Pharyngula

Posted by: Zeno | September 4, 2010 9:51 AM

Ah, yes. Libertarianism. I do believe you have touched on this topic before.

Posted by: Insightful Ape | September 4, 2010 9:55 AM

He doesn't seem to realize Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer were not one and the same.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 4, 2010 10:01 AM

Libertarians and reality are not even acquaintances. They live in their own little delusional world of make-believe economics and politics.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | September 4, 2010 10:05 AM

Stop laughing.

I'm sorry, I can't. I'm just lucky I put my tea down before reading.

*Cue the invasion of the loonytarian brigade*

Posted by: lessofthedifferent | September 4, 2010 10:17 AM

I was very fond of libertarianism for quite a while. But I then had a libertarian correct my misconceptions about libertarianism.

After two years and three months of weeping and rocking in a shadowy corner of my house, I managed to show my face in public again.

As for what evolution supports, well, I look at humanity and all its interesting and varied ideals and dogmas and I have to some to the conclusion that evolution supports some fucking bizarre shit.

Posted by: Steven Dunlap | September 4, 2010 10:27 AM

Rarely have I been so thoroughly misconstrued

He's a libertarian - what did you think would happen? (said a la Steve Martin to John Candy in Planes, trains and automobiles).

Social Darwinism by any other name still stinks.

Stop laughing. He's serious.

Nope. Sorry. I can't. Stop. Laughing.

But seriously, the only way that the far-from-sane libertarians can defend their position comes from misconstruing whatever fails to agree with them. A person on the closer-to-sane side of libertarianism, Law Professor Richard Epstein, once wrote of the batshit crazy kind of libertarians my favorite summary of their "thinking": "Brain dead to the underlying realities of how this world works."
footnote.

Posted by: Cowcakes | September 4, 2010 10:35 AM

Especially since his response was to accuse me of being a creationist.

I think he is getting creationist confused with cephalopodist.

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | September 4, 2010 10:51 AM

Sloth @ # 12: At first I thought he couldn't have possibly read your article at all, but it appears he did.......if only to quote mine.

Just look at all the rich ore he can extract from this veritable muthahload of a post:

... I claim that biology makes no contribution to morality and politics... our moral history has been unconstrained by evolution. ... your political philosophy is independent of history, experience, and biology... I'm in the pocket of the Pope.

Posted by: Jacques | September 4, 2010 10:58 AM

If you are implying evolution doesn't support quote mining, then you are a creationist like the Pope.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | September 4, 2010 11:01 AM

Everything makes sense now.

Totally explains all those consecrated wafers PZ has.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | September 4, 2010 11:05 AM

@20

and like what I said

Responsible economic stance != Libertarianism.

The last president to balance the budget was a democrat...the voting history does not support your stance that only libertarians are concerned about it. Since so many vote republican it seems many disagree with you and don't give a shit.

Posted by: dgerard | September 4, 2010 11:17 AM

I don't know why more Libertarians don't move to Somalia, a state free of the dead hand of government.

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/UnNews:US_sends_Libertarianism_to_cleanse_Somali_government

Posted by: Katharine | September 4, 2010 11:27 AM

You know someone's really fucking wacky when they think PZ's a creobot.

Posted by: eleusis | September 4, 2010 11:29 AM

It has been fashionable in recent years in libertarian circles to compare and justify libertarianism with evolution. Shermer wrote a whole book about it. Of course, evolution created insects, too, which some have described as communist. Well, insects have classes and hierarchies, so their societies are perhaps more fuedal. But it doesn't matter. The fact that most organisms are self-interested tells us no more about how we should organize our societies than the fact that insects are feudal. We have to look at our own history.

If anything, one could argue that our history suggests that communism is the most natural state of affairs. Humans are a social species. We lived in tribes, where everyone knew everyone and resources were distributed according to need. The important part of "communism" is commune. If you want to organize society according to our nature, you should smash modern civilization into independent communes. Israeli kibbutzes and hippie communes are probably the most natural sociopolitical systems.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | September 4, 2010 11:32 AM

@27

no communism is more correct. The Queen is no more in charge than any worker. She's just the small specialized class devoted to reproduction. She doesn't give any commands.

Posted by: A. Nuran | September 4, 2010 11:45 AM

http://www.leftycartoons.com/wp-content/uploads/types_of_libertarian1.png

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/c8vgv20epfOnyZYgaPKrcYfDk4TekTh7#ed6d2 | September 4, 2010 11:57 AM

@11, this man also bashes people with disabilities and makes the same mistake he (rightly) accuses his opponent of making, ignoring all historical, cultural, and social context. Look, a libertarian whose hatred of all human beings other than those exactly like himself is more limited than some of his fellows, let's give him a gold star.

Posted by: Ike | September 4, 2010 12:17 PM

Of course evolution supports libertarianism. This is shown by the immense popularity libertarian parties and movements enjoy across the globe, and the numerous examples of thriving libertarian societies we can find in history, such as... uhh... umm... if you squint the right way medieval Iceland could perhaps.... I'll get back to you.

Posted by: Midnight Rambler | September 4, 2010 1:23 PM

Jim @20:

Speaking of misconstruing.

Libertarianism != anarchy
Libertarianism != Rand

I tend to think that the government needs to protect the environment, and I hate corporatism

Posted by: mmelliott01 | September 4, 2010 1:39 PM

Ing@36: Ah. I thought you were saying that they were nonexistent (or virtually so) rather than that they were kooks and should rightfully have no influence. Never mind.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | September 4, 2010 2:05 PM

As Sloth mentions @ #12 he completely quote-mined you.
Arnhart:

Myers says that "the science of biology supports a communist world view."

I find their arguments that the science of biology supports a communist worldview just as convincing as Arnhart’s that it supports classical liberalism…which means not very.

Who's the real creationist?

To be fair, he does apologize for "hastily taking a quotation out of context". Still, it's hard to see how he could have read that sentence and came away with the interpretation he did.

Posted by: pinkboi | September 4, 2010 3:25 PM

Libertarianism seems to suffer from a false sense of exclusion to draw in people. People who are sane like it because it promotes some good things, high personal freedom, autonomous medical rights, low oppression, low religion etc. But then come the problems a) it also asserts a bunch of economic or political things by faith (low regulations==good, low government==good. Government can never do anything right) b) The good stuff is not exclusive to libertarianism.

a) not quite. No one thinks the government can't do good. The libertarian position (trying to sum it up the best I can in such limited space) is that on the whole the government does more harm than good, that the freedom to live your life as you choose is superior to the "freedom" of the mob to choose and everyone being stuck with the result and that even good legislation can set a bad precedent and generally violates the libertarian virtue of non-violence. If you think libertarians are wrong, okay, but they don't take these things on faith. This is why you mustn't simply attack a straw man but attack the actual arguments they put forward.

b) Granted. You also don't have to be an Atheist to be a skeptic. You can be skeptical except with regards to belief in God. You can also believe in people's free choice and make an exception with money, as social liberals do, but I say, why make the exception?

