American market Libertarians get hand outs as well. Their think tanks are funded by the same people who fund right wing think tanks.

First off, it's very cool that you are tackling these tough questions. If you want to hit me up with a list of your own, I'll take a shot at them. Let's hash these out one at a time for the sake of clarity.

Funding - You seem to be tacitly conceding the fact that your highly principled, anti corporate movement is funded by corporations. This is at odds with your claim that market libertarianism rises above partisan politics and special interest groups. Instead you are saying Democrats do it too. Does that make it OK?

Let's take this topic a little deeper.

It is true that corporations fund viable candidates from all parties - though more money is spent on politicians on the right - but you don't see the same kind of funding behind liberal ideology. Current corporate funding of think tanks and front groups almost exclusively favors market libertarian/right wing organizations.

In the 90's, corporations attempted to create a Liberal mouthpiece for their message, called the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council). This group had much success early on - they are credited with helping their candidate, Bill Clinton, get elected to the executive office. They also nurtured the careers of Joe Loserman and Dick Gephardt.

Obama was briefly a member as well until he parted ways on ideological grounds. I find it interesting that in the 2008 primaries, Hillary (a DLCer) used the same arguments against Obama that right wing think tanks used against him, probably because the DLC IS a right wing think tank in disguise If you remember correctly, Obama barely wrestled the nomination away from Hillary with a clever strategy that won him the states that had a particular caucasing process. (In my own opinion, I think Hillary was the 'the chosen one' to become president.)

The fact that Obama and Hillary, two DLC candidates were the only contenders in this race does raise some questions, but to take that line of questioning further means you would need to take a more skeptical look at your own politics too.

I digress...

Anyway, since the 2000 elections, the DLC has become a dirty word among liberals, and no corporately funded front groups have been able to gain any traction among the liberal mainstream since.

Beyond the fact that corporations choose to give their money to libertarian/right wing thing tanks, Koch was actually once a vice presidential candidate for the libertarian party, which seems instructive.

How do you square the fact that corporations are so intimately involved with your party, ideology and its dissemination in a way that they are not with the Democrats?

The American variety. They think the free market is somehow a component of liberty. While they talk a good game about corporations, they really don't ever act on that part of the rhetoric, perhaps because corporations give huge dollars to free market/right wing think tanks, front groups, organizations and candidates. >> ^Yogi:

Which Libertarianism are we talking about here...European or American...there's a world of difference.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
There are two arguments that blankfist is making here. One rational, one irrational.

The rational argument: This particular situation demonstrates an abuse of government power and it sucks.
The irrational argument: ALL GOVERNMENT, EVER, IN THE HISTORY OF WORLD IS EVIL.

Don't let his attempt at smearing the line between the two trick you into justifying something that appears to be a legitimate abuse of power. You may agree with the rational argument and disagree with the irrational broadbrush at the same time.

This a game that the corporate think tanks play all the time. It's also a fallacy of logic. It's an inductive fallacy, to be specific. Here's how it works: An agent of the government did something bad, hence all government is bad.

Another example: A libertarian crashed his plane into a government building, purposely murdering an innocent man; another libertarian blew up an Oklahoma government building purposely murdering 168 innocent people; another libertarian sent mail bombs to innocent people, murdering 3 innocent people. Therefore, all libertarians are sadistic, murderous sociopaths.

I don't agree with this last sentence, it is here to make a point.

>> ^Tymbrwulf:

Ugh, this is such a biased and skewed argument. I'm trying to wrap my head around this but it seems the left out a few major details (if she later agreed to the body pat-down or not) and instead tried to add some badly-timed humor.
She has every right to refuse being body-scanned, but last I heard, flying isn't an inherent right but a privilege!


Well said! This is what I thought but could not convey through words. I'm glad I'm not the only person who thinks this way.

There are two arguments that blankfist is making here. One rational, one irrational.

The rational argument: This particular situation demonstrates an abuse of government power and it sucks.
The irrational argument: ALL GOVERNMENT, EVER, IN THE HISTORY OF WORLD IS EVIL.

Don't let his attempt at smearing the line between the two trick you into justifying something that appears to be a legitimate abuse of power. You may agree with the rational argument and disagree with the irrational broadbrush at the same time.

This a game that the corporate think tanks play all the time. It's also a fallacy of logic. It's an inductive fallacy, to be specific. Here's how it works: An agent of the government did something bad, hence all government is bad.

Another example: A libertarian crashed his plane into a government building, purposely murdering an innocent man; another libertarian blew up an Oklahoma government building purposely murdering 168 innocent people; another libertarian sent mail bombs to innocent people, murdering 3 innocent people. Therefore, all libertarians are sadistic, murderous sociopaths.

I don't agree with this last sentence, it is here to make a point.

>> ^Tymbrwulf:

Ugh, this is such a biased and skewed argument. I'm trying to wrap my head around this but it seems the left out a few major details (if she later agreed to the body pat-down or not) and instead tried to add some badly-timed humor.
She has every right to refuse being body-scanned, but last I heard, flying isn't an inherent right but a privilege!

