2008 Presidential Election - Obama v McCain (6 Viewers)

[jb_nc]

Except for the stringent testing processes on drugs.

smoke weed brosef

 

[jb_nc]

does anyone who actually roles in economic circles take liberatarian economists seriously

answer: no.

 

[Slidey]

I guess another of my main qualms with libertarians is their knee-jerk assumption that anything remotely socialist is anti-libertarian.

On what basis? If a socialist model produces results most in line libertarianism, in the real world, compared to a purely libertarian model, is it not then the socialist model that you should be promoting? Or are you willing to let people starve, suffer, and die just to maintain your sense of intellectual 'idealism'?

 

[jb_nc]

high times is probably more of a respected publication than cato/von mises institute

 

[Slidey]

Interesting. So you're using Cuba and the Soviet Union, communist entities, as examples as to why mixed market welfare states like Australia and most of the Western world are "not in line with libertarianism"?

What you're trying to imply is that welfare states like those of the Western world remove choice? They remove choice by empowering the poor with better health and education? They remove choice by ensuring every single citizen has a basic level of rights that can't be removed? They remove choice by increasing human development and life satisfaction? They remove choice by ensuring everybody has a roof to sleep under? They remove choice by upskilling those of low socio-economic status so they might have more life opportunities?

Are you saying welfare states remove basic human rights or luxury human rights or both? Because if you are, then you're obviously implying with respect to libertarianism. How exactly does libertarianism empower basic human rights by stripping away the safety nets of roughly 50% of the population and widening the income gap? And thus of intensifying the education problems of low socio-economic groups? Is it 'creating choice' to prevent people access to education? To healthcare? The poor didn't pay for healthcare, so why should they get it? 'I have a right for my taxpayer dollars not to be wasted on others.'

Can't you see that libertarianism is as extreme as communism? You're claiming that "the creation of choice" (and referencing luxury rights) is more important than upholding basic human life and dignity (social welfare), yet these things: access to education, being healthy, guaranteed access to safety and food; they create more choice than libertarianism ever possibly could by removing them. Don't you agree?

Are you perhaps arguing that social welfare leads to less free markets? Because the markets of the world's welfare states rank alongside America in terms of economic freedom (Australia is equal with America).

 

[withoutaface]

I can't remember the exact quote (googling isn't helping, and I'm not going to read through his entire bibliography to find it), but at one point Rothbard stated that he advocated anarchism not because it gave the best results, but because it was the just thing to do, and that the fact that it gives the best results (according to him) is just a happy coincidence.

This illustrates the flaw with almost all ideology, in my opinion. Ideologues start with a conclusion and work backwards to a premise which looks acceptable. No one would consider a scientific experiment conducted this way as evidence of anything, nor should we take Rothbard's word that full scale anarchism is the solution to the world's problems (because he's so in love with the concept that he's just rationalising that it has to work). He'd have advocated anarchism even if it led to a hundred-fold increase in the number of murders and widespread famine, because that's what is 'just'.

 

[Slidey]

Good point, Waf.

And I detest the 'charity' argument libertarians use.

Isn't relying on the charity of others akin to forced distribution of wealth? What if people don't want to be charitable? It's their right not to be, is it not? What happens when charity isn't enough to cover everybody? Do you leave those who can't support themselves to starve?

Charity might make rich people feel good about themselves in a democratic mixed market economy, but in a purely libertarian system, you're relying solely on the good will of others; hoping that they'll be charitable. If they're not now, why would they be then? And if they all are then, what's the point of removing the welfare system? It's a far more efficient and effective way to distribute wealth to such an end. Perhaps it's simply 'nice' to feel like the distribution is in your hands? Like you could stop if you really wanted to? Illusion of 'choice'. And let's not get into the intense class system it's modelled on or anything.

Ah, libertarianism. The poor get poorer while the rich get richer.

