The Logical Absurdity of Libertarianism: Partial Omniscience

[Xerographica]

Banks and the Federal Reserve can and do print money out of thin air.  So, under pragmatism, they get 10 votes for every one of mine or anyone else.  Doesn't seem to fair to me.  I guess if I was a banker I would love it.

In a pragmatarian system, the legitimacy of a government organization would depend on the amount of funding it received.  If a government organization loses its legitimacy...then it's history.  

Consider this example.  In a pragmatarian system I don't see why you shouldn't be able to give your taxes to specific congresspeople.  So we can imagine 500 congresspeople each receiving different amounts of money from taxpayers.  The more money a congressperson receives...the more legitimacy they would have as a personal shopper.  Wouldn't it make sense that there would be a legitimacy threshold?  I have no idea what the legitimacy threshold would be...but let's say it's $5 million dollars.  If a congressperson only received $500,000...then wouldn't it make sense to argue that they don't have enough legitimacy to be a personal shopper?  Wouldn't it make sense to replace him with someone who taxpayers would value more as a personal shopper?

[LikelyToBreak]

In a pragmatarian system, the legitimacy of a government organization would depend on the amount of funding it received. If a government organization loses its legitimacy...then it's history.

So, pragmatarism is just another word for anarchy.  Everyone out for themselves and screw the rest.  

If you want anarchy, why don't you just say so?  Why make up an system when there is a well known system in place?

[Xerographica]

In a pragmatarian system, the legitimacy of a government organization would depend on the amount of funding it received. If a government organization loses its legitimacy...then it's history.

So, pragmatarism is just another word for anarchy.  Everyone out for themselves and screw the rest.  

If you want anarchy, why don't you just say so?  Why make up an system when there is a well known system in place?

Pragmatarianism is another word for taxpayer sovereignty.  Pragmatarianism is not the same thing as anarcho-capitalism.  With anarcho-capitalism there wouldn't be a public sector...people wouldn't have to pay taxes.  With pragmatarianism there would be a public sector and people would still have to pay taxes.  Well...assuming there's sufficient demand for the services of the IRS.  

It just so happens that over on the Ron Paul Forums...an actual anarcho-capitalist had this to say about pragmatarianism...

I want all my earnings to go to buy goods and services for my own personal use and enjoyment. Is 0% an option for my share of paying for the things YOU value? - Acala

Here was my reply...

Seriously trip out on this shit. Right now you're critiquing the idea of creating a market in the public sector. Why are you critiquing this idea? Because you value your private options more than you'd value your public options. Why do you value your private options more than your public ones? Because there's a market in the private sector and there isn't a market in the public sector.

You value your private options without even the slightest understanding or appreciation of the role that markets play in replacing less valuable options with more valuable ones.

In 1978 when Deng Xiaoping after years of persecution managed to help China transition from a planned economy to a mixed economy...do you think they had the same quality/quantity of products/services available then that they do now? Of course not. The logical consequence of preventing people from shopping for themselves (planned economies) is that the quality/quantity of products/services is shit.

Right now the quality/quantity of public goods is shit. Yeah, no fucking duh. That's the logical consequence of planned economies. That's exactly why I'm arguing that we need to create a market in the public sector.

Creating a market in the public sector would give taxpayers the freedom to incentivize producers to replace less valuable options with more valuable ones. So in 35 years time the difference between the quality/quantity of public goods available then and now will be as big as the difference between the quality/quantity of private goods available in China now and 35 years ago.

If you were a pragmatarian then I wouldn't have to explain this to you. But you're not a pragmatarian...you're a libertarian...which is why I have to explain this to you. Stop being a libertarian. It's time to evolve man.

[LikelyToBreak]

Well...assuming there's sufficient demand for the services of the IRS.

I don't think the IRS can function with two dollars a year.

Really, your comparing Libertarianism with Mao's China?   :roll:

[Xerographica]

Well...assuming there's sufficient demand for the services of the IRS.

I don't think the IRS can function with two dollars a year.

Really, your comparing Libertarianism with Mao's China?   :roll:

And I thought God was dead.  But here you are...alive and well...telling me that you know exactly how much society values the IRS.  Let me bow down and worship you.  Let me sacrifice my left nut to you.  Let me throw my gf in a volcano for you.  

Huh, oh wait, you're not wearing a hot pink fortune teller's turban.  This means that you're not really God...you're simply suffering from the same condition that congresspeople suffer from...it's called the fatal conceit.  Mao Zedong had the same condition.  Your think your decisions are so superior that there's no need to allow people to decide for themselves whether they put their resources in your hands.

[mykcob4]

mykcob4 wrote in part:

Absolutely correct.

Figures a big government liberal would agree with Pragmatism.

mykcob4 wrote in part:

The fact is that Libertarians think that they shouldn't pay any taxes whatsoever but they should reep the benefits that a government and society bring them. It's a faulty logic and it smacks of greed and self-entitlement.

