Rand Paul and Silicon Valley's Shifting Political Climate 533
SonicSpike sends this story from NY Magazine:
Rand Paul appears to be making a full-court press for the affections of Silicon Valley, and there are some signs that his efforts are paying off. At last week's Sun Valley conference, Paul had one-on-one meetings with Thiel and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. ... Next weekend, Paul will get to make his case yet again as the keynote speaker at Reboot, a San Francisco conference put on by a group called Lincoln Labs, which self-defines as "techies and politicos who believe in promoting liberty with technology." He'll likely say a version of what he's said before: that Silicon Valley's innovative potential can be best unlocked in an environment with minimal government intrusion in the forms of surveillance, corporate taxes, and regulation. “I see almost unlimited potential for us in Silicon Valley,” Paul has said, with "us" meaning libertarians.
Today's Silicon Valley is still exceedingly liberal on social issues. But it seems more skeptical about taxes and business regulation than at any point in its recent history. Part of this is due to the rise of companies like Uber and Tesla Motors, blazing-hot start-ups that have been opposed at every turn by protectionist regulators and trade unions, in confrontations that are being used by small-government conservatives as case studies in government control run amok.
Today's Silicon Valley is still exceedingly liberal on social issues. But it seems more skeptical about taxes and business regulation than at any point in its recent history. Part of this is due to the rise of companies like Uber and Tesla Motors, blazing-hot start-ups that have been opposed at every turn by protectionist regulators and trade unions, in confrontations that are being used by small-government conservatives as case studies in government control run amok.
Makes sense. (Score:2)
How you see the world depends on where you are in it.
Re: (Score:2)
No bears? Then, whose arms have you the right to?
More Like Subsidized (Score:5, Informative)
> Uber and Tesla Motors, blazing-hot start-ups that have been opposed at every turn by protectionist regulators
Every Tesla vehicle comes with a minimum of $7,500 subsidy [teslamotors.com] from the federal government plus a bunch of state government subsidies like $2,500 and single-driver privileges in HOV lanes in California. They are the last company that should be laying claim to libertarian ideals.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you really think that article is believable when it said Rand Paul is libertarian and not Republican?
The author threw in some tech companies and lied about their persecution. Tesla's had a lot of help from the government. They're fighting the dealerships mainly, and Tesla's winning.
Uber's legal in almost all of the cities it operates in, and the only thing they are fighting is the fees to pick-up and drop-off at certain airports, something even the regular cabbies have to pay. Uber is basically fighting
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Pot, kettle.
Considering I can easily point out the general craziness of liberals on a scale that dwarfs what would be considered "libertarians" pretty sure it's not pot, kettle, black. Or are you saying that the issues and policies that liberals are promoting today, are "good" for the US as a whole. Especially the current illegal immigration issue, or how about environmental policies that protect non-endangered animals.
Re:More Like Subsidized (Score:4, Interesting)
Every Tesla vehicle comes with a minimum of $7,500 subsidy from the federal government plus a bunch of state government subsidies like $2,500 and single-driver privileges in HOV lanes in California. They are the last company that should be laying claim to libertarian ideals.
What about the pollution caused by internal combustion engines? Just because the subsidy on their operation isn't on a ledger, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Ultimately externalities have to be paid for.
Re:More Like Subsidized (Score:4, Insightful)
In libertarian world negative externalities are paid by those who are stuck with them, even if they're an unwilling third party to someone else's actions because nobody has any responsibility for the common good. If a river flows through your land to someone else's land where they sell drinking water, you can dump your sewage in the river and sell your own clean upstream water. If you're a drug pusher and a junkie wants drugs it's a voluntary transaction, that the junkie robs and steals to feed his crack habit is none of your concern. If you come across a man dying of thirst, you don't have to give him a drink of water even if you have plenty. In short, libertarianism doesn't require you to do anything for anyone else's well-being.
The counter-arguments typically are that charity and compassion will kick in and libertarians will give him a drink of water, but not because they're compelled to by law. People will form voluntary agreements and shared resources like a town well out of mutual benefit. In short, their solution to the "tragedy of the commons" is basically to pretend it won't happen even though history shows it quickly devolves into a few rulers/gangs/companies with power and many regular people at their mercy. If you get to play with every dirty trick in the book then competition will quickly cease and one monopolist or an oligarchy will control the market and smother any start-up in its infancy.
