[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Bernie Sanders - R_P - Apr 8, 2020 - 3:31pm
 
How you coping/dealing with the crisis? - Prodigal_SOB - Apr 8, 2020 - 2:42pm
 
2020 Elections - KarmaKarma - Apr 8, 2020 - 2:39pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - triskele - Apr 8, 2020 - 2:37pm
 
Environment - R_P - Apr 8, 2020 - 2:32pm
 
Economix - R_P - Apr 8, 2020 - 2:23pm
 
John Prine - Paradise - Peabody Energy on verge of Ch... - lowelltr - Apr 8, 2020 - 2:14pm
 
The Moon - KurtfromLaQuinta - Apr 8, 2020 - 2:08pm
 
The Obituary Page - KurtfromLaQuinta - Apr 8, 2020 - 2:06pm
 
Radio Paradise Comments - BlueHeronDruid - Apr 8, 2020 - 1:36pm
 
Trump - R_P - Apr 8, 2020 - 12:56pm
 
COVID-19 - black321 - Apr 8, 2020 - 11:47am
 
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing - oldviolin - Apr 8, 2020 - 10:58am
 
Trump Lies - Proclivities - Apr 8, 2020 - 10:10am
 
Republican Party - KarmaKarma - Apr 8, 2020 - 10:07am
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - oldviolin - Apr 8, 2020 - 10:00am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Apr 8, 2020 - 9:56am
 
Counting with Pictures - ScottN - Apr 8, 2020 - 8:45am
 
Amazing animals! - miamizsun - Apr 8, 2020 - 8:38am
 
Breaking News - Red_Dragon - Apr 8, 2020 - 8:27am
 
Bad News / Good News - sunybuny - Apr 8, 2020 - 6:00am
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - Proclivities - Apr 8, 2020 - 4:01am
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - R_P - Apr 8, 2020 - 1:08am
 
M.A.G.A. - R_P - Apr 7, 2020 - 11:46pm
 
How are you coping/dealing with the crisis? - kurtster - Apr 7, 2020 - 3:58pm
 
What Makes You Laugh? - kcar - Apr 7, 2020 - 3:02pm
 
What Did You Do Today? - Steely_D - Apr 7, 2020 - 1:56pm
 
NASA & other news from space - miamizsun - Apr 7, 2020 - 8:44am
 
Baseball, anyone? - Red_Dragon - Apr 7, 2020 - 8:02am
 
Radiohead - miamizsun - Apr 7, 2020 - 6:37am
 
Chicken your way - jahgirl8 - Apr 6, 2020 - 9:32pm
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - ScottN - Apr 6, 2020 - 8:33pm
 
Things You Thought Today - jahgirl8 - Apr 6, 2020 - 7:00pm
 
Favorite Scriptures...Leave Pontificating at the Door - jahgirl8 - Apr 6, 2020 - 6:29pm
 
Let Him Swing? - jahgirl8 - Apr 6, 2020 - 5:14pm
 
Urban Chickens - jahgirl8 - Apr 6, 2020 - 5:04pm
 
Fake News*  ?  ! - kcar - Apr 6, 2020 - 4:33pm
 
Questions. - jahgirl8 - Apr 6, 2020 - 4:00pm
 
Way Cool Video - miamizsun - Apr 6, 2020 - 9:40am
 
Surfing! - miamizsun - Apr 6, 2020 - 9:34am
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - Blackbirds - Apr 6, 2020 - 3:07am
 
Australia - R_P - Apr 5, 2020 - 8:28pm
 
Canada - R_P - Apr 5, 2020 - 6:00pm
 
• • • BRING OUT YOUR DEAD • • •  - oldviolin - Apr 5, 2020 - 5:09pm
 
Windows app: how to change stream/channel? - BillG - Apr 5, 2020 - 3:33pm
 
Bob Dylan - Steely_D - Apr 5, 2020 - 2:11pm
 
Poetry Forum - ScottN - Apr 5, 2020 - 12:04pm
 
what the hell, miamizsun? - miamizsun - Apr 5, 2020 - 8:25am
 
April Fool's Day - haresfur - Apr 4, 2020 - 7:46pm
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Apr 4, 2020 - 7:00pm
 
What can you hear right now? - haresfur - Apr 4, 2020 - 4:35pm
 
Name My Band - haresfur - Apr 4, 2020 - 4:34pm
 
Amazon Prime Members - Free Streaming of Selected Movies ... - Isabeau - Apr 4, 2020 - 3:42pm
 
