I can't believe I'm supporting Paul over Obama on anything, let alone this.
Given it's his last term, I'm surprised that Obama is at this so much. It could be the pivotal cause that sinks the Dems in 2016 and Paul's filibuster only bolsters his own campaign.
Ehh. I see him more as a true libertarian. I know he's come out in support of the tea party recently, but that's not really his roots (unless you consider the tea party to be libertarians as well. The definition has changed a bit over time).
Generally speaking, I think most people would get behind libertarianism if they could get past the nut job conspiracy theories. Generally speaking, liberterianism is fiscally conservative, socially liberal, in favor of limited government, limited intervention in individual's lives, pro small business, anti crony capitalism, and generally on the right side of most recent issues that have come up from bail outs to wars (overseas and on drugs).
Of course, you'll hear the nutjob stories saying that libertarians want to eliminate public schools or privatize fire departments. This is no more realistic than it is to say democrats want a perfect utopia complete with killing people off once they reach retirement age.
Libertarians still count education and security as values, they just think there are ways to do it that don't involve centralized government control. Just because someone is against tax funded public school doesn't mean they are against education.
> Of course, you'll hear the nutjob stories saying that libertarians want to eliminate public schools or privatize fire departments.
Many do (more so the former than the latter, since public safety is definitely one of the near-universal agreed-upon functions of government), but any reasonable libertarian is well aware that that kind of thing shouldn't happen overnight. When people have relied upon a government service for years, grown up expecting it, and grown up paying for it, it would be the height of irresponsibility to dismantle it without a clear transition plan and a way to make sure people got value for the money they put in.
Generally speaking, liberterianism is fiscally conservative, socially liberal, in favor of limited government, limited intervention in individual's lives, pro small business, anti crony capitalism, and generally on the right side of most recent issues that have come up from bail outs to wars (overseas and on drugs).
... no welfare, no requirements for education; little regulation of industry - your only recourse is a post-hoc trip to the courts (hope you can afford that); maintaining network effects for the socially well-off; no attempts to give a hand up to the disadvantaged; wanting government services without having to pay for them; redefining words like 'violence' to mean almost anything; male-centric rhetoric; and should you suffer from an accident, libertarianism's response is: 'sucks to be you, hope you catch the attention of someone rich'...
This is just a counterpoint to your incredibly romantic view of libertarianism. You don't have to be a libertarian to want civil liberties - and the lack of colour in the (almost always male) faces of libertarians is pretty telling that it's not an ideology that serves everyone well.
I've heard ideas, and rather like the idea of creating a base-wage system where everyone is taxed, period, at the same percentage (even upwards of 50%), and from that everyone gets a check each month.. not needs based, not analysis based, and would allow the elimination of whole swaths of welfare programs.
In general such a system would be less intrusive on people's lives, and also relatively secure from abuse since everyone gets the same amount.
As to crony-capitalism, it would take several prongs as an approach. One would have to both eliminate corporate taxes, and enact laws restricting buildups of unutilized and under-utilized assets owned by non-living entities, as well as foreign tax shelters. An option could be a tax system that includes transactions in/out of the country.
All of this would reduce the size of government, lessen the burdens on the individual, while encouraging corporations to pay out taxable dividends or reinvest in growth.
As to limited regulation of industry, that also goes hand in hand with more limited protections... IP law has been expanded to the point of absurdity especially in conjunction with non-living entities having ownership. Not to mention expressly limiting non-living entity rights, as non-citizens. A person has rights, a corporation has collective bargaining, it's not the same, in that regard it may take a constitutional ammendment.
Libertarianism isn't about no government, it's about the most limited yet effective government one can have, and ensuring competition and free markets can exist.
WRT insurance or healthcare coverage... this is where I break from the libertarian ideal in favor of a more pragmatic approach... that being to first off, take the funding that already goes into various service (VA retirement, medicare, medicaid and other state-directed funds) and move that into a government owned non-profit insurance company. And given that there is now a baseline for coverage (despite an insane number of exceptions), that requiring any company with more than 5 people working for them more than 10hours/week to provide that baseline. Eliminating exceptions, and allowing any person or business to buy into the public option... Anyone working would be covered, and there would be enough funding (given what is already spent) to cover the rest.
All of what I've suggested above, in my mind is pretty much in line with a libertarian mindset offset by a bit of pragmatism for a structure/path that could lead to a better use of public resources, more individual freedom.
Beyond any of that, in terms of bringing light to social injustice, the internet (and some news organizations) have held decent stewardship here... on an individual basis you're already limited to the courts, with the odds stacked against you. Having a limited case of something not being better doesn't mean you shouldn't try to improve things otherwise/elsewhere.
I had the same argument with a friend recently, in that I feel most drugs should be decriminalized, and he didn't feel so unless one could provide a near instant screening (similar to breathalyzer tests for alcohol)... my opinion is the scenario for a police stop wouldn't be worse with the drug decriminalized, and that public endangerment is as such, regardless of the motivation or reason... from there, police, prosecutors and judges should be encouraged discretion. It doesn't matter if you're 16 and just smoked a bowl, or if you're 85 and just had your third heart attack if you're a danger to others.
I think you're misrepresenting yourself. You sound like a fairly standard centre-left (in the US, perhaps 'far left') person. You talk of a safety net and communal healthcare, and ramping taxes to pay for them - this is something I've never encountered a libertarian encouraging. The more frothy ones actually call that kind of idea 'violent'. And just like you don't have to be a libertarian to want improved civil liberties (I actually see libertarians functionally arguing against them, as their methods enforce network effects) you also don't have to be a libertarian to want the power of government reduced, or a reduction in crony-capitalism.