Re:More Like Subsidized (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:More Like Subsidized (Score:4, Insightful)
If a river flows through your land to someone else's land where they sell drinking water, you can dump your sewage in the river and sell your own clean upstream water.
The Libertarians all believe that they are supermen (or -women) and that they will naturally win any competition as a result. Thus they believe that they will win the inevitable battles to the death when they shit in someone else's water, or someone shits in theirs. After all, if someone deprives you of a basic requirement for life, are you just going to roll over and die? Hell no, especially if you're one of these who believes that every man is a nation or a king. You're going to take up arms and go to war.
In short, their solution to the "tragedy of the commons" is basically to pretend it won't happen
Yep. And also to pretend that they will come out on the winning side, when history shows us that virtually everyone doesn't. Such a system always spawns a more structured system which supersedes it.
Re: (Score:3)
What makes you think libertarians don't want clean water? That's just ignorant.
Here's one example of a libertarian response: http://www.ruwart.com/environ2... [ruwart.com]
Basically it involves having private property rights to water, and suing people who damage your property.
Re: (Score:3)
Basically it involves having private property rights to water, and suing people who damage your property.
Which either requires a tax-maintained court system, or that you have enough money to pay to have your case heard in court before you can have "justice".
Use of Force (Score:3)
At its heart libertarianism is just about minimizing the threat and use of force by the government to just those things which are truly essential government functions. However, Laws which protect people from the use of force by others are one of those essential government functions.
Real libertarians don't believe you can pollute your neighbors land or your neighbors air without legal consequences. A person depriving another of the use of their property (such as by polluting it) or violating their right
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Great, so if you have enough money to sue the other guy, you're fine.
Re: (Score:3)
There's the slight issue of enforcement of tort law. A weak central government that has no teeth will not be able to enforce the decisions by the courts, which means that we're back to citizens enforcing the courts decisions on their own. Or at least, whatever they think the court said...
Unless, of course, you want to argue that the government has an active local law enforcement arm, that is properly funded by taxes, and that the laws are actively debated by an appointed set of representatives to make sure
Re: (Score:3)
From this view of the subject, it may be concluded, that a pure Democracy, by which I mean a Society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the Government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of Government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of Government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
A Republic, by which I mean a Government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.
From Federalist #10 by James Madison
Re:More Like Subsidized (Score:5, Informative)
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." But men are definitely, definitely not angels. Libertarians think that if everybody else would just "wake up, sheeple!" they would be enlightened like them and of course would adhere to rules of common decency and fair play.
You're thinking of pacifists, or possibly communists. Libertarians are the realists in this scenario; we realize that humans are imperfect, and that, as a direct consequence of this, giving a select group of imperfect humans the practically unlimited power of government is not a recipe for a better world. ("Select" because, for the most part, they are self-selected as the most likely to abuse the position... one doesn't generally set out to become a politician out of the belief that people have the the right to live their lives peaceably without third-party interference.)
Libertarians are opposed to all abuses of power, not just those which originate from government. We oppose the government specifically because it embodies the systematic abuse of power, and, unlike other criminal organizations, maintains the pretense that its abuses are somehow "legitimate". That does not mean that we are OK with non-government entities violating others' rights, or think that in the absence of government everyone would "just get along". There will continue to be bad actors out there; we will still need to defend ourselves against them. But without government they at least won't have a ready-made system available to amplify their offenses and shield them from the consequences.
Re:More Like Subsidized (Score:4, Insightful)
Libertarians are opposed to all abuses of power,
No. Patently, you're not. You are completely unable to deal with the very real problem of warlords stepping into any power vacuum, and all the abuses that come from that. You just happen to think that a) you'll be the one in power, and b) you'll be the benevolent ruler of your little plot land, happily living in communion with all those around you. Unfortunately for you, every single time a power vacuum happens due to the disintegration of a central state, your theory is put to the test, and it fails absolutely miserably.
But without government they at least won't have a ready-made system available to amplify their offenses and shield them from the consequences.
