Libertarians: You fire fighter lovers sure are good at debate!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Libertarians: You fire fighter lovers sure are good at debate!

«‹›849 »

isildur: May 31, 2000; BattleDroids: Flashpoint OH NO! Dekker! IS DOWN! THIS IS Glitch! Taking Command! THIS IS Glich! Taking command! OH NO! Glitch! IS DOWN! THIS IS Medusa! Taking command! THIS IS Medusa! Taking command! OH NO! Medusa IS DOWN!

Soon to be part of the Battletech Universe canon.

BrandorKP posted:

Salon had an interesting article on Libertarians, Silicon Valley, and the GOP.

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/23/the_extreme_right_wing_is_using_the_tech_industry_to_rebrand_the_gop_partner/

The realization that the guys at Reason were more than happy to make common cause with admitted theocrats was probably the moment of cognitive dissonance that caused me to start re-evaluating why I thought of myself as a libertarian. I remember posting something about the libertarian/dominionist alliance on a Reason comment thread, and getting a response that was basically 'we don't care if they're dominionists as long as they lower taxes.' I never posted there again.

# ? Jul 25, 2014 20:14

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 14, 2024 10:12

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Well Reason gets money from the Kochs (Edit: by that I mean largest single donor) and at least one of the brothers is a Bircher.

When one watches Dr. Strangelove, all the "fluoridated water"/"precious bodily fluids" stuff, the crazy general who starts world war three, that's about the JBS. They distance themselves from that now.

Edit: JBS is where those two things Fundamentalist Christianity and Libertarianism intersect.

Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Jul 25, 2014

# ? Jul 25, 2014 20:38

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001

isildur posted:

The realization that the guys at Reason were more than happy to make common cause with admitted theocrats was probably the moment of cognitive dissonance that caused me to start re-evaluating why I thought of myself as a libertarian. I remember posting something about the libertarian/dominionist alliance on a Reason comment thread, and getting a response that was basically 'we don't care if they're dominionists as long as they lower taxes.' I never posted there again.

This reminds me quite a bit of back when Ron Paul's theocratic leanings became apparent and the surviving puppytar posters went into "well he wouldn't be able to get that through Congress anyway, plus he'd lower taxes and cut needless regulations!"

# ? Jul 25, 2014 20:41

Pope Guilty: Nov 6, 2006; The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.

Reason magazine's pro-Holocaust Denialism issue.

# ? Jul 25, 2014 22:34

Fansy: Feb 26, 2013; I GAVE LOWTAX COOKIE MONEY TO CHANGE YOUR STUPID AVATAR GO FUCK YOURSELF DUDE; Grimey Drawer

Fansy fucked around with this message at 12:05 on Apr 12, 2020

# ? Jul 25, 2014 23:07

Mr Interweb: Aug 25, 2004

So this dude seems to think that just cause he was wrong about California not plummeting into a recession cause of its job killing tax hikes doesn't mean he's wrong that California's going to eventually be a deserted wasteland:

https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2014/07/25/krugmans-gotcha-moment-leaves-something-to-be-desired/

# ? Jul 30, 2014 05:28

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

danieljmitchell, five things about me posted:

1) I�m a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, Washington�s premier free-market think tank.

2) A left-wing newspaper in the U.K. wrote that I�m �a high priest of light tax, small state libertarianism.� I assume they meant it as an insult, but it�s the nicest thing anyone�s ever said about me.

3) My hobbies are softball (decent player), basketball (hopeless), and skiing.

4) I�m a passionate Georgia Bulldog, so much so that I would have trouble choosing between a low-rate flat tax for America and a national title for the Dawgs. I�m not kidding.

5) Check out my YouTube channel. Thanks to a former intern, I even have a wikipedia page. And I�ve even sunk to the level of being on twitter, where I�m @danieljmitchell.

# ? Jul 30, 2014 15:12

Happy_Misanthrope: Aug 3, 2007; "I wanted to kill you, go to your funeral, and anyone who showed up to mourn you, I wanted to kill them too."

danieljmitchell posted:

And what matters most of all is the long-run impact. You can rape and pillage upper-income taxpayers in the short run

Yes this is a perfectly appropriate term to use

# ? Jul 30, 2014 15:17

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

"Prior to joining Cato, Mitchell was a senior fellow with The Heritage Foundation" "Ph.D. in economics from George Mason University."

