the Kommisariat's Kontinuing Kronicles: more right-wingery in the USA, 2k11-12

I was an honest to god registered libertarian in 1992 because my roommate told me that libertarians were pro-marijuana legalization and I was too high to look into it any further. I was with my other roommate when he registered to vote as a member of the "People's Pot Party." We were awesome.

and i've played the atomic microscope hairsplitting game for years, i'm not interested in whether its mutualism or anarcho-communism or left libertarianism or whatever: if it gets people working together to build a free society you can call it starbucksism for all i care. xp

I was an honest to god registered libertarian in 1992 because my roommate told me that libertarians were pro-marijuana legalization and I was too high to look into it any further. I was with my other roommate when he registered to vote as a member of the "People's Pot Party." We were awesome.

― phantoms from a world gone by speak again the immortal tale: (Jenny), Friday, July 1, 2011 3:17 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

<3

i just like the sound of anarcho-communism

like communism but WAY MORE ANARCHY

like communism, but way more spiders

oh wait

xp Except the people now calling themselves anarchists are some pretty huge douchebags, tbh.

actually that sounds even better.

http://www.pinktentacle.com/images/la_machine_1.jpg

xp Except the people now calling themselves anarchists are some pretty huge douchebags, tbh.

OTM, and so are most of the people calling themselves "communists," which makes it real damn hard to do what a HOOS is talking abt, working together to build a free society.

main problem, tbph, is that i don't really believe in "free society." it sounds like an oxymoron to me. we sacrifice some of the freedom we might have as individuals whenever we enter social space (i.e. the presence of other human beings). and that's cool, that loss of freedom is, or at least can be, a good thing. it allows us to coexist. furthermore, to exist in social relations is to exist in a social matrix or organization, and as conflicts arise within social organizations, an implied state emerges. power exists in any social relation, and power simply will have its way. the recognition and formalization of existing power relations = the state. again, this is inevitable and should be seen as neither a good nor a bad thing.

moreover, i believe in inequity. not saying that i believe it exists (it does, of course), but that i believe in it, deeply. i take inequality to be the fundamental condition of all life. i do not oppose it or wish i could wish it away, i simply want to manage it in pursuit of what i see as the best possible outcomes.

in short, i see the essential qualities of human social organization not as extensions of philosophies, paradigms we might alter simply by changing our points of view, but as inescapable reflections of the fact that we are living organisms. the most basic truths are these: that power exist, that power will have its way, and that power is inherently inequitable. i do not oppose any of this. all sane and sensible political philosophy must accept these principles without objection and work out from there.

apologies if this has been posted:
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2011/06/america-right-huckabee-libertarian-evangelical-cruise/

lots o wtf in this, but the fact that this dipshit can manage to do this in the same interview is... something

“Back at a Republican primary debate in 2007, the candidates were asked to discuss the economy. They each praised 30 months of uninterrupted growth under George W Bush. Then came Huckabee’s turn. “I had the audacity to say that if you’re sitting in the director’s office, I guess the economy is doing swimmingly well. But if you go out there and talk to the people who drive cabs, and lift luggage, and haul these big heavy trays to the banquet halls where the nice people come and dine, they’re going to tell you the economy’s not doing real well for them. To this day I’m looked at as the guy who misspoke on the economy.”
…

“I’d repeal the 16th Amendment,” Huckabee tells me. That’s the one that created the income tax in 1913. Originally imposed only on wealthy citizens, it was the cornerstone of the effort to ensure that the US didn’t develop a European-style hereditary aristocracy. It’s a classic progressive tax: the more you earn, the more you pay. Huckabee would also eliminate the estate, gift, and capital gains tax; privatise Medicare through a voucher system.

i've never thought of Huck as particularly stupid, but i really don't know what else can you make of it

you can make of it

when I was in high school, there was maybe a 15-minute window where I thought the concept of libertarianism was worth investigating

haha, yes

for me it was when I was driving a delivery van and since I had no hope of ever receiving a decent raise (I think I made a dollar more an hour after four years) I figured the libertarians would abolish taxes and I could afford to buy a Gibson SG.

long story short my entire house is now built entirely out of Gibosn SG's

man, some of the writing on that "bleeding heart libertarians" blog is bugging the hell out of me:

So why might libertarians, and bleeding heart ones at that, argue that markets should be free of government regulations?

The short answer, which I will assert here and defend below, is that whatever the intent behind government regulation of markets, it almost always ends up working in the interest of the rich and powerful and does little to protect the interest of those with modest means and little access to power. If a commitment to social justice demands that we care first and foremost about the least well off among us, supporting government regulation may well violate that commitment.

this is unsupported, unsupportable bullshit. government regulation of markets, enterprise and trade has proved itself hugely beneficial to the poor and powerless over and over again. we can thank the action of governments for child labor laws; for the (perhaps grudging) recognition and support of labor & trade unions; for consumer & worker protection laws of various sorts; for the regulation of banks, brokerages and investment firms; for minimum wages, weekends and limited workweeks; etc.

all of these constitute "regulation" or limitation of the freedom of entities in the marketplace, and they're all good things, to the extent that they're designed well and applied thoughtfully.

it almost always ends up working in the interest of the rich and powerful and does little to protect the interest of those with modest means and little access to power

A free and unrestrained market would never do this though...