All in all, it's shame that liberals and libertarians have come to mistrust each other. An alliance was attempted back in the 60s and one is fermenting again. Just know that a libertarian is NOT the extreme of a republican and that there are many kinds of libertarians. I'm a left-libertarian Geoist and I'd feel more comfortable at a Green party caucus than a Libertarian one. But don't let that stop you from holding stereotypical views and failing to research even the basic tenets of libertarianism.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | September 4, 2010 3:56 PM

@43

I didn't pull the "Government can do no good" out of thin air. I've heard it stated by proclaimed "true" libertarians.

Also "No one thinks the government can't do good. The libertarian position (trying to sum it up the best I can in such limited space) is that on the whole the government does more harm than good,"

Is exactly the fucking same thing as "The government can do no good". There are damn good examples of the government in fact doing very very good things that were net gains. To claim otherwise is an absurd faith statement.

Even more annoyingly the US government has inherent protections against mob rule. We're seeing those in Prop 8 and Arizona.

Posted by: Pareidolius | September 4, 2010 4:09 PM

the crazy, deaf, bellowing uncle of the great family of political perspectives.

You nailed it. Libertarianism is my uncle Danny.

It's perfect because Libertarianism is the phase you go through in your adolescence. Not quite an adult and not quite a child, you chafe at the restrictions of your totalitarian parents and project their injustices with ease on your high-school view of politics and history. Your lack of real-world experience combines with overwhelming idealism, and then you read Atlas Shrugged and voilá! A freshly minted Libertarian is born.

Then, you mature. You begin to slowly realize that Libertarianism would be ideal if the world were full of people who actually grew up, but a great many don't. Back to the drawing board and reality.

And speaking of not growing up . . . Uncle Danny was a brawling, womanizing, drinking hellion in his youth and WWII came along when he was 17. Utterly fearless, he enlisted in the Navy. The war in the Pacific and Guadalcanal took most of his hearing and replaced it with a big helping of PTSD.

The war ended, and in a grand (and probably well-reasoned) "fuck you" to a world of family, jobs and responsibility, he joined the merchant marines and lived a life of debauchery and adventure at sea for the rest of his life. He would visit us sporadically, filled with tales of exotic ports, hookers and WWII. Then would come the arguments—usually after one of my dad's amazing three-hour gourmet meals. Uncle Danny, having gradually consumed several highballs and the better part of a bottle of Cabernet would begin to quarrel belligerently with anyone (especially his very rational brothers) who dared question the epic sweep of his loud, bourbon-fueled, erratic, pontifications.

He sounds like a pain in the ass, but he was one of my favorite relatives. What six year old boy wouldn't love a huge, burly shit-disturber who not only gave out money like hairy ATM machine, but did so spewing a near constant stream of colorful (and forbidden) invective? Plus, I learned so much from him, he taught me to swear in a dozen languages. He also actually saw who I really was and gave me some of my best presents ever, including a massive biology microscope from a lab in Singapore and a fantastic, professional refracting telescope from a university in Japan. Complete his résumé with the ownership of a string of overpowered badass cars (most notably, a '67 Shelby Mustang driven which seemed to only have one pedal: the accelerator) and you have the irresistible black sheep of my family . . . oh, and he was a flaming Libertarian to boot.

Thanks for making me reflect on him from this perspective. I will never be able to see him (or Libertarianism) the same way ever again.

Posted by: hermetically sealed | September 4, 2010 4:48 PM

I guess this idiot has never heard of the naturalistic fallacy.

I get so sick and tired of everyone making Darwin out to be anything BUT a scientist, starting with Herbert Spencer (apparently this idiot has never heard of him either).

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | September 4, 2010 5:00 PM

pinkbo #43

All in all, it's shame that liberals and libertarians have come to mistrust each other.

There's a simple reason for this mistrust. Liberals give a damn about other people. Looneytarians follow the adage: "I've got mine, fuck you."

An alliance was attempted back in the 60s and one is fermenting again.

In both cases this "alliance" was due to opposition to a pointless war. While liberals and looneytarians are in favor of civil liberties, the socio-political-economic differences are too great for most thinking liberals to accept such an alliance as anything but a very shaky marriage of convenience.

Just know that a libertarian is NOT the extreme of a republican...

Most looneytarians claim they despise both major American political parties equally. A tiny minority might even believe this. But when push comes to shove the looneytarians vote for whoever is the farthest right candidate. It's not surprising the Koch Brothers are the major financial backers of the Teabaggers.

...and that there are many kinds of libertarians.

There are the wacko looneytarians, the completely wacko looneytarians, the utterly wacko looneytarians, and the looneytarians who are so wacko even other looneytarians wonder about them.

But don't let that stop you from holding stereotypical views and failing to research even the basic tenets of libertarianism.

Do you honestly think you're the first looneytarian to grace this blog? I assure you that you're not even in the first hundred. We've had looneytarians tell us all about how AGW is a socialist lie designed to give government more control over peoples' lives. We've had looneytarians tell us what the government does is always bad and when corporations do exactly the same thing the results are uniformly good. We've had many arguments with looneytarians and never once have any of them convinced any of us to see the light of looneytarianism.

Posted by: llewelly | September 4, 2010 5:31 PM

Ing | September 4, 2010 11:07 AM:

Both democrats and republicans and libertarians and everyone else WANT sustainability the disagreement is how to get it. You actually think liberals are arguing "LETS STEER THIS MOTHER FUCKER STRAIGHT INTO THAT ICEBERG!!!"

Clearly you have never heard of Grover Norquist.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | September 4, 2010 5:52 PM

pinkboi @ 43;

not quite. No one thinks the government can't do good.

Actually, we have had libertarians here who pretty much asserted that government is the root of all evil. Even the less fringe libertarians tend to be all together too enamoured of the supposedly near-infallible 'Invisible Hand' of the free market, conveniently ignoring the harm that an untramelled market can and does cause while excoriating government for any socially progressive policy because they believe that the market, if left to frolic unhindered, would automatically create a more 'efficient' society. Efficiency, of course, being depicted as an unalloyed good even where such an efficient juggernaught crushes a few of the less fortunate along the way.

This is why sceptics so often mock libertarians by pointing out that, technically speaking, the ungoverned yet highly capitalistic environment of Somalia should be a near utopia if libertarianism holds, and yet it is sadly afflicted with terrible violence.

The libertarian position (trying to sum it up the best I can in such limited space) is that on the whole the government does more harm than good, that the freedom to live your life as you choose is superior to the "freedom" of the mob to choose and everyone being stuck with the result and that even good legislation can set a bad precedent and generally violates the libertarian virtue of non-violence.

(emphasis added)

Does not this position become problematic when one realises that the idea of a parity of freedom of choice is utterly unsustainable in the kind of truly 'free market' environment advocated by libertarians? In any such system, there will inevitably be 'haves' and 'have-nots' and often the situation of these respective groups will not be entirely of their own making (and may indeed be wholly outside their control). If a person is poor and lacks access to education and social opportunity by virtue of the community of their birth or the fact that they belong to a social group that is subject to social ostracision and political marginalisation, then in what way can it be said that they reaslistically possess a "freedom to live [their] life as [they] choose?"

