Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

SlothfulCobra posted:

And it's still worth noting that the Libertarian Party as a thing seems to be on its way to dying entirely.

https://twitter.com/okcspowell/status/1478129457751859204

They have largely failed to maintain their own distinct identity or philosophy in comparison to the Republican Party, and I think the Republican Party isn't really in good condition either so the politically active people who already lean that way are finding less reason to stay away. Finding true believer libertarians to make fun of is a little like big game hunting for endangered flightless birds.

Libertarianisnm inherent philosophy makes organizing next to impossible.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

VitalSigns posted:

It's 1913, I get to keep my entire $2/week paycheck to spend toward my debt at the company store, thanks to the lack of oppressive income taxes

well yah dummy only the government can oppress you. Businesses on the other hand, are just giving you a chance to sell your labor, duh.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

Kaiju Cage Match posted:

But the 2nd Amendment includes the phrase "well-regulated", which they ignore.

Somehow they twisted that to mean it just apply to the army, I think?

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

Panfilo posted:

I'm curious if you could unpack specific examples because I'm trying to understand the distinctions better.

For example, transphobia in of itself is a type of bigotry and prejudice, but does being a transphobe make someone a fascist? Very very few of them explicitly state things like "we need to murder every trans person in the country", it seems to get buried in euphemisms.

Fascists never start with kill the X, it starts with we need to isolate them, deny them their rights, reeducate them, and then when the non-conforming and oppressed don't conform (or comply, or outlive their usefulness, ect) you make euphemisms about what is to be done with these people.

Not all transphobes are fascist but the people who uncritically say things about tradition and essentially creating measures to oppress people because it doesn't fit their scope of the world based on "traditional" (which is Christian, 99% of the time values) is basically going to side with fascist policy

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

That's definitely a take if I ever saw one.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

I AM GRANDO posted:

I feel like libertarians don’t actually value hard work in any real sense, but take work ethic as one component of their inherent superiority. Like they would dismiss someone at starbucks working hard because only the inferior need to work at starbucks, but ceos work 65 hours a week because of their innate superiority.

I mean it just goes back to the Protestant Work Ethic right? You made a lot of money, you must be virtuous, pious, and blessed by god. You are poor? You hosed up and god hates you. Circumstance literally doesn't matter.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

Panfilo posted:

In this case, she references Madisons comments in the Federalist Papers.

A lot of the comments talk about how is a Good Thing Americans are not subjected to Mob Rule, as if the alternative was somehow better. Not much detail about what goes into assigning a small elite to be in charge, or how this is exactly why they think Communism is bad (because a small ruling elite will dominate over everyone).

There was talk of eliminating the direct election of senators during the tea party wave.

Also, there was an article of the Free Staters in New Hampshire that called democracy a soft communism which really tells you all you need to know about the libertarian movement.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

Ograbme posted:

We're there even historical examples of "mob rule" that the framers could have pointed to?

edit: actually no forget this.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

I really wish I could make money by saying nonsense online. Like that's literally a bunch of words thrown together to get people to say YAHH WOOOAH TAKE MY MONEY.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

Halloween Jack posted:

As any fule kno, the Constitution was a compromise document hashed out by a bunch of competing interests who also had their own set of interests vis a vis everyone else. Elevating this hosed-up contract to the level of scripture, I guess, explains a lot of libertarian attitudes about legal contracts as the basis of all human civilization.

Even the founders agreed that it should be changed and updated and had insight into themselves as being flawed humans.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

Panfilo posted:

Old and Busted: "Democracy is two wolves and a sharp deciding what's for dinner."

New Hotness: "Democracy is akin to gang rape".
:psyduck:
https://twitter.com/Ace_Archist/status/1630337878218743808?t=-g-TUzUdSZux2FuS7eHs6g&s=19

Elon Musk will never gently caress you (directly).

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

Epic High Five posted:

Oh yeah, but like she said, it costs $1 a child, but they're charged significantly more. The only Libertarian objection to much of anything these days is that they, personally, aren't wedged between people and what they need and charging rent.

And how do they know this? Because government is always bad, no matter what. Nothing will change that.

It's a cult.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

Panfilo posted:

It would be funny to put a Libertarian in charge of a free school lunch program, with the caveat that they are solely responsible for the succees or failure of said system:

-Since they think government overcharges for things, they're going to need to keep the budget tight since there's no reason to change :10bux: per chicken tendie right? So they'll have to find suppliers, and can't have graft because that's exactly why they don't like the govt doing it.

-The food will have to be healthy and nutritious, so they'll have to weigh the nutrition/cost balance of food offered. Again, can't have your buddy at Nabisco getting you a sweet deal on oreos for the kids, it's lunch, not a snack bar.

-They'll also have to cut down on waste, since that's the other pet peeve they have about these systems. But the food has to be good for the kids, so they can't just serve them rotten slop either. They'll also have to compel the kids to actually eat the food without violating the NAP.