Embedding Tweets - miamizsun - Apr 4, 2020 - 12:22pm
 
kurtster's quiet vinyl - kurtster - Apr 4, 2020 - 11:53am
 
Today in History - hayduke2 - Apr 4, 2020 - 8:00am
 
The war on funk is over! - R_P - Apr 4, 2020 - 12:27am
 
Earthquake in So. Cal - kurtster - Apr 3, 2020 - 10:09pm
 
RightWingNutZ - Coaxial - Apr 3, 2020 - 8:52pm
 
Apropos of Nothing - miamizsun - Apr 3, 2020 - 8:44pm
 
Country Up The Bumpkin - Coaxial - Apr 3, 2020 - 7:10pm
 
What Are You Grateful For? - jahgirl8 - Apr 3, 2020 - 6:42pm
 
Photos you have taken of yourself - jahgirl8 - Apr 3, 2020 - 6:33pm
 
Fox Spews - R_P - Apr 3, 2020 - 6:09pm
 
Thanks to BillG & Rebecca! - KTlistening - Apr 3, 2020 - 2:34pm
 
♥ ♥ ♥ Vote For Pie ♥ ♥ ♥ - ScottFromWyoming - Apr 3, 2020 - 1:35pm
 
Things that are just WRONG - Isabeau - Apr 3, 2020 - 1:24pm
 
Graphs, Charts & Maps - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Apr 3, 2020 - 10:07am
 
R.I.P. Bill Withers - westslope - Apr 3, 2020 - 9:54am
 
Art Show - Proclivities - Apr 3, 2020 - 5:20am
 
Derplahoma Questions and Points of Interest - sunybuny - Apr 3, 2020 - 5:12am
 
The alternate universe - BlueHeronDruid - Apr 3, 2020 - 12:26am
 
New Zealand - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Apr 2, 2020 - 11:55pm
 
Last gas price paid? - ScottFromWyoming - Apr 2, 2020 - 10:08pm
 
Rhetorical questions - kurtster - Apr 2, 2020 - 8:38pm
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Ask the Libertarian Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 165, 166, 167  Next
Post to this Topic
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Nov 28, 2018 - 10:52am

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:


I sorta miss him.

 
Horrifying, innit?
ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 28, 2018 - 10:41am



 miamizsun wrote:

how else are you going to put food on your family?


 

I sorta miss him.
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 28, 2018 - 6:14am

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:



 
how else are you going to put food on your family?


ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 28, 2018 - 5:56am



 Lazy8 wrote:
I missed responding to the concept of Pareto efficiency in my last post, so I'll circle back for a minute..

rexi wrote:
My point was not about envy but rather that changes in distribution (relative prices) caused by growth can make some worse off in real terms (land, in this case) even if the average is made better off, unless measures are taken to counter that. So your initial claim that your neighbour’s wealth does not make you poorer is not a true statement. Look up pareto efficient allocation. Distribution matters!

Pareto optimality applies to closed systems. Zero-sum games. Life is not a zero-sum game, but even if it were Pareto-optimal distribution isn't some egalitarian utopian state—it just means you can't change a distribution to make one outcome better without making another worse. Cut up a pie between three people and regardless of the distribution it's Pareto-optimal: increase one person's share and someone else's decreases. Simply not a useful concept here.

Income doesn't work that way. The pie keeps getting bigger, as the entirety of human history demonstrates.
 


miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 28, 2018 - 5:17am

 Lazy8 wrote:
I missed responding to the concept of Pareto efficiency in my last post, so I'll circle back for a minute..

rexi wrote:
My point was not about envy but rather that changes in distribution (relative prices) caused by growth can make some worse off in real terms (land, in this case) even if the average is made better off, unless measures are taken to counter that. So your initial claim that your neighbour’s wealth does not make you poorer is not a true statement. Look up pareto efficient allocation. Distribution matters!

Pareto optimality applies to closed systems. Zero-sum games. Life is not a zero-sum game, but even if it were Pareto-optimal distribution isn't some egalitarian utopian state—it just means you can't change a distribution to make one outcome better without making another worse. Cut up a pie between three people and regardless of the distribution it's Pareto-optimal: increase one person's share and someone else's decreases. Simply not a useful concept here.

Income doesn't work that way. The pie keeps getting bigger, as the entirety of human history demonstrates.

 

free info/education on the subject...

His statement does not even shock us until we understand it. He said, “No man can profit except by the loss of others, and by this reasoning all manner of profit must be condemned.”  Please note, Montaigne’s statement does not allow for exceptions. He says, “No man can profit except by the loss of others.”  In other words, A can only profit when B suffers a loss. B can only profit when A suffers a loss.

