Politics

[grovester]

"Watering down" libertarian ideals and being willing to compromise doesn't make one a democrat or republican, imo. It makes one a pragmatic libertarian.

Compromise is a dirty word to a large section of the populace that might consider themselves "libertarian".

[mean]

I've considered myself libertarian for 12 years according to my membership card, and while it may be true that some people who may be considered "the face(s) of libertarianism" seem like (or are, for all I know) idealistic absolutists and/or hardcore rah-rah Randian objectivist intellectual masturbators, I don't think that is true for the vast majority. At least, it isn't for the ones I know.

I don't agree with everything in the LP platform, but it is generally closer to my way of thinking that either the Democratic or Republican platforms. What other party is pro-gun, pro-gay, non-interventionist, pro-privacy, rabidly pro-individual-liberty, anti-prohibition, and pro-immigration? Defining libertarianism solely in terms of its economic philosophy--which is most often where I diverge with the party's platform--is very strange to me. I didn't find the party attractive because of their economic philosophy, if anything I found them attractive in spite of it.

Signed,
The Bad Libertarian Who Wanted Single-Payer Healthcare

[grovester]

Apostate!

[mean]

I know, I know. It just seemed evident to me that a government's first and most basic duty is to protect the rights of its citizens. Hard to do that if they're dead.

[grovester]

I feel for libertarians, but it seems a philosophy that can't be diluted or compromised. I'll be happy to be wrong moving forward. I guess the solution is change the name to "modertarian" or "Darwin's Ghost" and run with it. At this point, anything that makes the government function is ok with me. A middle way voting bloc would get that done.

[mean]

I think you're thinking of republican-style libertarianism.

[phuqueue]

Yeah, there's actually a few Depression-era towns that were established in Missouri as communal farming communities. Follows that definition of socialism, but don't tell them that.

While American 'socialism' isn't the same as European forms, a stronger form in the US is growing govt dependency for those struggling rather than working towards self-sufficiency. You may not be able to point to someone who directly promotes govt dependency (socialism), but it's significantly present while working towards self-sufficiency is not a primary focus for either DEM/GOP. The LBT view would probably be that the private sector needs to address this but also that govt shouldn't be catering to govt dependency - some might say that is how they maintain their power.

Once again, "govt dependency" is not what the word socialism means. Moreover, you seem to be confusing "promoting dependency" with providing a basic safety net for people who literally cannot find work right now. There's this weirdly persistent idea that some huge swath of the population is content to leech off the state without ever taking care of themselves -- I can only assume that people who subscribe to this idea are utterly oblivious to how much money welfare programs actually pay out and how not glamorous that lifestyle really is. I'm not sure if you've looked around lately but we're in an anemic economy where job growth has been even more sluggish than the economy as a whole. We still haven't even reached our pre-crisis peak number of jobs again yet. I suspect you haven't tried to apply for a new job lately, but employers aren't exactly champing at the bit to hire anybody who walks through the door.

Incidentally, this assistance is also important for getting the economy back on its feet so they eventually can get jobs. The easy credit hangover is depressing demand, which is why suppliers cut back (ie eliminated jobs). Put money in the hands of people who are going to use it (if you're living off unemployment or food stamps you're not squirreling that money away from a rainy day, you have to eat and pay your rent and so on) to induce demand and stimulate growth. In principle it's pretty straightforward. So hell, even if you've got no sympathy for the jobless, there's something in it for you too.

I've considered myself libertarian for 12 years according to my membership card, and while it may be true that some people who may be considered "the face(s) of libertarianism" seem like (or are, for all I know) idealistic absolutists and/or hardcore rah-rah Randian objectivist intellectual masturbators, I don't think that is true for the vast majority. At least, it isn't for the ones I know.

I don't agree with everything in the LP platform, but it is generally closer to my way of thinking that either the Democratic or Republican platforms. What other party is pro-gun, pro-gay, non-interventionist, pro-privacy, rabidly pro-individual-liberty, anti-prohibition, and pro-immigration? Defining libertarianism solely in terms of its economic philosophy--which is most often where I diverge with the party's platform--is very strange to me. I didn't find the party attractive because of their economic philosophy, if anything I found them attractive in spite of it.

Signed,
The Bad Libertarian Who Wanted Single-Payer Healthcare

I mean, I'm not really interested in fighting over how you choose to self-identify. You're a libertarian, great. I think it's already well-worn ground in this thread that those who identify with a particular philosophy nonetheless rarely if ever subscribe to every last tenet therein. If you're "more" libertarian than not, it's probably perfectly fair to call yourself a libertarian (hell, call yourself a libertarian in any case, I don't care), but there's a difference between an individual libertarian, who may be willing to depart from the philosophy on specific issues where some other answer makes more sense to him, and libertarianism, which stands for a specific set of ideals. The distinction may seem academic or trivial, and in most contexts it probably is, but in this particular case we're talking about whether the philosophy itself is extreme (although I do think we're just about done talking about that at this point) so the distinction is meaningful.

[grovester]

I think you're thinking of republican-style libertarianism.

I guess. I'd be happy to know the difference.