In regards to regulation of industry, IP laws are a complete sideshow, complete with tinsel and fireworks. I'm talking about things like chemical dumping. IP is largely based around the entertainment and high-tech industries, which for the most part an individual can take or leave. But a company dumping chemicals that you can't easily detect? That can fuck you up for life, and once the damage is done to your health, no court order can recover it. Or similarly, mandating minimum safety requirements in vehicles - it reduces healthcare requirements, and strengthens societies by having fewer families with maimed or killed members, whereas an unregulated vehicle industry cuts a lot of corners that a consumer doesn't see, and therefore doesn't understand the value of.
Honestly, if I was to read what you wrote here about what you wanted without any ideological labels being mentioned, I'd think you were a fairly standard leftie.
I'm talking about reducing the size and depth of central government by implementing a system of change that will likely not make things worse, by creating a position that allows for greater competition and a more free market.
As to chemical dumping, this is precisely what the court system is for, punishing those that infringe on another's rights and/or lie, cheat, steal to do so. In the chemical dumping case, the appropriate action might be to liquidate said company and have all funds distributed to those affected. That might be an appropriate response to that type of action.
Liberty should extend so far as not to infringe on another's rights. I already pay close to 50% of my income in taxes... 38% of my paycheck is gone (between payroll taxes, social security, mandated healthcare coverage, etc), a significant amount of the rest are tethered to utilities, and essential services... more still on sales taxes.. that doesn't even cover the taxes that go into tariffs and other fees along the way.
No libertarian likes the loopholes that corporations are allotted in terms of liberty over individual citizens. Libertarians tend to be very left leaning on some issues, and very right leaning on others... the goal is for a minimal amount of government interference... my own pragmatic view is to come up with solutions that move us towards more freedom in ways that have a chance of being more broadly approved, working and not costing more overall.
Libertarian who wants to eliminate public schools and privatize fire departments (though I'm not necessarily as enthusiastic about the latter) reporting for duty, sir.
I'm afraid it's you who has the limited Beltway understanding of libertarianism. Rand Paul isn't a libertarian and he'd probably gawk at most actual libertarian political theory.
He's a states' rights conservative aligned with Old Right ideals (nowadays associated with paleoconservatism). These used to be common, but have been eclipsed by the more warhawking neoconservatives over the past few decades or so.
fiscally conservative, in favor of limited government, limited intervention in individual's lives, pro small business
None of these things are necessary to libertarianism. Hell, even being socially liberal isn't necessary for some of the more propertarian, extreme Rothbardian interpretations of anarcho-capitalism and the so-called paleolibertarians, like Lew Rockwell.
Various libertarian socialist and left-libertarian movements either reject private property entirely and advocate a common means of production owned by decentralized worker cooperatives, for gradual revolution through democratic worker-controlled labor unions, mutual credit banks that reject traditional conceptions of markets and are instead based on labor theory of value with shared credit pooling, so on and so forth. These would constitute aggression under some right-libertarian interpretations.
In certain right-libertarian anarcho-capitalist theories where private property becomes the ultimate foundation of individual sovereignty that trumps all other rights, one may end up in a situation where you have little social mobility from decisions made by adjacent property owners, despite being master of your own dominion.
I've never heard Libertarianism described that way. This is straight from their web site lp.org.
"We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.
We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.
We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.
Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market."
"Libertarians support free markets. We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of entities based on voluntary association. We oppose all forms of government subsidies and bailouts to business, labor, or any other special interest. Government should not compete with private enterprise."
"Employment and compensation agreements between private employers and employees are outside the scope of government, and these contracts should not be encumbered by government-mandated benefits or social engineering. We support the right of private employers and employees to choose whether or not to bargain with each other through a labor union. Bargaining should be free of government interference, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain."
A (limited liability corp, the most common kind of) corporation is a legal fiction created by government to shield individuals from accountability. What non hypocritical justification could a libertarian put forth for limited liability corporations?
The fact that you associate the Libertarian Party with libertarianism in general demonstrates to me your knowledge is severely lacking in that area. LP has had plenty of schisms and it's a rather divided organization these days.
> Does the Democratic party espouse that we should recreate the US government as a democracy instead of a republic?
The US government is already, in theory, both a (indirect/representative/federal) democracy and a (democratic/federal) republic. "Republic" and "democracy" aren't mutually exclusive forms of government, they are largely orthogonal.
Libertarians should acknowledge the terrain and spend tbis generation on a fight for a decentralization of power from the Federal govt to a coalition of States. The way to make progress is incremental.
- On drug policy, he's against treating addicts like criminals. He's in favor of allowing states to legalize (that alone puts him in front of nearly all members of Congress).
- He's in favor of significantly reducing the incarceration rate in the US. He's in favor of felons re-acquiring voting rights.
- He's against minimum sentencing laws.
- He's against the police state, the militarization of police, and the surveillance state.
- He's against the vast government intrusion into personal lives, through the overly abundant creation of ridiculous laws and regulations.
- He's against the current system of civil asset forfeitures that we have, and its abuses.
- he's against treating addicts like criminals
- he's in favor of significantly reducing the incarceration rate in the US.
- he's against the police state, the militarization of police, and the surveillance state.
- He's against the vast government...
Towards all of these points, at least, I don't know that they show he is clearly anything. I would guess you would be hard-pressed to find the politician who says they are against reducing the incarceration rate in the US.
> Team" voting is why politics is broken and we can't have nice things. People vote & evaluate ideas based on their teams position rather than the ideas themselves.
I'm glad you're able to evaluate the situation based on it's own merits & come to your own conclusions, but the polarization & villainization of opposite sides of the spectrum is what is killing real political debate.
Oh, I agree 100%. My comments are directed solely at what drives most politicians, and that is their own or their party's electability.
Rand Paul is a politician as much as any other, and the tea party are nutters. Obama hardly has a stellar record in office and all of the incumbents are, IMO, laughable at this point.
I'd say that politicians, and their monied interests, are killing real political debate.
