bushwhacked

[csd345]

Originally posted by greghinemeyer:

but his daughters are smokin.

 

they probably don't get into as much trouble smokin as they did drinkin last year.

[MtnGoat]

"The fact that those exact words are not actually contained in the constitution is, not surprisingly, not really relevant to what a 200+ year-old document means today."

 

I agree. The meaning of the document is such that the framework is sufficient to provide order *without* being so specific it instantly goes out of date.

" Tonight's events in Portland make that pretty clear..."

 

You're right about that, a bunch of folks have allowed their life experiences and lack of self control to turn them into rioters for peace.

 

*************************

 

"While Mtn Goat is unmoved by voter apathy, I'm a fan of a vigorous democracy."

 

I don't see what good is served by having one portion of the population aim guns (by proxy) at another portion of the population in order to make them serve the ideals of the former.

 

*************************************8

 

"True. But that's what it's for. I work to get money so I can tilt the field my direction with better housing, food, medicine, etc."

 

"It seems that is ideal is so cynical and empty of any humanitarian values."

 

I'm not sure why that is. I have the same concerns about others any reasonable person ought to have, IMO, and I use my capital to tilt the playing field towards other folks too. Being a humanitarian indicates humanitarian concerns, as far as I am aware this term does *not* imply using other citizens for what you find important. Being concerned and caring has nothing to do with supporting the use of coercion against other peaceful citizens with their own minds, lives, and values.

 

I've volunteered for groups working with the park service, spent weeks of my own vacation and money carrying out programs they couldn't afford to implement.

 

I donate all the time. *I* take action, voluntarily, and I don't expect supporting what I support, to be binding on other people who may not agree. We are *each* responsible for what we support, and I see trying to bind others to our own personal goals, as elemental disrespect for the rights of others to live their lives serving their own ideals.

 

I do not own my fellow citizens, nor their lives, nor what comes from their time and labor. I do not expect to force them to support what I support. I have never understood why for so many people being a "humanitarian" seems to intrinsically mean making others pay for what I support.

 

"Not only does it negate the above ideal, it replaces it with "the richer you are, the more power ye shall have", which is about what we have right now."

 

I don't believe it does negate the above, because concern is nice, but it's separate from telling other citizens they shall work to support your own personal values, however nice they may be to you.

 

As for power, that's largely because the govt in place now has too much power to start with. Either you hold control over yourself, or someone else does. If individuals retain that control, it doesn't matter how much money someone else has, they can't buy control of that power because it is not available.

 

"Access to government, OUR government, should not be based on the size of ones campaign contribution, and to not codify and legislate against it is a terrible form of cynicism."

 

Examining the underlying roots of human behavior with respect to power, is not cynical IMO. It's a crucial step to creating systems and ideas that are self consistent and have a chance of success because they take human nature into account, not denying it.

[sexual_chocolate]

Straight outta the Ayn Rand-led libertarian think-tank!

 

[ 08-23-2002, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: sexual chocolate ]

[sk]

were you directing that at the goat or me??? I like ann rand she writes great books but I can't read goat's posts.... they give me a head ache ... dude condese what you have to say... 20 words or less, kay?

[erik]

reading mtngoatz repsonses, i would swear he is my dad.......

 

 

[ 08-23-2002, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: erik ]

[MtnGoat]

"straight outta the Ayn Rand-led libertarian think-tank! "

 

odd how people with the similar views on liberty and life in general have similar ideas, eh? I always crack up when people come up with "straight out of" or "party line" comments. Should I turn around and comment on points here from others are "straight out of the Dem party", as if that invalidates them? Of course not! Ideas stand or fall on their *own*, not by who they come from.

 

If we cannot separate peripheral issues from the actual ones of dealing with the meaning, content, and roots of IDEAS, there's no point in discussing things because denying someone elses ideas by stereotype instead of content isn't dialogue, it's just confrontation without a point.

 

Can I tempt you to respond to an idea's content, rather than worrying about peripherals? Why, for example, does any groups or persons views on a social issue, mean everyone else needs to serve that ideal? What irresistable force links caring, with *making* your neighbors care?

 

*************************************

"dude condese what you have to say... 20 words or less, kay?"

 

I try to keep them limited as it is, I'm just not a believer in sound bite answers to complex questions. Even the simplest ideas here often contain so many assumptions, if I don't deal with the assumptions as well as the idea it doesn't come out right.

 

An example is the arbitrary linkage of "humanitarian" ideas with the idea that if you don't make your neighbors work for you, you can't be a humanitarian. But all humanitarianism is at it's basis is a concern for humanitarian issues, not the politics of implementing same.

 

These kinds of tangles allow those with a collectivist bent to coopt issues and ideas, without discussing the hidden assumptions. That "society" only exists when people are forced to live together. That "caring" means voting to make your neighbors do what you want them to do. That *not* having a morality based in God or some other diety, somehow makes it less arbitrary than one that is. There's tons of em.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Aren't the parties just a reflection of their constituents and ultimately the average American? I suspect the average American has just become more average and so the parties have drifted closer together. Would a third part of any size really offer anything different? If there is no demand, then there will be no supply. For better or worse, there is less polarization in public opinion.

 

The parties are somewhat a reflection of their constituents, but of the average American? Come on! How many "average Americans" get voted into high office, and how many "average Americans" are putting out million-dollar campaign contributions? The parties' drifting closer together has little to do with an averageization of America, and a lot to do with whoever is lining pockets in Washington. Beyond that, though, is the endless political back-scratching game that gets played, which is probably the biggest reason for political homogenization. Bills get passed as long as the opposing party can tack on some riders to help out their big donors. Representatives are often left little choice but to vote for measures they'd rather not vote for so that others will vote for their pet issue.

 

A third party would damn sure make a difference. Isn't our capitalist system supposedly based on the idea that competition sweetens the deal for the consumer? Wouldn't a little competition sweeten the deal for voters? The fact that major corporate media won't let 3rd party candidates into televised national debates plays a big part in seeing that all we have to choose from are Republicrats. Of course no one's going to vote for or want a third party if they don't have access to their point of view! Hell, Nader got kicked out of the building for even trying to WATCH the debates. Does that tell you anything about how the political machine operates? Level playing field, DFA's ass!

 

The American people have been fed a grossly biased picture of how our system works (i.e. only two parties, pick one) that most people aren't even going to consider a 3rd party. And of course there's the fact that big $$$ is greasing the wheels here. Is it any wonder candidates like Nader get no exposure with no huge corporate backing? Do you think Bush or Gore would have gotten mondo campaign contributions if they weren't accepting money from corporations and in return ensuring the furthering of those corporations' agendas?

 

Yeah, our capitalist system works fine, and a lot of people live well. But if you think it's working like it SHOULD, and actually doing the most good that it could, it's time to think again. People are stuck thinking that it's either capitalism with all its faults or communism or socialism. Why not fix what's wrong with capitalism?

[MtnGoat]

"Yeah, our capitalist system works fine, and a lot of people live well."

 

We have the richest poor people in the world, for one thing!

 

"But if you think it's working like it SHOULD, and actually doing the most good that it could, it's time to think again."

 

depends on whose version of should, and good, you're talking about, right? ....I'll bite...It doesn't work like it should, because there is far too much govt control of peaceful individual choices, and it doesn't do the most good, because the highest good isn't coerced action, but liberty.

 

"Why not fix what's wrong with capitalism?"

 

I'm all for that. Remove subsidies from corporations. Teach people to take *personal* action on their beliefs without assuming everyone else is their tool for good.

[iain]

I love it when the prez visits. I was rattled awake this morning by a blackhawk helicopter about 100 feet above my apartment scoping I-84 for evil doers. Charming!

[iain]

Unfortunately Ralph Nadar, while extremely intelligent and thoughtful, is not "presidential material" in the traditional sense. He just doesn't have the requisite stage presence and slick self-promotional material. It is a shame.

[sexual_chocolate]

very true about nader, and most other third party candidates. the debate rules are currently written in a way that ENSURES no third party will get in to ruin the two-party strangle-hold on the limited ideas discussed during the debates (debates? hah. what a joke).

