Libertarianism on the rise in the last three years

[AVG-JOE]

This 'codetalk' tactic is a rather interested development. It kind of like the ultimate, general purpose strawman. For instance, I might say 'social justice' is codetalk for beating baby seals over the head with a club. Is that how it works?

'Social Justice' is code talk for republican medical bankruptcy.

Code talk for smacking baby seals is 'Red, White & Bop'

Only because you fucking believe it...

You're apparently another fool thats been brainwashed with "Whole Language."

In your fucking mind blue could be red and just as long as you believe it that means its the truth..

Either that or you're just ignorant...

Good (insert your preferred Deity here), people!

Turn your fucking irony detectors to the 'on' position. You'll find it located next to the sarcasm switch in your user control panel.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Special Interests don't have votes, the people do. If people opposed the "special interests", they would vote for candidates whose policy positions didn't intersect with said special interests.

Special interests certainly do have votes. They have votes in the way of entities like "citizens United", "concerned taxpayers ad nauseum" and the like. They are corporate sponsored and funded interests that influence voting from a general populous that is scared and very much open to brainwashing(advertizing).

It's kind of like an "as seen on TV" voting process. All they would need is the late Billy Mays to make it complete.

Problem is that ALL progressive special interests violate the Bill of Rights....

My special interest group doesn't tolerate that bullshit.

I missed that post... What IS your 'special interest'?


For the record, I like girls.

 

[Lars]

"The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." Alex Carey [see Democracy after Citizens United | MIT World ]

How does Goldman Sachs, for example, influence citizens into voting for Barack Obama, who was the largest recipient of their campaign contributions? Also, provide me with some proof of the large scale brainwashing by corporations. BTW, I am not denying that politicians grant corporations favors through law, I am just saying the average voter isn't that concerned by it, or concerned enough that it is a primary factor in their vote.

This is a fascinating question as it get at how we know anything at all. How many voters would vote for increased taxes today that "destroy jobs?" Isn't that an idea, and isn't that a corporate position. How many voters would vote for "tougher regulations that increase costs?" Ever watch the commercial on government wanting to tax soda? The position that ads, aka propaganda, does not influence voters is naive at best. If ads didn't work Americans wouldn't know... I am always amazed at the wonderful Chevron Ads, considered many years as one of the worst corporations on earth, how many know that? The alternate position is that reason decides and voters really do think of the implications of their vote. If you truly believe that I have some wonderful real-estate for you, cheap.

Carey's book is an eye opener for those interested in a bit of reality.

"Corporate propaganda directed outwards, that is, to the public at large, has two main objectives: to identify the free enterprise system in popular consciousness with every cherished value, and to identify interventionist governments and strong unions (the only agencies capable of checking a complete domination of society by corporations) with tyranny, oppression and even subversion. The techniques used to achieve these results are variously called 'public relations', 'corporate communications' and 'economic education'." Alex Carey 'Taking the Risk out of Democracy'

It seems as though the majority of voters have supported candidates who support increased spending and regulations, as both have consistently gone up from decade to decade. And this "anti tax" propaganda as you call it, has utterly failed, as most Americans support increased taxes on the wealthy, and if trends continue this way, America will most likely vote for candidates in 2012 who will complete all of these objectives.
Large Majority Of Americans, Including Most Republicans, Support Raising Taxes On The Wealthy | TPMDC

 

[AVG-JOE]

Only because you fucking believe it...

You're apparently another fool thats been brainwashed with "Whole Language."

In your fucking mind blue could be red and just as long as you believe it that means its the truth..

Either that or you're just ignorant...

Yeah... couldn't be you... could it?

My judgment on social issues, er all issues that pertain to society are based on the BILL OF RIGHTS, not my emotions unlike progressives...

I got it right - you're fucking wrong and will always be wrong until you consult the Bill of Rights before your emotions on issues...

Unlike you, I have supported ideas I'm morally opposed to because the Bill of Rights protect those ideas....

You're absolutely correct. The Bill of Rights guarantees the rights of the hunter.

Now the question becomes a what should we do?

Classic Liberal thinking says to educate the little girls who may grow up to be rich and famous about where those pretty fur coats come from and educate the young hunters about managing an ecosystem, and let the market decide how to regulate baby seal hunts.

Weird, huh?