 

[chicky_pie]

John McCain admits he doesn't know how to use a computer (VIDEO)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/11/mccain-admits-he-doesnt-k_n_106478.html



:rofl:

 

[Iron]

Militant Islamic Indonesia is on the march in our region.
Only McCain will be willing to save Australia.
Only complete faith in him will save the lives of you and your family.
John McPain
Obey me

 

[KFunk]

Also, I disagree with the fact that his changes will only have minimal effects on the US economy, particularly in regards to universal healthcare, which is a massively expensive government program which basically grows exponentially in cost.

I thought we had this argument before? Echoing Slidey, America's healthcare system is the most expensive in the world (per capita) and yet it produces below par health outcomes. Many cheaper, more socialised alternatives do far better for less money. A potential hitch to consider is the issue of pharmaceuticals --> it is a lot easier for countries to bargain with drug companies to get lower prices (as Aus attempts to do) while these companies still have access to an extremely profitable US market. I wouldn't even hazard to predict what will occur if the face of the US drug market changes completely.

Something for you to consider as a libertarian is that the level of economic equality strongly effects the health of a population (also note that this is not a contentious claim, given the amount of research on the topic). This graph is a nice illustration of this (take note, of course, that the death rate scale does not start at zero):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Inequality_and_mortality_in_metro_US.jpg

I don't know how you can justify universal healthcare as libertarian?

You could note that health (broadly construed) is a pre-condition of freedom. Clearly the dead individual makes no choices, while untreated individuals suffering from, say, myasthenia gravis or a psychotic episode are similarly inhibited.

A lot of philosophers and political theorists argue freedom is happiness. Where I draw the line on freedom is where it infringes upon the life, liberty or property of others i.e. you shouldn't knowingly do something that will have that affect (murder, rape, assault, theft, etc.). Also, to me, if a citizen has to abide by that, then so too does the state, if one exists at all.

And what if in exercising an economic freedom (to do what you will with material wealth without government intervention) you (knowingly!) generate ill health and suffering in some of the population?

 

[Slidey]

Is it just me or did somebody spam NCAP on a Republican board?

Because overnight Obama lost his 3 to 1 lead, and the thread on Israel vs Palestine jumped from 1 to 1 ratio to Israel at 3 to 1.

It's kind of odd is all.

 

[Iron]

Heard today that listening to Obama is like watching someone mastorbate

It's science

 

[Slidey]

If it's like watching a girl masturbate I'm totally there.

 

[chicky_pie]

Al Gore backs Obama for president

Former Vice President Al Gore endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Monday, urging Americans to reject what he called the Bush administration's legacy of "incompetence, negligence and failure."

"Americans simply cannot afford to continue the policies of the last eight years for another four," Gore, the party's 2000 presidential nominee, told Obama supporters at a rally in Detroit, Michigan.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/16/gore.obama/index.html

.

 

[Iron]

I have a feeling that the GOP will abandon McCain before too long. Opposing Obama doesnt seem worth it

 

[JaredR]

I like it that McCain is winning in the polls of this thread. The support for him in the Clinton Vs Obama thread wasn't as evident in the postings so I'm led to assume that a lot of Clinton supporters have turned to McCain either because they can't stand Obama or because they just know that McCain's policies are often closer to those of Clinton's than Obamas.

 

[Iron]

they just know that McCain's policies are often closer to those of Clinton's than Obamas.

Examples pls

 

[JaredR]

Well let's have a look at Shmuel Rosner (Ha'aretz' US Correspondant) "Israel factor" ratings for McCain and Clinton and compare those to Obama.

Clinton: 7.5
McCain: 7.75

Obama: 5.12

I would reccommend viewing: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerPage.jhtml which has overseen the Presidential election for a long time and has logged any mention of Israel or candidates policies pertaining to what will effect Israel. i.e issues on Iran etc.

 

[Iron]

Yeh but take the shame tho

 

[TacoTerrorist]

^Ot that there is a hardline culture of unspoken racism in the U.S.