Dispatches from the Culture Wars

2

Aren't libertarians usually voters who are dissatisfied with the way the republican platform is constructed, and would otherwise be fervent republicans? If so, Barr polling well in battleground states could be nothing but good for Obama, since the libertarians could/would siphon votes away from McCain.

Or am I misinformed?

Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | August 28, 2008 9:45 AM

4

Do they ever hold up though (Perot aside). Didn't Nader poll pretty well at this stage in 2000? It looks like most of his support is drawing from McCain, which is good (not too surprising, though).

Posted by: Ginger Yellow | August 28, 2008 9:51 AM

6

I'd take these with a grain of salt. Zogby is regarded as one of the worst of the major pollsters. And this is the Zogby Interactive poll which is a self selecting internet only poll and is probably the most error prone. This poll is also a little dated. In a recent CNN/Time poll that included these some of these same states Barr is only getting 3% of Colorado, 5% of Nevada, and 1% of Pennsylvania. In this one Nader is pulling 7% of Colorado, 6% of Nevada, 8% of New Mexico, and 7% of Pennsylvania. I think you have a lot of disaffected Hillary voters in both polls who will probably settle in and vote for Obama.

I agree that third party candidates will probably have a significant effect on this election, but I don't think we'll see anything near the 10% and 11% in the Zogby poll.

Posted by: Ben | August 28, 2008 9:55 AM

8

I just got used to Red and Blue.

There's a Purple now?

Posted by: Dave S. | August 28, 2008 9:58 AM

10

Ben: I would say there's practically no difference between the polls you saw and these. I'm sure the margin of error for both polls will suggest no major statistically significant difference between the numbers.

In this poll, done on a state by state basis, the margins of errors average about 4%.

Posted by: dkw | August 28, 2008 10:14 AM

12

I think purple just means that the state is too closely contested to assign a color to it. It's equal parts red and blue, ie "purple."

Posted by: Chris | August 28, 2008 10:31 AM

16

If you believe the Libertarians are even primarily made up of dissatisfied Republicans, then you really need to educate yourself about the LP. I highly suggest starting with a book by Dr. Mary Ruwart, "Healing Our World: The Other Piece of the Puzzle," which you can read online for free: http://ruwart.com/Healing/

Traditional (Reagan-era and before) Republicans do share some ideas with Libertarians about the size of government and government spending and interference in the economy, but not many and their motivations are different.

Democrats do share some ideas with Libertarians about individual liberty, but not many and their motivations are different.

And no, Ron Paul is NOT a Libertarian (though he was invited by the LP to be their presidential candidate) and shares more ideas with Libertarians than do most other Republicans.

I've never been a Republican. I will never be a Republican. The main reason I play with the Libertarians is because their party is the only one that consistently works to defend individual liberty.

Posted by: Spike | August 28, 2008 11:35 AM

18

Does anyone know what Barr's position on abortion, stem cells and evolution is?

He's opposed to abortion, on religious grounds. He's also opposed to homosexuality, on religious grounds. I don't know his position on stem cells or evolution.

Posted by: llewelly | August 28, 2008 11:44 AM

20

Real libertarians will write in Ron Paul. I'm not a capital "L" libertarian, but I've seen enough to know that Paul actually is one while Barr and his party just want attention.

Posted by: fyreflye | August 28, 2008 11:58 AM

22

"The main reason I play with the Libertarians is because their party is the only one that consistently works to defend individual liberty." I worte. Lance showed I was incorrect.

Lance,

Thanks for your post. It seems that if we libertarians want a party of our own, we need to either start a new one or take back the LP.

Posted by: Spike | August 28, 2008 12:19 PM

24

Spike: "No. I won't vote for Dr. Paul. While he is the most libertarian Republican, he is still a Republican."

Because he wants to remain in public office. How many proud Libertarians have been elected to any major public office in the US? If your primary requirement for supporting a libertarian is that he be a member of the pathetic sellout Libertarian Party you can count on remaing in the political desert forever.

Posted by: fyreflye | August 28, 2008 12:31 PM

26

ff,

No. My requirement for voting for libertarian candidates is that they be libertarians. Dr. Paul is libertarian-ish. His platform is more libertarian than that of any other Republican, it's true, but still bears the burden of being a Republican platform.

His party membership creates party obligations. Whom will he select for his cabinet? Whom will he appoint to head various agencies? Whom will he offer as USSC Justices? Reiterating the fact that even Ron Paul supporters remind us of: Dr. Paul is the most libertarian Republican. If that's true, then by necessity Dr. Paul's appointees will be _less_ libertarian than he. They may be more libertarian than what we would expect from McCain or any of the other RP presidential candidates we will see in future races, but they will still be less libertarian than Dr. Paul.

Unless the nearly impossible happens and Dr. Paul looks outside of his party for appointees. Where can he look? What other party has people qualified to serve in Federal offices who are also libertarians? Do I actually have to say it?

My other question for Ron Paul supporters who don't like the LP: After Dr. Paul retires because of age and illness, where are you going to look for your next hero? I don't know of anyone in the RP who is even half as libertarian as Dr. Paul, do you? I'm wide open to finding out who they may be.

Posted by: Spike | August 28, 2008 12:53 PM

28

false analogy

Posted by: T_U_T | August 28, 2008 1:03 PM

30

Aren't libertarians usually voters who are dissatisfied with the way the republican platform is constructed, and would otherwise be fervent republicans?

This gets so tiresome. Instead of repeating a mythology that has been rebutted on this blog many times, as well as by just about any actual libertarian, why don't you do a little research on the subject.

I'll tell you when I will vote Republican: When they reject war for fun and profit; when they support legalization of drugs; when they support abortion rights; when they support due process rights; when they support the right to burn the flag in political protest; when they stop promoting corporate welfare; when they stop pushing prayer in schools; when they stop opposing gay rights.

Yeah, I'm so fucking close to being a Republican.

Why is it so hard to grasp that libertarians object to about half of what Republicans want, and about half of what Democrats want, and so they're not really any closer to one party than the other?

I don't really care whether you think libertarianism makes sense or not. If you want to repeat silly aphorisms like Billy the Atheist, that's fine. But stop assuming libertarians are actually conservatives. It just betrays your gross ignorance.

Posted by: James Hanley | August 28, 2008 1:23 PM

32

"Atheism: The strange idea that, if we eliminate a cosmic rule-giver, people will suddenly start to behave responsibly.

A statement of phenomenal philosophical naivety."

As was the statement which it satirizes.

T_U_T:

How is it a false analogy? Knowing that Billy the Atheist's post was false to begin with, in that he pretends libertarians have in mind to eliminate the rules, I often find myself in the position of pointing out that belief in the magic of a paternalistic government that can save us from the evils of the world (a belief shared by conservatives and liberals alike) is not unlike a belief in a paternalistic sky daddy.

It also gives an important insight into the mind of the claimant, in that if you and Billy believe that big business necessarily needs strict control by big government, it means that if you were to run a big business you would transform from the moral folks that you are into some kind of evil exploitationists who would need to be restrained from overcharging your customers, underpaying your employees and using up natural resources as fast as you can.

Posted by: Spike | August 28, 2008 2:18 PM

34

Atheism: The strange idea that, if we eliminate a cosmic rule-giver, people will suddenly start to behave responsibly.

Wow, have I been doing it wrong!

Posted by: Taz | August 28, 2008 2:31 PM

36

Aren't libertarians usually voters who are dissatisfied with the way the republican platform is constructed, and would otherwise be fervent republicans?

Yes, just as Democrats are dissatisfied with the way the Republican platform is constructed, and would otherwise be fervent Republicans, and Greens would be fervent Libertarians if they weren't dissatisfied with the Libertarian platform, and Libertarians would be fervent Greens if they weren't dissatisfied with the Green party platform, and...

Posted by: Gretchen | August 28, 2008 2:32 PM

38

"Your fear of a corporate oligarchy would be addressed by the ability of individuals to have access to the courts to settle any disputes brought about by coercive actions of entities facilitated by imbalances in capital resources, or by any other means."

In theory yes, but not always in practice. A pure libertarian society is as impractical as socialism.

Posted by: Bill in NC | August 28, 2008 2:50 PM

40

Gretchen - Good'un!

Nothing Sacred - How do big corporations get big?

Grammar RWA - When comparing Greens and Libertarians, we get back to that notion of the zero-sum game, that the only way a person can get rich is at the expense of others. The Greens I have met and the writings of Greens I have read lead me to think that Greens believe this is true and the the only way to rectify it is to redistribute wealth. That requires taking from someone for no other reason than you feel that they've done wrong by acquiring more wealth than somone else. Sounds like a presumption of guilt to me. Am I mischararcterizing this?

Posted by: Spike | August 28, 2008 2:59 PM

42

Oh Noes! Bill in NC skewers us with The Impractality Argument.

A world without wars is impractical, do we not continue to strive for it?

A society without crime is impratical, do we not continue to strive for it?

Racial/gender/etc. impartiality in all cases is impractical, do we not continue to strive for it?

A constant separation of church and state is impractical, do we not continue to strive for it?

Individual liberty is a moral good. That is why we should strive to achieve a government that protects indivudal liberty, regardless of how practical it is to expect a perfectly libertarian society.

Posted by: Spike | August 28, 2008 3:15 PM

44

Spike, Having bashed others' misinterpretations of libertarians, I risk misinterpreting the positions of Greens, and so leave myself open to correction (or even pointed rebuke--like a poke in the eye with a sharp stick), but I think you make a good point in your mention of zero-sum games.

Not only Greens but, I think, many liberals (although certainly not all) do tend to see the free market as a zero-sum game (like tennis, my win is your loss), whereas free market supporters--whatever else their views--see it as a positive sum game, where both sides generally end up better off than before. That would inevitably result in rather different attitudes about regulation of the market.

Gretchen, amen! The "pro-business" vs. "pro-market" confusion is very common. Like Adam Smith, libertarians believe the market benefits consumers by pitting producers against each other, and are sharply critical of producers for constantly seeking government protection from the vicissitudes of the market. We could potentially be wrong in our analysis, but it most decidedly is not a pro-corporate stance. It probably occasionally sounds like it, when we say "don't overregulate corporations," but that's just a plea to let the free market operate; we just as loudly say "don't subsidize and protect corporations."

