Libertarianism is applied autism

[Phokus]

I see how you showed that it was the law that caused drunk driving to go down and no other stimulus. Talk about spouting off bullshit...

Hint, correlation does not imply causation.

It lines up with the timing. MADD and other groups lobbied hard in the late 70's through the 90's for tougher drunk driving laws and drunk driving sharply declined.

Hint: People respond to incentives.

 

[xBiffx]

It lines up with the timing. MADD and other groups lobbied hard in the late 70's through the 90's for tougher drunk driving laws and drunk driving sharply declined.

Hint: People respond to incentives.

Your own link even backs me up. Think for a second, I know its tough. Perhaps, its possible that DD has gone down because of awareness, not because of laws? Your own link doesn't even mention laws.

Since the inception of The Century Council and our national efforts to fight drunk driving, drunk driving fatalities have declined 35% from 15,827 in 1991.

So I say again, how have you proven that making something illegal gets rid of it?

 

[Moonbeam]

Sounds like Chairman Maonbeam is getting ready to start the purge.

That is possibly your childish paranoia speaking. As I said, what you fear most is that somebody will force you to see what you don't want to see. I can't force you to see anything and I would not if I could because I know that a fool convinced against his will remains of the same opinion still. Only you can find a will to see. A seed needs water and sunlight and nutrient to grow. What that would be for your mind is what interests me. A wounded animal defends against the best intentions of all potential rescuers. A bear can be trapped for it's skin or to move it to a safer location. It is the trapper and not the bear who knows the true intention. My job is to make sure I don't release you in a desert of good intentions, right? How could I know?

 

[Phokus]

I see how you showed that it was the law that caused drunk driving to go down and no other stimulus. Talk about spouting off bullshit...

Hint, correlation does not imply causation.

LOL, where does it say 'awareness'?

Since NHTSA began recording alcohol-related statistics in 1982, drunk driving fatalities have decreased 52% from 21,113 in 1982. Since the inception of The Century Council and our national efforts to fight drunk driving, drunk driving fatalities have declined 35% from 15,827 in 1991. (Source: NHTSA/FARS, 2011)

Note: You'll notice that they're talking about 1991, when even in the same paragraph, they also mention the sharp decline since 1982, which started in the late 70's thanks to lobbying by MADD and SADD, which coincides with that time frame.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_in_the_United_States

In the US, most of the laws and penalties were greatly enhanced starting in the late 1970s, and through the 1990s, largely due to pressure from groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and Students Against Destructive Decisions (SADD) and leaders like Candy Lightner. Significantly, zero tolerance laws were enacted which criminalized driving a vehicle with 0.01% or 0.02% BAC for drivers under 21. This is true even in Puerto Rico, despite maintaining a legal drinking age of 18.[17]

(the link i provided is from an organization funded by the alcohol industry, of course they want to take some credit).

But look at the cnn link i provided, 98% of adults know texting is dangerous but 50% of them do it anyway. How much more 'awareness' do you need? What's needed is more negative incentives for texting and driving, and that means punishment.

edit:

So I say again, how have you proven that making something illegal gets rid of it?

I like how you dishonestly cut off the paragraph indicating the decline from 1982.

 

[Anarchist420]

Ron Paul can't get elected for a variety of reasons. A) Because he has absolutely no charisma (a highly underrated trait in a presidential election), B) Because even if 100% of republicans agree with his views, they still have to choose who's electable in the general election which is why they elected Mitt Romney, even though it was quite obvious no mainstream GOP was really excited about him or even really like him as a candidate.

Dr. Paul would've actually beat Obama, because the former doesn't lose sleep at night by the thought of some people not paying income tax (i.e., Romney/Ryan lost sleep over 47% not paying taxes) and because there was no dirt to dig up on him. Romney is mentally retarded (while Dr. Paul is not) and that's why Obama beat him. Someone as retarded as Romney has no room to think they're God's gift to the world.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Literally everything you have said is factually wrong on every level.

You're entitled to your opinion about me being "factually wrong".

Rand Paul is pretty much libertarian.

Rand Paul holds some positions that are libertarian, and some that are conservative and not consistent with libertarianism. As I said, he's trying to have his cake and eat it too.

When i say 'big tent', i mean evangelicals, neo-conservatives, and libertarians. That's why i say they're a VARIANT of conservativism.

If Republicans try to include libertarians in their "big tent", it's for obvious political purposes. That doesn't make libertarianism a "variant" of conservatism.

