Having The Same Argument, Again.

[PresentTense Pirate Penske]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't really get why you think of anarchists as leftists, since they're like ultra-libertarians. In any event, it hardly matters which side of the aisle they might notionally sit on if what they want to do is tear down the hall.

Isn't the left and right sides of anarchism where the circle of the political spectrum comes together? If that makes sense. No?

Anyhoo, I am not making this stuff up, go read it about yourself. I am just the messenger.

[PresentTense Pirate Penske]

Originally Posted by sidd finch

i generally agree with this, but it's also true that a whole lot of liberals are inclined to think of government as the first response to addressing any problem.

2.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

How is an anarchist, who wants all structures of authority dismantled, the most pure form of a libertarian, who wants all but essential structures (defense, police, courts, etc...) destroyed?

People like to argue against libertarians by ascribing the tenets of anarchism (possibly an oxymoron, I know... but you get what I'm saying) to them. The actual libertarian platform explicitly favors preservation of many government functions. Libertarianism's by definition an argument of degree, anarchism the most absolute of absolutes.

A lot of anarchists foresee that cooperative, communal arrangements would spontaneously arise after the dissolution of the government. They prefer not to dwell on the idea that coercion of some sort would be involved. This vision seems to me strikingly similar to the libertarian vision of a minimal state protecting private property and the national borders.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I generally agree with this, but it's also true that a whole lot of liberals are inclined to think of government as the first response to addressing any problem.

Sure, but as a means, not an end.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I generally agree with this, but it's also true that a whole lot of liberals are inclined to think of government as the first response to addressing any problem.

FWIW, I'm happy to put the responsibility of addressing the problem of stopping the oil leak and cleaning up the mess in the Gulf squarely on the shoulders of BP, Transocean, Haliburton and any other company who was involved in drilling and maintaining that rig.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

FWIW, I'm happy to put the responsibility of addressing the problem of stopping the oil leak and cleaning up the mess in the Gulf squarely on the shoulders of BP, Transocean, Haliburton and any other company who was involved in drilling and maintaining that rig.

I don't think we should spend a penny for it. Those companies should pay for the cleanup until it breaks them, or the insurers/reinsurers who'll foot the tab, if it comes to that. If that should happen, they should go into bankruptcy and their assets be sold off to bargain seekers or competitors who will utilize them.

But I do think our govt should be involved in demanding the damn mess be cleaned up quickly, and suing the fuck out of them for indemnity for any state or federal funds used to clean the shoreline. That's not regulation. That's simple assertion of civil rights for redress for trespass and negligence.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don't think we should spend a penny for it. Those companies should pay for the cleanup until it breaks them, or the insurers/reinsurers who'll foot the tab, if it comes to that. If that should happen, they should go into bankruptcy and their assets be sold off to bargain seekers or competitors who will utilize them.

But I do think our govt should be involved in demanding the damn mess be cleaned up quickly, and suing the fuck out of them for indemnity for any state or federal funds used to clean the shoreline. That's not regulation. That's simple assertion of civil rights for redress for trespass and negligence.

That's a delightful idea, but if I understand correctly there are statutory caps on liability which mean it will never happen.

I would wager that it was not liberals who got those caps enacted, btw.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Sure, but as a means, not an end.

I didn't argue "liberals" saw govt as an end. I agree with you that they see it as a means. The problem is they - and in fairness, their opponents who are exactly like them but call themselves conservatives - don't like to look at the other side of the ledger - the costs.

When I say "No tax increases," I'm not saying I disagree with progressive taxation. I'm trying, perhaps inarticulately, to say that we should look first to finding ways to increase the efficiency of our govt, and cut non-essential services, and entitlements. If we cut all the fat we can and still can't balance things, then and only then should we raise taxes.

