Reactions to AC

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So why not support AC and libertarianism to the extent that they have the same goals as you instead of fighting them? (I don't really see many ACers fighting libertarians here)

[/ QUOTE ]
because smaller != none, and arguing for none puts you so far onto the fringe that it hurts the chances of getting smaller.


edit: Re libertarianism...I am probably closer to a libertarian than any other box you might throw me in, unfortuantely I also am practical, and a libertarian has no chance to win in my lifetime. Conservative is the fallback position, and were it not for some misguided spending like medicare prescription plans, GWB has done quite well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Copernicus-

You're one of the more mature, sensible persons on this overly-quixotic forum, but I don't see the logic behind this. I agree that supporting a libertarian candidate is throwing your vote away (since it doesn't have a chance in hell of doing anything), but at the same time, isn't voting for a Republican doing the same thing? What do you think the odds are of your support mattering?

I'm also a bit curious as to how you see GWB as being a decent fallback. I don't see how someone could reason that the amount of spending he has done makes him a fallback to a Libertarian.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't really see many ACers fighting libertarians here

[/ QUOTE ]

HUH??????????????????????????????????

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is simply that to the extent that people share the same goals they can accoplish more cooperatively than by infighting. He said he was for smaller govt so why not work cooperatively toward that end until it gets to a smallness of his liking.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it was pretty clear even without the edit i made while you were replying.

Working with conservatives has a far better chance of a 25% reduction in my lifetime than working with libertarians which have 0 chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you say 'conservative' what do you mean? Are you talking about the republican party or something else?

I see in your edit you appear to be talking about the republican party. I used to belong to that party and sat as a state delegate. I was a member of that party in the 1980's and they have seemed to grow in size and spending quite a bit since that time. I really don't want to derail this thread but I would be interested in an OP from you about how the republican party is invested in reducing the size of government (in most area's did you say?) or working towards those ends.



[/ QUOTE ]

I didnt say it is. I said it has a far better chance of getting (back) there than libertarians who will never have sigificant influence in my lifetime, much less actually win an election.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it was pretty clear even without the edit i made while you were replying.

Working with conservatives has a far better chance of a 25% reduction in my lifetime than working with libertarians which have 0 chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you say 'conservative' what do you mean? Are you talking about the republican party or something else?

I see in your edit you appear to be talking about the republican party. I used to belong to that party and sat as a state delegate. I was a member of that party in the 1980's and they have seemed to grow in size and spending quite a bit since that time. I really don't want to derail this thread but I would be interested in an OP from you about how the republican party is invested in reducing the size of government (in most area's did you say?) or working towards those ends.



[/ QUOTE ]

I didnt say it is. I said it has a far better chance of getting (back) there than libertarians who will never have sigificant influence in my lifetime, much less actually win an election.

[/ QUOTE ]

So then it has no chance of doing so, has not even been trying to do so, and you say you want smaller government but support a party that wants, and works to achieve, bigger government?

If it is true that you desire smaller government I don't understand the aparent contradiction. There must be things that you want even more than you want smaller government that you get from belonging to the republican party, no? I do not understand how someone could have a priority of smaller government and be a republican, especially in todays day and age.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it was pretty clear even without the edit i made while you were replying.

Working with conservatives has a far better chance of a 25% reduction in my lifetime than working with libertarians which have 0 chance.

[/ QUOTE ]
After what we've went through the last six years I don't see how someone could say that with a straight face.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that is fairly mind-blowing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is that? Does 6 years make it permanent? 8 years of Reagan conservatism wasnt permanent, so what makes you think progress cant be made in the other direction?

What were the contributors to discretionary spending in the last 6 years. Medicare prescription drugs is a big and bad one. However, homeland security, rebuilding the military from the Clinton cutbacks, and the increase beyond where we should have been to finance the war were necessary. What else was there that was significant? (Thats a question, not a claim that there were none).

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So why not support AC and libertarianism to the extent that they have the same goals as you instead of fighting them? (I don't really see many ACers fighting libertarians here)

[/ QUOTE ]
because smaller != none, and arguing for none puts you so far onto the fringe that it hurts the chances of getting smaller.


edit: Re libertarianism...I am probably closer to a libertarian than any other box you might throw me in, unfortuantely I also am practical, and a libertarian has no chance to win in my lifetime. Conservative is the fallback position, and were it not for some misguided spending like medicare prescription plans, GWB has done quite well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Copernicus-

You're one of the more mature, sensible persons on this overly-quixotic forum, but I don't see the logic behind this. I agree that supporting a libertarian candidate is throwing your vote away (since it doesn't have a chance in hell of doing anything), but at the same time, isn't voting for a Republican doing the same thing? What do you think the odds are of your support mattering?

I'm also a bit curious as to how you see GWB as being a decent fallback. I don't see how someone could reason that the amount of spending he has done makes him a fallback to a Libertarian.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are the odds my support mattering? Support is incremental, just as voting is. Any one vote has a small chance of mattering, but if a large number of people believe that and dont vote, the cumulative effect may very well matter. I dont believe its productive to throw your hat in with the "I dont matter" crowd.

As far as GWB, I ask in a response that should be right above this or close, what discretionary spending other than medicare prescription drugs was particularly offensive? Offhand I dont remember any one standing out.

But obviously spending isnt where he has been a decent fallback, its taxes and the economy overall. Given the challenges of the last 6 years the economy is in extraordinarily good shape, and even if you discount a Presidents role in that, like a coach, a good one doesnt get in the way of a good team, but a bad one can screw up the best team.

With the spotlight on them because of the recent election, their rhetoric during the campaign and the high profile of the Iraq bills the Dems still cant restrain themselves from inexcusable and embarassing add ons, including some highly questionable ethical issues coming out of my soon to be home state of California. There is no hope whatsoever of restraining a Democratic adminstration that also holds a majority in Congress, and tax increases (including expiration of the Bush tax cuts) will throw us into a recession faster than you can say "Kennedy Tax cuts".

[bkholdem]

Like I said Copernicus, I look forward to your OP about how the republican party is for making the government smaller. How they are working toward that end.

[jogger08152]

My initial reaction to AC was scepticism tinged with hope - the possibilities get the blood flowing, but the intuitive objections are daunting.

Having kicked the idea around for a while, I find my scepticism increased, largely because of the sound syllogisms I'm not reading in specific cases that seem especially important to me.

In some ways I'm reminded of the "Underpants Gnomes" episode of South Park:

1. Remove intellectual property protection.
2. ?
3. Profit!

I haven't been able to figure out #2 yet, and nobody else has given a sound answer either. Of course this doesn't mean it can't be done, but...

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
edit: Re libertarianism...I am probably closer to a libertarian than any other box you might throw me in, unfortuantely I also am practical,

[/ QUOTE ]

Is the "practical" part where the "pro-torture" comes in? How close do you think that really puts you to libertarians rather than libocons?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't been able to figure out #2 yet, and nobody else has given a sound answer either. Of course this doesn't mean it can't be done, but...

[/ QUOTE ]

Making lots of money isn't my primary motivation. Sorry. If it were, I'd probably advocate something like the Federal Reserve, with me at the helm, of course.