My guess is it'll end up like prison food, using convict or student labor for prep, substantiall enough to keep you alive but not much beyond that. The rubric used for success will be per meal cost, volume of discarded food, ketchup as a vegetable (even though this is their criticism of school lunches ironically) and the test scores of students with an IQ above 90.

They won't care if you can prove that yes there is many instances where the government can do a better job than the private sector or private market. I would even argue that free school lunches should be a government function because they covering a market that needs to be covered but can't draw a profit (feeding people with little to no money) and they'd just switch to an ideological argument. Giving the government more "power" is inherently bad since only the government can be an oppressive force, unlike businesses who if they were being shady, surely the free market would just force them out of business.

It doesn't matter how much history you show or evidence your present to them, government bad, therefore your numbers are meaningless/made up/stateist.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

Panfilo posted:

It's weird to see a Libertarian woman put so much effort in arguing why she shouldn't be allowed to vote. According to her pretzel logic, voting should be a state matter. The 19th amendment is bad because women are just these frail irrational beings, and the framers would have preferred the "household" vote, which conveniently covers landowners, their slaves and other chattel I'm sure. It's vague on whether Josie here actually votes but the impression I get is that she doesn't. I guess she managed to get on OANN to ramble about this.
https://twitter.com/TRHLofficial/status/1636540903480279049?t=qf436zO_8FqHcpZNs8b_hA&s=19

It's all about proximity to power. Someone like this woman knows her life REALLY won't be effected all that much if her rights are taken away because she is so proximate to power and wealth that she will get privileges. Think about all those women and preachers who supported Roy Moore in Alabama, something so insidiously wrong but they couldn't say anything because they were benefitting from the system that was around them.

What really bothers me about libertarians and conservatives who buy into this rhetoric is that they don't realize as soon as they aren't useful the knife will plunge into their backs.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

VitalSigns posted:

Nah it was all one guy with a handsome countenance who stood up and lit a cigarette one day while the Neanderthals around him squealed in panic at his invention. Then those savages imposed a 2% corporate tax rate to punish him for the use of his rational mind, and tyranny was born.

It's all there in The Fountainhead

Prometheus clearly wasn't an objectivist.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

Epic High Five posted:

If I were to ban someone now for traveling back in time from the future to chrono-assassinate Clifton White, it would create a time-space paradox. Avoiding that is like rule #1 in message board moderation.

I should say I personally believe that time is a closed loop and thus such a paradox could not be created, but it also means I don't have to do anything different so - not worth the risk.

Is this specifically stated in the rules though?

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

VitalSigns posted:

He's pretty racist though, not overly, but like he wanted to bring back segregation, he defended the killing of Trayvon Martin on the grounds that he was going to make drugs with iced tea and skittles (despite jrod also using the drug war as an example of the immorality of the government), he agreed with racial profiling (despite also using it as an example of racist government policy), he supported the confederacy and argued that union armies freeing slaves violated the non-aggression principle.

It was just different from today because he held on to the 90s/00s "I don't even see race" stuff rather than openly saying America is for white people and slavery was better for everyone

I am agreeing with you here and want to point out have you ever met a self professed libertarian who would be ok with a black man shooting a police officer. In my experience, you get a bunch of pained twists to not say its not ok because...reasons despite the fact that its the most clear example of what they profess to hate. Big government, interfering with people's lives, and monopolizing violence. Yet where are these people when this poo poo happens? Defending the police, defending the "small government" republicans.

I have family who are libertarians, their dad was a racist bigot who couched his bigotry in how the government is interfering with his rights as a business and how the government is making unqualified people get jobs. He basically sounded like he was part of the militia movement with out actually being a part of it and a few his kids went to state school and don't see the irony of their belief.

Sorry, rant over.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

Halloween Jack posted:

Right, the actual underlying belief is that nonwhite people are subhuman. So it's good for the government to support my education and my livelihood, but not theirs.

Right and their patron saint is the Paul's, who are small government until they aren't and make excuses for their racism.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

Ghost Leviathan posted:

Also feels like there's definitely a liberal tendency to assume that there must somehow be something admirable and and some kind of substance to libertarian/right ideology despite not agreeing with it, and/or assuming they actually personally live up to any of the standards they profess to- the Ron Swanson ideal and all. Just comes to mind when people talk about a 'token conservative' with fondness before someone brings up they were hella loving racist.


I think being someone who is liberal and on the left is that if you just took the, maximize people's civil liberties with a government that stays out of your private life, it would be admirable. We should be reforming our laws so that police can't pull you over randomly, that allow people to do what they want medically, so on and so forth. The problem is of course, is that's not ACTUALLY what libertarians believe.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

I AM GRANDO posted:

Of course they are. It’s like how all homophones are a hundred times more obsessed with gay sex than any of my gay pervert friends.

I guess they all do sound the same.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

Guavanaut posted:

It's entirely 'cross-sex' hormones that they're mad about though.

Like the idea of a male athlete injecting a bunch of testosterone analogs to get swole (especially if it's a rugged manly white athlete) doesn't even nudge the outrage meter when it comes to libertarian ideas about fairness in sports.

