Reality, 2: Libertarianism, 0

[riqster]

In response to some of the comments made by DU's Libertarian Caucus here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024616586 ,and Libertarians everywhere, I humbly submit today's post.

http://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/2014/03/07/reality-2-libertarianism-0/

"In reality, Libertarianism NEVER works, because it is an overly simplistic theology, based on the erroneous assumption that we all have completely free choices at all times, free of any constraints. The ideas sometimes sound reasonable, but always fall apart when subjected to even the most cursory of examinations. Two examples today, since we haven’t time to write about them all:

Number A: cell phone usage on airplanes, currently not allowed. The policy is under review and in a public comments period (go here to weigh in with your opinion). A discussion erupted yesterday between those who are for and against, because, hey, Americans argue. The pro-loud-cellphone-user-everywhere Libertarians said, in brief, “tough s***, don’t fly. My right to dominate the space around me by bellowing into my Shoephone outweighs your right to sleep, concentrate, work, etc. ” When reasonable, rational adults attempted to point out that not everyone can just choose not to fly, the Libertarians kept saying “you chose this job, this family, this location to live, so AMFYOYO. Make different choices. Government should not be allowed to control my behavior.”

Letter 2: Libertarians think that men should not have to pay child support , since men have “no right to make reproductive choices”. This bit of twaddle is an offshoot of the “men’s rights movement", which Libertarians love. They are demanding the ability to choose to default on their obligations because they assume that the women they impregnate have the free choice to raise or not raise the baby, get an abortion or not, etcetera. The idea that these are easy choices available to every woman, everywhere, at all times is obvious nitwittery, of course, but Libertarians hold onto it nonetheless. (They also ignore the fact that men DO have the right to make choices: we can wear condoms, get our tubes tied, or just not f*** with someone who can get pregnant.)

These are but two examples of the obvious bankruptcy of Libertarian theology (you can claim it’s not a religion, but is sure as Hell acts like one). There are many others, like certain Bitcoin adherents, regulatory opposition, preeves who want to be able to marry their daughters and so on. Their argument is always “freedom” and is predicated on the idea that we all have unlimited freedom of choice because we have no limitations placed upon us by external factors. That assumption is, of course, composed of very high-grade fertilizer (anyone here ever take Econ 101? Big takeaway: “resources are scarce”) and like all concentrated fertilizer, it blows up when subjected to pressure.

Real life for real people is fraught with resource scarcity and limited choices. That is why businesses exist, governments exist, houses and clothing exist, medicine exists, and so on. Hell, it’s why cellphones exist, ferchrissakes. We do not live in an ideal world, and our solutions to the imperfections that surround us are likewise imperfect and full of restrictions. That, Gentle Reader, is what we in the Reality-Based Community call “Life”. Real Life.

Libertarians can try all they want to make reality fit into their ideology, but they will fail; just like the Flat-Earthers, Birthers, Truthers, and Science Deniers. Reality will always win in the end, no matter how hard you fight against it."

Source info at the link.

[Rex]

1. Lemme just scoot in here and find a seat.

[riqster]

2. Yep, I put on my Asbestos Underoos before I posted it.

You might also grab some marshmallows to toast over the flames that are highly likely to occur.

[Rex]

3. Thanks for the warning let me don my suit.

Don?

"holyshitte...hot hot hot hot..."

[riqster]

7. What the well-dressed Internet user will wear.

Because you never know when you'll encounter: [URL=http://www.sherv.net/][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[HappyMe]

4. Good idea.

I'm hoping my popcorn doesn't get set on fire before I can finish it.

I have my kitchen fire extinguisher at the ready, if you need it.

[William Seger]

5. Libertarian philosophy is based on an oxymoron

"Natural rights."

[riqster]

6. Nice way of putting it. Thanks!

[MurrayDelph]

9. I've always said it's based a two falsehoods:

An artificially high view of their own self-worth, combined with
an artificially low view of everyone else's'

[William Seger]

14. Every Libertarian i've known

... apparently believed that they would dine like kings in the dog-eat-dog world they champion, but every one I've known would most likely be on the breakfast menu.

[riqster]

21. True. Because they are fixated on what "should" be,

And as we all know, it is what actually IS that'll kill ya.

[wryter2000]

48. You nailed it

We had a particularly loud-mouthed libertarian on a company listserve once. You just described him to a T.

[MicaelS]

8. Senator Elizabeth Warren is much more eloquent about Libertarianism.

“There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there - good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory... Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea - God bless! Keep a hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: 'We are not a country of anarchists'

You can do your best to make government look like it doesn’t work when you stop it from working. You can do your best to make government look paralyzed when you paralyze it. You can do your best to make government look incompetent through your incompetence and ineffective through your ineffectiveness. But sooner or later, the government will re-open because this is a democracy and this democracy has already rejected your views. We have already chosen to do these things together. We all know that we are stronger when we come together.

