patrick.net

mell says

Greenspan was no libertarian.

Use Ron Paul as the example of what a libertarian is. Using Paul Ryan and Greenspan as Libertarian examples is like explaining Italian American behavior using Henry Winkler as an example

Vicente says

Automan Empire says

They could NEVER give a straight answer regarding how their system would account for avarice and greed in human behavior.

This is the key problem.

The key assumption in Randism and Libertarianism, is that all humans will behave rationally and for the common good because.... well they throw a lot of reasons out, but none of them hold up under scrutiny.

What I find interesting is that Marxism has the same flaw. People should still work hard and not be lazy, even if they aren't the direct beneficiary. Sure, some people would do that, and some people would spend money to reduce pollution. But. Not enough.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

mell says

Greenspan was no libertarian.

No but he is one of the few Federal Reserve chairmen to regularly eat Ayn Rand's stained, soggy underwear and follow her around on his knees begging her, with tears streaming from his eyes, 'FUCK ME, MOMMEEEEEE!'

That's indisputable.

sbh says

Government only increases the irrational behavior in humans? How 'bout you submit to a legal judgement of a private court adjudicated by CaptainShuddup? Is the rationality quotient rising in that scenario?

I think government can do more damage with irrational behavior than a single company or person, as has been observed throughout history.

CL says

Government is kept in check by voters in a Democracy. We have little to no say in who will be our corporate leaders, and if nepotism and golfing buddies define the boards.

Or don't you believe in democracy?

True, but usually corporations don't force you to consume their products or live a certain way, or give them money. I think democracy with limited government and laws on grounds of a solid constitution is a viable model.

Marxism solves that by using force. It's not a volunteer society.

Also, if one can't trust the government due to it being made of humans, why trust a marketplace made of same?

CL says

Marxism solves that by using force. It's not a volunteer society.

Also, if one can't trust the government due to it being made of humans, why trust a marketplace made of same?

Yes, thats all I was pointing out when answering Vicente, there is no right or wrong answer to that. But the marketplace usually doesn't have the power to force you into a certain type of behavior, although it can certainly influence you.

Vincente, this is the problem with debating with a Libertarian or a Marxist. You will never win the debate. Both can only debate on a theoretic level as to how things should or could work. When you point out there has never been a society or economy that has been successful following their models, they will both fall back on the same answer which is that their models were not "fully" implemented.

CL says

Government is kept in check by voters in a Democracy. We have little to no say in who will be our corporate leaders, and if nepotism and golfing buddies define the boards.

Or don't you believe in democracy?

What keeps democracy in check? ie 51% telling the 49% what to do.

CL says

Also, if one can't trust the government due to it being made of humans, why trust a marketplace made of same?

Because you have a truer democracy in a free market place.
Like something buy it. don't like it don't buy it-you can't be forced.
In government if its the law, esp a bad law you are stuck with it

smaulgld says

mell says

Greenspan was no libertarian.

Use Ron Paul as the example of what a libertarian is. Using Paul Ryan and Greenspan as Libertarian examples is like explaining Italian American behavior using Henry Winkler as an example

No true Scotsmen eh?

saroya says

Vincente, this is the problem with debating with a Libertarian or a Marxist. You will never win the debate.

Who says there has to be a winner?

"Just because I've voted Republican for every election for 20 years doesn't mean I'm a Republican."

LOL!

More food for thought
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcWPji8fXwU#t=23

smaulgld says

CL says

Also, if one can't trust the government due to it being made of humans, why trust a marketplace made of same?

Because you have a truer democracy in a free market place.

smaulgld says

What keeps democracy in check? ie 51% telling the 49% what to do.

So, democracy is people making self-interested decisions, say, regarding their Government, policies, elected leaders. In that case, selfishness is not good, and yields unpredictable results.

If you get billions of people making trillions of dumb decisions, it's better somehow?

And what do we do about things like diseases, or artificial limbs, or other "investments" that no rationally self-interested individual or corporation would bother with? No profit to be gleaned, you're out of luck.

