5 ms·

It is an excellent illustration of why the powers of government should be limited. Perhaps the most convincing argument for libertarian worldview to come out o

by dmk23 13y ago

It is an excellent illustration of why the powers of government should be limited. Perhaps the most convincing argument for libertarian worldview to come out of the pop-culture. Who would want 'House of Cards' politicians to run their lives?

sliverstorm 13y ago
But right there is the counterexample. Who wouldn't want Jed Bartlet to have power?
- msandford 13y ago
  The central issue here is one of limiting risk. It's far easier to destroy prosperity than it is to achieve it, similar to a reputation. It's less important for a good politician to be able to achieve good things than it is for a bad politician not to be able to achieve bad things.
  - pekk 13y ago
    For example, one might decide to make massive political reforms which sound good (and populist) without fully considering all their implications, and thereby destroy prosperity
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- mapt 13y ago
  The merits of the presidential system are actually a plotline in one of the episodes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLoio0Z6jLw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLoio0Z6jLw
- protomyth 13y ago
  Well, me. I loved the show (yes, even later seasons[1]) much like I loved "The American President"[2], but would vote against the man in a heartbeat. They do some pretty despicable things while in power[3]. Plus, I notice we end the series in a war. Re-watch the series and look at what a citizen of this land would get from the White House. It is not a great picture of an administration we would want. Of course, no TV administration is going to be a good thing. Drama requires conflict and over 7 seasons a lot of rules get broke in a heroic manner. In real life, we call that abuse of executive privilege. The only thing I can say is President Santos and his education plan is worse for every rural area and budget. 1) Although in later seasons, most of the writers wrote the Republicans as villain of the week instead of honorable adversaries 2) Martin Sheen is amazing in that too 3) not to mention the whole lying about the President's health and never mind the Vice President
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
thenmar 13y ago
Yep, the world really is that simple - abolish government and things will get better. It's a shame so many people don't realize how easy it is to fix all of their problems.
- AlexEatsKittens 13y ago
  I can't tell if you're joking.
- 10feet 13y ago
  To be fair, this guy did talk about politicians power being limited, not abolishing the government. There are clearly good things we should take out of libertarianism, which is why most people join these fringe movements.
- ihsw 13y ago
  Please stop being facetious, libertarianism != anarchism. Libertarianism recognizes the value of governance, don't get confused, but it asserts that certain individual rights as inalienable.
  - thenmar 13y ago
    okay that's fair. I couldn't help being snarky to such a meaningless and simplistic comment.
  - Aloisius 13y ago
    > Please stop being facetious, libertarianism != anarchism. Please. Anarchists (esp. anarcho-capitalists) have made up a significant portion of libertarians in the US since the Vietnam war. The 1974 Libertarian National Convention intentionally made the Libertarian Party platform ambiguous on the desirability of the state's existence (the Dallas Accord) in order to stave off a full scale war between anarchists and minarchists for goodness sakes. Plenty of libertarians would be happy to abolish government altogether and truly believe that we'd all be better off for it.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    (Non-anarchic) Libertarianism goes beyond asserting that certain individual rights are inalienable. It embraces the idea of limited government, which is really quite an insidious and anti democratic concept when you think about it. What classical libertarians believe is that government must exist for certain limited functions, but that democratic forces shouldn't be able to expand the scope of those functions. In other words, people should be bound by government, but not be able to exercise self determination in shaping that government, but rather must be bound by a government designed by philosopher kings, who divine from sacred scripture which functions of government are legitimate and not. The right to property? Makes the cut. Okay for the government to hire jack boot thugs to enforce property rights. The right to live free of discrimination and economic coercion? Doesn't make the cut. Not a legitimate function of government.

by dmk23 13y ago

sliverstorm 13y ago

But right there is the counterexample. Who wouldn't want Jed Bartlet to have power?

msandford 13y ago
The central issue here is one of limiting risk. It's far easier to destroy prosperity than it is to achieve it, similar to a reputation. It's less important for a good politician to be able to achieve good things than it is for a bad politician not to be able to achieve bad things.
- pekk 13y ago
  For example, one might decide to make massive political reforms which sound good (and populist) without fully considering all their implications, and thereby destroy prosperity
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
mapt 13y ago
The merits of the presidential system are actually a plotline in one of the episodes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLoio0Z6jLw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLoio0Z6jLw
protomyth 13y ago
Well, me. I loved the show (yes, even later seasons[1]) much like I loved "The American President"[2], but would vote against the man in a heartbeat. They do some pretty despicable things while in power[3]. Plus, I notice we end the series in a war. Re-watch the series and look at what a citizen of this land would get from the White House. It is not a great picture of an administration we would want. Of course, no TV administration is going to be a good thing. Drama requires conflict and over 7 seasons a lot of rules get broke in a heroic manner. In real life, we call that abuse of executive privilege. The only thing I can say is President Santos and his education plan is worse for every rural area and budget. 1) Although in later seasons, most of the writers wrote the Republicans as villain of the week instead of honorable adversaries 2) Martin Sheen is amazing in that too 3) not to mention the whole lying about the President's health and never mind the Vice President

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

thenmar 13y ago

Yep, the world really is that simple - abolish government and things will get better. It's a shame so many people don't realize how easy it is to fix all of their problems.

AlexEatsKittens 13y ago
I can't tell if you're joking.
10feet 13y ago
To be fair, this guy did talk about politicians power being limited, not abolishing the government. There are clearly good things we should take out of libertarianism, which is why most people join these fringe movements.
ihsw 13y ago
Please stop being facetious, libertarianism != anarchism. Libertarianism recognizes the value of governance, don't get confused, but it asserts that certain individual rights as inalienable.
- thenmar 13y ago
  okay that's fair. I couldn't help being snarky to such a meaningless and simplistic comment.
- Aloisius 13y ago
  > Please stop being facetious, libertarianism != anarchism. Please. Anarchists (esp. anarcho-capitalists) have made up a significant portion of libertarians in the US since the Vietnam war. The 1974 Libertarian National Convention intentionally made the Libertarian Party platform ambiguous on the desirability of the state's existence (the Dallas Accord) in order to stave off a full scale war between anarchists and minarchists for goodness sakes. Plenty of libertarians would be happy to abolish government altogether and truly believe that we'd all be better off for it.
- rayiner 13y ago
  (Non-anarchic) Libertarianism goes beyond asserting that certain individual rights are inalienable. It embraces the idea of limited government, which is really quite an insidious and anti democratic concept when you think about it. What classical libertarians believe is that government must exist for certain limited functions, but that democratic forces shouldn't be able to expand the scope of those functions. In other words, people should be bound by government, but not be able to exercise self determination in shaping that government, but rather must be bound by a government designed by philosopher kings, who divine from sacred scripture which functions of government are legitimate and not. The right to property? Makes the cut. Okay for the government to hire jack boot thugs to enforce property rights. The right to live free of discrimination and economic coercion? Doesn't make the cut. Not a legitimate function of government.