Pharyngula: Progressives put pressure on Obama

#1

Posted by: Big City | August 6, 2008 10:13 PM

Are they gonna spam me? Also, why no mention of gay marriage?

#2

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 6, 2008 10:17 PM

Also, why no mention of gay marriage?

How about any mention of gay people at all?

#3

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 6, 2008 10:23 PM

Big City and MAJeff- I had that same reaction when I read that in my dead-tree copy of The Nation. A weird omission that I'd never have expected from them; I guess I can put it down to a brain fart, but it's disturbing.

Still worth signing though. Thanks to PZ for alerting us to it- I don't hang around on their website much even though I'm a subscriber so I didn't know about the internet-petition version.

#4

Posted by: Protesilaus | August 6, 2008 10:24 PM

There is also nothing on the "Office of Faith Based Initiatives" which he supported expanding.

#5

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

Obama sucks, just like Mccain - can't you see that?

#6

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

*Mcain

#7

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 6, 2008 10:32 PM

A weird omission that I'd never have expected from them; I guess I can put it down to a brain fart, but it's disturbing.

Not really surprising at all, to be honest.

It took a very long time for The Nation--hell, anyone on the left--to take gay people and gay rights seriously. Our rights aren't "real issues," but diversions from the serious work. (Heck, the left isn't that different from the Democratic Party in that regard.)

Even beyond marriage, what about non-discrimination law?

#8

Posted by: Zeno | August 6, 2008 10:37 PM

While I agree with the sentiments expressed in the letter, I doubt that such efforts have much impact. Will it actually cause Sen. Obama to slow down his strategic move toward the supposed "center"? I doubt it. He has me where he wants me, solidly in his camp, and I can't imagine any realistic scenario where his pre-election maneuvering makes me desert the cause. Only if he pledged to appoint Supreme Court justices in the mold of Scalia. I'd do just about anything to save the Supreme Court from more right-wing bastards like that! These are desperate times and my eye is on the prize. [Link]

#9

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 6, 2008 10:39 PM

Well, I'm sure you'd be more aware of such things than I, so I stand corrected. Very sad, because it's hard for me to conceive of an issue that's closer to the core of what progressivism (or, hell, just common decency) should be about than full equality for people who are not white heterosexual males.

#10

Posted by: llewelly | August 6, 2008 10:42 PM

I smiled when I saw that the first signature was from former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson.

#11

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 6, 2008 10:42 PM

Well, I'm also realistic enough to expect little impact, but we have to at least try to make our voices heard or else there's no hope at all.

#12

Posted by: Protesilaus | August 6, 2008 10:45 PM

I am horrified by the amount of time it has taken, and the amount of maneuvering that politicians do on Gay Rights. Although the Libertarian philosophy there of saying no government marriages period has an appeal to me. I should say that I am happy to be in one of the few states with civil-union (which is another thing I could rant at is the naming conventions).

#13

Posted by: llewelly | August 6, 2008 10:45 PM

btw, despite no mention of gay rights, this letter is a very good sign - progressives every where should know, that Obama must be pushed, and pushed hard, or the majority of the damage done by the Bush regime will not be fixed, and we'll be wasting hundreds of billions of dollars and millions of lives in Iraq for years to come.

#14

Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 6, 2008 10:52 PM

With them on the first one, but they go off into the weeds on the second item. "Please, more looting!"

-jcr

#15

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 6, 2008 10:56 PM

Fuck you and the gilded-age robber-baron horse you rode in on, John. And I mean that in the nicest possible way. ;)

#16

Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 6, 2008 10:56 PM

Libertarian philosophy there of saying no government marriages period has an appeal to me.

Here's the thing that always struck me as rather bizarre about the gay marriage issue. As a member of a readily-targetable minority, why in the world would you demand to get on a government list?

I can just imagine Jews in the Weimar republic shaking their heads in disbelief.

-jcr

#17

Posted by: CalGeorge | August 6, 2008 10:56 PM

Obama does have a universal health care plan.

No signature.

#18

Posted by: Joel Grant | August 6, 2008 10:56 PM

If the Dems capture the WH and congress it will be interesting to see if the gap between what they say they are going to do and what they actually do begins to narrow.

I am not holding my breath. Since 2001 I have become (amazingly to myself) even more cynical about our political system. Since 2006 the needle has moved into the red zone.