These are fruits of producing institutions like the Mercator center at GMU.

# ? Jul 30, 2014 15:31

Pope Guilty: Nov 6, 2006; The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.

BrandorKP posted:

"Prior to joining Cato, Mitchell was a senior fellow with The Heritage Foundation" "Ph.D. in economics from George Mason University."

These are fruits of producing institutions like the Mercator center at GMU.

The ability to move between Heritage and CATO should be dispel any ideas about libertarianism and conservatism being distinct.

# ? Jul 30, 2014 15:36

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Don't know how I missed that CATO was originally called "the Charles Koch Foundation" and the change to "Cato Institute" was Rothbard's idea

# ? Jul 30, 2014 18:04

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

New Koch editorial:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/08/05/charles-koch-how-to-really-turn-the-economy-around/13643229/

Charles Koch posted:

For years, Washington politicians have said that our economy is turning the corner. They said it in 2011, in 2013 and again last week � every time they report a quarter with 4% economic growth. But each time, the economy has turned sluggish again.

Like most Americans, I am deeply concerned about our weak economic recovery and its effects on millions of families. Opportunity, especially for the young and disadvantaged, is declining. High underemployment has become our new norm.

The effects of underemployment are not just economic, they are also social and psychological. Real work is an important part of how we define ourselves. Meaningful work benefits both us and others. Those who lack real jobs often end up depressed, addicted or aggressive.

Today, opportunities for such work are not what they should be. We need a different approach, focused less on politics and more on basic principles.

Principled business

First, we need to encourage principled entrepreneurship. Companies should earn profits by creating value for customers and acting with integrity, the opposite of today's rampant cronyism.

Too many businesses focus on getting subsidies and mandates from government rather than creating value for customers. According to George Mason University's Mercatus Center, such favors cost us more than $11,000 per person in lost GDP every year, a $3.6 trillion economic hit.

Compounding the problem are destructive regulations affecting whether and how business invests and employees work. Federal rules cost America an estimated $1.86 trillion per year, calculated the Competitive Enterprise Institute. At Koch Industries, we've seen how punitive permitting for large projects creates years of delay, increasing uncertainty and cost. Sometimes projects are canceled and jobs with them. Meanwhile, 30% of U.S. employees need government licenses to work. We need a system that rewards those who create real value, not impedes them.

Second, we should eliminate the artificial cost of hiring. Government policies such as Obamacare have given businesses a powerful incentive to hire two part-time people to do one full-time job. This trend was reflected in June's employment data, which included the loss of half a million full-time jobs. In 2007, 4.4 million Americans worked part-time jobs because they could not find full-time work. That number now stands at 7.5 million, up 275,000 in June. "The existence of such a large pool of 'partly unemployed' workers," Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen said, "is a sign that labor conditions are worse than indicated by the unemployment rate."

Skills AND values

Third, we need to guide many more people into developing skills and values that will enable them to reach their potential. Everyone knows education increases a person's ability to create value. But the willingness to work, an essential for success, often has to be taught, too.

When I was growing up, my father had me spend my free time working at unpleasant jobs. Most Americans understand that taking a job and sticking with it, no matter how unpleasant or low-paying, is a vital step toward the American dream. We are in for more trouble if young people don't find that all-important first job, which is critical to beginning their climb up the ladder.

Finally, we need greater incentives to work. Costly programs, such as paying able-bodied people not to work, are addictive disincentives. By undermining people's will to work, our government has created a culture of dependency and hopelessness. This is most unfair to vulnerable citizens who suffer even as we say they are receiving "benefits."

I agree with Dr. Martin Luther King. There are no dead-end jobs. Every job deserves our best. "If a man is called to be a street sweeper," King said, "he should sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say, 'Here lived a great street sweeper who did his job well.'"

Our government's decades-long, top-down approach to job creation has failed. Its policies have made our problems worse, leaving tens of millions chronically un- or underemployed, millions of whom have given up ever finding meaningful work. In doing so, our government has not only thwarted real job creation, it also has reduced the supply and quality of goods and services that make people's lives better and undermined the culture required to sustain a free society.