The tea party was a ground-swell movement that got co-opted by the Kochs to promote very little more than the Republican status-quo in terms of political ideology. Once they got involved in funding things it turned from libertarian (anti-war, pro personal liberty) into something much different.
The tea party is probably only as dirty as the Koch's money. Remove that and you've got a bunch of people who basically believe in the goodness of individuals. That isn't terribly dirty IMO.
For what it's worth, Kochs are themselves anti-war and pro personal liberty (at least as far as beliefs go: one can argue that removing social insurance may cause a net reduction in personal liberty, but this isn't the place to argue this). While their beliefs are controversial, they are no more controversial than beliefs of other libertarian-leaning groups and individuals. (I don't know if they belief in goodness of individuals, however: in fact, one can easily argue a pro-liberty stance coming from innate evil of individuals as well.)
What is controversial is the Kochs' tactic of backing republican politicians who are themselves pro-war and opposed to personal liberty (along side candidates who oppose wars and support personal liberty, of course): sometimes the "lesser" of two evils is still... evil; even worse, one may be mistaken about what is lesser. This wasn't always this way: Kochs once supported the Libertarian Party and represented its more liberal (in the conventional sense) wing, oddly enough in opposition to its more radical wing led by Ron Paul.
None of this is a defense of libertarian ideas per-se, my own views have evolved on this. Of course that's besides the point of TFA: civil liberties are a core point of classical liberalism, the foundation conservatism, liberalism, and libertarians; this isn't a matter of arguing whether or not healthcare should be socialized (or not), one would hope Rand Paul would be speaking for the majority of senate (across both parties) and not as a maverick.
the tea party has never been untainted by koch money, it was funded fully by them from the very start and existed as their explicit political project long before obama was elected.[0] it's 100% astroturf and always has been
"a bunch of people who basically believe in the goodness of individuals. That isn't terribly dirty IMO"
Maybe not dirty, but terribly naive. Not in the sense that I think people are inherently evil, but I do believe they are inherently greedy (naturally as greed serves an important evolutionary function as long as we live in a society with scarcity) in a way that makes them perfectly willing to bend and break the rules to increase their personal wealth and power as long as they don't get punished for it and nobody that they have to actually see (and thus empathize with) gets hurt by their greed (though some have such advanced systems of self-denial that even this bit is negotiable).
This is why unregulated capitalism is just as flawed as pure socialism for now, current humans can't be trusted to live in any system without external checks and balances (and even with those the best we can hope for is that the system mostly works for most people).
I don't think any libertarians want true anarchy and unregulated capitalism... so much as a more even playing field that ensures competition. IP protections have been expanded to the point of insanity in favor of corporations... this expansion has been voted up by both Republicans and Democrats alike...
Removing corporate taxes, and in the same vein reducing both the rights of corporations to that of "non-living entities" (no freedom of speech, etc), as well as driving out tax shelters and loopholes in favor of encouraging either reinvestment/growth or paying dividends which are taxed...
Most libertarians I've known are not in favor of crony corporatism, which is very different from allowing or encouraging free markets to work.
> Remove that and you've got a bunch of people who basically believe in the goodness of individuals.
This is an extremely generous characterization and one that I do not feel is borne out by the vigorous "fuck you, I've got mine" platform that's dressed up as a defense of personal liberty. American conservatism had degenerated to this point before the Tea Party, but rarely was it stated so barefacedly.
The liberties of poverty--say, to die rather than impoverish your family when you get cancer, or to doom another generation to subsistence due to the factors in which they are raised--are no liberty at all. And, either through malicious advocacy or through desired inaction, the Tea Party was about that from day one. I was there. (I look rather poorly on historical hagiography, regardless of who the halo's being painted onto.)
> The liberties of poverty--say, to die rather than impoverish your family when you get cancer, or to doom another generation to subsistence due to the factors in which they are raised--are no liberty at all.
As opposed to having the government decide for you, without actually changing the possible alternatives?
Let's have a quick review of the policies the US government has in place to "help the poor" -- starting with subsidizing mortgage interest. Not new housing construction, borrowing money so people can spend more on housing. Which therefore bids up the cost of housing for anyone who hasn't yet or never will save enough for a down payment. On top of that, it's structured so that people in higher tax brackets or who own more expensive property get more subsidy.
Since you now can't afford housing, the government will provide subsidized housing projects with no hot water but plenty of drug dealers.
You might want out of these conditions and start working a second job in order to save up a down payment for your own property. But the added income from your second job disqualifies you from the government subsidies, so running twice as fast only keeps you in the same place.
At some point a working class person starts to wonder if they wouldn't be better off if the government would stop "helping" them so much.
I hear this often, but there is actually quite a bit of evidence to refute your "fuck you, I've got mine" reference in regards to conservatives. I see it anecdotally in my own family, which is pretty evenly split ideologically.
Donated money to charity? Republicans 54%, Democrats 45%
Volunteered for a cause? Republicans 33%, Democrates 24%
[1]
"...households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals" [2]
Take tithing to their own churches out of that, and rerun the numbers.
Why take the churches out? Because you're implying that donating to a "charity" means they're doing good for their local community. Churches seldom do much good compared to dedicated social benefit organizations.
I honestly have no idea of their affiliation, I can only assume this website is right-wing because of the story, but there are at least links to a W2, which seems impartial enough.
I lost faith in non-pro's a while ago because of stories like the above. The idea is sound, the reality seems shaky at best.
Of course you can pick out nonprofits that don't do much social good. High-profile ones like the Clinton foundation seem like sitting ducks for "hur hur nonprofits are no good", and lots of foundations exist to house rich people's money and not do much else.
But look around your city, look at the housing or domestic violence nonprofits, look at the ones that retrain ex-felons or offer services to help them integrate, and on and on and on.
Find churches that do a tenth of that kind of work. In my city, a medium-sized American city, I can think of a very few church-run social benefit organizations, but the city is thick with nonprofits that help the worst-off in society in a variety of ways.
