http://www.counterpunch.org/davis04282011.html
Show it to all of your leftist friends.
I really don’t see where he gets off calling Reason and Cato “corporate libertarian”, or that Ron Paul is a corporatist. I’m not even sure what that first one is supposed to mean…but if it’s just a synonym for the second, I’m wondering how this guy really leans.
Why would I have “leftist” friends?
change their minds from an inside out appraoch
Good article. Though it is probably futile to show to most leftists of any stripe, much less progressives. “Progressivism” is the main relevant language and custom that dictates people’s actions and how they relate to the world. Only a negligible amount of people who are at all established in that group would switch their mindset or perspective, it would be crazy to think otherwise.
These words and things don’t matter all that much in any group. It isn’t what people “actually mean” when they talk of such things. It is probably best to stop treating such words in such a way.
Why would I have “leftist” friends?
Why would you enter this thread discussion if you didn’t or never would?
To make a smartass comment, of course.
But I’m not sure what you’re saying about not showing it to leftists. You think everyone should just give up trying to persuade them? I found this to be a fabulous refutation of that notion.
I did.
Got this response: “Ron Paul hasn’t ordered any drones…yet. if he one, we all know he’d do the same as all the previous presidents. It is easy to criticize, but harder when you are in the office and have different info coming in that you can’t exactly tell the public. Plus, this article seemed like it wanted to just attack liberals as elitists.”
Not really sure “progressive” is the word, but good article.
But I’m not sure what you’re saying about not showing it to leftists. You think everyone should just give up trying to persuade them? I found this to be a fabulous refutation of that notion.
lol, I almost brought that article up. For the record, I think the spectrum in politics, as all things is way more kalediscopic than I am leading on. I am just lazy and want to keep things as general as possible right now.
But to try to make my point as quickly as possible, it is probably in a libertarian’s best interest to try and incorporate/ subvert their ideas to progressives and enter into their language schematics and social signals, rather than butt heads straight on - as that is the language of relevant society. And try to force each side to gut and cut the useless stuff out in each, which is done anyway. Fortunatley, I think these two political positions are more or less two sides of the same coin, and are the most structured political positions in history for cutting and gutting uselessness and nonsense when faced with uselessness and nonsense.
For progies and libertarians, It is simply a matter of recognizing that fact. It is also a libertarian’s responsibility to realize the burden is on him to demonstrate anything and everything, and it ought to be his goal to have his ideas assimilated into the mainstream fabric of society rather than have society assimilate to libertarianism (this is insanity).
That is why I am saying that I doubt the effectivness of arguing head up with “certain stripes” of progressives. I don’t think most of us, as human beings are built for that.
That is deceptively clever…but I don’t really see a difference. How do ideas assimilate into the mainstream fabric of society without the society assimilating the ideas?
That is deceptively clever…but I don’t really see a difference. How do ideas assimilate into the mainstream fabric of society without the society assimilating the ideas?
It’s method. The idea remains the same. If a French farmer immigrated to England and was arguing with English farmers in his native French language about how to improve the efficiency of farming, the Frenchmen may very well be more correct than the Englishmen, but his arguments are useless if he isn’t speaking English. And his method is absurd if he expects the community to conform to his language. The point isn’t to name the glass half full or empty, it is just to focus on where the water mark is.
A liberterian has to realize he simply won’t be taken seriously if he thinks that all positions and arguments are equal in the practicle application of thought or spreading ideas. It is all about the homeostatic mechinisms of how people act, calculate, and speak in real life. A libertarian is in the wrong and has the burden of proof on him due to sheer power and numbers within the culture surrounding him. Which makes said culture “correct”.
As I said before I think libertarians have more in common with the left that actually matters. The reason why the loopy leftists are more relevant, heard, and in more agreement with the progressives than libertarians may because the languages of the progies and other leftist groups are more related and evolved together for what ever reason.
I think that’s an unfair analogy, but I see your point. I also never said that one method of spreading ideas was just as good as another. I do however think there is value in calling out bullshit notions as bullshit notions, from time to time. It may not convert those being admonished, but it may be the kick-in-the-pants-through-conviction that others need. That has actually helped me come around to accepting several ideas.
Counterpunchers keep talking about a Libertarian-Progressive Alliance and about the hopes of bridge building.
They are dreaming. Bridges have not been built between the dozens of sects of even anti-war free marketers, and they expect to build bridges across this chasm?
And it was Counterpunch’s own editor himself who rightly said, “Libertarians have no sense of proportion, scale, or priority. Why don’t they discuss an Act from 1669, while they are at it?” He was talking about libertarians often discussing several decades old legislations and the problems they bring. I saw that as a compliment, however. People on Mises.Org don’t discuss immediate political issues. They’d rather discuss history, philosophy, theoretical economics,.etc, and ignore all the matters of the current day and time.
And yet the same editor still asks for bridge building as well, even after he said that they don’t have any connection to immediate issues.
Go figure. In the end, bridge building or reconcilation is a sign that one is concerned more about the personalities than issues. For those who do worry about immediate political issues, they can do without alliances and focus on the problems and not the people who think about them.
For these progressives who want to reach out to libertarians, they should know that not many on this side seem interested at all. It’s a futile effort.
I’m sorry, what? Have you even looked at the dailies or the blog?
- Charting the Course to $7 Gas
- Atlas Shrugged : Sanitized and On the Fly (about the new movie)
- Uncle Sam: Busted
- The Balanced-Budget Question
- America’s Will to War: The Turning Point
- The Tyranny of Government Courts and Prisons
- How to Eliminate Social Security and Medicare
- The Freedom to Cross a Border
Those are just some of the full articles featured on the front page in just the last couple weeks. Could you please tell me what the hell you’re talking about? Exactly what “matters of the current day and time” are people on Mises.org ignoring? They should be pretty easy for you to name, since of course you said they are ignoring all of them. So please…tell us what are the matters of the current day and time that make war, infringment of civil liberties, fraud, theft, and impoverishment of the country so miniscule as to not even be a matter.
Relax, relax, relax.
It was not criticism, first of all.
And it was also a generalisation.
But to first take your examples. Eliminating Social Security and Medicare? This is not discussing any issue in terms of the present. Social Security and Medicare will not get eliminated in the next five years, if at all. That’s good, because Mises.org takes the long view here. On the other hand, you have Reason,.etc discussing middle-of-the-road solutions that are being proposed by Republican Congressman right now, because that is the most they can do. Secondly, as for the Freedom to Cross the Border, it also concerns something unlikely to be eliminated soon - immigration restrictions.
Again, for balanced budgets, they have been rare in US history. Who expects a balanced budget to come in place now? I do not say it is wrong to want a balanced budget. But one hoping for a balanced budget is divorcing himself or herself from modern affairs, and moving towards a more contemplative stance. Checking the actual article itself, I see that Rothbard discusses mainly the fact that a balanced budget will not change the reality of the Federal Reserve, so he takes an even longer view towards ending the Fed, which is a bigger milestone than balancing the budget. This has nothing to do with the current mainstream discussion.
So was I wrong? I do admire the fact that libertarians are divorced from ongoing politics and ask such hard questions, but you must understand that to really discuss issues of the current place and time, you have to really come down to the lowest common denominator, as Paul Ryan and others have.
I think libertarians have more in common with the left that actually matters.
So you’re saying you need to be totally ignorant of history and economics before you can be successful in politics?
Fair point.
Oh I get it. So unless the ultimate goal of something is attainable in the next 5 years, it shouldn’t be discussed…it’s not “current” enough. Forget the fact that the problems of these old programs are larger than ever and finally coming to a head. Forget the fact that “you have to start somewhere” and “every journey of 1000 miles starts with a single step.” No, that’s just unenlightened, amateur hogwash…mental masturbation of pipe dreams that are fun to talk about in econ geek forums and write about in obscure libertarian outlets that only other libertarians read, but completely unrealistic and no where near attainable. No, our time is better spent on being more realistic. Everything discussed should be attainable within the next election cycle, or not discussed at all.
I’m really not sure what you’re advocating. You don’t believe in talking about things in terms of the long term goal, but you seem to belittle Reason for discussing the non-solution band-aids that are actually discussed in Congress. ($60 Billion out of a budget of $3,700 Billion, where the deficit is $1,600 Billion.) Apparently it’s a bad move to talk about the current problems and where they come from, and what actually needs to be done now to correct them, but it’s also a bad move to talk about what the politicians are actually talking about point out how pointless it is?
What the hell are we supposed to be doing, according to you?
I am not asking anybody to do anything.
So that’s that?