What you utterly fail to comprehend is that there is always a power center. It can either be one in which the population is invested in and which can be changed without bloodletting, aka a republic of some sort, or it can be one that doesn't. Both will always claim to have some sort of legitimacy - even if for some it is just the barrel of a gun.
We oppose the government specifically because it embodies the systematic abuse of power, and, unlike other criminal organizations, maintains the pretense that its abuses are somehow "legitimate".
You're so adorable. You're main beef with the government is that you don't like its claim to legitimacy, and therefore think it's as bad as actual criminal organizations. Let me guess - white, under 30, never lived in an actual failed state. Probably come from some rich suburb.
Re: (Score:3)
It sounds like you're talking more about anarchists than libertarians. What makes you think libertarians are against having a national standing army for defense, which would include the "warlords" you're speculating about?
Re: (Score:3)
Well. One reasonable reply. I guess I should be reasonable as well then.
No that's wrong, libertarians are "like" the current government, just smaller.
But that's the crux of the problem: I haven't seen a workable definition of government that isn't like the current one, just smaller. It either devolves into anarchy, or creates a system that is indistinguishable from the current one, except with fewer laws. And that government has no system to prevent the creation of laws that would be identical to the current one.
Yes, that's the libertarian platform. The difference is in how large the government is and what its responsibilities are, not fundamental changes like eliminating lawmakers... honestly that's a ridiculous notion.
Then do explain: how does a libertarian government not become the curren
Re: (Score:3)
I love people who don't know or understand Libertarianism try to describe it. Libertarianism oppose to abuses of power, and only want a government big enough to stop abuses of power. But we also know that abuses of power will exist. It is much easier to control "Boss Hog" in some rural county than it is to control "Hitler" in Europe.
Liberals love to describe Libertarianism as unworkable, simply because they don't like liberty. They like big centralized power that can control the masses. I would dare say tha
Re: (Score:3)
No government is big enough to stop all abuses of power. The current one, for example, is failing to stop a new iteration [cnbc.com] of company script. Then there's domino effect, like the current financial crisis, where a few greedy and disproportionately powerful people or institutions manage to screw the entire eco
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to think that without government authority, power will not be exerted against you, and not against those least able to fend for themselves. This is not the case. Those who have wealth and power will always seek to gain more at the expense of anyone else, and through whatever means they have available. This extends to backroom deals, monopoly power, insider trading, unsafe working conditions and violence. Private police forces and strike breakers.
Government, restrained by a separation of powers with
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
what about the subsidy for oil ? $$$trillions on foreign oil wars mean a lot of subisdies.
State governments causing Tesla headaches (Score:3)
Didn't Tesla get a massive loan from the government to fund their development? One they paid back early?
The federal government hasn't caused any big problems for Tesla. It's State governments that are the problem. Legislators for State governments are protecting auto dealers (also known as unnecessary middlemen) to the detriment of both auto manufacturers and car buyers.
bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Part of this is due to the rise of companies like Uber and Tesla Motors, blazing-hot start-ups that have been opposed at every turn by protectionist regulators and trade unions, in confrontations that are being used by small-government conservatives as case studies in government control run amok.
http://insideevs.com/uaw-looks... [insideevs.com]
CEO Elon Musk says Tesla is union neutral, so that’s the automaker’s stance.
Then there's the whole "government run amok" thing... where it should really say "state government run amok." The protectionist policies adopted haven't been federal, they've been state level. Texas, Arizona, Virginia, Maryland, and New Jersey have outright bans; Georgia and Colorado have severe restrictions on selling; and Ohio and New York have legislation pending. Musk has said, if the states keep fucking with him, he will use the federal courts to deal with the issue.... so again, the problem isn't the federal government, it's the states.
With Uber, again the problem isn't unions, and it's not the federal government.. it's city governments.
Perhaps this should be a case study on smaller governments causing more problems than they should, and those that promote "small government" lying and trying to blame "big government" and unions.
Re:bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
You've got the 'small-government' segment primarily worried about the feds doing things without constitutional basis. Then you have the ones who are 'small-government' in that they want as little as possible (and think that 'as little as possible' is very, very, little).
