@ChaosEngine, I'm a big Moore fan, too. He's pretty great, isn't he? Curious what you thought of the Watchmen movie. And if you watched the Ultimate Cut or not. Now on to the more unpleasant stuff...


You wrote: "The problems I'd like to see addressed are what happens when this idyllic utopia breaks down. What happens in the absence of a leviathan when someone robs or steals from you using force? How is that righted? What happens when a crime is perpetrated and there is no single victim, but the act is still damaging? Pollution, for instance."

First off, I'm not sure small "l" libertarianism creates a utopia, idyllic or otherwise, It makes very little promises in that area, because the pragmatic argument is: freedom is dangerous. And libertarianism doesn't seek to create a perfect socially engineered society. It knows human problems are messy and complex, and there's no way to solve them from a monolithic, and often clumsy, top-down approach.

As for redressable damages (wrongs being righted), well, most small "l" libertarians still believe in civil courts and even administrative roles for government, believe it or not. Even Moore thought the government would work best in an administrative role, and he was a bonafide anarchist. This video is about the more extreme anarchist perspective of voluntaryism, which is a political philosophy of non-aggression, and couldn't be leapt into overnight. So, if someone pollutes your air, you have a grievance even in a libertarian society.


You wrote: "The biggest gang was chosen by it's people. And if they start acting like dicks, then we choose another gang. Now whether one gang is as bad as the previous one is another debate..."

Really? I could argue that the two party system holds our electorate system hostage, but let's just assume that's not true. Bush ran on a platform in 2001 that completely contradicted his policies while in office. So has Obama.


You wrote: "It actually describes a potential problem with anarchy, but it doesn't say how the problem would be solved..."

Right. Because anarchist aren't utopians. And small "l" libertarians don't want to replace a bad socially engineered political system with a new socially engineered political system. They really just want to leave it up to the people.

was it because she's not fitting into the neat box of either left vs right?

as the conservatives as we know it start to implode, we're going to see more shifting and it will blur the lines more. Conservatives will adopt less hard-line stances and become more liberal.

we're going to see more splinter groups like the tea-baggers, but it will run the gammut. some will be more conservative, some will be less conservative. Ideally I wish this would mean the death of the party system. but realistically it just means things will be chaotic for a while until things settle down into a new "left" and a new "right" but in the end, it will be somewhat more rational, if only minutely so.

If his rights were being violated, why didn't he pull out his gun and defend them AS IT IS WRITTEN? That's where the 2nd amendment fails IMO...or at the very least, that's where people fail. We hear the hard liners whining non-stop that they think they live in a tyrannical gov't (despite being elected by the people) Where are the revolts then? Where are the 2nd Amendment remedies? In other words, put your money where your mouth is. Talk is cheap. Where is that willingness to kill and to die in order to preserve liberty? Or are you just talking the talk but when push comes to shove, even the hardliners accept that they don't know what actual tyranny is.

In all honesty though, the audio was so shitty I didn't hear the specific exchange that got the official so pissed off. It seemed like he was being kicked out simply because he was getting too loud or he mouthed back to the official. So yeah, I can agree that he probably didn't deserve to be kicked out. Was it an offense? yep. But it was a trivial offense and BOTH sides should have handled it better. It seemed awful petty of the official for that one thing to set him off. But hey, the activist should have been on his best behavior too. You're representing other people, so represent them well. You don't have to like the person in office, but respect the office nonetheless.

Just seemed like both sides were being childish. Yay two party system!

He's correct in arguing that politicians shouldn't be allowed to take donations. We should also abolish the party system, as it makes it far too easy for voters to automatically vote for their respective party's candidate. No donations means smaller campaigns and less awareness from the average joe, but maybe that's a good thing. There would be fewer voters but these voters would be more informed and more passionate about their votes.

Yes I watched all 3 parts. Great interview.

Sure, some times we pay more for convenience and also when we have to have something NOW and can't shop around. We all get fuck once in a while. But all of us get fucked every time we seek medical attention.

Free markets work the best.
Once capitalism takes hold word will get out as to which hospital / facility has good pricing for the service provided. Just like everything else.

Like everything else word of mouth, ratings, and competition will cause prices to come inline with reality.

The 150$ aspirin will be down to 2-3 bucks.



You are a capitalistic with every dollar you spend. Who ever provides the best goods and services for your dollar gets your dollar.

You say only the rich can afford quality healthcare. Under todays government controlled 3rd party system your are right.

Agreed with the above. This was not about a two-party system.

This was about one of the two-party-system parties being horribly broken.

She's not having a debate about the two party system here...she is talking in regards to the reality of the system we currently have.>> ^VoodooV:

Oh Rachel, so smart, but so dumb.
did it ever occur to you that the two party system is BAD. Our founders did NOT want Parties,
One party may be less bad than the other, but the system of parties is BAD. How many people, on both sides of the aisle, voted not for Obama or for Romney, they voted for democrat or republican.
Don't you see a fundamental problem with that....with the party being more important than the person...than the country.
The two party system needs to go. ban all parties. vote for the person, not the party

>> ^volumptuous:

Random Internet commenter calls Rhodes scholar dumb.
Ugh
>> ^VoodooV:
Oh Rachel, so smart, but so dumb.
did it ever occur to you that the two party system is BAD. Our founders did NOT want Parties,
One party may be less bad than the other, but the system of parties is BAD. How many people, on both sides of the aisle, voted not for Obama or for Romney, they voted for democrat or republican.
Don't you see a fundamental problem with that....with the party being more important than the person...than the country.
The two party system needs to go. ban all parties. vote for the person, not the party



Yes, because it's impossible for an educated person to say something dumb and perpetuate a system that continues to divide this nation. While I may agree with Maddow most of the time, she's still a pundit just like the others.

and to @hpqp nah, when you're electing anyone, you have to pick a person because of their character and convictions. If you're just voting on ideas, then you might as well go back to voting parties. Dem and Rep alike both represent an idea. How many people couldn't stand Mitt but voted for him anyway because he was a Rep. How many were disappointed in Obama but voted for him anyway because he was a Dem.