 

[AVG-JOE]

flacaltenn wrote:

Why would you trust UNIVERSAL ANYTHING in the hands of a govt who has raided and emptied every TRUST fund in their keeping? It's only been 70 yrs and we arguing about the mismanagement, theft and actuarial malfeasance of Soc Sec and Medicare. Unless THOSE UNIVERSAL programs get fixed, the American public isn't stupid enough to fall for another UNIVERSAL anything. ESPECIALLY -- when the govt can turn around and start MEANS TESTING and age qualifying programs that were SUPPOSED to be everyone..

And SteelPlate replied:

By the same token... why should we trust the private sector with the general health needs of the people, when all that really matters to them is profit and buying legislation that affords them a great degree of lack of accountability?

You're right, the American People aren't stupid. Social Security should be flush with money, unfortunately it was robbed from by Politicians trying to score political points. Everyone who has ever worked has been paying into it from the time they started working... for me... it was age 14, and I've been paying into it for 32 years. That's a lot of investment dollars. The money robbed should be paid back... WITH INTEREST.... NOW.

Once again... why should we trust wall street investments with our nesteggs? The next Crap shoot is on and it's only a matter of time that people lose everything...again... then we'll have the next set of Conservatives say that it was their own damned fault for losing it. Social Security is the RIGHT system. It needs to be fully refunded the money that was "borrowed", and perhaps tweaked a little. But there needs to be Social Security... a presence that is relatively immune to Wall Street Casino tactics.

You want to do something about Medicare? Make it Medicare for all... then, go after Big Pharma, Med Tech, Hospitals and Doctors and Force them to reduce their costs and their profit margins. Because Insurance Companies aren't the ONLY bad guys in our ridiculous cost of Health Care.

And Please... don't give me the "what about Innovation" BS. Perhaps it's time that the rest of the world shares in the cost of innovation. Instead of us innovating, OUR CITIZENS paying the price of that innovation, and the same products getting sold globally at a fraction of what we pay.

First of all --- congrats on your outrage at the theft that occurred in SS and MC. We need more of that. And you might want to check with the Indian Lands Trust Fund and the Highway Trust Fund that also have been looted and squandered. It's a perfect record of abuse of responsibility.

The stock crash in 2008 reminded EVERYONE of the risks involved with investing. Unfortunately, many govt pension funds ALSO suffered losses at time when they are expecting record payouts. (the next major crisis/bailout to hit will be due to THEIR poor planning). But unless you believe that loss is permanent (it could be) and not short-lived , folks in retirement will recover most of their planned nesteggs within a few years. The days of "making any money" off of Soc Sec are over SteelyOne.. And the days of "living off Soc Sec" alone may also be over. I expect to see a huge NEGATIVE return. If you don't live to age 85 or so -- it's a large loss for most folks under 55. Especially since you only get $280 for your burial and NOTHING to leave to the kids as a legacy (unless they're under 18). So as an "investment" -- it sucks.. And the outlook is even suckier..

The profit motive in healthcare by itself isn't the problem. A govt run plan has to balance the books with enough margin of error to account for the economy, level of demand, ect. That amount of cushion is equal to or greater than profit skimmed under the free market scheme. IN FACT -- the money STOLEN from Medicare overpayments over the years SHOULD HAVE BEEN TREATED AS PROFIT and put away for later since they were lifting excess money out of poor people's paychecks. Neither is the ability of ANY organized group to defend itself against legislation a problem. The problem is transfer of costs. Having Medicare bully physicians into chump change slaves and hospitals into charity operations just transfers the costs. We've also convinced ourselves that we NEED 1st dollar coverage. That $10 co-pays are outrageous. Ask yourself --how expensive is WELL baby care? I think it cost me all of $1500 for my kids medical care from 1 year to 18years. I paid it ALL since I have a high deductible plan. I've spent more on pets. The point is -- we shouldn't even USE insurance for the 1st $XXXX (fill in the blank) of healthcare. That ought to be between us and the providers. Where folks NEED insurance is to cover baby care that's NOT normal.

Don't think that with baby boomers coming on to Medicare that NOW is a good time to talk about offering it to everyone. Unless you plan to cover your theft tracks by taxing the crap out of healthy young people. And I personally think that is the motive.

As a young, healthy, 50 something I would LOVE to be dumping the $310 per month I pour into the health care system for me AND the $310 per month I dump into the health care system for AVG-WIFE to be going to Medicare in exchange for 80% coverage of my current, relatively few, health-care bills... especially if that would guarantee Medicare for me in my late 60's & 70's, when anything private wouldn't touch me with a 10-foot claim form.