Posted by: James Hanley | August 28, 2008 3:25 PM

46

we just as loudly say "don't subsidize and protect corporations.

Really? So the Libertarian Party is campaigning for an end to corporate personhood?

Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 28, 2008 3:34 PM

48

"So the Libertarian Party is campaigning for an end to corporate personhood?" asks Grammar RWA

What do you understand corporate personhood to mean and what do you think are the advantages and disadvantages of it?

I ask because as I understand coproate personhood, I don't find it as being a way of subsidizing and protecting corporations. It provides a way for corporations to do business without requiring every owner (meaning every stockholder) to sign every document, it can provide perpetuity to the corporation, which means that all the employees don't lose their jobs when an owner quits or dies, and, depending on the form of the corporation, it provides protection from liability for owners = stockholders, not the corporation.

Who in their right mind would run a buisness without protecting their family home from seizure by the business's creditors? How many businesses would exist if the stockholders knew that their kids' college fund was at risk every time they bought a stock?

Posted by: Spike | August 28, 2008 3:57 PM

50

Grammar,

You said "left-leaning libertarians tend to be Greens." I said that's nonsense, and it is.

As to gun control, I'm certain there are Greens that don't support full-on gun control, but I'm also certain that most do. From the Green Party webpage, "Thoughtful, carefully considered gun control laws such as the "Brady Bill" and the waiting period for record search before gun dealers may sell a gun should be supported." The Brady Bill was about more than background checks.

You said I'm not just mischaracterizing, I'm lying. No, that's why I said I was open to correction. I explicitly recognized in my post that I could be wrong, which is much in contrast to your claims of "puffed up rhetoric." And if you think I'm wrong, I'd like to hear your argument that Greens don't tend to see the economy as zero-sum. I think your statement here is singularly uncharitable, and an example of demonization in argument, when you could simply have taken up my opening and said, "Yes, you have mischaracterized Greens on this point, and here's why." Please do so, as I recognize that I could be wrong, and want to hear a considered argument as to why I am wrong.

As to:

"The Green Party does support progressive taxation. That's got nothing to do with 'presumptions of guilt' or 'punishment for doing something wrong.'

I agree that progressive taxation doesn't have anything to do with guilt or punishment. I never said it did, so I don't know what your point is.

As to the concept that the legal definition of a corporation as a person is a protection and a subsidy, well, that's much to complex an argument to engage in here. I'm undecided where I stand on the issue, and I would think there's plenty of room for variation among libertarians on that topic. (Hey, you other libertarians, am I wrong?)

Anyway, off to Arabic class. Have fun ripping me a new one! ;)

Posted by: James Hanley | August 28, 2008 4:06 PM

52

You said I'm not just mischaracterizing, I'm lying.

Jesus, Hanley. Fucking reading comprehension. I said Spike was lying.

Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 28, 2008 4:10 PM

54

MisterDomino

I live here in Columbus, Ohio and, being a libertarian, am a supporter of Bob Barr. While libertarians aren't that big of a group here, we usually have a booth at ComFest!!

As to people who as ask me what a libertarian is I say "Pro-choice on everything and protection of property rights"
Also, being a woman, I can say that abortion rights fall quite nicely into the "property rights" catagory. No one can tell me what to do with my uterus!!

Posted by: Jenny | August 28, 2008 4:22 PM

56

"It is fair to ask that those who benefit the most also pay back proportionately."

This is what I mean by presumption of guilt.

And I'm not interested in talking to someone who dishonestly insists on characterizing his opponent's positions with slanted rhetoric.

I'm not here for your trolling pleasure. Fuck off.

Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 28, 2008 4:44 PM

58

I think by getting caught up in definitions of libertarians, conservatives, liberals, and the various parties, we're missing a key point: what you think a party should be, how you think they should be defined by the textbook anyway, doesn't matter one bit. Forty-plus years after Vietnam and civil rights, twenty years after Reagan, sixteen years after Clinton, and now after eight years of Bush, there's a LOT of flux in political definitions. Parties can change ideologies, even while our preconceptions of the parties remain absolute for far longer than they're accurate -- a lesson the evangelicals have recently taught New England Republicans, who were sadly too late (thanks to Reagan's eleventh commandment) to take back their party.

Posted by: HDS | August 28, 2008 4:53 PM

60

"I'm not saying that we shouldn't strive for the "impractical" in terms of human ideals such as peace and freedom. I was taking exception to the idea that corporate accountability can always be achieved through the courts. Yes, people have won in court suing big business, but life is not a Frank Capra movie and big business is able to afford the legal dream teams."

Bill in NC. Point taken.

But you also said, "In theory yes, but not always in practice. A pure libertarian society is as impractical as socialism."

It's that last sentence that Gretchen and I were responding to, because it goes beyond just the notion of suits in courts being sufficient to curtail overreaching by the officers of corporations. I don't necessarily think they are, either. I also don't believe that all pols who support regulation necessarily do so out of fear or hatred of corporations. I think there are many people who write regulatory laws and work in regulatory agencies who believe that is the most efficent way to head off problems before they occur. In some industries, it is, such as pharmeceutial manufacturing, where I used to work.

It is a myth to pretend that since a little regulation is good, more is better. I worked in the area of quality control. It was my job to test pharmceuticals for safety and effectiveness. The only reason I complied with the regulations is because I chose to. I could easily have faked the results, pencil-whipped the paperwork and released finished product that was compromised, in order to save money for my company and earn myself a raise. In the end, the only thing standing between life and death for our customers was my personal integrity. As is true in the quality control labs of every drug, medical device, food, automobile, airplane (you get the idea) manufacturing company in the country.

Posted by: Spike | August 28, 2008 4:58 PM

62

Gretchen said:

"It also bears mentioning that corporate handouts are part of the big government that libertarians so strongly oppose. To portray libertarians are pro-corporation is a mistake."

You and James Hanley have got to compare notes more closely :D

For he said:

"libertarians also argue that we don't need government for those things as much as people believe. They believe the free market will solve most of these problems."

and:

"You may disagree with libertarians about the power of market forces to discipline misbehaving businesses. That's fair"

and:

"I do not support the Green Party because they are opposed to the free market. Although I risk committing the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, I would say that anyone who wants more government regulation of the free market is unlikely to be an actual libertarian."

I don't mean to imply that your statement was meant to defend any or all of the statements by James, but I can not see how James position is anything BUT pro corporation.

And this position is endemic of many which, for me, was why my enchantment for the Libertarian party was so short. I can't figure out why they Lib party trusts government so little yet trusts corporations so much.

I actually read the national Lib party presidential election planks a number of years ago. I couldn't believe what I read. The phrase "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face" kept presenting itself.

Here is a party whose philosophy despises government encroachment on civil liberties SO MUCH that they have decided to disregard the constitutional imperative that government should provide for the common welfare, and just jettison any role of government that actually helps people. All in the name of keeping government "small".

They seem so entranced by the phrase "the best government is the one that governs least" that they have decided to interpret it in the most antisocial way possible. They despise government so much they really see very little way it should and can work to enrich the life of the citizenry.

It was a party plank full of disregard for human needs, human suffering, the needs of the middle class. No regard for the possibilities of community planning, of government spending on any kind of human capital. Really, I found, it was the grim, bleak world view of the selfish, of those who already had taken care of their own, and didn't see the philosophical or moral need to look out for anyone else.

It was, to my mind, the purest spirit of Republican selfishness and unrestricted corporate capitalism, leavened with more personal freedoms and less federal spending on the military because of a policy of isolationism.

It is very different from the Progressive party philosophy, which is that the purpose of government is to promote the public welfare.

Posted by: Gingerbaker | August 28, 2008 5:04 PM

64

'"It is fair to ask that those who benefit the most also pay back proportionately."

This is what I mean by presumption of guilt.'

And I'm not interested in talking to someone who dishonestly insists on characterizing his opponent's positions with slanted rhetoric.

I'm not here for your trolling pleasure. Fuck off."

Stopped reading when you got to the part you didn't like?

You -are- presuming guilt on my part. In your own words you claim that I have a debt that I need to "pay back," which means I owe something to others that I have neglected to pay along the way.

After the one, short sentence that you chose to get pissy about, I asked many questions that you should be able to answer quite handily if your premise, "It is fair to ask that those who benefit the most also pay back proportionately," is true.

Rather than getting personal, deal with the issues. If I'm wrong, show me. Answer the questions and defend your thesis. This is what grown-ups do when discussing ideas.

Posted by: Spike | August 28, 2008 5:12 PM

66

Jesus, Hanley. Fucking reading comprehension. I said Spike was lying

The point still holds--you're being dishonest and uncharitable in that claim. And the way you respond to my simple error suggests you're not capable of arguing the points, only capable of engaging in insult.

In response to my request for your argument that Greens don't see the economy as a zero-sum game you respond with:

Uh, my argument is that "they don't." It's the null hypothesis.

This again suggests you're incapable of supporting your argument. Sure it's a null hypothesis, but null hypotheses aren't self-sustaining. You either have an argument that supports your claim or you don't. Since you haven't brought one forth yet, I'm beginning to think you don't. Here's my argument that most Greens see the economy as zero-sum: they tend to think corporations are getting rich at the expense of average people (workers/consumers). That's my argument. I don't claim to know it's the factual truth, and I'm asking you to provide a rebuttal argument, which you haven't done.

I'm not trying to attack the Greens and criticize their beliefs, so please stop getting so defensive. I'm trying to explain what I see as the different world view that separates Greens and libertarians. You obviously disagree, but you haven't provided any argument beyond claiming I'm wrong.

I admit I could be wrong, so show me where, rather than repeating that I'm wrong.

I don't see what's so problematic about asking you to do that.

Posted by: James Hanley | August 28, 2008 5:23 PM

68

Corporate accountability through the courts is an example of why I am not a full fledged libertarian. In so far as I accept regulation as a necessity I tend to regard libertarianism as impractical as socialism. That said, let me say that I believe in a political system that allows for free enterprise and economic markets. I guess I'm only saying that I wouldn't want to live in America circa 1900 anymore than I'd care to live in Sweden circa 1965.