The liberal comeback to me is always the same tired saw: "We can't cut taxes!" How many times do I have to say I'm not asking for a cut in my taxes? It isn't about me decreasing my taxes. It's about capping mine, and everyone else's taxes. What bugs me about liberals is their kneejerk response is never to cut, but always to increase revenue. They seem to come to every debate with an assumption - form where I've no idea - that govt's natural state is to grow. Where is that an infallible law of economics or statehood?*

If a person wants to call himself "Liberal" or "Progressive," I think it's time those people think beyond the orthodoxies of those groups. Both terms, classically defined, describe people willing to embrace all options given - not married to tribal ideologies. A real, true liberal would embrace efforts to cut government. He'd embrace any solution that worked.


* I understand the Stimulus was needed, but even that was wastefully and ineffectively allocated.

[Hank Chinaski]

A long time client has posted an invitation to a tea party rally on em's facebook. Surprised me. Any advice on what to say to the newly revealed as insane?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

That's a delightful idea, but if I understand correctly there are statutory caps on liability which mean it will never happen.

I would wager that it was not liberals who got those caps enacted, btw.

I knew somebody would take the cheap road there... Look, the govt has endless ways to compel payment from these companies. The coercive actions go on to infinity. I was merely citing one, and the common law (and equitable) bases upon which any such action would be justified. The notion one is entitled to payment for damage another does to his property is not a concept exclusive to trial law. They drilled off our shore and fucked up. Now they have to pay up. How that's done is immaterial.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

A lot of anarchists foresee that cooperative, communal arrangements would spontaneously arise after the dissolution of the government. They prefer not to dwell on the idea that coercion of some sort would be involved. This vision seems to me strikingly similar to the libertarian vision of a minimal state protecting private property and the national borders.

And both about as realistic as the notion that a monkey is about to fly out of my ass.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If a person wants to call himself "Liberal" or "Progressive," I think it's time those people think beyond the orthodoxies of those groups. Both terms, classically defined, describe people willing to embrace all options given - not married to tribal ideologies. A real, true liberal would embrace efforts to cut government. He'd embrace any solution that worked.

Sure. But it seems like your thoughts in this regard don't extend to so-called "conservatives." Cutting taxes is not cutting government, unless and until we reach the crisis point where no one is willing to lend money to the government -- a crisis point that no sane person ever wants to see.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

A long time client has posted an invitation to a tea party rally on em's facebook. Surprised me. Any advice on what to say to the newly revealed as insane?

Say nothing. I'm in the same situation and that's working for me.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

A real, true liberal would embrace efforts to cut government. He'd embrace any solution that worked.

They're all (progressives, liberals, moderates, conservatives, "libertarians") embracing the solution--giving people stuff that their grandchildren will pay for--that works best for their personal goal--re-election.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I didn't argue "liberals" saw govt as an end. I agree with you that they see it as a means.

Sorry, then -- I misread you.

It's a thought I have seen conservatives express, and I think it comes from assuming that liberals believe the opposite of what they think.

The problem is they - and in fairness, their opponents who are exactly like them but call themselves conservatives - don't like to look at the other side of the ledger - the costs.

When I say "No tax increases," I'm not saying I disagree with progressive taxation. I'm trying, perhaps inarticulately, to say that we should look first to finding ways to increase the efficiency of our govt, and cut non-essential services, and entitlements. If we cut all the fat we can and still can't balance things, then and only then should we raise taxes.

The liberal comeback to me is always the same tired saw: "We can't cut taxes!" How many times do I have to say I'm not asking for a cut in my taxes? It isn't about me decreasing my taxes. It's about capping mine, and everyone else's taxes. What bugs me about liberals is their kneejerk response is never to cut, but always to increase revenue. They seem to come to every debate with an assumption - form where I've no idea - that govt's natural state is to grow. Where is that an infallible law of economics or statehood?*

If a person wants to call himself "Liberal" or "Progressive," I think it's time those people think beyond the orthodoxies of those groups. Both terms, classically defined, describe people willing to embrace all options given - not married to tribal ideologies. A real, true liberal would embrace efforts to cut government. He'd embrace any solution that worked.


* I understand the Stimulus was needed, but even that was wastefully and ineffectively allocated.

There is a lot of government spending that a lot of liberals would be happy to cut. Farm subsidies, (some) defense spending, so on. The government spends a lot of money for non-ideological reasons.