You're confusing the fact that Ron Paul (and his supporters) did some extremely shady things (at least according to mainstream GOPers) during the primaries in trying to win delegates to the GOP conventions that really antagonized the GOP and made them pissed off at him.

No, I was not discussing that at all. I specifically said policy positions. Most Republicans oppose Ron Paul's positions in a number of areas, and that's why, even if he had an angelic demeanor, he'd never win the nomination.

Oh really? Then why is there no 'ron paul' in the democratic party?

As I already said, libertarianism overlaps both major parties, just in different ways. Ironically, there are areas where Dennis Kucinich is more libertarian than Rand Paul.

Also, at the moment there's a great deal of emphasis on fiscal issues in the Republican Party, which is an area of interest to libertarians. So that particular overlap is getting a lot of airtime.

Dude, i was a FORMER libertarian, don't preach to me what is and isn't libertarianism.

You are someone who formerly thought he was libertarian. Whether you actually were or not is another matter.

I mentioned several specific policy areas where libertarians and mainstream conservatives are in conflict. You ignored them, of course, because they go to the heart of how silly your attempt to conflate the two ideologies is.

As just one example:

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world.
...
The Constitution and Bill of Rights shall not be suspended even during time of war.
...
We oppose the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law.
...
Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.

This would involve, among other things, removing the tens of thousands of troops we have in other countries, shutting down many military bases, and cutting off all aid and support to Israel. Are you going to tell me with a straight face that this is consistent with Republican party policy?

 

[tuxberg]

The principle of non-aggression does not mix well with voting, which is to approve of persons having arbitrary and violent authority over others with the expressed permission to steal, imprison, and make war.

I imagine most libertarians are mad at themselves for not being principled enough to stop participating in this barbaric system. Or at least they should be. Liberals and conservatives might be equally ashamed, but they're oblivious.

 

[Moonbeam]

I thought it was rather obvious -- you claim you would not restrict someone's free will, and then immediately give an example of a (completely unnecessary) restriction you would support.

At least most liberals are honest enough to admit that they are indeed looking to tell others how to live their lives.

I do not know what you mean by a completely unnecessary restriction I would support? What most liberals believe or don't believe is of no importance to me. I believe in the integration of opposites at a higher level and sometimes call that progressive. But I don't think there is a good definition for people who think like me. There is a line from left to right and I'm off that line in a third dimension, the integration of opposites. The example I commonly use is welfare, you can't help people by charity, you teach them to fish by developing the a sense of self worth surreptitiously by giving folk the feeling they have earned what they get. Starving them will not do that.

So what is the restriction, why is it unnecessary and how do I support it? What are we talking about? I already explained that what Bobber would consider a chain is not a chain to me.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I do not know what you mean by a completely unnecessary restriction I would support?

The one you mentioned in the post I responded to: "And all the terrible restrictions I would impose on your life, like only up to 16 oz. sugary drinks I can only do if I can elect a sufficient number of like minded thinkers to pass such laws in a constitutional democracy."

This is really simple: if you support any government rules that restrict others' rights "for their own good", then you cannot say you will "never take from you your free will".

 

[OverVolt]

Libertarians have their heart in the right place but the execution is all wrong. I agree with alot of their views but they always fail to sell their ideas to the mainstream people, so now they've gone completely crazy.

Its a bit of a shame since I think they know the correct path for the country at large but can't communicate the ideas in a way that common people can get behind, and now its too late since they are all aboard the crazy train.

I have to filter out certain things because "I know what they mean" and they get a free pass for the poor metaphor or phrasing but I know the way they put it turns away probably 95% of the mainstream politics types.

 

[Moonbeam]

Your own link even backs me up. Think for a second, I know its tough. Perhaps, its possible that DD has gone down because of awareness, not because of laws? Your own link doesn't even mention laws.



So I say again, how have you proven that making something illegal gets rid of it?

I believe he claims the incidence went down, not that it was gotten rid of, no?

 

[OverVolt]

Moonbeam is honestly the perfect example.

 

[Phokus]

You're entitled to your opinion about me being "factually wrong".

It's not an opinion, it's a fact. Again, have you been following politics the last few decades? Libertarians being in the tent of the GOP is not a novel concept for anyone who has.

Rand Paul holds some positions that are libertarian, and some that are conservative and not consistent with libertarianism. As I said, he's trying to have his cake and eat it too.