The former flavor would likely prefer to avoid really embarrassing exercises of 'state's rights', like protecting car dealers; because fuck those guys; but would theoretically be obliged to be hostile to any federal intrusion on the matter. The latter flavor doesn't care nearly as much about the origin of the laws, so they'll oscillate between using and attacking federal power as the situation dictates. If a bunch of state legislation is bothering them and looks like it will be difficult to cut through, bring on federal supremacy to supersede all state regulations with federal equivalents that are as toothless as possible. If the feds look like they might regulate something that at least some states have hitherto ignored, it's all aboard for state's rights and reigning in federal abuses of the interstate commerce clause and similar.
Once you get into the realm of the pure opportunists, of course, absolutely anything goes, without the slightest requirements for honesty, internal consistency, or even coherence.
Re: (Score:3)
For what it's worth, "small government" is not synonymous with "local/State government", nor is "big government synonymous with "Federal government".
A city government, within the bounds of the city, can quite easily be "big government" when it tries to micromanage everything in the city.
Likewise, the Federal gover
Re: (Score:3)
Locationally smaller government just hands an advantage to those who can manipulate geographic legal differences, ranging from rich people easily capable of moving themselves and their assets around, to companies that can exist whereever they want instantly and perhaps simultaneously.
In comparison, poor people and smaller businesses suffer because they are unable to physically move, and so there is no actual inter-state competition for legislation that affects them. Thus, a race to the bottom is created whe
Re: (Score:3)
Musk may say he's neutral, but Tesla's actions make it clear that it is hardly neutral.
Nothing in that article you posted provides any examples of Tesla not being neutral. Identifying that unions could hurt profitability is not being negative towards unions, it is just being honest. If I list on a project plan that there is a risk one of my team leads could leave the company therefore causing delays, I am not being negative towards those employees. I am only identifying that it is possible they could hamper the project.
There is a single statement the article makes which claims the operating m
The Valley trade: Less taxes, more H1Bs... (Score:4, Interesting)
...longer, better patents and copyrights, more EULAs.
This is really what we need, aspiring politicians appealing to plutocrats.
Re: (Score:2)
longer, better patents and copyrights
Isn't "longer" and "better" a contradiction here?
Re: (Score:2)
Silicon valley doesn't care about longer copyrights - their industry hasn't existed long enough to benefit. That's more a music/movie industry thing.
This is the problem with having a two party system (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea that economic policy and social policy are tied at the hip in the two mainstream parties is ridiculous. Someone who supports conservative economic policy but liberal social policies, in any other country, has a mainstream party to get behind. In the US, they're essentially an outcast who has to decide which is more important to them, their personal values or what they think is the best direction for the economy, because voting for third parties is viewed as a lost vote.
Politics in the US needs drastic reform away from the two party system.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How does Rand Paul have a liberal social policy? He's perfectly happy with letting states bar gays from marrying, eliminating abortion and birth control, making it difficult for minorities to vote, and allowing businesses to discriminate.
What part of that is liberal social policy?
Where the hell are people getting their news on Rand Paul?
Re:This is the problem with having a two party sys (Score:5, Insightful)
I think its due to the nature of the voting system (winner take all, even if you don't poll a majority). But it also seems to be endemic to many democracies, they tend to gravitate to two party systems. The UK has Labor and the Conservatives, the Germans have Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats.
But even in countries with larger third parties, they're seldom major parts of government. I think the current coalition government in the UK is one of the few times the Liberal Democrats have been in government. In Germany the FDP has mostly been a kingmaker rather than a majority party capable of forming its own government.
We just started using ranked choice voting for elections in Minneapolis, which in theory eliminates the "lost vote" problem by allowing you to make third parties your first choice but still vote "defensively" by making some other candidate a secondary choice.
So far it doesn't seem to have led to a lot of radical change in outcomes other than making the election results take a couple of extra days due to the calculations involved when there's a dozen candidates.
Re:This is the problem with having a two party sys (Score:4, Informative)
Someone who supports conservative economic policy but liberal social policies, in any other country, has a mainstream party to get behind.
In some kind of relative sense, yes, but there is no mainstream party in most of the west that supports policies like Rand Paul's. In most of Europe, the "economically conservative but socially liberal" parties have economic policies to he left of the Democrats, including support for national healthcare.
What Kim Stanley Robinson said of libertarianism. (Score:5, Insightful)
"That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves."
