Obama vs. McCain: Thoughts?

[The Cid]

You're comparing the outright shilling for Obama and torpedoing McCain (without even attempting a half-hearted veil of objectivity in most cases) with failing to splash on the front page in-depth exposes on what realistically are irrelevant and utterly unelectable third parties? As much of a shame as that fact is, it is a fact in our current political structure, and it's unlikely to change without a change to the voting structure itself--the media itself will not even come close to touching any third party that might hurt their guy.

In the mean time, even the angry good ol' boy Republicans whose boat Palin rocked couldn't get their best vindictive shot to land, but that won't stop everyone from admitting they were wrong or even bothering to report it as a major story.

Deacon, you're not going to get one ounce of sympathy from me and you know it. You think the Republicans are getting screwed over by the media, yet most people don't have a CLUE what ANY of the third parties stand for. You can write that off all you want, but if you want to talk about getting screwed over, I'd say the handful of candidates whose platforms are outright ignored are screwed much worse.

[JermCool]

Quick recap of third party platforms.

Libertarians: Fiscal conservatism, social indifference.
Greens: If you're not living in a cave, your carbon footprint is too big. Don't light a fire in that cave, though. Fires create too much carbon.
Constitution Party: More conservative than modern-day Republicans. Candidates, sadly, tend to be bat-shit crazy.
Communist Party: Same platform as the current Democratic ticket.

A more complete list can be found here.

[StruckingFuggle]

Libertarians: Fiscal conservatism, social indifference.

*mutter* Where the heck's my socially libertarian, politically/economically "liberal"-ish party? You'd figure there'd be one, but no ...

Sucks because I'm totally behind the Libertarians on social matters, heck I might even be more "out there" than they are on some issues (except I think they're fools and failures for seemingly only being opposed to the government, down to the philosophy); but move away from society and they quickly lose me. Which sucks because in social terms they seem to be the only ones standing up for freedom. Or, y'know, coming as close as a politician, as someone who wants power, can.

[adciv]

*mutter* Where the heck's my socially libertarian, politically/economically "liberal"-ish party? You'd figure there'd be one, but no ...

You're going to have to explain that a bit more.

[The Cid]

Libertarians: Fiscal conservatism, social indifference.

I wouldn't call it social "indifference." More of an emphasis on civil and personal liberties.

*mutter* Where the heck's my socially libertarian, politically/economically "liberal"-ish party? You'd figure there'd be one, but no ...

Because if you're for personal freedom, it stands to reason that you're in favor of economic freedom as well. Personally though, I think if people paid fewer dollars in taxes they would have more of an opportunity to donate money to a private cause they find to be important. Nobody's saying you can't help the poor, just that Uncle Sam isn't very good at it.

except I think they're fools and failures for seemingly only being opposed to the government, down to the philosophy

Well thank you for that, but I am not an anarchist and I'd appreciate not being likened to one.

But if you're going to resort to name-calling, I'll call YOU a fool for trusting one of the world's most ineffective and inefficient organizations--the United States federal Government--to solve your problems for you. The difference between you and me is that I'm more confident in the common idiot to manage his own life than the collective idiocy that is the federal government. You however seem to think that we'll be better off letting crazy old Uncle Sam take care of our lives for us. Good luck getting that kind of accountability out of a bunch of liars, cheats and yes men.

[StruckingFuggle]

You're going to have to explain that a bit more.

Take economic towards-a-mild-case-of-socialism-from-this-side policies sort of reminiscent of the democrats, and couple it with a radical social libertarian philosophy of individual social / civil freedom (and a realistic, pragmatic, fair-minded view towards crime, instead of the rather warped and fantasy-world models we have now would be nice, too). It'd be easier to define it by positions, rather than trying to create some vacuum explanation.

Broadly, "politically democrat, socially libertarian" would get at a decent chunk of it, but still be Doing It Wrong.

Because if you're for personal freedom, it stands to reason that you're in favor of economic freedom as well.

