Rick Santorum wants to ban porn

[Hype]

Yeah, Hoka, there are some fucked up facts about the tendencies of voters. There is ALWAYS a bias toward the first name on any ballot. This has been demonstrated. (And we've already mentioned in other threads the tendency to swing conservative when voting in or near churches or crucifixes).

But my point wasn't just that people are uninformed, it's that they actually don't know what they themselves REALLY think. It's one thing to self-describe as fiscally conservative and socially liberal, it's an entirely different thing to actually hold beliefs that are consistent with that self-description. My claim was that it's unlikely that most people are perfectly consistent, and if they analyzed their beliefs, they may discover that their self-description simply isn't accurate.

[Hokahey]

Yeah, Hoka, there are some fucked up facts about the tendencies of voters. There is ALWAYS a bias toward the first name on any ballot. This has been demonstrated. (And we've already mentioned in other threads the tendency to swing conservative when voting in or near churches or crucifixes).

But my point wasn't just that people are uninformed, it's that they actually don't know what they themselves REALLY think. It's one thing to self-describe as fiscally conservative and socially liberal, it's an entirely different thing to actually hold beliefs that are consistent with that self-description. My claim was that it's unlikely that most people are perfectly consistent, and if they analyzed their beliefs, they may discover that their self-description simply isn't accurate.

I don't disagree at all.

But all of this goes back to me trying to make the point that I don't believe a Republican candidate running under the tenants of Libertarianism would necessarily lose the 30 million evangelicals and if he's charismatic enough could "finesse" the majority voters that describe themselves as "fiscally conservative/socially liberal in to voting for him precisely because they don't understand what their own viewpoints really are, so they'll hear what that candidate generally says and say "hey, I generally agree."

[Hype]

That's a reasonable view. You might be right... A Republican party that isn't completely batshit insane would be kind of nice... though I fundamentally disagree with some background stuff libertarians accept. Often Libertarians and I end up on the same page after all... just not when it comes to the federal government.

[mockbee]

Hoka..... why are all libertarians so batshit crazy?

Seriously, if you listen to what libertarian candidates say in local elections, it's batty. I could agree with a lot of what libertarians stand for; just not the commodification of human services and policies effecting the environment. No.... the Federal system doesn't work the way it is now, but there needs to be an elected Federal control that is waaaay slimmed down but very strong and clear in its objectives. Like a referee............

That's a perfect analogy. Libertarians are like " we don't need no stinkin referee we know how to play this sport, we'll work it out ourselves." and Liberals are like "we need 10 referees, no 15 maybe 20...yea 20." We need a couple referees with clear ground rules and guidelines and that's it, Federally controlled, not some private referee........


And, Hoka, why couldn't Paul win a single state? He got slaughtered by Santorum...... Nader did way better 12 and 8 years ago than Paul has managed to ever do.

Maybe you just have to be kooky to be a libertarian?

[Hype]

Hoka..... why are all libertarians so batshit crazy?

Seriously, if you listen to what libertarian candidates say in local elections, it's batty. I could agree with a lot of what libertarians stand for; just not the commodification of human services and policies effecting the environment. No.... the Federal system doesn't work the way it is now, but there needs to be an elected Federal control that is waaaay slimmed down but very strong and clear in its objectives. Like a referee............

That's a perfect analogy. Libertarians are like " we don't need no stinkin referee we know how to play this sport, we'll work it out ourselves." and Liberals are like "we need 10 referees, no 15 maybe 20...yea 20." We need a couple referees with clear ground rules and guidelines and that's it, Federally controlled, not some private referee........


And, Hoka, why couldn't Paul win a single state? He got slaughtered by Santorum...... Nader did way better 12 and 8 years ago than Paul has managed to ever do.

Maybe you just have to be kooky to be a libertarian?

A good friend of mine is a libertarian, and studied at the LSE in London... very smart dude... I just think they make a bunch of weird assumptions at the outset that prevent them from seeing that where they want to end up isn't where their principles actually lead.

[mockbee]

Yeah, it seems libertarians are essentially for 'good efficient government.' But isn't everyone for that? That's what is always comes down to.

[Hype]

Yeah, it seems libertarians are essentially for 'good efficient government.' But isn't everyone for that? That's what is always comes down to.

