The infamous Super Koch Bros. are finally cashing in their chips, assimilating long-standing libertarian thinktank Cato Institute into their web of astroturfy pseudo-conservative job-creator cult organizations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/us/cato-institute-and-koch-in-rift-over-independence.html

Quote :

"Now, however, a rift with one of its founding members — the billionaire conservative Charles Koch — is threatening the institute’s identity and independence, its leaders say, and is exposing fault lines over Mr. Koch’s aggressive and well-financed brand of Republican politics. The rift has its roots, Cato officials said, in a long-simmering feud over efforts by Mr. Koch and his brother David Koch to install their own people on the institute’s 16-member board and to establish a more direct pipeline between Cato and the family’s Republican political outlets, including groups that Democrats complain have mounted a multimillion-dollar assault on President Obama. Tensions reached a new level with a lawsuit filed last week by the Kochs against Cato over its governing structure. “We can’t be perceived as a mouthpiece of special interests,” Robert A. Levy, chairman of Cato’s board, said in an interview. “The Cato Institute as we know it would be destroyed.” "

http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2012/03/libertarians-only-now-at-end-do-you.html

Quote :

" Given my history of critiquing libertarianism, it would hardly be surprising if I felt a flash of gleeful schadenfreude to see the dismay with which so many movement libertarians are reacting to the Koch takeover of the Cato Institute. But I don't. I just feel sad. Here are a bunch of smart people who truly, honestly believe in their worldview - a worldview that shares some key elements with my own - discovering for the first time that they are in fact merely a proxy army for people who don't take them or their worldview seriously at all. To those of us outside the movement, the fact that libertarians are a proxy army has always been painfully obvious. The key piece of evidence was always the set of issues that libertarians chose to emphasize. Most Americans share the idea that civil liberties are good, war is to be avoided, and high taxes are bad. But the fact that our country's libertarian movement spent so much time fighting high taxes and so little time fighting the encroaching authoritarianism of conservative presidential administrations was a clear sign that some priorities were seriously out of place. Should we really be more afraid of turning into Sweden than turning into Singapore? The contrast between libertarians' continual jeremiads against taxes and their muted, intermittent criticism of things like warrantless wiretaps, executive detention, and torture was a huge tip-off that the movement was really just some kind of intellectual front for America's right wing. The thing is, the soldiers in this proxy army didn't seem to realize they were a proxy army. They appeared, and appear, to truly believe in their synthetic ideology; they seemed deeply convinced of the Rand/Nozick idea that taxes and environmental regulation represented a more dire threat to human freedom than the authoritarianism that had been the bane of earlier freedom advocates since Enlightenment. "

One more : http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/03/the-kochtopus-vs-those-individuals-now-seized-of-the-cato-institute-or-no-libertarians-in-foxholes-department.html

That one with quotes from various members of Cato, some for, some against, some sitting on the fence.

[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 10:13 AM. Reason : .]

3/6/2012 10:12:32 AM

Quote :

"The contrast between libertarians' continual jeremiads against taxes and their muted, intermittent criticism of things like warrantless wiretaps, "

lol nice. rebranding libertarians as republicans by redefining libertarianism is a pretty good idea for democrats.

[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 10:22 AM. Reason : a]

3/6/2012 10:21:35 AM

being unyielding in their support for warrantless wiretaps, the patriot act, TSA, and other privacy violations, the democratic party is quick to rebuff any related attacks as more republican fearmongering

3/6/2012 10:29:21 AM

He didn't say "all libertarians" he said "our country's libertarian movement".

It's not your fault your ideological label has been co-opted by the "tea party" brand of mouth-breathing conservatism disguised as libertarianism.

