5 ms·

The tea party was a ground-swell movement that got co-opted by the Kochs to promote very little more than the Republican status-quo in terms of political ideolo

The tea party was a ground-swell movement that got co-opted by the Kochs to promote very little more than the Republican status-quo in terms of political ideology. Once they got involved in funding things it turned from libertarian (anti-war, pro personal liberty) into something much different. The tea party is probably only as dirty as the Koch's money. Remove that and you've got a bunch of people who basically believe in the goodness of individuals. That isn't terribly dirty IMO.

nyolfen 11y ago
the tea party has never been untainted by koch money, it was funded fully by them from the very start and existed as their explicit political project long before obama was elected.[0] it's 100% astroturf and always has been [0] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/final-proof-the-tea-party_b_4136722.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/final-proof-the-te...
georgemcbay 11y ago
"a bunch of people who basically believe in the goodness of individuals. That isn't terribly dirty IMO" Maybe not dirty, but terribly naive. Not in the sense that I think people are inherently evil, but I do believe they are inherently greedy (naturally as greed serves an important evolutionary function as long as we live in a society with scarcity) in a way that makes them perfectly willing to bend and break the rules to increase their personal wealth and power as long as they don't get punished for it and nobody that they have to actually see (and thus empathize with) gets hurt by their greed (though some have such advanced systems of self-denial that even this bit is negotiable). This is why unregulated capitalism is just as flawed as pure socialism for now, current humans can't be trusted to live in any system without external checks and balances (and even with those the best we can hope for is that the system mostly works for most people).
- tracker1 11y ago
  I don't think any libertarians want true anarchy and unregulated capitalism... so much as a more even playing field that ensures competition. IP protections have been expanded to the point of insanity in favor of corporations... this expansion has been voted up by both Republicans and Democrats alike... Removing corporate taxes, and in the same vein reducing both the rights of corporations to that of "non-living entities" (no freedom of speech, etc), as well as driving out tax shelters and loopholes in favor of encouraging either reinvestment/growth or paying dividends which are taxed... Most libertarians I've known are not in favor of crony corporatism, which is very different from allowing or encouraging free markets to work.
strlen 11y ago
For what it's worth, Kochs are themselves anti-war and pro personal liberty (at least as far as beliefs go: one can argue that removing social insurance may cause a net reduction in personal liberty, but this isn't the place to argue this). While their beliefs are controversial, they are no more controversial than beliefs of other libertarian-leaning groups and individuals. (I don't know if they belief in goodness of individuals, however: in fact, one can easily argue a pro-liberty stance coming from innate evil of individuals as well.) What is controversial is the Kochs' tactic of backing republican politicians who are themselves pro-war and opposed to personal liberty (along side candidates who oppose wars and support personal liberty, of course): sometimes the "lesser" of two evils is still... evil; even worse, one may be mistaken about what is lesser. This wasn't always this way: Kochs once supported the Libertarian Party and represented its more liberal (in the conventional sense) wing, oddly enough in opposition to its more radical wing led by Ron Paul. None of this is a defense of libertarian ideas per-se, my own views have evolved on this. Of course that's besides the point of TFA: civil liberties are a core point of classical liberalism, the foundation conservatism, liberalism, and libertarians; this isn't a matter of arguing whether or not healthcare should be socialized (or not), one would hope Rand Paul would be speaking for the majority of senate (across both parties) and not as a maverick.
eropple 11y ago
> Remove that and you've got a bunch of people who basically believe in the goodness of individuals. This is an extremely generous characterization and one that I do not feel is borne out by the vigorous "fuck you, I've got mine" platform that's dressed up as a defense of personal liberty. American conservatism had degenerated to this point before the Tea Party, but rarely was it stated so barefacedly. The liberties of poverty--say, to die rather than impoverish your family when you get cancer, or to doom another generation to subsistence due to the factors in which they are raised--are no liberty at all. And, either through malicious advocacy or through desired inaction, the Tea Party was about that from day one. I was there. (I look rather poorly on historical hagiography, regardless of who the halo's being painted onto.)
- itbeho 11y ago
  I hear this often, but there is actually quite a bit of evidence to refute your "fuck you, I've got mine" reference in regards to conservatives. I see it anecdotally in my own family, which is pretty evenly split ideologically. Donated money to charity? Republicans 54%, Democrats 45% Volunteered for a cause? Republicans 33%, Democrates 24% [1] "...households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals" [2] [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/19/giving-back-_n_3781505.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/19/giving-back-_n_3781... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=...
  - Frondo 11y ago
    Take tithing to their own churches out of that, and rerun the numbers. Why take the churches out? Because you're implying that donating to a "charity" means they're doing good for their local community. Churches seldom do much good compared to dedicated social benefit organizations.
    - irishcoffee 11y ago
      I am no fan of church, for the record. It would be more convincing if you backed that claim up with evidence. http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27/in-2013-the-clinton-foundation-only-spent-10-percent-of-its-budget-on-charitable-grants/ http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27/in-2013-the-clinton-foun... I honestly have no idea of their affiliation, I can only assume this website is right-wing because of the story, but there are at least links to a W2, which seems impartial enough. I lost faith in non-pro's a while ago because of stories like the above. The idea is sound, the reality seems shaky at best.