CL says

In that case, selfishness is not good, and yields unpredictable results.

selfishness is not a virtue- that is Ayn Rand's objectivist theory.

Libertarians believe in the non aggression principle and would view selfishness that harms others as repugnant.

So they would view a tyranny of the majority as against nature or at least their principles.

smaulgld says

selfishness is not a virtue- that is Ayn Rand's objectivist theory.

Does not = self interest

smaulgld says

Libertarians believe in the non aggression principle and would view selfishness that harms others as repugnant.

So they would view a tyranny of the majority as against nature or at least their principles.

Ha! Piffle! Christians "believe" in a lot of things, but when push comes to shove typically act in their own self-interest (which does equal selfishness).

That, despite believing that a God-man sacrificed himself and advised them otherwise.

You can't seriously believe that a libertarian will adhere to their ideology even when it is against their own interests. Witness Paul, Rand and Paul, Ron.

thunderlips11 says

You got that ass backwards

CL says

Ha! Piffle! Christians "believe" in a lot of things, but when push comes to shove typically act in their own self-interest (which does equal selfishness).

True with ANY political ideology or promise.
I'll close Guantanamo if elected- its not who we are.
I am sure Mr. Obama believes that, but..

I thought we were discussing ideology, not actions. If we are discussing actions than Communism is nothing more than a murderous rampage through Russia and Cambodia

CL says

You can't seriously believe that a libertarian will adhere to their ideology even when it is against their own interests. Witness Paul, Rand and Paul, Ron.

thunderlips11 says

+1 saving that one.

smaulgld says

I thought we were discussing ideology, not actions.

I thought we were discussing how Libertarian ideas don't work in reality. Logically, then the answer for most Americans is to have a largely free-market, free-enterprise system, with Government to referee when applicable or spend when necessary.

Thus, largely in line with what we currently have, not the fantasy.

Similarly, one could argue that Communism can be idealistic, but when applied the "dictatorship of the proletariat" gets a little hung up on the former rather than the latter.

Could it be that a mixed economy is the most realistic of all systems? If so, then we've arrived!

CL says

You can't seriously believe that a libertarian will adhere to their ideology even when it is against their own interests. Witness Paul, Rand and Paul, Ron.

You can. Ron Paul has one of the most principled voting records, so there's your proof. You can question whether it's smart to always put principles first, but that's another topic.

mell says

Ron Paul has one of the most principled voting records, so there's your proof

Being against disaster aid for New Orleans, but in favor of it for Galveston is principled?

smaulgld says

Paul Ryan is not a Libertarian- he is a huge statist who voted for the bailout, no PLEADED FOR THEM

Exactly. His plan for the medical sector is also lemon socialism: basically he would have replaced Medicare by shifting Obamacare from younger people onto senior citizens (most of whom hate Obamacare but love Medicare, yet they voted Republican anyway for some reason). His main qualification for the VP nomination seemed to be that he has great hair, and as I said before, hair has always been really important to Combat Hairstylist Romney.

tatupu70 says

Whether or not Krugman is correct about the number of tunnels into NY from NJ doesn't say anything about the merit of his economic theories

The fact that he lied about an easily observable fact, and that NYTimes.com continues to publish his lie under the guise of "opinion," tells most observers something about the credibility of the source. As for his economic theories, he won a Nobel Prize for his pioneering work in trade specialization. He opines about politics, based more on his own lies than on any actual theories. To the extent that trade specialization is even relevant, it argues against his "opinion" almost as powerfully as the observable number of tunnels does. (NYC does not specialize in building tunnels, and building one now would not be likely to create a new industry for the city, more likely a bunch of corrupt contracts via New Jersey. That, in turn, raises again the question of who induced that column and how; to borrow an example from George Orwell, the number of fingers on your hand is the number "da boss" says there are, and if you disagree he might make the number conform to his "opinion.")

