same thing. Should members of society help the poor? Yes. Should it be done through government or democracy? No.
People can do whatever they want so long as it's not harming or risking harm to others
Or engaging in economic transactions which you may perceive to be sub-optimal for yourself.
If the economy requires regulation, it's because people are not thinking when they are patronizing companies. And if that's the case, what does that say about democracy???
True... itjust one example of how liberal universities typically are; the higher you keep on going it seems that at least the loudest students are liberal or highly liberal, if not socialist. While Ron Paul did have a measure of support from the college-age crowd, it was nothing compared to the support they gave Obama, and saying you are a Ron Paul supporter on a college campus is NOT a good idea.
Actually, none of that is true. Again, just look at the universities where the wealthy kids go and you'll find them to be extremely liberal. They don't call it "the People's Republic of Berkeley" for nothing.
Most libertarians (not all, that breed certainly does exist) agree with the ends, just not with the means.
I don't deny that is true, although often times the factor is socioeconomic status and not actual color of skin. The fact that you're derisive against "white" people despite being white yourself tells me you just want to convince yourself that you're one of the enlightened few to make up for, in your own mind, your own "white privilege."
Even with loans the principle behind it is the same; the money the loan is coming him was, in his eyes, "forcibly taken" so there's not much difference.
Yet, you don't go to college now, so how would you know that? Simply watch what the major protests at big universities. It's extremely left-wing. The university I go to is extremely left-wing--in a extremely Republican state, no less. Libertarians are represented far less than Republicans even are are most universities. Libertarians are more hated at universities than anywhere else because most universities receive federal funding, and a lot of professors' research grants comes from federal funding. You do not want to admit to being a libertarian on a college campus.
If anything tends to be more true of the extreme libertarians I know, they are more "redneck" and less "yuppie"; few of them play "blame the poor", are extremely supportive of immigration and frequently disdain the nativist populism (they took our jobs!!!) of the Democrat (and Republican) parties. One of them I know IS jobless, and have met some that have one time or another actually been homeless.
Neither libertarianism or (state) socialism necessarily has much to do with whether you think people should or should not care for the poor, as they, again, are beliefs on how association should be carried out.
1) The vast majority of ungrad white kids are liberals. Vast, vast majority, PARTICULARLY in colleges where the rich kids go like Harvard.
2) Libertarianism isn't a statement of not receiving any kind of "hand out", gift, or such from another person, it's based on a system of mutual consent between all parties involved. It's not about people "deserving" or "not deserving" a break, it's about voluntary association first and foremost, at least among the "true believer" libertarian. The "South Park libertarian" variety, maybe.
Yeah, I'm sure all those liberal kids at Berkeley and Harvard and so on are paying THEIR way through college!
It's fashionable to be "libertarian" nowadays in the Bill Maher sense--that is, you think pot should be legal. However, the "true" libertarian types are much fewer and far-between. I've found most of the "true" libertarians to usually be in the poor-to-middle-class range. If libertarianism was popular among the rich we'd see a lot less support for corporate hand outs and subsidies...!
Anyway, libertarian or socialist, it doesn't really say anything about how "greedy" you are. A libertarian may simply believe that society doesn't have a right to dictate what others do no matter how noble it is; a socialist may be a socialist because they want easy work and "free" stuff.
I myself know an anarcho-capitalist that doesn't go to college because he can't fund it himself, and because he adamantly refuses to take federal aid as he would be taking far more than he has paid into the system with.
The fact is, colleges are almost entirely democrat-to-social-democrat-leaning. I suspect your statement was an attempt to deflect the obvious point that most in academia, undergrads on up, are staunchly liberal; whom match your bias.
General welfare doesn't enumerate any powers; providing for the common defense and general welfare refers to the powers already enumerated in the document.
As for railways, power grids, Internet etc, you are right, it's no surprise that such omissions aren't surprising given the time period the constitution was written. Fortunately, the constitution can be amended if there's a need. But the constitution is just a symbolic document now, it doesn't actually mean anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Extreme views are relative to the time and don't necessarily have anything to do with real-world experience, particularly someone's own moral code. Unless your moral code is based on what's potentially convenient to you, I don't see how you can make that argument seriously.