When it comes to creating opportunities for all, we can do much better. It's time to let people seek opportunities that best suit their talents, for businesses to forsake cronyism and for government to get out of the way.

Charles Koch, chairman and CEO of Koch Industries, is a donor to libertarian causes.

# ? Aug 7, 2014 16:07

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

That's a pithy quote from MLK, I wonder if he came up with that before or after he went to communist training camp.

# ? Aug 7, 2014 16:12

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

I love the: these institutions I fund directly provide evidence that my opinions are correct

Edit: anyone else notice that the many of the ad buyers from Scientific American, "Great Courses", etc are now Glenn Beck sponsors.
Edit: Just realized all the Richard W Wetherill "Right is Might" alpha pub business is a reference to "Might is Right" of Ragnar Redbeard.

Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Aug 7, 2014

# ? Aug 7, 2014 16:15

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

SedanChair posted:

That's a pithy quote from MLK, I wonder if he came up with that before or after he went to communist training camp.

This gets even better:

http://www.progressive.org/news/2014/07/187769/his-dad-charles-koch-was-bircher-new-documents

Koch joined the JBS during the Civil rights movement and funded JBS attacks on the civil right movement , including King specifically:

article posted:

Charles Koch was not simply a rank and file member of the John Birch Society in name only who paid nominal dues. He purchased and held a "lifetime membership" until he resigned in 1968. He also lent his name and his wealth to the operations of the John Birch Society in Wichita, aiding its "American Opinion" bookstore -- which was stocked with attacks on the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King, and Earl Warren as elements of the communist conspiracy. He funded the John Birch Society's promotional campaigns, bought advertising in its magazine, and supported its distribution of right-wing radio shows."

that article is goddamn goldmine too, there is a whole timeline history of the JBS/Kochs opposing the civil rights movement at the bottom.

Also C. Koch raising money for JBS in 66.

Doesn't leave over the racism, leaves over Vietnam.

Also bonus "communist training camp image"

# ? Aug 7, 2014 19:10

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Yes that was my subtle barb.

# ? Aug 7, 2014 19:21

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

I know, I just like to repeat that the Libertarianism of the Kochs is the racism of the segregationists loudly and often.

# ? Aug 7, 2014 19:27

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001

BrandorKP posted:

I love the: these institutions I fund directly provide evidence that my opinions are correct

Yeah, I too was shocked, just shocked I tell you! to see that he was citing the economics department he more or less directly owns at George Mason.

# ? Aug 7, 2014 19:34

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

That progressive article mentioned JBS funded radio shows...

I wonder if they funded Asa Carter's show?

Edit: Nope before JBS existed.

Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Aug 7, 2014

# ? Aug 7, 2014 19:38

Pththya-lyi: Nov 8, 2009; THUNDERDOME LOSER 2020

time.com has an online poll on who should be the first American woman on a dollar bill. As of this posting, Ayn Rand leads the pack with nearly 56% of the vote. I can hardly believe people respect her more than, say, Harriet Tubman, who actually helped enslaved people gain their freedom. :eng99:

# ? Aug 14, 2014 22:18

Boon: Jun 21, 2005; by R. Guyovich

I mean, sure, it's Time.

But how is Beyonce and Ayn Rand even on the list? What would the justification be other than "she wrote a book that a minority of people have read"

And for gently caress's sake Aretha Franklin has to be far more influential than Beyonce.

Boon fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Aug 15, 2014

# ? Aug 15, 2014 03:27

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

Boon posted:

I mean, sure, it's Time.

But how is Beyonce and Ayn Rand even on the list? What would the justification be other than "she wrote a book that a minority of people have read"

And for gently caress's sake Aretha Franklin has to be far more influential than Beyonce.

It's an internet poll. With the choices from nominations by people who post in article comments.

You should be surprised there's anyone besides Ayn Rand listed.

# ? Aug 15, 2014 03:38

Eskaton: Aug 13, 2014

When I think about it, Rand's image printed on money is actually very fitting for some weird reason.

# ? Aug 15, 2014 06:57

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

Boon posted:

I mean, sure, it's Time.

But how is Beyonce and Ayn Rand even on the list? What would the justification be other than "she wrote a book that a minority of people have read"

And for gently caress's sake Aretha Franklin has to be far more influential than Beyonce.