CL, I'm curious why you would devote a whole thread to a Krugman column? It's like creating a thread about a Wikipedia article, or (to borrow from the most Liked comment above) to create a thread about Italian Americans using Henry Winkler as an example. It brings out the trolls, Krugman's followers who literally don't care about facts or civility, who just want to "win" because their opinion based on false assertions is (as Krugman would say) "obvious" and everyone who thinks there's already more than one tunnel is too stupid to see the light, because Krugman. QED. It's a cult, like fundamentalists quoting the Gospel according to Krugman, if anywhere it belongs in the religion section.

curious2 says

The fact that he lied
about an easily observable fact, and that NYTimes.com continues to publish his
lie under the guise of "opinion,"

I read the article and I don't find that he "lied" about anything. You completely mischaracterized the article in the other thread. The North River tunnel system is the only other rail tunnel carrying both Amtrak and NJ Transit service. It operates at 100% capacity during rush hours.

Is your only point that the North River tunnel is actually a tunnel system and not just 1 tunnel? Do you dispute that it's at 100% capacity during rush hours?

Vicente says

You can't seriously believe that a libertarian will adhere to their ideology even when it is against their own interests. Witness Paul, Rand and Paul, Ron.

When in prison, you eat the prison's food...

tatupu70 says

Is your only point that the North River tunnel is actually a tunnel system and not just 1 tunnel?

This is an example of Krugmanesque sarcasm and dishonesty. As I wrote above, there are two sets of PATH tubes, in addition to the north river tunnel system, and the vehicular tunnels and bridge that all accommodate bus traffic. But, I get this sarcastic question from a troll. It results inevitably from saying that Krugman's "opinion" is "obvious", i.e. it's an appeal to tribal loyalists and FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT, because they pile instinctively onto the denial of obvious facts as a way to prove their loyalty to the tribe.

CL says

Logically, then the answer for most Americans is to have a largely free-market, free-enterprise system, with Government to referee when applicable or spend when necessary.

That is what we should have but we don't, we have a government that choses sides, and often participates in the market itself

CL says

Could it be that a mixed economy is the most realistic of all systems? If so, then we've arrived!

Sure, that's political compromise

curious2 says

CL, I'm curious why you would devote a whole thread to a Krugman column? It's like creating a thread about a Wikipedia article.. It brings out the trolls, Krugman's followers who literally don't care about facts or civility, who just want to "win" because their opinion based on false assertions is (as Krugman would say) "obvious" and everyone who thinks there's already more than one tunnel is too stupid to see the light, because Krugman.

Well, for one, it seems to be attracting some dialogue, which isn't bad. Second, the quote above could very easily be written about the Libertarians I know, here and elsewhere. The difference, I suppose, from the eyes of the liberals is that where there was some general consensus before, based on science and facts, the "right" has become a cadre of lunatics, who either reject science and history, invent economics based on faith, reject polls if they don't agree with them, and so on.

Krugman usually winds up sounding exasperated that the rightwing in America is simply insane. I feel that way too and often. I'm open to the arguments from the right, and even would entertain believing some of them, but it's hard to find an evangelist who is not as nutty as he/she is enthusiastic.

smaulgld says

That is what we should have but we don't, we have a government that choses sides, and often participates in the market itself

A lot of that is hype. As above, one congressman's pork is another's bacon. McCain can denounce the mating habits of a wasp being studied, but not mention that the wasp will damage a multi-billion dollar grape harvest. One can attack funding for New Orleans, while the hands come out for MY district. The Pauls denounce even Lincoln's positions during the Civil War. Liberty!!! Yet, I haven't heard them vocalize their feelings about uncompensated labor on behalf of the Africans.

All in all, this Government barely does shit. And the shit it does supports the businesses the rightwing loves. And the people it shits ON, are the people the rightwing hates. Why complain?

CL says

smaulgld says

That is what we should have but we don't, we have a government that choses sides, and often participates in the market itself

A lot of that is hype.