Yet I'm not (oh wow that will be spun poorly), and I'm also not alone in it. Just alone-ish.

Well thank you for that, but I am not an anarchist and I'd appreciate not being likened to one.

I ... don't get it. How did I ... oh. I see. I think you misunderstood! What I was calling the libertarians fools for was being opposed, down to their core philosophy (so it seems), only to the government as an enemy of individual liberty, and in the process exempting society as a whole and non-government institutions from also being enemies of individual liberty.

The problem is that this is a democracy! Liars, cheats, and yes-men succeed in government like they do in all other vaguely-democratic power systems, like business and religion and, heck, your neighborhood and society as a whole! You can't trust ANY of them to do right by anyone. Which is the problem I've always had with the libertarians. They seem to like kicking the foxes from the henhouse while inviting their good buddies the weasels to the party.

[adciv]

Ok, let me try this. Socially, you don't care what people do so long as it doesn't explicitly[1] infringe on another living persons rights/property. You'll get agreement from most of us on that.

Economically, you believe that the government should be able to what? Who do you believe should be taxed, how should they be taxed, and what do you believe should be done with that money?

[1] By this I mean that they aren't directly doing something to you. Me refusing to associate with someone does not infringe their rights. Someone trying to force me to associate with them infringes mine.

[The Cid]

Yet I'm not (oh wow that will be spun poorly), and I'm also not alone in it. Just alone-ish.

Man, I live in Taxachusetts. You don't need to tell me you're not alone in it. But you're still being foolish to trust the government to solve all your problems.

I ... don't get it. How did I ... oh. I see. I think you misunderstood! What I was calling the libertarians fools for was being opposed, down to their core philosophy (so it seems), only to the government as an enemy of individual liberty, and in the process exempting society as a whole and non-government institutions from also being enemies of individual liberty.

"So it seems." Remember that statement, because again the philosophy is not to eliminate government altogether but to lessen what it does. The larger a government gets, in this line of thinking, the more dangerous its power becomes. As has been said by Americans since our nation was founded, the government which governs least is optimal. I think that if the government severely lessened the scope of what it does, what's left would be that much more effective. Quality matters, not quantity, when it comes to government service.

The problem is that this is a democracy! Liars, cheats, and yes-men succeed in government like they do in all other vaguely-democratic power systems, like business and religion and, heck, your neighborhood and society as a whole!

You're in favor of giving the scum of the Earth more power than any group of Americans could ever attain. And why?

Which is the problem I've always had with the libertarians. They seem to like kicking the foxes from the henhouse while inviting their good buddies the weasels to the party.

...We're also in favor of arming all the chickens, remember.

You're getting this wrong. Under a Libertarian ideal, the people in general would wield the power. Want to shelter and feed the homeless? Plenty of jobs would come up in private nonprofits to help do just that. There would be no candidate to fund to have him do it for you, no special interest group to bully congress. No, all that "help the poor" energy would go into...actually helping the damn poor instead of just bitching and moaning.

The people would have all the money, which would also help the working poor very much by simply allowing them to keep more of theirs. They could spend that money on, oh I don't know, maybe a little health insurance? Perhaps some food? Maybe they could pay their mortgages with the money and not have to lose their houses! Maybe fewer people would NEED mortgages! They could invest in their own retirement, instead of relying on Social Security to be there for them.

You act as though government does a good job of keeping laws enforced today, which is so obviously not true. Regulating businesses has been a woefully unsuccessful measure to date. And in a democracy, Fuggle, I can't see how you can trust a government but not the people. Perhaps you'd be better off moving to a country with less democracy.

[ampersand]

Why couldn't we just be a monarchy?

And yes, it's a joke.

[ShahinVahdat]

Because you told the king to sodd off, remember?

Hey! You're German, don't be using British slang...it's confusing.

[StruckingFuggle]

...We're also in favor of arming all the chickens, remember.

