Having The Same Argument, Again.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by PresentTense Pirate Penske

Yes, just like in Candyland.

New gated community in Seattle?

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by PresentTense Pirate Penske

Individualist anarchism v. social anarchism (i.e. liberal anarchism). Google and educate yourself. I believe that the WTO protestors were of the social anarchist variety.

Get the fuck out of here. That is a pretty interesting "i.e." you have there. In fact, I think you made it up. And the fact that one has to actively look this up and make a leap from your "liberal anarcism" to social anarchism means this isn't exactly a big movement. And if you're going to argue social anarchism is a mirror image of the tea party, I'm pretty sure we're back to the realm of penske-being-a-pain-in-the-ass-who-wants-to-argue-everything-to-point-of-ridiculousness. Because the mirror image of social anarchism is individualist anarchism. And I don't put tea partiers or the great lion's share of liberal protestors in the same boat as anarchists. If you want to pursue, continue on your own.

TM

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Who is that, and what has he done with David Kopel?

And Dale Carpenter is now praising Kagan.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

And Dale Carpenter is now praising Kagan.

And Nate Silver is stat wonking-out about Kagan v. Wood.

[PresentTense Pirate Penske]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Get the fuck out of here. That is a pretty interesting "i.e." you have there. In fact, I think you made it up. And the fact that one has to actively look this up and make a leap from your "liberal anarcism" to social anarchism means this isn't exactly a big movement. And if you're going to argue social anarchism is a mirror image of the tea party, I'm pretty sure we're back to the realm of penske-being-a-pain-in-the-ass-who-wants-to-argue-everything-to-point-of-ridiculousness. Because the mirror image of social anarchism is individualist anarchism. And I don't put tea partiers or the great lion's share of liberal protestors in the same boat as anarchists. If you want to pursue, continue on your own.

TM

I don't claim to be an expert on the variants of anarchism, however, I have read enough to know (thank you to my BA in polysci, as well a slight interest in anarchy) that there are distinct variants. I don't think that social anarchism is a mirror image of individualist anarchism, but at the end of day its mostly a philosophic debate, which I have no horse in. I believe that the WTO protestors are more social anarchists, and the tea partiers are more individualist anarchists, and if you can see the difference between the WTO partiers and the tea partiers then you are starting down the road to some understanding of the two variants of anarchists.

Anyhoo, if you think this is all bullshit, go to Wiki and look up anarchism. It will take 5 seconds of your life to show you I am not making this up and there is at least some body of scholarship on the subject. You may also want to take 5 minutes to read the sections titled Social Anarchism and Individualist Anarchism. FWIW, imnsho, it would be 5 minutes better spent than reading most, if not all (excepting mine) of the posts here.

From there......

ymmv.

[PresentTense Pirate Penske]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

And Dale Carpenter is now praising Kagan.

I became much more comfortable with her today, after seeing your post that she was against statutory prohibitions on flag burning. To celebrate my enhanced mood I printed a picture of the stars and stripes and went down to the parking garage to a little used vestibule and burned the picture, and then pissed on the embers to ensure no forest fire ensued.

Also, ftr, I do not care whether she is straight, lesbian, bi, bi curious, asexual, transied or otherwise; although I will take a pass on sex with her, similar to the pass I would take on sex with any of the rest of the justices, with the possible exception of Sotomayor, in the wrong circumstances*, npi, iykwim.

*Patron at 4 AM at a disco in Nice on NYE is not necessarily mi amigo. npi. nttawwt.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by PresentTense Pirate Penske

I don't claim to be an expert on the variants of anarchism, however, I have read enough to know (thank you to my BA in polysci, as well a slight interest in anarchy) that there are distinct variants. I don't think that social anarchism is a mirror image of individualist anarchism, but at the end of day its mostly a philosophic debate, which I have no horse in. I believe that the WTO protestors are more social anarchists, and the tea partiers are more individualist anarchists, and if you can see the difference between the WTO partiers and the tea partiers then you are starting down the road to some understanding of the two variants of anarchists.

Anyhoo, if you think this is all bullshit, go to Wiki and look up anarchism. It will take 5 seconds of your life to show you I am not making this up and there is at least some body of scholarship on the subject. You may also want to take 5 minutes to read the sections titled Social Anarchism and Individualist Anarchism. FWIW, imnsho, it would be 5 minutes better spent than reading most, if not all (excepting mine) of the posts here.

From there......

ymmv.

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.

[Sidd Finch]

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.

Anarchists are libertarians without money.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Anarchists are libertarians without money.

Good one.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I do not like paying taxes, but I am in favor of people with more money paying more and I do not complain about the fact that I do pay more. I don't know what that makes me, but I don't really give a shit about wearing the label of "liberal." I yam what I yam.

TM

When I argue against economic liberalism, I am not ranting against progressive taxes. Why would I grind that axe? That structure helps me.

I am arguing against the belief liberals hold that we must continue to expand government to provide more services and manage/regulate/infiltrate more areas of industry and society. That's profligate spending. It's unwise and unsustainable. And it hobbles us in a global economy.

I don't expect my taxes to go down and don't argue they should. But they shouldn't be raised to feed new govt spending that's unnecessary. Liberals believe in programs/laws/safety nets/entitlements first, manner of paying for them second. This cannot go on - we all know that. I'm happy to pay more than those with less. All I ask is efficiency and cost-cutting in the way our govt conducts business. The liberal excuse - "govt isn't supposed to run like a business" - is bullshit. We all know that.

By the way, this criticism applies to Bush's pre-emptive war, and the GOP's Medicare Part D, the most wasteful of liberal expenditures.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

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.

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.

[LessinSF]

and this is what cartoons would be if Ty made them.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I am arguing against the belief liberals hold that we must continue to expand government to provide more services and manage/regulate/infiltrate more areas of industry and society.

While conservatives believe that government should be smaller as a matter of principles, no liberal believes that government should be expanded as an end in itself. Rather, they see problems -- market failures -- and see government as a solution. Obviously, people can disagree about whether their -- our -- solutions are wise, but that's a different question.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Liberals believe in programs/laws/safety nets/entitlements first, manner of paying for them second.

Oh, I agree completely. Like when the liberals got together and passed a prescription drug benefit, even when they had just cut taxes so that we could never pay for it? Or the wars they started on the credit card?

Seriously, a lot of what you say is accurate but statements like what I quoted above are 30 years out-of-date --- ever since the Reagan Revolution replaced "tax and spend liberalism" with "borrow and spend conservatism." Falling back on these tired old saws -- "liberals want to grow government and then figure out how to pay for it later," for example -- is several layers of bullshit beneath you.

Right now, to get through the recession, we needed to go into a deficit. Running up a huge structural deficit during years of expansion -- i.e., what Bush II did (and what Reagan did before) -- was disastrous, because it left us with so little flexibility to deal with the inevitable downturn.

Eventually -- and pretty soon -- we have to start dealing with the debt and deficit structure we have in place now. I don't know if we're up to the task, because the country has reached the point where everyone wants more than they want to pay for. Claiming that this is a purely "liberal" issue is horseshit, has been horseshit for many years, and will remain horseshit until conservatives step up and propose spending cuts that actually match the tax cuts they put in place.

And I mean actual spending cuts -- not "waste, fraud and abuse" that they all hope to find, but actual programs and dollars eliminated.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

While conservatives believe that government should be smaller as a matter of principles, no liberal believes that government should be expanded as an end in itself. Rather, they see problems -- market failures -- and see government as a solution. Obviously, people can disagree about whether their -- our -- solutions are wise, but that's a different question.

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.