Atlas Shrugged was written more than fifty years ago but in 2009 it soled 300,000 copies. It has shown up on more than one self reported survey of the books that Americans consider to have had the most influence over their lives. Love it or hate it, it was and remains an influential book.

# ? Aug 15, 2014 06:57

Absurd Alhazred: Mar 27, 2010; by Athanatos

Eskaton posted:

When I think about it, Rand's image printed on money is actually very fitting for some weird reason.

A leading libertarian ideologue's image on fiat money? I'm all for trolling the goldbugs. :getin:

# ? Aug 15, 2014 06:59

Augustin Iturbide: Jun 4, 2012

It's just like when they put Jackson on the $20!

# ? Aug 15, 2014 07:00

GROVER CURES HOUSE: Aug 26, 2007; Go on...

Helsing posted:

Atlas Shrugged was written more than fifty years ago but in 2009 it soled 300,000 copies. It has shown up on more than one self reported survey of the books that Americans consider to have had the most influence over their lives. Love it or hate it, it was and remains an influential book.

Sold

300k copies. Thinktanks were caught gaming ratings on more than one libertarian piece of work.

Incidentally, an excellent argument against letting libertarianism.

# ? Aug 15, 2014 07:07

Brute Squad: Dec 20, 2006; Laughter is the sun that drives winter from the human race

For anyone who's missed it, Jrodefeld has returned.

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3656603

# ? Aug 15, 2014 07:30

Caros: May 14, 2008

kelvron posted:

For anyone who's missed it, Jrodefeld has returned.

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3656603

And then left again. He's flighty.

# ? Aug 15, 2014 08:36

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Caros posted:

And then left again. He's flighty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVi4PUx8bXk

# ? Aug 15, 2014 08:39

Pththya-lyi: Nov 8, 2009; THUNDERDOME LOSER 2020

Eskaton posted:

When I think about it, Rand's image printed on money is actually very fitting for some weird reason.

It is absolutely fitting, as Rand adopted the dollar sign as her personal emblem - as did John Galt in Atlas Shrugged.

Rand also arranged for a six-foot-tall dollar-sign wreath to be displayed at her funeral.

EDIT: To learn more about Ayn Rand and how weird and awful she was, please visit Ayn Rand Fun Facts.

Pththya-lyi fucked around with this message at 09:02 on Aug 15, 2014

# ? Aug 15, 2014 08:58

Pigbog: Apr 28, 2005; Unless that is Spider-man if Spider-man were a backyard wrestler or Kurt Cobain, your costume looks shitty.

So is it just me, or is Ayn Rand essentially just a more influential Ignatius J Reilly?

# ? Aug 15, 2014 14:25

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Ayn Rand: "Never refused fudge"

Edit: Welp never need to prove my "It's a religion" assertion ever again.

"When two of Rand�s Objectivist followers in the �Collective" got married, they included in the ceremony vows pledging their "joint devotion and fealty to Ayn Rand." Also part of what had to be the worst wedding ever, they read to one another from the "sacred text" Atlas Shrugged."

Edit 2:

Don't think about this one too much.

"While Rand and Nathaniel Branden were engaging in �the logical extension of our intellectual and emotional connection,� whenever Branden �devoted a long period of time to Ayn�s pleasure,� she would demand, horrified, �You�re not being altruistic, are you?�'

Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Aug 15, 2014

# ? Aug 15, 2014 14:29

Caros: May 14, 2008

In the same vein:

Matt Taibbi, Griftopia posted:

Foreshadowing alert! In any case, during this same period Greenspan drew closer to Rand, who as self-appointed pope of the protocapitalist religion had become increasingly unhinged, prone to Galtian rants and banishments. One of her rages centered around Branden, a handsome and significantly younger psychotherapist Rand met when she was forty-four and Branden was nineteen. The two had an affair despite the fact that both were married; in a cultist echo of David Koresh/Branch Davidian sexual ethics, both spouses reportedly consented to the arrangement to keep the movement leader happy.