nyolfen 11y ago

the tea party has never been untainted by koch money, it was funded fully by them from the very start and existed as their explicit political project long before obama was elected.[0] it's 100% astroturf and always has been [0] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/final-proof-the-tea-party_b_4136722.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/final-proof-the-te...

georgemcbay 11y ago

"a bunch of people who basically believe in the goodness of individuals. That isn't terribly dirty IMO" Maybe not dirty, but terribly naive. Not in the sense that I think people are inherently evil, but I do believe they are inherently greedy (naturally as greed serves an important evolutionary function as long as we live in a society with scarcity) in a way that makes them perfectly willing to bend and break the rules to increase their personal wealth and power as long as they don't get punished for it and nobody that they have to actually see (and thus empathize with) gets hurt by their greed (though some have such advanced systems of self-denial that even this bit is negotiable). This is why unregulated capitalism is just as flawed as pure socialism for now, current humans can't be trusted to live in any system without external checks and balances (and even with those the best we can hope for is that the system mostly works for most people).

tracker1 11y ago
I don't think any libertarians want true anarchy and unregulated capitalism... so much as a more even playing field that ensures competition. IP protections have been expanded to the point of insanity in favor of corporations... this expansion has been voted up by both Republicans and Democrats alike... Removing corporate taxes, and in the same vein reducing both the rights of corporations to that of "non-living entities" (no freedom of speech, etc), as well as driving out tax shelters and loopholes in favor of encouraging either reinvestment/growth or paying dividends which are taxed... Most libertarians I've known are not in favor of crony corporatism, which is very different from allowing or encouraging free markets to work.

strlen 11y ago

For what it's worth, Kochs are themselves anti-war and pro personal liberty (at least as far as beliefs go: one can argue that removing social insurance may cause a net reduction in personal liberty, but this isn't the place to argue this). While their beliefs are controversial, they are no more controversial than beliefs of other libertarian-leaning groups and individuals. (I don't know if they belief in goodness of individuals, however: in fact, one can easily argue a pro-liberty stance coming from innate evil of individuals as well.) What is controversial is the Kochs' tactic of backing republican politicians who are themselves pro-war and opposed to personal liberty (along side candidates who oppose wars and support personal liberty, of course): sometimes the "lesser" of two evils is still... evil; even worse, one may be mistaken about what is lesser. This wasn't always this way: Kochs once supported the Libertarian Party and represented its more liberal (in the conventional sense) wing, oddly enough in opposition to its more radical wing led by Ron Paul. None of this is a defense of libertarian ideas per-se, my own views have evolved on this. Of course that's besides the point of TFA: civil liberties are a core point of classical liberalism, the foundation conservatism, liberalism, and libertarians; this isn't a matter of arguing whether or not healthcare should be socialized (or not), one would hope Rand Paul would be speaking for the majority of senate (across both parties) and not as a maverick.

eropple 11y ago

> Remove that and you've got a bunch of people who basically believe in the goodness of individuals. This is an extremely generous characterization and one that I do not feel is borne out by the vigorous "fuck you, I've got mine" platform that's dressed up as a defense of personal liberty. American conservatism had degenerated to this point before the Tea Party, but rarely was it stated so barefacedly. The liberties of poverty--say, to die rather than impoverish your family when you get cancer, or to doom another generation to subsistence due to the factors in which they are raised--are no liberty at all. And, either through malicious advocacy or through desired inaction, the Tea Party was about that from day one. I was there. (I look rather poorly on historical hagiography, regardless of who the halo's being painted onto.)

itbeho 11y ago
I hear this often, but there is actually quite a bit of evidence to refute your "fuck you, I've got mine" reference in regards to conservatives. I see it anecdotally in my own family, which is pretty evenly split ideologically. Donated money to charity? Republicans 54%, Democrats 45% Volunteered for a cause? Republicans 33%, Democrates 24% [1] "...households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals" [2] [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/19/giving-back-_n_3781505.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/19/giving-back-_n_3781... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=...
- Frondo 11y ago
  Take tithing to their own churches out of that, and rerun the numbers. Why take the churches out? Because you're implying that donating to a "charity" means they're doing good for their local community. Churches seldom do much good compared to dedicated social benefit organizations.
  - irishcoffee 11y ago
    I am no fan of church, for the record. It would be more convincing if you backed that claim up with evidence. http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27/in-2013-the-clinton-foundation-only-spent-10-percent-of-its-budget-on-charitable-grants/ http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27/in-2013-the-clinton-foun... I honestly have no idea of their affiliation, I can only assume this website is right-wing because of the story, but there are at least links to a W2, which seems impartial enough. I lost faith in non-pro's a while ago because of stories like the above. The idea is sound, the reality seems shaky at best.