#19

Posted by: Shane Killian | August 6, 2008 10:58 PM

In addition to what others have mentioned, there's the FISA abuses and the telecom immunity which Obama VOTED FOR!

#20

Posted by: Maseca | August 6, 2008 10:59 PM

This is the problem I run into with being a libertarian. I am gung-ho with about 75% of that letter, but when it starts talking about universal healthcare and socialist redistribution of weath, I'm outtie.

And no mention of gay, bi and transgendered rights? WTF?

#21

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 6, 2008 10:59 PM

Obama does have a universal health care plan.

He has a weak, unworkable pretence of one that, once it's worked over by the lobbyists, will simply become merely another sluice to channel taxpayer dollars to the insurance parasites.

#22

Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 6, 2008 10:59 PM

Steve,

The robber barons you despise made a large part of their money by manipulating the government. I don't think the government should have the power to reward some at others' expense. You and JP Morgan both disagree with me.

Incidentally, one railroad entrepreneur proved that it was indeed possible to build a major railway network without government handouts or land-grabs. Look up the history of the Great Northern sometime.

-jcr

#23

Posted by: stogoe | August 6, 2008 11:00 PM

Here's the thing that always struck me as rather bizarre about the gay marriage issue. As a member of a readily-targetable minority, why in the world would you demand to get on a government list?

Umm...the thousands upon thousands of huge societal benefits that come with being married, and are being denied to huge numbers of couples because of some asshole's sense of squick?

Fuck you.

#24

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 6, 2008 11:01 PM

Here's the thing that always struck me as rather bizarre about the gay marriage issue. As a member of a readily-targetable minority, why in the world would you demand to get on a government list?

Sounds kind of like the asshole MA Justice who dissented in the marriage case by saying, "well, they wanted the state to stop fucking 'em over by making their sex illegal, so why on earth would they want the state to enforce their ability to make medical decisions for each other?"

#25

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 6, 2008 11:04 PM

They didn't manipulate the government. They effectively WERE the government. As their successors are under Bush. What's needed is precisely a government that can stand up to them because it isn't owned by them. As both Roosevelts could explain to you.

Libertarian history is as laughable as libertarian economics.

#26

Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 6, 2008 11:06 PM

stogoe,

Same to you, I'm sure. I have no issue with anyone's orientation, what I question is the wisdom of demanding that government keep a list of people who are likely to be the victims of some future collective action. You can ask the Japanese Americans in my own state how well that worked out.

The "societal benefits" of which you speak are mostly consequences of a brain-dead tax system, which should itself be abolished.

-jcr

#27

Posted by: stogoe | August 6, 2008 11:08 PM

Oh, Crom, the Know-Nothing Libertarian party has shown up. Please, go away. I'd honestly rather have Pete Rooke show up again than the Libertarians - at least he's mildly entertaining while being completely and utterly wrong.

#28

Posted by: stogoe | August 6, 2008 11:09 PM

More of the same-old "I got mine, fuck the poor" garbage from jcr. Le sigh.

#29

Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 6, 2008 11:10 PM

They didn't manipulate the government. They effectively WERE the government.

Sounds like you're in violent agreement with me.

What's needed is precisely a government that can stand up to them because it isn't owned by them.

Nope. Concentrate power, and Bad Things Happen. Rich people have always been far better at controlling governments than you are, and if you're gullible enough to believe that can be changed, then L. Ron Hubbard has a bridge to sell you.

We have a constitution that was written precisely to try to avoid that kind of concentration of power. It worked pretty well for a fairly long time, and we should get back to it.

-jcr

#30

Posted by: James Hanley | August 6, 2008 11:10 PM

I, like several others here, am firmly in support of the civil libertarian issues mentioned in the petition (and would also add support for same-sex marriage). But where I jump ship, and why I am still undecided about voting for Obama, is the appalling lack of knowledge about economics exhibited by the petition writers and the candidate himself.

Unfortunately, John McCain exhibits no grasp of economics, either, which means--whomever wins--the number of presidents with real economic knowledge in our country's history is...0? (Perhaps 1, if we give George H.W. Bush some credit.)

#31

Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 6, 2008 11:13 PM

Well Stogoe, that's about the level of discourse I've come to expect from people whose only exposure to economics came from American public schools. If you care to argue the points I've made, have at it. if you just want to toss off insults, then fuck you too.