[mean]

I figure it's where rigid idealism trumps reason and compromise. Seems like the kind of thing a republican is more likely to do than a democrat, which I've always felt may have something to do with their relatively increased religiosity. Something about treating their political ideals as holy law writ by god himself, I guess.

In my opinion, there's no room for rigid idealism in politics. I mean, I'd love a federal government compact enough to operate with zero income tax revenue. It's a grand ideal. I like it. I'm glad it's in the LP platform. Is it gonna happen? Not a chance. That doesn't mean it's not an ideal worth believing in, in an abstract and academic way. It doesn't mean it's not worth working toward by making incremental changes. It does mean it's not an ideal worth dragging out and beating people over the head with. Or, really, even arguing about at all. We could have a debate about whether such a small government would be able to adequately serve the needs of its citizens in modern times, but that'd be essentially like debating whether a unicorn could jump over the moon. So why bother?

[knucklehead]

Interesting document from the Koch's Brothers annual retreat. Shows the program and the last four pages list attendees.

Don't see anyone from the Kansas City Area.

Notice the hysterical wording of the cover letter. Poor poor billionaires are facing the fight of their lifetime. One of the panel descriptions talks about the need to fight "the rising power of unions" - seriously, unions are gaining power? These people are apparently delusional (but you can't rule out the possibility they are so corrupt they lie to each other)

Sadly the US Chamber of Commerce provided two panelists. Don't understand how anyone can take the Chamber of Commerce seriously.

They also had Glenn Beck and Charles Krauthammer speak - shows the level of intellect of these creeps.

http://images2.americanprogressaction.o ... eeting.pdf

[taxi]

While it is interesting, it's more than 3 years old.

[aknowledgeableperson]

May be an interesting November election period. Many talking heads are predicting a GOP win in both increasing the # of House seats and winning a majority in the Senate. Seems Obama's ratings are in the low 40's and that is not a good sign.

[flyingember]

99% of talking heads get it wrong.

if you listened to that statistic by itself this far out then Obama wouldn't have been reelected. he had an approval rating in the 40s this far out from the election

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barac ... roval.aspx


the group who got the election 100% right, 538, used raw statistical analysis based on past performance for elections and had multiple sources. I generally don't think any single thing can tell you what will happen. especially since his approval rating is going to vary state by state

[earthling]

Given that the US House is voted by districts and Senate is voted by state as a whole (2 for each state), seems likely the House could continue to win a majority of GOP long term as many districts are rural/small town. Many young progressives/liberals tend to leave spread out districts for the cities and/or liberal college towns, so it maintains a lopsided conservative/traditional mindset for the long run in many rural/small town districts. But if more blue-leaning voters concentrate to fewer blue states or if GOP steers away from far right, then is plausible the GOP could gain more in the Senate.

MO is one state close to going red for both Senators given MO now has a slight red identity - it perhaps attracts red leaning to move to MO and blue leaning to leave - I wonder if there is any stat out there on that. Given STL city is still shrinking and KC/STL blue counties aren't growing at same pace as Southern MO, MO could go further red.

So while the US majority seems blue/indie leaning and growing with millennials more liberal-leaning than ever, if they concentrate into fewer places/states, it gives GOP the edge.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

[chaglang]

It's like projecting the World Series winner based on spring training stats.

[earthling]

^Agree for the Senate in Congress - too many moving parts that can be easily influenced by current events at the point of elections to determine if GOP could gain a few more seats. For House, would give it 98% chance GOP maintains control. If blue-leaners don't want GOP to have to gerrymandering control, they need to spread out more. If bluebees concentrate into fewer areas/states, they will allow GOP to gain control. But then again, it's the Indies who are majority, not liking either identity and could go either way - currently DEM leaning at this point but could easily change if GOP's lighten up and dump the far right, tea partiers and dominionists/theocrats. Might be too much to ask for next election.

[aknowledgeableperson]

"if you listened to that statistic by itself this far out then Obama wouldn't have been reelected. he had an approval rating in the 40s this far out from the election"

There is more to it than Obama's approval ratings. There are more Dem Senate seats at risk in Red states. They were elected 6 years ago riding on Obama's coattails. Obama isn't running this time and much like in 2010 there will be a few of his supporters not showing up.


Yes, it is along time until the election and many things can happen. But it just shows the Dems do have some work to do.

[aknowledgeableperson]

99% of talking heads get it wrong.
...
the group who got the election 100% right, 538, used raw statistical analysis based on past performance for elections and had multiple sources. I generally don't think any single thing can tell you what will happen. especially since his approval rating is going to vary state by state

Will you take this as a viable prediction? Right now someone has the GOP having a 60% chance of gaining control of the Senate (that is winning 6 seats) and a 30% chance of a bigger win.

fivethirtyeight.com plus ABCNews.go.com/ThisWeek

[chaglang]

Just as when you kicked this up a week ago, it's still March.

538 also noted that the states with the closest Senate races have the least or least reliable polling data.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Yes, it is still March but it does indicate that the Dems cannot afford to take a breather and cruise through the election cycle.