It's not 50/50, stop trying to make it out like he is. He's way more libertarian than he his mainstream conservative.

If Republicans try to include libertarians in their "big tent", it's for obvious political purposes. That doesn't make libertarianism a "variant" of conservatism.

Yes, the political purpose is that they'd lose lots of elections if they didn't. In which case, that shows the libertarian strain in the GOP is quite important.

And yes, it does make it a 'variant' of conservativism. Are paleo-cons like Pat Buchanon not a variant of conservativism even though they are shunned even more by the GOP than libertarians? Do you know what 'variant' means? I think the problem is you either not knowing the definitions of words or you trying to intentionally strawman what i'm saying.

No, I was not discussing that at all. I specifically said policy positions. Most Republicans oppose Ron Paul's positions in a number of areas, and that's why, even if he had an angelic demeanor, he'd never win the nomination.

What policy positions and did those polls mention Ron Paul? Because he became a pariah after trying to 'steal' delegates.

As I already said, libertarianism overlaps both major parties, just in different ways. Ironically, there are areas where Dennis Kucinich is more libertarian than Rand Paul.

Also, at the moment there's a great deal of emphasis on fiscal issues in the Republican Party, which is an area of interest to libertarians. So that particular overlap is getting a lot of airtime.

No it doesn't, and this is why you're wrong. The very core of libertarianism is fiscal issues, they are whores to money and making sure government is as small as possible. Sure they care about civil liberties too, but with varying degrees of fervor, but when it comes to the almighty dollar, they are rabid. That is why they are a natural fit with the GOP and not the democratic party.

Also, it's hilarious that you mention Kucinich considering he got primaried out while that would never happen to ron paul, which further weakens your point.

Again, the 'democratic tent' that includes 'libertarianism' is not something you hear very often.

You are someone who formerly thought he was libertarian. Whether you actually were or not is another matter.

Considering i can tell the difference between an anarcho-capitalist and a mainstream libertarian (going back to that Reagan quote), unlike you, i think i have a better grasp of what libertarianism is and isn't.

I mentioned several specific policy areas where libertarians and mainstream conservatives are in conflict. You ignored them, of course, because they go to the heart of how silly your attempt to conflate the two ideologies is.

As just one example:



This would involve, among other things, removing the tens of thousands of troops we have in other countries, shutting down many military bases, and cutting off all aid and support to Israel. Are you going to tell me with a straight face that this is consistent with Republican party policy?

Again, what is with you and not being able to understand what the word 'variant' means?

Oh and please respond to my edit in the last post:

Edit: oh and one more thing, it's funny how the tea party sprung from ron paul's movement and the tea party has the GOP by the balls. Sure you can argue that the Tea Party isn't 100% libertarian, but there IS a VERY big overlap. Funny when the occupy movement sprung forth, some libertarians tried to inject themselves into it, but there has been a huge disagreement between them and most occupy participants and there hasn't been the same sort of synergy.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

It's not an opinion, it's a fact.

You're entitled to your opinion on whether or not it's an opinion. I, obviously, do not agree.

Again, have you been following politics the last few decades? Libertarians being in the tent of the GOP is not a novel concept for anyone who has.

Circular argumentation.

It's not 50/50, stop trying to make it out like he is.

I didn't say anything about "50/50". I said that he's libertarian in some ways, and not in others. Which is correct.

He's way more libertarian than he his mainstream conservative.

Debatable, but doesn't really matter.

Do you know what 'variant' means? I think the problem is you either not knowing the definitions of words or you trying to intentionally strawman what i'm saying.

Is that the problem?

Let's see:

Something that differs in form only slightly from something else, as a different spelling or pronunciation of the same word.
...
something that differs from a standard or type

Your use of the word "variant" suggests that libertarianism is the same as conservatism but with slight differences. That is false.

Since you continue to mischaracterize the positions of libertarians, and refused to address a specific example I provided where libertarians and Republicans are in stark opposition, I can only conclude that you have no interest in discussing this matter in good faith, and am not wasting time responding to the rest of your post point by point.

Oh, here's another example for you to dishonestly ignore.

Republican Party:

Faithful to the "self-evident" truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children.

Libertarian Party:

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

Democratic Party:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way.

Which two parties' planks are most similar? The answer is pretty obvious.

PS Based on your performance in this and other threads, I highly doubt you were ever a libertarian.