More of the same-old "I got mine, fuck the poor" garbage from jcr.

The poor need capitalism and free markets more than anyone else. Google for "Grameen bank", read and learn.

-jcr

#32

Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 6, 2008 11:15 PM

Unfortunately, John McCain exhibits no grasp of economics, either

Oh, you noticed that, did you? ;-)

McCain got rich by marrying a wealthy heiress. Like John Kerry, he has no idea at all of what it took to create the wealth he enjoys.

I think the Republicans actually picked McCain to be a fall guy. They knew that whoever ran after GWB was going to get squashed like a bug, so they didn't want it to be anyone they cared about.

-jcr

#33

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 6, 2008 11:16 PM

Only a libertarian is stupid enough to think the solution to corporate manipulation of government for rent-seeking purposes is to abolish the government and let them screw us over without the fig leaf, rather than to make the government more genuinely democratic. Or that great concentrations of power somehow become innocuous when labeled "private" rather than "public".

Any way, we're talking amongst us progressives here, sorry you're not intellectually up to joining in the conversation.

#34

Posted by: spgreenlaw | August 6, 2008 11:16 PM

Wow, the Libertarians are out in full force tonight. How can they find the website with their heads so far up their asses?

I'm kidding, sort of...

#20

This is the problem I run into with being a libertarian. I am gung-ho with about 75% of that letter, but when it starts talking about universal healthcare and socialist redistribution of weath, I'm outtie.

Really? Holding onto reactionary economic ideals means you run into problems when it comes to a platform laid out in a progressive petition? Maybe you should catch up.

Still, I prefer a Libertarian to a Republican any day of the week. Not sure how I should feel about Ron Paul, in that case.

#35

Posted by: stogoe | August 6, 2008 11:18 PM

I like roads, libraries, and public education. Hence, taxes.

[/win]

#36

Posted by: James Hanley | August 6, 2008 11:18 PM

John C.,

You're not alone! But my experience is that it's fairly useless to argue these points with people who haven't studied economics. It's funny that most people who comment here would mock those who haven't studied biology yet feel competent to critique evolution (a mocking well deserved), yet don't apply the lessons and see the need to study economics before critiquing it.

#37

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 6, 2008 11:20 PM

"Studied economics" in these contexts always turns out to mean, "can spout a few half-understood bromides from my Ec 101 course taught by a Republican economist".

#38

Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 6, 2008 11:21 PM

Steve,

You are a dreamer. Don't ever change. (Not that you have the capacity, but still...)

-jcr

#39

Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 6, 2008 11:24 PM

"Studied economics" in these contexts always turns out to mean, "can spout a few half-understood bromides from my Ec 101 course taught by a Republican economist".

What's your next guess?

I read Human Action, I read The Wealth of Nations, and I highly recommend that you read Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.

-jcr

#40

Posted by: Bride of Shrek OM | August 6, 2008 11:25 PM

As a non-American I don't really understand US politics that well ( but I'm learning) so I wonder if someone can tell me what the arguments that people have for not having universal healthcare are? I would have thought that could only be a good thing. I'm speculating that costs may be one argument against it but are there other reasonings that some people/parties are against it?

#41

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 6, 2008 11:26 PM

Thanks for confirming that my description fits you to a T.

#42

Posted by: stogoe | August 6, 2008 11:26 PM

spgreenlaw, a Libertarian is barely more than a Republican who likes to smoke dope.

To put it another way, libertarians are among the most right-wing authoritarian people in existence. Only their flimsy cover of opposing vice laws makes them stand out slightly from their fascist neo-con brethren.

#43

Posted by: James Hanley | August 6, 2008 11:28 PM

"Studied economics" in these contexts always turns out to mean, "can spout a few half-understood bromides from my Ec 101 course taught by a Republican economist".

Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo-stick! You sure do go to great lengths to justify your ignorance.

Sorry, Steve, but I've been making political economy my academic specialty for over a decade now. And since I'm not a Republican, you may be a little more than partly off-base.

And what have you shown so far here except a few bromides, anyway?

#44

Posted by: stogoe | August 6, 2008 11:31 PM

As a non-American I don't really understand US politics that well ( but I'm learning) so I wonder if someone can tell me what the arguments that people have for not having universal healthcare are? I would have thought that could only be a good thing.