The metaphor rather falls apart here. How do you arm chickens against threats to their liberty that don't come from the government? And you don't seem to do a good job of it ... against whichever predatory mammal represents businessmen, it's always seemed that Libertarians are rather fond and in favor of regulating fowl weaponry.

Man, I live in Taxachusetts. You don't need to tell me you're not alone in it. But you're still being foolish to trust the government to solve all your problems.

Er, I don't ... Though I think it's a useful if dangerous tool and has the scope to be useful and powerful where other methods fail. And I don't trust it for "all problems". I don't TRUST it for anything, but I'm willing to use it for the problems that're too big, or that you can trust it with more than you can trust (the also un-trustworthy) private interests (like for-profit insurance, which is so absurd a concept that surely it must have originated from a farce!)(or like public education, or the criminal justice system), if not to run it, then to at least kick the people who do run it in the face and hopefully keep them within certain lines that they'd never draw for themselves.

"So it seems." Remember that statement, because again the philosophy is not to eliminate government altogether but to lessen what it does. The larger a government gets, in this line of thinking, the more dangerous its power becomes. As has been said by Americans since our nation was founded, the government which governs least is optimal. I think that if the government severely lessened the scope of what it does, what's left would be that much more effective. Quality matters, not quantity, when it comes to government service.

In case I didn't clarify it enough: I'm not calling the philosophy foolish for being opposed to governments (in a scope that doesn't expand to anarchy), I'm calling it foolish for not extending it to other, nongovernmental power systems. Properly, in the name of liberty, someone should be as opposed to society (as we know it) as they are to government.

And going back to the previous topic, right now, yes, I consider both society and business to be as big a threat to liberty as government, and government to be the only coherent force at the moment to fight society and business with. In the end it comes down to awful weapons all around and which one you're most willing to use, and to what extent, to fight them all until they're too bloody and sore to prey upon individuals. :/

You're in favor of giving the scum of the Earth more power than any group of Americans could ever be. And why?

I'm not sure what you mean, here. I'm going to assume that the politicians are the "scum of the earth", and by that rhetoric, it's them and only them, and heads of business and society are exempt from also being the "scum of the earth", but what's meant by the last bit, "more power than any group of Americans could ever be"? Even discounting the fact that they're a "group of Americans", and thus your statement is, if I understand the setup, logically impossible, I'm not quite sure what you mean.

You're getting this wrong. Under a Libertarian ideal, the people in general would wield the power. Want to shelter and feed the homeless? Plenty of jobs would come up in private nonprofits to help do just that. There would be no candidate to fund to have him do it for you, no special interest group to bully congress. No, all that "help the poor" energy would go into...actually helping the damn poor instead of just bitching and moaning.

The people would have all the money, which would also help the working poor very much by simply allowing them to keep more of theirs. They could spend that money on, oh I don't know, maybe a little health insurance? Perhaps some food? Maybe they could pay their mortgages with the money and not have to lose their houses! Maybe fewer people would NEED mortgages! They could invest in their own retirement, instead of relying on Social Security to be there for them.

(for the record, I'm opposed to social security these days.) (and don't like most other similar institutions as they are; but I'm in more favor of massive overhaul than scrapping ... except for Social Security)

And that Libertarian ideal, still does nothing for people in social and economic chains, only political ones.



I'm not, once more, being critical of them for their opposition to the government, I'm being critical of them for their being ONLY critical of the government, and NOT of other institutions and systems that are just as bad, or even worse than, the government at the moment. Which seems to be a point you're now-routinely ignoring. You're beginning to make me think the point is more this is something that Libertarians are blind to, and your arguments sure seem to be creating a growing hill of supporting evidence.

You act as though government does a good job of keeping laws enforced today, which is so obviously not true.

Nope, they don't do a good job, just a vaguely acceptably bad one that's probably in many ways 'better' than whatever the likely alternatives are. It's like casting a vote. One way or the other you're going to have one or the other; neither's GOOD - one's just less bad than the other.