 

[Moonbeam]

The one you mentioned in the post I responded to: "And all the terrible restrictions I would impose on your life, like only up to 16 oz. sugary drinks I can only do if I can elect a sufficient number of like minded thinkers to pass such laws in a constitutional democracy."

This is really simple: if you support any government rules that restrict others' rights "for their own good", then you cannot say you will "never take from you your free will".

That isn't what I said. I said I would never make him believe what I believe if I had the means. His concern is that I will send him to a reeducation camp or a mental institution because he is crazy or have his kind exterminated for the common good. I said that what I will do is place terrible chains of 16OZ. on his sugary drinks if I can get a majority who agree that will be the limit of the size I order, that I support such drastic limits on my freedom to have to go back for a second drink if I am determined to fatten up so I can have a heart attack. I would never force him to have this same opinion or limit his right to vote to keep drink size limitations non-existent.

I am saying that in the competition of ideas I come down on the side that what he calls a nanny state, I call a war against self destruction propagated by corporate greed and a lust only for profit that strives to cause people to consume beyond the point that is physically or mentally healthy, that there is a war taking place between common sense and medical factual knowledge, and the inculcation of irrational and irresponsible desire among people for the benefit of corporate interests. I believe this is a real war and I vote from what I believe is a healthier perspective. I fight with my vote and my voice while respecting his right to do the same. I believe I have his real interests at heart but I don't act on what I believe except as I described, legally. I fall on the libertarian, but not an authoritarian side of the left and right spectrum.

 

[Phokus]

You're entitled to your opinion on whether or not it's an opinion. I, obviously, do not agree.



Circular argumentation.



I didn't say anything about "50/50". I said that he's libertarian in some ways, and not in others. Which is correct.




Debatable, but doesn't really matter.



Is that the problem?

Let's see:

Your use of the word "variant" suggests that libertarianism is the same as conservatism but with slight differences. That is false.

Since you continue to mischaracterize the positions of libertarians, and refused to address a specific example I provided where libertarians and Republicans are in stark opposition, I can only conclude that you have no interest in discussing this matter in good faith, and am not wasting time responding to the rest of your post point by point.

Oh, here's another example for you to dishonestly ignore.

Republican Party:
Libertarian Party:
Democratic Party:
Which two parties' planks are most similar? The answer is pretty obvious.

PS Based on your performance in this and other threads, I highly doubt you were ever a libertarian.

Interesting how you're now starting to pick and choose what you're going to reply to. It's almost like this discussion is becoming less and less favorable to you.

Because my point about how libertarians MOSTLY rally towards fiscal issues is the basis of my argument:

You need to read this article:

Libertarianism isn’t some cutting-edge political philosophy that somehow transcends the traditional “left to right” spectrum. It’s a radical, hard-right economic doctrine promoted by wealthy people who always end up backing Republican candidates, no matter how often they talk about civil liberties, ending the wars and legalizing pot. Funny how that works.
Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012...l-its-libertarianism.html#qZ3jvcQRyehVEyjC.99

and also the link in the paragraph above, CATO is the PERFECT illustration of the synergy between Libertarianism and the GOP:

http://www.thenation.com/article/167500/independent-and-principled-behind-cato-myth

CATO is known as a libertarian think tank right? Funny how they tilt a lot to the GOP. You can hem and haw and try to pretend libertarianism isn't piggy backing on the GOP is just ridiculous.

Also, interesting how you choose the less popular definition of variant from a dictionary nobody's heard of, trying to pull a biff on us?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/variant

: manifesting variety, deviation, or *****disagreement*****

yeah that's pretty much the DEFINITION of what i was getting at when i said the libertarian party is a variant of the GOP. All 3 of those definitions fit perfectly to what i was talking about

Rand Paul is popular with most libertarians still. Is he a clone? No, but 90+% of him is libertarian.

Also, how is it a 'circular argument' that libertarianism is in the big tent of the GOP? That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[xBiffx]

I believe he claims the incidence went down, not that it was gotten rid of, no?

That is what he claims. But then he posts nothing to back up the claim that laws are the reason for this. All the while claiming others are posting bullshit and their gut feelings without using facts.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

"Free will" generally implies the ability to be free to take whatever actions one wants as long as they don't impinge on the rights of others. If you're okay with telling someone that you know better than he does what's good for him, to the point of helping to pass laws restricting what size soft drink he can be, you are not in favor of "free will". It's really as simple as that.

 

[xBiffx]

LOL, where does it say 'awareness'?