Corporations don't need government to exist. They are autonomous. They have their own media and their own armies. Internationally speaking, the weaker the government, the more power corporations wield over them. Government, however weak and corruptible it may be, is the only body with the potential to check corporate power. This is why corporations hate government so much and give so much money to the anti government think tanks that you hold so dear.

Less government power = More corporate power.

Why do you think they want a government so small you can drown it in a bathtub?

Government is like a car. It's neutral until someone turns the key. It can take you to work, or on vacation or ram a bus full of school children off a cliff. It all depends on who is driving. Right now, the corporate-sponsored, anti-government teapartiers are in control.

So why did corporations spend more money then has ever been spent in a midterm election to get Republicans and Teabaggers elected this cycle?

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
It isn't really all that hard to follow, Jesus. I've put it in talking points style bullets to make it easier for you to understand.
-Obama to not renew Bush tax giveaway to the mega rich.
-The mega rich gives money to think tanks that know how to manipulate people like you.
-Manipulated people like you vote corporate lapdogs into office.
-Tax giveaway back on the table.
Getting it yet?

Not sure why you think the Democrats aren't Corporatists like the Republicans?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

It isn't really all that hard to follow, Jesus. I've put it in talking points style bullets to make it easier for you to understand.
-Obama to not renew Bush tax giveaway to the mega rich.
-The mega rich gives money to think tanks that know how to manipulate people like you.
-Manipulated people like you vote corporate lapdogs into office.
-Tax giveaway back on the table.
Getting it yet?


Not sure why you think the Democrats aren't Corporatists like the Republicans?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

It isn't really all that hard to follow, Jesus. I've put it in talking points style bullets to make it easier for you to understand.
-Obama to not renew Bush tax giveaway to the mega rich.
-The mega rich gives money to think tanks that know how to manipulate people like you.
-Manipulated people like you vote corporate lapdogs into office.
-Tax giveaway back on the table.
Getting it yet?


Hahahha your funny, because your party isn't corporate lap dogs...and I don't have a party. And I am for tax cuts all across the board hand in hand with cutting spending. But I can break it down it bullet points for you to understand.

-Obama has spent billions trillions handing out money to private corporations on a magnitude the world has never seen
-Big business sold the lie to your party saying to was what we needed
-Manipulate you to somehow have connotative dissidence on the matter of taxes and handouts

I thought my reply was rather short and without teeth, why all the random hate?

Random bit of trivia time. Roughly 45% of US Treasury Securities are owned by China and Japan.

It isn't really all that hard to follow, Jesus. I've put it in talking points style bullets to make it easier for you to understand.

-Obama to not renew Bush tax giveaway to the mega rich.
-The mega rich gives money to think tanks that know how to manipulate people like you.
-Manipulated people like you vote corporate lapdogs into office.
-Tax giveaway back on the table.

Getting it yet?

I see a huge difference in argument styles between the two parties. Conservative arguments are usually little more than a stringing together of buzzwords and slogans, with little understanding of the thinking behind the concepts, or the ability to follow up when put under scrutiny. Fiscal responsibility (code for tax cuts for the rich), socialism (code for public works that don't directly benefit corporations), small business (code for big business), small government (code for limiting that parts of government that don't massage corporations as opposed to say... defense), constitutionalist (I can never get a conservative to explain how corporate ideology fits into the constitution, especially when you consider that corporations were illegal at the time the constitution was composed), etc.

Liberals simply don't have access the same kinds of corporate, think tank propaganda that conservatives do. If they did, I'm sure many would use it, but because that kind of propaganda is scarce and often amateurishly put together (Air America), liberals generally have to logic it out for themselves.

The liberal commentary on this site is very thoughtful.


In reply to this comment by hPOD:
Well, it's hard for me to disagree with you on this specific point. While there are those that I disagree with politically, I don't mind disagreeing with them so long as they at least make solid points, whether I agree with them or not. While it's pretty arrogant for me to 'guess', when it comes to online forums such as VideoSift, Digg, Reddit, I'd say 95% of those posting/responding know very little [or are void of self-opinion] and are merely repeating what they've heard/read from others. And that goes for those on the far left and those on the far right.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I don't mean it as an insult, they are literally lacking in political knowledge. If you'd like me to use a more respectful term for ignorance, I'd be happy to oblige. Knowledge impaired? Intellectually disabled? I'll go with whatever you like best...

>> ^hPOD:

Calling people ignorant because they have different views/opinions than yourself is, in and of itself, ignorant.
Fiscal Responsibility isn't a vague-to-the-point-of-meaningless slogan unless applied to politicians/politics, be it on the right or the left, as IMO, neither are fiscally responsible. It's hard to be fiscally responsible when you aren't spending your own money. I live my life in a fiscally responsible way. Aside from my mortgage, I have no debt. None. I do not live beyond my means. I do not spend more now expecting everything to work out later, as sometimes it doesn't work out as we expect. That is fiscal responsibility.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
^'Fiscal Responsibility' is a vague-to-the-point-of-meaninglessness slogan designed for use by those too stupid to formulate their own arguments. It will indeed be interesting to see how well the tea party does tomorrow, as a gauge of just how easy it is to manipulate ignorant Americans.

