Zuckerberg going Libertarian?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ZenMode
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 101
  • Views: 2K
  • Politics 
ZenMode said:
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.
Click to expand...
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:


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.
 
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".
 
superrific said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ddseddse said:
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.
Click to expand...
Except Medicaid and disability.
 
ZenMode said:
I think waste and debt go hand-in-hand.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Ddseddse said:
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).
Click to expand...
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.
 
BlooVooDoo said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
altoheel said:
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.
Click to expand...
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!"
 
ZenMode said:
How does libertarianism allow billionaires to run the country in a way that liberalism and conservatism doesn't?
Click to expand...
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?
 
]
superrific said:
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:


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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
superrific said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
wmheel1287 said:
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?
Click to expand...
Give me an example....
 
I suggest Zen read altoheel’s comment detailing the New Hampshire town’s utopian libertarian experiment. Read the article as well Zen.

Now imagine a country as large as the U.S. trying that idiocy.

There is a reason why dozens and dozens of Democracies around the globe - of all stripes - have not engaged with the libertarian mindset as a primary source of government, or lack thereof.

There also a reason the other main third party we have here out performs the libertarian party in elections. Doesn’t the Green Party actually get a higher % of votes, small as it is?

It originated in the mid 1800’s as a left-wing anti authoritarian movement.
The right-wing has taken it over in the U.S.

Libertarian capitalism would be a nightmare.
 
ZenMode said:
Give me an example....
Click to expand...
Ralph sees it as his right to carry firearms on his person at all times yet those in public are threatened and fearful of him doing so, particularly in situations involving large crowds, etc.
 
Paine said:
Yeah, it’s “generally pretty basic” because it’s a bunk ideology that was invented by right-wing economists to convince rubes like you that you’re supporting freedom by letting billionaires and corporations run our country.
Click to expand...

...and giving them a bong hit to make it all go down nice and easy. Plus Doritos and Classic Rock!!!!
 

Mark Zuckerberg says Biden officials would 'scream' and 'curse' when seeking removal of Facebook content​

The Meta CEO said on a podcast that administration officials had asked the company to remove certain posts, including "things that are true."

.........

"Basically, these people from the Biden administration would call up our team and, like, scream at them and curse," Zuckerberg told podcast host and comedian Joe Rogan. "It just got to this point where we were like, 'No, we're not gonna, we're not gonna take down things that are true. That's ridiculous.'"

www.nbcnews.com

Mark Zuckerberg says Biden officials would 'scream' and 'curse' when seeking removal of Facebook content

The Meta CEO said on a podcast that administration officials had asked the company to remove certain posts, including "things that are true."
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com
 
farce© said:
I would guess most people who are politically aware read Atlas Shrugged sometime between age 16-21, flirted with the notion of libertarianism but then grew up.
Click to expand...
I could barely stand to finish Anthem. I wasn't reading anything longer by her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top