A system is a system is a system... the only difference between a public bureaucracy and a private bureaucracy is YOU own the public one.

At least on paper.

Worse than the "no vote, no say so" health care system we're currently forced into working with?



It's 10:00 pm, and an unprofitable division of a private corporation with access to your medical/insurance files just got sold to a Hong Kong investment firm.

Should you worry?​

 

[AVG-JOE]

Government should do everything that needs to be done that the private sector is unwilling to do. .

Taxpayers and neighbors owe the Parasitic Faction a living.

.

The Sarcasmometer in my head gives that a 1.3 out of 10.

Keep trying, Stud!

 

[AVG-JOE]

Special Interests don't have votes, the people do. If people opposed the "special interests", they would vote for candidates whose policy positions didn't intersect with said special interests.

Special interests certainly do have votes. They have votes in the way of entities like "citizens United", "concerned taxpayers ad nauseum" and the like. They are corporate sponsored and funded interests that influence voting from a general populous that is scared and very much open to brainwashing(advertizing).

It's kind of like an "as seen on TV" voting process. All they would need is the late Billy Mays to make it complete.

How does Goldman Sachs, for example, influence citizens into voting for Barack Obama, who was the largest recipient of their campaign contributions? Also, provide me with some proof of the large scale brainwashing by corporations. BTW, I am not denying that politicians grant corporations favors through law, I am just saying the average voter isn't that concerned by it, or concerned enough that it is a primary factor in their vote.

This average voter has had fair taxes and the greasy palm, lobby driven nature of politics vying for first issue in his heart for several elections.

Personally, I think as soon as we do adopt a simple and fair tax code, a LOT of the lobbying will be rendered irrelevant.

 

[AVG-JOE]

They're here for me...

There is a role for welfare and safety nets.

what prevents you - and your followers - from privately - setting a charity for those who you choose to help??????????????????????????
.

There are orgs that ADMINISTER funds to individual causes. Like the United Way. It's a consolidated means of making sure that every needy org gets to plead their case. I look at govt "donations" to safety nets and welfare the same way. I don't want govt DIRECTLY involved with the individuals in need. That doesn't solve ANYTHING with a check or a handout. But I DO see a role as a clearinghouse -- much like United Way or other bundlers to make certain that gaps are filled and INNOVATION in working problems with the poor and disadvantage is encouraged and results are disseminated. THAT PART -- is what govt has some affinity to accomplish.

I think I would prefer to see the federal government take a role of standards and education, letting the states have final say-so in how they keep the streets tidy for the tourists. There may have been a time when the state governments were too 'good old boy' to be trusted to treat their citizens equally but thanks to the 60's and the internet, those days are history.

 

[AVG-JOE]

They wouldn't be in a position to do what the SI's say if the people didn't put them there. What you are essentially saying is the average voter is retarded and cannot figure out that the average politician is lying to their face. I actually agree that the average person is incapable of making an informed vote, which is while we have a democratic variant of a government, it should be very limited through civics and literacy tests.

i dont think its that its so much the average person is incapable of making a informed vote its more they dont BOTHER TO QUESTION
40% will always vote republican come what may and 40% will always vote democrat come what may
even if by a landslide vote a party gets into power you still only see a small swing of voters from one party to another .
if we had literacy tests it would help solve the problem but be against the constitutional one,man one vote clause
see your point thou

So voters enable the corrupt system. Sorry, that is just how it is, I am not going let the blame off the voters and just go after these vague special interests groups that are mentioned here. The voting public is the real problem, there is simply no way around this fact.

There's a lot of truth there. The American Sheeple are easily herded about by fear - and the worst cases of it happen during the primaries when we have an actual choice.

 

[AVG-JOE]

How does Goldman Sachs, for example, influence citizens into voting for Barack Obama, who was the largest recipient of their campaign contributions? Also, provide me with some proof of the large scale brainwashing by corporations. BTW, I am not denying that politicians grant corporations favors through law, I am just saying the average voter isn't that concerned by it, or concerned enough that it is a primary factor in their vote.

perhaps properly naming it Government Sachs would help Lars....

"Government Sachs"?

Red, White & Blue-balls​

 

[AVG-JOE]

A recent CNN poll shows that libertarianism is on the rise in the last three years in the United States, more than at any point in the last two decades.

