Zuckerberg going Libertarian?

[Ddseddse]

I didn't take you to be talking only about libertarianism in 2024. I don't think most Tech Bros are in it for the cruelty. They are just the new Koch Brothers. They don't want pesky government regulations eating into their wealth. For Koch it was environmental and labor. For Tech, it's antitrust and crypto.

I did have a whole edit types out to say that is wasn't the cruelty as much as the naked power and domination with the tech bros. but then decided not to post it as it was splitting hairs a bit. Even for MAGA the cruelty is the point is just a means to an end to get to the power and domination.

 

[ZenMode]

"If Exxon, or any private company, was 30+ trillion in the red, I suspect they'd be closed by now."

Exxon is 35B in the red, so about 1/1000 of the federal government. Its income is less than 1/1000 of the federal government's income. Its debt is about 15-20 times its profits, meaning that if it stopped investing or paying dividends, it would take that long to wipe out its debt. If the government stopped paying social security and medicare, it would pay off the federal debt in a similar amount of time.

But anyway, when you start comparing the finances of the federal government to private companies, you've gone badly astray. I asked you about waste, not the balance sheet. It turns out that large organizations are frequently wasteful. Because it's actually quite difficult to manage a huge organization.

“ But anyway, when you start comparing the finances of the federal government to private companies, you've gone badly astray. ”

Well, you made the comparison, so I’m not sure what to tell you….

 

[Ddseddse]

Libertarians don’t want government to be the instrument of cruelty.

You're fooling yourself.

They absolutely want want government to be the instrument instrument of their cruelty, only it should be a government that is completely subservient to them, of course.

And let's dispense with the foolish notion that stripping people of their rights and grinding them under your bootheel is not cruelty (not aimed at you BVD).

 

[superrific]

“ But anyway, when you start comparing the finances of the federal government to private companies, you've gone badly astray. ”

Well, you made the comparison, so I’m not sure what to tell you….

I was talking about waste, not debt, because you were talking about waste. Then you changed the topic to debt, which isn't at all the same thing. It's typical goalpost-shifting from someone who is congenitally unable to have a good faith discussion.

 

[ZenMode]

"Too big meaning that there are departments/programs/headcount that can be downsized or eliminated."

Anything can be downsized or eliminated. We could privatize the armed forces if we wanted. Sure, we'd end up like Somalia but it's something that could be done.

If you want to talk about waste, then point us to the downsizing or elimination of departments or programs which accomplish nothing.

I don’t think a discussion about specific programs/departments, etc would be useful. Liberals, which you are, tend to support wide-spread government oversight and regulation, so it’s unlikely that you see any government program/department that is unnecessary.

 

[superrific]

They absolutely want want government to be the instrument of their cruelty, only it should be a government that is completely subservient to them, of course.

Yeah, but are the types of cruelty the same? Kids in cages and women dying in hospitals from ectopic pregnancies aren't the same thing as destroying unions. They might be equally bad in some sense (perhaps most senses) but they aren't really the same thing.

To make an analogy that is quite apt given the topic, the American people have for some reason decided that eliminating safety measures in a coal mine until the mine blows up and 30+ people are killed is not as grievous an offense as killing someone during a stickup. They are really the same thing: both Blankenship in WVa (and other mining executives) and the liquor store robber saw human life as an impediment to pecuniary gain, and decided to sacrifice the former for the sake of the latter. Yet only one of those crimes is subject to life in jail or worse.

I've long seen them as more similar than different, but in my experience that's a minority opinion. And if we're going to draw that distinction, then I think we should also draw a distinction between kids in cages and reduced unemployment benefits. If you're with me in not recognizing the distinction, that's fine but again, I think we are fairly idiosyncratic in that regard. Not too idiosyncratic (since we agree!) and of course idiosyncrasy doesn't imply wrongness, but we should at least take stock of the fact that most people think differently in this regard.

 

[superrific]

I don’t think a discussion about specific programs/departments, etc would be useful. Liberals, which you are, tend to support wide-spread government oversight and regulation, so it’s unlikely that you see any government program/department that is unnecessary.

1. LOL. That roughly translates as "if I go into specifics, I will get my ass handed to me, so I will stay comfortably here in the realm of generality where I can deflect and dodge rather than discuss."

2. Again, nothing is necessary. You are using that word disingenuously. The difference between what you support and what you don't isn't a question of necessity. It's that you prioritize things differently. You're trying to shoehorn a question of values into a question of liquidity, and like most people who try that particular stunt, you're doing a bad job.

3. As for government programs I don't support, I'm in agreement with Cato on this:

https://www.cato.org/briefing-paper/cutting-federal-farm-subsidies

Much of what the USDA does should be scrapped. And most liberals agree. So you can take your "we like government regulation for its own sake" and shove it up your ass.

 

[Ddseddse]

Ha! At the thought of wanting to talk about waste/inefficiency in government spending.