And given the overwhelming historical association between "liber"tarian ideology and slavery, it's probably more accurate to just call it according to its real preoccupation: Moneytarianism.
No doubt such a viewpoint would find a receptive audience in some of the shallower minds and uglier spirits of Silicon Valley.
But the philosophical core of the region and the tech industry remains fundamentally progressive. That's why it remains the king despite decades of conservative "small government" states desperately trying and failing to replicate it on any remotely competitive scale.
Climate Change in SIlicone Valley (Score:2)
It's coming to Congress.
Draper Labs and Lincoln Labs (Score:2, Informative)
T-shirts that got their wearers in trouble at conference.
Draper Labs: When you really want it there on time
Draper labs specializes in missile guidance systems, and the shirt had a picture of a launching missile. Some of their work as been space program supportive, but it would have been a lot cheaper without the military angle, and we'd have actually gotten to see the results in industry, not hidden away as Top Secret.
Lincoln Labs: When you care enough to send the
this isn't really new (Score:2)
The Valley has long had a handful of superrich libertarian types. Thiel is one of the better known, and is really more of a Wall Street type who now makes investments in the Valley. He made his money in hedge funds, not in technology. He's been involved with various Republican and Libertarian causes since the '80s.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
versus "government, please steal that guy's money and give it to me"
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In 1981 that changed. You had elected someone who loudly proclaimed that people no longer had to invest in the future, and everything would smell like flowers and look like rainbows.
Re:Silicon Valley is officially old (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Silicon Valley is officially old (Score:5, Funny)
Which is why the libertarian dream is to derive all the benefits of living in a country where public money is invested in the future while avoiding any of the responsibility or cost themselves. Silicon valley would be NOTHING if not for public investment to build off of.
Because today's Libertarians really aren't very good Libertarians.
Bill Maher of all people, put it best : https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Selfish pricks are what now define Libertarianism.
The new libertarian is quite happy to do whatever they see fit to benefit themselves. Enlightened self interest my ass. More like pathological greed, but with their truisms trotted out whenever cornered about their lack of the "enlightened" part of that equation.
In other words, today's Libertarians are mostly just Republicans with a tiny bit of liberal around inconsequential edges.
Because today's Libertarians are perfectly happy to gut the system in pursuit of their personal wealth. That their greed ends up putting more people on the public dole, as people working for minimum wage are not capable of surviving without it, is of no consequence to them.
This country is now in the wealth extraction phase of it's existence. Where the wealth came from is of no concern to those who are gleefully gutting us.
Re:Silicon Valley is officially old (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that government spends the money on things that make our lives harder. Interstate Highway System plus Streetcar Scandal, anyone? We could have had rail instead of roads, but roads sold cars so we got roads and now we're still paying for that in both lives and ecological impact. We don't have a reliable electrical grid; It is not a grid — in most locations, it is star-wired and not grid-wired at all. And today's phone service is internet service, and we have the worst broadband penetrati
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
We have hundreds of millions of people in this country with a wide range of ideas about what the best way to spend money is.
Yes, but that's really not the problem, is it? The problem is the people in positions of power deliberately spending money in ways which they know are not the best for us, specifically for their own personal gain and at the expense of (in some cases) literally everyone else. I'm not against the concept of government. I'm not even necessarily against it being very large, although I question the wisdom of it becoming the largest employer in the nation — especially when "other job duties as required" for
Re: (Score:3)
caused by Hoover and FDR with their 'Great Society'
Great Society was an LBJ thing. [wikipedia.org] You're off by 30 years.
Re:Silicon Valley is officially old (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Silicon Valley is officially old (Score:4, Insightful)
That's an interesting alternate history you've concocted there. So robber-barons, child labor, rampant pollution, and killing workers the attempted to stand up for themselves is you idea of the best the United States ever was?
What! You left out the best part: slavery!
Err, rather, the contracted sale of persons into a mutually beneficial arrangement where their owner obtains the benefit of their labor, and the worker obtains the benefit of not having to worry about feeding or clothing themselves, or having to repair the bars on their windows when they wear out.
Re:Silicon Valley is officially old (Score:4, Insightful)
If we took the top 1% or 0.1% of this countries' earners and made them vanish, the impact on the economy would be minimal to positive.