As for a little regulation being good ergo a lot of regulation being better, that's like taking an overdose. It becomes the problem.

Posted by: Bill in NC | August 28, 2008 5:35 PM

70

Gingerbreaker,

Your post was addressed to Gretchen, but, as this is an open forum, I hope you don't mind if I chime in.

You wrote "I can not see how James position is anything BUT pro corporation."

I need to understand something. Do you believe that being "pro coporation" is a bad idea? Or do you mean that setting up a system where some corporations benefit unfairly at the expense of the rest of us is a bad idea?

I'm "pro corporation" in the sense that I am protecting my wife from going to prison or at least losing her home by having set up my business as a corporation that limits the libabilities of the actions of the corporation's agents to the resources of the corporation.

That means, if my coporation has a debt that I, as its agent, fail to discharge, my wife and children will not have their home taken from them.

Addressing Grammar RWA's post from above as well, where he asked, "'depending on the form of the corporation, it provides protection from liability for owners = stockholders'
And this is a moral hazard that distorts the free market. How is that not obvious?"

Answer me honestly, Gingerbreaker, Grammar RWA and whoever else chooses: When you are doing the business of your employer, if you make a mistake that creates a liability for the company that you work for, do you really want your family to have to pay the debt? If not, then you are "pro corporation."

When you buy stock through your 401(k) plan, making you an owner of a corporation, if that corporation does something illegal, do you think you should have to go to jail? If not, then you are "pro corporation."

If you mean that setting up a system where some corporations benefit unfairly at the expense of the rest of us is a bad idea, then Libertarians agree. It is. And the only way this can happen is through legislation - since everything pertaining to the existence and actions of corporations is a result of legislation (and its interpretation by the courts).

Posted by: Spike | August 28, 2008 5:45 PM

72

Gretchen said:

"Gingerbaker,

Arguing for a free market is arguing against corporate handouts, not for them.

I can't figure out why they Lib party trusts government so little yet trusts corporations so much."

I'm not really sure what the official LP position on "corporate handouts" is, so I don't want to comment on that. But, I do know this - there is no such thing as a free market, and James says the LP is against regulations,or against over regulation, or what ever the LP stands for, which I still can't get a real handle on. :D

I also am really quite certain about what happens when you have a "free market" and a lack of real regulations that are there to protect the public - you get our national health care system for one example. Where it is not legal to sue an HMO for damages.(!)

Last week or so, I asked Ed a question about the personhood status of corporations. Naturally, he ignored me for his own reasons.

I would like to think, however, that he avoided the question - if indeed he even saw it, because the answer to the question is pretty antithetical to the LP party. I did not respond further in that thread - I am pressed for time in the ...ummm... real world of late. :D

But my understanding of the issue - which pretty much comes from Thom Hartmann, is that corporations were looked upon with the GREATEST distrust by many of the founding fathers. Back then, a corporation had to keep completely public books, could only exist for no longer than twenty years, and could only market one type of product. (!)

After the Civil War, railroads were very powerful, and there was quite a bit of corruption ion the courts. The case that gave corporations "personhood" was decided by a bad chief justice, whose main clerk lied to him about the relevant precedents. I think he was likely paid off. Anyway, the case is infamous because there are records of the law clerks margin notes which put the lie to the legal reasoning of the case. The question is, when is a good time to revisit this decision, if ever, Corporations have way too much power and likely will keep it.

Ed could have done a really interesting post on this, I think.

Posted by: Gingerbaker | August 28, 2008 5:53 PM

74

Grammar RWA wrote,"When someone has been harmed by a corporation, they cannot recoup all the damages that they could if they were harmed by an individual." True.

What this means for you is that if your coworker goes on a drunken rampage while driving the corporate delivery truck, you, your spouse and kids are not out on the street because your house has been seized to pay the debts of the company you work for.

Posted by: Spike | August 28, 2008 6:01 PM

76

Gingerbaker,

I think you do Ed a disservice to assume that he walks with the rank and file of the Libertarian Party-- he has stated more than once that he doesn't agree with their entire platform, and I really can't imagine him toeing the line out of some partisan commitment. For that matter, I think he'd be one of the last people to do so.

Should corporations be trusted? Of course not-- not any more than politicians, or anyone else who is not held directly responsible for their misdeeds. Corporations seek profits; politicians seek power. Neither can be counted upon to seek the general good, and both should therefore be held in high suspicion perpetually. That does not, however, mean that neither should be allowed to do their jobs.

Posted by: Gretchen | August 28, 2008 6:10 PM

78

Re: progressive tax (@spike)

I've always supported a progressive tax, but not because I feel that the rich have a "debt" or that they need to be punished. It is simply practical. With a flat tax rate, we would have one of two situations: The tax would be so high that the poor would be taxed to starvation and death, or so low that we could not have a functioning government.

Sure, in an ideal world, we'd all pay the same tax, and it would be a small tax. The common belief that liberals like taxes is as much a straw man as anything we've read about libertarians in this thread.

Posted by: Tercel | August 28, 2008 6:18 PM

80

Grammar RWA:

When someone has been harmed by a corporation, they cannot recoup all the damages that they could if they were harmed by an individual.

That's only true if the company cannot pay off the damages even if they sell everything they have. In that case the company will cease to exist and all shareholders will lose the entire value of their investment in the company. that's not exactly getting off scot free now is it?

What can protect companies from all the damage is corporate bankruptcy, which is much less defensible. In New Zealand a company that can't pay its debt gets wound up, its assets liquidated and the shareholders get nothing unless all the debts are paid off.

Gingerbaker:

corporations were looked upon with the GREATEST distrust by many of the founding fathers

Adam Smith demonstrates a similar suspicion of corporations in The Wealth of Nations. That's because in the 18th Century there was almost no undertaking that required enough capital to justify a corporate structure. The few companies that did exist back them were the result of the King handing out trade concessions to a favoured few.

Any business undertaking that has high fixed costs (costs that do not scale with the size of the business's operations) will need to be large to pay off those fixed costs. Equally any environment where co-ordination or negotiation is difficult or expensive will tend to result in large businesses. Such businesses were rare before the invention of the Steam engine, but they are common since the development of mass production.

Its also worth noting that large businesses will always find it easier to work with (or get around) complex government rules than small businesses, so government interventionism indirectly causes large corporations to exist (there are other causes of course, but it has an effect).

If you want a large business you need a corporate structure because other business structures don't work well with more than a few investors. Unless your investors are all fabulously wealthy then high capital requirements mean you need corporate structures

Posted by: James K | August 28, 2008 6:20 PM

82

Tercel,

I apologize for overgeneralizing. Practical or impractical, the reality of our current tax structure is that few people who are in the higher tax brackets ever pay more than 10% of real tax. At least at the Federal Level. My State does not have an income tax, and, not being a consumer of much for my self, I don't really pay much in sales tax, and what I pay is deductible against my Federal Tax. Everything else goes through my business.

Posted by: Spike | August 28, 2008 7:06 PM

84

Spike:

You -are- presuming guilt on my part. In your own words you claim that I have a debt that I need to "pay back," which means I owe something to others that I have neglected to pay along the way.

I don't think that the argument is quite what you're characterizing it to be. The idea is that our government an infrastructure is what allows all of us to make a living and that people who make more money benefit from those services disproportionally. For example, we could look at the police as an insurance policy against property being stolen and taxes as the insurance premium. If I have $2 to my name, the value of that particular insurance policy isn't as high as if I have a driveway full luxury cars.

Frankly, I think that a progressive taxation system makes sense simply because it works economically and it reflects the diminishing marginal utility of money. Rather than paying approximately the same numerical percentage, we're asked to pay approximately the same amount of "pain" into the system.

Posted by: Troublesome Frog | August 28, 2008 7:51 PM

86

Gingerbaker wrote:

I can not see how James position is anything BUT pro corporation.

That's right, ginger. Every time I say "free market," you read the words, "hooray corporations."

I've explained more than enough times how being free market is not being pro-corporation, but you prefer to say, "Hanley says white but he really means black." You're just so relentlessly dishonest every time we have a debate, you repeatedly insist on distorting my words to fit what you want them to mean, that it's impossible for me to have even the remotest bit of respect for you anymore.

You argue like you're on talk radio--purposefully perverting the meaning of your debate opponents words rather than actually deal with what they do mean. It's people like you who are unable to engage in an honest open debate, but stick to lies, smears and purposeful distortion, who make reasoned discussion impossible.

You're more than free to think that I am wrong in believing that free markets control corporations by putting competitive pressure on them, while in a regulated market corporations seek government protection from competition. If I'm wrong, it just means the outcome wouldn't be what I want it to be. But to take my explicit argument for reducing corporations ability to get government protection and subsidies and call it "pro-market" isn't a critique of my argument, it's a purposeful distortion that you make simply because you are, at a very basic level, a dishonest person who lacks even a smidgeon of intellectual integrity.

Argue with my arguments all you want, say I'm an idiot for believing it on a daily basis, but at least try to scrape up enough integrity to to represent my arguments correctly. Because what I want is a system where Archer-Daniels-Midland doesn't reap billions of dollars in subsidies, where pro sports teams don't rip off the taxpayers by making them pay for stadiums, where government doesn't authorize cartels for the Califorinia raisins, for pork, and for oranges, here taxicab prices aren't regulated so as to make consumers pay more (I was a cabbie, I know who benefits and it ain't the customer), where the big steel firms can't get special tariffs to protect them from competition, etc. etc., Spin that into a pro-corporate stance, please, so everyone can see just how determinedly dishonest you are.

Posted by: James Hanley | August 28, 2008 8:44 PM

88

TF,

"The idea is that our government an infrastructure is what allows all of us to make a living and that people who make more money benefit from those services disproportionally."

I asked about this, but all I got was abuse. I can appreciate your example of the cars, but wonder if it's really true that the cops are going to spend more time looking for my car than they would looking for someone else's, if mine happens to be more expensive.

And the idea of the diminishing marginal utility of money is what I had in mind when wondering if I really use more road than my lower income neighbors.