Is it not fair to say that any libertarian system would ultimately amount to little more than a charter for the privileged, further entrenching wealth and power in the hands of those who are already wealthy and powerful? Where are the altruistic and socially conscious credentials of the 'free market'? Without the intercession of a governmental body, how are coherent strategies of social improvement to be cordinated, funded and implemented?

Libertarianism may seem great if you are confident of your income and secure in your lifestyle, but from the perspective of the disenfranchised and disadvantaged it looks an awful lot a boot on the necks of the vulnerable, and a mandate for the fortunate to abdicate their moral responsibility to the less fortunate.

Just know that a libertarian is NOT the extreme of a republican and that there are many kinds of libertarians.

Many of the most commonly expressed cornerstone doctrines of libertarianism are far more compatible with the political Right than with the Left:-

1) Advocacy of 'small government' with a minimum of social policies in order to reduce the tax burden.

2) The idea that any societal shortfall caused by a shrinking government will be made good by the 'Invisible Hand' of the free market with little or no intervention.

3) Belief in the inate superiority of laissez faire capitalism over any other conceivable economic system.

4) An emphasis on individual economic rights trumping fundamental, collective social and even human rights in such areas as the provision of universal healthcare.

To name only a few. In such areas, claiming clear water between libertarianism and the rightward wing of republicanism becomes a quixotic exercise in asserting a distinction without a difference.

Posted by: pinkboi | September 4, 2010 6:07 PM

Also "No one thinks the government can't do good. The libertarian position (trying to sum it up the best I can in such limited space) is that on the whole the government does more harm than good,"

If you can't tell the difference, then I can't help you. A given law might do more harm than good, but there are more bad laws than good laws and fundamental reasons why this will always be the case unless we try to limit the total number of laws. Make sense?

Posted by: Jim | September 4, 2010 6:13 PM

"There's a simple reason for this mistrust. Liberals give a damn about other people. Looneytarians follow the adage: "I've got mine, fuck you.""

Demonizing the other side must make you feel better.

Everything that makes the regular commenters here froth when Christians and creationists misconstrue them you do to libertarians. Saying libertarians are anarchists, saying Somalia is an example of libertarianism in action, stuff like the above quote . . . you see it in every thread about libertarians, it feels like I'm reading a bunch of creationist talking points about shaking watch parts in a box and wondering why they don't become a watch.

Libertarians believe in altruism, so much so that their position is that you shouldn't need the government to force it out of you. The quote above is so wildly wrong, so intentionally constructed to make libertarians out to be *bad people* . . . how is it possible that you really don't see this? Even if libertarians are wrong, that doesn't mean they're evil, which is exactly the kind of thing that saying libertarians are all about getting their and fuck everyone else says. And I'm not talking about one poster in particular, it's like a collective blind spot in the ability to self-reflect.

There is a whole thread not more than two posts away from this about how people can be moral without God, which I completely agree with. Treat others the way you'd like to be treated. And then the venom that comes out here, the tactics so far removed from the normal standards you see in threads on Pharyngula, it's almost crazy.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 4, 2010 6:25 PM

Libertarians believe in altruism,

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | September 4, 2010 6:43 PM

Yes I notice libertarians quick to take away other's social programs because "you can't force altruism" but ignore that the programs are there because people were not being charitable.

Besides if they love altruism so much they wouldn't MIND supporting welfare.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | September 4, 2010 6:52 PM

@64

Libertarianism is the biggest cluster fuck of inconsistency. Just about every single libertarian shows up and insists that every other one is "fringe". And no, if it was a continuum they would have a definable position, clearly there's no agreement on what the basis of libertarianism is.
Half are liberal progressives who feel the democrats fail (and they do....epically) the other half are conservatives who either want to take the moniker of progressive without actually helping anyone's civil rights or well fare or are Objectivists of some degree.

We seem to be violently agreeing as I said that the good things about libertarianism are not exclusive to it.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | September 4, 2010 6:59 PM

Yes, there are a lot of libertarian fucktards out there. Guess what? There's a lot of liberal fucktards and conservative fucktards screaming nonsense too.

But as for libertarianism, I personally fundamentally disagree both ideologically and practically with what I keep hearing espoused. Free-market solutions can work for particular circumstances, but they're not a one-fix solution. Neither is expecting all things that are in the public interest to maintain going to be maintained without overarching supervision. And lastly, non-free market solutions can and do work. The health systems and education systems in Northern Europe for example - better solutions and better results. So why go for a free market solution in those circumstances?

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | September 4, 2010 7:05 PM

@pwmoore57: Now that you have gotten the ego-stroking insults out of your system, perhaps you can point us to this large body of substantively different libertarian thought that presumably you know about.

Posted by: pinkboi | September 4, 2010 7:26 PM

This is why sceptics so often mock libertarians by pointing out that, technically speaking, the ungoverned yet highly capitalistic environment of Somalia should be a near utopia if libertarianism holds, and yet it is sadly afflicted with terrible violence.

Somalia, the anti-libertarian's best friend. Somalia seems to be doing well considering it has been subject to civil war and is in a poor part of Africa. Indeed, it's at least doing better than it was when it had a state in many areas (note that it does have a government now, but it's pretty powerless). The economy is bustling and private institutions are filling in. Most surprisingly, the airline industry blossomed after the state was abolished -

“Somalia After State Collapse: Chaos or Improvement?”
Better Off Stateless: Somalia Before and After Government Collapse

Is it not fair to say that any libertarian system would ultimately amount to little more than a charter for the privileged, further entrenching wealth and power in the hands of those who are already wealthy and powerful? Where are the altruistic and socially conscious credentials of the 'free market'? Without the intercession of a governmental body, how are coherent strategies of social improvement to be cordinated, funded and implemented?

One of the biggest issues with our government is it does exactly what you're suggesting a free market does. It provides a honeypot for control by wealthy elites. It has an amplifier effect. In terms of money, the wealthy have the most political power. In terms of numbers, the middle class has the most political power. The poor are by far the most powerless so, just like under a libertarian society, they must rely on their own ingenuity and the largess of people who aren't poor and they have the additional handicap of a government that doesn't have their interests at heart. In any system, you have to trust people to be good and there are market failures.

and a mandate for the fortunate to abdicate their moral responsibility to the less fortunate.

So are the only alternatives mandatory charity or no charity? Libertarianism isn't the position that one ought not to help the poor but that I shouldn't be forced, at gunpoint (figuratively) to do something, even if it's the right thing to do. Rich people gladly give away their money to worthy causes and that includes the Koch brothers.

Consider this, the vast majority of the money I give to the government through taxes does not go to the poor. Much of it goes to various pork-barrel spending, siphoning public funds to private contractors - corporate welfare. That even includes much of military spending. However, even if the government's only function was to give to the poor, why shouldn't I be allowed to donate to a different charity instead of the government? What if I thought my money could relieve more misery in the 3rd world than at home? What if some nonprofit was providing free social security but was administrating it more efficiently? Why should I have the moral decision forced on me one way or another?