At one time, in some place, having a complete anti-slavery position was "extreme." Hell, *democracy* was once an extreme position. Looks like -you- haven't been challenged by real-world experience if we compare you to some earlier, more depraved time.
So, how do you get off equating THAT with capitalism? I don't think capitalism means what you think it means.
While I'm not saying that piracy doesn't hurt content-producers, or that all the people that pirated wouldn't have bought it, a lot of people pirate games to play them risk-free, games they wouldn't have bought otherwise. Those numbers don't really tell us what the lost sales are, because many pirates were never going to purchase the game to begin with.
A worthless anecdote that says NOTHING, though: I randomly downloaded Neverwinter Nights when it came out because I was bored and wanted to play an RPG. I soon went out, bought the game, later, each expansion back when they came out, and bought NWN2 and its expansions as well.
I do think my case was not the norm. But piracy is an odd thing; freely distributing something can act almost like word-of-mouth and give it success it didn't have. So many music groups, smaller ones, benefit from online distribution by getting the word out. Surreal British comedy show The Mighty Boosh recently came to Adult Swim; if not for clips and episodes being uploaded to youtube (illegally), I doubt it'd have any American fanbase at all and certainly wouldn't be on TV here in the States. Instead, some nerdy Americans actually know who Old Gregg is!
But of course, like I said, that does not mean that is true in every case, or even most.
Government loans. Not "loans." I'm talking FAFSA. You're right, they have no objection to the existence of loans whatsoever (you'll see this when someone argues that rich people with all their money in the bank contribute nothing to society--in fact, that money is being used to back loans!)
All in all, I don't think that not wanting to take state-funded grants is a particularly strong excuse for avoiding college.
Heh. If a libertarian argues against something they benefit from, they're a hypocrite. If they argue against something they don't benefit from, they're selfish or stupid. There's really no way a libertarian can win, can they?
Anyway, the person in question I'm talking about is saving up money to go, but his job cut back hours and he is looking for a new one. He's not at all a rich kid, he's not well-off at all. He's far, far, far from one of the "rich wolves" in your sig, he does blue-collar work. The libertarian focus isn't about trying to find excuses to keep everything you have (again, I will stress that the type does exist) but simply maximizing individual freedom.
I suspect, but cannot prove, that a lot of libertarians are wary of taking on debt themselves much as they bemoan the national debt. Libertarians, I've seen, are more the type to save up their money.
Strips of anarchism are often described as wanting to "get rid of government", but I find that they tend to define government a particular way. Basically, anarchists tend to want to maximize voluntary consent, and in their eyes, government is what you have when you have a ruling system that people are put under without voluntary consent.
Libertarians aren't focused on keeping poor people away from voluntary handouts (even though they think that mere handouts doesn't help them in the long run), it's just that they oppose government doing it, out of principle.
Obviously you can have degrees to which a society imposes on its individual members, and I agree with the idea that it's worth working to minimize that. The problem is if you also want to curb the degree to which individuals can impose on each other, you have inevitable tension between those two principles.
Minarchists believe the state is an evil necessity and want simply minimize government as much as is possible.
So far, I haven't seen a stripe of Libertarianism that acknowledges and engages that problem effectively.
I think that's a problem that every ideology based on individual freedom is going to have, whether it's libertarian, socialist, or social democrat, or republican. I don't think it has a real solution.
I don't consider Paul nutty, though I don't blindly trust him (for example, he's too comfortable with the Constitution Party). I consider many of his supporters to be nutty, though; often they don't know what he stands for. C'mon, you've seen the "911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!" type. And don't get me started on how they would bring up that awful Zeitgeist movie and Freedom to Fascism. Ugh.
Rand was noxious. A lot of libertarians hate her, some respect or like some of the things she's written but find her to be a bit of a crazy cult leader and bitch. If you're unfamiliar with many libertarians hating Barr then you haven't followed them at all closely. Many of the "good" libertarians still associate with the LP, of course, but there was quite an outcry, yes, even on slashdot!