Having been a member of the Libertarian party, I think my credentials in saying that statement is a lie are pretty good.  Maybe you can find a few members that think that way, the same as I could find members of the Democrat party who want to set up a dictatorship, but most do not think like that.  Most Libertarians want fair taxes, where rich multi-national corporations would have to pay the same rates as Ma and Pa's corner convenience store would.  And want to end corporate welfare.  Most Libertarians want a fair playing field, whereas the liberals want to make sure the corporate and banking lobbyists have the last say.

But, you know how it is.  You can't convince a bigot that his propaganda is wrong.

Then  tell me WHY every socalled libertarian elected official is bent on attacking schools, the EPA, science, nature, Social Security and everything else that is a benefit for the Ma and Pas of this nation? Why are the Libertarians so bent on giving giant corrupt corporations a free reign to monopolize?
The fact is that the actions of libertarians has always been pro republican/tea party and have nothing to do with common sense, social responsibility, or actual individual rights.
Rand Paul who is the darling of the liberatarians is so homophobic, so pro corrupt corporations it isn't even funny.
My statement isn't a lie. It is a direct comment about the actions of libertarians despite the rhetoric that the libertarians would have yopu believe.If you are a libertarian and don't feel that way then that's fine but it isn't what the libertarians have been doing.

[lumpymunk]

Just saying, all of you are talking past one another.  This thread is barely intelligible.

[LikelyToBreak]

lumpymunk wrote:

Just saying, all of you are talking past one another. This thread is barely intelligible.

Its' and unintelligible subject.  The more I think about pragmatism as an political philosophy, the crazier it sounds to me.  It would be unmanageable and throw the world into chaos.  It would be worse than anarchy.  People are not disciplined enough to make it work.  If they were, we wouldn't need it.

mykcob4, in answer to your post, there are only two Libertarians who I currently know of in elected office.  Paul and Paul are the only ones I know of.  One distinction I would make, and many others do as well, are that there are Libertarians and libertarians.  The Libertarians have taken over the party.  They are basically anarchists.  The libertarians, are not anti-school but would like to have more school choices.  Otherwise, we get what we have now, where the Texas School Board, with most of its' members also being members of the Texas Committee to Put Pants on Dogs, deciding what our children should learn.  With more choice, libertarians would hope to see school standards raised and the children meeting those standards.  If it is consider an attack if you try to raise academic standards, then guilty as charged.

The big corporations get exemptions so they can pollute freely.  Ma and Pa get fined for having their toilet paper roll on the holder the wrong way.  If the EPA regulations were reasonable and impartially enforced, libertarians wouldn't have a problem with them.  The Democans and Republicrats do as the lobbyists want them to do.  

I could go on, but just consider how influential the corporate lobbyists are.  Consider:

Finally, a 2009 study found that lobbying brought a substantial return on investment, as much as 22,000% in some cases.

//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying
Is this what you elected your Democrat representative to do?  To make sure the rich got richer?  I doubt it.  

What I am saying is, that some ideas the libertarians have are good ideas, which can't even be tried out, because people have a knee jerk reaction like mykcob4 does.  They hear a liberal say libertarians hate children because they don't want to fund their new program.  Well, the devil is the details.  The new program may be something some lobbyist wants to gain a huge financial gain, while doing nothing to help the schools.  Just because a bill has a nice sounding name, doesn't mean it is a good bill for the country.

Xerographica, when you can't answer the issues raised with anything other than an ad hominem attack you loose points in a debate.  Find out how banks work, then try answering my concerns again.  Or just come back and insult me some more.  I don't learn anything when you insult me, but if it makes you feel better, go for it.  :)

[Xerographica]

Xerographica, when you can't answer the issues raised with anything other than an ad hominem attack you loose points in a debate.  Find out how banks work, then try answering my concerns again.  Or just come back and insult me some more.  I don't learn anything when you insult me, but if it makes you feel better, go for it.  :)

What do you mean find out how banks work?  If you think you know how banks work...then please explain how their operation would throw a wrench into the successful operation of a pragmatarian system.

[mykcob4]

lumpymunk wrote:

Just saying, all of you are talking past one another. This thread is barely intelligible.

Its' and unintelligible subject.  The more I think about pragmatism as an political philosophy, the crazier it sounds to me.  It would be unmanageable and throw the world into chaos.  It would be worse than anarchy.  People are not disciplined enough to make it work.  If they were, we wouldn't need it.

mykcob4, in answer to your post, there are only two Libertarians who I currently know of in elected office.  Paul and Paul are the only ones I know of.  One distinction I would make, and many others do as well, are that there are Libertarians and libertarians.  The Libertarians have taken over the party.  They are basically anarchists.  The libertarians, are not anti-school but would like to have more school choices.  Otherwise, we get what we have now, where the Texas School Board, with most of its' members also being members of the Texas Committee to Put Pants on Dogs, deciding what our children should learn.  With more choice, libertarians would hope to see school standards raised and the children meeting those standards.  If it is consider an attack if you try to raise academic standards, then guilty as charged.

The big corporations get exemptions so they can pollute freely.  Ma and Pa get fined for having their toilet paper roll on the holder the wrong way.  If the EPA regulations were reasonable and impartially enforced, libertarians wouldn't have a problem with them.  The Democans and Republicrats do as the lobbyists want them to do.  

I could go on, but just consider how influential the corporate lobbyists are.  Consider:

Finally, a 2009 study found that lobbying brought a substantial return on investment, as much as 22,000% in some cases.

//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying
Is this what you elected your Democrat representative to do?  To make sure the rich got richer?  I doubt it.  

What I am saying is, that some ideas the libertarians have are good ideas, which can't even be tried out, because people have a knee jerk reaction like mykcob4 does.  They hear a liberal say libertarians hate children because they don't want to fund their new program.  Well, the devil is the details.  The new program may be something some lobbyist wants to gain a huge financial gain, while doing nothing to help the schools.  Just because a bill has a nice sounding name, doesn't mean it is a good bill for the country.

Xerographica, when you can't answer the issues raised with anything other than an ad hominem attack you loose points in a debate.  Find out how banks work, then try answering my concerns again.  Or just come back and insult me some more.  I don't learn anything when you insult me, but if it makes you feel better, go for it.  :)

Libertarians want vouchers and that is nothing more than ending public schools all because they don't like unions. Vouchers are a deathnell to access to education. Privatizing schools in essence mean that poor children could not and would not get an education. It isn't a choice. It's a war on those with less oppertunity. To charterize it any other way is a lie.

[Xerographica]

Libertarians want vouchers and that is nothing more than ending public schools all because they don't like unions. Vouchers are a deathnell to access to education. Privatizing schools in essence mean that poor children could not and would not get an education. It isn't a choice. It's a war on those with less oppertunity. To charterize it any other way is a lie.

LikelyToBreak take note...none of mykcob4's arguments would be relevant if you were a pragmatarian.

[mykcob4]

Oh and Likelytobreak, It's not a kneejerk reaction. I am responding based on YEARS...DECADES of experience with libertarians. They want an anarchy in a sorts. The I have mine screw you is what libertarianism is all about.
There are more libertarian elected officials than you either know of or are letting on.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_libe ... n_congress
There are about 153 as of today.
Funny you should mention the Texas state school board which is made up of Libertarians, evangelicals, tea partiers, and republicans. The "we have what we have now" is because conservatives, libertarians, evangelicals and the tea party have gutted public school funding, have interjected religious idolotry, have revised history, and replaced science with pseudo-science. High school football is the primary concern of most school boards, not education.

[LikelyToBreak]

mykcob4, I have not watched politics for a long time.  It was only when I started posting here that I started checking on things again.  When I was a Libertarian, although it was on the platform, the whole voucher thing was considered a waste of time to even consider.  So, we didn't bother.  We did want accountability in the schools though.  Personally, while running for the assembly, I pushed for more police protection around the schools.  The teachers' union just seem to want more money though.

One thing the "Libertarian" Ron Paul, with the help of Dennis Kucinich, finally got the Federal Reserve audited.  Kucinich lost the next election he was in.  Anyway the bill was passed with one Rep voting nay and 97 Dem's voting nay.  The audit showed that 16 Trillion dollars had been "lent" out to foreign banks.  Which is more then the US GDP.  Yet, the Democrats who voted against the bill, still claim they are for the little guy.

Did you vote for the Fed giving foreign banks more than our GDP for a year, when you voted for a Democrat?  I doubt it.  You sound like you really are for the little guy, and the middle guy.  Unfortunately, when the establishment politicians get into office, they just pass the bills the lobbyists want them to.  I guarn-f*cking-tee, the lobbyists are not for the little guy.  Which is why 400 Americans own more than 50% of the net wealth of the United States.  Didn't matter to them which party was in power, they still gained more wealth, while the middle and poor had the wages lowered by inflation.

As long as the super rich can get control of more of the GDP, the schools and everybody else is going to suffer from it.  So, when those libertarian wild cards like Paul and Kucinich try to stop the big bankers and corporations from robbing us blind, I am all for them.

Oh, before the next election, you might want to see how your representative voted on H.R. 459 (112th).  You can see for yourself here: //http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2012/h513

[Plu]

Libertarians want vouchers and that is nothing more than ending public schools all because they don't like unions. Vouchers are a deathnell to access to education. Privatizing schools in essence mean that poor children could not and would not get an education. It isn't a choice. It's a war on those with less oppertunity. To charterize it any other way is a lie.

LikelyToBreak take note...none of mykcob4's arguments would be relevant if you were a pragmatarian.

Neither would they be relevant if you were dead. Both positions are probably only a few weeks apart, so it's actually a relevant comparison.

[LikelyToBreak]

Xerographica wrote:

What do you mean find out how banks work? If you think you know how banks work...then please explain how their operation would throw a wrench into the successful operation of a pragmatarian system.

I tried to think of an easy way to explain how banks work.  It's not an easy thing to explain.  So, I found a YouTube Video to help explain: [youtube:3hidxjxi]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE8i-4HpKlM[/youtube:3hidxjxi]
This is the first part, I suggest watching it and at least the second part.  It is about the UK Banking system, but the US banking is essentially the same.  Just change the name UK Central Bank to Federal Reserve and the banks' names and it is the same.

Hope this helps everyone understand banks better.