3/6/2012 10:31:07 AM

Quote :

"and so little time fighting the encroaching authoritarianism of conservative presidential administrations was a clear sign that some priorities were seriously out of place. Should we really be more afraid of turning into Sweden than turning into Singapore? The contrast between libertarians' continual jeremiads against taxes and their muted, intermittent criticism of things like warrantless wiretaps, executive detention, and torture was a huge tip-off that the movement was really just some kind of intellectual front for America's right wing. "

Not sure where that comes from honestly. CATO, the folks at Reason magazine, and some of the more high profile Libertarian media members (like Radley Balko) are all over the constant winnowing away of our civil liberties. Hell, just read theagitator.com if you want to see stuff about police militarization, privacy violations, etc. It's one of the only places you can find ANY coverage of that kind of stuff.

3/6/2012 10:37:07 AM

Quote :

"It's not your fault your ideological label has been co-opted by the "tea party" brand of mouth-breathing conservatism disguised as libertarianism."

Winner winner! Uncoincidentally, it was Koch's AFP that made the Tea Party what it is, and all he's trying to do with Cato is complete the process. All the libertarians who might care wont do shit, because at best they can only devote half of their time to fighting the Republicans. The other half is spent saying "Well erm that's not to say Democrats are any better you see..."


[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 10:44 AM. Reason : .]

3/6/2012 10:40:33 AM

Resistance is Futile.

3/6/2012 10:49:04 AM

Wait... The uber rich are spending money on influencing others to further their personal agenda? Fundamentalists are infiltrating groups to spread their message?

No. Fucking. Way.

3/6/2012 10:53:54 AM

It's not really an infiltration, Koch was one of the founding members of Cato. He's just consolidating power over it.

3/6/2012 10:56:28 AM

"HEH! You guys are PAID to be anti-government! We're government stooges for free! :smug:" - democrats

3/6/2012 11:02:43 AM

I have a very tough time trusting and agreeing with people who are overtly religious and politically active at the same time.

The libertarians who are also jesus freaks scare me just as much as any other fanatical group.

I am attracted to libertarianism because, among other things, it views people and grants them rights as individuals, not groups.

When someone is overtly religious, it seems that they tend to label others or viewpoints outside of their group as hostile or inferior. And this label is not based on rational or logical reasoning; more on what their peer group tells them to think.

3/6/2012 11:07:20 AM

If you look into the history of these organizations, you'll see that there's no single faction or libertarian "establishment", which is to be expected considering that consolidation of libertarians is similar to herding cats.

If you had to split the broader libertarian movement into factions, there is the Astroturf/Kochtopus/"Tea Party" libertarian faction, and there is the Austrian/Mises/Rothbard/Ron Paul faction. On the surface, they largely advocate the same policies. If you look a little closer, you'll find that the former pays lip service to libertarian ideals, while the latter actually believes in them. I know many, many people that consider themselves part of the "liberty movement", and almost all view the Koch brothers as disingenuous.

A good Democratic party strategy would be to lump the Ron Paul/Austrian economics crowd in with the Koch brothers. This allows them to avoid any debate on economics, which from their perspective, is for the best. Both party establishments are better served if the people don't realize they're on a sinking ship.

A pretty good rundown of the history between Rothbard and the Koch brothers can be found here: http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2010/12/understanding-rothbard-koch-break.html

[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 11:10 AM. Reason : ]

3/6/2012 11:08:18 AM

Democrats are at least honest about their intentions. GOP has been claiming for decades that they're all about smaller government, lower debt, blah blah blah, all while doing the complete opposite every fucking time they get their majorities. Yet still libertarians, despite claiming to be non-partisan, almost strictly buy into GOP rhetoric on those issues; that is, believing the GOP is better than the Dems from a fiscal perspective (Even though Ron Paul would be even better!) when history says otherwise.

Quote :

"When someone is overtly religious, it seems that they tend to label others or viewpoints outside of their group as hostile or inferior. And this label is not based on rational or logical reasoning; more on what their peer group tells them to think."

How you can say this, then say you're attracted to a political subculture whose basic premise is "You're either with us or you're in favor of brutal tyranny." ???



And yeah, destroyer, you're doing just what's been costing the libertarians their integrity. Trying so hard to even-handed trash both Dems and Reps that you're blinding yourself to which one is really the greater threat to liberty and free markets (Hint, it's the one that overcompensates the most).

[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 11:13 AM. Reason : .]

