GOP files paperwork to become wholly owned subsidiary of Koch Industries

Started by AllPurposeAtheist, May 27, 2014, 06:48:39 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

AllPurposeAtheist

This libertarian nonsense has nearly created a situation where government cannot act when it is in the nations interest to act even to protect the people of the nation.
All hail my new signature!

Admit it. You're secretly green with envy.

Berati

Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on June 06, 2014, 08:04:13 PM
This libertarian nonsense has nearly created a situation where government cannot act when it is in the nations interest to act even to protect the people of the nation.
Very succinctly put.
Libertarians lack pragmatism and will put ideological purity ahead of a very real and pressing need to act.

There has never been and will never be a democratic open and free society built on libertarian philosophy because there are no free lunches. Everything has a cost and that includes democratic, open and free societies. (By "free" I mean freedom of thought and expression, NOT free of cost)

Libertarians want the responsibilities of a hermit while simultaneously having all the advantages that society brings.
Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

AllPurposeAtheist

Not to hear Jason Jason put it Berati. If everyone just adopted the libertarian philosophy the whole world would just have one big puppy, but of course nobody would ever clean up after it because there would be no taxes to pay anyone to do it. It would be one giant Clifford the big red dog shitting on everyone.
All hail my new signature!

Admit it. You're secretly green with envy.

Jason Harvestdancer

Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on June 06, 2014, 08:04:13 PM
This libertarian nonsense has nearly created a situation where government cannot act when it is in the nations interest to act even to protect the people of the nation.

So you can point out any time since the Libertarian Party was founded (1971) that it has controlled a branch of congress?
White privilege is being a lifelong racist, then being sent to the White House twice because your running mate is a minority.<br /><br />No Biden, no KKK, no Fascist USA!

Jason Harvestdancer

Quote from: Berati on June 05, 2014, 10:08:53 PMSo why is no one doing anything about this enormous and unproductive risk? Answer: Libertarian Fantasy.

Conservatives (and even some liberals) have not just been talking about laissez faire capitalism and the destruction of important safety regulations and important regulations controlling money in politics… they have actually implemented legislation to accomplish this.

Just as bad is the failure to act. The unregulated financial instruments I mentioned above are going to come home to roost and when they do we will have the Libertarian daydream to blame.

I'd correct you again and point out that you mean "conservative fantasy" but it seems you actually honestly really refuse to know the difference.

Sad, really.  Trying to point out the differences to you is like trying to explain fossils to a creationist.
White privilege is being a lifelong racist, then being sent to the White House twice because your running mate is a minority.<br /><br />No Biden, no KKK, no Fascist USA!

Berati

Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 09, 2014, 12:46:59 AM
I'd correct you again and point out that you mean "conservative fantasy" but it seems you actually honestly really refuse to know the difference.

Sad, really.  Trying to point out the differences to you is like trying to explain fossils to a creationist.
You still don't understand why its the similarities that bother me and not the differences.

It doesn't matter to me as the point was to explain my reasoning to those who may be following the thread and wondering what I meant. I've explained it as clearly as I can and everyone else seems to understand. The point was never to get you to see the problem as your a True Believerâ,,¢. Trying to get you to understand the problems with libertarianism is like trying to get Casparov to see the problems with solipsism.


Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Jason Harvestdancer

Actually, your most recent post on the subject, with your "examples", is an interesting one because you've gone from one error to another.  Instead of saying "Republicans follow libertarian positions" you are now saying "libertarians follow Republican positions."  The Citizen's United case is a perfect example of that, to the point where it is an example of the "No True Libertarian" fallacy.

It is a relative of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, but not in the way you would like.

Step one: take a positions that libertarians do not subscribe to.  Even better, take one that is actually antithetical to libertarian thought.
Step two: say libertarians hold that position.  Wait for libertarians to say "but we don't hold that position."
Step three: erroneously say that the libertarian is committing a No True Scotsman fallacy.
Step four: when the error is pointed out, accuse the libertarian of being a True Believer.

For instance, suppose there was another Berati on this board making claims similar to this Berati.

Berati2: And that is why libertarians believe in redistributing wealth.
Libertarian: But libertarians don't believe in redistributing wealth.
Berati2: Libertarians always abuse the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Libertarian: But as you can see, that premise is actually contrary to libertarian thought.
Berati2: Now you're just a True Believer.

Look, there may very well be some very serious problems with libertarianism, and if implemented I'd be shocked and dismayed at how it turned out.  But you won't get to that point as long as you keep ascribing to libertarianism points not found within libertarianism. 