The type of libertarians I talk about are ones that usually like philosophers such as Rothbard, Hazlitt, Bastiat, Mises, and so on. Examples of them include people you probably haven't heard of, like Wendy McElroy, Roderick T. Long, and others. I can't say I endorse them--I don't endorse anyone to think for me--but I at least sympathize with much of their views, although I'm not at all an optimist or a romantic towards change, nor do I blindly trust libertarian economic arguments (I find the Austrian school of economics' methodology to be silly, at best) or some of the utopian arguments sometimes made. I don't believe in "natural rights", either, although I'd say I believe in the principle behind the idea.
Rand, Barr, and Paul are not "big names" of libertarianism. Well, Paul might be at the moment, he's far more respected that Barr and to many, Rand, in libertarian circles. Rand didn't even like libertarians herself, her philosophy is very close to libertarianism but differs in various ways and either you agreed with her 100% or were an outcast (despite what she would say or her admirers will tell you).
By the way, if you want to know what Rand's status is with a lot of libertarians, looked up the hilarious play written by Rothbard, Mozart was a Red. You don't have to be a libertarian to enjoy it.
That's a big of an unfair characterization. I certainly know about exactly what you're talking about case 2. You missed the anarcho-capitalist type that like Rothbard, Bastiat, Spooner, and others. They're as extreme as can be, and sometimes a bit dogmatic with a silly metaphysics they use with their ethics, but they are principled if not jaded.
I'm not a member of the LP, nor do I wish to be. They're a joke. Bob Barr was last election's punchline.
No, I know Berkeley is particularly bad. And again, maybe many "libertarians" do fit the stereotype. But that is not at all what libertarianism has to be about.
You miss my point. People do not allow for flaws in free-market capitalism, which is far more representative of inhibited personal choice than anything else--yet once you speak of government, there's nothing wrong with admitting its imperfections.
No, just the opposite--I'm arguing that human beings are very irrational. I'm taking that to its logical extension--what does that say about our very foundation of government!?
If human irrationality is an argument against free markets because people will make bad economic decisions, doesn't that also apply to political ones? I think it does.
My point was is that too many people call themselves libertarian when their only concern is pot--ones that don't even believe that all drugs should be legalized based on the notion of personal choice. Bill Maher is simply far from a libertarian but he seems to fancy himself one.
(since ultimately we all need some support structure in our lives, and not everyone is lucky enough to have it
There's a difference between mandatory, government other-people-decided-it-for-you social support and voluntary social support. Libertarians say that only voluntary social support is "just", not because they think that the poor don't deserve help and thus it should only be "optional", but because they simply think all relationships should be built on a framework of mutual consent.
As before, I am corrected; my main point that universities tend to be staunchy liberal, however, stands. Libertarians do not dominate -anywhere- in academia, state colleges to ivy league.
I have a feeling you're twisting "libertarian" to mean "moderate Republican"; that's not what I'm talking about at all. I've seen very few wealthy libertarians. Those that are, are not really the ideological ones.
I'm not denying the "poor people are lazy" libertarians exist. They do; the Ayn Rand sector of libertarianism is particularly noxious. But I often find those that claim they are libertarian simply adopt the label because they are the nuttier kind of Ron Paul supporter, moderate Republicans, or simply thing pot should be legal. I mean, look at Bill Maher, again--he claims to be libertarian, but he sure as hell isn't, and I find a lot of "libertarians" fit that mold. The libertarian party itself, for example, has lost a lot of credibility with many of the more staunch libertarians by nominating Bob Barr, who is probably more the type of libertarian you're thinking of than I am. My libertarian friends STILL crack Bob Barr jokes (just an hour ago one IMed me one).
It's also curious that all the libertarians I know (I'm talking minarchists and anarcho-capitalists, here) do not have big-business aspirations. Whatever the case, no libertarian I know thinks the poor deserve to be poor, or are just lazy, or don't deserve help--many of the libertarians I know are poor, and they tend to lean towards extremity. They just don't believe that government and society are the same thing. Should members of society help the poor? Yes. Should it be done through government or democracy? No.
