Annoying Questions I'd Like Answered...

[Username17]

I can understand that you feel that the capitalist buzzwords mean more to them than the civil rights buzzwords, so they vote red...but is there any data that shows that's what self-described libertarians actually do?

Now as to the question of why this happens, I'm not entirely sure. Could be that Libertarianism is inherently a very selfish doctrine and conservative talking points resonate with them. Could be that it's actually a very shallow intellectual doctrine, which collapses under heavy scrutin, so Ronald Reagan saying he's anti-government means more than the fact that he actually increased the size and scope of government. Could be that really all that crap about supporting marijuana use is bullshit and they don't really give a shit about anything but tax rates. Could be that all the libertarian think tanks are actually astroturf organizations financed by the Koch brothers whose true purpose is to support not only conservatism, but radical conservatism. Maybe it's some combination.

But regardless of why, the fact that self-described Libertarians vote two to one or more in favor of taking rights away from gay people is simply historical reality.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

It's honestly not inaccurate to say that fascist movements appear to function as a kind of last-resort defense system for capitalism; when it's threatened by leftist opposition (as it was in the '30's with powerful communist parties and a surging Soviet Union), fascist ideologies spring up and attempt to defend the capitalist mode of production from these threats by blaming the failure of capitalism on whatever scapegoat is available, often ethnic or religious minorities.

The funny thing is that fascism is also an existential threat to neo-feudalists. Asking them whether they'd prefer fascists or communists to overthrow the government is like asking whether you want to fight a tiger in an unarmed deathmatch or a hippopotamus. Obviously you'd want to fight the tiger if it came down to it, but in either situation you're fucking fucked.

Progressives and even socialists have always offered a better deal to plutocrats than fascists and communists, but a lot of plutocrats just have to keep pushing the envelope. Or worse, they think that they're going to be the ones that survive and thrive in a fascist transition. Which unless they're at the head of a fascist movement, is a really dicey proposition for the Adelsons, Huntsmans, Murdochs, and especially Kochs of the world as they own the types of capital fascists get stiffies over.

[Username17]

Every plutocrat thinks their fascist utopia is going to look like Singapore and not like Nazi Germany. Of course, even if it does, IG Farben got a pretty sweet deal. It's not like they are riding a horse that is necessarily going to throw them in the pit.

Besides, you only get kicked out of the Nazi party and have to flea the country if you protest the pogroms. If you're just cool with it (and you happen to not fit into any of the demographics that are arbitrarily being thrown under the bus), you get to have the government hand you the assets of people who disappear.

The one I don't get is the gay fascists. Homosexuals are always going to be a small minority, and every fascist organization is always always always going to pick them as one of the target groups for oppression (or extermination, when it comes to that). You may be free from high taxes in Singapore, but sodomy is still against the law there.

-Username17

[Koumei]

Someone once asked how I could be a communist, seeing as the USSR hated gay people. Because you can't be a communist without literally supporting the USSR, which is a problem in the modern world.

He also claimed that because "communism is all about everyone being the same", D/S relationships are completely at odds with it.

I didn't bother pointing out how fucking stupid those views were - he was probably trolling with one, and incredibly stupid regardless.

[RobbyPants]

He also claimed that because "communism is all about everyone being the same", D/S relationships are completely at odds with it.

I didn't bother pointing out how fucking stupid those views were - he was probably trolling with one, and incredibly stupid regardless.

if you want to troll him back, tell him that if everyone were the same, we'd all be gay, by definition.

[Shatner]

Every plutocrat thinks their fascist utopia is going to look like Singapore and not like Nazi Germany. Of course, even if it does, IG Farben got a pretty sweet deal. It's not like they are riding a horse that is necessarily going to throw them in the pit.

Wait, Singapore is fascist? Could you elaborate on that?

[Username17]

Every plutocrat thinks their fascist utopia is going to look like Singapore and not like Nazi Germany. Of course, even if it does, IG Farben got a pretty sweet deal. It's not like they are riding a horse that is necessarily going to throw them in the pit.

Wait, Singapore is fascist? Could you elaborate on that?

Singapore has been under the rule of a single party since 1959. That political party is a "nationalist, pragmatic party" called the "People's Action Party." Their symbol looks like this:



Singapore's fascist party is one of the least abhorrent fascist regimes in history, but then again they have never been a force in more than a single city, so it's not entirely fair to compare them to fascist regimes in real countries. But even so, you don't have freedom of speech in Singapore, homosexuality is illegal, and the elections are kind of a sham. It's just a city, and a fairly wealthy one at that, so as totalitarian regimes that crap all over civil rights go, it's not a terrible place to live. But if they catch you chewing gum, they will publicly beat you with a cane.

