Obamacons (REAL Libertarians vote Obama!)

SFCraig wrote:Ha..read the article. Will's point is that you can do what is best for the citizenry, not necessarily by enacting laws and regulations, etc (old liberal Paternalism). Allow the good choices to be the default choices, then idiots can choose to opt-out (which they won't, as they're idiots).

The Economists mentioned are advisers to Obama.

No, Craig, just because programs can be easily opted out of does not somehow mean that those programs are proof of libertarianism. For example, it is not whatsoever libertarian for the state to assume that I want to donate my organs (even though I do).

The problem is not with my ability to read Newsweek but rather the unfortunate definition of libertarianism that somehow has Obama as compatible. The ideology that would have us abolish the income tax is NOT the ideology of state sponsored health care (even if the latter is a good idea, it is NOT libertarian, even if you can easily opt out).

Do you really think that just because economists at the U of C believe something it must therefore be so?

Aaron wrote:

SFCraig wrote:

Aaron wrote:Not to mention record revenus created by the dot.com era which some economist say today's economy is a correction of, especially in the housing market.

I've never heard anyone say there was cause and effect of dot-com to housing, unless you count unscrupulous investors trying to cash in. They are similar in their nature, but I can't see how the two could be related at all.

They are related in that there was unsubstantiated growth of both in the late 90's and the early part of this century and both required correction.

That is not a relation, it's a similarity. The Stock market is filled with the same stuff (extremes are Enron, Worldcom, the 1980s, Boesky, Milken).

I just wanted to be clear; the housing bubble and Real Estate bubble are not related unless you only see the word, "bubble".

SheikBen wrote:

SFCraig wrote:Ha..read the article. Will's point is that you can do what is best for the citizenry, not necessarily by enacting laws and regulations, etc (old liberal Paternalism). Allow the good choices to be the default choices, then idiots can choose to opt-out (which they won't, as they're idiots).

The Economists mentioned are advisers to Obama.

No, Craig, just because programs can be easily opted out of does not somehow mean that those programs are proof of libertarianism. For example, it is not whatsoever libertarian for the state to assume that I want to donate my organs (even though I do).

The problem is not with my ability to read Newsweek but rather the unfortunate definition of libertarianism that somehow has Obama as compatible. The ideology that would have us abolish the income tax is NOT the ideology of state sponsored health care (even if the latter is a good idea, it is NOT libertarian, even if you can easily opt out).

Do you really think that just because economists at the U of C believe something it must therefore be so?

If you remember the beginning of this convo, you'll see it was about conservatives who support Obama for economic reasons. I mentioned Will's article. Will's article (halfway) praises Obama due to his advisers being U of C folk.

Ergo, Will sees something positive in Obama, and Will is a conservative.

If you look up things that Thaler has done, it is using economics to encourage or discourage bad behavior (i.e. the Market), for example instead of the Government simply taxing smoking, employers can give rewards to those who quit or lose weight. They can also discourage those behaviors through penalties.

It all depends on your definition of "libertarian". Libertarians don't even know what it means, really because there are 34 flavors of the philosophy. Do Libertarians wish the GOP had never embraced the Evangelicals? Yes. Are some Libertarians Evangelical. Yes. Do they want the state out of their business/bedrooms? Do they want Gay marriage legal or illegal?

Almost everyone here is a "libertarian", and none of you would agree to even the few issues I mentioned. An Economic Libertarian allows a company to look out for its own financial interests, which it would do by offering these "default" choices, etc. The Government, being detested by most Libertarians, would not REQUIRE anything.

I'm not saying this, Economic conservatives are.

SFCraig wrote:
I just wanted to be clear; the housing bubble and Real Estate bubble are not related unless you only see the word, "bubble".

How is housing and real estate different?

Sorry..I meant "dot-com"

A combination of rapidly increasing stock prices, individual speculation in stocks, and widely available venture capital created an exuberant environment in which many of these businesses dismissed standard business models, focusing on increasing market share at the expense of the bottom line.

That is a quote from talking about the dot-com bubble. I think pretty much the same thing can be said for the housing market. They may or may not be directly related (where did banks get all venture capital needed to make the bad loans they did???) but the principals that led to both are the same....Easy money.

SFCraig,

"It all depends on your definition of "libertarian". Libertarians don't even know what it means, really because there are 34 flavors of the philosophy."--SFCraig


Your topic title, then, about REAL libertarians, makes little sense.

Even Wiki has various definations for Libertarians. Does anyone know what one is?