The opposition seems to be as follows:

1) It's the GUBMINT!!!!!11!!!eleventy!!!one!!

2) It'll take a whole lot of money out of the profits of insurance "providers" and put it towards treatment of patients.

3) RATIONING OH NOES! or TWO TIERED SYSTEM OH NOES!!! (Which just ignores the reality that we're already rationing health care in this country, and the reality that we already have a two-tiered system in this country.)

#45

Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 6, 2008 11:32 PM

spgreenlaw,

There was a time when I though that a government monopoly on health care was a good idea. Then, I read The Cancer Ward. In the years since then, I've also become aware of the tragedy of socialized medicine in countries like England and Canada, where you can die on a waiting list for treatments that can be obtained immediately in the USA or India.

We do not have a free market for health care today. We have a massively over-regulated system that was bought and paid for by HMOS and insurance companies through campaign contributions to legislators, both at the federal and state levels. Your representatives didn't write those laws and regulations: insurance company lawyers did.

Follow the money: look up who's giving the contributions to the proponents of socialized medicine like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. A legal requirement to buy health insurance is their biggest wet dream of all: a whole country of people who can't even choose not to buy their services.

-jcr

#46

Posted by: Davey | August 6, 2008 11:32 PM

It doesn't mention getting rid of the Office of Faith-Based Money Funneling, supports letting all 20 million illegals stay here and says nothing about restoring the Bill of Rights. Can't sign it.

#47

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 6, 2008 11:33 PM

No, ignorance is a good description of impudent claims that "economics" supports Libertarian nostrums.

You at least should know enough to know perfectly well that there are respected academic economists who would vigorously disagree with you about the supposed economic illiteracy on display in that open letter. So in your case we are dealing not with ignorance but with intellectual dishonesty.

#48

Posted by: stogoe | August 6, 2008 11:34 PM

jcr, do you have a few copies of the World's Smallest Political TestTM I could borrow? I need some good libertarian propaganda to wipe my ass with, as I'm a mite low on toilet paper.

I mean, look at that list. You might as well have rattled off Ayn Rand screeds for all the good it would have done. Sheesh.

#49

Posted by: gungho | August 6, 2008 11:34 PM

Nope. Concentrate power, and Bad Things Happen.

Power tends to be self-organizing. With the power in the hands of a democratic government, at least the people have some control of the power.

Oh, you have a two-party system? Guess you're screwed. :P

#50

Posted by: craig | August 6, 2008 11:34 PM

"Obama sucks, just like Mccain - can't you see that?"

I disagree. He sucks somewhat differently than McCain.

#51

Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 6, 2008 11:37 PM

I've been making political economy my academic specialty for over a decade now.

Interesting blog you've got there, James. Your entry on the hyperinflation in ZImbabwe kind of jumps out.

I remember when Bush floated the "economic stimulus" circle-jerk a few months back, one congressional candidate whom I support pointed out that if it were possible to stimulate an economy through inflation, then Zimbabwe would be the most prosperous country on earth.

-jcr

#52

Posted by: craig | August 6, 2008 11:38 PM

I've never met a Libertarian who would accept the end of trademark, patent and copyright law. I wonder why that is?

#53

Posted by: Wowbagger | August 6, 2008 11:39 PM

Fellow Aussie Bride of Shrek asked about the downside to universal health care - and I have to say I can't see a downside to it. I've never had health problems (and, fingers crossed, never will) but that doesn't mean I don't want it there for the people who do.

By the sound of it this would make me an ardent socialist in the US. But if feeling that it's the duty of a government to keep its people healthy equates to socialism then feel free to call me comrade.

Would one or more of the economic 'gurus' here care to explain the benefits of dispensing with it?

#54

Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 6, 2008 11:40 PM

I need some good libertarian propaganda to wipe my ass with

Gosh, with masterful rhetoric like that, you must be the star of your local Che fan club meetings. Do the undergrads swoon over you?

-jcr

#55

Posted by: stogoe | August 6, 2008 11:40 PM

Follow the money: look up who's giving the contributions to the proponents of socialized medicine like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. A legal requirement to buy health insurance is their biggest wet dream of all: a whole country of people who can't even choose not to buy their services.

You ever get seriously sick without health insurance or government socialized healthcare? Good luck coming back from that bankruptcy, you self-made independent type who never took a dime from the gubmint*.

