4 ms·

> than the golden calves US libertarian society has set up is shunned This doesn't make any sense to me - as an (extreme) libertarian, I see very little progre

> than the golden calves US libertarian society has set up is shunned This doesn't make any sense to me - as an (extreme) libertarian, I see very little progress on that front. The Democrats and Republicans have each used the libertarian "brand" when it has suited them, but neither have implemented any actual libertarian positions in my lifetime, at least not that I can recall. Out of curiosity, are you perhaps viewing American politics from the perspective of someone accustomed to European politics?

candiodari 9y ago
No, he looks at it like left and right. From a European perspective American politics are simple: Republicans: extreme right (slight adjustment: closed borders, mostly for laissez-faire economic reasons) Democrats: extreme right (slight adjustment: (ever so slightly more) open borders, mostly for laissez-faire economic reasons) Libertarians: extreme right Even the bloody US communist party does not want to abolish markets. Think about how crazy that is. On the borders point of view, a traditional leftist (one from the 70s or 80s) might even say that the republicans are clearly to the left, politically, of the democrats. Why ? Closed borders protect the rights, and increase living conditions and wages of laborers. Or, as we might say today, of "the 99%". But yes, those same closed borders will make your iPads more expensive. A leftist should not care.
- azey47 9y ago
  That's an interesting perspective. I know the left/right spectrum has many definitions, and there is little consensus on them, but I think this captures the essential philosophical and ideological distinctions: http://www.pocatelloshops.com/new_blogs/politics/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Political-Spectrum-Essentialized6.jpg http://www.pocatelloshops.com/new_blogs/politics/wp-content/... So by my measure, both Republicans and Democrats are in the middle leaning left - both supporting various forms of rights violations. Libertarians are further right, advocating a lot of good rights-protecting policies, but often for the wrong reasons - so they're not consistent in the policies they promote. Also, "closed borders, mostly for laissez-faire economic reasons" doesn't really make sense, as that's an explicitly anti-laissez-fare policy (if you understand laissez-fare as "abstention by governments from interfering in the workings of the free market.", as it's most commonly meant).
  - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
    That is an absurdly incorrect definition of left/right wing. The original use of left and right wings was that the right wing supported the French monarchy while the left wing opposed it, but under your definition supporters of an absolute monarchy would be far left.
    - azey47 9y ago
      Sure, historically that is true, but that historical usage doesn't capture that, philosophically and ideologically - absolute monarchy and communism just aren't that different - both rely on subjugation of the individual's rights to some authority (a monarch in one case, and society in another). The historical, and common left/right distinction is even more absurd when you consider that socialism is considered left-wing, and fascism is considered right-wing. Where does that leave Nazism? Centrist? What I like about the spectrum put together by the Objective Standard is that it essentializes the ideological distinctions between these movements, as viewed from the perspective of "degrees of respect for / violation of individual rights". I am well aware that it's not the way most people understand the terms left-wing and right-wing, but to be frank, most people DON'T understand the terms, because they're not conceptually consistent in the slightest.
- tjansen 9y ago
  It's not that easy. Especially when it comes to illegals or criminal immigrants, the democrat position would be the extreme left in Europe. Closed border, for example, is something all European parties but the extreme left could agree on. Deporting illegal criminals is something even the moderate left supports, and support for deporting non-criminal illegals is still pretty widely supported (it doesn't happen that often mostly because of technicalities, like the country of origin not wanting their citizens back). Really controversial is only deporting legal immigrants who committed a crime. That's something most parties on the left wouldn't support.
- yahna 9y ago
  Republicans also have their extremely regressive social policies.
- joeblow9999 9y ago
  Ha! If you think Republicans are laissez-faire in the slightest you have been reading headlines and not paying attention to actual outcomes
  - candiodari 9y ago
    Politicians promise ... don't deliver. Not exactly limited to one side of the aisle.
StavrosK 9y ago
> are you perhaps viewing American politics from the perspective of someone accustomed to European politics? I probably am. With the "golden calves" point, I meant that there are specific topics that are adhered to religiously, and any attempt to discuss them produces a reflexive negative reaction. I'm not even talking about extreme ideology, I'm talking about things like the Google memo, which, although it did have some points that didn't really stand (and which should have sparked discussion, as the memo intended), didn't merit the shitstorm that ensued, in my opinion. I see this in various friends of mine, when we discuss, for example, hiring quotas. Personally, I generally consider hiring quotas a bad practice, and discussed this with a friend, who is heavily in favor of them. However, when I told him about how my sister got passed over for hiring in favor of a male competitor as a result of affirmative action (lawyers here are overwhelmingly female), I could sense that my friend didn't agree with it either. It felt like his opinion wasn't "minorities should have an advantage", but rather "this particular group of people should have an advantage even where they're the majority". That strikes me as a fundamentally non-rational position. Another point is that I feel that if you're a white, middle-class male, you can basically never be right. If someone puts you down, you can't complain because there are other people who are less privileged than you. It's the "starving children in Africa" argument. Take all this with a grain of salt, though, as the society I live in isn't like this. All of the above is what I gather from talking to my american friends and colleagues, so I may be off the mark or wrong in many things.