Now there are 300 million people in the US, and some of them are libertarian.  Let us assume that it is very low, say 1%.  That still leaves 3 million people who are libertarian.  Not all of them are straight down the line libertarians, some of them deviate on some issues.  That still doesn't change the core of what libertarianism is, and those who do deviate on some issues still are libertarian on most issues - otherwise they wouldn't be libertarians.  So I suppose you could try to find in that minority within a minority those who self-identify as libertarian who you would like to use as an example of what libertarians believe, but that would be a Hasty Generalization.

Citizens United ... libertarians had little to say about it because neither option represents our opinion on campaign finance.  We would not have ruled either way on that question, because the issue is tangential to where we really fall on the issue of campaign finance.

You appear to know what libertarians believe better than the 100% of libertarians who would say you are wrong about what libertarians believe.  I guess everyone is out of step except you.  Considering that 100% of libertarians are wrong about what they believe, it makes me wonder what is the proper name for the beliefs held by 100% of those who identify themselves as libertarians.
White privilege is being a lifelong racist, then being sent to the White House twice because your running mate is a minority.<br /><br />No Biden, no KKK, no Fascist USA!

Jason Harvestdancer

The Wrong $25 Million?

QuoteThe United Negro College Fund, the primary fund-raising organization for private, historically black colleges, is a revered institution for many African Americans. Its successes are points of pride to many, and are vital to many black colleges.

When the UNCF announced one of its largest gifts ever on Friday, several took to Twitter to express shock and anger. One person wrote: "#UNCF Literally Sells Their 'Souls To The Devil' Accepting Checks From The #KochBrothers W/Out Knowing Their Evil History. Craziness." Another tweet: "#Koch donation to @UNCF tells children everywhere that money is first and integrity is unnecessary. Sends the wrong damn message. Period."
White privilege is being a lifelong racist, then being sent to the White House twice because your running mate is a minority.<br /><br />No Biden, no KKK, no Fascist USA!

Berati

Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 09, 2014, 02:00:43 PM
Actually, your most recent post on the subject, with your "examples", is an interesting one because you've gone from one error to another.
I see no errors and you haven't pointed any out.



QuoteInstead of saying "Republicans follow libertarian positions" you are now saying "libertarians follow Republican positions." 
No. I’ve never said that. I’ve said that conservatives follow libertarian positions, then proved it by giving examples.



QuoteLook, there may very well be some very serious problems with libertarianism,
So why argue if you agree?

QuoteBut you won't get to that point as long as you keep ascribing to libertarianism points not found within libertarianism. 
Except that I haven’t done that.
I’ve given real examples of libertarian ideology being implemented by conservatives such as:

- Laissez faire capitalism
- Removal of regulations on campaign finance
- Refusal to regulate financial instruments



QuoteYou appear to know what libertarians believe better than the 100% of libertarians who would say you are wrong about what libertarians believe.  I guess everyone is out of step except you.  Considering that 100% of libertarians are wrong about what they believe, it makes me wonder what is the proper name for the beliefs held by 100% of those who identify themselves as libertarians.

And there’s the typical and overused libertarian shuffle.
Libertarians are against regulations except when they’re not.
Libertarians are for "limited" government except when they’re not.
Libertarians are for laissez faire capitalism except when they’re not

This is the No true Scotsman fallacy in action. Every discussion with Libertarians (seriously every single one to a sickening degree) always ends with the accusation that “you just don’t understand the true libertarian position”.


No one understands the true libertarian position, not even libertarians! And the main reason is...

Because “limited government” is a meaningless phrase. The only thing it means is limited to whatever the current libertarian/conservative feels it should be limited to.
Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Jason Harvestdancer

Quote from: Berati on June 09, 2014, 09:02:53 PMI see no errors and you haven't pointed any out.

You've ascribed to Republicans a liking for laissez faire, and you've ascribed to libertarians a liking for corporatism.

Quote from: Berati on June 09, 2014, 09:02:53 PMNo. I’ve never said that. I’ve said that conservatives follow libertarian positions, then proved it by giving examples.

And your examples were refuted.  And counter-examples were provided, and you pretended you didn't see them.

Quote from: Berati on June 09, 2014, 09:02:53 PMI’ve given real examples of libertarian ideology being implemented by conservatives such as:

No you haven't.

Quote from: Berati on June 09, 2014, 09:02:53 PM- Laissez faire capitalism

Not a Republican position.

Quote from: Berati on June 09, 2014, 09:02:53 PM- Removal of regulations on campaign finance

You think that Citizens United is a removal of regulations?  I still see plenty of other regulations.