Well, appreciating that there can be 100 opinions on anything, I think the fairest way to define libertarian is someone who wants the government to rarely, if ever, intrude into their lives. Now almost no one is a pure libertarian in the sense that we want police forces and paved roads, but the definition still stands.

Taking away a great percentage of someone's money against their will and giving to someone else, even if appropriate (which I do not concede), is still not libertarianism in such a definition.

As far as the Libertarian Party goes, I see nothing from Obama in legalizing drugs, prostitution, respecting gun rights (he's flip flopped on this one), ending government social welfare programs, etc.

To somehow claim that a REAL libertarian would vote for Obama just strikes me as unfair. It would be like me saying that a REAL liberal would vote for Alan Keyes.

SheikBen wrote:
To somehow claim that a REAL libertarian would vote for Obama just strikes me as unfair. It would be like me saying that a REAL liberal would vote for Alan Keyes.

Nope..that would be like saying a real liberal would vote for Keyes. Libertarians are not conservatives (although the members HERE are...disaffected conservatives).

Libertarians would be for legal marijuana, the state getting out of marriage (or equality for gays), etc.

Libertarians (IMHO) have no use for the moralizing crusades of the Religious Right. (Even Goldwater supported Gays in the military). Libertarians would see the Government invading bedrooms (illegal oral sex) as horrific.

Economic Libertarians typically want Capitalism to decide what is best, rather than the Government.

Milton Friedman's son endorsed Obama? Doesn't that mean anything to you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman

Well I am surprised no one has posted one of those Libertarian "tests" in this thread.

I have taken them before and they show a strong libertarian streak.

But on economic issues I tend toward what most refer to as left/liberal and do support some measure of "income re-distribution."

shermangeneral wrote:
But on economic issues I tend toward what most refer to as left/liberal and do support some measure of "income re-distribution."

Why? Are you not worth what you make?

I know you proably think I'm busting your chops but I'm not. I'm serious. I can understand how someone can support entitlement programs. I get the concept of a union even if I don't agree with all of thier demands. But I fail to understand how anyone can support income re-distribution. Perhaps you can explain some of your reasoning and my first question would be, are you not worth what you make?

You are asking the wrong person, Aaron, as Sherm is employed.

Craig, why should the government have any business in defining marriage whatsoever? That is, if we are going to change the definition, why should we have a definition in the first place?

SheikBen wrote:You are asking the wrong person, Aaron, as Sherm is employed.

Craig, why should the government have any business in defining marriage whatsoever? That is, if we are going to change the definition, why should we have a definition in the first place?

I agree. A Libertarian should/would say that the Gov. should not be involved in the marriage business, but if it is then the benefits should be applied fairly to all citizens; that principle would be higher than any moralistic hand-wringing about "traditions", etc.

Alas, the Government does have an interest in encouraging/discouraging behaviors. They have an interest in stimulating business, encouraging savings, home ownership, etc. Conservatives, particularly Libertarians, recoil from all of this to a certain degree.

Insofar as no Libertarians have ever been elected to high office, it would be interesting to see how they would Govern if they were. I suspect that nothing would change much; as the Republicans have proven it's easy to take swipes at the WH and Congress when you're in the wilderness. When you take the office, there are many other forces at work.

Even Dr. Paul brings home the pork, the reasoning being that everyone else is doing it, and my constituents expect it, etc.

I do believe that the 2 main party candidates this year stand a "better" chance of standing up to lobbyists and special interests than the last several Presidents. We'll see how it shakes out.

Aaron wrote:

A combination of rapidly increasing stock prices, individual speculation in stocks, and widely available venture capital created an exuberant environment in which many of these businesses dismissed standard business models, focusing on increasing market share at the expense of the bottom line.

That is a quote from talking about the dot-com bubble. I think pretty much the same thing can be said for the housing market. They may or may not be directly related (where did banks get all venture capital needed to make the bad loans they did???) but the principals that led to both are the same....Easy money.

I agree there. They are at their root the same, although technically different players. Your questions made me think though.....are they really different players at all?

The Mortgage/Credit crisis is due to those who control the world's money wanting more of it. They decided to invest in US real estate by essentially putting mortgages on the stock market.

The dot-com bubble only affected small parts of the country, and only a relatively small part of the US economy.

However, I bet if you scratched the surface, you'd see that the money for VC came from the same "global pool of money".

Interesting thought.

If you have the time, I found this NPR story quite informative:

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/extras/radio/355_transcript.pdf

"But the pool of money had just gotten started. They wanted more mortgage backed
securities. So Wall Street had to find more people to take out mortgages. Which meant lending
to people who never would’ve qualified before. "

SFCraig wrote:as the Republicans have proven it's easy to take swipes at the WH and Congress when you're in the wilderness. When you take the office, there are many other forces at work.

