| |
Repeating the original cite and with much snippage of multiple quotes,
irrelevancy, signatures, etc (the interested reader knows how to follow
references upwards, or should), as always:
> Libertarians and their "I've got mine, Jack" philosphy are people who were
> born on third base and think they've hit life's triple. In America's
> egalitarian society it should surprise no one this cramped, neo-Victorian
> philosophy has not caught on.
> Russell Sadler, commentator, Jefferson Public Radio in Ashland, Oregon
I'll repeat my analysis of this theme (that libertarianism isn't relevant or
hasn't caught on) by drawing on ideas and statements made in posts to this
very group, long long ago, which you've apparently not read or forgotten.
Stripping away all the commentator's gafla, the commentator's actual
assertion is that libertarian ideas "have not caught on". But if the world
is moving in a libertarian direction, that's patently false. So all we need
to do to refute the point is show that the world is moving in a libertarian
direction. (without regard to whether that is good or bad, as that is not
relevant to the point)
Stripping away all Scott's gafla, his argument is that because the LP isn't
winning US elections, our ideas haven't caught on (here or abroad). But it
is instructive to look at US history.
The Socialist party was the last major party to qualify for 50 state access
more than once and to field a significant slate of candidates. This happened
in the teens and twenties. The Socialist party never elected a president,
and I don't think it ever elected a senator or governor either (we won't
count Bernie Sanders, as he was elected to the US House 70 years later after
running as an independent the first time to disguise his affiliation with
the Socialists).
So by Scott's argument, the Socialist party ideas never "caught on".
Is this true? No, and here's why.
In our two party duopoly in which the two majors make sure the rules prevent
the rise of third parties, what they do instead is coopt ideas.
If you look at the *DEMOCRATIC* party platform of 1928 or 1932, you will
find every major idea that was in the Socialist party platform of 1916. The
Democratic party coopted the Socialist party ideas... much to the detriment
of the country which was reeling from protectionisn and banking intervention
sponsored by the Republicans (who had ALSO coopted a few Socialist ideas and
watered them down).
So the Socialist party was influential far out of proportion to its
electoral success. You could say that Socialist ideas "caught on" in the
30's and 40's and continued to "catch on" even while the US was in the
throes of the red menace in the '50s.
Is the same true of the LP now? Have libertarian ideas "caught on"?
Here's a quote some of you might recognise:
"The era of big government is over"
When you remember who said it, you'll know why I say that the major US
parties have coopted (watered down, and misimplemented) many Libertarian
ideas, and thus why I say that the Libertarian Party HAS been influential
far in proportion to it's election track record and why libertarian ideas,
like it or not, agree with them or not (neither of which is the point) are
in the ascendency.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> The libertarian claim to benefit all society... not just the poperty owning
> part of it.
That's right. But it does not follow that because we benefit the illiterate
pregnant unmarried teenager in the long run by improving society and
fostering a culture in which even she can successfully make her own way in
the world, for example, that we are going to get support for our programs
from that said illiterate pregnant unmarried teenager who hasn't done the
critical thinking of how we will be of benefit and only sees the short term
effect that she is no longer going to get free stale powdered milk and month
old cheese from WIC or AFDC or whatever program it is that gives that out.
More generally, it does not follow that something that benefits everyone
will necessarily be supported by everyone equally, or even at all by anyone.
Were you asserting that if it benefits everyone it must be supported by
everyone? If so, that is a logically fallacious assertion. If not, what were
you asserting?
> > What matters to us is that
> > libertarian ideas (small l) are catching on. We don't have to win elections
> > to achieve that. We don't even have to get support from *all* the groups,
> > especially not the socioeconomic groups who are (since they were free
> > riding) going to be worse off, until they realise that there are no free >goods.
>
> So you have to be cruel to be kind... I see. So, how long would it take? How
> many would die? How much would crime rise by an the short term?
Answers to these implementation questions are important, and worthy of
examination. (and in fact HAVE been examined in depth in this very group)
But they are off topic to the question of whether the world is moving in a
libertarian direction (the assertion by your cite is that "it is not", once
we remove all the adhominem, see above).
> > > What you almost outpoll Buchanan easily? That implies you beat him? :)
> >
> > Snipe.
>
> No Larry, a jest :)
So, off topic for this particular point. I've already stipulated that the LP
isn't winning elections, and shown why that is not relevant to the point
your cite is asserting. Stay on topic.
> > > > What I *have* said is that small l libertarian ideas are on the
> > > > ascendency, in the main, world wide. Do you dispute that point?
> > > > Do you dispute that many countries in the world are moving in the
> > > > direction of more personal and more economic freedom?
> > >
> > > Yep, I read that Chilli is a prime example of your principles.
> >
> > Snipe.
>
> Nope, a fact. Chilli and New-Zealand are best examples of it... along with
> medieval Iceland(!). Do your research Larry.
OK, so stipulated. And the relevance to the point would be what, exactly?
Stay on topic. I confess that until you mentioned another country, also
incorrectly spelled, I thought you were talking about a Mexican dish. Or is
your implied point that they are the only examples?
> > Do you or do you not agree that the world is moving in the direction of more
> > personal freedom and more economic freedom?
>
> Tell that to starving kids in the developing world... I'm sure that'll chear
> them up.
Although I could argue otherwise, so stipulated. (that it won't cheer them
up) Let's try again.
Don't grandstand... The question is not whether it's a good thing or not,
your cite asserts that libertarian ideas "have not caught on".
Do you or do you not agree that the world is moving in the direction of more
personal freedom and more economic freedom?
If you answer yes, this topic is done and we can move on to the next (1),
your cite is wrong, libertarianism IS on the ascendency, regardless of how
well the LP does in elections. If you answer no, state your reasons for your
answer and we'll take it from there. If you answer anything else, we will
have to try once more. Eventually you'll stay on topic, though. Maybe.
1 - which is an expansion of what I originally granted you, I granted you
ONE point, not a succession of them, but I'm willing to try another one or
two, as long as I see that your debating skills are showing improvement.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: LP POINT 1
|
| (...) Nope. Read it again. His assertion is that as America is an egalitarian society, it rejected the LP. Basically his point is that egalitarianism is at odds with the LP. As you well know, the point I raised referred only to the range of support (...) (24 years ago, 28-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: LP POINT 1
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes(heavily snipped): (...) **snip** (...) Sorry, Lar, but I think you've broken the duly established "gafla" limit for a single post. 8^) (...) Would that be sufficient for the LP? To have a (...) (24 years ago, 28-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: LP POINT 1
|
| (...) The libertarian claim to benefit all society... not just the poperty owning part of it. (...) So you have to be cruel to be kind... I see. So, how long would it take? How many would die? How much would crime rise by an the short term? (...) No (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
78 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