Yes but they stipulate a notion of 'efficiency' and a notion of 'freedom' at the outset that preclude reasonable federal oversight. They ignore half of Isaiah Berlin's famous "Two Concepts of Liberty", and they also tend to assume that federal = less efficient than local, without recourse to actual data. It turns out (via Joe Heath) that certain things, like insurance (for house/car/life), are simply better done federally and/or single-payer, if you do the math and look at actual data. But Libertarians are committed to an ideology via Road to Serfdom (Hayek) and possibly Ayn Rand and Friedman and whatnot, that precludes them from admitting that the data doesn't support their claims.

[mockbee]

Yeah, it seems libertarians are essentially for 'good efficient government.' But isn't everyone for that? That's what is always comes down to.

Yes but they stipulate a notion of 'efficiency' and a notion of 'freedom' at the outset that preclude reasonable federal oversight. They ignore half of Isaiah Berlin's famous "Two Concepts of Liberty", and they also tend to assume that federal = less efficient than local, without recourse to actual data. It turns out (via Joe Heath) that certain things, like insurance (for house/car/life), are simply better done federally and/or single-payer, if you do the math and look at actual data. But Libertarians are committed to an ideology via Road to Serfdom (Hayek) and possibly Ayn Rand and Friedman and whatnot, that precludes them from admitting that the data doesn't support their claims.

exactly.

Look at health care. Needs to be single-payer absolutely. Forget a mandate and just take it out of taxes like Social Security, etc. I mean you are ALREADY PAYING FOR IT RIGHT NOW!!!! Emergency room visits, non-insured health costs alone must be in the $100 of billions, state plans, ambulances, etc, etc for uninsured people. But Libertarians would say lock the hospital and forget the poor and uninsured. But that is the reality of what is going on now. Daydreaming a new system that private companies would solve these problems is just ridiculous. There is no money to be had in a bunch of poor people's health needs. People are not a commodity.

[Hype]

Man, I really hope you're as drunk as I am... But you're totally right.

[mockbee]

It turns out (via Joe Heath) that certain things, like insurance (for house/car/life), are simply better done federally and/or single-payer, if you do the math and look at actual data.

Yeah, I thought you said 'Joe Health' here in siting a source, like Joe Public or something, then I read it again....

I haven't had anything to drink though. In fact I have been cutting down on sugar because I usually have a Hansen's soda with dinner but today I had water....

And also cutting back on sodium because I usually have ketchup on my burrito (that's exclusively bean and cheese burritos, not on those delicious wet California burritos) but today I had my burrito dry.

[Hype]

It turns out (via Joe Heath) that certain things, like insurance (for house/car/life), are simply better done federally and/or single-payer, if you do the math and look at actual data.

Yeah, I thought you said 'Joe Health' here in siting a source, like Joe Public or something, then I read it again....

I haven't had anything to drink though. In fact I have been cutting down on sugar because I usually have a Hansen's soda with dinner but today I had water....

And also cutting back on sodium because I usually have ketchup on my burrito (that's exclusively bean and cheese burritos, not on those delicious wet California burritos) but today I had my burrito dry.

Okay, well, cool. So completely sober Mockbee and completely drunk Adurentibus_Spina (aka Hypersonic) agree. You should look up Joe Heath, some of his books are great. I've never talked to him personally, but he's @ my undergrad alma mater.

[mockbee]

It turns out (via Joe Heath) that certain things, like insurance (for house/car/life), are simply better done federally and/or single-payer, if you do the math and look at actual data.

Yeah, I thought you said 'Joe Health' here in siting a source, like Joe Public or something, then I read it again....

I haven't had anything to drink though. In fact I have been cutting down on sugar because I usually have a Hansen's soda with dinner but today I had water....

And also cutting back on sodium because I usually have ketchup on my burrito (that's exclusively bean and cheese burritos, not on those delicious wet California burritos) but today I had my burrito dry.

Okay, well, cool. So completely sober Mockbee and completely drunk Adurentibus_Spina (aka Hypersonic) agree. You should look up Joe Heath, some of his books are great. I've never talked to him personally, but he's @ my undergrad alma mater.

Okay, so you're saying you do your best thinking when inebriated.....