Re: (Score:3)
Neat trick, to focus on 'federal income tax'.
Rich people don't earn the majority of their money as income, or salary. Poor people pay taxes in ways other than federal income tax.
Re:Silicon Valley is officially old (Score:4, Informative)
I want to add something else. The 1% is a myth.
No, it's a misnomer.
http://www.theatlantic.com/bus... [theatlantic.com]
When people complain about "the 1 percent," they're actually complaining about the 0.1 percent.
Because the reality is yea, while you might be well-off enough to qualify as "part of the 1 percent," you're still a dirt-poor worthless piece of shit in the eyes of the 0.1% who really do own/run everything.
Re:Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes (Score:5, Insightful)
It's people like you who enable that mayhem.
The idea that small government is a substitute for good governance is a koch dream. Small government means less oversight. So your dollars go to companies like Shell who destroy ecologies and societies. [amnesty.org]
Things like regulatory capture happen because people don't pay enough attention to their government, not because it is too big. Money chases power wherever it is. At least with government the money has to put in some work to get what it wants instead of getting it served up on a platter.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pretty much the most insightful post on this topic as of yet.
Objectivitism (i.e. Aynd Rand) is basically a pipe dream similar to Communism. Human nature dictates that those with power will always try to exploit the weak. The basic tenants of good government is to balance this equation in favor of the common good.
Re: (Score:3)
Human nature dictates that those with power will always try to exploit the weak. The basic tenants of good government is to balance this equation in favor of the common good.
By giving people in the government power. You do realize how this seems to an alien observer?
Re: (Score:3)
There will always be people in power. That's why good government attempts to balance this power so that the result is beneficial to society as a whole.
Power concentrated in the hands of organisations such as multi-national corporations (or even less omniscient entities such as car dealership networks) is no better than being in the hands of an autocratic and abusive regime.
For us in the developed world, at least we have some sort of say over policies implemented by a government which is in theory accountabl
Re: (Score:3)
So being in a facist (or libertarian) oligarchy with no accountability is better than being in a social democracy with many services provided by a government which is accountable?
Regulations are there for a purpose - for example, the FDA was created to save lives. Over regulation is stifling and encourages rent-seeking behavior, but under-regulation cause us to revert back to the previous, non-desirable state. So we need to find a balance.
As you said, the current system is breaking down, but not because of
Re: (Score:3)
You just described why the existing system of lobbying (and corporate influence) is bad. The government should be a "referee" on the other powerful interests, with power that is derived from the "people".
The best way to do this is to limit the amount of money that individuals and corporations can use to influence the result of elections.
A corporate free-for-all will not lead to a better society. We had that back in the Victorian era and it sucked.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It is impossible to have socialism at the state government level because states are not permitted to levy tariffs or control immigration.
You can't have socialism without both of those. If a state were to offer free healthcare paid for by taxes, then the unemployed who need healthcare would just travel to that state, while employers would move to other states where taxes are lower. That doesn't mean that single-payer healthcare can't work - just that it can't work in the context of a US state. In a countr
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Mass doesn't have a single-payer heathcare system, basic income, etc.
What is called socialism in the US is not what most people in the world would call socialism. I'll agree that it is a matter of degree, but there really is only so much you can offer when people can freely shift income/wealth outside of your taxing jurisdiction and those who have needs can freely move into it.
Re: (Score:3)
Ahem.
1. What is up with all y'all and "socialism"? No one's asking for socialism. No one's handing out socialism. There's no F'in socialism! !@#$
2. We're a mixed economy. Seriously. Everyone needs to look these terms up in a dictionary. Everyone. Go look up Socialism and Mixed Economy.
Re: (Score:3)
It's almost like there's this sort of happy medium built into the system where the Federal government represents the small government that doesn't intrude while more local governments (States and Municipalities) which offer more representation to their constituents can serve the role of the larger government.
The problem is that large corporations wield even more undemocratic power at the state level. A big company (or even just a small one that employs a lot of people locally) doesn't even have to spend much to gain influence. They just have to make noises about moving operations to another state and they can get all sorts of concessions out of state and local governments. So a lot of reforms, particular things that relate to labor or benefits, are harder to enact at a state-by-state level.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
We will live with corporate abuse but we won't stand for abuse by the state.
Good Lord Sir, you have spoken the truth.
Re: (Score:3)
So to me when I hear "more regulation" or "less regulation", or "big government" versus "small government" I hear two sides missing the point.
I think what we need is better government, not necessarily more or less, not necessarily bigger or smaller not necessarily more regulations or less.
Sure, In many cases I think we probably do need fewer actual pages of regulations, but ones which are more effective at accomplishing the public purpose. Tax law is a good example of law that needs simplification if ju
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The idea that libertarians would instantly reduce the government to nothing if they took power is laughable.
Why is it laughable? Republicans literally shut down the government twice now. Have you already forgotten Oct 1 through 17, 2013 when house republican majority refused to vote on a bipartisan bill because they didn't want to fund Obamacare?
It's not paranoia when that is indeed what happened.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes (Score:4, Interesting)
And the Republicans were perfectly happy choosing to shut down the government. It wasn't a threat. It was completely real. They shut down the government because they didn't want people to have healthcare.
That's funny, because during that time period, I got a ticket for speeding, a bill from the IRS, taxes were taken out of my pay check every week, and my neighbor's EBT card continued to work to buy groceries. The VA didn't kick my dad out of the hospital.
The country was stripped of its AAA credit rating, was one day away from a credit default,
There's a lot of misinformation here. Especially the "default" myth, when the treasury was taking in many times more money than required for debt service. But the ONE credit agency that lowered the US rating actually stated as the reason that there is too much debt and not enough political will do do anything to address it. Interesting, that was the very issue the shutdown was about. So the credit rating was lowered because the Republicans eventually capitulated, not because they "shut down" the government.
Re: (Score:3)
That's funny, because during that time period, I got a ticket for speeding, a bill from the IRS, taxes were taken out of my pay check every week, and my neighbor's EBT card continued to work to buy groceries. The VA didn't kick my dad out of the hospital.
Well, let's see... Speeding ticket -- a service provided by the state, county, or city you were busted in IRS bill -- well, we've privatized the Post Office and generating a bill doesn't require people (or it was mailed before the shutdown). Payroll taxes -- taken out by a private payroll provider, usually, and sent to the gubmint EBT -- administered by the state, usually through the counties As for the VA -- they are funded in advance a bit and the shutdown didn't last long enough for them to run out of money.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The idea that the largest most powerful entity to ever exist on this planet is only ever just trying to be benevolent and good, but is in danger because some people think it is too large is laughable.
I don't know if I've ever heard anyone suggest that idea. I think people have suggested that the most powerful entity to ever exist on this planet has the capacity to do good things. I think people have suggested that it should do good things, and that, since that powerful entity is to some degree democratic, we should be able to get it to do good things.
I think people have suggested that, because it's somewhat democratic and follows "the will of the people", ideologues convincing people to push that pow
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You can vote for a different government. The fact that people aren't coming to bulldoze your house right now, is because people have voted for a government that does not allow it. It's not because of your personal fighting prowess.
Power is always gonna exist. All you are actually asking for is a change from one person, one vote, to one dollar, one vote.
Re:Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes (Score:4, Insightful)
The free market is imaginary. Show me one. Anywhere on earth. Anywhere. Find me a free market, a market unfiddled by a large organization (government or private, doesn't matter).
The free market is like a frictionless wheel. It's useful to explain some concepts, but it's NOT REAL.
No, the government cannot come bulldoze your house on a whim. Calm down. It COULD use emminent domain, possibly... But then, the bank could decide to mess up some paperwork and forclose on your house despite your ability to pay. Frankly, both of these have happened. They're also RARE AS SHIT and cause a shit storm in the news when they DO happen.
Power is always going to exist. I can run a campaign against my government. I can do lots of things to stop my governemnt. I can't do shit against a bank except ask politely.....
And Seriously? The US Armed forces? Stop hyperbolizing... Both the bank and the governemnt will just call the cops. You're not cool enough to call in the military.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Amazing to see that people are still falling for Reagan's "welfare queen" fantasy.
I can think of 2 reasons:
1) Because it's not a total fantasy
2) Because it affirms their pre-existing beliefs about people on welfare.