Posted by: MadScientist | September 4, 2010 7:50 PM

I agree with eleusis #27. Although a lot of folks wish there were an evolutionary imperative for morals and politics, I get the (possibly mistaken) impression that a large number of them are libertarians. Perhaps this is just in keeping with Ayn Rand's perverse views of what is "natural" - and we all know of course that natural is good. Even in Plato's time there was this obsession with a "natural order" of things - the very same defective notion which is a pillar of imperialism and slavery. For a moment I was wondering if Shermer wrote using another name - but I haven't seen Shermer calling biologists "creationists" yet. Jerry Coyne drives Shermer batty and I can't understand why - but Shermer's responses haven't been this crazy yet.

Posted by: pinkboi | September 4, 2010 8:00 PM

By 'economy' do you mean piracy and warlords?

No. Read those pdfs.

Posted by: pinkboi | September 4, 2010 8:02 PM

They're as good as the people in them, no more, no less.

If that's the case, then it makes no difference whether there is a government or not. Of course good systems bring out the good in people and bad systems don't. Government can enforce its mandates with force and no non-profit has that ability.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | September 4, 2010 8:09 PM

pinkboi, if you think the Independent Institute is anything other than a looneytarian propaganda mill then guess again. I'd no more trust them to be truthful about the looneytarian paradise of Somalia than I'd trust the Catholic Church to be truthful about condoms and AIDS.

But I know better than to try to convince a looneytarian about the real fucking world. You assholes hate the real world because it shows your selfish fantasies to be unworkable. For instance, do you have a clue as to why government got into welfare? Of course you don't, you're a historical and economic illiterate like most of your fellow looneytarians.

The government started doing welfare because the private sector couldn't handle the load. Ever heard of the Great Depression? There were people literally starving and private charity couldn't help them. Now you looneytarians take the attitude "if they're starving it's their own damn fault, let 'em starve" but normal people don't agree. So the government got into the "don't let people starve" business.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | September 4, 2010 8:12 PM

The Somali economy is so bustling that piracy is a major industry. Of course looneytarians don't worry about piracy, since it's just the free market at work and the best preventive for piracy is government action which all good looneytarians know is BAD!

Posted by: maureen.brian#b5c92 | September 4, 2010 8:19 PM

'Tis Himself,

Do you think that pinkboi is really terminally thick or simply thick enough to mix up Somalia and the semi-detatched and slightly better organised Somaliland?

I am assuming that as a USAian he is blissfully free of all knowledge of history, colonialism or the two world wars.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | September 4, 2010 8:27 PM

I'll let your words speak for themselves. They do more damage to your position than even a good argument for mine can do.

No, pinkboi. Everyone here has wised up to the pro-forma tone/language argument and it won't wash.

I don't care how many "naughty words" 'Tis throws at you. I care about whether his argument (and yours) makes sense. Naughty words don't "hurt his position."

You know what constitutes an actual obscenity? You defending Somalia. That's depraved, and refraining from using swear words doesn't make it any less filthy.

Posted by: pinkboi | September 4, 2010 8:36 PM

Oh, I'm sorry "Josh, Official SpokesGay, HKFG" I misread your post as if it came form 'Tis. So replace "you" with "'Tis"

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 4, 2010 8:40 PM

I don't care if you say fuck or shit. Your lack of rational argument, hasty generalizations and ad hominem is what does your argument in.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | September 4, 2010 8:50 PM

I'll let your words speak for themselves. They do more damage to your position than even a good argument for mine can do.

That's a nice way not to deal with Tis' real world example of the Great Depression and private charity unable to help a lot of people.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | September 4, 2010 9:01 PM

Josh - Honestly, all he wants is a spanking.

Posted by: DLC | September 4, 2010 9:03 PM

The problem with Randian Libertarianism is that Rand counts on people's enlightened self interest, and there just too little enlightenment and way too much self-interest. If people actually were enlightened they would not heedlessly dump chemicals wherever and they would not have offshore oil platforms blowing up every 3 months. Government regulations would not be necessary because people would see how ruining the environment ruined it for them too. But, they don't. Instead, we have coal mines that collapse, oil platforms that blow up and management of such places that ignores fines and operates anyway. You really thing Massey Energy is one whit different than BP, or that either of those entities are any more enlightened than Rockefellar's Mob was back in the bad old days of the Trusts?

Posted by: pinkboi | September 4, 2010 9:37 PM

The Earth's atmosphere is warming. This is going to cause major shifts in weather patterns. Certain areas which were agriculturally productive will be less productive. Give a real world solution to this problem that doesn't involve governments. Be prepared to defend your position.

The solution offered by most libertarians is strict enforcement of property rights. No one can pollute my property without my permission. Of course, CO2 isn't a pollutant in the ordinary sense of the word - it's only a greenhouse gas which is why I think that alone is insufficient.

Legal orders should tax emissions and put the money into ecological trusts. People in an area adversely affected should be able to make claims against trusts held by legal orders representing polluters (and we're all polluters).

Note that, just like your previous "challenge", it is a global problem, not a nation-wide problem so unless you propose a world government, you can't claim a solution that I couldn't. Nations can abide by the Kyoto treaty or not or pretend to but not. Quite frankly, I think cap and trade is a bad idea. It's going to help wealthy corporations and hurt small businesses. A flat carbon tax is the way to go.

Since you can't be bothered to tell the difference between a small government libertarian and an anarchist, I imagine you might be confused that I would want to levy a carbon tax. What I don't want is for that tax to go into funding ethanol or whatever corporate-sponsored pork congress is interested in. The money should mostly go to the people with some going to eco-defense trusts that can be used to remedy issues caused by pollution.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 4, 2010 9:50 PM

Ah, liberturds, nothing but bad attitude and misinformation. They don't know economics and history. That's obvious to anyone who knows either. Therefore, they are doomed to repeat the mistakes of history with bad economics. Good thing most folks recognize them for the losers they are...

Posted by: MJP | September 4, 2010 10:03 PM

Since you can't be bothered to tell the difference between a small government libertarian and an anarchist,

Ironicly, the anarchists are usually much more socialistic than the libertarians.

Posted by: pinkboi | September 4, 2010 10:20 PM

Ironicly, the anarchists are usually much more socialistic than the libertarians.

Traditionally, anarco-socialists did call themselves libertarians (and many still do). The wonderful thing about a libertarian society is you can have socialism or communism (Kropotkin's communism, not Lenin's) and people can vote for their legal order with their feet. The important thing is it's opt-in, not mandatory. The radical left back in the late 1800s/early 1900s were anarco-syndicalists (for that matter, Spain almost became anarco-syndicalist!) and hated mega-corporations and the government. I feel that the Left has strayed so far from their radical roots they worship not only big government but big business.

Posted by: erminate | September 4, 2010 10:33 PM

Still waiting to see if my comment makes it through moderation. It's been awhile, so I'm starting to believe that it won't - So I'll post it here as well!