The final part of the sentence does not allow for exceptions. By this reasoning, all manner of profit must be condemned. Ladies and gentlemen, the long-run consequences of a successful condemnation of all manner of profit is grave indeed. In the end, it means that man will be condemned to extinction through his own stupidity. Therefore, in view of the magnitude of the regressive domino impact of all of this, it is not enough to simply state that the Montaigne statement is wrong. That’s not enough.

It must be scientifically refuted. In contemporary language, the Montaigne dogma, “No man can profit except through the loss of another,” can be named the win-lose mentality. First of all, what is a mentality? A mentality is a habitual way of thinking. I will demonstrate that this dogmatic way of thinking has become a habit among the educated. It can be expressed in this way, the win-lose mentality – for me to win, you must lose.


miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 28, 2018 - 4:49am

 Beanie wrote:
I STILL read this as "Ask the Librarian" and think it's Maryte holding court over here...

 
y'all come on in

the wrath is fine

j/k    {#Biggrin}
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 27, 2018 - 9:31pm

westslope wrote:
Do not believe that I have posted to this thread before.   Read a few posts from  over the past couple of months and must admit that I find myself agreeing with Lazy8 almost all the time.  We may have been subjected to a common socialization so y'all have been warned.

On some days, I wonder if I am a Green Freemarket Libertarian, yet, I profoundly admire the socio-economic outcomes of the Nordic social democracies.  Call me confused.  Then, on the other hand, the Nordic social democracies do freemarket capitalism extremely well.  Economic property rights (individual and collective) are well defined, and secure.  Ethnic, sectarian and racist exceptions are not encouraged as they often appear to be in US policy, both domestic and foreign.  Canada might be a tad better than the USA but we still treat our natives like shit.  

I was very disappointed when Maxime Bernier did not win the leadership of the Canadian Conservative party (federal).  Not sure that the Conservative Party would have managed to form the government, but under Maxime's leadership, I would have expected the Canadian welfare state to improve. In Canadian political history, small populist protest parties have punched well above their weight in terms of influence on policy.    Thank God for the British parliamentary system that nurtures 3rd, 4th and 5th parties.

Canada could easily benefit from more Libertarian politicians not fewer of them.  

In the interim, Maxime has started a new political party called the People's Party of Canada.  (Wiki page)  That is one weird name for an upstart, protest political party with a Libertarian bent. 




In passing, Maxime Bernier represents the federal riding of la Beauce that sits south of Quebec City just north of the Maine border.  The region is absolutely beautiful  — old Appalachian foothills — and the people are friendly.  Highly recommend it for curious travellers.  Enjoy the Summer Music festival in historic Quebec City (most of the shows are free) and then drop down south for a couple days into la Beauce.  The trout fishing in the upper end of the riviere Chaudiere is reasonably good.


There is an actual Libertarian Party in Canada. Check them out.

I've met Dennis Young, former chair. He's a bit intense but his heart's in the right place.
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 27, 2018 - 9:24pm

I missed responding to the concept of Pareto efficiency in my last post, so I'll circle back for a minute..

rexi wrote:
My point was not about envy but rather that changes in distribution (relative prices) caused by growth can make some worse off in real terms (land, in this case) even if the average is made better off, unless measures are taken to counter that. So your initial claim that your neighbour’s wealth does not make you poorer is not a true statement. Look up pareto efficient allocation. Distribution matters!

Pareto optimality applies to closed systems. Zero-sum games. Life is not a zero-sum game, but even if it were Pareto-optimal distribution isn't some egalitarian utopian state—it just means you can't change a distribution to make one outcome better without making another worse. Cut up a pie between three people and regardless of the distribution it's Pareto-optimal: increase one person's share and someone else's decreases. Simply not a useful concept here.

Income doesn't work that way. The pie keeps getting bigger, as the entirety of human history demonstrates.
aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 27, 2018 - 2:27pm

 miamizsun wrote:


did you know ron paul and gandalf are cousins?

be nice unless you want to be turned into a toad


 
I'm more concerned about you turning me in to the local girl scout troop for opening a holiday cookie sales table at the mall.
aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 27, 2018 - 2:25pm

 westslope wrote:
Read a few posts from  over the past couple of months and must admit that I find myself agreeing with Lazy8 almost all the time. 



 {#Wink}


miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 27, 2018 - 2:20pm

 aflanigan wrote:

Definitely. Pointing to Clinton or Obama's individual stances on issues wouldn't be a valid criticism of progressives as a whole, either.