candiodari 9y ago

No, he looks at it like left and right. From a European perspective American politics are simple: Republicans: extreme right (slight adjustment: closed borders, mostly for laissez-faire economic reasons) Democrats: extreme right (slight adjustment: (ever so slightly more) open borders, mostly for laissez-faire economic reasons) Libertarians: extreme right Even the bloody US communist party does not want to abolish markets. Think about how crazy that is. On the borders point of view, a traditional leftist (one from the 70s or 80s) might even say that the republicans are clearly to the left, politically, of the democrats. Why ? Closed borders protect the rights, and increase living conditions and wages of laborers. Or, as we might say today, of "the 99%". But yes, those same closed borders will make your iPads more expensive. A leftist should not care.

azey47 9y ago
That's an interesting perspective. I know the left/right spectrum has many definitions, and there is little consensus on them, but I think this captures the essential philosophical and ideological distinctions: http://www.pocatelloshops.com/new_blogs/politics/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Political-Spectrum-Essentialized6.jpg http://www.pocatelloshops.com/new_blogs/politics/wp-content/... So by my measure, both Republicans and Democrats are in the middle leaning left - both supporting various forms of rights violations. Libertarians are further right, advocating a lot of good rights-protecting policies, but often for the wrong reasons - so they're not consistent in the policies they promote. Also, "closed borders, mostly for laissez-faire economic reasons" doesn't really make sense, as that's an explicitly anti-laissez-fare policy (if you understand laissez-fare as "abstention by governments from interfering in the workings of the free market.", as it's most commonly meant).
- TheCoelacanth 9y ago
  That is an absurdly incorrect definition of left/right wing. The original use of left and right wings was that the right wing supported the French monarchy while the left wing opposed it, but under your definition supporters of an absolute monarchy would be far left.
  - azey47 9y ago
    Sure, historically that is true, but that historical usage doesn't capture that, philosophically and ideologically - absolute monarchy and communism just aren't that different - both rely on subjugation of the individual's rights to some authority (a monarch in one case, and society in another). The historical, and common left/right distinction is even more absurd when you consider that socialism is considered left-wing, and fascism is considered right-wing. Where does that leave Nazism? Centrist? What I like about the spectrum put together by the Objective Standard is that it essentializes the ideological distinctions between these movements, as viewed from the perspective of "degrees of respect for / violation of individual rights". I am well aware that it's not the way most people understand the terms left-wing and right-wing, but to be frank, most people DON'T understand the terms, because they're not conceptually consistent in the slightest.
tjansen 9y ago
It's not that easy. Especially when it comes to illegals or criminal immigrants, the democrat position would be the extreme left in Europe. Closed border, for example, is something all European parties but the extreme left could agree on. Deporting illegal criminals is something even the moderate left supports, and support for deporting non-criminal illegals is still pretty widely supported (it doesn't happen that often mostly because of technicalities, like the country of origin not wanting their citizens back). Really controversial is only deporting legal immigrants who committed a crime. That's something most parties on the left wouldn't support.
yahna 9y ago
Republicans also have their extremely regressive social policies.
joeblow9999 9y ago
Ha! If you think Republicans are laissez-faire in the slightest you have been reading headlines and not paying attention to actual outcomes
- candiodari 9y ago
  Politicians promise ... don't deliver. Not exactly limited to one side of the aisle.

StavrosK 9y ago

> are you perhaps viewing American politics from the perspective of someone accustomed to European politics? I probably am. With the "golden calves" point, I meant that there are specific topics that are adhered to religiously, and any attempt to discuss them produces a reflexive negative reaction. I'm not even talking about extreme ideology, I'm talking about things like the Google memo, which, although it did have some points that didn't really stand (and which should have sparked discussion, as the memo intended), didn't merit the shitstorm that ensued, in my opinion. I see this in various friends of mine, when we discuss, for example, hiring quotas. Personally, I generally consider hiring quotas a bad practice, and discussed this with a friend, who is heavily in favor of them. However, when I told him about how my sister got passed over for hiring in favor of a male competitor as a result of affirmative action (lawyers here are overwhelmingly female), I could sense that my friend didn't agree with it either. It felt like his opinion wasn't "minorities should have an advantage", but rather "this particular group of people should have an advantage even where they're the majority". That strikes me as a fundamentally non-rational position. Another point is that I feel that if you're a white, middle-class male, you can basically never be right. If someone puts you down, you can't complain because there are other people who are less privileged than you. It's the "starving children in Africa" argument. Take all this with a grain of salt, though, as the society I live in isn't like this. All of the above is what I gather from talking to my american friends and colleagues, so I may be off the mark or wrong in many things.