The poll, which CNN has conducted yearly since 1993, tracks the strength of social and economic libertarianism and reveals that both ideas are gaining popular support.

Sixty-three percent of respondents believe that government is doing too much, up from 52 percent in 2008. Half of all respondents said that government should not promote any set of traditional or moral values, up from 41 percent in 2008.

Libertarianism | CNN Poll | On The Rise | The Daily Caller

This sounds nice but my problem is that while people may look at those two questions and conclude that libertarianism is on the rise nowhere was the word "libertarian" used in the questioning. Just because you think the government is generally doing to much, and you don't think the government should promote any kind of values doesn't mean you're a libertarian. It would be interesting to see what percentage of the people polled would actually consider themselves libertarian.

People say, and respond in polls, a lot of stuff. Yet, when they walk into the voting booth it is always the status quo that they vote for.

Why is that?!?

It's like the only place you actually SEE rubber-neckers is in traffic slowed by a wreck. Nobody at the office will admit to being one.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Leanign toward "libertarianism" might be meaningful if any of us had a CLEAR definition of what that really means.

But as I talk to libertarians what I discover is a wide range of views about what the word means.

I have seen people calling themselves libertarians with ranges of governance ranging from pure anarchy to social democracy.

A big big part of the reason that the American voter is fucked is because words like LIBERTARIAN, LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE, really have no clearly DEFINED meaning.

Except when it suites a fear-monger, then they have far too many clearly defined meanings.

 

[AVG-JOE]

This thread should be retitled

"Intelligence on the rise in the last 3 years:

That's the most complimentary thing I've ever read on this board. Kudos!

 

[Contumacious]

The role to play for govt is to get these orgs to share secrets to success, and make certain that every needy applicant has a lot of options. And that those options remain viable in good times and bad..

So tell me , how would you prevent the politicians from declaring as many folks as possible as "needy" since , as you very well know the "needy" (wink, wink) VOTE.

.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Was it libertarian when Bush II gave trillions to the Banksters?

Was it libertarian when Obama gave trillions to the Banksters?

Nope. Republican.

Nope. Democrat.

Had enough yet?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Avg-Joe:

I wish Obama had had the political stones to call on The People to form a human shield between Congress and 'K' Street before the healthcare law was written, but wishes are for little girls and Sunday afternoons. It's Tuesday.... We need to find a candidate who walks the talk.

Here's the interesting dilemma in special influence. When Govt INSISTs that it has the mandate to meddle in lightbulbs, toilets and every other aspect of our lives. Do you really want bureaucrats making ALL these decisions while business is muzzled and neutered? I WANT energy producers INVOLVED in energy policy. I WANT politicians to be informed as to what's in the R&D labs of the companies they're about to dictate to.. By the very definitiion of asserting a regulatory or funding role, the govt CAUSES the collusion. And if they INSIST on meddling -- It STUPID to muzzle the Millions of people who are experts on how stuff works.

So -- libertarians like me have come to conclusion that the proximate cause of corp/govt collusion is that govt is OVER-REACHING in it's ambition to centrally plan every aspect of our economy. And if that sphere of influence was cut back -- Industry would leave a lot of vacant properties on K Street..

Simple and fair taxes....

Appropriate regulation....​

Put professional lobbyists out of work....​

Sign me up.

 

[sparky]

Was it libertarian when Bush II gave trillions to the Banksters?

Was it libertarian when Obama gave trillions to the Banksters?

Nope. Republican.

Nope. Democrat.

Had enough yet?

Uncle!.....

 

[Paulie]

90% of voters are still going to vote dem or rep on election day, no matter how many of them "said" they wouldn't.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Here is a very interesting presentation given by George Mason University Professor Bryan Caplan. Basically, the gist is that in broad terms, people call themselves libertarian, and say they support spending cuts and reductions in the size and scope of government. However, data shows that when you ask most of these self-styled small government advocates about cutting specific programs or specific regulations, a very small amount actually support getting rid of such things.

I'm sure it has a LOT-to-do with their (eventual) realization there'd be a serious-amount of individual-effort (what Lil' Dumbya whined-about: haaarrrd work!), required to compensate for their break with "big government".

Typically, such libertarians/independents are HUGE patriots, as well.....

​

 

[editec]

The deregulators which set this nation up for the BANSTERS' MELTDOWN all called themselves LIBERTARIANS, too.