FWIW, I'm actually familiar with non-pros, at least in Baltimore, MD, US. I have friends who work for non-pros, mostly because they're lawyers who need to pay the bills somehow.
More than a few have told me that the majority of their time is met filing for grants, doing "shady" book-keeping and fulfilling whatever minimum requirements needed to earn said grants. The shady book-keeping has caused more than a few to leave.
No, of course not all non-pros are that way. But, comparing church to a non-pro seems as useful as comparing the NFL to a non-pro, which until this year, the NFL was a non-profit. [0]
This was why I was curious if you had data to back up your claim. I am far from a church apologist. Very far from it, but in my N=1 anecdotal experience, the only difference between church and a non-religious non-pro, is the religion.
Not at all an attack towards you, I was hopeful you had data to back up your claim. I am still hopeful. I do not like churches.
I guess I'm not sure what kind of data you're looking for.
I don't think the data set exists that says "Nonprofits are/are not tax-shelter scams that spend most of their time doing shady bookkeeping".
I don't know if there's a data set that breaks down how many people get helped by nonprofits, either, because the stuff they do takes on so many different forms (and how would you quantify the work, say, an environmental nonprofit does in terms of human benefit?).
I do know that, if you were curious, there is a very far-reaching community of nonprofit professionals online, and they'd do a much better job than me explaining the social-benefit-type of work their employers do.
I'll ask around tomorrow, too (I have a bunch of nonprofit-employed friends, who work in programs and not administration). I'll return to this thread if I get anything good to share.
(And yes, there's definitely corruption in the nonprofit world, I won't argue with that, my beef is with churches that do almost nothing for the community and still enjoy the tax-exempt status and that "we're a charity, ergo we're good for the world" sentiment.)
The push for surveillance is clearly something that is a "must have" from Washington's point of view -- to the point that it trumps ordinary political concerns.
If you're disappointed in Obama over the USA PATRIOT Act, that's your own fault - he was very clear about his opinions on USA PATRIOT from long before he ran for office, as early as 2003 (or 2006?). Obama has voted in favour of expanding/extending the USA PATRIOT Act's powers from the earliest possible time that he had US lawmaking influence.
There are many reasons to be disappointed in Obama perhaps, but he was clear about this from Day 1: He supports unchecked US domestic spying.
2007 — A Promise on the Road to the White House
By 2007, Obama is campaigning for the White House and making government transparency a central part of his platform. He tells an audience in Washington that the Bush administration “puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide.”
As president, Obama says, he will provide U.S. intelligence agencies the tools they need to defeat terrorists without undermining the Constitution. “That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime … No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient.”
There were some options during the primaries (like Dennis Kucinich), and this is why the primary elections are so important. None of the No-to-USA-PATRIOT options made it past the primaries, so we were left without much real choice.
Oh, I didn't realise, it was the top result for my search. I'll fix it with a proper link soon, there are many legitimate sources for that data. Sorry about that.
Yes, Obama is a tremendous liar (not to mention a piss-poor president). However, Crypoz is correct. Obama didn't lie about this. He has always been for a centralized government and a police state. Of course, he flowers those words up and puts sugar on them to make them palatable to the masses, but he has stated he supports this type of intrusive government behavior all along.
To you defence, it was "Yes we can". Nothing about actually doing something. And the alternatives weren't really, hand-on-heart, any real alternatives, at least not within the two big parties.
Russ Tice, a Bush-era NSA whistleblower, claims Obama's phones were tapped by the NSA starting in 2004 [1]. If true, questions would be raised. Could they have some leverage on him? That's just speculation though, and wouldn't give Obama an excuse for supporting the illegal [2] NSA programs.
Great discussion here, amazingly for politics on the Internet. Thank you all.
I understand the value of using labels to mean something specific, but it's also clear that it holds libertarianism back. Like Catholics or Yankees fans, I suspect there are degrees, but the majority are not extreme in their beliefs.
The two big parties at least have the benefit of established social groups that make you feel like you're swimming with the tide. Libertarians don't yet have a central narrative that can withstand the marginalization by the media and polite society, and specifically, viable libertarians run under the name of a major party, compromising or muddying that message.
I like the call here to talking about ideas rather than teams. And I like the point that no one's calling for change overnight. I call myself a (civil) libertarian, but that's an inclination, not a manifesto. I'm not extreme in most of those beliefs. Yet third parties get pinned to the most extreme conclusions of their tenets, while the fringes of R and D are understood to be fringes. We have to overcome that institutional inertia with an occasional bout of critical thinking. Take party affiliations off the ballot.
That would be awesome, because it would mean we've moved past social conservatism.
I am specifically not tying libertarians to conservatism because plenty of us weight the social side of things heavier, where there's more in common with liberals.
People sometimes think this is about an individual president/politician's values or policy thinking. That might be the case, but over the last decade I've started to think that there's a different explanation.
Sometimes I call it the "Giant Robot Theory of The Presidency" -- that is, I suspect that occupying the white house is to no small extent a lot like climbing into the cockpit of a large and complex piece of anime mecha. It mediates your senses, your reality is "augmented" in a number of ways, you have information being fed to you from various subsystems. You're empowered, but you're also somewhat isolated by the cockpit, too, and it's easy to start to think about reality in terms of what the various feeds and subsystems are telling you and think about your actions largely in terms of the controls in front of you. Perhaps at first you focus that way because it's all so new and awesome and exciting, then later because you just got used to it while barely noticing how totally you accepted this interface to the world. Over time the system itself shapes your perceptions and thinking, and you think less like what you were before you climbed in and more like the system itself.
That's a colorful metaphor for saying that once you're in the leadership of an organization, you see like the organization does, because you "see" via the organization, but I think it adds something.
(BTW -- it's also true of everyone to some extent. It's a useful exercise to think about exactly what kind of mecha you've climbed into and how it's influencing you.)