Regulating businesses has been a woefully unsuccessful measure to date.

Still seems better than the alternative; especially when the alternative seems to be that individuals shouldn't even need to take regulation into their own hands.

And in a democracy, Fuggle, I can't see how you can trust a government but not the people. Perhaps you'd be better off moving to a country with less democracy.

Heh. Given the people here, that might not be the worst of ideas. The problem is, for all the problems democracy causes, especially with a voting public as shitty, fucked, ignorant, and ruinous as the American people, it provides a means of getting rid of the really bad ones, something absent in a system; and sadly democratic systems and institutionalized civil "rights" (quotes there for a reason) tend to correlate pretty well, and I'd have to give up the latter to no longer have to deal with the former, and in that trade I think I'd continue to suffer that former.

... this brings up something else that bears pointing out, too: that for all the little good democracy actually does, "voting people out" is still you can't do to society or to business. You can try, fire, imprison criminal CEOs, but their culture never changes and the bad apples keep getting into the bushels (and we've seemingly proved that while it's nominally possible, significant shakeups in the way things're done rarely happen, and those that do are no deterrence beyond the legislation they might inspire), and it's not like you can impeach a zeitgeist.

Still, similarly! In a democracy, I don't see how YOU can trust the people, but not the government!

The thing is, you DO seem to trust the people. I DON'T trust the government, I'm just choosing to in some ways use it as a tool because I don't trust EITHER but ultimately you need SOMETHING to get things done.

---

Also, stop it. With the spread of people and communication through mass media and the web, slang is now pigdin and global, the british no longer own "sodd off", or any other idiomatic piece of british slang.

[adciv]

And going back to the previous topic, right now, yes, I consider both society and business to be as big a threat to liberty as government, and government to be the only coherent force at the moment to fight society and business with. In the end it comes down to awful weapons all around and which one you're most willing to use, and to what extent, to fight them all until they're too bloody and sore to prey upon individuals. :/

Ok, why do you feel that businesses are a threat? How, in what ways? I know several business owners. None of them threaten me in any way.

[StruckingFuggle]

More answers when I have more time, but adciv... how big are their businesses? And I doubt you'd agree with me on any scale, from the small menaces to liberty of small business, to the big menaces to both liberty, health, and society that bigger businesses do and could pose) ... just for an example? As a combined one, "dress professionally" is an example of an (admittedly small) impingement upon individual liberty imposed by both Business AND Society. A small example, 'cause I'm running out of time. But then there's also the problem of getting too much money concentrated in one place and the influence it brings to too few individuals to pull for Just Their Personal interests)

[adciv]

That falls under freedom of association. Post more on it all later, because I'm curious.

[StruckingFuggle]

That falls under freedom of association. Post more on it all later, because I'm curious.

Of course it does; but it uses the protection of one freedom, brought to bear through the tyranny of the small-minded petty personal tyrant who cannot bear to deal with others and thus must clutch to one freedom so that he may strike at another, to, well ... yeah. Strike at another, more important freedom.

It's give and take, one way or the other liberty is impinged, and just because you're claiming one freedom as your mechanism of doing so doesn't change the outcome of your act. By fact of being give and take, there is a taking.

Freedom of association, in a positive sense, is a good thing, a powerful thing, but I think we use it too much to say "I don't have to associate with you!" and all the consequences that can come from it, instead of the more important reverse "we cannot say that these people can NOT associate with these other people" - the double-edged sword bites too hard the other way, but is too vital to limit. Because in a negative sense, it's too much the sword and the shield of the ignorant, bigoted, petty, small-minded, and/or stupid.

The problem with society is just what you're saying, plus what I'm saying about it. It's not that we have freedom of association, it's that we're generally so immature that we're going to whine and bitch and tantrum and use Freedom of Association as a weapon against other people; and that is one of the tyrannies of Society.