*Note: This is a lie. Yes, even for you, jcr.

Liberturds like to trot out examples of universal healthcare in other countries as failures, even when it's clear that they're a thousand times better, even with their flaws, compared to what we have currently in America.

#56

Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 6, 2008 11:42 PM

Liberturds

Oh, no! He's coining neologisms! How can I possibly counter such brilliance?

Oh, I remember: grow up, kid.

it's clear that they're a thousand times better

wishing doesn't make it so, sunshine.

-jcr

#57

Posted by: James Hanley | August 6, 2008 11:43 PM

Steve,

You've still said nothing of substance. I know you can find some economists who would agree with most of the letter. I also know that they're a distinct minority. E.g., "fair trade policies;" Even the quite-liberal Paul Krugman is a free trader. But I also noted that you apparently couldn't name any of these economists!

And as for your obvious hatred of libertarianism, the indisputable fact is that the great majority of economists have libertarian leanings--not that all of them classify themselves as libertarians, but the Republican economists are more libertarian than the bulk of Republicans (tend to be pro-legalization, anti-corporate subsidies), and the Democratic economists are more libertarian than are most Democrats (tend to be pro-free trade, dubious of many business regulations).

Economists are not all out to destroy government, but as a group they are less enamored of it's problem-solving potential than, if I may guess so, you are.

But let me reiterate--you've said nothing of substance. You really do sound like a creationist attacking evolutionary theory.

#58

Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 6, 2008 11:44 PM

libertarians are among the most right-wing authoritarian people in existence.

Now, that's what's known in debate as the "bald-faced lie" technique. I defy you to show me a libertarian who demands power over other people, as your side considers its birthright.

-jcr

#59

Posted by: stogoe | August 6, 2008 11:45 PM

jcr, in my experience with fanatics, for example creationists and libertarians and wingnut bloggers, there comes a time when you should admit to yourself that no evidence will ever sway them from their delusion. It is at that point where out and out mockery takes over.

You are a fool, and you are a proponent of foolish and destructive policies. Your mother was a primate, and your father huffed glue.

Now go away, or I shall mock you yet again.

#60

Posted by: Scott from Oregon | August 6, 2008 11:46 PM

I can't imagine how this crowd could be "FOR" Obama. The guy either adopted Christianity as a young adult because he is not very bright, or because he is a schrewd and pre-planning politician of the most ambitious and unscrupulous nature.

Given that he appears to be quite bright (though calculating), it is very plain that his career trajectory, from his "public service" work in Chigago to his lip service on his newfound "faith" (because we all know you can't get elected if you are a sane and rational person) is a calculated, politically motivated arc that no sane and rational person would fall for.

All that put aside, I am dumbfounded by the demands requested on him by self-proclaimed "progressives", especially this--

A response to the current economic crisis that reduces the gap between the rich and the rest of us through a more progressive financial and welfare system; public investment to create jobs and repair the country's collapsing infrastructure; fair trade policies; restoration of the freedom to organize unions; and meaningful government enforcement of labor laws and regulation of industry.

WE ARE NOW THE LARGEST DEBTOR NATION IN THE WORLD. That means that our government OWES the rest of the world more money than we can pay back without massively deflating the dollar by printing large wads of it, causing all of those nice grandma's on fixed incomes to be instantly poor.

10 TRILLION dollars in debt and the only thing a progressive wants is to take money from rich people and dole it out to poor people. Folks, our economy is about to make everybody poor and the cause is government spending and taxes. Why isn't anybody DEMANDING that we bring all our troops home from all 130 nations? Why isn't anybody demanding that we close down ALL ineffective or redundant government agencies? Why isn't anybody demanding that the government go back to doing only that which is necessary, and stop asking that the government rob the successful to appease the unproductive?

Hasn't GW Bush demonstrated just what a waste of capital the federal government is? Haven't we seen enough of the effects of giving the US government TOO MUCH money and power?

Does anybody here read the Constitution anymore?

Have we all but lost our minds?

#61

Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 6, 2008 11:47 PM

the indisputable fact is that the great majority of economists have libertarian leanings

I wish.

There's still a lot of residual Keynsian attitudes floating around in that field. Way too many economic advisors to politicians still believe that a government can run an economy.

-jcr

#62

Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 6, 2008 11:50 PM

I can't imagine how this crowd could be "FOR" Obama.

Well, there's the long-standing habit of backing the lesser of some set of evils which the American public has become accustomed to.

I would take Obama over McCain for one reason only, and that is that he is less likely to expand the war into Iran. I would hope that he'll end up deadlocked with the congress as Clinton was on economic matters, which allows the market to adapt and cope.

-jcr

#63

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 6, 2008 11:51 PM

I know you can find some economists who would agree with most of the letter.

Which is quite sufficient to establish that claims of "economic illiteracy" are merely impudent.

I also know that they're a distinct minority.

I would be more impressed by such demographic arguments in a natural science than in an ideologically laden profession with suspect intellectual foundations such as economics. In such fields one cannot be nearly so confident that the majority view is really imposed on practitioners by the weight of the evidence rather than by ideological fashion and the tendency of departments to hire the like-minded.

#64

Posted by: spgreenlaw | August 6, 2008 11:51 PM

@ #42
Ah, but at least I have somebody to trade Cheech and Chong tapes with! But in all seriousness, a good number of the Libertarians I've met are committed to a freer, better society. They go about it all wrong, but I suppose their good intentions count for something.

That's not to say that there aren't a large number of them who are "right-wing authoritarian[s]" to borrow your words. Most probably are, and are only concerned with holding onto what they've already got, at all costs, and kicking anyone else below them off the already perilous ladder of capitalism.

Suffice it to say that I find them more interesting than the Neocons.

#65

Posted by: Doubting Foo | August 6, 2008 11:54 PM

Liberturds....lol...at least he didn't say liberTARDS...I hate the whole TARD thing.

What's up with libertarians? If evolutionary psychologists say altruism evolved then HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN LIBERTARIANS???

I'm watching the second season of Bullshit right now. Penn and Teller and Bullshit libertarians...

#66

Posted by: Wowbagger | August 6, 2008 11:54 PM

James Hanley, #57, wrote:

the indisputable fact is that the great majority of economists have libertarian leanings

Er, not to point out the obvious, but wouldn't that be because they're educated and have good jobs? It's hardly a shock that people who aren't as dependant on the government are keen to minimise how much money the government gets.

#67

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 6, 2008 11:56 PM

I can't imagine how this crowd could be "FOR" Obama.

They (we) mostly aren't. We regard him as simply the lesser of two evils, in the usual Hobson's choice presented by our rigged political system. I will vote for him because the alternative is unthinkable but, after he FISA sellout, will not send a dime to his campaign.

#68

Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 6, 2008 11:56 PM

there comes a time when you should admit to yourself that no evidence will ever sway them from their delusion.

You describe yourself perfectly. How sad that you have no interest in learning.

-jcr

#69

Posted by: James Hanley | August 6, 2008 11:59 PM

Stogoe,

Which policies are foolish and destructive? You don't mention any, so I'm curious which ones have your ire?

And I'm not sure why you say evidence won't sway John from his delusions, since you've not presented any evidence.

Seriously, you and Steve have not presented any substantive argument, nor any real shred of evidence--neither of you has done anything more than fling moronic insults, and then claim you've made an argument.

Anyway, I'm bored. I'm going to answer one other person's reasonable question, then head home.

#70

Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 7, 2008 12:02 AM

kicking anyone else below them off the already perilous ladder of capitalism.

What a bizarre conjecture. I can only assume that it derives from your left-wing back biting power game culture, where all advancement comes from knocking someone else down.

Anyone seeking to increase his own wealth benefits from a more prosperous market to sell to. The Marxist fantasy of people getting rich by exploiting the poor is absurd on its face: the poor have little wealth to trade.

As a producer of goods or services, I want as many people as possible to be able to afford whatever I'm selling. This was Henry Ford's great insight.

-jcr

#71

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 7, 2008 12:03 AM

On the contrary, I presented an argument- one whose correctness you had to grudgingly admit- which devastated the closest thing to an argument that you have presented (see #63). Nice job of projection, though. Now go away and preen yourself on your imagined intellectual superiority.

#72

Posted by: Scott from Oregon | August 7, 2008 12:05 AM

Here's a real brain tosser--

WHAT IF, you became a federal Libertarian, a State centrist, and a County "progressive"??