Wouldn't want my opinion of Larry Arnhart to go unseen. I'll even start by quoting his words - correctly, unlike him.

"I'll have to apologize for hastily taking a quotation out of context."

After quote-mining Professor Myers' words to claim exactly the opposite of what he actually said, this is the best you can do?

If you want to claim that you actually understood PZ's words, publicly demonstrating that you either didn't understand or are deliberately dishonest in your claims is -probably- not the best way of doing it. And -that- was all the apology you could come up with when your glaring error(s) were revealed?

See, I've been reading PZ's writings for some years now, and so far I've never seen him turning someone's words 180 degrees 'round by selective quotemines, 'hasty' or otherwise.

YOU on the other hand, have now been caught in at least one obvious falsehood, and your not-pology leads me to believe that it was intentional. Why should I listen to anything more that you have to say when you've just demonstrated publicly that you'll lie to make a point?
(And come on, do you really expect us to believe that "hastiness"is why you misquoted his statement by 180 degrees?) - What exactly were you hasty about, anyway? Did you neglect to actually read the whole statement, or were you just hasty in your choice to quote-mine, not realizing that other people would catch you at it?

And then, after you're caught making claims that were 100% false, what is your response?
Whoops, I was being hasty - Now, let me make more claims about his beliefs, even in the face of all the evidence that I'm wrong.

You sir, are no honest researcher. Nor an honest journalist, blogger, or whatever else you're claiming to be, either.

Fortunately, you've told me all I need to know about YOUR morals in this exchange. Are the rest of the libertarians as dishonestly self-serving as you are? Perhaps that's why the movement isn't catching on as you think it ought to, hmmm?

My thanks at least for putting this up in public where I and others can see it and judge for ourselves how much credence to give to your words.

Ermine

Posted by: Pacal | September 4, 2010 10:35 PM

Re: 97:

The solution offered by most libertarians is strict enforcement of property rights. No one can pollute my property without my permission. Of course, CO2 isn't a pollutant in the ordinary sense of the word - it's only a greenhouse gas which is why I think that alone is insufficient.

Legal orders should tax emissions and put the money into ecological trusts. People in an area adversely affected should be able to make claims against trusts held by legal orders representing polluters (and we're all polluters).

Of course strict enforcement of property rights requires strong governements. Otherwise economically powerful individuals, which includes corporations, would easily get around it, and screw people left and right.

Your solutions regarding legal trusts is hilarious and beautifully stupid. Powerful individuals would of course be able to hold up and pervert the process by their command of superior legal resources prolonging the litigation for decades etc. Of course the process of massive dismantling of governement would make the enforcement of these legal decisions much more difficult.

Although once again we see the solution that libertarians advance, your being screwed sue! Of course if you lack the resources to sue your screwed by such a system. Isn't it just beautiful that Libertarians who have such faith in the judicial system think governement is wicked and yet judges are wonderful.

One strand of Libertarian thinking as no problem with a vast expansion of judicial power over peoples lives and the turning of our society into a even more vastly ligigious place than it is now. It will be a heaven for Lawyers and Judges as they establish themselves as the new absolute rulers. Libertarians; why do so many them love Judicial tyranny?

As for Somalia. I've read the pdfs you reffered to. In fact I've read them quite a while ago. They contain much massive lying about Somalia. Ignoring that much of the so called "free Enterprise" is cronyism by Warlords and the result of networks of nepotism and clan corruption. Further it downplays / ignores, the vast system of protection rackets and extortion that go on. Also ignored is slavery, debt bondage, violence used to get people to work for you for very little to nothing. Of course what is also ignored is the system of clan and nepotism that also severly regiments peoples lives, to say nothing of the use systematic coercive ways of controling people from starving, threatening to torturing and murdering people in signifigant numbers. Of course in large areas of Somalia a particularily barbaric interpretation of Sharia law is in force.

The articles you refer to are most accurately characterized as "bullshit" and "lies".

All in all a typical libertarian feast of nonsense.

Posted by: seanjreynolds | September 4, 2010 11:51 PM

@64:

You people realize you sound just like the far right talking about liberals. "Liberal," "conservative," "libertarian," etc. are not discrete entities, they're just convenient labels along a continuum of political thought. Taking the fringe elements of any chunk of this continuum and drawing conclusions about the entire chunk is immature and fallacious.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmTN5lhyd8s5OJqUdagmKOz_xq2YhhoVpE | September 5, 2010 1:53 AM

I hope you have read Larry's correction in the discussion that followed. I, too, erred in my comments, having relied on Larry's comments rather than going back and reading your article. Had I done so, I would have been reminded that it was not nearly as coherent as Larry's comments implied it was. I would say that just because anyone and everyone has tried to use evolution to justify their political positions, that doesn't mean they are all valid. Some judgement should be used.

Let me ask the following questions: Are there places in this world where people are better off than in others? Worse off? What kind of politico-social-economic systems are present? Do we see patterns of material improvement and regression? May these differences have something to do with how well they fit human beings' evolved nature? I suspect they do.

I'm a classical liberal because it is the only world view consistent with maximizing human material improvment, human liberty, human excellence, and human virtue. The reason this is true is that it most closely matches our evolved nature. It is what emerges naturally, in a bottom-up fashion, from free human interactions. All other systems are imposed from the top-down (and top-down imposition sounds like -- dare I say -- creationism).

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | September 5, 2010 4:24 AM

Let me ask the following questions: Are there places in this world where people are better off than in others? Worse off? What kind of politico-social-economic systems are present? Do we see patterns of material improvement and regression? May these differences have something to do with how well they fit human beings' evolved nature? I suspect they do.

that's nice, but I have data, and the data says that the healthiest societies are social democracies with large governments, not capitalist paradises with small, business-owned governments: at the top of most metrics are the Scandinavian countries, Japan, and France; at the bottom is the USA.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | September 5, 2010 5:31 AM

All other systems are imposed from the top-down (and top-down imposition sounds like -- dare I say -- creationism).

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | September 5, 2010 11:10 AM

Here's the reason why Libertarianism of some forms fails.

In a natural pure setting, Selfish bastard wins over nice, wise, altruistic and wise. It does...every time. Brute force taking from the weak works. The only way altruism and niceness and security can survive and thrive is through collective bargining. The many weak decide rules and contracts and use the collective might to get the powerful to obey. Moral monsters and sociopathically selfish people are locked up by the weaklings, because we don't want them around. It's the rules we set up to encourage decency and discourage atrocity that allow our society to run. We've gotten better at it as we go along. In older times the only main concern was "can we keep other people from invading and killing us for our stuff?" Now we've got "can we keep our leaders from killing us for our stuff?". Co0operation is a powerful useful survival strategy that has the possibility to trump self-interest. Even if everyone in a society was enlightened (which is not plausible since reason and rationality is not the brain's default state), we would STILL need a government for the very basis of "ensuring outside forces don't fuck it up". Maddison pointed out that man is neither angel nor devil, the idea of government should be to foster the best and discourage the worst of people. Things like disaster response, military, police, famine relief, etc are not possibly with a non-cooperative society. This idea is so important to survival and thrival of our society that yes, we fucking force cooperation on dipshits who'd rather not have their taxes help some brown kid from New Orleans. Sorry, it's the price for living in a technological and politically advanced society. You get safety from elements, invaders, crime and luxuries from our science and entertainment that previously were reserved only for the richest of rich, in exchange for helping out with maintenance. If you don't like being forced to do that, you are free to leave...but don't use the fruits of co-operative society with our evil forced altruism and socialism while bitching about how enlightened selfishness is best.