Note: You'll notice that they're talking about 1991, when even in the same paragraph, they also mention the sharp decline since 1982, which started in the late 70's thanks to lobbying by MADD and SADD, which coincides with that time frame.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_in_the_United_States



(the link i provided is from an organization funded by the alcohol industry, of course they want to take some credit).

But look at the cnn link i provided, 98% of adults know texting is dangerous but 50% of them do it anyway. How much more 'awareness' do you need? What's needed is more negative incentives for texting and driving, and that means punishment.

edit:



I like how you dishonestly cut off the paragraph indicating the decline from 1982.

Thank you for backing up my point by showing that nowhere in any of the "facts" that you posted does it say anything about laws. Actually, MADD and SADD (i.e. awareness groups) are mentioned a lot more often. BTW lobbying ≠ laws.

I didn't dishonestly cut off anything. It is still in your original post as well as the lack of proof that laws are the reason for the decline.

Thanks again.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Phokus -- are or are not the Libertarian Party platform planks on the military, foreign policy and abortion that I quoted consistent with the Republican Party platform?

 

[Phokus]

Thank you for backing up my point by showing that nowhere in any of the "facts" that you posted does it say anything about laws. Actually, MADD and SADD (i.e. awareness groups) are mentioned a lot more often.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem too?

Let me post this again:

In the US, most of the laws and penalties were greatly enhanced starting in the late 1970s, and through the 1990s, largely due to pressure from groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and Students Against Destructive Decisions (SADD) and leaders like Candy Lightner. Significantly, zero tolerance laws were enacted which criminalized driving a vehicle with 0.01% or 0.02% BAC for drivers under 21. This is true even in Puerto Rico, despite maintaining a legal drinking age of 18.[17]

And again, it's funny how you dishonestly cut off the paragraph you quoted not mentioning the decline from 1982 before even that group started the so-called 'awareness' campaign that's not even mentioned in the article i posted

Jesus Christ you're a mess.

 

[Phokus]

Phokus -- are or are not the Libertarian Party platform planks on the military, foreign policy and abortion that I quoted consistent with the Republican Party platform?

Let me post this again:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/variant

manifesting variety, deviation, or *****disagreement*****

You are living in an alternate reality if you don't see that libertarians, time and time again, tilt towards the GOP and will never be part of the Democratic party.

Again, read the article on CATO, the self proclaimed 'libertarian think tank'.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Let me post this again:

You're deliberately ducking the core issue, which is the existence of major policy planks where libertarians are more similar to Democrats than Republicans.

I'm not wasting any more time trying to have a reasonable discussion with someone who is both obnoxious and dishonest.

 

[Incorruptible]

You're entitled to your opinion on whether or not it's an opinion. I, obviously, do not agree.



Circular argumentation.



I didn't say anything about "50/50". I said that he's libertarian in some ways, and not in others. Which is correct.




Debatable, but doesn't really matter.



Is that the problem?

Let's see:

Your use of the word "variant" suggests that libertarianism is the same as conservatism but with slight differences. That is false.

Since you continue to mischaracterize the positions of libertarians, and refused to address a specific example I provided where libertarians and Republicans are in stark opposition, I can only conclude that you have no interest in discussing this matter in good faith, and am not wasting time responding to the rest of your post point by point.

Oh, here's another example for you to dishonestly ignore.

Republican Party:
Libertarian Party:
Democratic Party:
Which two parties' planks are most similar? The answer is pretty obvious.

PS Based on your performance in this and other threads, I highly doubt you were ever a libertarian.

Excellent post but your wasting your time with that trash who will never admit he is wrong and LOL at him ever being a Libertarian. Its just pure BS.

 

[xBiffx]

Do you have a reading comprehension problem too?

Let me post this again:



And again, it's funny how you dishonestly cut off the paragraph you quoted not mentioning the decline from 1982 before even that group started the so-called 'awareness' campaign that's not even mentioned in the article i posted

Jesus Christ you're a mess.

Again, where is the proof that laws were the cause. Saying it doesn't prove it. Nothing proves that the passage of laws reduced the drunk driving. Only thing you have shown is that someone has correlated reduction with drunk driving with the passage of some laws.

Again, correlation does not imply causation but that is exactly what you are trying to say with this nonsense. You can't prove that making drunk driving illegal reduces it other than to say "of course it does". Nothing in the laws prevents the behavior, if someone is inclined to drink and drive, nothing is stopping them.