Quote from: Berati on June 09, 2014, 09:02:53 PM- Refusal to regulate financial instruments

Again with the inability to distinguish between corporatism and laissez faire.  Do you ever get tired about being wrong on subjects you know nothing about?

Quote from: Berati on June 09, 2014, 09:02:53 PMAnd there’s the typical and overused libertarian shuffle.

Yes, you're the only one in the whole world who know what libertarians actually believe, and libertarians are wrong about what they believe.

Quote from: Berati on June 09, 2014, 09:02:53 PMLibertarians are against regulations except when they’re not.
Libertarians are for "limited" government except when they’re not.
Libertarians are for laissez faire capitalism except when they’re not

When you lump libertarians with Republicans, you'll find that the differences between the two ideologies will produce results like the ones you describe.  Next time try lumping libertarians with socialists, you'll get

Quote from: Berati2Libertarians are in favor of wealth redistribution except when they're not.

This is the No True Libertarian fallacy in action.  Every discussion with you (seriously every single one to a sickening degree) always ends with the accusation that libertarians don't understand the true libertarian position.

Quote from: Berati on June 09, 2014, 09:02:53 PMNo one understands the true libertarian position, not even libertarians! And the main reason is...

You are not a plural

Quote from: Berati on June 09, 2014, 09:02:53 PMBecause “limited government” is a meaningless phrase. The only thing it means is limited to whatever the current libertarian/conservative feels it should be limited to.

And there is why you don't understand it - you think that you can lump two disparate ideologies together with nothing more than a slash.

So tell me about your anarchist/statist positions, you conservative Republican you.

By the way, I'm sure others noticed how quickly you ran from the subject of the differences between libertarians and Republicans on the issues of civil liberty and foreign policy.  It is pretty obvious that you know that if you actually respond to those two topics then you will end of up saying "sure they only agree in one out of three areas, but that still makes them identical".  And you've made such a hash of proving that one out of three area that you've basically proved for me that libertarians and Republicans don't even agree on that one area.  You have conceded two out of three and proven for me the third, making it three for three on libertarians and Republicans disagreeing.

Perhaps you might do better if you try to learn the difference between corporatism and capitalism.  Perhaps you might do better if you learn the difference between business subsidies and no business subsidies.  Perhaps you might do better if you learn the difference between actual deregulation (which means there are actually less regulations) and regulations written to remove liability from businesses (which actually means more regulations, but they're the wrong regulation so you pretend they aren't there).

And since you cannot tell the difference, no matter how many times it is patiently explained, no matter how many examples are given, therefore "nobody can understand it."  And since you cannot tell the difference, no matter how many times it is patiently explained, no matter how many examples are given, you think the two are therefore somehow mysteriously the same in spite of the many differences.  And the same in spite of the serious foreign policy and civil liberty differences that you've conceded by trying to only discuss your failed attempt to prove that libertarians and Republicans agree on one out of three major policy areas.

If you were right, you'd have shown agreement on one out of three areas.  You didn't even do that much, and you ran away from discussing the other two areas.

It's not my fault that you can't tell the difference between subsidies and no subsidies.  It's not the fault of libertarians anywhere that you can't tell the difference between subsidies and no subsidies.  It's not the fault of libertarianism that you can't tell the difference between subsidies and no subsidies.

Hell, you actually think our core value is "limited government", when that is only a means to a core value.  The core value, which isn't shared by Republicans, dictates our means to the point where if government would actually be a useful tool to reach our core value we'd use the government to reach it.  I'm sure you'd call that a shuffle or equivocation, but in truth that is your admission that you don't even know what the core value is.  If you knew what that value is, you wouldn't be confused by what I just wrote, you wouldn't call it a shuffle, you wouldn't call it an equivocation.

And you also wouldn't make your idiotic mistake about lumping libertarians with conservatives anymore.
White privilege is being a lifelong racist, then being sent to the White House twice because your running mate is a minority.<br /><br />No Biden, no KKK, no Fascist USA!

Berati

Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 10, 2014, 02:26:44 AM
You've ascribed to Republicans a liking for laissez faire, and you've ascribed to libertarians a liking for corporatism.
Nope, those are your words not mine. This is the same tactic you have tried in every reply and it never works.

QuoteAnd your examples were refuted.  And counter-examples were provided, and you pretended you didn't see them.
This-> “Actually, your most recent post on the subject, with your "examples", is an interesting one because you've gone from one error to another”
Is not a refutation nor is it a counter example.