You utilize taxes locally for your roads and hospitals and health care, and you stopped feeding into the singular CAUSE of corporate influence peddling and big businesses in-bed-ness?

You fix the broken system by getting a handle on it yourself.

You remove the temptation to "fix the world" with a blunt-force military.

You put a face on where your local charity taxes go.

You actually KNOW the people who you put in government because you went to school with them...

The mind boggles when it is so simple.

#73

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 7, 2008 12:05 AM

...can we add:

"make Libertarians face up to reality"

as part of that list of progressive demands?

nobody wants you here, John.
take a hike.

#74

Posted by: Amplexus | August 7, 2008 12:16 AM

My fellow godless hedonists,

Obama is totally on our side. He's just hiding some of his feelings to get elected. We cannot take a stand on principle, we cannot afford to. Obama is blurring his position to win over independents that he sure as hell is going to shake off when he gets elected. It is wrong to compormise with conservatives. The ideological base of the republican party is conservative fundamentalist evangelical christians. Let Obama perform his little politican dance. I assure you he will deliver.

I better as hell see all of you godless liberals at the voting booth!! We cannot afford another bush term. Obama got my vote when he said he would support indictments and investigation of the bush administration. McCain has it in his interest and the interest of his party to cover-up and pardon the crimes and oversteps of the Bush administration and to further american theocracy.

Go watch one of John Hagee's sermons or Rev.Ricky.
Liberals have this hackysacky whole foods obsession that is kinda annoying but at least its not evil.

#75

Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 7, 2008 12:19 AM

nobody wants you here, John.

I'll bet you were quite the playground potentate in your day. Sorry to disappoint you, but you'll just have to cope with the fact that others have no duty to obey your whims.

take a hike.

Your request is denied. If PZ asked me to quit posting here, I'd do so. Any self-appointed blog monitors like yourself can get bent.

-jcr

#76

Posted by: Nibien | August 7, 2008 12:19 AM

"You describe yourself perfectly. How sad that you have no interest in learning."

10/10 for irony.

#77

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 7, 2008 12:22 AM

I'll bet you were quite the playground potentate in your day.

...and you must have always been the annoying little pissant who just couldn't shut the fuck up, and so became the butt of all jokes and dodgeball targeting.

#78

Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 7, 2008 12:22 AM

Go watch one of John Hagee's sermons or Rev.Ricky.

And immediately afterwards, watch Sam Kinnison. The similarity is striking.

-jcr

#79

Posted by: spgreenlaw | August 7, 2008 12:22 AM

@ #70

John, I think the families (both parents and children) who worked in this country for a few cents a day during the Industrial Revolution would have a problem with what you're saying. And I think the families who do the same now, only in foreign countries (where they have no legal protection against their employers like minimum wage, and where union organizers are frequently shot so as to suppress any sort labor movement), could personally attest to how ridiculous that is. You don't need a large, prosperous market to sell to. You just need a small, rich one.

#80

Posted by: James Hanley | August 7, 2008 12:22 AM

OK, I'm going to answer three question. All of them reasonable, even if not generously phrased.

1. Craig said: "I've never met a Libertarian who would accept the end of trademark, patent and copyright law. I wonder why that is?"

Libertarians tend to rank property rights at the very top of their pantheon of holies. To the extent they are willing to accept government (and contary to what some folks seem to think here, there is variety among libertarians, not all of whom want to destroy the gubmint), they are willing to accept it for its role as protector of property rights. These intellectual property rights are, of course, troublesome because they can't be defended with a gun as easily as physical property can, so libertarians tend to see government as a necessary evil in this case. For those familiar with English political philosophers, libertarians tend to have a very Lockean view of property--"I invested my labor in it, so it's my mine."

2. Doubting Foo asked: "If evolutionary psychologists say altruism evolved then HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN LIBERTARIANS??? "

Well, given the caricatures of libertarians that float around, as well as the number of vocal libertarians who are living embodiments of the caricature, this question isn't surprising.

But libertarianism is not inherently about selfish and egoistic individualism. I freely admit there are any number of libertarians who take it that way--for example the Ayn Rand acolytes--but it's not a necessary interpretation. Libertarianism in its essence is just a opposition to coercion. From that perspective, there's nothing at all wrong with altruism--libertarians just don't want coerced altruism. Rand, I'd say, fundamentally misunderstood human nature. But it's entirely consistent with libertarianism to support the idea of individuals willingly coming together for mutual support. I am inclined to think that our evolved nature actually inclines us toward a form of authoritarian communitarianism, but of course we have to beware the naturalistic fallacy. Just because that is what we're inclined toward (if I'm right), doesn't mean we ought to go that direction.