People can do whatever they want so long as it's not harming or risking harm to others
Or engaging in economic transactions which you may perceive to be sub-optimal for yourself.
If the economy requires regulation, it's because people are not thinking when they are patronizing companies. And if that's the case, what does that say about democracy???
True... itjust one example of how liberal universities typically are; the higher you keep on going it seems that at least the loudest students are liberal or highly liberal, if not socialist. While Ron Paul did have a measure of support from the college-age crowd, it was nothing compared to the support they gave Obama, and saying you are a Ron Paul supporter on a college campus is NOT a good idea.
Actually, none of that is true. Again, just look at the universities where the wealthy kids go and you'll find them to be extremely liberal. They don't call it "the People's Republic of Berkeley" for nothing.
Most libertarians (not all, that breed certainly does exist) agree with the ends, just not with the means.
I don't deny that is true, although often times the factor is socioeconomic status and not actual color of skin. The fact that you're derisive against "white" people despite being white yourself tells me you just want to convince yourself that you're one of the enlightened few to make up for, in your own mind, your own "white privilege."
Even with loans the principle behind it is the same; the money the loan is coming him was, in his eyes, "forcibly taken" so there's not much difference.
You can wash away all your white privilege sins with liberal guilt, I suppose.
Yet, you don't go to college now, so how would you know that? Simply watch what the major protests at big universities. It's extremely left-wing. The university I go to is extremely left-wing--in a extremely Republican state, no less. Libertarians are represented far less than Republicans even are are most universities. Libertarians are more hated at universities than anywhere else because most universities receive federal funding, and a lot of professors' research grants comes from federal funding. You do not want to admit to being a libertarian on a college campus.
If anything tends to be more true of the extreme libertarians I know, they are more "redneck" and less "yuppie"; few of them play "blame the poor", are extremely supportive of immigration and frequently disdain the nativist populism (they took our jobs!!!) of the Democrat (and Republican) parties. One of them I know IS jobless, and have met some that have one time or another actually been homeless.
Neither libertarianism or (state) socialism necessarily has much to do with whether you think people should or should not care for the poor, as they, again, are beliefs on how association should be carried out.
1) The vast majority of ungrad white kids are liberals. Vast, vast majority, PARTICULARLY in colleges where the rich kids go like Harvard.
2) Libertarianism isn't a statement of not receiving any kind of "hand out", gift, or such from another person, it's based on a system of mutual consent between all parties involved. It's not about people "deserving" or "not deserving" a break, it's about voluntary association first and foremost, at least among the "true believer" libertarian. The "South Park libertarian" variety, maybe.
Maybe that's why it was modded troll.
Yeah, I'm sure all those liberal kids at Berkeley and Harvard and so on are paying THEIR way through college!
It's fashionable to be "libertarian" nowadays in the Bill Maher sense--that is, you think pot should be legal. However, the "true" libertarian types are much fewer and far-between. I've found most of the "true" libertarians to usually be in the poor-to-middle-class range. If libertarianism was popular among the rich we'd see a lot less support for corporate hand outs and subsidies...!
Anyway, libertarian or socialist, it doesn't really say anything about how "greedy" you are. A libertarian may simply believe that society doesn't have a right to dictate what others do no matter how noble it is; a socialist may be a socialist because they want easy work and "free" stuff.
I myself know an anarcho-capitalist that doesn't go to college because he can't fund it himself, and because he adamantly refuses to take federal aid as he would be taking far more than he has paid into the system with.
The fact is, colleges are almost entirely democrat-to-social-democrat-leaning. I suspect your statement was an attempt to deflect the obvious point that most in academia, undergrads on up, are staunchly liberal; whom match your bias.
General welfare doesn't enumerate any powers; providing for the common defense and general welfare refers to the powers already enumerated in the document.
As for railways, power grids, Internet etc, you are right, it's no surprise that such omissions aren't surprising given the time period the constitution was written. Fortunately, the constitution can be amended if there's a need. But the constitution is just a symbolic document now, it doesn't actually mean anything.
Since most FF male heroes look like girls, it's not such a big deal.
(if you don't get the joke you probably aren't familiar with an old meme regarding FFVII)