3/6/2012 11:09:23 AM

yeah thats great. lets all vote for the party that's anti-personal freedom because they said they're anti-personal freedom. that makes it better.

3/6/2012 11:12:01 AM

obama is TOOOTALLY different!!! he reauthed the patriot act! he installed full body scanners in airports! bush would NEVER have done those thing! this is the change i believe in!

3/6/2012 11:13:08 AM

also obama is a BIG FAN OF SCIENCE!!! he gave all this money to hsi friends failed solar businesees!! it doesnt matter that solar is a dead end and a terrible waste of everyones time! he knows better becuase hes the president and government is never wrong!

3/6/2012 11:14:21 AM

Well, to be fair, Obama has behaved like a Republican since taking office. Just about every self-identified Democrat on the street is just as upset about the PATRIOT reauth, detention, gitmo, drug war, iraqistan wars, iran sabre rattling, etc. Meanwhile, every self-identified Republican chooses not to talk about these issues because they agree with Obama's positions that are continuations of Bushes.

Quote :

"it doesnt matter that solar is a dead end and a terrible waste of everyones time!"

Triple posts notwithstanding, now you're just being stupid. Solyndra failed because it couldn't compete with Chinese panel manufacturers low prices. Prices that were so low, I might add, because China invested literally 10x more in solar development than the US did, faster, and to a wider range of solar companies. That is to say; Solyndra was priced out by the Chinese Solyndras.

[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 11:16 AM. Reason : .]

3/6/2012 11:15:09 AM

Quote :

"Yet still libertarians, despite claiming to be non-partisan, almost strictly buy into GOP rhetoric on those issues; that is, believing the GOP is better than the Dems from a fiscal perspective (Even though Ron Paul would be even better!) when history says otherwise."

This is true of some libertarians and very untrue of others. Yes, less spending and less debt is objectively better, but so is less war. Libertarians don't have a good option to choose from. Republicans like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are the only ones that seem sincere.

You've made the claim before that Ron Paul is like any other politician, and that he'd ultimately cave to the same special interests as any other guy. Your theory just doesn't hold water. If Ron Paul were going to compromise, he would have done it long ago.

Quote :

"Well, to be fair, Obama has behaved like a Republican since taking office"

Oh, come on. You're moving the goal posts like crazy here. You don't get to rebrand libertarianism as a "proxy for the GOP", then when a Democrat gets in office, say he's a proxy Republican.

Quote :

"Trying so hard to even-handed trash both Dems and Reps that you're blinding yourself to which one is really the greater threat to liberty and free markets"

It's not as simple as you're making it out to be. It's not Democrats versus Republicans. A politician has to choose one to get into office. Unfortunately, the Democratic party only accepts people that at least marginally believe in micromanaging society. That goes against libertarian ideology entirely.

[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 11:19 AM. Reason : ]

3/6/2012 11:15:17 AM

Quote :

"You've made the claim before that Ron Paul is like any other politician, and that he'd ultimately cave to the same special interests as any other guy. Your theory just doesn't hold water. If Ron Paul were going to compromise, he would have done it long ago."

I've made the point that Paul doesn't need to compromise, because his shtick is to be uncompromising. He doesn't have to sponsor bills that pass. He doesn't have to vote on bills that pass. He has, from the start, been one long-running protest candidate who keeps winning in Congress but can't quite make it to the Presidency. That is, he's never really been tested as far as compromise go because his entire shtick precludes him from participating in anything but a dictatorial government comprised entirely of him.

Quote :

"Oh, come on. You're moving the goal posts like crazy here. You don't get to rebrand libertarianism as a "proxy for the GOP", then when a Democrat gets in office, say he's a proxy Republican."

Am I wrong? Are the things we complain most about Obama not the very things that the left despised about Bush and, to this day, grumble about? I wont deny there are sycophants on the left that try to justify it, that happens on both sides. But surely, are you trying to tell me that the average liberal on the street, since 2008, has become pro-wars, pro-PATRIOT act, pro-drug raids, and all that? You know as well as I that 2000-2008 were mostly years where liberals and libertarians were on the streets protesting many of the exact same things. Liberals didn't change, and a visit to a predominantly liberal site like reddit will show that most of them are going to be voting for Obama this year with king-sized clothespins on their noses.