3. Finally, Wowbagger, in response to my claim that most economists have libertarian tendencies, asked: "wouldn't that be because they're educated and have good jobs? "

Actually, no. PZ Myers is certainly as well educated as I am, and I would argue has a better job (I'm quite sure he gets paid more, dammit!). In fact most academics are both well-educated and have good jobs, but as a group are more likely to be liberal than libertarian, so clearly there's another factor at play.

That factor is, I believe, a more sophisticated understanding of how well markets work when left mostly unhindered (mostly, not completely--economists nearly all believe in the necessity of government to enforce contracts, punish thieves, etc.). It's less an ideological thing--despite what certain persons who lack education in the field feel free to say here--than the equivalent of biologists being more likely to believe in evolution than creationism. In fact those who actually study markets carefully recognize there are deep similarities--that the market is an evolutionary process (although to use the term "natural" selection would lead to endless quibbling about terminology).

One thing the critics of economists here fail to recognize is that economics derived from moral philosophy, and has always been seen by its students as having an important moral purpose--the material well-being of society. That is, economics is really the study of how we can maximize the material wealth of society. Distributing that wealth is another matter, of course, and is something we could debate endlessly. But the key for economics is to make society wealthy enough that we can actually have real wealth to redistribute, should we choose to do so. And policies that too severely hinder the wealth production of a society will ultimately undermine the ability to do any of that redistribution.

So there's my "half-baked bromides." Cheers, I'm off to bed, and will let the purveyors of insults have the field.

#81

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 7, 2008 12:26 AM

fucking libertarian trolls.

why come here to spew your idiocy, unless you simply intend to drag stinky bait?

aren't there enough Ron Paul fan blogs for you?

#82

Posted by: E.V. | August 7, 2008 12:27 AM

We're going to be screwed economically for anyone who isn't uber rich for the next 6-10 years anyway, no matter who is in office, so that leaves social policies and Iraq as the major points for choosing between McCain and Obama. I have a nearly violent hatred for NeoCons of the current administration. McCain isn't a NeoCon but I'm not comfortable with him in any capacity.
As for any presidential candidate lining up under the banner of belief, not to do so is political suicide in this country. Unfortunately in campaigning, the end justifies the means.

#83

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 7, 2008 12:28 AM

If PZ asked me to quit posting here, I'd do so.

you must have forgotten how much PZ hates libertarians.

memory isn't the libertarian strong suit, though.

#84

Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 7, 2008 12:30 AM

worked in this country for a few cents a day

Nobody disputes that their working conditions were terrible, by modern standards. I will point out though, that the people who streamed into the sweatshops in the USA during the 19th century did so because it was better than subsistence farming. That's precisely the same thing that draws people into factories overseas today (except in China, where they are often coerced into it by the government of their Socialist Workers' Paradise).

You don't need a large, prosperous market to sell to. You just need a small, rich one.

What I said is that it's advantageous to have the biggest and most prosperous pool of customers possible, which it is. A small market of rich customers is far tougher to sell to.

-jcr

#85

Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 7, 2008 12:31 AM

..and you must have always been the annoying little pissant who just couldn't shut the fuck up, and so became the butt of all jokes and dodgeball targeting.

Longing for your lost days of glory as a playground bully, are you?

-jcr

#86

Posted by: James Hanley | August 7, 2008 12:32 AM

Ichthyic,

I despise Ron Paul. I don't consider myself a troll, as I often come here to see PZ's latest updates on new findings in science, as well as his critique of creationists.

I guess I was under the impression that reasoned debate might be encouraged here. Your inability to rise above comments like "idiocy" and "stinky bait" suggests that you'd like to claim possession of pharyngula for people unable to engage in reasoned debate. Given PZ's popularity, I am optimistic that you'll be unsuccessful.

And now, I really am out of here, bef

Pharyngula

Search this blog

Profile

Random Quote

Recent Posts

A Taste of Pharyngula

Recent Comments

Archives

Blogroll

Other Information

Subscribe via Email

Progressives put pressure on Obama

Comments