[Hype]

Dude I fucking destroy philosophy while inebriated. I'm working on a paper on the stoics and moral responsibility right now and it's going swimmingly. Also, philosophy of perception and contemporary metaphysics. I'm 1.75 bottles in.

[Hokahey]

Let me add, somethings may be more efficiently done at the Federal level (insurance), but those aren't necessarily programs Libertarians accept government involvement in.

Let me also add, Libertarians aren't necessarily completely against federal programs.

They're for limiting the size and scope of government as much as possible, especially at the federal level.

And Ron Paul has done reasonably well. But look at him. And listen to him. Then look and listen to Romney and Obama. If Paul was younger and more charismatic I think he'd do far better.

I also think he's just too honest. He needs to be more manipulative of the average voter. Most people don't agree with locking up drug addicts, or pre-emptive war, but when Paul says "let's legalize heroin" and "let Iran have the bomb" it freaks people out.

People are also scared of losing their handouts and free stuff. Instead of saying "let's end the DOE" he should say "let's localize school programs so they're better optimized for individual areas."

Libertarianism is becoming more and more mainstream and if they can find a figurehead that looks like a politician and can explain their ideals to the average American without scaring them they'll be moving in the right direction.

[Hype]

You know, I've never been able to get a straight answer about this, but why is the following the case:

They're for limiting the size and scope of government as much as possible, especially at the federal level.

On what grounds is that the key ideological position for a political movement? Sticking to that in the face of evidence that doing so is stupid... seems to me to be really... stupid. And it isn't a good argument to say "But smaller = better." because that's called "begging the question" (appealing to your theory to justify ... your theory).

[Hokahey]

On what grounds is that the key ideological position for a political movement?

On the grounds of transferring more authority to the people? Of limiting the ability of the government to retsrict individual liberties?

Sticking to that in the face of evidence that doing so is stupid... seems to me to be really... stupid. And it isn't a good argument to say "But smaller = better." because that's called "begging the question" (appealing to your theory to justify ... your theory).

What evidence? That the federal government is better at running some prgrams that forcibly take your property and redistribute it than a local government or private company?

Well first, show me the data.

Second, the issue is forcibly taking my property more so than it is who is better at doing it.

People want to and have a right to attempt to maximize happiness in their lives. Every time the government forces people to do things they would prefer not to do, prevents them from doing things they would like to do, or taxes them for things they don’t want, it reduces their ability to maximize their happiness. That is fundamentally wrong.

[Hype]

On what grounds is that the key ideological position for a political movement?

On the grounds of transferring more authority to the people? Of limiting the ability of the government to retsrict individual liberties?

But those seem like re-phrases or obvious entailments of the original statement, not reasons to think that we should accept this view. I want to know why a political theory that considers these sorts of things to be the most important is the one we should accept, not for further reasons that are already inside the ideological sphere, but for reasons that anyone can accept more generally, like that reduced government size is good for reason X, or transferring more authority to the people is good for reason Y, and further, these things are more important than other political ideals for reason Z, and reason Z trumps other reasons to accept other political ideals as more important than these particular (and narrow) libertarian ones. I was trying to say that I really just don't understand this. Not even Hayek ever really makes the case for why we should care about these things over and above other political ideals. He does something similar to what you did above, which is to just shift to a related (or directly connected but slightly differently worded) ideal as if that is somehow less controversial. The problem with doing this is that anyone not already inside that ideological sphere can just respond by saying: sometimes governments should be bigger, and sometimes people should have less power.

Unless you can appeal to non-ideological reasons, we are at a permanent impasse, and the libertarian view remains ungrounded.

Sticking to that in the face of evidence that doing so is stupid... seems to me to be really... stupid. And it isn't a good argument to say "But smaller = better." because that's called "begging the question" (appealing to your theory to justify ... your theory).

What evidence? That the federal government is better at running some prgrams that forcibly take your property and redistribute it than a local government or private company?

Well first, show me the data.

Well, here I can just point to Joe Heath's work on efficiency: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Efficient_Society

Comparing health care provision in the United States and Canada (i.e., private versus public insurance schemes), Heath argues that while both systems have inherent problems, the greatest level of well-being with respect to health is to be found in welfare, not market-based, economies. Heath also argues that by maintaining physicians on a fee schedule, as opposed to letting the market establish the price of services, the Canadian health care system keeps the amount of gross domestic product spent on health care significantly lower than in the US.