There's a reason Obama's been courting the left in the past few months, what with re-election coming up, it's been precisely that he's abandoned them for the past 3 years so he can play the "Great compromiser" role.

Quote :

"Unfortunately, the Democratic party only accepts people that at least marginally believe in micromanaging society. That goes against libertarian ideology entirely."

No, they don't. No Democrats want to micromanage society, this is more GOP rhetoric that libertarians love to lap up because they're obsessed with good-vs-evil narratives about liberty and tyranny, except everybody except them is the bad guy. Democrats certainly believe in market restraints, but this whole idea that they get a pleasure from micromanaging is some Hannah Barbara shit and you know it.

And as far as actual micromanagement goes, again, the Republicans end up doing this as well; in the business sector they do it but to their non-pet industries, and in the social sphere...well we all know how they are in the social sphere. They of course just lie about this, and libertarians lap it up. That's why they're co-opting libertarianism, libertarians themselves are so scared of so-called big government Democrats that they're following the GOP snake through the grass right into its hole. It's going to continue as long as libertarians refuse to draw a line in the sand and recognize that the "right" in this country is more authoritarian than the left at this point.

[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 11:27 AM. Reason : .]

3/6/2012 11:17:59 AM

Quote :

"Triple posts notwithstanding, now you're just being stupid. Solyndra failed because it couldn't compete with Chinese panel manufacturers low prices. Prices that were so low, I might add, because China invested literally 10x more in solar development than the US did, faster, and to a wider range of solar companies. That is to say; Solyndra was priced out by the Chinese Solyndras."

which leads us to another wonderful democrat retardation. protectionism. if the chinese want to waste their own money making cheap panels than let them. we dont need to out waste them by blocking their imports or funneling more money down the drain in us solar companies. its super ironic cause you foolk whine about corporate subsidies all the time, but when they're going to specific forms of waste you approve of its all good.

loyality to either the democrat or republican parties is offensive as hell. you come out here spouting their talking points and waving their banner, all while they're actively opposing everything you're talking about. democrats arent for personal freedom anymore than republicans are. democrats are for government freedoms, and republicans are for corporate freedoms.

so get the fuck out with this horseshit about "atleast democrats blah blah blah"

[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 11:26 AM. Reason : a]

3/6/2012 11:26:42 AM

Quote :

"which leads us to another wonderful democrat retardation. protectionism. if the chinese want to waste their own money making cheap panels than let them."

They aren't subsidizing the panels, they're subsidizing the research, which leads to cheaper panels, which by definition aren't a waste of money anymore.

Quote :

" we dont need to out waste them by blocking their imports or funneling more money down the drain in us solar companies. its super ironic cause you foolk whine about corporate subsidies all the time, but when they're going to specific forms of waste you approve of its all good."

I'm totally against corporate subsidies, but that doesn't mean I can't recognize that there are better or worse ways of doing them. I'm against Capitalism, that doesn't mean I can't have opinions on how to make it function the best it can. I'm not a fan of the football, that doesn't mean I can't have opinions on how team X might improve their game.

Quote :

"loyality to either the democrat or republican parties is offensive as hell. "

I'm not preaching loyalty of any kind. I'm preaching opening your fucking eyes and seeing that the GOP is off the fucking rails entirely, undesirable as the Democrats might be as well. Pretending there's any even-handed way to present them is delusional.

Quote :

"you come out here spouting their talking points and waving their banner, all while they're actively opposing everything you're talking about. democrats arent for personal freedom anymore than republicans are. democrats are for government freedoms, and republicans are for corporate freedoms."