[riqster]

31. She is almost always more eloquent than am I.

Bless her.

[zeemike]

44. She is fucking awesome.

[Rider3]

45. Great post!

I love Ms. Warren!

[FSogol]

10. Pretty crappy to call me a libertarian, just because I am not annoyed by other people talking.

If someone is disruptive on a plane, the airline has procedures to deal with it. The poster was talking about normal human speech. Why the fuck to we need government rules to regulate when people talk? Isn't it quiet in libraries without government regulations?

Everyone who disagrees with you isn't a libertarian.

[riqster]

11. Actually, I was referring to another poster.

If someone talks like a libertarian, and that speech represents the available data on said person, they can expect to be called out. In this case, I think it was a fair conclusion to draw based on the posts to which I was responding.

And everyone who disagrees with me is not a libertarian. All KINDS of different people disagree with me.

[FSogol]

15. When then, apology accepted.

Getting called a libertarian is a "let's step outside moment.

[riqster]

17. Quite understandable. No offense intended.

[FSogol]

20. Next round is on me.

[riqster]

23. This could end up like;

[cpwm17]

12. The thing is, YOU may not be bothered by the cell phone conversation

but many people are. Basic human decency dictates that people shouldn't engage in activities that annoy their neighbors. That's selfishness.

Not everybody is annoyed by loud music from their neighbors, but I very much am annoyed. My stress level maxes out. All decent neighbors do not play loud music. That would be evil.

[FSogol]

18. So, because someone plays their music loud, we should ban all music?

To repeat: The OP was talking about banning human speech on a phone on a plane. He was not making a distinction for disruptive human speech.

[riqster]

26. A minor quibble:

What I said was, in part, " The pro-loud-cellphone-user-everywhere Libertarians said, in brief, “tough s***, don’t fly. My right to dominate the space around me by bellowing into my Shoephone outweighs your right to sleep, concentrate, work, etc." So I did address disruptive speech, albeit not exclusively.

I'd be OK with cellphones being allowed, IF the volume and such could be effectively regulated. Rather like planes already do with "loud or disruptive" passengers. The problem is, on an airplane, it isn't always possible to quickly and effectively enforce such a policy.

Unless we had a "here is a parachute, Jack, out the hatch with you now" law, which sounds appealing in the abstract but would, alas, be breaking quite a few other laws and constitutional protections.

[FSogol]

32. The airlines already police disruptions on their planes. They will continue to do so. n/t

[riqster]

34. To the extent possible, yes.

Any new rule will have to give them the ability to continue to do so.

[FSogol]

35. I'm sure the changed regulation (not rule) will not include the phrase

"noisy, disruptive cell phone speech is now allowed! And there is nothing anyone can do about it1!!"

Again: Normal speech allowed. Noisy disruptive speech still banned.

Anyone have a dead horse smiley?

[riqster]

37. In theory, you are right.

Last edited Fri Mar 7, 2014, 02:02 PM - Edit history (1)

In my experience, though, if it does not say "you can't", there will be people who will say "I can". Sad but true.

On edit: ""

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

27. Ever notice how the people who talk loudly and self-importantly on cell phones almost always

do all of the talking. I always imagine the person on the other end of the call busy checking email and paying bills while going, "uh huh," every now and then to feign interest.

[riqster]

29. Remember "Fight Club"

And the bit where Norton quietly puts the phone down and walks away from the monologuing caller?

Like that, yup.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

49. Ha! Exactly. In fact, my husband has a friend he's known since grade school who

cannot get enough of his own voice. My husband does, often, put the phone down, go away for 20 minutes, come back and pick up the phone, and the guy is still talking!

Kinda funny, but sad really. The poor guy has serious issues. Thinks he's been closely watched for the past 30 years or so, because aliens who want to contact earth know that he's the most intelligent human on the planet. So the aliens are watching him gearing up for the big pow wow, and the powers that be need to keep tabs on him so they'll know what he tells the aliens. He also believes he can affect the outcome of sporting events he watches on TV with his mind, natch.

His newest super power is that he can contact women by staring at their photos on a dating website and telepathically make plans to meet somewhere for lunch. He has already gone up to one woman in a public space who he swears had agreed, over the psychic line of course, to meet him, but she pretended not to know him because her mother had shown up and the meet-up had to be kept a secret from her.

Yeah, this'll end well. He usually goes for years doing relatively well, working as a self-employed auto mechanic and truck driver. But every ten years or so, he ends up strapped to a gurney in a psych ward.

So, I have sympathy for the guy. But still, if I had to sit next to him on a flight, I'm pretty sure I'd end up strangling him.

[Progressive dog]

13. Public Libraries mostly do have regulations on

making noise and the civil servants running the library can ask you to leave. It is damn hard to ask you to leave an airplane after it"s off the ground.

[FSogol]

16. No, libraries have rules, not regulations.

There is a difference.