I can't answer that one for him, and I definitely won't pretend I've read, agree with, or am prepared to defend every contradictory word these dozen people have written, but these aren't are a bunch of hacks--they're intelligent guys trying to start a conversation that goes further than "you're a heartless moneybag hoarder" met with "you're a communist that wants to take my Bible." I do think it's interesting that in the long conversation sparked by the post you quoted, no one raised that particular point--they were mostly arguing from more arcane positions--but now that you've raised the point its absence does seem conspicuous. I'll raise it myself and keep track of the responses.

xp That seems to be central idiocy in the Libertarian talking points i have heard, like: oh well, Government agencies have been corrupted and bribed by big monied interests and are ineffective at protecting the rights of individuals, Might as well do away with the EPA then! rather then trying to you know fix it.

libertarians are generally good on social issues (tho many of them aren't -- viz a viz ron paul and wanting to repeal birthright citizenship, the civil rights act, etc.), which i think is usually what gets ppl into it in the first place. it's like being a liberal without having to give a shit about the fact that there are people poorer than you. but believing the hardcore libertarian line on economic stuff involves buying into so many convoluted justifications for abolishing lots of things that seem self-evidently good (like giving the government the right to regulate food and medicine) that i think a lot of ppl just ignore it and stick to complaining about the government stealing their money.

it's like being a liberal without having to give a shit about the fact that there are people poorer than you.
it's like being a liberal without having to give a shit about the fact that there are people poorer than you.
it's like being a liberal without having to give a shit about the fact that there are people poorer than you.
it's like being a liberal without having to give a shit about the fact that there are people poorer than you.
it's like being a liberal without having to give a shit about the fact that there are people poorer than you.
it's like being a liberal without having to give a shit about the fact that there are people poorer than you.
it's like being a liberal without having to give a shit about the fact that there are people poorer than you.
it's like being a liberal without having to give a shit about the fact that there are people poorer than you.
it's like being a liberal without having to give a shit about the fact that there are people poorer than you.

i was trying to explain libertarianism to my buddy today and i wish i'd had that at my disposal

it's like being a liberal without having to give a shit about the fact that there are people poorer than you.

oh, it's kind of like what the Obama administration has become!

oh, it's kind of like what the Obama administration has become!

― KARLOR CAN FUCK ANYTHING! AND HE WILL AND HAS!!! (Eisbaer), Saturday, July 2, 2011 1:17 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

without the liberal part...

would yall fucking stop

love a HOOS, but i love a gubbamint too

non-sequitor in the context of whatever discussion's going down in this thread right now (i'm not following along), but important in the context of the bigger picture of ilx right wing threads in 2011

http://imgur.com/sxWcx

. . .

http://i.imgur.com/sxWcx.gif

all those moments will be lost in time

like bamans in the rain

http://wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/TeaPartyFourthOfJuly.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjkUZCLvC3Q

does that guy's shirt say "yup. i'm a racist" ?

yup

The other one says "Everything I need to know about Islam I learned on 9/11."

I like the guy wearing a fubu shirt in the background
singin393 12 hours ago

had that same thought

they think they're so clever...

u crazy for this one marshall home:

Fringe activist Marshall Home, who has filed a series of court documents to try to take over the bankruptcy case of Chicago pizza chain Giordano’s, was put behind bars on Friday.

Home was arrested in Tucson, Ariz., in connection with court papers he filed to try to force the United States into bankruptcy—a separate case that Home used as part of a fraudulent scam to help struggling homeowners keep their properties, according to the U.S. attorney’s office. That bankruptcy case, which was thrown out of court on May 18, led authorities to charge Home with two felony counts of filing false claims in bankruptcy court.

Before the case was dismissed, Home falsely stated that he had financial claims worth more than $3 billion against the U.S., according to the criminal complaint.

keep on keepin on, marsh

this guy is a straussian, haha remember them

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/books/review/book-review-aristotles-nicomachean-ethics.html

a little difft from the shit we chew over itt but, like, every sentence is rong

is that what strauss taught? just make a bunch of unsupported and unsupportable statements?

also he manages to start this thing by not getting a joke

This one is almost unexcerptable: http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/84536

A taste:

So that brings us back to corporate jets, which are modest affairs compared to Air Force One. The last thing we want to do is tax corporate executives and make them pay more for their business comfort. If the current tax accounting rules prevent a disguised transfer of income to these executives, they should be retained. If they are too lax, they should be fixed. The object of a good set of tax rules is to get an accurate measure of income, no matter what the state of the economy.

The big mistake in this area, therefore, is to assume that further restrictions on corporate jets necessarily result in more revenue for scholarships or food programs, as the president has claimed. The calculations are parallel to those made for the president.

Take a chief executive officer who earns ten times as much as the president does per hour. What is gained by stranding him in an airport, having him wait with countless other travelers—whose time is not worth one percent of his time—to catch a plane that might not get him to his final destination?

The President of the United States is not a fucking corporate CEO, no matter how much people try to spin it that way.

wow that jaffa review is a total mess

"review"

Jeez. This prat presumes that unless corporate jets are subsidized, the CEO of Exxon or Disney will naturally be bumped out of his jet and into commercial air travel? If his time is that fraking valuable, he'll let the company pay the small amount of tax involved and save his super-expensive time. More silliness as the silly season approaches.

im actually sort of mad about the aristotle thing. there is so much to be said about aristotle... and you guys hired someone who actually wanted to write about leo effing strauss??? [said to nytbr editors]

I know, right? Apparently these companies are going to go down the tubes if their air travel prices go up.

If his time is that valuable WHY DON'T THEY GET WITH THIS CENTURY AND TELECOMMUTE