So really, what it boils down to, because some people believe that I have "excess" funds, and because it would "hurt" me less to pay a higher ratio, then I'm on the hook for something for which I have no real obligation. The reality of the situation, however, is that I haven't paid even 10% of my income in Federal taxes in years. The burden doesn't actually fall on the high income earners in increasing proportion based on their income, it actually falls on the upper-middle income earners who haven't discovered the advantages of owning their own business.

We effectively do have a flat tax around 10% for those who know how to legally arrange their affairs.

Posted by: Spike | August 28, 2008 8:55 PM

90

Spike:

I asked about this, but all I got was abuse. I can appreciate your example of the cars, but wonder if it's really true that the cops are going to spend more time looking for my car than they would looking for someone else's, if mine happens to be more expensive.

No, I doubt that they would. At least, I doubt that the difference would be appreciable. You would, however, be shielded from a greater loss than somebody else who has a cheap car.

Alternately, if Bob earns $500K at his job and Joe earns $15K at his job, it's not unreasonable to argue that Bob's ability to commute to work on public roads (or the benefit Bob gets from working in a civilized society where his workplace is protected from warlords, etc.) is worth more than Joe's.

So really, what it boils down to, because some people believe that I have "excess" funds, and because it would "hurt" me less to pay a higher ratio, then I'm on the hook for something for which I have no real obligation.

You're reading too much morality into the situation and not enough practicality. Assuming that the government needs $X to function, how does one best raise those $X? Different tax structures have different side effects, some of them more nasty than others. A flat tax of $X/number of citizens, for example, would simply starve the poor to death. A progressive system arguably has a few beneficial properties:

1) People who derive lots of monetary benefits from living in a safe, well-educated, stable society pay proportionally more. A flat percentage tax has this property as well.
2) A progressive system allows the people at the bottom of the income scale to have a fighting chance at moving up the income scale. If they fell further and further into tax debt every year, this would be essentially impossible.
3) While the dollar amount varies from person to person, the amount that the payer "values" those dollars varies less.

We can argue about whether $X is too high or too low, but the fact remains that we need to get to $X and not wreck our economy in the process.

The reality of the situation, however, is that I haven't paid even 10% of my income in Federal taxes in years. The burden doesn't actually fall on the high income earners in increasing proportion based on their income, it actually falls on the upper-middle income earners who haven't discovered the advantages of owning their own business.

I'd say that's less of an argument against progressive taxation than it is an argument against the overly complex, crack-headed tax code that we have. Looking at it as a programmer, it seems to me that we're long overdue for a rewrite.

Posted by: Troublesome Frog | August 28, 2008 9:36 PM

92

To reply to democommie's examples of the Exxon Valdez, Bhopal, and Three Mile Island, examples of businesses whose actions harmed others against their will and without compensation. Very few libertarians would say that this is OK. The Union Carbide accident in Bhopal killed around 10,000 people--libertarians generally oppose killing. The Exxon Valdez polluted miles of shoreline and harmed fisheries in which others made their livlihood, a gross example of a negative externality and invasion of others' property rights--libertarians oppose the invasion of property rights, and those who understand economics well dislike negative externalities. Three Mile Island was much more smoke than fire--there were no injuries (thank god).

I say this to point out, because democommie (like gingerbaker and Grammar RW) persists in making false claims. It matters not how many times we argue that we aren't pro-corporation or pro-corporate malfeasance, they'll still claim that's what we really mean.

I think both Union Carbide and Exxon got off too light. I don't think they adequately compensated those they injured Satisfied?

I would, however, point out two things. First, the Exxon Valdez was subject to government regulation, yet that regulation did not prevent the accident. Second, while the Union Carbide accident in Bhopal, India, was the worst industrial accident in history--with up to 10 thousand dead--it pales in comparison to what governments, even democratic ones, have done. The U.S. caused the death of up to 100,000 filipinos in the aftermath of the Spanish-American war when we colonized them--10 times the number killed by Union Carbide in Bhopal. Less democratic governments, of course, kill in the millions and tens of million.

If Bhopal and the Exxon Valdez are the worst private businesses do, that is preferable to the worst that governments do.

Posted by: James Hanley | August 28, 2008 10:37 PM

94

Gee, demo, when you call me "Jimbo, " I feel so...so...oh, mildly amused. Yes, because I'm the smartest person on Earth, let me correct a few more errors.

First of all, bub, I made no "false claims" about you or anyone else being pro-anything. Obviously you can read my mind and divine what I thought instead of simply reading what was written.

Not explicitly you didn't, but we've engaged in enough argumentation that I don't really feel much qualms about your interpreting your argument as "and you libertarians think it's ok that these things happen." And now you'll tell me I'm wrong. Fine. (Oh, and "bub,"that's funny, sort of, in a "gee, he's desperately reaching for a way to make me feel bad but failing miserably kind of way." But the effort's amusing, so please keep it up.)

"Three Mile Island was much more smoke than fire--there were no injuries (thank god)." . Really? Are you in addition to being a political scientist an MD or some other medical specialist?

Umm, no, I just do my homework. The information's out there, it's no secret. You just have to be willing to put in a little more effort than engaging in name-calling.

Why on earth do you suppose that the "government" killed allathem iggerant savages? Could it be because the big money folks who saw a chance to make a whole lot more money might have put a bug in their ear? Why the hell would we colonize the Philipines except to make it possible for some corporation to get rich?

Well, yes, that's exactly what I think. Now you're getting it. Without a government willing to do the dirty work for them, it wouldn't have happened. In a free market system where government says "fuck you" to any corporation that asks for that kind of help, we wouldn't have engaged in that kind of colonizing. But it was in fact the government that did the killing, not Dole Pineapple or whomever.

It's quite intriguing that you would phrase it the way you did, as it's precisely that kind of corporate influence in government that I keep complaining about, one of the primary reasons that I am a libertarian. I'm not demanding, and never have demanded, the dismantling of all government, but I do want to limit its power so it doesn't have the authority to do that kind of favor for businesses.

I don't think I'm getting it wrong or insulting you if I say that I think you and I agree that a corporation getting government to overthrow governments, steal property, and kill people for them is wrong. But we differ in the solution. You say (I think) we should have more regulation of the business (by that same government), while I say we should have less government so it lacks the power to do that. And because of that disagreement about solutions to what we both see as a problem, you choose to be insulting, nasty, and generally unpleasant. OK, it's your choice. I don't have much respect for it, but I'm a libertarian, so I support your right to behave that way.

Posted by: James Hanley | August 29, 2008 12:10 AM

96

Jimbo:

I mean that as an insult,btw.

Think whatever the fuck you like. You say I mean things, you say I say things when neither of those statements is true. NOBODY was injured because of 3 Mile Island? Prove it, Jimbo, you make the assertion. I'm not taking your word for it. Don't give me a bunch of links to follow. Show me the quotes that say "nobody was harmed" by reputable organizations (that doesn't include the NRC). And that no harm must include property rights since that is one of the things you folks say you're very concerned about. No death, no injury, no economic impact= no harm.

You want to have a government that doesn't really govern all that much. But you say you want to have no corporate control of government. Exactly how does that work? Corporations OWN the political process in this country. They don't use it or borrow it, they own it. Do you seriously think that by deregulating the environment that they operate in that we will see less of their string pulling?

I don't know many self-described Libertarians, but the ones I do know HATE taxes and government regulation and gun control. They also HATE welfare programs. They don't seem to hate our misguided military adventurism. I won't be looking to support any group that support an asshole like Bob Barr--ever.

Posted by: democommie | August 29, 2008 5:25 AM

98

Demmocommie - you never fail to astonish me with your inability to rationally consider another's point of view. You need to chill out. Take an example of Toublesome Frog vs Spike - With the number of Libertarians posting after that discussion, you don't see them mocking TF - That would be rational debate. Could it be that maybe TF's approach was more civil and worthy of some consideration? Could it be that the point made was atually intelligently thought out? Hmm let's see why your posts are laughed at by a non-libertarians (non- republican) like myself.

You said -

I don't know many self-described Libertarians, but the ones I do know HATE taxes and government regulation and gun control. They also HATE welfare programs. They don't seem to hate our misguided military adventurism.

Impressive - so you admit to know a few Libertarians and this justifies what you feel about an entire group. I think if you would actually read the statements by Brayton, Hanley, Spike you would see that they have disproved this assertion over a series of threads, but you just can't get past "your" definiton of Libertarianism based on the Libertarians you know.

Well since you seem to love to compare your lack of education like a badge of honor, I can't imagine the "Libertarians" you use as your example being much better educated. I'll stick to considering the comments by those who obviously are. Your points are not being attacked because you lack education, it is because your points lack substance!

As for assessing debate ability. If you need to refer to a discussion on another thread to defend your poor behavior on a new one, you are the Shanahan here. Wait it is coming.....I can hear the cursing and foot stomping..... its coming from New York!

Seriously, if you can actually debate without name-calling and demonizing the opponent without evidence. I may actually consider what you have to say - but given what I've read so far, I am cynical.

Posted by: Anna | August 29, 2008 8:45 AM

100

News like this makes me want to contribute to Barr's campaign.

Posted by: Kate | August 29, 2008 9:43 AM

102

Oh, and the platform also states:
"We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. "

I've found it to be the case, most of the time, that my fellow rationalist do have one sacred cow, the hatred of libertarians and the refusal to actually learn anything about them.

Posted by: Jenny | August 29, 2008 10:09 AM

104

You act like you've never heard of debtor's prison, where everyone in the family goes to jail and has to beg to discharge the debts of one member of the family. It is only through legislation and court decisions that this is no longer common practice.

So why do you bring it up here? Getting a little carried away, are we?

...please tell me an instance when a retired Granny in Boca Raton should go to prison for the actions of agents of a company in which she holds stock.

Well, if she owns a significant amount of said stock, and/or can be proven to have had real knowledge and power in the decision to commit the criminal act in question, then yes, maybe she should go to prison.

I've always supported a progressive tax, but not because I feel that the rich have a "debt" or that they need to be punished.

I think they DO have a debt: a stable society is the foundation of ALL wealth. No wealth can be created, and no "money" have value, without a strong, stable society. The more wealth you own, the more you benefit from your society, and thus the more you owe to its upkeep. When a state or society crumbles, the poorest lose the least, and the richest stand to lose the most.

Pericles of Athens said it best:

...when the whole state is on the right course it is a better thing for each separate individual than when private interests are satisfied but the state as a whole is going downhill. However well off a man may be in his private life, he will still be involved in the general ruin if his country is destroyed; whereas, so long as the state itself is secure, individuals have a much greater chance of recovering from their private misfortunes. Therefore, since a state can support individuals in their suffering, but no one person by himself can bear the load that rests upon the state, is it not right for us all to rally to her defence?

Posted by: Raging Bee | August 29, 2008 11:12 AM

106

Jesse,

I'd like to highlight you, as well as Troublesome Frog, as people with whom I don't mind debating libertarianism. If certain others here had a smidgeon of your thoughtfulness, these debates would never descend into the kind of ridiculous acrimony that they do. (Yes, I'm guilty--my great weakness is descending to the level of idiots to gleefully fling shit with them.)

But in response to your post:

The whole business regulation argument has been a matter of talking past each other, I think. I don't think the critics of libertarianism understand the libertarian position, and perhaps we libertarians haven't been as clear as we could be. The critics keep pointing out examples of businesses harming others, and saying either (a) this is what you libertarians want, or (b) you may not want it, but this is the inevitable result.

(a) is plainly false, but (b) is where the legitimate debate is. What I, at least, object to, is not regulation that keeps Gigacorp from hurting grandma, but business regulation that protects the business from competition. Case in point: I was a cab driver in San Francisco, where taxicab rates are regulated. Everyone believed that was to protect the passenger from unscrupulous cab drivers, but it quickly became apparent to me that it was to protect me from customers forcing me to compete. Everybody in San Francisco knows the fastest way from point A to point B, and if the cabbie doesn't go that way, he gets an earful (as I know from painful first hand experience). The cabbie can't fool the knowledgeable customer.

But what about, say, the tourist taking a cab into the city from the airport? Wouldn't they get screwed? The answer is no. There are so many cabs at the airport that the customer could easily force them to bargain against each other and take the lowest offered price. But if you go to most airports, you'll see that there's someone there directing you to the next cab in line, and you don't have a choice. Ostensibly that's to prevent disorganized chaos (and it does), but it also protects the cabbie from having to bargain with the customer--it gives the cabbie monopoly power so they can charge the full legally required fare.

The regulation that should be in place is regulating the safety of the driver and cab, because the information assymetry may be too great for a customer who's never ridden in your cab befre. But here the system failed--I regularly drove cabs that had me scared to death my whole shift. Windshield wipers that didn't work, brakes that barely stopped the car, bald tires, and horrible suspension. In one memorable case, I had a car whose front end moved in huge circles when I went above 30 mph, and swerved violently from side to side.

But let's say I set up my own jitney business. I buy a car, keep it mechanically safe and sound, have a perfect driving record, don't pick up people on the street, but only people who call on my cell phone and request my service--and who will therefore get to know me and stop being my customer if I am unsafe, uncourteous, etc.--if I do that, I am breaking the law. Even if I submit my car to regular safety inspections, I am breaking the law.

My point is, the laws regulating taxicab businesses are not there to protect consumers and the public, but to protect the cab companies. And there is a whole host of business regulation out there like that. That is what I object to. And for most of the libertarians I personally know, that's what they object to also.

Granted there are libertarians out there who want to dismantle the whole government except the border patrol. But not all conservatives agree on every issue, and not all liberals agree on all issues. So the fair and decent person cannot assume that all of us libertarians agree on every issue, either.

Someone else, not Jesse, said, "But I know some libertarians and they think X...", implying that all libertarians must think X. The shallowness of that kind of thinking is what ticks me off. The thoughtful arguments of Jesse and T-Frog allow us to have the kind of thoughtful discussion that I've tried to engage in with this comment.

Posted by: James Hanley | August 29, 2008 11:42 AM

108

Jimbo:

You are such a tool, really. You said what you said on that other thread, never offered a retraction and then accuse me of being rude, insulting, etc.,. I know lots and lots of people who are just as smart as you think you are. They are also well read and can dig up a pile of factual data (btw, you're ignoring my request for that dats on TMI; as I said earlier, NRC is not a good source) to support their arguments.

I give a rat's ass if you like me, respect me or think I'm an idiot. But you want to claim the mantle of being a professional and having all of the answers and yet you dodge questions that you don't like and you insult people as cavalierly as you claim they do you.

You walked away from the Obama thread the other day, because you had more important things to do. In fact you announced, in several comments, that you were "done" only to return. You'll do the same here when enough people tell you you're full of crap.

You said:

"Impressive - so you admit to know a few Libertarians and this justifies what you feel about an entire group."

Puzzle this one out for me; say I know 20 or 30 Libertarians (I think I know a few more than that, actually). And, let's say there are what a million self-professed Libertarians--the LP website I went to was a little vague on numbers, they didn't publish any, Wikipedia says there are 200,000 registered. So I know at least .002--.003% of all the Libertarians that are out there, maybe more. According to several different sources (2004 numbers) there are approximately 72,000,000 registered democrats, 55,0000,000 registered republicans and 32,000,000 registered independents. That's about 127,000,000 voters. So, do you know 2,500 to 3,750 registered voters who are not Libertarians? Or are you in fact basing your arguments on what you think they think? I'm just curious.

Posted by: democommie | August 29, 2008 12:13 PM

110

Someone else, not Jesse, said, "But I know some libertarians and they think X...", implying that all libertarians must think X. The shallowness of that kind of thinking is what ticks me off.

What choice do we knaves have? How else can we judge what libertarians believe, except by what we hear libertarians saying (and of course, judging the character of the person doing the talking)? Like it or not, this is pretty much how nearly all people judge all parties and movements. And when the nonsense we hear is repeated by more than one "libertarian," over a period of many years (in my case, since 1980), then how can we do anything BUT take it as a representative sample?

James: your examples of taxi regs are appropriate and instructive; but the fact that some regs end up benefitting companies more than consumers, is NOT an argument against all regs (and yes, many libertarians DO advance it as such); is merely an argument for consumers getting into the rule-writing game more than they normally do.

As for businesses benefitting from regulation, that's kind of inevitable, isn't it? A business is supposed to be responsive to circumstances, and that includes laws and regs. Whatever a reg says, the affected businesses will always tend to find a way to adapt and profit from it, or it will fail and tank. So it's a bit tautologous to say that regulations benefit businesses.

But what about, say, the tourist taking a cab into the city from the airport? Wouldn't they get screwed? The answer is no. There are so many cabs at the airport that the customer could easily force them to bargain against each other and take the lowest offered price. But if you go to most airports, you'll see that there's someone there directing you to the next cab in line, and you don't have a choice. Ostensibly that's to prevent disorganized chaos (and it does), but it also protects the cabbie from having to bargain with the customer--it gives the cabbie monopoly power so they can charge the full legally required fare.

This is a good argument FOR more regulation: one perfectly sensible and necessary rule (a taxi like to avoid chaos and fights) has the effect of preventing competition; therefore another rule may be needed to compensate for that ill effect.

Posted by: Raging Bee | August 29, 2008 12:30 PM

112

demmocommie said refering to Hanley

You said:

"Impressive - so you admit to know a few Libertarians and this justifies what you feel about an entire group."

No I said it -

Once again you democoomie said

I don't know many self-described Libertarians, but the ones I do know HATE taxes and government regulation and gun control. They also HATE welfare programs. They don't seem to hate our misguided military adventurism.

What the hell are the statistics for? They say nothing about the stupid generalized statement you made? Grow up. That .002 - .003% of the Libertarians you claim to "know" pretty much match what you seem to be using of your brain capacity in this debate. Damn, I'm beginning to miss Priya the previous kook on this site!

I have not seen Hanley dodge a single question by You or Bee or GingerBaker. As I said earlier, you can't argue without name-calling or trying to make your opponent appear to be as big of an ass as you have shown yourself to be.

As for Gingerbaker - If after everything Hanley has said that shows he is definitely not pro-corporation and anti-labor has not made it through your thick skull, you are hopeless. It doesn't take an intellectual to understand that libertarianism is not evil, one may not agree that it is the best method of governing but damn you have deeper issues here that need to be addressed if you can't see that his motivation is neither evil or without careful considerate thought.

Bee - I regularly vote democratic, have never voted republican or libertarian, but the questions that the Libertaians on this thread have posted to me appear worth consideriation and careful thought in many cases. I work for a non-profit and we are tied by governmental rules which do not benefit or protect anyone or anything (but the purse string holders egos) and merely steal precious time and effort better utilized in our servicing the community. The idea of making more rules to cover inadequacies is horrifying to me. Do you really believe that making more rules and having others be the deciding voice on all of these "rules" be the government? These rules are not being made by those who have to live with them on a daily basis. It doesn't work well for businesses, why is it OK for our government? I think that rather than making more rules or just changing rules doesn't solve problem so I am open to looking at other possibilities. I'm not saying all protective measures are bad and I don't see most libertarians on this thread saying that either but I can definitely see how the Libertarian perspective exposes some major inadequacies in other party platforms and how our government fails under both democratic and republican ideaologies.

Posted by: Anna | August 29, 2008 1:35 PM

114

@James Hanley--

I could come up with a counterexample to San Francisco, you know, re: taxis. I live in New York, and we have on a per mile basis the cheapest taxis in the nation. (Really, look it up, I was shocked b/c I thought they were expensive).

How does it work? Certain taxis are allowed to pick people up off the street, certain ones aren't. The yellow cabs are the ones that usually do the airport trips but the livery cabs (the call-in services) can do it too if you call ahead.

Point is, fares are regulated tightly and there's a "taxi riders bill of rights" that says they have to take the route you want to whatever destination. But the whole thing was set up precisely because a taxi rider has to know what a trip will cost. I used to take unregulated cabs in London, and while the Black Cabs were more expensive the difference was in the unregulated market you never really knew if the guy was going to hit you up for more or if he knew where he was going. In New York and London every cabbie is required to learn their way around before they get the hack license.

Frankly, most New Yorkers like the system as it is because it saves everybody a lot of time and hassle. I don't have time to bargain every time I need a cab, or worry if the guy knows a thing. (Also, I don't know how meters work in SF-- in NYC they get to charge you 20 cents for each two minutes, I think it is, that they are stopped in traffic).

Also, cabbies in New York don't try longer routes because the money you would make off taking longer isn't enough to offset losing another fare. (It's actually why cabbies complain that the airport run is less profitable, even though the base to JFK is $45 and LaGuardia will cost you a metered $28 or more).

All that said, the market asymmetry thing is important, and it illustrates why "market" forces can reinforce other behaviors that (I hope) most Libertarians would find unsavory.

For instance, if I have a completely private education system, then only those that can pay learn any skills like reading at all, which creates a whole underclass of people that is self-reinforcing because they can't pay, so there's no market for providing them education. You can see this in many countries where education past elementary grades is paid for through private schools. Yeah, some few will claw their way to the top, but there isn't a market for every service. One reason we have public education in the first place is because educating people tends not to be profitable. If it were everyone would want to get into the business.

Medical care is another one that doesn't lend itself to market forces. If you need cancer treatment you'll likely die without it. You can't shop around like you would for a car because if someone screws up you're dead. And if you can't afford it, absent insurance or some other mechanism, you die. I don;t think anyone deserves to die because they haven't any money. And I have seen too many people with HIV who are basically in danger of dying if they had no medicare. They don't all deserve to die.

I've seen people denied important treatments because the insurance company basically has every incentive to never pay if they can get away with it. If someone dies as a result, as far as I am concerned the executives should be charged with murder, just like I would be if I refused to save a man from drowning when it was in my power to stop it.

But the market issue here is that one end of the transaction has infinite pricing power. And most people aren't doctors. So there's just no way to argue that there's anything like a functioning market here-- you have something that you'll die if you don't get it and the guy selling it can wait as long as he wants to give it to you.

Also: you don't control your health. Andy Kaufman wasn't a smoker, and he died of lung cancer. You could get hit by a bus. You could breathe on the wrong day near the wrong guy and get TB. Your condom could fail and you get AIDS. We can all live healthier lives, but there's a point at which you can't do anything else.

Countries with single-payer systems actually end up stressing prevention anyway (especially the Germans, for some reason). And the net cost to the country is less because unlike other goods, using a doctor more actually saves money. How? If I never had to pay for a doctor and I could go every six months, then something like TB, HIV, or cancer is cheaper to treat because I'll catch it early. Yeah, there are a few hypochondriacs out there, but introduce me to a normal someone who just can't wait to go to the doctor, please. I'll wait. :-)

Take any health stat you want and the Canadians beat us hands down, as do the French and Germans and even the Brits. (That last was also surprising, given what they eat). They all live longer, and fewer of their kids die before 5. Do they get the fancy Dan technology? Sometimes yes, sometimes no, but the fact remains that they must be doing something right. It's also worth noting that there's a serious law of diminishing returns on medical treatment as it gets more aggressive, so it makes sense that getting stuff early saves you money. Innovation also still happens there, and it's no accident that some of the biggest names in medical devices and Pharma are European (lots of Germans).

The reason it works so well is that it follows the insurance company model - except everyone is covered. Insurance companies have all kinds of models that predict pretty accurately how much they are likely to pay. In a single-payer system you can apply that across the population, spreading out the costs more than you do with competing insurers.

But beyond the economics there's a simple decision those societies made: Nobody deserves to die for not having any money, and one of the jobs of government is to make sure that doesn't happen. It doesn't even have to be a government-administered system. AT&T provided phone service to everyone because the mandate was simple: provide universal service, however you can do it. AT&T developed just about every single technology you take for granted now, by the way. Without universal phone service, no Internet, by the way. They were able to develop the technology in part because they didn't have to worry about competition and could fund Bell Labs. i might add that AT&T is the reason (or rather, one of two reasons) we have a functioning corporate bond market.

This is way too long, but those are a few ways in which the "free market" probably wouldn't work or doesn't work terribly well. It might if we were all mind-readers with teleporting power (like Professor X and Nightcrawler of the X-Men), but we don't.

Posted by: Jesse | August 29, 2008 2:09 PM

116

Jesse,

Wow! Taxis: You want to know how mich it will cost? You want to know what route the driver will take? Ask! Sorry, in that specific example you've made the case that regulation is good in this instance because now you don't have to shop.

Medical care, drugs, medical insurance are already highly regulated. Having worked in the pharmaceutical manufacturing and having been an insurance agent, I know that a big chunk of the costs were in regulatory compliance. Those costs are, naturally, passed on to the consumer.

When people say we need tax funded education systems, otherwise poor kids won't get educated, it tells me that if it weren't for taxation, they (the speaker) wouldn't bother to help pay for poor kids' education.

They also suffer under the myth that private schools are necessarily more expensive than public schools to operate. Check out Sudbury Valley Schools and other (intellecutally)free schools. They operate at a per-pupil cost lower than the public schools in the same area. (Most private schools operate primarily on their foundation money, rather than on tuition, anyway.)

Again, all these industries that you have been talking about are already highly regulated.

ATT provided phone service because they negotiated with the government that they should have a private monopoly over the telecom business. It wasn't until telecom was partially deregulated and then recently deregulated a little more that we've had the innovation and the opening up of consumer choices.

James will probalbly handle the rest better than I could.

Posted by: Spike | August 29, 2008 3:26 PM

118

James Hanley, right before he "proves" that I am either a liar or an idiot ( head smashing wall emoticon):

"Here's the correct analysis of my views:
(a) I am right, the free market controls corporations and in the mythical world where we get a true free market I am happy because they are controlled; or,
(b) I am wrong, the free market does not control corporations and in that mythical world I am unhappy because I was wrong and they are not controlled.

You keep mixing up (a) and (b)."

No, James, - for the third(?) time - I don't believe that there is any such thing as a "free market".

Now, I have no idea why you are saying you are not pro corporation, or even pro business, except that I get under your skin and make you act like a 12-year-old child.

For heavens sake, I am a progressive and I am pro business. Yup. I like having places to spend my money (which I procure in nefarious ways, as I have no intellectual integrity)- what's a guy supposed to do?)

And you ARE pro business too, even if you don't want to say so for some reason. The difference between you and I, it seems, is that I do not subscribe to the LP party plank that flat out proscribes regulations on business.

That the LP relies only on the free market to encourage ethical business behavior is exactly tantamount to not encouraging ethical corporate behavior because there is - here it comes again - no such thing as a free market.

Government makes the markets. Corporations manipulate the markets, as they manipulate government. To not regulate markets to protect the consumer is to not protect the consumer.

The 2008 LP platform is very similar as I remembered it from 20 years ago, and it is very much as I described it earlier in this thread.

It does not care a whit about protecting people from social injustice, it does not care a whit about preserving the middle class, ensuring equality of opportunity for everyone, planning for and maintaining the Common Good. Not a whit.

It is a mean spirited document, hence a mean spirited party. Your ad hominem approach to many here bespeaks why you like the document so much, it seems to me.

Posted by: Gingerbaker | August 29, 2008 4:09 PM

120

Spike: you really need to let James handle these issues, as you promised to do. He's able to offer more substance, and less manufactured outrage.

Those who pay for private schools for their kids still have to pay for other people's kids. How is that fair?

It's fair because "other people's kids" then grow up to be more educated, more productive, and more likely to be law-abiding job-creating taxpayers, and less likely to be criminals, deadweights, and left-behinds. That benefits EVERYONE, not just the families whose kids are in public schools. Think education is expensive? Try ignorance.

Do you really care so little about other people's education that you wouldn't figure out a way to make your DONATIONS and those of all the others who agree with you (like me) equal and reliable?

I care enough to support laws that ensure that EVERYONE shares the burden of a public school system that benefits EVERYONE. If the public school system depends on voluntary donations, then a) I can't be sure my neighbors will donate their share; and b) the system can't count on a steady revenue stream, and thus can't do its job. And if they can't function because the revenue is unreliable, then my donation could be wasted.

The practical application of your goal in voting for the taxes is not as noble as you would try to have us believe.

This is typical of "libertarians," particularly the Randroid kind: turn a policy dispute into an attack on their opponents' motives. I'm sure the Hitler comparisons can't be far behind.

The reality is that it shifts the major part of the burden from those who want it to those who may not.

No, it distributes the burden among all who NEED it, whether they want to pay for it or not.

When I send my kids to private schools, I get what I pay for.

Not if the school has a waiting list and they can ignore your concerns with impunity. Yes, this does happen. Also, private schools, being private, can cover up internal problems more easily than public schools. This is one reason why public schools look worse than private schools.

When I send them to public schools, I have no idea what I'm going to get from year to year, because I have no control over who they hire, what they teach, the pace the work at, and such. And yes, I could vote for the school board, but I don't have time to wait for the trickle down theory of government power to come into play, my kids are being educated right now.

You contradict yourself: first you say you have no power, then you admit you do but it takes too long for the results to show. Well, if you had been involved earlier, you'd be seeing the results now. (Besides, ever heard of parental involvement? You can still stay involved even though your kid is in a state-funded school.) So, like too many Randroids, you end up sounding like a rebellious teenager with a short attention-span, demanding freedom and respect while still expecting mom and dad to do the chores. GROW UP ALREADY!

Posted by: Raging Bee | August 29, 2008 4:57 PM

122

Spike: your proposal says NOTHING about, you know, doing anything to improve public schools. Bit of a blind spot there?

That being the case, why do you claim that taxing everyone to support government schools is really the will of the people, when in fact, their real wish is to send their kids to private schools?

Um...because I observe that the people vote for legislators and governors who maintain public school systems, and that there is no visible groundswell for a proposal to abolish public schools?

Posted by: Raging Bee | August 29, 2008 5:09 PM

124

Gingerbaker,

You say about the Libertarian party platform,

"It does not care a whit about protecting people from social injustice, it does not care a whit about preserving the middle class, ensuring equality of opportunity for everyone, planning for and maintaining the Common Good. Not a whit."