That is, 100% of the time, coded language for less government spending.

Listen, you want to have the conversation about why don't we get the value back we deserve for each tax dollar we pay, I'M HERE ALL DAY FOR IT AND TWICE ON SUNDAYS!!!

But you know what? That's not the conversation you want to have. Because in order to have that conversation, you have to admit that the government is capable of spending tax dollars in a way that benefits people, and theoretically there would exist an amount of benefit we could get back that would justify current levels of taxation and/or justify higher levels of taxation.

That is the third rail of the American political right. YOU MUST NEVER, EVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, ADMIT THAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN SPEND TAX MONEY IN WAYS THAT JUSTIFY COLLECTING THAT TAX IN THE FIRST PLACE.

The conversation you want to have is not "Let's be sure we're getting full value for the taxes we pay". The only conversation you are willing to have starts with a foregone conclusion that the government is incapable of justifying taxation by returning value to the American tax payers, and so is automatically reduced to "We need less spending".

 

[ZenMode]

I was talking about waste, not debt, because you were talking about waste. Then you changed the topic to debt, which isn't at all the same thing. It's typical goalpost-shifting from someone who is congenitally unable to have a good faith discussion.

I think waste and debt go hand-in-hand. A profitable company may indulge in “wasteful” activities when times are good. When financial times change, those wasteful activities are likely to stop, people may be laid off, costs are reduced etc. The government has no such inclination, hence the national debt.

 

[superrific]

Ha! At the thought of wanting to talk about waste/inefficiency in government spending.


That is the third rail of the American political right. YOU MUST NEVER, EVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, ADMIT THAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN SPEND TAX MONEY IN WAYS THAT JUSTIFY COLLECTING THAT TAX IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Except Medicaid and disability.

 

[superrific]

I think waste and debt go hand-in-hand.

Well, that's where you've gone astray. Do you own a home? If so, you almost certainly have a mortgage. Is that wasteful? Or is your debt different from other debt? Did you ever take out a small business loan? Almost everyone in America has debt of some form or the other. Most of those who don't are either old or too poor to get credit.

It's good that the government doesn't cut services during recessions. It's what keeps the recessions from becoming depressions. The single best counter-cyclical policy out there is unemployment insurance. This isn't my view -- it's more or less the official position of the IMF, OECD, Fed Reserve, ECB, etc. You probably consider that "waste" but life would be far, far worse without it.

Here's what I suggest. Take a week to study finance. Then come back and we'll see if you still think waste and debt go hand in hand.

 

[grimes70]

Government and business are not the same. Purpose of government is to provide services. Businesses to make a profit.

I like to bring up how much government spends on R&D and even direct spending that so often ends up making millions plus for private businesses. When I mention the government should retain some patent/income my R & yes, "libertarian", aquaintances have a cow.

Just think of the cash the Feds could have hauled in for the DARPA research that led to the internet. And d9n't forget Tang.

 

[superrific]

And d9n't forget Tang.

Homer Simpson sure as hell didn't.

 

[BlooVooDoo]

You're fooling yourself.

They absolutely want want government to be the instrument instrument of their cruelty, only it should be a government that is completely subservient to them, of course.

And let's dispense with the foolish notion that stripping people of their rights and grinding them under your bootheel is not cruelty (not aimed at you BVD).

No offense taken. I’ve just always thought of libertarianism as introverted selfishness manifest as a childish philosophy. They see the world as a naturally competitive and cruel place. Government gets in the way of that and deprives them just outcomes.

With that said, there’s not great consensus on what libertarians stand for so there are going to be a lot of interpretations. The one unifying theme would appear to be an embrace of futility.

 

[Ddseddse]

No offense taken. I’ve just always thought of libertarianism as introverted selfishness manifest as a childish philosophy. They see the world as a naturally competitive and cruel place. Government gets in the way of that and deprives them just outcomes.

With that said, there’s not great consensus on what libertarians stand for so there are going to be a lot of interpretations. The one unifying theme would appear to be an embrace of futility.

I see your point.

I was just coming form the place that, sure, Peter Theil could pay his robocop corporate security hold it's boot on your throat so you don't rebel against your corporate overlord, but it sure would be cheaper (the delicious irony being just and extra benefit) to have your tax dollars pay your own government to have its robocop security to hold it's boot on your throat so you don't rebel against your corporate overlord.

 

[altoheel]

I can't remember where I saw it (had to have been Twitter) but someone asked people to state in their own words what libertarians stand for, and the best response was "my girlfriend shouldn't have to sit in a car seat."

And this is what happens when you try to run a society on libertarian principles: How a New Hampshire libertarian utopia was foiled by bears

"By pretty much any measure you can look at to gauge a town’s success, Grafton got worse. Recycling rates went down. Neighbor complaints went up. The town’s legal costs went up because they were constantly defending themselves from lawsuits from Free Towners. The number of sex offenders living in the town went up. The number of recorded crimes went up. The town had never had a murder in living memory, and it had its first two, a double homicide, over a roommate dispute.