The tea baggers who are on welfare and socialized programs bitching about it are just the most obvious example. If you fucking use the streets, or read from the libraries or book stores or even call the police when robbed or sleep easy at night knowing the socialism of 9 1 1 phone system will allow quick dispatch, then you're using non-libertarian advancements.

Posted by: pinkboi | September 5, 2010 12:21 PM

You're a fucking looneytarian. Which particular flavor of fucking looneytarian asshole you are doesn't mean shit. As shown by your failed attempts to solve real world problems, you're an idiot befuddled by an unrealistic philosophy.

You didn't respond to my preferred solution, the tax on destroying public property nor to the solution offered by most libertarians of property. My solution is based on pygovian taxes which have been tried and work very well. The private property has a history of working. Overgrazing happens on public lands (BLM) but not on private property. The fact that you didn't respond to my main points shows you really have nothing but huffing and puffing.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | September 5, 2010 12:34 PM

Ugh, not sure how that happened. Lost the rest.

"Even if you did solve the problem with a tax, you're more or less admitting that you had to rely on the government to fix the problem of keeping rapacious companies from utterly destroying public land.

And as to 'private property works', no, it doesn't, on the high seas. And private property without governmental oversight tends to cause problems like the dumping of pollution where it ultimately affects everyone".

And ther'es no way in hell a weak government can manage to put a capper on AGW.

Posted by: pinkboi | September 5, 2010 12:46 PM

And as to 'private property works', no, it doesn't, on the high seas. And private property without governmental oversight tends to cause problems like the dumping of pollution where it ultimately affects everyone".

That's why I suggested people should be allowed to own blocks of ocean out there. Then maybe Greenpeace can try to buy up important habitats. Since the ocean water itself and the air itself isn't anyone's property, there isn't a nice and tidy true libertarian solution to it. That's why I want to tax pollution.

Posted by: pinkboi | September 5, 2010 12:54 PM

Are you familiar with how businesses tend to view criminal violations not geared at screwing them over, like murder and fraud?

???

I'm not sure what you're point is.

Posted by: pinkboi | September 5, 2010 1:21 PM

Anyway, I'm bored of this thread and I'm about to leave on an adventure with my own TrophyWife™. So, I'll just leave you all with some essential viewing and reading that might clear up some misconceptions or get y'all thinking:

Milton Friedman - The Robin Hood Myth
The Founding of the Federal Reserve | Murray N. Rothbard
An Anarchist Legal Order (video) (apologies for the microsuck silverlight, but the first part seems to be missing form YouTube)

And my blog posts about my as-yet-unfinished EcoTax™ idea:
Soil Pill
My Proposal - EcoTax

Posted by: harold | September 5, 2010 2:01 PM

Pareidolius -

Uncle Denny sounds like a pretty cool guy, overall, despite his dumb politics.

Unfortunately, he is most atypical.

The difference between the average libertarian and Ebeneezer Scrooge is only that there is nothing - no ghost, no deity, NOTHING - that could change the libertarian. If Scrooge had been a libertarian, he would have been exactly the same, except that instead of lightening up, he would have written a nasty, dishonest, quote-mining blog post about Marley's ghost on Dec 26.

Posted by: harold | September 5, 2010 2:33 PM

The other key thing to remember is that liberturdians are would-be wingnuts who haven't even got the cojones to be overt wingnuts.

They secretly love Fox News, but they want to be "cool" (I said "want"). They don't want to be openly as crude, sexist, homophobic, and racist as some of the more prominent bellering heads of the right (I said "openly").

So they spend uncountable hours brewing up all of this cockamamie rationalization.

Posted by: harold | September 5, 2010 2:49 PM

That's why I suggested people should be allowed to own blocks of ocean out there.

Who are they going to buy them from, Einstein? The UN?

Who are you going to call when some pollution diffuses into your personal "block" of ocean? What standardized measurements of "pollution" will be set up and accepted? What jurisdiction will you take your claim to, when someone violates your little "block" of ocean?

Which jurisdiction is going to record the surveyed boundaries of your "block" of ocean? After all, private property isn't worth a thing unless a governed jurisdiction that protects private property rights recognizes it.

I understand that you think you're very, very clever, but to me, spinning complex yet naive rationalizations is dumb.

Seriously, just start listening to Rush Limbaugh and get yourself a sign with a picture of Obama dressed up as a "medicine man". That's what you really want anyway.

Posted by: destlund | September 5, 2010 3:49 PM

"They're the crazy, deaf, bellowing uncle of the great family of political perspectives."

Now I'm picturing my revolutionary socialist friends as the panicky aunt of the family, constantly wagging fingers and ringing the alarm call of the Final Crisis™ of Capitalism.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnG39uMFt69kwCKZ8DoxtmMCvmzr5chx94 | September 5, 2010 6:51 PM

OK. Libertarians are egoistic fools etc.

Now I want to know what IS the right political ideology. Here. Or there a list of more than one?

Posted by: blf | September 5, 2010 7:03 PM

Now I want to know what IS the right political ideology. Here. Or there a list of more than one?

None? They're all basically bonkers. It's the degree of bonkersdom, with loonytarians being magnificently bonkers, and thugs (formerly known as republicans) completely bonkers. Various other –isms are also mostly bonkers. People will disagree on the degree of bonkersdom, reasons for the bonkersdom rating, and even perhaps how bonkers specific points are (which is a bit of useless argument, since political platforms make the babble look completely truthful and unerringly accurate).

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | September 5, 2010 7:43 PM

Wow, I'm actually impressed with the libertarians in one small retroactive way;

This time, they didn't claim PZ's just ribbing them for traffic. Refreshing change, thanks guys.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | September 5, 2010 8:21 PM

@141

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | September 5, 2010 8:37 PM

Also responding to bullshit someone says, or pointing out problems, is not declaring war on someone.

If that happened I'd be a Paton helmet and rolling a tank up to every teacher I ever had.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | September 5, 2010 8:52 PM

The problem with discussing anything with looneytarians is there's so many different flavors of them. You argue against some generally held looneytarian position when the looneytarian you're arguing with says "my brand of libertarianism, the one and true libertarianism, doesn't have that flaw."

Another point about looneytarians is only people who have effective governments complain about how mean and nasty governments are. Most folks in the looneytarian paradise of Somalia would love to have a functional government which would keep the warlords off their backs. You don't find looneytarians in Somalia, you do find them in the US, Australia, Britain, and other places with effective governments.

BTW, pinkboi, David Friedman, like most anarcho-capitalists, hates democracy. He pushes for an oligarchal plutocracy where the rich control the world and everyone else is just fucked. And don't tell me I'm wrong. I've read

The Machinery of Freedom

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | September 5, 2010 9:02 PM

I'm sure glad I live in a society that has laws that would allow me to sue any libertarian jackass who would give me a "well deserved punch" into bankruptcy.

So much for loving those liberties.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | September 5, 2010 9:23 PM

@149

Yes, see I can think that cause I actually like this idea of free speech.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | September 5, 2010 9:36 PM

It is just so naïve to think that you can talk to people the way you are doing and that that is not to declare war.

Fuck off, shithead. :-þ

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | September 5, 2010 9:43 PM

Btw, what the FUCK is conserned?

How old are you, 12?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 5, 2010 9:53 PM

It is just so naïve to think that you can talk to people the way you are doing and that that is not to declare war.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | September 5, 2010 10:01 PM

Fucktard googlemess,

You can use google to find spell checkers for free on the internet.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | September 5, 2010 10:11 PM

Actually, using derogatory language at someone is to declare war on that someone.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 5, 2010 10:15 PM

Maybe our concern idjit would prefer the intersuction. How you say something is more important the substance of what you say. Say something bad about us. They will love you.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnG39uMFt69kwCKZ8DoxtmMCvmzr5chx94 | September 5, 2010 10:26 PM

You know, it took me a while to understand that you PZ-people actually had these attitude to niceness and concern, and all these really bad feelings about "accommodationists" and all that. I was first a little bit shaken by it, also by the way the message was delievered with all this "idiot", "fucktard", and all of this other very mature language (more like by the bullies on the school yard).

No more. I really just laugh at you. You are so funny. Are you trying to impress on each other, or what? So silly that it is almost charming.

Anyway I will look for that spell checker. That was a good advice. Thanks!

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 5, 2010 10:45 PM

No more. I really just laugh at you. You are so funny. Are you trying to impress on each other, or what? So silly that it is almost charming.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 5, 2010 10:53 PM

I doubt a thug would even be welcomed there.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | September 5, 2010 10:57 PM

I still can't wrap my head around pinkboi's claim that private companies don't destroy their property. I guess he thinks that the majority of surviving redwoods exists on company land, while those areas from which they disappeared because of development and clearcutting are public parks...?

Posted by: harold | September 5, 2010 11:03 PM

Actually, using derogatory language at someone is to declare war on that someone.

No, actually, here in America, using "derogatory language" is a guaranteed constitutional right. (It is, in fact, impossible to declare war on an individual, except if one refers symbolically to a national head of state.)

Just warning you that that sort of habbit will earn you a well deserved punch in your face, some day.

Actually, punches in the face are only well-deserved when they're delivered in self-defense.

Ironically, if an insecure, brittle-egoed jerk were to find the courage to flail out in an attack, it would be the defensive smash in the face by your intended victim that would be "well-deserved" and constitute self-defense in a court of law.

Not from me,

LOL!!!!!!!!!! "Not from me, I rage impotently and in cowardice, but in my frustration, I fantasize that someone else might do what I cannot".

I really just laugh at you,

No, actually, you fly into a red-cheeked, teary-eyed, frustrated, impotent rage and hurl cowardly anonymous threats.

but some others may be less humouristic.

I doubt if that's possible.

A veiled threat? LOL!

There was nothing veiled about it. Impotent and cowardly, yes, veiled, no.

I really don't care at all about you

Obviously, you do care very deeply. Your insecurity and cognitive dissonance are exaccerbated even beyond their baseline level by reading intelligent criticism. That's your problem.

and your brothers/comrades/whatever here.

?

It is just so naïve to think that you can talk to people the way you are doing and that that is not to declare war.

No, what is naive is to think that your infantile narcissism could ever give you the right to physically attack another person for "criticizing libertarianism", without suffering the impact of their justified self-defense, followed by incarceration, a life time as an ex-con, and the shame and financial ruin of losing a civil law suit.

Posted by: harold | September 5, 2010 11:10 PM

Also @ "google accounts"

By the way, I am usually "nice and concerned", and an "accomodationist" who has no problem with any religion whatsoever - except when religion is used as an excuse to violate human rights and deny scientific reality.

I don't agree with every word everyone ever says on this blog, but it's a forum for intelligent discussion and anyone who has the wits to do so can defend their own position.

You are the one who entered a fairly civil discussion with threats - not implied threats, not veiled threats, threats - of violence.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnG39uMFt69kwCKZ8DoxtmMCvmzr5chx94 | September 5, 2010 11:36 PM

I wonder how long the world would have lasted during the cold war the PZ way? A week? Well, I guess Ronald Reagan got close enough with his "empire of evil", and it actually worked to stress them into an even faster arms race with "star wars" etc. MAD, "Mutually Assured Destruction". Maybe Reagan understood that ther where done alredy and ready to fall? Funny hero though for people who are so much against libertarianism.

Btw, "big swinging dick" is a term from "Liar's Poker" by Michael Lewis. Check it out.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | September 5, 2010 11:58 PM

So apparently "I'm done" == "I'm going to continue talking like an insane person"

It's not often we get tone debate so insane that they accuse PZ of starting wars.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | September 5, 2010 11:59 PM

Funny hero though for people who are so much against libertarianism.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | September 6, 2010 12:27 AM

Yawn. What a fuck head dear little googlemess is.

Time for bed for me too. My ghoul humour is a fail, and not even ghoul humour could save that fucktard troll.

Good night sweethearts!

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 6, 2010 12:32 AM

Ah, a liberturd as I suspected. Total idjit loser, morally bankrupt, with nothing cogent to say. As has been shown by repeated inane and wrong posts.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | September 6, 2010 12:42 AM

@183

...are you high?

Posted by: erminate | September 6, 2010 12:53 AM

[*LONG post deleted after seeing that everyone else has already covered it all* *shakes a tiny weasel fist* Damn you all!]

I never threatened anyone. Just said what I think can happen. I am almost sure you can tell the difference.

It wasn't just something that you 'think can happen', not when you use the words 'well-deserved'. In adding that, you were saying that you think they deserve that punch in the face, and that is definitely a (badly) veiled threat.

You've undeniably said that you think that mere words (e.g. idiot or fucktard) are deserving of violence, and in my mind that makes you an immature thug. (as well as an idiot and fucktard, whaddya know!)

..Anyway, I thought you were leaving? The door is thataway!

If "rude diplomacy" is so great it should have been used more in many other areas as well.

I.. No, you really are an idiot. Accommodation hasn't worked in 10,000 years. I got nothing more to say, you aren't even making sense anymore. (not that you were making much to begin with, but now you've gone completely insane. Reagan?? WTF?)

I used to think that maybe, just maybe, some of the libertarians might have a point, but every one that shows up here either changes their mind in the face of evidence, runs away after being challenged, or dissolves into gibbering insanity over the course of a thread. You are well into gibbering, congratulations!
Nighty night, don't let the Communists bite!

Ermine

Posted by: gex | September 6, 2010 2:17 AM

Reagan is actually described as an economic libertarian on Libertapedia.