Total oversimplification, and exactly the kind of obfuscating rhetoric Koch and his ilk insert into the libertarian discourse to try to disenchant Democrats in the next election. They know the elderly will vote no matter what, so the best bet is to get the young folks to give up on the system entirely rather than come out and vote for a Ron Paul or Obama. As long as libertarians fall for this Fox-newsesque "Fair and Balanced" idea that both sides are equally retarded, they'll be letting their guard down to GOP infiltrators. It's already been happening for 3 or so years now, and it'll continue until the libertarians recognize the more real threat.

If they pulled out of the GOP and actually aligned with progressives for just one election, the GOP might actually start listening to them next cycle. Instead, I suspect they'll continue to side with the GOP because at end of the day, when the chips are down, they come crawling back and vote for whoever has the most conservative rhetoric, actions be damned. The GOP knows this and that's why they're not making any serious concessions to libertarians, but maintain their support by targeting their attacks on Democrats around libertarian themes.

[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 11:47 AM. Reason : .]

3/6/2012 11:34:57 AM

Quote :

"How you can say this, then say you're attracted to a political subculture whose basic premise is "You're either with us or you're in favor of brutal tyranny." ???"

The attraction is to the idea of personal liberty and responsibility.

Your oversimplification of the basic premise is misleading and borderline demagoguery.

I can say that because the libertarian ideal is aimed protecting individual rights. Not taking them away or enforcing laws that are based on bronze age mysticism or a belief that certain special groups require federal government assistance.

3/6/2012 12:39:36 PM

I know a lot of Libertarians who view themselves as being "above" the left-right paradigm, but that's just not true. They always make the mistake of equating the Democratic party as the "left" even though that's not even remotely true. There is no left in American politics.

Have any Libertarians ever voted for a Democrat? They almost always align themselves with the Republican party, which is bizarre to me. Especially considering the current state of the Republican party, which has become a party of squashing liberty at every turn, and putting big-government all up in your vagina and internet.

Libertarians and Progressives agree on about 50% of the issues, but I never see a Libertarian defend or support a progressive. Libertarians seemingly vote Republican every time just because the Republican party pays fealty to "liberty" even though it's become an authoritarian theocracy at this point -- and for the record, Progressives do the same with the Democratic party as well.

Seriously, Libertarians need to exit the Republican Party. It's not going to bend to your will. It has too much old money protecting the interests of the very few, mega wealthy, and your Ron Paul stickers are not powerful enough to reverse that political inertia.

3/6/2012 12:54:37 PM

For a minute, it looked like Occupy Wall Street was bringing the Ron Paul crowd and the progressives together, but everyone has pretty much backed out of that now besides the drum circlers.

3/6/2012 12:57:06 PM

naw, that was just because of winter.

things will pick back up....it'll probably be the G8 summit or the DNC that galvanizes the movement again for 2012.

3/6/2012 12:58:40 PM

or an attack on Iran....

3/6/2012 1:00:48 PM

Quote :

"I know a lot of Libertarians who view themselves as being "above" the left-right paradigm, but that's just not true. They always make the mistake of equating the Democratic party as the "left" even though that's not even remotely true. There is no left in American politics. "

The left-right paradigm is worthless. There is authoritarian and libertarian. What is "left" and what is "right" has shifted over time. Both parties are authoritarian in nature, the only difference is rhetoric and which industries/behaviors they want to control.

Progressives and libertarians do have some common ground, but the differences are stark. The basis for a free society is self-ownership. Policies that reject self-ownership entirely, and most "progressive" economic policies do, cannot be supported. I would support an anti-war, anti-prohibition progressive over an establishment Republican. Unfortunately, living where I live today (Raleigh, NC), I'm not given that option. So, instead, I support libertarian-leaning Republicans or Libertarian party candidates, many of which have very little chance of being elected.

Democrats are often on the right side of the "culture war" or "social issues" debate. Unfortunately, they couldn't be more wrong on economic policies. Being "right" on economic policies is not as simple as "low taxes, less debt", despite what you all seem to think. It's about monetary policy, it's about the banking system, and it's about a fucked up tax system rife with moral hazard.