I think this tendency may be more pronounced in organizations with strong mission-oriented and ends-justify-means cultures.. like, say military/defense/national security orgs, which we intentionally staff with people we train to set the value of human autonomy and even life (theirs and others) below various goals and "interests."
I somewhat subscribe to the same theory, but it's augmented by the idea that there is stuff out there we just don't know about and never will.
Daniel Ellsberg (the leaker of the Pentagon Papers) described it perfectly when talking about how he briefed Henry Kissinger upon Kissinger's appointment as National Security Advisor under Nixon:
"First, you'll be exhilarated by some of this new information, and by having it all — so much! incredible! — suddenly available to you. But second, almost as fast, you will feel like a fool for having studied, written, talked about these subjects, criticized and analyzed decisions made by presidents for years without having known of the existence of all this information, which presidents and others had and you didn't, and which must have influenced their decisions in ways you couldn't even guess. In particular, you'll feel foolish for having literally rubbed shoulders for over a decade with some officials and consultants who did have access to all this information you didn't know about and didn't know they had, and you'll be stunned that they kept that secret from you so well."
Thank you for adding this! Reading that statement by Ellsberg is actually one of the things that crystalized the thinking I described above.
I think he's also giving thoughtful people hints about how they can mitigate the problem:
"..it will have become very hard for you to learn from anybody who doesn't have these clearances. Because you'll be thinking as you listen to them: 'What would this man be telling me if he knew what I know? Would he be giving me the same advice, or would it totally change his predictions and recommendations?' And that mental exercise is so torturous that after a while you give it up and just stop listening. I've seen this with my superiors, my colleagues....and with myself.
"You will deal with a person who doesn't have those clearances only from the point of view of what you want him to believe and what impression you want him to go away with, since you'll have to lie carefully to him about what you know. In effect, you will have to manipulate him. You'll give up trying to assess what he has to say. The danger is, you'll become something like a moron. You'll become incapable of learning from most people in the world, no matter how much experience they may have in their particular areas that may be much greater than yours."
And this advice is relevant beyond the realm of classified information. Most people are likely to find themselves in situations where they have what they regard as privileged information/perspective that in some way they can't share with others in discussion. Remembering that other people may still have valuable contributions to make in that discussion (and perhaps even a perspective that you don't have) can help ensure what you know doesn't keep you from learning what you don't.
Maybe this partly explains why the atomic bomb scientists were completely against compartmentalization (I know its off topic... but I was reading about the Manhattan project and this exchange reminded me of that).
Colorful yet probable. It's part of the reason I've started to believe that someone with strong conviction like Ron Paul would actually be best for a while.
Surface statements: he believes it makes America safer.
Reality: Obama believes in a large, powerful, intrusive central government. These spying powers are an immense source of power and ultimately control. Supporting vast domestic surveillance is consistent with his overall ideology.
You say that, but really why does President want control? Once you are elected president, you are set for life with millions of dollars of "speakers fees" and free favors forever. Some people have plans to conquer the world like Hitler or Stalin, but Obama is just sort of plodding along. Why does he care about getting all this power? What will he do with it?
I think he thinks that the population hasn't fully considered what could really happen if it were truly impossible for law enforcement to engage in targeted surveillance.
Lack of any targeted surveillance is not the alternative.
The alternative is to have to get individual warrants that are targeted, specific, limited. The political machine that Obama is part of hates this alternative.
Obama is not a socialist. He's a right-leaning liberal and a staunch defender of the status quo in some ways (though progressive in others, and I'm grateful for having affordable health care as a solopreneur!), but he's not a socialist.
Funny how real socialists will vehemently disagree on this whole socialism canard. He's a right-leaning moderate, which unfortunately in the current political climate is tantamount to socialism.
Seriously. HN doesn't have much of an American socialist contingent, but even so I'm surprised that this joke gets play at all. I'd probably be a social democrat if I lived in a moral country that supported such a platform, and I sure as heck don't see Obama as being in the right neighborhood, to say nothing of the ballpark.
Obama is arguably to the right of Richard Nixon. Chew on that for a while.
Why is it assumed that anyone that doesn't like Obama must like Bush? They are both in favor of huge spending. They both support wars that we probably don't need. They both are in favor of the Patriot Act. They both spend tax payer dollars towards their own crony special interests.
The Patriot Act received broad bi-partisan support in the wake of 9/11. It passed in the House 357 to 66 and in the Senate 98 to 1,[1] which means that a very large majority of Democrat legislators voted for it (including then-Senator Hillary Clinton).
Sure but most of the opposition was from the Democrats. It just irks me that libertarians think they invented civil liberties when it has traditionally been a liberal issue, for example with the ACLU. War, police powers, law and order, three strikes, the drug war are not "communist" ideas, capitalist conservatives have always been the biggest proponents of these idea.
The US Government nearly doubled in size during his time in office, with his party having significant Congressional power, and he didn't try to stop any of it. He helped create vast new agencies that are extremely expensive to maintain. He created Medicare Part D. He launched two sizable wars, and expanded the military dramatically. At a minimum, Bush was/is a fan of big, intrusive government.
The more accurate description might be to say he's a proponent of really big government. He's very far away from being a proponent of small government or Capitalism.
This is a point that needs to be beaten into our collective heads to get past the WWE-style "competition" fostered by the two parties, and start talking about the ideas.
Unfortunately, every time we get close to that realization, the parties bring out "The next president will appoint several Supreme Court Justices that will have a decades-long impact" knowing that we'll swallow the lesser of two evils. I regret to say that worked to make me vote major-party the one time (Kerry, ick), but we have to think even longer-term to break out of this two-party cycle.
Most certainly a socialist of a modern type, unquestionably a collectivist. Even more an international than national socialist, although obviously not a communist.