Just to keep in mind, that literally the nicest fascist regime that has ever existed still ranks 133rd out of 175 ranked countries for free press, and the government does banish people from the country for speaking out in favor of democracy or judicial transparency. And when they banish you from the country, they will fucking send you to Myanmar. Because that is how they roll.

-Username17

[PoliteNewb]

Kaelik, DSM, and Frank...thanks for the data, I appreciate it.
Based on that...I have to admit that most libertarians are either idiots who don't know who/what they're voting for, or hypocritical assholes.

EDIT:

After reviewing that PDF...credit where credit is due, thanks Kaelik, that was very helpful. I particularly liked their "libertarian rating" scale.
And after reading it, my best guess (based off their survey data, anyway) is that most libertarians are hypocrites who value perceived freedom (especially for themselves) a lot more than actual freedom (for all people)...meaning "dern gub'mint!", freedom-to-die-in-a-ditch, and freedom-to-hate-queers. That is...slightly disappointing, but gotta face facts as they are.

[nockermensch]

It's just a city, and a fairly wealthy one at that, so as totalitarian regimes that crap all over civil rights go, it's not a terrible place to live. But if they catch you chewing gum, they will publicly beat you with a cane.

Not to mention the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking.

[Maj]

Ess found an article today that seems to fit in the libertarian conversation here: My Father, the Objectivist.

[JonSetanta]

Damn it. And I got an invite to go to Singapore too.

[...You Lost Me]

Frank, where did you get that table? I couldn't find it in the doc Kaelik posted, and I'd like to show it to someoen.

[Maj]

http://www.cato.org/blog/poll-shows-rom ... arian-vote

[Username17]

Maj got it. The Cato Institute is the largest Libertarian think tank in the world. It also has the Koch brothers' hands so far up its ass that one time one of the Koch brothers fired the tank's director for not being enough of a Koch brother pawn. Seriously.

So basically anything they say has to be viewed through the lens of them being professional liars. But I have every reason to believe that when they report on raw numbers of libertarian voting patterns, that they are probably using real numbers. They are too well funded to get caught falsifying that kind of data.

-Username17

[TheJerkStore]

I have a question.

What's the difference between the Tea Party and the Libertarians? They seem like they hit the same talking points (low taxes for the rich, repealing civil rights and worker safety laws, allowing states to ban gay marriage if they want).

I'm honestly curious.

[Username17]

I have a question.

What's the difference between the Tea Party and the Libertarians? They seem like they hit the same talking points (low taxes for the rich, repealing civil rights and worker safety laws, allowing states to ban gay marriage if they want).

I'm honestly curious.

Libertarianism is a philosophy based on the idea that Freedom is good and Government is bad. It has a number of subschools that have different ideas of what exactly "freedom" actually is. This is important, because of course any freedom to is opposed by an equal and opposite freedom from. Your freedom to discriminate against Black people is opposed by an equal and opposite freedom from discrimination that Black people would like to have. It is thus theoretically impossible for there to ever be more or less freedoms, there just happen to be freedoms that we think are important (such as the freedom from enslavement) and freedoms we don't we don't give a fuck about (such as the freedom to own other people).

But while various libertarian subschools are arguing among each other about what constitutes "coercion" and whether or not you're allowed to shoot people to take their water, none of that shit actually matters because the only Libertarians whose think tanks and public outreach programs have two nickels to rub together are the ones that are bankrolled by the Koch brothers. And so it is that they have determined that the freedom to pump coal soot onto other peoples' property is freedom, while the freedom to not have coal soot dumped onto your property without permission is government overreach. And that is why the Cato Institute Index of Freedom gives the highest marks to Hong Kong and Singapore, while the Reporters Without Borders Freedom Index has those countries come in at #58 and #149 respectively (for comparison: Zimbabwe is #133 for freedom of expression).

Meanwhile, the Libertarian Party, the American Independent Party, the Reform Party, the Natural Law Party, and the Teaparty are all political parties that claim inspiration from one flavor or another of Libertarian Philosophy. Most of these are actually quite small, and it's relatively trivial for a group of determined individuals to join up and take over. And that's why the Reform Party was started by eccentric billionaire Ross Perot but currently is off in even more wacky territory after being co-opted by even more insane people. The Teaparty is a well-bankrolled piece of astroturf created and financed by Murdoch and the Koch brothers, but again the actual number of people in the driver seat is quite small and it's fairly easy for wackos and lunatics to take over just by showing up to conventions in groups and making crazy demands.