But in 1968, eighteen years into their relationship, Rand discovered that Branden had used his pure reason to deduce that a young actress named Patrecia Scott was, objectively speaking, about ten thousand times hotter than the by-then-elderly and never-all-that-pretty-to-begin-with Rand, and was having an affair with her without Rand�s knowledge. Rand then used her pure reason and decided to formally banish both Branden and his wife, Barbara, from the movement for �violation of objectivist principles.� This wouldn�t be worth mentioning but for the hilarious fact that Greenspan signed the excommunication decree, which read:

Because Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden, in a series of actions, have betrayed fundamental principles of Objectivism, we condemn and repudiate these two persons irrevocably.

Ayn Rand, among other faults, was a massive hypocrit.

# ? Aug 15, 2014 17:20

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

BrandorKP posted:

Don't think about this one too much.

"While Rand and Nathaniel Branden were engaging in �the logical extension of our intellectual and emotional connection,� whenever Branden �devoted a long period of time to Ayn�s pleasure,� she would demand, horrified, �You�re not being altruistic, are you?�'

It's all the weirder because Branden and his wife agreed that she was lonely and he should...service her. So uh it's not like he was getting anything out of it to begin with other than the pleasure of his idol

uh

uh christ what a trainwreck

# ? Aug 15, 2014 18:13

isildur: May 31, 2000; BattleDroids: Flashpoint OH NO! Dekker! IS DOWN! THIS IS Glitch! Taking Command! THIS IS Glich! Taking command! OH NO! Glitch! IS DOWN! THIS IS Medusa! Taking command! THIS IS Medusa! Taking command! OH NO! Medusa IS DOWN!

Soon to be part of the Battletech Universe canon.

Read Branden's 'Judgement Day'. It's sordid as gently caress.

# ? Aug 15, 2014 18:26

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

He was definitely being altruistic:
"Personal hygiene wasn�t her strong suit. In fact, during the years of his mandated bi-weekly Rand-banging, Nathaniel Branden pleaded with his wife Barbara to discreetly ask Rand to bathe more frequently."

Miss Rand, a rational integration of the evidence of my senses has produced the objective conclusion that you have rank pussy. And as every is implies an ought, I ask that you reach your full potential as woman qua woman by obtaining the rational life-affirming value of a loving shower.

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Aug 15, 2014

# ? Aug 15, 2014 22:41

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001

VitalSigns posted:

He was definitely being altruistic:
"Personal hygiene wasn�t her strong suit. In fact, during the years of his mandated bi-weekly Rand-banging, Nathaniel Branden pleaded with his wife Barbara to discreetly ask Rand to bathe more frequently."

Miss Rand, a rational integration of the evidence of my senses has produced the objective conclusion that you have rank pussy. And as every is implies an ought, I ask that you reach your full potential as woman qua woman by obtaining the rational life-affirming value of a loving shower.

I used to think there wasn't anything left about Ayn Rand to be stupefied and repulsed by. I used to think that.

# ? Aug 15, 2014 23:31

Typical Pubbie: May 10, 2011

LogisticEarth posted:

I always have a soft spot for Spooner because he started up a competitor to the US Postal Serice. The service was successful and cheaper, but the government shut him down because it claimed a monopoly.

Riiiiiiight, and this wouldn't have had anything to do with Spooner's postal service not having a last-mile mandate. If you limit a delivery service exclusively to densely populated areas with modern infrastructure like Baltimore and New York then yes, you can probably offer your service at a lower average cost than the guy who is obligated by law to sell his services at an affordable price in unprofitable markets as well as profitable ones. Which, by the way, is essentially the reason why the US Postal Service is allowed to have a monopoly. It needs the profitable markets to subsidize the unprofitable ones because it is providing a quasi-public service.

Every cherry-picking libertarian cost comparison between the public and private sector always fails to mention that a private business isn't obligated to sell a drat thing if it isn't profitable for them to do so.

Typical Pubbie fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Aug 16, 2014

# ? Aug 16, 2014 01:00

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 14, 2024 10:12

Bel Shazar: Sep 14, 2012

Typical Pubbie posted:

Every cherry-picking libertarian cost comparison between the public and private sector always fails to mention that a private business isn't obligated to sell a drat thing if it isn't profitable for them to do so.

This sounds like you're trying to make a counter point, but I think the libertarian response would be "Yes, that's exactly the point"

# ? Aug 16, 2014 01:07

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Libertarians: You fire fighter lovers sure are good at debate!

«‹›849 »