No its not-the Federal budget is $1/2 to $1 trillion a year and tries to do far more than it should and does much of it poorly

CL says

The Pauls denounce even Lincoln's positions during the Civil War. Liberty!!! Yet, I haven't heard them vocalize their feelings about uncompensated labor on behalf of the Africans.

Yeah, they talk about compensating the owners for their slaves to avoid the war, but make no mention of compensating the slaves for their labor.

I like arguments that hypothesize what if- usually after a war the history writers like to claim it was necessary and just.
The more one knows the less likely it is that many wars can be justified.

World War 1 and Vietnam and the second Iraq war seem to be near universally settled as colossal wastes.
Dig deeper into the rest of the wars fought by the US and you might come to similar conclusions.

The Civil war deserves the most attention as more people died in that war than all the other US wars combined.

curious2 says

This is an example of Krugmanesque sarcasm and dishonesty

The only dishonesty is your own.
curious2 says

As I wrote above, there are two sets of PATH tubes, in addition to the north river tunnel system, and the vehicular tunnels and bridge that all accommodate bus traffic.

OK, let's look at your dishonesty: The path tubes aren't tunnels. Vehicular tunnels and bridges aren't rail tunnels. Krugman was pretty clear he was referring to rail tunnels.curious2 says

But, I get this sarcastic question from a troll. It results inevitably from saying that Krugman's "opinion" is "obvious", i.e. it's an appeal to tribal loyalists and FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT, because they pile instinctively onto the denial of obvious facts as a way to prove their loyalty to the tribe.

Don't misrepresent someone's words and brand them a liar and you won't get people calling you out on it. The only troll here is you.

Extreme Liberatarian and Ayn Rand fanboy runs Sears into the ground

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/10/ayn_rand_loving_ceo_destroys_his_empire_partner/

tatupu70 says

The path tubes aren't tunnels.

From your preferred source, nytimes.com: "PATH train tunnels under the Hudson River... the tunnels — four tubes...."

Just for fun, I'll even quote Wikipedia for you, and no I didn't write this: "The Downtown Hudson Tubes are a pair of tunnels that carry PATH trains under the Hudson River between New York City and Jersey City in the United States." "The Uptown Hudson Tubes are a pair of tunnels that carry PATH trains under the Hudson River between New York City and Jersey City, New Jersey." "The North River Tunnels carry Amtrak and New Jersey Transit rail lines under the Hudson River between Weehawken, New Jersey and Pennsylvania Station in Manhattan, New York City." Your insatiable addiction to trolling has distracted you from the first rule of holes, as enunciated by the late NY Times writer Molly Ivins: when you've dug yourself into a hole, the first thing you need to do is to stop digging.

Come to think of it, the same could be said for your protégé Krugman and his penchant for dishonest advocacy. The difference is, he gets paid for his columns (and who knows how much he got paid for lying about the number of tunnels); your trolling is an unpaid symptom of a personality disorder.

curious2 says

From your preferred source, nytimes.com: "PATH train tunnels under the Hudson River... the tunnels — four tubes...."

Why do you think I like the NY Times? The Path tubes are called tubes for a reason.

"The tracks cross the Hudson River through century-old cast iron tubes that rest on the river bottom under a thin layer of silt"

Again--check your mirror.

I noticed you just added another section. You didn't quote the first paragraph though:

"PATH trains only use tunnels in Manhattan, Hoboken and downtown Jersey City. The tracks cross the Hudson River through century-old cast iron tubes that rest on the river bottom under a thin layer of silt"

But, see, the whole point of Krugman's article was that another tunnel was needed because the north river tunnel is at 100% capacity. You can try to distract from the point all you want--that's what a troll does, after all--but his point is appropriate.

CL says

Well, for one, it seems to be attracting some dialogue, which isn't bad.

If finding facts on the Internet is like searching for needles in a haystack, then drawing trolls and fighting Ryan's lies with Krugman's lies is basically saying you want a bigger haystack.