[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 1:30 PM. Reason : ]

3/6/2012 1:25:22 PM

Quote :

"They aren't subsidizing the panels, they're subsidizing the research, which leads to cheaper panels, which by definition aren't a waste of money anymore."

any panel research is a waste. panels are a shitty dead end tech. let china waste their money and lets focus on real solutions instead.

Quote :

"I'm totally against corporate subsidies, but that doesn't mean I can't recognize that there are better or worse ways of doing them. I'm against Capitalism, that doesn't mean I can't have opinions on how to make it function the best it can. I'm not a fan of the football, that doesn't mean I can't have opinions on how team X might improve their game. "

your opinion on this comes direct from the DNC. they dont have any actual reason to be supporting panel tech aside from kickbacks for their fundraisers, so the party line is "CAPITALISM IS THE DEVIL ONLY THE GOVERNMENT CAN DO THIS RIGHT shhh dont ask us how or why just tell anyone who disagrees they're wrong cause of evil corporations." Its pure cronyism and you're just eating it up because it comes from your favorite brand.

for the record im against all subsidies of any kind. if you're going to do reasearch do public research instead of paying your friends. atleast then everyone gets the benefit even if its a spectacular failure.

Quote :

"I'm not preaching loyalty of any kind. I'm preaching opening your fucking eyes and seeing that the GOP is off the fucking rails entirely, undesirable as the Democrats might be as well. Pretending there's any even-handed way to present them is delusional. "

The GOP going off the rails doesnt give the democrats a pass. as hard as you might try im not going to vote democrat because "hey atleast they're not republican!". i did that in 2008 and nothing happened. litterally nothing fucking happened because the democrats are just as bad as the republicans.

Quote :

"Total oversimplification, and exactly the kind of obfuscating rhetoric Koch and his ilk insert into the libertarian discourse to try to disenchant Democrats in the next election. They know the elderly will vote no matter what, so the best bet is to get the young folks to give up on the system entirely rather than come out and vote for a Ron Paul or Obama. As long as libertarians fall for this Fox-newsesque "Fair and Balanced" idea that both sides are equally retarded, they'll be letting their guard down to GOP infiltrators. It's already been happening for 3 or so years now, and it'll continue until the libertarians recognize the more real threat. If they pulled out of the GOP and actually aligned with progressives for just one election, the GOP might actually start listening to them next cycle. Instead, I suspect they'll continue to side with the GOP because at end of the day, when the chips are down, they come crawling back and vote for whoever has the most conservative rhetoric, actions be damned. The GOP knows this and that's why they're not making any serious concessions to libertarians, but maintain their support by targeting their attacks on Democrats around libertarian themes."

you're right that libertarian rhetoric has been meshed with republican rhetoric to the detriment of the cause, but im not going to vote for a republican or a fox news libertarian. if something bizare happened and ron paul got on the ballot i'd vote for him as a joke even though hes crazy as hell.

santorum vs obama, sure. i'll vote against santorum
romney vs obama, im just gonna stay home because it wont matter who wins. they're effectively the same. you can keep telling yourself thats not true but the record doesnt lie.

3/6/2012 1:33:12 PM

Quote :

"naw, that was just because of winter. things will pick back up....it'll probably be the G8 summit or the DNC that galvanizes the movement again for 2012."

"I dunno, it was an unseasonably warm winter (go figure). It seems like a lot of people who took it seriously are discouraged because so many people that showed up didn't. Here's something I read today by one of the guys who was active in the DC one:

Quote :

"Yeah in order for the camps to function as at all a positive PR thing they really, really need to be maintained, and lots of people that turned out weren't into acting like adult human beings. Stuff seemed to be going alright before the raids in DC, we had cleaning squads and had sorted the kitchen out and generally made it almost a nice place to live, but now that nobody actually lives there most people have basically left the parks to rot. Couple that with random dudes coming in to steal stuff and the police swinging by and destroying what remains and, welp. It's pretty much the equivalent of holding a big highly-televised protest and actually throwing shit or launching unprovoked attacks on cops, only spread out 24/7. I think that whole mess was a big part of the push to make things more insular that we're fighting with, too, people look at the open-access camp and see all that hatred going on they're not gonna want that in their working group dedicated to important shit. Still contend it's totally possible to maintain in a tolerable fashion, but you need a bunch of people treating it like it's their job and for a long time there weren't.""