Anyway, a hard fought and stirring victory. Hopefully we can prevent any future dilution of this right, and win more victories in the name of liberty and justice for all.
 

did you know ron paul and gandalf are cousins?

be nice unless you want to be turned into a toad





westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Nov 27, 2018 - 2:19pm

Do not believe that I have posted to this thread before.   Read a few posts from  over the past couple of months and must admit that I find myself agreeing with Lazy8 almost all the time.  We may have been subjected to a common socialization so y'all have been warned.

On some days, I wonder if I am a Green Freemarket Libertarian, yet, I profoundly admire the socio-economic outcomes of the Nordic social democracies.  Call me confused.  Then, on the other hand, the Nordic social democracies do freemarket capitalism extremely well.  Economic property rights (individual and collective) are well defined, and secure.  Ethnic, sectarian and racist exceptions are not encouraged as they often appear to be in US policy, both domestic and foreign.  Canada might be a tad better than the USA but we still treat our natives like shit.  

I was very disappointed when Maxime Bernier did not win the leadership of the Canadian Conservative party (federal).  Not sure that the Conservative Party would have managed to form the government, but under Maxime's leadership, I would have expected the Canadian welfare state to improve. In Canadian political history, small populist protest parties have punched well above their weight in terms of influence on policy.    Thank God for the British parliamentary system that nurtures 3rd, 4th and 5th parties.

Canada could easily benefit from more Libertarian politicians not fewer of them.  

In the interim, Maxime has started a new political party called the People's Party of Canada.  (Wiki page)  That is one weird name for an upstart, protest political party with a Libertarian bent. 




In passing, Maxime Bernier represents the federal riding of la Beauce that sits south of Quebec City just north of the Maine border.  The region is absolutely beautiful  — old Appalachian foothills — and the people are friendly.  Highly recommend it for curious travellers.  Enjoy the Summer Music festival in historic Quebec City (most of the shows are free) and then drop down south for a couple days into la Beauce.  The trout fishing in the upper end of the riviere Chaudiere is reasonably good.  

aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 27, 2018 - 2:10pm

 Lazy8 wrote:

Ron Paul's stance on DoMA was very disappointing, as are some of his positions on immigration. Both run counter to LP platform positions...including the platform when he ran for president as the LP nominee. While it's a valid criticism of Ron Paul (who has run as a Republican many more times than as a Libertarian) it isn't a valid criticism of Libertarians (or libertarians) as a whole.
 
Definitely. Pointing to Clinton or Obama's individual stances on issues wouldn't be a valid criticism of progressives as a whole, either.

Anyway, a hard fought and stirring victory. Hopefully we can prevent any future dilution of this right, and win more victories in the name of liberty and justice for all.


Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 27, 2018 - 2:03pm

aflanigan wrote:
I have no doubt that most libertarians have consistently supported LGBT rights to marriage.  I am not surprised that the LP was early in taking an official stance in support, but interestingly when you look at Ron Paul as a potential national candidate like Hillary or Obama, he tended to be weaselly worded when reporters tried to pin him down (from wikipedia):

"Asked his opinion on same-sex marriage in October 2011, Paul expressed his support for marriage privatization by replying, "Biblically and historically, the government was very uninvolved in marriage. I like that. I don't know why we should register our marriage to the federal government. I think it's a sacrament." In the same interview, when asked whether he would vote for or against a state constitutional amendment like California's Proposition 8, he said, 'Well, I believe marriage is between one man and one woman. . . .

Paul had also said that at the federal level he opposed "efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman." He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states and local communities, and not subjected to "judicial activism." He has said that for these reasons he would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, had he been in Congress in 1996."  

So I'm not seeing much expenditure of political capital by Senator Paul when he had the chance.

I'm not trying to come to the defense of prominent politicians who, as you suggest, will only back controversial legislation when the political winds are at their back. Perhaps some of the behind the scenes people who made it happen were of a libertarian bent. They presumably all had different political leanings over other issues, but decided to unite on a single issue and make common cause to bring about their goal. 

Let's just call it a "peoples' victory", rather than attribute it to any monolithic political entity or philosophy.

(EDITED)

Ron Paul's stance on DoMA was very disappointing, as are some of his positions on immigration. Both run counter to LP platform positions...including the platform when he ran for president as the LP nominee. While it's a valid criticism of Ron Paul (who has run as a Republican many more times than as a Libertarian) it isn't a valid criticism of Libertarians (or libertarians) as a whole.*

When asked, "the people" consistently voted against gay marriage. California's Prop 8 passed. In fact, the legislative/initiative history of same-sex marriage was relentlessly grim before the Supreme Court stepped in.