Having won 7 of 10 elections and even getting their agenda passed while in the minority, I don't think Republicans are 'swiping' at anything.

democrats on the other hand have only won 3 elections and in half of their control of the WH, they also had control of Congress and still managed to get very little if any meaningful legislation passed.

Mark my words, if Obama wins, he will share the same fate. While he may very well end the war in Iraq (unlikely but possible) he will not be successful in getting the promises he has made, universal heatlh care first and foremost, passed into legislation.

And should he win, in 2010, Congress will return power to Republicans, if that feat is not accomplished this year.

Remember where you heard it first.

I'm saying that the GOP had promised us an end to entitlements, to not be "policeman of the world", and reduction of Government in general.

What you got was quite the opposite. When the GOP ran all branches of Government, you actually saw increases in everything they promised to reduce. And clearly, a marked decrease in individual liberty (think: eminent domain).

I'll say it again, when you're in the wilderness it's easy to take shots. I'd even say Nader wouldn't really radically change the status quo.

I'm not sure we'll see an end to entitlements as it's nothing more then a method of vote buying.

Republicans are figuring that out as well.

At its worst, of course it is. That's why it'll take a special type of Pol to change Washington.

Most politicians will ignore you or your problems unless you give them a reason to pay attention. What difference does it make if I got a donation from Att and I'm in charge of Telecom bills, etc? My constituents will defend me....probably even argue on my behalf!

I saw Congresspeople and Senators when they returned from their breaks, and they all said their constituencies gave them an earful...about gas and the economy. We'll see who they decide to listen to.

SheikBen wrote:You are asking the wrong person, Aaron, as Sherm is employed.

Craig, why should the government have any business in defining marriage whatsoever? That is, if we are going to change the definition, why should we have a definition in the first place?

Well I am missing something here Mike.

I would support income re-distribution programs like Soc. Security whether I was employed or not.

(and I would point out that some beneficiaries of income re-distribution programs are the most vocal opponents. Right here on this forum, too. So why dont they refuse their own so-called freebies?)

But Sherm, social security IS NOT an income re-distribution program. Once again, you are wrong. Individuals, including those on this board, pay a portion of their income (currently 12.5% of each individuals pay) into his social security retirement fund and as a result, are entitled to every penny they receive. There is nothing free about it.

You are sadly mistaken my friend.

Aaron wrote:But Sherm, social security IS NOT an income re-distribution program. Once again, you are wrong. Individuals, including those on this board, pay a portion of their income (currently 12.5% of each individuals pay) into his social security retirement fund and as a result, are entitled to every penny they receive. There is nothing free about it.

You are sadly mistaken my friend.

Shermmy is justa trying to keep the "SPOTLIGHT" off of his SP Retirement which ABSOLUTELY is an "income re-distribution program".



.

Aaron wrote:But Sherm, social security IS NOT an income re-distribution program. Once again, you are wrong. Individuals, including those on this board, pay a portion of their income (currently 12.5% of each individuals pay) into his social security retirement fund and as a result, are entitled to every penny they receive. There is nothing free about it.

You are sadly mistaken my friend.

I don't think you are correct here. Social Security was designed so that the money workers put in today pay retirees today. Not a pure "pay-go" program because the surplus is "saved" in trust funds. Many people have benefited who put in next to nothing, while some have put in their whole lives and never received a cent.

If it were otherwise, why would the GOP consistently push for individual accounts?

I didn't say anything about 'pay go'. I said those receiving Social Security retirement benefits, which is what Sherm was talking about; receive those benefits because they paid into the SS trust fund. That's how it works. What an individual receives upon retirement is based directly on what they pay into Social Security.

No one benefited from Social Security retirement that never contributed and the only way someone paid their entire life into Social Security and did not benefit is if they did not apply for the benefits in which there were entitled (not likely) or if they died before becoming eligible.

One thing is certain, Social Security retirement (which is what we were discussing) is certainly not an 'income re-distribution' plan as Sherman implied.

Yes. Many people do die before reaping what they paid into.

Also, you could retire and live 40 more years. Or you could die in 1. How do they calculate what you get? It's an estimate. Many people do not get what they paid into, and some get more than they paid.

Where did the first recipients of SS checks get their money?

It is a social contract that says we pay for the elderly, disabled and survivors today. When we enter those conditions, the crop of workers at that time will pay for us.

That's the way it goes. It is redistribution; it is not your personal account.