Hmm, let's see if that is true. Here is what they actually say they care about, quoted from the pre-amble of their party platform.

"As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power."

Gosh it sounds to me like they do care about creating a society that is fair and equitable to all. They don't use the buzzwords of the left like "social justice" but it would seem that they are fairly clear about wanting to protect people from being abused by "dishonest" people that try to use "force or coercion" to impose their will on them.

"It is a mean spirited document, hence a mean spirited party."

Well I don't see anything "mean spirited" yet. Let's look at how they sum up their "goal",

"Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands."

What kind of "mean spirited" people want to "set the world free"?

Those bastards!

Seriously, you can argue how well libertarian principles can be applied to practical societies but saying things like libertarians are "mean spirited" is just letting your emotional attachment to your own favored governmental framework get the better of you.

The one thing you can say about libertarianism that you can't say about socialism or any other governmental paradigm is that it strives to provide a system where people are subjected to the minimum force by others and is completely intolerant of the use of force by anyone except in their own immediate self-defense.

I find it interesting that while the great majority of leftists claim to be pacifists they advocate a governmental system that can only be implemented and maintained by the massive and collective use of force, up to and including violent arrest and imprisonment.

Doesn't that bother any of you "progressives"?

Posted by: Lance | August 29, 2008 5:55 PM

126

Perhaps everyone thinks of a raging "B"... as in a Hormonal B-tch?

What's up with this Bee? About once a year, a new batch of regulars comes along and get's your gender wrong! LOL

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/05/science_avenger_on_social_darw.php#comment-430108

Posted by: doctorgoo | August 29, 2008 6:10 PM

128

My bad. My memory betrayed me - I swore that I read a long time ago that Bee said that he was a she (evidently it was the opposite) and had seen several regular posters refer to Bee as a she too - so I convinced James that Bee was a she - honestly he didn't come up with that one, he gets enough hate without my help - Sorry Bee rage on. Thanks Doc for the clarification. Now I will go back to my enjoyable place of just reading posts.

Posted by: Mrs. Hanley | August 29, 2008 6:47 PM

130

Spike:

Because of that disprportionate thing regarding taxes that keeps coming up. I know I educate a lot more kids than some of my neighbors do, but I have yet to have anyone on this thread show me how I benefit more.

OK, let's go back to the practical assessment of tax incidence. New rule: Nobody pays in more than they get out. Additional new rule that follows mathematically: Nobody gets more than they pay for. The consequences of this arrangement are:

1) Lots of people don't go to school. At all. Or maybe they get a book or two a year to compensate them for whatever taxes they're able to pay.
2) Those people whose kids aren't going to school are also probably not doing a lot of travelling on public roads to find jobs in order to pay more taxes so their kids can go to school (and use public sidewalks to get there).

You can see where the exercise is going. Obviously, that system doesn't work very well. Deciding where to draw the line between this completely "fair" system and the completely "fair" system with no private property and equal pay for all is then a matter of looking at the data and making a practical assessment of it.

In fact, those who pay less benefit more, when it comes to tax-funded education. Those who pay for private schools for their kids still have to pay for other people's kids. How is that fair?

It's not entirely fair. But it works better than most of the pure and fair alternatives. And you don't have to send your kids to private school.

But I think this is the meat of your argument, "rather than having to count on unequal and unreliable voluntary donations." Which goes back to my orignal statement: Why would your donations be unequal and unreliable?

Find an example of a place where a major service (one crucial to the economy) is paid for entirely by donations and we can talk about this problem in some detail. The solution should address two major issues:

1) The free rider problem.
2) Demographic shifts (e.g. I'm an old guy who is OK paying a few bucks in to pay for education, but the ratio of kids to old guys is changing and my inclination to give is not growing proportionally).
3) The fact that people who have young children (the people most likely to voluntarily give to early education) tend not to have hit their prime earnings years and tend not to have amassed as much asvings as older potential donors.

I'm also looking for a system where donors give like clockwork rather than in fits and bursts. I'm thinking about endeavors like public television and radio. IIRC, my local public radio affiliate expects only about 10% of regular listeners to actually contribute money, so it's clear that the free rider problem is quite real.

Do you really believe that there are so few people who would voluntarily cover the costs of education for those who cannot pay it for themselves that we all have to be forced?

Not to answer for Raging Bee, but I'm inclined to believe just that.

And yes, I could vote for the school board, but I don't have time to wait for the trickle down theory of government power to come into play, my kids are being educated right now.

I'm not clear on why the "I'm just one vote" argument works but the "you're also just one tuition check out of a couple thousand" doesn't. Perhaps the answer is to make it easier for incumbents to lose elections. Maybe the solution is to adjust the election laws so that a challenger need only come within 5% of the incumbent's vote total to unseat the incumbent. Get them scrambling for every vote the same way private industry scrambles for every dollar.

Posted by: Troublesome Frog | August 29, 2008 7:40 PM

132

Do you really believe that making more rules and having others be the deciding voice on all of these "rules" be the government?

No, I believe the "deciding voice" should be that of the people who elect the government.

These rules are not being made by those who have to live with them on a daily basis.

That's probably because those who are most affected are, for whatever reason, not as involved in the political process as they should be. If they got more involved, on a consistent and coherent basis, perhaps the regs would reflect their interests more.

Bee - I think that you and I differ in that you believe that thorough collective decision making and involvement good rules and decisions will naturally be the result. I have worked with enough groups to witness many a bad decision and rule being made which had negative effects even though they were made with good intentions.

As someone who works for a non-profit organization, my job depends on the goodness of my community. I believe that my organization is a valuable asset to the community but also realize that this value is subjective and do not fault others who value other organizations or thier family or anything that contributes to their personal well-being more than what my organization offers. I don't assume that they should be obliged to support what I value. if we are as valuable to society as I believe we are, then our community will continue to support us as they have for the past 30 years. People have the choice to contribute and I prefer it that way.

Maybe if we depend less on the government to protect us or to provide for us - we may depend more on one another and that is where we see real community.

Posted by: Anna | August 29, 2008 8:06 PM

134

Talk about contradictions! You say people need public schools, then in the next breath point out how they prefer private schools, otherwise, why would there be waiting lists?

What contradiction? I said that, preferable or not, public schools need to be maintained for the benefit of those who can't afford private schools. Even if they're not as good as private schools, they're better than nothing.

Then you pull the contradiction of saying those waiting lists are proof that private schools are worse than public schools. How does that work?

It doesn't, which is why I never said such a thing.

...the private schools around here have to be wide open, else the parents take their kids to the competition. Free market in action.

With a little help from a tax break for private-school tuition.

Bee - I think that you and I differ in that you believe that thorough collective decision making and involvement good rules and decisions will naturally be the result.

Am I really that hard to understand all of a sudden? What I believe is that SOME problems are best solved through collective action, and that providing at least minimal education to large numbers of kids whose families can't afford it themselves is one such problem. And no, I don't believe the results will always automatically be good. That's why we have democracy -- to enable people to contribute to the decision process and hold the policymakers accountable. It's not perfect, but it's the best we've got, and it's better than giving up and doing nothing.

Posted by: Raging Bee | August 29, 2008 10:16 PM

136

Spike-- the industries I brought up are regulated for a reason, and you are simply wrong about all the innovation that came after the breakup of AT&T.

Let me put it another way: the fact that AT&T had a government-protected monopoly is one of the very reasons we have many technologies, because most of them would not work unless everyone had a telephone or was hooked into the network.

Take the internet. Are you old enough to remember BBS boards? They were the precursor to this very site, and they would be unworkable if only 50% of the populace had a phone.

I brought up taxis because yes, the market is regulated and in some ways deliberately set up to make the cost of a medallion high. This means the cab drivers can earn a living doing what they do, and I don't have to engage in the kind of blind negotiation every time I get out of the airport I would otherwise have to do. If cab drivers depended on repeat business the argument about negotiating with them would make more sense, but they don't.

You also don't seem to have much sense of obligation towards any of your fellow citizens. You do understand why public education was invented, right? It was so that there was a minimally literate populace, which is essential to a functioning democracy. In a private system you simply don't have that. There's almost no private schools that operate profitably, (they usually have foundations and such) and in order to have schools for people who can't pay for private tuition, you have to have some other system in place.

In many countries education isn't public, and that's why they have very high illiteracy rates and have trouble making a democracy function. Most countries have compulsory public education through one or more primary grades, but I suggest you look at what happens in much of the third world when people can't afford to send their kids to school and there is no state system in place.

Private charities and foundations simply aren't able to pick up the slack.

WIth health care, a big chunk of my doctor's day is spent fighting with someone to get treatments paid for. He has a full time employee whose sole job is dickering with insurance companies, a different one for each patient. That's nuts and takes time away from his real job. The problem as I said before is that insurance companies make no money when they pay a claim, so their incentive is to let you die. I've seen this happen, it is not pretty, and I went over the reasons that the market is a poor distributor of that particular good/service. There are plenty of them where markets are fine. That isn't one of them. Nor is educating children to make a democracy work.

I mean, we could privatize the police as well, they do that in Brazil. Would you want to live under such a system? Think carefully.

Posted by: Jesse | August 30, 2008 11:27 AM

138

Troublesome Frog said:

So your suggestion is that we have public education only for those who can't afford school for themselves?

It's a more appropriate response to the concern. I realize that the concern will then be that those children will get a sub-par education compared to those who can afford it on their own, but that's already the case.

Posted by: Gretchen | August 30, 2008 3:05 PM

140

demo - Without cursing or name calling

1. As far as being condescending, you said you didn't give a fuck about what I had to say and disregarded my comments to you (I find that condescending) - please don't act like a victim here, you have tried to engage in a debate that is faltering and you are making excuses by demonizing your opponents.

1. Nope I am not a Libertarian - but I have said that before already. And yes, I do look at numbers when they are meaningful. You wonder why Hanley probably won't respond to you? Because your numbers are meaningless. Your correlation with "knowing" an unremarkable percentage of a group as your sample still proves nothing. It actually weakens your defense of what you believe you know. A "sample" only is legitimate if it is statistically relevant. .002 % is statistically irrelevant. It amazes me that you believe this would be convincing to anyone who has taken an elementary statistics course or any elementary social science course. This is a perfect example of why what you say holds no weight and is wholly unconvincing. If Hanley made a correlation of numbers to those he "knew" than maybe your numbers may have some meaning but he never made such ridiculous a claim so the argument you are making is pointless.