The data is in the book.

Second, the issue is forcibly taking my property more so than it is who is better at doing it.

People want to and have a right to attempt to maximize happiness in their lives. Every time the government forces people to do things they would prefer not to do, prevents them from doing things they would like to do, or taxes them for things they don’t want, it reduces their ability to maximize their happiness. That is fundamentally wrong.

But this avoids the question and just reasserts the ideological position as if it's obvious. Why is *that* sort of issue more important than other political ideals? Why should this be central?

The quote you offer there helps a little bit, because it makes a moral claim, and asserts a claim about rights. You should read Ronald Dworkin on rights as trumps; I think Dworkin is right about this, but it turns out we have other rights than just that one, and the libertarian interpretation of how to fulfil this particular right causes fairly obvious problems for other rights, like the right not to be taken advantage of by large corporations from the outset -- the libertarian response to this, that these cases involve corporations operating non-ideally, because they are risking being sued, isn't a good response, because we're talking about a fundamental right, and people's lives, and even with consumer protections, it is economically sound to weigh risk against likelihood of being caught and against the payoff... and this is clearly not thinking about rights. Yet again, there's no answer to the question: why is this the most important feature for a political position? Why not human rights, or worker's rights (as in socialist or left-democratic ideals?).

I really do think you'd enjoy reading G.A. Cohen's book "Why Not Socialism?" ($12, here: http://www.amazon.com/Why-Not-Socialism ... 0691143617 )

[mockbee]

On what grounds is that the key ideological position for a political movement?

On the grounds of transferring more authority to the people? Of limiting the ability of the government to retsrict individual liberties?

So you don't believe in representative government??! A government by the people, for the people??? The government IS the people, at least that's how we should vote if we think it's otherwise. You don't believe that the government can work for the people? What is the use of a democracy then??! This always goes in the same direction, but hell, why not go there again. What makes a State better at making policy then the Federal Govt.? Sure, I bet some states would do quite well, but even you said insurance, etc is better at a Federal level. I would say financing should be an efficient responsibility of the Fed govt. and then distributed to state/local agencies on the grounds that certain benchmarks are met, but what are those benchmarks??! That should be the question and then there is question after question after that. Libertarians only get part way to step one (get rid of excessive govt. but NEVER address "What happens after that??!!" This isn't the wild frontier anymore.....






And who doesn't need health-care? Sure the govt. shouldn't mandate that people have cell-phones, but we can get by without having one....

[Hype]

Libertarian economic arguments presuppose ideal conditions of rationality on the part of the market. Above, I think I show why even if this were the case (and it certainly isn't, and arguably could never be), we shouldn't be libertarians.

On a conciliatory note, as I mentioned a few posts back, I often end up sharing views with libertarians on certain issues, in the end, it's just that the way we got to those views drastically differs. So I should say that even though I think we shouldn't be libertarians, that doesn't mean I think we shouldn't sometimes agree with libertarians on certain issues. So if these views appeal to you, it needn't be the case that you throw the baby out with the bathwater if you find my arguments convincing, and you also needn't be a socialist... you can always say "Well, the libertarians have a point about x, for these reasons... but we can get the same result a better way..."

[mockbee]

Here is a good article by David Brooks today in the NYTimes discussing why focusing on good government is just as important as ideological change. Hoka strikes me as the conservative version of the left-wing Starbucks dreamer. When young (not necessarily calling Hoka young ) you can daydream, but it always comes back to needing a government that works for you, not in 'eliminating essential government programs' We will always have Federal government involved in education, the environment, health, finance, defense, etc. Why not focus on making it a smart and productive involvement?

Sam Spade at Starbucks
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: April 12, 2012


If you attend a certain sort of conference, hang out at a certain sort of coffee shop or visit a certain sort of university, you’ve probably run into some of these wonderful young people who are doing good. Typically, they’ve spent a year studying abroad. They’ve traveled in the poorer regions of the world. Now they have devoted themselves to a purpose larger than self.

Often they are bursting with enthusiasm for some social entrepreneurship project: making a cheap water-purification system, starting a company that will empower Rwandan women by selling their crafts in boutiques around the world.