It's a shitty system. If you can't stand Mitt, don't vote for him, if you can't stand Obama, don't vote for him...write someone in. You have more options than just red vs blue.

Random Internet commenter calls Rhodes scholar dumb.

Ugh

>> ^VoodooV:

Oh Rachel, so smart, but so dumb.
did it ever occur to you that the two party system is BAD. Our founders did NOT want Parties,
One party may be less bad than the other, but the system of parties is BAD. How many people, on both sides of the aisle, voted not for Obama or for Romney, they voted for democrat or republican.
Don't you see a fundamental problem with that....with the party being more important than the person...than the country.
The two party system needs to go. ban all parties. vote for the person, not the party

The older I've gotten, the more importance I've placed on the character of the candidate, rather than his ideas. A candidate's ideas are the product of their advisers. I want to know if my leaders are honest or deceitful, brave or cowardly, rigid or flexible, ideological or practical. No one can fully anticipate what challenges a country will face, so you have to pick someone that you trust to tackle the unknown.

This isn't an absolute of course. I've still rejected the better man (I don't think I've voted against a major party woman) because he believed in an ideology I couldn't stomach.
>> ^hpqp:

>> ^VoodooV:
Oh Rachel, so smart, but so dumb.
did it ever occur to you that the two party system is BAD. Our founders did NOT want Parties,
One party may be less bad than the other, but the system of parties is BAD. How many people, on both sides of the aisle, voted not for Obama or for Romney, they voted for democrat or republican.
Don't you see a fundamental problem with that....with the party being more important than the person...than the country.
The two party system needs to go. ban all parties. vote for the person, not the party

No, vote for the ideas, not the person, nor the party. (but I think that's what you meant, amirite?)

Well, as long as the Right decides to keep acting like this dead eyed brain washed ignorant fool, I think the Dems can look forward to another record setting election in two years. "Not Conservative enough" is only going to get you so far before you start alienating a significant part of the electorate, as this past election showed everyone. If they really want to double down on that, fine. Just means we'll be dealing with a 1.5 party system soon enough. Not exactly something I would welcome, encourage or even want.

>> ^VoodooV:

Oh Rachel, so smart, but so dumb.
did it ever occur to you that the two party system is BAD. Our founders did NOT want Parties,
One party may be less bad than the other, but the system of parties is BAD. How many people, on both sides of the aisle, voted not for Obama or for Romney, they voted for democrat or republican.
Don't you see a fundamental problem with that....with the party being more important than the person...than the country.
The two party system needs to go. ban all parties. vote for the person, not the party


No, vote for the ideas, not the person, nor the party. (but I think that's what you meant, amirite?)

Oh Rachel, so smart, but so dumb.

did it ever occur to you that the two party system is BAD. Our founders did NOT want Parties,

One party may be less bad than the other, but the system of parties is BAD. How many people, on both sides of the aisle, voted not for Obama or for Romney, they voted for democrat or republican.

Don't you see a fundamental problem with that....with the party being more important than the person...than the country.

The two party system needs to go. ban all parties. vote for the person, not the party

Seems pretty plain to me. Joss didn't say vote for Obama, he's just having some fun with Romney. Free country, he's allowed to have an opinion and if that turns off a few of his fans, then I don't think he's going to lose sleep over it. He wrote the fucking Avengers script! I think he'll survive somehow.

That said, the election system in this country sucks, and changing it is going to require a monumental effort on the part of a hell of a lot of people. Congress will fight tooth and nail to preserve the status quo, because it serves them best. Until we get a system that isn't designed to result in a 2-party system, we will always have this situation of choosing between Asshole #1 and Asshole #2.

It's kind of sad that the one thing that Congress will show true bipartisan support on is saving their own asses.

>> ^direpickle:

>> ^criticalthud:
i'll vote when the system isn't rigged and bought,... and our supposed democracy isn't just a dramatic diversion from reality.

If everyone that used this excuse were to go and vote for a 3rd party candidate, so that they got >5% of the popular vote, they would qualify for federal campaign funding.


it's not an excuse. it is a purposeful action/inaction.
i voted for most adult life. and i've even been an attorney for the federal government, seeing the machine from within. But the futility of changing the system by the rules of the system is a reality. The rules of the system are such that they are intended to preserve the status quo.
...
"Divide and conquer" is a fundamental strategy of the ruling elite to control the masses. Our 2 party system is an extension of this. To make a 3rd party candidate viable requires more than just a vote...it requires an education into how the political system works and an understanding of how it is purposefully polarized. While I am happy to push for a greater understanding of the political system, I am fairly against participating in an ongoing charade.