I'm not sure why it would seem curious or even mildly surprising. Obama is a self-proclaimed Marxist and has been from the start. Creating a centralized, unchecked position of power is what Marxists do; you know, for the good of the people.
Yes, mullingitover, because that is the ONLY thing Marxism is about.
Since you, and those who down-voted my posts, are so smart, please explain how Obama's attempts to increase state control over our energy, health care, economy, finance, and education are not Marxists ideals and leading us down that socialist path.
Please explain how Obama's blocking of domestic energy supplies via the assertion of government ownership and regulation over massive amounts of acreage isn't Marxist.
Please explain how Obama's maniacal zeal for progressive income taxes specifically targeting the rich is not Marxist.
Please explain how Obama's desire to reinstate estate taxes isn't Marxist.
Please explain how Dodd-Frank wasn't a giant leap towards the centralization of the U.S.'s financial system into the hands of the federal government.
Please explain Obama's appointments of self-proclaimed Marxist Van Jones and his relationships with his mentor, and documented member of the Communist Party, Frank Marshall Davis, and the links of David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett to the Chicago Communist Party.
Instead of down-voting my posts, why not read The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx, for yourself and see exactly how Obama's policies align with that document's 10 steps. No, we're not to the gulag stage yet, but that is certainly the path Obama has us on. Read and see.
You seem to be confusing state ownership and management of industry with regulation of private industries. The state regulating and industry by banning various things or putting various requirements on the exploitation of common resources isn't anything like Marx's discussion of the state owning the means of production.
> domestic energy supplies
If you want to drill for oil on public land, your fellow citizens would like you to not fsck-up the land while you exploit it. Only in childish pure-capitalist fantasies does a business get to exploit common resources without without any social responsibility.
> progressive income taxes
Again, you apparently don't understand the difference between Marx's ideas of state ownership and modern economic theories, only some of which is even considered socialist. You tax the rich because they are the people with the money. Trying to squeeze it out of the poor with a flat tax is not only wildly socially irresponsible, it also creates social unrest. It also fails a producing revenue for the government.
Oh, and you did know that progressive income tax started a loooong time before Marx was born, right? Even the ancient Romans had a progressive income tax.
> estate tax
Nothing specific to do with any of the economic suggestions discussed by Marx. Like the progressive income tax, limiting the dynastic accumulation of "old money" with an estate tax is a lot older than Marx. It's not like it even affects many people, contrary to the lies spread by many right-wing pundits. Are you leaving more than $5,430,000 to your kids? You did know that the estate tax exempts that amount, right?
...
Ok, I have better things to do than to point out the errors in your fairly stereotypical GOP-propaganda-based view of the world.
Obama has done more to continue Republican policies than any other modern president. You might want to take note of that - and do more reading about the history of politics on all sides. Obama and our current government have done some very worrying things (the Patriot Act power grabs that are the subject of this thread are a good example). I suggest focusing on these real problems if you want to accomplish something useful. Retreading old, easily debunked GOP is a waste of time and distracts from the actual problems that need to be addressed.
I'm not confusing anything, pdk. As ONE example, what do you think Obama's goals of a single-payer healthcare system are if not state ownership of healthcare? What do you think the IRS's control over your healthcare is if not state ownership. If you think that is regulation, you have a very different definition of the word than I do.
Your second point is an appeal to probability fallacy. You conclude that Obama blocked development of energy in America because companies wouldn't develop energy responsibly, when there is no logical reason to make that assumption given that plenty of companies produce energy in non-destructive ways.
Your understanding of tax systems seems flawed. There are many, many countries in the world, especially in the Soviet block region, that have implemented flat tax systems, have have enjoyed economic growth, and have not had the social unrest you claim comes with the territory. Even in countries where the flat tax system hasn't gone as well as hoped, other factors, such as government corruption, wasteful spending, high tax rates, etc. have been destructive elements that cannot be ignored. This is all irrelevant, however, and simply a smokescreen to hide the fact that Obama's is obsessed with taxing the rich (and the middle class) using Marx's envy-based tax system.
I'm not sure what your point is on estate taxes. Are you saying that if a bad policy only affects a small number of people then it is OK? Or, do you mean to suggest if I don't have $5.43 million in my estate I shouldn't have an opinion on said bad policy?
I have better things to do that argue the obvious with someone who is obviously playing team sports. I'm surprised you didn't find a way to fit Fox News or Rush Limbaugh into your argument. I am not a member nor a supporter of the GOP. I am well aware that Obama has done nothing more than double down on Bush's worst policies, while sprinkling his own brand of Marxist idealism on them in order to really polish the giant turd that is the federal government today. How is this relevant?
I don't support either of the big parties and suggest you and others consider doing the same. Your civic duty isn't a basketball game. It doesn't matter if you win or lose, as long as you vote for what is right. Currently, I don't believe correct governing principles exist in either of the major parties. They are both corrupt.
Let's see... you don't understand the difference between the government managing healthcare payments/insurance (money) and managing healthcare itself (there are a many differen ways to run a single payer systems than just the NHS model).
Your tax-law ideas are half right-wing standard propaganda, half nonsense. "obsessed with taxing the rich"? The rich enjoy the lowest taxes in living memory. They need to be taxed more to counteract the income disparity. Failure to do so will lead to revolution. "wasteful spending" - yet another GOP talking point.
$5M is plenty of inheritance. I would personally tax anything above that at 100% - large amounts of inherited wealth is high damaging. The current law in this area is an acceptable compromise. (Also, as most people don't even care, just bringing this up suggests you follow right wing politics and propaganda.
> Obama has done nothing more than double down on Bush's worst policies
This is the most accurate thing you've said in this entire thread. You have just said yourself that Obama isn't a Marxist.
> How is this relevant?
Well, paid shill for the GOP was one possibility, as you use so much of their rhetoric. Especially considering:
> /user?id=innocentoldguy
> created: 22 days ago
However, there is a better explanation, given this nonsense:
> I don't support either of the big parties
> I believe God created
> Of course people choose to be gay.