I mean, unless it's baseball probably.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

Guavanaut posted:

Are they mad about steroids in baseball now? I used to hear a lot more "well everyone does it, so you have to do it to be competitive" and "why does the FDA and DEA get to say that I can't inject a bunch of vials I bought on the dark web to get swole? free market" arguments from that corner.

I was just going for a cheap joke but conservatives are the ones who care about baseball players using steroids.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

Proust Malone posted:

https://twitter.com/davidoatkins/status/1651281534702460928?s=46&t=v69FFc9gmilk6I-vYnAGzw

I ran across this one on twitter which was surprising to me that it appears the average republican voternis way more left on economic issues than I assumed. It also makes clear why they push the culture war so hard. Also that the whole “socially liberal, economically conservative” people just don’t exist.

I can't find the article but NPR had a political scientist on a few years ago who said the same thing. A real 3rd Party would be a racist socially left party in the United States. The whole, if we just show we don't tax people thing is a bullshit position borne from corporate media that continually push that as the American center.

Also, people love benefits until they find out people of color get them and then will vote against expanding programs.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003
I think you are all over thinking this, the line of thought it:

Nazi's are culturally a bad thing.
Proclaimed Nazi's believe the same thing I do.
I am not a bad person.
My beliefs aren't the problem.
Therefore, this person is made up to make me and my movement look bad.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

VitalSigns posted:

Libertarians have always been in favor of a big oppressive government too, as long as it's repressing the right people. Their favorite countries—South Africa and Rhodesia—weren't exactly known for their small government principles.

The American flavor of libertarianism is ok with the states oppressing people so long as the federal government isn't doing it.

Mostly because the Federal Government is in charge of civil rights prosecutions.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

Panfilo posted:

I don't remember this part in the history books, can someone fill me in?
https://twitter.com/TRHLofficial/status/1660966266914349056?t=mhqriGfjfZMO91TkaK39sw&s=19

Projection so bright its like when you looked straight into an overhead projector.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

cat botherer posted:

The 500 trillion victims of communism.

The first caveman who said maybe we should share the food was actually Karl Marx projecting into the astral void to create victims of communism.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

Panfilo posted:

Don't forget also that these types hate direct democracy (ironic, you'd think these "individual rights" people would fight to the death to keep their right to vote), so the question of,

:v: "who gets to decide on how these contracts and property rights get enforced? "

:smug: "Certainly not you or anyone you'd have the agency to put in charge"


The head of the Libertarian Party in New Hampshire called it a soft communism.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

Panfilo posted:

Libertarian concepts of slavery seem to include:

-Taxation in general
-Having to use preferred pronouns at work
-Socialized medicine
-Aaand abortion I guess?

Acknowledging harm done to black people too.

edit: Also, I started reading A Libertarian Walks into a Bear and it's a great primer on the types the current "party" draws.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

VitalSigns posted:

I wonder what Jo Jorgensen is up to these days.

Remember when she said that black lives matter, then clarified that she said it in lower case and wasn't supporting the organization Black Lives Matter, and a bunch of libertarians still disowned her.

WHich is hilarious when you think about it, they are against government with too much power. But we finally found out that government power meant treating back people with dignity.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

Ghost Leviathan posted:

That and they just literally can't have a conversation without having to be racist and/or rant about how much they hate young people.

Well yah ultimately this is about mostly black men and women getting paid and not being exploited and he is a libertarian.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003
I just read a Libertarian Walks into a Bear and I thought it was a pretty good encapsulation of what Libertarians are like, right down to having other towns having to bail them out of a fire.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

OwlFancier posted:

But that money must come from taxation, which is slavery, unlike actual slavery, which is sound economics.

No no you see I can be contracted to work for 0 dollars and 00 cents. Contracts as we all know, are the only legitimate function of a government unless the contract is against me than it's bullshit.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

OwlFancier posted:

Water is valuable, therefore the ideal situation is me owning the ocean and finding some way to put a stop to the water cycle. Evaporation is theft! Rainfall is socialism!

Listen, I own this parcel of land of clean water, don't ask me how I got the money, or get possession of the land, or tell me about how "water is necessary to live." If we can put a price on it, it's moral and just to let the free market decide what the cost of living is.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

uber_stoat posted:

Bears are slavery.

No no, you see bears brought poaching operations to New Hampshire, creating new business opportunity.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

Clarste posted:

A perfectly spherical economy.

A perfectly rational spherical economy.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

Caros posted:

Making a lot of assumptions about people here.

Also not defining any sort of terms speaking in the vaguest terms possible.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

Professor Shark posted:

Willing to bet that weird libertarian’s kid did not die.

Well sure physically they are still alive but on the inside. Their child said how great it was the state was doing vaccinations.

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

VitalSigns posted:

They are selflessly giving away all their wealth yet are richer than when they started giving away all their wealth.

So weird...

Almost like their charities are kicking back money to them.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Mooseontheloose
May 13, 2003

Capitulate to us, gently caress you.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply