Senate The US Politics discussion

He gives her exactly the same thing every non-serving Democrat in recent times has wanted. I'm also just saying "someone like Jim Webb" not necessarily exactly him.

 

Nova is going Democratic, and Virginia with it. I believe Virginia can and should be considered a Democratic-leaning state at this point. It's not Pennsylvania yet, but it's more Democratic than Ohio.

 

Only because there's such a large population of people in NOVA. When you take one step South of Richmond, you're officially in the Bible Belt and most of it is as red as John McCain.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Fair enough. It's not my intention to derail the thread, so I'll just say I'm familiar with this perspective but find it philosophically sound and consistent, which is important to me.


I'll add that for what it's worth, I'm neither white nor wealthy, and that I don't think popularity or lack of popularity among a race really affects a philosophy's inherent value. But again, I am familiar with that perspective.

 

Sure, and most of California's counties are red. Doesn't mean that California is anything but a heavily blue state in presidential politics.

 

Thanks, Los Angeles and the Bay Area.

 

Oops

 

Pennsylvania is the same way.

Philadelphia, Pittsburg, and Pennsyltucky in between.

Peace,

V-03

 

New York State and the People's Democratic Republic of The Only Votes That Matter in the State!

 

What is you opinion on Ross Ulbricht and the Silk Road?

 

The American libertarian movement is overwhelmingly Randian (except when it comes to abortion and theism, conveniently) with significant currents of xenophobia, racism, and misogyny. While it shouldn't be judged solely on the fact that it's disproportionately supported by white men, it doesn't take a whole lot of digging to figure out why that's the case.

 

Ross Ulbricht:

While he wasn't formally charged, he allegedly (and evidence points to this actually occurring) plotted the murders of five people. Assuming that's true, prison is made for people like him and he gets no sympathy from me. I could stop here.

He's been hailed in some circles as a libertarian hero for "sticking it to the man" and propping up the Silk Road. Libertarians should find better heroes.

Silk Road:

I am personally against recreational drug use and believe that facilitating the use of especially the more dangerous drugs is either reprehensible or misguided. As such, you won't find me advocating the silk road, any more than I advocate the Westboro Baptist Church simply because I believe what they do is rightly legal.

At the same time, peddling recreational drugs should be any more inherently illegal than peddling cigarettes. Like alcohol during prohibition, however, since these drugs are sold only on the black market, their sale is likely to be unscrupulous and often compromises the non-aggression principle. The Silk Road did not appear to do that. As far as I recall, the products offered did not include anything like a deal for the direct use of force or even fraud; correct me if I'm wrong here.

Regarding objectivism: I don't think so. Objectivism is extremely narrow--it has at its core a hatred of religion and altruism--that I don't think it could be used to describe right-libertarianism at all. Particularly since you will find libertarians elevating charity as a solid alternative to government welfare, objectivism is completely incompatible with modern libertarianism.

As for abortion, reasonable people can of course disagree. I am staunchly pro-choice, but if I had a different view of when a human life becomes a human being, and different priorities with respect to bodily autonomy vs. the right to life, I could be pro-life. It would hardly be productive to exclude people with a difference of opinion in this respect from libertarianism, since a pro-life perspective is not incompatible with the non-aggression principle given slightly altered premises.

If you are speaking of right-libertarianism as a political philosophy, which you probably aren't, but let's get this out of the way:

What's xenophobic about open borders? Or absolute equality under the law?

I can only speak for my own political philosophy. If modern American libertarianism works from different premises than I do, then I suppose it could be xenophobic.

Regarding the movement:

As for "currents of xenophobia, racism, and misogyny" I don't entirely disagree. Perhaps it's because libertarianism has until recently been something of a fringe movement, and has since its inception latched on to paleoconservatism as some kind of acceptable alternative. Ron Paul in particular is guilty of this.

I hope to see this change as libertarianism either has more of an influence on the mainstream political parties or gains more influence itself. I believe the former, rather than the latter, is more probable.

I was initially concerned about derailing this thread, but since it is about U.S. Politics, I'm assuming this discussion is not derailing it.

 

Open borders? That is certainly not a typical view of U.S. libertarians. Are you American? Because if you aren't, I think something's getting lost in translation. Although "libertarian" was coined as a sort of leftist-anarchist thing, it doesn't mean anything close to that in U.S. politics. Ayn Rand was a huge influence.

 

Ayn Rand and her relationship and kinship with libertarianism is more complex than American libertarians = Randians/objectivists.

Objectivism is a particular strain of anti-statist thought and philosophy. Ayn Rand hated libertarianism overall and Murray Rothbard and Karl Hess in particular, two contemporary pillars of American libertarianism.
The folks at the Ayn Rand Institute and most objectivists have had an antagonistic attitude towards many libertarians for years without reconciliation.
Objectivists are steeped in a cult of personality surrounding Rand while other libertarians think she was just one of many(like Rothbard,Freidman,Hayek, Locke, Smith, even Barry Goldwater) that added to the philosophy.

You can be a American libertarian without being a Randian/objectivist. But most objectivists are libertarians politically.

Where I think American libertarian politicians(I'm including both Pauls in this) and their adherents(constitutionalists) miss the boat many times is in their placing Rand at the center of the philosophy and also their rise in the culture of the "Old South", which brings with it all of the neo-confederate/states rights at all costs baggage. They also tend to be more of the anarcho-capitalist stripe domestically.

As for the observation American libertarianism differs from global socialist libertarianism, that's not much of a surprise considering we don't have much of a left period. So without an radical left overall, a radical American philosophy would naturally come from the right.

My own personal view of Rand is that despite her positive contributions to libertarian thought, driving a wedge into it with her strident atheism and worship of a virtue of selfishness/egoism remains her biggest legacy. Sometimes the objectivists remind me of Scientologists. They're pretty close to a cult.

And her books are barely readable dreck.

 

The above post represents the whole situation with Objectivism pretty well in my opinion.

I'm American, but I hang out with libertarians so my understanding might be different than some people's. My guess is you think Ron Paul is representative of libertarian views; is this correct?

In any case, I've always seen open borders as a natural part of libertarian philosophy. At the very least, libertarians are significantly more lax on immigration than conservatives, and would probably go farther than liberals in relaxing restrictions.

I'm aware that libertarianism traditionally means something else, which is why I try to specify right-libertarianism. However, political terminology in general is vague; in some circles, I'd be considered a liberal, while in others, I could pass for a staunch conservative. Libertarianism isn't an exception.

 

You are not a typical libertarian. I get that assessment from the political figures including the Pauls and Paul Ryan, professed libertarians in media, historical libertarians, people I've encountered in my everyday life, professed libertarians on the internet, the "Tea Party" movement, and the Libertarian Party. My own political and social views tend to be far outside the norm for this country too-- though I consider myself a socialist-- so I can sympathize with you not wanting to be associated with those people same as I don't like being associated with "liberals." But really, we're both far outnumbered. Funnily enough, I'm for open borders as well.

 

It seems like every few months some JCer will pop into this thread who is a professed libertarian and then pop right out again. Souderwan is the only regular here I know of.
While it's true most prominent political figures with libertarian leanings are also nationalists when it comes to immigration, there are some prominent libertarian organizations and persons who are for comprehensive immigration reform and legalized status for those already here. Cato Institute and the Mises Institute are two very influential libertarian think tanks that influence modern day libertarian thinking. Both are for legalization or, at a minimum, a normalization status for those already here.
Cato has long touted the benefits of increased immigration into the U.S. In fact, they had a row with the conservative Heritage Foundation a few years back over that foundations study suggesting undocumented immigration would cost the U.S. several trillion dollars over the next few decades. Cato's Alex Nowratseh demolished their study with a thorough rebuttal. He also correctly pointed out the economic recession did more to slow undocumented worker flows into the country than any border fence regime could accomplish.

I wonder what the JC's resident libertarian @Souderwans thoughts on immigration are?

One of the other disappointing things when comparing American and European libertarian movements is the American's skepticism of international organizations to the point of lunacy. Ron Paul made his career in the House bashing the U.N. as this potential corrupt monster in the closet when in reality it wasn't strong enough to prevent corruption.
In fact, the anti-internationalist streak in American libertarianism is particularly odd considering their full embrace of free trade agreements. Again, this naked Randian-greed is a moral virtue rears its head.

 

Short answer: I'm very much in favor of a fairly loose immigration policy. I think we need to have a fairly robust system for tracking immigrants entering and leaving the country from a security standpoint, but as far as participation in our society, we should be far more open, not less so. Right now, the human toll caused by the black market labor pool is inhumane in the extreme. I don't know how one can advocate legalizing drugs (as I do), citing the human toll by the black market for drugs, but fail to see the same issue with the labor pool.

I also think that we need to take a rational approach to dealing with the 10-20 million illegal immigrants/undocumented workers that are already here. We're clearly not going to round up 10+ million people and deport them (not that it would work, as some non-zero percentage of them will almost certainly return), so any policy position that doesn't involve formally integrating them into society (i.e. some pathway to legal status) is not just inhumane, but also patently stupid.

 

Bernie-nomics

Damn do I hope Bernie gets the Dem nod. Dammit.

 

He'd never get it through Congress. Not one word of it.

Especially the estate tax proposals; the billionaires would probably pay off the Supreme Court to overturn an increase. His platform is gold, though.

Peace,

V-03