And evolution is described as false on Conservapedia. And Janis Joplin was described as being afraid of toilets and speedwalking everywhere on Wikipedia.

Oh, and libertarianism is described as a shallowly thought out philosophy in the Gexapedia. But that one is accurate.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnG39uMFt69kwCKZ8DoxtmMCvmzr5chx94 | September 6, 2010 5:38 AM

"Mere words" is of course exactly what I have offered here, and no more. How long do I have to wait for you to sue me for the "threat"? LOL. Speaking about mere words.

And speaking about violence: "No matter how many times you smack a libertarian in the head, you still want to do it again. The joy of it never palls."

Re: Reagan. If libertarians say that someone is libertarian, then he is, at least their kind of libertarian. As they say, it takes one to know one.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 6, 2010 6:31 AM

If libertarians say that someone is libertarian, then he is, at least their kind of libertarian. As they say, it takes one to know one.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnG39uMFt69kwCKZ8DoxtmMCvmzr5chx94 | September 6, 2010 8:25 AM

I am abviously worth a lot of your time. Without value of course when there is so much excess of it.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | September 6, 2010 10:54 AM

@196
Weren't you leaving? Do you want help with that?

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | September 6, 2010 4:45 PM

@199

No, fuck that. The republicans gained respect when the John Birch Society was removed form the big table. Them coming back in adds a stench to the whole tend. I'm with Orac, we don't kick them out, but we damn well make it known we think this stuff is irrational and are the warts on the movement's anus. Holocaust skeptics should not be respected along side Homeopath debunkers.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | September 6, 2010 5:27 PM

Reagan had some looneytarian tendencies. He hated government, he hated the poor, he was fascinated with guns, and he wanted government off peoples' backs except when his morality was offended, then he wanted the offensive stuff outlawed. All of those are looneytarian attributes.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkEbOgMlzI4FZECEOobJ9LTT61O2wo9D8s | September 7, 2010 4:13 PM

I'm always amazed at how common it is for people to just vilify and straw man people who they don't agree with, politically speaking. Unlike science and religion, politics is not just a matter of logic, evidence and reason. It is partly that, but it is also far more complex.

I think it's very easy to lose sight of the fact that nearly everyone wants to make this country a better place to live. We would do well to spend time researching the views of people we disagree with and try to understand WHY they believe what they believe. This would be far more constructive than just belittling them and willfully misunderstanding them.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | September 7, 2010 5:36 PM

I think it's very easy to lose sight of the fact that nearly everyone wants to make this country a better place to live. We would do well to spend time researching the views of people we disagree with and try to understand WHY they believe what they believe. This would be far more constructive than just belittling them and willfully misunderstanding them.

There are some people whose ideal country is so repulsive, so horrible, so abhorrent that they are not deserving of any sort of respect. Looneytarians are such a group.

Have you ever read Murray Rothbard?

We contend here, however, that the model of government is akin, not to the business firm, but to the criminal organization, and indeed that the State is the organization of robbery systematized and writ large.

How about Lew Rockwell on Rothbard?

He was also the architect of the body of thought known around the world as libertarianism. This radically anti-state political philosophy unites free-market economics, a no-exceptions attachment to private property rights, a profound concern for human liberty, and a love of peace, with the conclusion that society should be completely free to develop absent any interference from the state, which can and should be eliminated. [emphasis added]

The Libertarian Party Platform has some interesting ideas:

We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever.

The party supports segregation.

Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection.

This is a lie. The Cuyahoga River, which runs through Akron and Cleveland, used to catch on fire regularly. It wasn't private enterprise which cleaned up the Cuyahoga, it was the EPA enforcing the Clean Water Act.

We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment.

The party supports child labor.

We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies and unconstitutional legal tender laws.

I'm an economist. If you're interested I can give reasons why these proposals would be economic suicide for this or any other first or second world country. For instance, the bit about "unconstitutional legal tender laws" is a desire to go back to the gold standard. There were several sound reasons why every industrialized country dropped the gold standard and instituted fiat currency in the 1930s. Those reasons have not gone away.

Why are the looneytarians a problem? Crackpots are usually harmless; how about the Libertarian Party?

In itself, I'm afraid, it's nothing but a footnote. It gets no more than 1% of the vote- a showing that's been surpassed historically by the Anti-Masonic Party, the Free Soilers, the Prohibition Party, the Socialists, and whatever Ralph Nader was. If that was all it was, I wouldn't bother to devote rants to looneytarians. I'm all for the expression of pure eccentricity in politics; I like the Brits' Monster Raving Looney Party.

Why are libertarian ideas important? Because of their influence on the Republican Party. They form the ideological basis for the Reagan/Gingrich/Bush revolution. The Republicans have taken the libertarian "Government is Bad" horse and ridden far with it:

● Reagan's "Government is the problem"
● Phil Gramm's contention that the country's "economic crisis" and "moral crisis" were due to "the explosion of government"
● Dole's 1996 campaign, advancing the notion that taxes were "Your Money" being taken from you
● Gingrich's Contract with America (welfare cuts, tax cuts, limitations on corporations' responsibility and on the government's ability to regulate them)
● Dick Armey's comment that Medicare is "a program I would have no part of in a free world"
● Bush's tax cuts, intended not only to reward the rich but to "starve the beast", in Grover Norquist's words: to create a permanent deficit as a dangerous ploy to reduce social spending
● Intellectual support for attacks on the quality of working life in this county and for undoing the New Deal

Maybe this use of their ideas is appalling to "Real Libertarians". Well, it's an appalling world sometimes. Do you think I'm happy to have national representatives like Gore, Kerry or Obama?

At least some libertarians have understood the connection. Rothbard again, writing in 1994:

The truth is that since we have been stuck with a two-party system, any electoral revolution against big government had to be expressed through a Republican victory. So it is certainly true that Newt Gingrich and his faction, as well as Robert Dole, have ridden to power on the libertarian wave.

Can you smell the compromise here? Hold your nose and vote for the Repubs, boys. But then don't pretend to be uninvolved when the Republicans start making a mockery of limited government.

There's a deeper lesson here, and it's part of why I don't buy libertarian portraits of the future utopia. Movements out of power are always anti-authoritarian; it's no guarantee that they'll stay that way. Communists before 1917 promised the withering away of the state. Fascists out of power sounded something like socialists. The Republicans were big on term limits when they could be used to unseat Democrats; they say nothing about them today. If you don't think it can happen to you, you're not being honest about human nature and human history.

Posted by: maureen.brian#b5c92 | September 8, 2010 9:08 AM

Persons of a historical disposition may be interested in the early story of Cuyahoga - river and county - before it all became both toxic and inflammable.

No, I have not sat for three days trying to find this. I knew exactly where to put my cursor upon it.

Posted by: maureen.brian#b5c92 | September 8, 2010 6:36 PM

Partly 'cos I'm that particular flavour of nuts.

Mostly, though, because a high proportion of the emigrants to that area, 1820-40 and onwards, were Manx and some were certainly related to me, some came from the same village.