Just saying “you’re wrong” is not a refutation
Putting your words in my mouth is not a counter example.
Differences in foreign policy do not negate similarities in deregulating financial institutions


QuoteYou think that Citizens United is a removal of regulations?  I still see plenty of other regulations.
Yes, Citizens United as well as McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission are a roll back of regulation on campaign finance.
This is exactly the same mistake you make every time. If conservatives roll back regulations it’s not libertarian ideology, it’s corporatism because the conservatives did it. This is a flawed argument. It won’t suddenly become a logical argument just because you repeat it ad nauseum.

QuoteAgain with the inability to distinguish between corporatism and laissez faire.  Do you ever get tired about being wrong on subjects you know nothing about?
I own a company (incorporated) that provides financial services and I own lots of real estate. I know more about how the real world works than you could ever hope to understand. Do you see me begging for money?

QuoteBy the way, I'm sure others noticed how quickly you ran from the subject of the differences between libertarians and Republicans on the issues of civil liberty and foreign policy.”

And you also wouldn't make your idiotic mistake about lumping libertarians with conservatives anymore.
NOT THE POINT!
The idiotic mistake is not seeing that libertarians share stupid ideas with conservatives and IT DOESN’T MATTER IF THEY DISAGREE ON OTHER IDEAS!

I seriously don’t know how you can keep making the same mistake no matter how often it’s pointed out.

You and every libertarian I’ve ever wasted my time talking to follows this line of reasoning:

If a conservative slashes regulations in an effort “limit government” or to “maximize liberty” it doesn't count as libertarian ideology because he doesn't support gay marriage, and legalized drugs, etc…
When a conservative removes regulations on companies he’s a corporatist, when a libertarian does exactly the same thing… he’s a champion of freedom.


IT DOESN’T MATTER THAT LIBERTARIANS AND CONSERVATIVES DON’T SEE EYE TO EYE ON EVERY SUBJECT. THAT IS NOT THE POINT, IT WAS NEVER THE POINT, AND IT WILL NEVER BE THE POINT.

Let me repeat that this line of reasoning is FLAWED:
If a conservative slashes regulations in an effort “limit government” or to “maximize freedom” it doesn't count as libertarian ideology because he doesn't support gay marriage, and legalized drugs, etc…
When a conservative removes regulations on companies he’s a corporatist, when a libertarian does exactly the same thing… he’s a champion of freedom.


This is the one and only argument you have made. It’s a flawed argument and yet you continue to make it. I don’t know if you’re just slow or if you’re trolling but either way, try to think of something else to say.
Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Jason Harvestdancer

Quote from: Berati on June 10, 2014, 06:17:08 PMIT DOESN’T MATTER THAT LIBERTARIANS AND CONSERVATIVES DON’T SEE EYE TO EYE ON EVERY SUBJECT. THAT IS NOT THE POINT, IT WAS NEVER THE POINT, AND IT WILL NEVER BE THE POINT.

If, out of the myriad of hundred of issues they agree on one thing, you say that is proof that they are fellow travelers.  Then you back up and say "but it doesn't matter if they agree on everything."  Nice back-tracking and moving the goalposts.  It's a new fallacy for you, and another way to say "everyone is out of step but Berati."

By the way, by your standard, what does it say about Democrats if a Democrat and a libertarian agree on something?
White privilege is being a lifelong racist, then being sent to the White House twice because your running mate is a minority.<br /><br />No Biden, no KKK, no Fascist USA!

Berati

Quote from: Berati on May 31, 2014, 11:05:57 PM
The Liberals used to be more blinded by ideology but now its the conservatives. They've swallowed a libertarian fantasy and can't see the harm it's doing.
No backtracking. A consistent message from start to finish.

Destructive examples have been provided.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg0Axyvlkm0
Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Jason Harvestdancer

Quote from: Berati on June 16, 2014, 08:21:52 PMNo backtracking. A consistent message from start to finish.

You went from "they are fellow travelers and agree on so much" to "it counts if they agree on even just a few things."  And then neglected to tell me what it means when a Democrat and a Libertarian agree.

Your goalposts are mobile, your generalizations are hasty,  your proofs are empty, your responses to counter-proofs are absent, your Scotsmen are all Korean.  Your Reagan video just reiterates a point I made, that when faced with a choice between "what they say" or "what they do" you decided long ago that you "can't trust your lying eyes."

Me: But look at how they vote
You: But they said they'd do something else, so I know they did.

Do you always believe what Republicans say?  Really?
White privilege is being a lifelong racist, then being sent to the White House twice because your running mate is a minority.<br /><br />No Biden, no KKK, no Fascist USA!

Solitary

Fascinating! "Money talks, and BS walks." And we wonder why our government is broke---ideologies fighting ideologies of what is best for the country's people while being in a quagmire of BS? Solitary
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.