-Username17

[TheJerkStore]

So if I follow correctly, the tea party is a branch of libertarianism, but not all libertarians are tea party members?

EDIT: This is bringing up an older comment (about how nerd hobbies attract fascists), but I may have a theory. My friends who have autism seem to be very devoted to a political ideal. Both the farthest right and farthest left of my peers are autistic to near the point of being unable to function in society, while most (but not all) of the people I know with very strong political beliefs suffer from a touch of the Sperg faerie.

I haven't researched autism other than everyone on the internet has it, but is that a symptom? All or nothing thinking, absolute adherence to an ideal, etc?

[Username17]

So if I follow correctly, the tea party is a branch of libertarianism, but not all libertarians are tea party members?

The Tea Party is a political party which uses Libertarian political philosophy in its rhetoric when crafting its platforms and public outreach. You can be a member of the Tea Party without subscribing to any form of Libertarian thought, because it's just an organization and all you have to do to join it is sign your name on a registration card. You can also be any flavor of Libertarian without joining the Tea Party.

The Tea Party uses a lot of buzzwords to attract people who are attracted to Libertarian thought. So it's rather unlikely that you'd support the Tea Party if you didn't feel favorably disposed towards Libertarianism. Also, the Tea Party has a lot more funding and power than the Natural Law party, so if you were a strident Libertarian, chances are better than even that you'd support the Tea Party over other 3rd party alternatives. Also, the Tea Party's current announced plan of butting in to Republican caucuses and primaries and replacing "establishment candidates" with "Libertarian candidates" is a plan that might actually work, unlike supporting the American Independent Party, so obviously there's a fair amount of draw there as well.

Now, needless to say the Libertarian on the street is considered a "useful idiot" at best by the actual Tea Party leaders, who are paid-for lackeys of coal barons. But that is where the Tea Party recruits from to get their crowds of gun toting bottom feeders demanding that the government keep their hands off their medicare.

-Username17

[Korgan0]

I know plenty of devoted leninists who aren't on the spectrum in the slightest.

[Cynic]

Yeah, you don't have to be on the spectrum to have extreme viewpoints.

[RobbyPants]

I don't know. When I look at the Tea Party, and what they say, and what they do, they come off as a group that was originally Libertarian (before they co-opted with the Republicans) and that uses Libertarian buzzwords. As far as actual policy goes, they really seem to be Republicans with the dial turned up to 11 in almost every category. Libertarian buzzwords are heavily utilized with the Tea Party's interests intersect with those of Republicans and Libertarians. That rhetoric is quieted when the interests don't intersect with Libertarians.

I agree with Frank that the concept of freedom will get contorted when they try to align their views with Republicans (such as wanting the religious freedom to not offer birth control coverage to women). Still, in effect, the Tea Party seems to be just scarier versions of Republicans who are better at talking a good Libertarian talk while still being the reddest of red.

[Maj]

I would argue that the Tea Party was originally Libertarian, but it didn't take long for the Koch Brothers to buy out and co-opt the movement. After that happened, the Tea Party began allying itself with Evangelical factions that essentially provided a "moral" reason for government to do all the things that Libertarianism normally wouldn't approve of (like telling gays they can't get married or wanding abortion seekers). That move took the Tea Party from being extremists about the economy to being extremists about pretty much everything.

[Maxus]

I've always thought the Tea Party was astroturfed from the start. This guy goes on a rant on CNN, says there needs to be a "Chicago Tea Party", and everyone miraculously knows what he's talking about, and eight hours later there's an agreed date, time, location, and a slick professional new website up.

That happened just a little too quickly and smoothly for me to see it being natural.

Anyway. The Tea Party tried to argue it was about fiscally conservative parties but in states where they won, they make abortion harder, pass "Protection of marriage against those hellspawned homersexuals" bills and, essentially, act like Republicans with the knob turned up.

[Maj]

My impression of it - and I might be wrong, so please correct me - is that there were a few events that hit the mainstream really fast and inspired a bunch of independent groups all over the country. Those independent groups weren't really coherently led by much of anything until a bunch of right-wing backers (mostly KochBros) started uniting the groups behind the scenes.

[Username17]

My impression of it - and I might be wrong, so please correct me - is that there were a few events that hit the mainstream really fast and inspired a bunch of independent groups all over the country. Those independent groups weren't really coherently led by much of anything until a bunch of right-wing backers (mostly KochBros) started uniting the groups behind the scenes.

Those "independent events" had Fox News producers attending them and working the crowds. It's basically pure astroturf all the way down.

-Username17