> I'm approaching 50
So you're a teahadist. Aka, "useful idiot for the Koch bros". I'm sure you like to use the term "independent", due to the bad PR association.
You have several decades of catching up to do - not just on the political situation of the last few decades, but also modern economic theory and social theory. Instead, I suspect you'll continue to support the rich, who have proven very successful at getting what they want by manipulating fears of the "other", while dangling dreams of future riches. Maybe one day you'll notice.
Bwahahahahah! OK, let me tackle each of these, uh, mountains.
1. So, you can't see how controlling the purse strings of medicine is controlling health care? Really? Even if it were completely irrelevant, which it's not, Marxism is about the state taking control of industry, so wouldn't you say Obama has made great strides in allowing the state to take over the health insurance industry? Either way, my point has been made, right?
2. You keep throwing the word "propaganda" and "talking points" around at me, but those two items make up the entirety of your argument. The Democrats always want to point to the extremely high taxes of the 1960, and the economic growth during that era, as proof that the progressive tax system and extremely high taxes (90%+) on the rich work. They point to the Clinton era to show that progressive idealism works. What the Democrats fail to mention is that many of the rich left the country to avoid those taxes in the 1960s, that the economy began to collapse during Clinton's second term, and that Japan's economy collapsed in the 1990s under almost the exact same tax system (I lived there at the time and know). The truth is that high/low taxes always come in cycles and so do economic growths and downturns. Taxes are only one line item in a very complex economic calculation. If you want to argue tax theory, we can do that in another post. My point was, and remans to be, that Obama is a Marxist, and he has made many comments himself to back up that assertion, such as, "I do think at a certain point, you've made enough money." Why not go to YouTube and look and see all the videos showing Obama talking about raising taxes on the rich. Whether he has been able to do so or not is irrelevant. Those are his ideals and they are straight out of The Communist Manifesto.
Not that it is relevant to my point, but to address your "wasteful spending" comment, in 2014 alone, the federal government spent money to study the effects of Swedish massages or rabbits, to watch grass grow, to discover how and why Wikipedia is sexist, to see if mothers love dogs as much as they do kids, a smart-phone game to encourage kids to eat peas and other healthy foods, and to teach mountain lions how to walk on treadmills. Do we really need any of that? Really? This list doesn't even address the various departments offering redundant services, the mismanagement, the fraud, etc. When you get a letter from your bank saying you're overdrawn, or when you see you've been double-charged for something on your credit card statement, do you consider that a "talking point?" At what point do facts and reality become something more than a "talking point" for you?
3. No, what I said is that Obama is a Marxist and so was Bush, to some degree.
4. And now we get to the liberal classics. The absolutely irrelevant, ad hominem attacks against me personally because you have nothing else to say. I've been caught! OK, let's follow your logic here for all the other boys and girls. I might as well, since I've been outed, right? Like the closing monologue of a Scooby Do cartoon. OK, here's what I did... I saw this thread yesterday, got in my Koch-brothers Brand™ time machine, traveled back in time 22 days, set up an account, and made comments on technical articles so that nobody would know I'm a GOP shill. Then, when this article popped up 22 days later, according to my new timeline, I sprung my trap against Obama's political dogma. You're logic is absolutely flawless, and I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids!
5. Again, the ad hominem arguments... I think the term you're looking for is "Tea Party supporter." I also think it is humorous, and a bit sad, that you feel the need to group, label, and classify me. You have to have me be on a team that you oppose and are unable to discuss the facts outside of that paradigm. Your hope seems to be to discredit the facts I'm presenting by discrediting me as a person. Don't you think your argument is probably quite weak if you have to resort to such tactics?
Another funny thing is, I had never heard of the Koch brothers until Harry Reid gathered up his slip and curls, and started crying into his pillow over them. Who exactly is the talking-point-parroting, propagandist shill in this conversation?
6. I have more than enough money for my needs. I am self-reliant and I do for myself, and don't need to suckle at the teat of government, looking for a handout. I'm happy to keep what I earn and let others do the same. I'm also happy to share with those less fortunate than me. I feel sorry for you, that you feel you have some right to the rewards of other people's labor, and are looking for that payday from the government, which in my fifty years under Democrat and Republican rule, has simply never come.
Now, you haven't said one thing to suggest that Obama isn't a Marxist. You've just attacked me. Can we please stick to the Obama/Marxist topic, since that is, after all, what you supposedly wish to argue about?
I down voted you because of the wildly inaccurate use of the term "Marxist". Most of Obama's policies have very little to do with what Marx wrote about; at best, you could call him a socialist on a handful of issues, moderate/mild-conservative on other issues, and a pro-establishment Democrat overriding everything.
Words have specific meanings, and you shouldn't label all of your political opponents "Marxist" (or "communists", "reds", or even "fascists", "neocons", etc) just because some of those labels may have fit some political opponents in the past.
Let me further refer you to Obama's book, "Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance"
"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. THE MARXIST PROFESSORS and the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets."
In other words, by his own admission, he sought out and aligned himself with Marxist professors.
It is surprising to me why smart people who can read can't see this ideal in Obama's policies, politics, and governance.
Perhaps not, but all the things in my other post do. This is just further evidence. You don't seek the company of Marxists, have a communist as a mentor, align your presidential campaign with documented communists, and not have that ideology rub off on you.
I'm not really sure why you're having a hard time accepting that Obama leans towards that ideology. The evidence is all there.
Read my other comment and read The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx. Obama's actions and Marx's document align quite well. I'd love for you to show me how they don't.
I also have a question for you. Do we only call people Marxists once we're all properties of the state, residing in gulags, or dead? Or, do we see the slow movements in that direction early on and stop them? I personally prefer the latter.
