medicineman
New Member
With the rise of the Bushites, a particularly nasty ideological virus was unleashed on America. The Grover Norquist wing of the Republican party took over, the people who hate government and want to "starve the beast" to the point where it can be "drowned in a bathtub". That beast, of course, is popular government programs they don't like, such as Social Security and Medicare. As the party of the corporations and the rich, the Bush Republicans have come down with a chronic case of Libertarianism.
Libertarianism is the idea that government is by its very nature a bad thing, and that people should be socially and economically free to pursue anything they want without government interference. Of course, the Bushites aren't so fond of that social part of libertarianism, but they eat up that laissez-fair capitalism part. Their every initiative is designed to protect and enrich the wealthiest members of society at the expense of the poorest and hardest working.
Now, I love science fiction as much as the next guy (and believe me, I comprehend Heinlein; I'm just able to separate fiction from reality), but it is not a good basis for a religion or economic system. If we could just see one historical example of working libertarianism -- ONE! -- maybe you could prove your point.
Your closing line sums it all up: "I want to be a human being who associates with those who wish to associate with me." Well, you don't get that luxury -- nobody does. You're a part of a society. That society includes lots of people you don't want to associate with, but must -- the illiterate single mom, the HIV-positive junkie, the man working two McJobs to feed his family, the homeless guy you ignore on your way to the office, the pregnant teenage girl, the illegal aliens you employ to keep labor costs down -- you are not an island, Mr. Libertarian, and you need us and government far more than we need you.
The libertarian will also argue that in their science-fiction universe, anyone is free to compete and trade and leverage their skills, work, and talent to become rich. Absolutely -- anyone can, but not everyone can. Some people will be born unskilled, untalented, handicapped, or just not very bright, or will become sick, injured, discriminated against, or suffer hardships and bad luck beyond their control. No matter how hard they work, they cannot win. Not everyone can be a winner in the capitalism game. So the question is: how good should the winners have it and how badly should the losers have it? As others have explained, in such a system, eventually the winners game the system to the point where only other winners can compete and losers have no shot. Eventually the best winners collude to prevent competition among themselves. Eventually the losers owe their soul to the company store.
Progressive taxation and limited capitalistic socialism is the only workable solution for a successful and vibrant democratic economy. It's what we have had in place since the New Deal, and it took the United States from the failed, second-rate, Depression-era economy caused by laissez-faire capitalism of the robber barons to being the dominant world superpower with the greatest standard of living ever achieved in human history. Why would libertarians want to mess with success, just to implement a science-fiction philosophy that's been shown to cause greater overall human misery, all because they feel that they are not quite rich enough? How many 17-foot home theaters do they need before they figure that even a lazy, shiftless, parasite on society (otherwise known as a "human") deserves better than sleeping in the street, eating from the garbage, and suffering from easily treatable medical ailments?
OK, discuss. That's all I have to say about that. Since the Libertarian Party has no chance in hell of winning any election that will effect me directly, and since the hard right-wing of the Bushites is going down faster than Paris Hilton in a night-vision home video, I really don't worry about them very much.
It just seems that this site is filled with these fantasy characters, and I may add character assassins.
Libertarianism is the idea that government is by its very nature a bad thing, and that people should be socially and economically free to pursue anything they want without government interference. Of course, the Bushites aren't so fond of that social part of libertarianism, but they eat up that laissez-fair capitalism part. Their every initiative is designed to protect and enrich the wealthiest members of society at the expense of the poorest and hardest working.
Now, I love science fiction as much as the next guy (and believe me, I comprehend Heinlein; I'm just able to separate fiction from reality), but it is not a good basis for a religion or economic system. If we could just see one historical example of working libertarianism -- ONE! -- maybe you could prove your point.
Your closing line sums it all up: "I want to be a human being who associates with those who wish to associate with me." Well, you don't get that luxury -- nobody does. You're a part of a society. That society includes lots of people you don't want to associate with, but must -- the illiterate single mom, the HIV-positive junkie, the man working two McJobs to feed his family, the homeless guy you ignore on your way to the office, the pregnant teenage girl, the illegal aliens you employ to keep labor costs down -- you are not an island, Mr. Libertarian, and you need us and government far more than we need you.
The libertarian will also argue that in their science-fiction universe, anyone is free to compete and trade and leverage their skills, work, and talent to become rich. Absolutely -- anyone can, but not everyone can. Some people will be born unskilled, untalented, handicapped, or just not very bright, or will become sick, injured, discriminated against, or suffer hardships and bad luck beyond their control. No matter how hard they work, they cannot win. Not everyone can be a winner in the capitalism game. So the question is: how good should the winners have it and how badly should the losers have it? As others have explained, in such a system, eventually the winners game the system to the point where only other winners can compete and losers have no shot. Eventually the best winners collude to prevent competition among themselves. Eventually the losers owe their soul to the company store.
Progressive taxation and limited capitalistic socialism is the only workable solution for a successful and vibrant democratic economy. It's what we have had in place since the New Deal, and it took the United States from the failed, second-rate, Depression-era economy caused by laissez-faire capitalism of the robber barons to being the dominant world superpower with the greatest standard of living ever achieved in human history. Why would libertarians want to mess with success, just to implement a science-fiction philosophy that's been shown to cause greater overall human misery, all because they feel that they are not quite rich enough? How many 17-foot home theaters do they need before they figure that even a lazy, shiftless, parasite on society (otherwise known as a "human") deserves better than sleeping in the street, eating from the garbage, and suffering from easily treatable medical ailments?
OK, discuss. That's all I have to say about that. Since the Libertarian Party has no chance in hell of winning any election that will effect me directly, and since the hard right-wing of the Bushites is going down faster than Paris Hilton in a night-vision home video, I really don't worry about them very much.
It just seems that this site is filled with these fantasy characters, and I may add character assassins.