Regarding #1 - I know of at least 3 families on welfare. 2 of them are hard working people who, in some way or another, got shafted by circumstances beyond their control, and wouldn't be able to survive without the assistance, regardless of how hard they work. The third contains your stereotypical "welfare queen;" the one who hasn't had a job in 5 years, gets $10,000/yr in tax
Re: (Score:2)
yep. really disappointed in silicon valley nerds if the above article is true.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll take the lower taxes with fewer regulations for everyone vs. what we have now which is a lot of regulations (that benefit only the big business players) and the corporate welfare that arrives monthly in the form of checks, subsidies, and tax breaks again only for the big boys and the political supporters.
Re: (Score:3)
with fewer regulations for everyone
Ahahaha whoa there now, slow down sonny. Those regulations are there for a reason, mostly to keep people from competing against me and to make sure that nobody smokes anything I wouldn't openly admit to smoking. Let's back up to that low taxes thing.
Re: (Score:3)
err because we believe that you actually "own" your own property and can do what ever you want with it. I'm sorry but the progressive view which is that as long as you only have a little bit of property it's pretty much yours, unless of course the gov't says it's not doesn't really work for us.
In other words we are not National Socialists..... like you.
Re:Rand Paul's a plagiarizing misogynistic racist (Score:4, Insightful)
I think this here sums up libertarianism nicely, as well as how anyone who isn't a true believer can expect to be treated should they ever win. Most might not be so blunt about it, but it's the idea behind all the sweet words about liberty.
[...]
And it's interesting to note that this is pretty much exactly what Nazis themselves, or hard-line communists, or really any totalitarians spouted.
You're doing the exact same thing.
Re: (Score:3)
How is something that is pure unsupported drivel considered "insightful" ... oh right, because it fits with a certain mentality of (R) bad, (D) good and any (R) is evil rich white man wanting to oppress the brown and black people.
The biggest fallacy is that people want it harder for "minorities and poor to vote, to hold jobs", which is pure bullshit race baiting crap. Take a look at the places that have (D) leadership, and then look at the poor souls who live there and tell me the (D) people have done ANYTH
Re:Rand Paul's a plagiarizing misogynistic racist (Score:5, Insightful)
I just find it fascinating that left leaning people always proclaim how they are such fans of diversity and inclusion, yet revile any thoughts that might stand in opposition to their own.
God forbid people be open minded towards new ideas, or even old ones.
Re:Double standards (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's something that will deflate your entire argument: most conservatives don't claim to be open and inclusive - you set up that straw man and knocked the hell out of it. Liberals do, and then bash anyone with different ideas or beliefs as neo-conservative warmongering science-denying ultra-fascist teahadists.
It's perfectly possible to be open to ideas from both sides of the spectrum. In fact, it's where the majority of the electorate is because no particular philosophy has a monopoly on good ideas. It's called being a moderate. You might have heard of it.
Re:Double standards (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, right, the old argument that "if you're truly open and interested in diversity, you'll let me shit all over openness and diversity, including your own, and you will be happy about it."
Here's the dirty little secret that you're trying hide with that platitude: some ideas are objectively terrible, lead to social disaster, and go against everything the Enlightenment and the revolutions of the 18th century fought for. As a result, the people who espouse those terrible ideas should be called out and ostracized. And while you're right that no party has a monopoly on good ideas, there's only one party that is actively promoting anti-science ideas, segregation, and a general Galt's Gulch approach to society. As soon as the republicans stop being loony, I'll vote for them again.
In the meantime, stop shitting in my cereal and telling me that it is chocolate.
Re: (Score:3)
"some ideas are objectively terrible" You mean like a junior senator with a background in "community organizing" would be an effective government leader, and leader of the free world?
But at least he isn't GWB, he is GWB and then some!
Re: (Score:3)
Is it a democracy?
No. Yo can vote for which party the corporations will tell what to do.
Re: (Score:3)
well according to the supreme court corporations = people and money = free speech so at least the "people" have their "free speech"
Re:Too bad he has no Foreign policy (Score:4, Insightful)
We took a leading role in Iraq. Would have been better if we didn't.
Re: (Score:3)
George Bush left Obama a stable Iraq. It didn't have to go down the tubes.
He also left Obama a healthy economy and a basket of puppies!
Re: (Score:3)