 

mtn. goat: your ideas mirror those of the libertarian party line. They also seem analogous to Ayn Rand's.

Was my jab meant as a dismissal? Not entirely, yet I will admit to considerable frustrations with what I see in their/your arguments. It's mainly the assumptions about the "evils" of "human nature", and how it's best to accept them and work accordingly. It's a bit cynical, if you ask me. There's more:

 

"I don't believe it does negate the above, because concern is nice, but it's separate from telling other citizens they shall work to support your own personal values, however nice they may be to you."

 

This happen sall the time; it's part of living with other human beings. we all do things we don't necessarily agree with, yet we have collectively agreed upon certain rules. If we find those rules unfair/unjust, we can work to change them. Democracy. Yes, we have the power to work for change. It sounds as though through your volunteer efforts, you engage in this action quite a bit.

 

BTW, the CFR is placing limits on the donations, if my understanding is correct, and on the timing of those contributions. Of course we are still free as individuals to donate money to candidates and causes!

[Peter_Puget]

Sexy - Mises (one of Libertarianism 20th century founding fathers and one of Mtgoats fav orgs namesake) and Rand while often thrown into the same camp. They are in fact not the same. In fact Mises is well known for his contemptuous ridculing of her philosophy to her face at a dinner party.

 

[ 08-23-2002, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Peter Puget ]

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Indeed. Just imagine actually having access to health care! It's fucking sick that this is a revolutionary concept. While socialism on the whole has failed to work out, there are some elements of it that really have merit. Too bad attempting to bring something like that to the current political table would inevitably result in a bunch of screaming about pinko liberals trying to subvert the government. Ugh.

[Greg_W]

Bottom line is that socialism (in whatever form you choose) inhibits personal freedom instead of guaranteeing it as our Founding Fathers intended. Look at the income tax (extortion) rates in some of these European countries It's bad enough that I don't get to take home all of MY earnings every week as it is.

 

Greg W

 

P.S. MtnGoat s

[mattp]

Greg,

I don't quite understand your bottom line. Personal freedom has to do more with civil rights than with economic organization, doesn't it? Yes, countries that have heavily regulated economies tend to have more curbs on personal freedom, but I don't think these two are necessarily part of the same "bottom line."

[sexual_chocolate]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greg W:

Bottom line is that socialism (in whatever form you choose) inhibits personal freedom instead of guaranteeing it as our Founding Fathers intended. Look at the income tax (extortion) rates in some of these European countries

It's bad enough that I don't get to take home all of MY earnings every week as it is.

 

Greg W

 

P.S. MtnGoat

s

---

Hah! Now we get to the "bottom-line"!

"Bottom-line" is that YOUR supposed freedoms get trampled; who cares about the "freedoms" of the down-and-out, disabled, unemployed, mentally troubled, discriminated against, etc.. These never seem to get too much air-time with the Libertarian trumpet-blowers. It's everyone for themselves! And let the most able survive! Cuz it's about MY freedom, after all!

 

ME ME ME ME ME!

[sexual_chocolate]

"Personal freedom has to do more with civil rights than with economic organization..."

 

Economics do play a major role in any analysis of "freedom", no? Impoverishment doesn't seem to breed "freedom", not within the structures of our "relative" world, no?

[sk]

socialism from the outside looks very person friendly. And I will agree to a certin extent that they in england, as an example, manage some things very well. For the AVERAGE person it works out okay that they can get in to a dr. when they have the flu or what ever. But as I have elderly actual relatives that live there, it is not always the case when the medical problem is more extream. I am not a DR. nor am I a political expert... but I do know that a family member of mine would benafit from having a medical procedure, but they will not do said proceedure until he quits smoking (I think). so yes you get services offered, but you have to play there game, do it there way, and folllow there rules. I PERSONALY HATE BEING TOLD WHAT TO DO AND HOW TO DO IT> I don't think I would have a whole lot of luck in that type of system. red tape sucks, and it seems to me that the scialist system generates even MORE (if that is possible) than ours does. I Realy believe that there should be about three laws. simple is good

[mattp]

Mr Sexy,

I agree that freedom from hunger or poverty are probably the most basic of all personal freedoms, and because I am a naive tax and spend liberal I believe that we should as a society provide better public support than we do for the necessities of life. Even worse I think that we should have a single-payer health care system so that healthcare can be more available for all. But I think Gregw is talking about the freedoms in the bill of rights. It is a "living" document, perhaps, but I do not think that freedom from hunger can be read into it no matter how hard one tries.

 

[ 08-23-2002, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: mattp ]

[MtnGoat]

"Personal freedom has to do more with civil rights than with economic organization, doesn't it?"

 

to butt my lazy ass in here...again....

 

I don't think this is the case. Economic organization is inseparable from personal liberty because the human mind and human effort is the basic source of capital, regardless of how that capital gets distrubuted after it's creation. It's each persons use of some portion of their limited lifespan to create something or do something, that creates values others will pay for, wether you push a broom, sculpt, or plant ones fat ass on a computer all day long like me.

 

What happens to the results of that labor, the result of that *irretrievable* chunk of your life, when you didn't goof off under a tree with a good book, you weren't sleeping, you were working, is intimately related to the economic system you live under. Since your personal capital, whatever form your output takes, is created by *your* effort, your personal liberty and *right* to control the results of your labor are directly effected by the economic system you labor under.

 

I submit that the *only* system which recognizes actual labor, and actual human rights of self ownership, is the system which recognizes each and every person owns their own person, and their labor, and the rights to it: Capitalism.

 

"Yes, countries that have heavily regulated economies tend to have more curbs on personal freedom, but I don't think these two are necessarily part of the same "bottom line.""

 

When your peaceful transactions are subject to the approval of others who are not involved in your agreements with others, they are curbing your personal freedom by infringing on your right to dispose of your labor and resources as you see fit. I submit economic regulation is *intrinsically* linked to "curbing" each person's birthright, self determination. In many cases there is definitely a need for compromise in this area, such as some environmental concerns. On the whole however, we go far beyond crucial compromises today and into territory neither the state *nor* other individuals have any buisness dictating.

 

This does not apply to transactions involving theft, coercion, or fraud.

 

***************************8

 

"Bottom-line" is that YOUR supposed freedoms get trampled; who cares about the "freedoms" of the down-and-out, disabled, unemployed, mentally troubled, discriminated against, etc.."

 

What about them? I support their rights as much as I support *anyone* elses. Their freedom, nor anyone elses, does not include the use of others time, labor, or life without their explicit, uncoerced, personal consent.

 

"These never seem to get too much air-time with the Libertarian trumpet-blowers. It's everyone for themselves! And let the most able survive! Cuz it's about MY freedom, after all!"

 

It *is* everyone for themselves, but this does not mean everyone wishes to ignore others. Do you care about other people just because someone makes you? Of course not, you do it on your own, you are free, yet you care, even though you don't have to! How is this possible if freedom = not caring about other people as you claim?

 

Why do you assume supporting personal freedom means ignoring other people? They are not causally linked. I value liberty *and* cooperation at the same time. I merely reject the idea that most of my social goals are so overidingly important that I'll threaten other people unless they do what I want. I'm no better than they are, I have no right to demand they pay for goals I believe in.

 

"ME ME ME ME ME!"

 

Common enough in folks who figure *their* morality requires others to pay for it. I care about trees, so you'll pay for em, I care about homeless people, so you'll pay for it, I care about discrimination, so I'll support discrimination on someone else. What part of demanding others serve your ends at gunpoint do you find unselfish, exactly? *************************

 

"I agree that freedom from hunger or poverty are probably the most basic of all personal freedoms,"

 

how is demanding labor from others a personal freedom?

 

"and because I am a naive tax and spend liberal I believe that we should as a society provide better support than we do and even worse I think that we should have a single-payer health care system."

 

great. Now how do you justify imposing that vision on people who have other goals for their lives? Are your morals more important than theirs?

 

No one is suggesting you and those who agree with you should not go ahead and support what you wish to support, it's your life, your mind, your body after all. What I want to know is, why is *my* life, mind and body supposed to be subordinated to what *you* wish to support? I have no wish to stand in your way, in fact I wish you well, but when you try to coopt my labor because you think your ends are more important than mine, then we have problems.

 

Can you imagine how much you could get done if everyone who agrees with you worked on those issues without trying to legislate them? How much money would be saved by directing all the money poured into campaigns, into foundations to do what you want, instead? How much time it would save, how much resistance and wasted energy you could save?

 

You could write your own rules for aid carte blanche, since as a private organization you would not need to compromise with those mean capitalists in congress. ALL the energy and time wasted because folks *insist* those who don't agree must play too, is such a waste. Just sidestep the whole deal!

 

You're buying right into conflict, playing the game against people who don't agree, wasting all that energy, because of one common thread in all the social desires, you figure *everyone* must do what you want. Let go of that one idea, value others as *equals*, not tools for an end.

 

How can you care about others so much, and care so little for what they want their lives to mean, just because they don't agree with you?

 

**************

 

ah, you guys are good for the brain, thanks for the fun so far.

 

[ 08-23-2002, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattp:

Greg,

I don't quite understand your bottom line. Personal freedom has to do more with civil rights than with economic organization, doesn't it? Yes, countries that have heavily regulated economies tend to have more curbs on personal freedom, but I don't think these two are necessarily part of the same "bottom line."

---

Read "Capitalism and Freedom", by Milton Freidman; they are interrelated.

[AlpineK]

A lot of the libertarian views I hear are simple and attractive. We all should be free to do whatever we want.

 

Reality isn't quite so simple. There are a lot of things that aren't economic for individuals or companies to do yet they serve everyone's interest. Also if you do everything you want chances are your going to be fucking with someone elses life.

 

Anyway a couple observations

 

Mtn Goats posts are way to long. Sure you've got a lot to say, but I for one refuse to read such long posts.

 

Also who is this geek the Greek guy. I know real Greeks and they all think you're one big malaka.

[MtnGoat]

"We all should be free to do whatever we want."

 

I'm not sure where you're getting that, no libertarian I know thinks folks should be free to commit fraud, steal, or initiate violence. Beyond that, aren't you the best judge of what you value, for you?

 

"Reality isn't quite so simple. There are a lot of things that aren't economic for individuals or companies to do yet they serve everyone's interest."

 

Surely true. Compromises are always necessary when matching theory to the real world.

 

"Also if you do everything you want chances are your going to be fucking with someone elses life".

 

It depends on what the issue is, right? If you are coercing someone else, I've already covered that in the first para.

 

"Mtn Goats posts are way to long. Sure you've got a lot to say, but I for one refuse to read such long posts."

 

that's the beauty of freedom. be nice to have some back and forth, if it's too much trouble and you don't like the style, no biggie!

[mattp]

Goat and Greg,

I'm willing to concede (as I believe I did in my initial post on this topic) that economic regulation is related to the regulation of "individual freedom" but I do believe they are two different things. Now, about the desireability of regulation and centralized planning ...

[Peter_Puget]

I'll keep it short for AlpineK. Simply put statements like 'it is not economic for individuals or companies to do. Show a complete misunderstanding of let's say Mises and most of the basic libertarian thinkers. Rand tried to produce some silly philosophy of life and in my opinion is a sideshow, the Libertarians with a more economic background (generally of the Austrian School), Milton Friedman being one of the most prominent exceptions, confounded their colleagues by their insistence on the worthlessness of most of the commonly used macroeconomic data points (eg: national income accounts and so on) Mises himself titled his grand work "Human Action" and virtually eliminated most traditional economic analysis from its pages. These thinkers (RIGHTLY) held that all human purposeful action is the result of "economic" calculation and assert that the individual is supreme in his valuations. Economics is viewed as being as immutable as the tides. People are free to choose any form of government it wants but to the extent laws are enacted their effects can be predicted by the application of basic economic theory. In general their analysis and experiences made them suspicious of government intervention NOT because they were against the goals of the intervention but felt that the goals would be best reached via other methods.