So there were all sorts of negative consequences that started to crop up. And meanwhile, the town that would ordinarily want to address these things, say with a robust police force, instead found that it was hamstrung. So the town only had one full-time police officer, a single police chief, and he had to stand up at town meeting and tell people that he couldn’t put his cruiser on the road for a period of weeks because he didn’t have money to repair it and make it a safe vehicle."

Then, the bears came.

 

[Ddseddse]

I can't remember where I saw it (had to have been Twitter) but someone asked people to state in their own words what libertarians stand for, and the best response was "my girlfriend shouldn't have to sit in a car seat."

And this is what happens when you try to run a society on libertarian principles: How a New Hampshire libertarian utopia was foiled by bears

"By pretty much any measure you can look at to gauge a town’s success, Grafton got worse. Recycling rates went down. Neighbor complaints went up. The town’s legal costs went up because they were constantly defending themselves from lawsuits from Free Towners. The number of sex offenders living in the town went up. The number of recorded crimes went up. The town had never had a murder in living memory, and it had its first two, a double homicide, over a roommate dispute.

So there were all sorts of negative consequences that started to crop up. And meanwhile, the town that would ordinarily want to address these things, say with a robust police force, instead found that it was hamstrung. So the town only had one full-time police officer, a single police chief, and he had to stand up at town meeting and tell people that he couldn’t put his cruiser on the road for a period of weeks because he didn’t have money to repair it and make it a safe vehicle."

Then, the bears came.

Letting (old school, not tech bro) Libertarians run your government is like walking up to the engine of your car and saying "I have no idea why there are so many parts in here... We don't need half of them!"

 

[wmheel1287]

How does libertarianism allow billionaires to run the country in a way that liberalism and conservatism doesn't?

How does libertarianism propose to run the country at all? You still haven't (that I have seen) proposed a way to balance the rights of one group against the rights of others because there is ALWAYS a conflict.

You say "you have the right to live your life as you see fit as long as that doesn't infringe on my rights" but plenty of people see it as their right to dictate how others live their life. How does one balance that without infringement on what one group sees as their rights?

 

[ZenMode]

]

1. LOL. That roughly translates as "if I go into specifics, I will get my ass handed to me, so I will stay comfortably here in the realm of generality where I can deflect and dodge rather than discuss."

2. Again, nothing is necessary. You are using that word disingenuously. The difference between what you support and what you don't isn't a question of necessity. It's that you prioritize things differently. You're trying to shoehorn a question of values into a question of liquidity, and like most people who try that particular stunt, you're doing a bad job.

3. As for government programs I don't support, I'm in agreement with Cato on this:

https://www.cato.org/briefing-paper/cutting-federal-farm-subsidies

Much of what the USDA does should be scrapped. And most liberals agree. So you can take your "we like government regulation for its own sake" and shove it up your ass.

1. Whether its from your words directly or indirectly, I'm very aware that you are a BIG fan of yourself and your perceived intellect/reason, etc. So, it's not surprising that you'd take me not wanting to get into specifics as reason for a victory lap. Congrats on your win?

The fact that you came up with a portion of the USDA only reinforces my lack of desire to get into specifics. We aren't going to agree. There are often personality differences between people who associate with different political parties. Liberals tend to be the low risk tolerance/leave little to chance types when it comes to constructing society. They like government oversight and regulations. Nothing wrong with that, but it means that we are not going to agree.

2. If you don't like "necessary", I'm open to other terms to describe the lack of ROI on some government programs, beyond just the fact that government simply isn't incentivized to do things as effectively as private businesses, generally don't hold employees accountable, never, that I know of, have layoffs, etc.

 

[ZenMode]

Well, that's where you've gone astray. Do you own a home? If so, you almost certainly have a mortgage. Is that wasteful? Or is your debt different from other debt? Did you ever take out a small business loan? Almost everyone in America has debt of some form or the other. Most of those who don't are either old or too poor to get credit.

It's good that the government doesn't cut services during recessions. It's what keeps the recessions from becoming depressions. The single best counter-cyclical policy out there is unemployment insurance. This isn't my view -- it's more or less the official position of the IMF, OECD, Fed Reserve, ECB, etc. You probably consider that "waste" but life would be far, far worse without it.

Here's what I suggest. Take a week to study finance. Then come back and we'll see if you still think waste and debt go hand in hand.

Yes, I have a mortgage. The house is collateral for the loan. It's an investment. If I stop paying, I've agreed to let the bank take my house. If I came upon very hard financial times, I could sell the house and make a significant profit.

What's the collateral on the national debt? It doesn't exist. The national debt is nothing like a mortgage and much more like low interest credit card debt racked up via expensive vacations and overpriced steak dinners.

What's funny is that you, after that terrible comparison, tell me to study finance.