My take on it is that it's horrible and misguided that the right keeps reigniting old debates I thought civilized society put to bed a looooong time ago (like torture, collecting evidence without warrants, imprisoning people without trial, separation of church and state, Title 2 and 7 of the Civil Rights Act, etc.). This is just another in a long line.

For me, I keep wanting to ask people "why do you care?" I mean, isn't it a good thing if people from Ireland or Mexico want to come here? Why not let anyone who wants to be a citizen just do the paperwork and background checks and become a citizen? If they come here, and make a life here even without legal status, and have kids here, what's the big deal?

If it's a matter of them not obeying our normal (as opposed to immigration) laws, or not paying their taxes, then we should deal with them in the same way as a citizen who breaks the law or doesn't pay their taxes.

The goal of this movement is to give government the power to deport whole immigrant families, including children born to illegal immigrants, without the complication of having to come up with a legal justification for "deporting" their natural-born US citizen children or forcibly splitting up the family by deporting the parents only.

Why is that so important to people that they want to alter an Amendment that was passed largely to overrule the Dred Scott decision?

I just don't get what people are thinking.

In reply to this comment by Ryjkyj:
Hey dude, what's your take on this fourteenth amendment bullshit? My wife discussed it a little bit with her co-workers this morning and they brought up some new: people-come-here-from-Ireland-etc-for-better-birth-care-and-their-kids-incidentally-become-citizens thing. I don't think I can support removing the 14th amendment for any reason but my wife's co-workers all seems to think it's a good idea.

Now here's the disturbing part: it's not like my wife works for some right-wing think tank. She's a social worker for the state of Oregon DHS...

Happy anniversary BTW.

Hey dude, what's your take on this fourteenth amendment bullshit? My wife discussed it a little bit with her co-workers this morning and they brought up some new: people-come-here-from-Ireland-etc-for-better-birth-care-and-their-kids-incidentally-become-citizens thing. I don't think I can support removing the 14th amendment for any reason but my wife's co-workers all seems to think it's a good idea.

Now here's the disturbing part: it's not like my wife works for some right-wing think tank. She's a social worker for the state of Oregon DHS...

Happy anniversary BTW.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I disagree that the government needs to "create a market for something". If it is one thing governments are very poor at doing is creating markets for things. People do this better and faster than government think tanks. I do however support new understandings in pollution in how it interacts with property rights. If you clog my air with filth, there has to be some legal ramification to that. It is due time to assess how property is defined in terms of air, water, and the like, I welcome that conversation.
(edited: Spelling, dear god man spelling)


I don't mean "create a market" meaning "we're going to use subsidies and taxes to make something that isn't economically viable on its own popular", I mean literally create a market as in "we're going to stop people from taking other people's stuff".

Read up more on the theory and practice of cap and trade. For real-world results, look at the sulfur cap-and-trade they implemented in the 70's to combat acid rain.

The basic idea is that we get an independent read on how much CO2 capacity there is in the environment, and then auction off tradeable permits for emissions. The market sets the price via supply and demand.

I am all for ending all subsidy of energy, oil, coal or otherwise! I would LOVE to see technology finally take government out of energy production. I would love for every house in America to be its own power generator. Could you imagine stopping off at someones house to "fill'er up"! That would be so cool to me! We still might want to keep "the grid" around, but it would fulfill a totally different function. I am hopeful that a combination of solar power + hydrogen fuel cells will give us this ability. Solar seems like such a cash crop of energy, and fuel cells give you the mobility aspect. Time will tell if this comes to be, but it seems pretty promising now with solar cells reaching 50% effectiveness!

I know of studies that talk about feedback loops for weather, and while intellectually intriguing ( I love all things dealing with Apocalypse!), it seems to be without any real historical evidence. Most mass extinction due to weather change that we have any real evidence of are due to catastrophic events such as massive volcanic activity or comets and meteors. While I don't doubt that human CO2 levels could do something that equates to those, I question if we produce the amounts necessary at this point in time. I have tried with little success to find ice and CO2 levels of the Mesozoic era. However, I have read somethings to the contrary of the capacity of the ocean to stabilize the temperature better than ice. Liquid water has a very high specific heat, by increasing the volume of water, you could have an even more effective heat dissipation system than that of reflective ice. I lack any real education into which one is more true. Interestingly enough, CO2 levels were most likely 10% higher than today during the Cretaceous period. There might be slightly more elasticity in the climate than most people have come to understand.

I disagree that the government needs to "create a market for something". If it is one thing governments are very poor at doing is creating markets for things. People do this better and faster than government think tanks. I do however support new understandings in pollution in how it interacts with property rights. If you clog my air with filth, there has to be some legal ramification to that. It is due time to assess how property is defined in terms of air, water, and the like, I welcome that conversation.

(edited: Spelling, dear god man spelling)