Quote :

"any panel research is a waste. panels are a shitty dead end tech. let china waste their money and lets focus on real solutions instead."

Like what? I'd rather be investing in solar than ethanol.

[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 1:54 PM. Reason : ]

3/6/2012 1:41:57 PM

I think a progressive/libertarian party would be pretty powerful. They pretty much agree on social issues and economic issues would receive healthy debate.

I don't see why libertarians are so completely, 100% against compromising on economic policy. It's either total conservative or nothing at all. Is there not one instance you can think of where government inserting itself into the economy helped rather than harmed? I honestly don't know if you would come up with anything, ideological as most of you are.

Where you lose me on economic issues is that you can ignore history and fail to admit that without some applied structuring of the economy, a free market is guaranteed to not exist. Is it worse to have the government creating the boundaries of what is acceptable in a free market or to let private entities control and tweak the market to their will? There is literally no way you can debate that this hasn't happened. Ever since the mid-1800s and the rise of corporations, this has happened when government failed to step in and police against unethical manipulation. It is a fact proven by history that once a market is controlled by one player, it ceases to be a free market in the most basic sense of the term. But libertarians are totally against this in every way. In my opinion, this is because admitting even one ounce of government interference would completely shatter their entire world view. There is room for compromise, but libertarians constantly back themselves into a corner with no room to maneuver politically. Our entire political system is based on compromise to which libertarians are totally opposed. Bringing the rationality many of you apply to economics would be great for the national debate, but it requires give and take.

3/6/2012 3:06:38 PM

libertarian != anarchist

But to a lower point, what do you mean by "100% against compromising on economic policy"? Let me phrase it another way. I want to eliminate federal regulatory powers...how about we compromise and just slash the federal registry in half? I'd be fine with that. I assume you wouldn't.

3/6/2012 5:19:19 PM

let's just get one thing out in the open

anybody against libertarianism is a lazy motherfucker

or an uneducated motherfucker


let's at least agree on the basics.

3/6/2012 5:23:18 PM

^I can never tell if you are trolling.

3/6/2012 7:24:40 PM

^he's always trolling. I don't know why people respond to him, at this point. I also don't know why he gets his jollies to this, but whatever keeps him happy, I guess.

Quote :

"The left-right paradigm is worthless. There is authoritarian and libertarian. What is "left" and what is "right" has shifted over time. Both parties are authoritarian in nature, the only difference is rhetoric and which industries/behaviors they want to control."

It's not worthless. It's just inaccurate because in the US, we have Center-Right (Obama), Right (Romney), and Radical Right (Santorum-Gingrich).

So your authoritarian-libertarian dichotomy is inaccurate, because you link Democratic principles with liberal or progressive principles.

[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 7:33 PM. Reason : ]

3/6/2012 7:32:27 PM

https://jacobinmag.com/2018/03/libertarian-property-ownership-capitalism

Quote :

"If I put a fence around a piece of land that had previously been open to all to use, claim it as my own, and announce to all that I will use violence against any who walk upon it without my consent, it would certainly appear as though I am the one initiating force (or at least the threat of force) against others. I am restricting their liberty to move about as they were once free to do. I am doing so by threatening them with physical violence unless they comply with my demands. And I am doing so not in response to any provocation on their part but simply so that I might be better able to utilize the resource without their interference. Again, what’s so funny about this insight is not just that it is a persuasive counterpoint to libertarianism, but rather that it seems to suggest that libertarian principles themselves forbid property ownership."

3/16/2018 12:24:58 PM

I'm not sure ^ really matters. We don't live in a world without property ownership, so why would a system of general thought for today's society be required to bother with going from no ownership to ownership? It would seem that libertarianism, in that regard, is not worried with that dilemma, nor does it need to be. Basically, this guy is assuming, a priori, that it matters, then dissing libertarianism for not giving a fuck about it.

3/20/2018 11:17:12 PM