Your arguments plain and simple don't hold water. Your reply to Gretchen is an example of limited programs. It does not answer her question. I think your reply to Spike is a strawman - paying taxes and giving tax-breaks not the same thing at all.

As for the Hanley gun comment - Please recall YOU SAID IT FIRST! He was responding to your very odd comment with what was obviously sarcasm but you keep bringing it up and it is getting weary. You act as though he somehow came up with that and that is just dishonest so I understand why he has sunk to your level of name-calling.

So if I sound condescending, it is because (I and obviously others) see that your arguements just don't stand up to scrutiny and your demeanor is just plain rude (not just on this thread) So if you feel like you are being treated like an ignorant yokel by those you consider the educated elite (which I am not) than you are just playing victim. I think that is just sad.

Posted by: Anna | August 30, 2008 11:17 PM

142

Democommie wrote to Anna:

BTW, if you're going to make up names for people I think you need to be a bit more creative.

So says the guy who cleverly turned "James" into "Jimbo" and thought it was offensive.

DC also wrote:

You will notice that the Professor has chosen not to answer my query about the numbers I put out there; no doubt this is because it is beneath his professional dignity to do so.

Dude, you just made up a bunch of random numbers and acted like it has some statistical meaning! What do you want me to say? I'm not a whiz with statistics, but I know they have to be based on real data, not made up stuff.

And, to your comment about Anna and me being rude and condescending. Please re-read your comments. "I don't give a fuck what you think, Anna! "The professor hasn't answered me. No doubt he thinks its below his dignity." Nope, no rudeness or condescension there! I'm not going to say I've been all sweetness and light, but your victim act just doesn't play--your own words have been every bit as nasty as anything she or I have said.

Finally, you seem really embittered about the gun in the mouth line. All I can say is, quit feeding me straight lines! This ain't no genteel dinner party. If you want to make a joke about putting a gun in your mouth, you can't expect the person you're arguing with to pass it up!

Posted by: James Hanley | August 31, 2008 12:13 AM

144

Oops - errata:

"employee would be sued" = "employees would be sued"
"corporations contracts" = "corporation's contracts"
"incoporated"=incorporated"

Posted by: Robin Levett | August 31, 2008 5:58 AM

146

dismiss me (and others) as being unworthy of debate, instead of providing answers.

And there you have it, folks. Despite answering his comments over and over to the point where nearly everyone else has left the debate, to the point where demo and I have both helped stretch these threads far beyond the norm for Ed's blog, demo says I consider him unworthy of debate and won't answer his questions.

What more evidence is needed, demo, that you are, as I said previously, a lying piece of shit? Once again you blatantly lie about what I have said and done. If I thought you unworthy of debate, I wouldn't have continued to debate you. I have answered numerous questions, and then you just ignore them or go into bizarro world. You're the one who bitched that I hadn't answered your numbers, and then when I do you ask what numbers I'm referring to, pretending you didn't call them statistics. Demo, you talked about the percentage of libertarians you know--a percentage is a statistic. So once again you are caught in a lie.

For the record, it's not my temper which causes me to call you a lying piece of shit--it's your repeated lying.

And I think you're clearly lying again about not being bitter about the gun comment, since you keep bringing it up and obviously have a hard time letting it go.

But that's ok, demo, you're obviously not condescending or anything. Why, apparently you can't be because you don't think you're better than us, so you can't possibly "descend." Except that you clearly do think you're smarter than us. So your claim that you're not condescending is yet another lie.

Obviously this thread could go on indefinitely. You can respond to this, then I could respond to that, etc. So here's my last word on this one (and, yes, I know I said that multiple times on the other one only to come back--the compulsive need to correct idiots and liars is one of my weaknesses, but this really is my last word on this one):

You, democommie, are neither intelligent nor honest. You are, in my considered estimation, a lying piece of shit, incapable of recognizing a logical agument and incapable of arguing honestly. Take that to the bank and draw interest on it.

Posted by: James Hanley | August 31, 2008 10:52 AM

148

Anna said:

"As for Gingerbaker - If after everything Hanley has said that shows he is definitely not pro-corporation and anti-labor has not made it through your thick skull, you are hopeless. It doesn't take an intellectual to understand that libertarianism is not evil, one may not agree that it is the best method of governing but damn you have deeper issues here that need to be addressed if you can't see that his motivation is neither evil or without careful considerate thought."

Anna, Hanley supports the LP platform. The LP platform is decidedly pro corporation, anti regulation, and pretty darned anti labor. My skull may be thick, but at least I can read.

Have you perused the plank?

James likes the LP Platform - and I defend my previous statement that it is a mean-spirited platform full of "carefully considered" mean-spirited planks.

James keeps demonstrating here why it is easy to see why he likes the platform.

As for Libertarianism not being evil - I think it would be easy to make an argument that it has some quite evil aspects - I would go as far as to say some of it is contrary to the American ethos.

But don't listen to me - I am not a real intellectual.

Posted by: Gingerbaker | August 31, 2008 3:44 PM

150

Gingerbaker - I agree you are not an intellectual, you are incapable of seeing that any other position besides yours can be moral or genuine. You have debated in in a way which insinuates that you believe you are morally right and everyone else's ideas are not. This is how the religious right debates!

I do not see in any way how the Libertarian platform is mean spirited, it is not. I admit there are Libertarian wingnuts that read Libertarianism in nefarious ways - but the same can be said for Republicans and as for supporting and caring for other people - I actually work for a non-profit agency that benefits my community unlike many of you bleeding heart folks that expect others to pay for what YOU value, I am living that reality and see daily the generous side of people without government intervention - and yes some of our donors are...........Libertarians!

Debating with you on this issue is like arguing with a child. Obviously your mind is made up. You seem to know better. The other guy is evil. So if you think that, going into a debate with honesty and integrity, is impossible. Your preconceptions have blinded you. I on the other hand have seen comments on both sides of the debate which are compelling and not based on a pointless good vs evil debate. In particular, your and demo's comments have not been ones that have offered any new thoughtful information to the debate that could sway me because none of your arguments were avenues or types of thought I haven't already considered.

I really do not care about how "intellectual" someone is if what they are saying - on either side makes me think. So like democommie, you can by all means play the victim, believe that you are being ignored, because I have been more swayed by the evil intellectual crowd. I also find in hypocritical that you want to be treated and considered equally for what you have to say but you and democommie seem to think that Hanley should be held to a higher standard of decorum. As far as I am concerned, blog comments are a great outlet for professors, professionals and average Joe's like myself to let loose and freely call people out on issues where in other venues it is not acceptable.

Posted by: Anna | August 31, 2008 5:01 PM

152

Just a quick question for Gretchen:

Even if that's the case, I don't know why all Americans should be forced to pay for the education of every American child-- including those whose parents could easily afford to pay for their own children, and would doubtless do so if public schools did not exist. Education is certainly important, but food even moreso-- and yet we don't demand that every American adult pay to feed every American child.

Well, there are food stamps, school lunch programs, and early childhood programs, many of which do provide food.

A great deal of it is simple practicality, don't you think? The better educated your neighbor's children are, the less likely they are to become burglers or crack dealers or street prostitutes when they grow up. Hence, the better our society, our lives, and economy will ultimately be. Don't we all directly benefit from having an educated populace? (I know things are far from ideal, and I don't mean to suggest public education is a cure-all, but I suspect the property tax school funding system has something to do with the cause of the serious inequalities in the public school system.)

I will say that the child tax credits irk me, though. I do feel a little like I'm being punished for being responsible about my ability to procreate.

Posted by: Leni | August 31, 2008 6:32 PM

154

Anna:

I'm just curious why it is so taboo to question why it is the responsibility for the government to educate our children our neighbors children etc.

Perhaps you mean the hullabaloo from earlier (which in all honesty I didn't bother to read) but all I did was ask a pretty straightforward, unloaded question about practicality.

This isn't a statement saying that there is little or no value to an educated populace, it is a question as to how we as a society think about school funding and whose responsibility is it ultimately.

Gretchen said as much when she said that she wasn't trying to imply that education wasn't important. However, she did ask why we should be "forced" to pay for the education of other people's children when we aren't forced to pay for feeding them. First, we are "forced" to pay for feeding them and second, there are very good reasons to pay for educating them.

The belief that all should share in paying for this societal benefit is powerful but it doesn't say why this is the best or only option or that those questioning government funding are being mean-spirited, selfish or ignorant of the value education.

I guess I'm confused about where else the money would come from it didn't come from people. I'm fairly certain the money gnomes aren't going to pony up for it :)

More seriously, we don't have an unlimited number of available options to choose from. It comes from people with children and those people only, or it comes from all of us, in one way or another.

My answer to the "why" part of your statement is the same one I'd give for herd immunity and publicly funded vaccination programs. Because it would be stupid and harmful to all of us not to. If it means paying for others even if I don't really want to, so be it. Better that than Ebola!

The belief that we must have an entity coerce us into helping others doesn't say much for our society.

No, but I can't imagine we'd come off looking any better if we refused to do it all.

Still, you say this without batting an eyelash. Just a few sentences above you were commenting about how unfair it is to accuse people who think they shouldn't have to pay for the benefit of living in an educated populace of selfishness, and yet here you point out how badly being forced to do so makes those same people look. I'm not sure you can have it both ways.

Posted by: Leni | September 1, 2008 1:54 AM

156

Anna

Actually, I was questioning more the idea that paying for education should be mandated by "all of us" via the government.

Fair enough, but frankly, I think having a guaranteed source of funding is a much safer option. And I wouldn't want school administers to have to pander for donations, I'd want them doing their jobs in the schools.

Besides, we already have charter and private schools available for those who want them. Many of them do offer reduced rates for poor families. (Although I am far less keen on public funding for them.)

Posted by: Leni | September 1, 2008 3:16 PM