[Progressive dog]

19. No there isn't and they can kick you out,

and even call in the law to enforce it.

[FSogol]

22. There is no government regulation on speech in libraries.

[riqster]

24. Federal regulation, no.

Local regulation, yes, specific to the environment and generally agreed upon by the users of the facility in question.

Like the current in-flight talking on cell-phones ban. A context-specific regulation. And based partly on public comment, that ban may be eliminated, upheld, or modified.

[FSogol]

30. I think DU needs a refresher course on the difference between rules and regulations.

Plus, isn't the current cell-phone ban based on the safety, eg. cell phone communications disrupting flight equipment, rather than the government adding limits to human communications? Since cell phones are proven to have no impact on the equipment, why should the government get involved over whether speech in a public place annoys certain people? Will they call it the "I don't want to be bothered" regulation?

[riqster]

33. Point about the origin of the rule.

The agency is seeking to avoid unintended consequences, should the current rule be eliminated.

[Progressive dog]

36. Ask your librarian who pays

for the library. Most librarians are public (government) employees.

[Warren DeMontague]

25. And yet, pot legalization and LGBT marriage equality are "libertarian" ideas, too.

Sorry rig, but to call this here a poorly constructed logical argument is an understatement.

I can grasp arguments against cell phone use- particularly uncontrolled, loud, or disruptive- on airplane flights (although, honestly, IMHO flying has already been made so miserable that one or 10 jackholes yammering to their broker or their bff aren't really going to make that much of a difference, over here)

... however, trying to make the point that "freedom to use cell phones on airplanes is a doody-headed libertarian argument because libertarians are doody heads because doody libertarian doody that's why" is itself kind of, um, a doody-headed argument.

[riqster]

28. I love the last paragraph

But disagree with its application to my argument.

My thesis could better be summarized as: "people do not always have complete freedom to exercise choices, so any ideology that assumes such freedom is, (to use your marvelous phrase) doody-headed."

[Borchkins]

38. K&R

B

[nxylas]

39. AMFYOYO?

I'm usually pretty good at figuring out acronyms, but I gotta admit, that one has me stumped.

[riqster]

41. The sanitized version is,

"Adios, My Friend, You're On Your Own".

The real version replaces the "M" and " F"words with another word that's NSFW.

[alarimer]

40. The cell phone debate comes down to people wanting to do whatever the hell they like all the time

with no restrictions on their behavior, regardless of the impact it has on anyone else.

Americans in particular (or maybe this is a worldwide phenomenon) have become such unmitigated assholes, it's almost beyond believe. "I can talk as loud as I want to, talk about the most intimate aspects of my life and I don't care who knows or who I offend" is the gist of the cell phone debate.

But it carries over into plenty of other areas as well. And I think this is the foundation of libertarianism: a fundamental selfishness that seems to transcend everything else. This is the fallout from the basic lack of community. Everyone fixated on the screen in front of their noses, kids not being allowed outside on their own, walls around backyards, etc. No sidewalks ANYWHERE.

And a big part of it is down to conservative fear-mongering about the "other", whoever that might be.

[riqster]

42. +1

[HappyMe]

46. Well said.

[gollygee]

51. +1

[Bonx]

43. I guess it's fun to read junk like this if it's what you want to hear

Not really any substance though.

[Rozlee]

47. Contrary to the article, many libertarians I've argued with lately have been against women

having abortions. They were staunchly in favor of personal liberty for women until Ron Paul got all lovey-dovey with the religious right and started getting militant against it. Too many libertarians are Paul cultists and are now as much against abortion as any religious nut case. It's hard to argue with them because a majority of them aren't that religious and you can't confuse them with scripture that depicts biblical disregard for pregnant women. One of them was smugly telling me that a 'human' has more rights than a vagina. Spoiler: he doesn't have a vagina. They're lemmings. If Ron Paul told them refried shit with whipped cream was a delicacy, they'd be chowing it down.

[riqster]

50. If you go to the Wordpress blog link in the OP,

Last edited Fri Mar 7, 2014, 04:55 PM - Edit history (1)

You'll find a link to a Libertarian site that is so misogynistic, it'll exceed what what you just reported.

[Rozlee]

52. Yark!

If I believed in reincarnation, I'd think my karma was polluted for the next fifty lives. Those guys make me want to take a bleach bath just reading their posts.

[riqster]

53. Here is the worst part:

I saw it on the FB feed of a friend's wife.

Yes. A woman was supporting it.

[Rozlee]

54. Not to worry. They are few and far between.

Demographically, they're a party of white males. Libertarians alienate women and minorities worse than Republicans. Their biggest attraction to youth was their stance on legalizing pot and that's an issue that many states are resolving on their own. Today's youth wants more government intervention, especially on issues like addressing student debt. Today's Libertarians are a fringe element that has a cult figure in Ron Paul, who won't be around forever. His son, Rand Paul, doesn't have his dad's star power. They're just a club for angry patriarchal males.