These people are refreshingly uncynical. Their hip service ethos is setting the moral tone for the age. Idealistic and uplifting, their worldview is spread by enlightened advertising campaigns, from Bennetton years ago to everything Apple has ever done.

It’s hard not to feel inspired by all these idealists, but their service religion does have some shortcomings. In the first place, many of these social entrepreneurs think they can evade politics. They have little faith in the political process and believe that real change happens on the ground beneath it.

That’s a delusion. You can cram all the nongovernmental organizations you want into a country, but if there is no rule of law and if the ruling class is predatory then your achievements won’t add up to much.

Furthermore, important issues always spark disagreement. Unless there is a healthy political process to resolve disputes, the ensuing hatred and conflict will destroy everything the altruists are trying to build.

There’s little social progress without political progress. Unfortunately, many of today’s young activists are really good at thinking locally and globally, but not as good at thinking nationally and regionally.

Second, the prevailing service religion underestimates the problem of disorder. Many of the activists talk as if the world can be healed if we could only insert more care, compassion and resources into it.

History is not kind to this assumption. Most poverty and suffering — whether in a country, a family or a person — flows from disorganization. A stable social order is an artificial accomplishment, the result of an accumulation of habits, hectoring, moral stricture and physical coercion. Once order is dissolved, it takes hard measures to restore it.

Yet one rarely hears social entrepreneurs talk about professional policing, honest courts or strict standards of behavior; it’s more uplifting to talk about microloans and sustainable agriculture.

In short, there’s only so much good you can do unless you are willing to confront corruption, venality and disorder head-on. So if I could, presumptuously, recommend a reading list to help these activists fill in the gaps in the prevailing service ethos, I’d start with the novels of Dashiell Hammett or Raymond Chandler, or at least the movies based on them.

The noir heroes like Sam Spade in “The Maltese Falcon” served as models for a generation of Americans, and they put the focus squarely on venality, corruption and disorder and how you should behave in the face of it.

A noir hero is a moral realist. He assumes that everybody is dappled with virtue and vice, especially himself. He makes no social-class distinction and only provisional moral distinctions between the private eyes like himself and the criminals he pursues. The assumption in a Hammett book is that the good guy has a spotty past, does spotty things and that the private eye and the criminal are two sides to the same personality.

He (or she — the women in these stories follow the same code) adopts a layered personality. He hardens himself on the outside in order to protect whatever is left of the finer self within.

He is reticent, allergic to self-righteousness and appears unfeeling, but he is motivated by a disillusioned sense of honor. The world often rewards the wrong things, but each job comes with obligations and even if everything is decaying you should still take pride in your work. Under the cynical mask, there is still a basic sense of good order, that crime should be punished and bad behavior shouldn’t go uncorrected. He knows he’s not going to be uplifted by his work; that to tackle the hard jobs he’ll have to risk coarsening himself, but he doggedly plows ahead.

This worldview had a huge influence as a generation confronted crime, corruption, fascism and communism. I’m not sure I can see today’s social entrepreneurs wearing fedoras and trench coats. But noir’s moral realism would be a nice supplement to today’s prevailing ethos. It would fold some hardheadedness in with today’s service mentality. It would focus attention on the core issues: order and rule of law. And it would be necessary. Contemporary Washington, not to mention parts of the developing world, may be less seedy than the cities in the noir stories, but they are equally laced with self-deception and self-dealing.

[mockbee]

So completely sober Mockbee and completely drunk Adurentibus_Spina (aka Hypersonic) agree.

Sorry, thought general knowledge, will oblige.

[Hype]

Yup.

[chaos]

Romney is no stellar choice either. It's astonishing how the Republicans have failed to come up with any sort of serious contenders the past two elections.

What is Romney saying here? My guess: "I am sick of this. I am a contender damn it."

[Jasper]

They're saying Romney and Obama are tied in the polls. I'm beginning to miss Santorum. :cona:

People need to get over Obama's meh-ness and stop thinking that self-immolation is the answer. We gotta keep Obama in there and pass it off to Hillary after that.

[Artemis]

Hilary is cool these days. I saw some pics of her drinking beer from the bottle and shakin her booty in Colombia.