> Read my other comment and read The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx
The Manifesto of the Communist Party was written by Marx and Engels, not Marx as sole author.
> Obama's actions and Marx's document align quite well. I'd love for you to show me how they don't.
Okay, sure. the Manifesto's most direct policy prescriptions are contained in Chapter 2 [0], where after acknowledging that particular steps will differ from country to country, it states that "[n]evertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable" and lists the following items:
> 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
Where has Obama advocated anything like this?
> 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Certainly the US has something like this, with a suitably loose definition of "heavy", but that pre-dates Obama.
> 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Where has Obama advocated anything like this? (Proposing actually paying capital gains tax on the appreciation of capital assets transferred in inheritance -- e.g., treating transfer in inheritance like a transfer -- is far from abolition of all rights of inheritance.)
> 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Again, where has Obama advocated anything like this?
> 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
The US, obviously, has a central bank, but that's not an Obama innovation.
> 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
Certainly, the Obama Administration has supported some tweaks of existing communication and/or transportation regulation, but, again, where is there anything substantially like this?
> 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Again, where?
> 8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Same question as above, where has Obama advocated this?
> 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
The first part of this is a process that private industry has led in this country, but where has Obama proposed anything to advance either part?
> 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.
Much of the first two sentences of this had been advanced in the US prior to Obama, and is fairly (with "present" in the 1848 sense!) uncontroversial. Where has Obama done anything on the third?
Where -- with specifics from both Obama policies and the Manifesto -- has Obama, in short, done anything that shows his actions "align quite well" with the Manifesto's agenda?
First of all, I am aware than Engles was involved, but it was Karl Marx who slaved over this document and ideology to the detriment and devastation of his wife and children. It was Marx who was the self-centered megalomaniac behind this concept, and he who pictured a future where people would worship him as a god. Engles's most important contribution was really money.
1. As I said, Obama has used the state to block the development of domestic energy over vast amounts of land. Furthermore, Obama upholds the notion of public domain, which means our property rights are subject to the whims of the state. How does this NOT fit? Just because the state hasn't confiscated all land yet doesn't mean this shouldn't be a concern and a type of things to come.
2. I never said Obama introduced the progressive tax in America. I said he fully supports it and has expanded it. His obsession with taxing the rich is well documented. I don't believe Marx was the original inventor of all of his ideas either. Does a pre-existing art doctrine prevent us from pointing to the state of our union today and accurately declaring what is wrong with it?
3. Confiscating wealth via a death tax, regardless to what extreme you do it to, places us directly on the path of Marxism, does it not? How can you claim that the federal government's confiscation of up to 45% of your wealth upon your death isn't just slightly under halfway there when it comes to Marx's goal? If I only forcibly molested you half way, would you feel as if it hadn't happened at all?
4. You have obviously never worked abroad. The federal government absolutely rapes you in taxes, especially if you are a software engineer, successful sales person, or an executive and make more than the standard overseas deduction. Furthermore, have you ever lived overseas and held money in a financial institution? Obama got the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act passed in 2010, which gives the federal government the ability to order foreign financial institutions to provide information to the IRS regarding Americans' offshore holdings. Then, if they feel like it, the federal government can confiscate your off-shore property. Fits quite nicely into number 4, really.
5. Yes, number five was going on before Obama. I never said it wasn't. However, Obama embraces this centralization and accelerated it via Dodd-Frank, which drastically increased the federal government's control over financial firms; as I already mentioned.
6. Regarding communications, Obama wants to revive the "fairness doctrine." He upped the Patriot Act's spying on American citizens for the last 6 years. He has expressed hostility towards free speech on numerous occasions. Regarding transportation, Cap & Trade. He also keeps trying to push America into the government's high-speed rail system. He keeps trying to compel Americans into "green transportation" by attempting to get laws passed that outlaw things like coal, pipelines, domestic energy production, etc. Has he centralized it yet? No. But, I don't believe those things happen overnight. They are slowly introduced in order to minimize backlash. Is that what Obama is doing and are we on that path? I believe so.
7. Obama has made every attempt to inject the federal government into the health care industry, housing industry, auto industry, and energy industry. Again, he has us on the path.
8. What do you think Obama's ramping up of federal employees in the IRS, Americorps (or "corpse," if you're Obama), and his Serve America Act are?
9. Obama used the Department of Housing and Urban Development to relocate people in order to make America more evenly distributed, racially speaking. Additionally, Obama's cap & trade would severely limit our ability to commute. This has a very high potential for forcing people to live in urban hubs.
10. The purpose of this point in Marx's Communist Manifesto was to control what people think. Don't you believe that is what Common Core is all about? In his State of the Union Address in 2012, Obama called for more funds and new federal education programs, and talked about mandatory federal schooling for everyone under 18. Also, what purpose does Obama have for wanting to give Associate degrees away for free?
Did that answer your questions?
In conclusion, I never said that Obama implemented all of the Marxist problems we now have. I simply said, and proved, that he supports Marxist ideals. Just because we have had other Marxists in our country's leadership before now doesn't negate the fact that Obama is indeed a Marxist. This isn't a talking-point. It is simply a fact.
Really disappointing to see someone complaining about one side "distancing" themselves from something instead of talking about the issues based on their merits.
"Team" voting is why politics is broken and we can't have nice things. People vote & evaluate ideas based on their teams position rather than the ideas themselves.
On top of that, Paul's first term was in 2009. I don't understand why he can't establish his own views on this.
The parent comment was implying that "republicans started it" - so no self-identifying republican should be allowed to have a different opinion.
That's a terribly naive point of view and strips the conversation of any nuanced debate if we simply shove candidates in boxes labeled with their political affiliation.
Given it's his last term, I'm surprised that Obama is at this so much. It could be the pivotal cause that sinks the Dems in 2016 and Paul's filibuster only bolsters his own campaign.
Feel dirty supporting a tea-partier.