This was not a populist victory, it was a victory for liberty: the rights of a minority were protected from the will of the majority.

*His views have evolved a ways on this, and he has since moderated his earlier stance.
Beanie

Beanie Avatar

Location: under the jellicle moon
Gender: Female


Posted: Nov 27, 2018 - 1:43pm

I STILL read this as "Ask the Librarian" and think it's Maryte holding court over here...
aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 27, 2018 - 12:06pm

 Lazy8 wrote:

 

It was a cause we supported...before it was cool. At some political cost.

No, that doesn't mean we plead the case in court—very few libertarians would have had standing to bring a case. But what did other political parties do?

Well, they enacted legislation—like DoMA. They established deceit as official federal policy with DADT. The first Democratic president to support gay marriage was Barrack Obama—after campaigning for his first term in opposition. Hillary Clinton famously weaseled her way towards support only after the political winds had shifted and she was no longer in Congress.

Does any of this make it a "libertarian victory"? In the sense that we were rooting for it, that we spent political capital for it, that it aligns with our philosophy—yes. And we were there before the issue was marriage: we opposed sodomy laws (criminalizing gay sex) from the beginning. Libertarian groups like Cato filed amicus briefs in Bowers v. Hardwick—where the issue failed, in 1986—and in Lawrence v. Texas, where it prevailed in 2003. Libertarians (as far as I know) weren't plaintiffs in these cases, but we did what we could with the resources we had.

The victory belongs primarily to those who fought the fight in court, and hats off to them. But we were in their corner—officially, baked into our platforms and philosophy—when no one else was.

 
I have no doubt that most libertarians have consistently supported LGBT rights to marriage.  I am not surprised that the LP was early in taking an official stance in support, but interestingly when you look at Ron Paul as a potential national candidate like Hillary or Obama, he tended to be weaselly worded when reporters tried to pin him down (from wikipedia):

"Asked his opinion on same-sex marriage in October 2011, Paul expressed his support for marriage privatization by replying, "Biblically and historically, the government was very uninvolved in marriage. I like that. I don't know why we should register our marriage to the federal government. I think it's a sacrament." In the same interview, when asked whether he would vote for or against a state constitutional amendment like California's Proposition 8, he said, 'Well, I believe marriage is between one man and one woman. . . .

Paul had also said that at the federal level he opposed "efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman." He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states and local communities, and not subjected to "judicial activism." He has said that for these reasons he would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, had he been in Congress in 1996."  

So I'm not seeing much expenditure of political capital by Senator Paul when he had the chance.

I'm not trying to come to the defense of prominent politicians who, as you suggest, will only back controversial legislation when the political winds are at their back. Perhaps some of the behind the scenes people who made it happen were of a libertarian bent. They presumably all had different political leanings over other issues, but decided to unite on a single issue and make common cause to bring about their goal. 

Let's just call it a "peoples' victory", rather than attribute it to any monolithic political entity or philosophy.

(EDITED)


sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 27, 2018 - 10:43am

 Lazy8 wrote:
oldviolin wrote:
Oh I most always click the links. That Hillary weaseled is pretty much old if frequent political mix. The second link denied me permission to view. I'm not tech savvy enough to figure it out I guess

Anyhow I'm not much of a partisan ideologist so the truth doesn't hurt that much...

My apologize! Try this one. I fixed it in the earlier post too.

 
Keep fightin' the good fight Lazy!{#Cheers}
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 27, 2018 - 10:03am

oldviolin wrote:
Oh I most always click the links. That Hillary weaseled is pretty much old if frequent political mix. The second link denied me permission to view. I'm not tech savvy enough to figure it out I guess

Anyhow I'm not much of a partisan ideologist so the truth doesn't hurt that much...

My apologize! Try this one. I fixed it in the earlier post too.
oldviolin

oldviolin Avatar

Location: esse quam videri
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 27, 2018 - 9:49am



 Lazy8 wrote:
oldviolin wrote:
Details details
 
Links. Click the links.
 

Oh I most always click the links. That Hillary weaseled is pretty much old if frequent political mix. The second link denied me permission to view. I'm not tech savvy enough to figure it out I guess

Anyhow I'm not much of a partisan ideologist so the truth doesn't hurt that much...
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 27, 2018 - 9:42am

oldviolin wrote:
Details details
 
Links. Click the links.
Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 165, 166, 167  Next