# Dewey cheats them and how
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheats-them-and-how/155252
**Category:** The BBQ Pit
**Created:** [February 15, 2003, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheats-them-and-how/155252 "2003-02-15T13:39:10Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 3
### Author:  [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)
#### Post date: [February 15, 2003, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheats-them-and-how/155252/41 "2003-02-15T23:48:29Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \*
> Yep, that’s the problem. Libertarianism, even **Lib** ’s version du jour of it, is not based on human nature or the real requirements of a society.
But I don’t see that this is true. I can say the same thing about _every_ society to as much effect because all of them have problems that I don’t feel they address properly. the role of the government is never clearly defined. I think Libertaria, **Lib** ’s take or not, seeks to stop having the government be a lord and master of the “house” and I do think that is possible and I do think that is a good thing. There is no real appeal to historicism here because widespread political and social freedom is relatively recent in practice: we don’t know how it is going to play out. Certainly there are forces at work that seek to cripple or remove these freedoms, demonstrate that they are not “really” freedoms, reclassify freedoms as privilige based on citizenship (there’s our lord and master again), and so on.
Take the argument **Dewey** and I had on “inalienable rights” once. I insisted that inalienable rights weren’t meant to imply some metaphysical constant, but rather that from the view of the government these rights were inalienable. He seemed to disagree quite vehemently with that characterization. The Randista left in me (those last bits are being stomped out but they are hard to kill) still thinks that the only motivation in a political commentary for the abolition of inalienable rights is to alienate them. I must admit I have a very hard time seeing any other reason to remove that concept from _politics_.
> [@](#):
>
> _Dewey_
> …but because such purity is simply impossible in a world populated by fallible humans.
I really don’t think this in any way supports that conclusion. I don’t see anyone that pretends to not acknowledge human error; in fact, I would think the entire justification for democracy or any democratic organization is just that, with some checks and balances thrown in to try and ensure we don’t vote ourselves into a position where we can no longer vote. I do see a society where social groups are the dominant positive force for action rather than a legislature backed by the threat of compulsory behavior, fines, jail, or confiscation and violence. You want people to have a voice, but only so long as it flows through a single channel like representation in some form of a republic or democratic republic? Is direct democracy a pipe dream, too? What about a land where we all have access to health care or food?
At what point exactly did freedom equal impossible, and if so, why would reject characterizations like **Lib** sometimes makes (or perhaps made) regarding such people as theives or parasitic people?
---
### Author:  [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)
#### Post date: [February 16, 2003, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheats-them-and-how/155252/42 "2003-02-16T00:23:32Z")
It isn’t a matter of what I _want_; it’s a matter of how the world _is_. Even representative constitutional democracies aren’t pure in form; the US hews pretty close to the vision of the political philosophies driving its basic structure, but it certainly isn’t a perfect reflection of those philosophies.
For the same reason, I humbly suggest that pure libertariansim cannot happen: no system of government will ever be 100% precisely perfect in matching the ideology upon which it is founded, if for no other reason than fallible humans are left to implement that ideology. It thus makes sense that we are talking about an entirely theoretical rather than practical state.
---
### Author:  [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)
#### Post date: [February 16, 2003, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheats-them-and-how/155252/43 "2003-02-16T00:31:59Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by erislover \*
> \*\*But I don’t see that this is true. I can say the same thing about _every_ society to as much effect because all of them have problems that I don’t feel they address properly. the role of the government is never clearly defined.
But they _do_ all handle problems in the real world, even if you’re not satisfied with their “propriety”. They all accommodate human nature and real needs. The role of government is variable with societies and with time itself, but it functions in every real-world case. They do, however, all have to use what **Lib** would call coercion to function, to some extent.
“Libertarianism”, though, is an intellectual construct demanding that human nature be adjusted to fit it. Any discrepancy between reality and ideology is either ignored (and those who inquire repeatedly about it get Pitted for it), or else reality is blamed for its obstinacy. That makes it fantasizing at best, mental masturbation at worst.
You can say the same about ideologuism (by that I mean the characteristic described in the previous paragraph) of almost any brand, though, with the exception that the nature of this ideologuism keeps it from ever attaining real power and real responsibility in the real world. It literally cannot survive there.
---
### Author:  [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)
#### Post date: [February 16, 2003, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheats-them-and-how/155252/44 "2003-02-16T00:35:36Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Libertarian \*
> \*\*Dewey:
>
> Okay, so you won’t answer my question or address the issues I raised. All the while, that has been your baseless complaint against me from our very first couple of correspondences, as I proved above. I guess your answer is clear enough. It seems that everything I assumed about you and your intentions was right. Thanks at least for confirming that. \*\*
😕
What question or issue do you think I’m avoiding? I thought I went through your post pretty thoroughly.
---
### Author:  [@Doctor\_Goo\_Fee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Goo_Fee)
#### Post date: [February 16, 2003, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheats-them-and-how/155252/45 "2003-02-16T00:44:35Z")
Lib will feel a lot better as soon as he realizes that God exists only in the way that my friend Timmy the Tungstan-Coated Frog Dog exists…
My advice? Relax, let go of your supernatural fantasies, accept that the government is your friend and mentor (and a bigger friend’s a better friend, eh?) and then go cry.
---
### Author:  [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)
#### Post date: [February 16, 2003, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheats-them-and-how/155252/46 "2003-02-16T02:44:09Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \*
> But they _do_ all handle problems in the real world, even if you’re not satisfied with their “propriety”.
I might humbly suggest that Libertaria does the same thing, even if you aren’t satisfied with it.
> [@](#):
>
> They do, however, all have to use what **Lib** would call coercion to function, to some extent.
That they _do_ is not in doubt.
> [@](#):
>
> “Libertarianism”, though, is an intellectual construct demanding that human nature be adjusted to fit it.
I do not agree to this characterization any more than I would the same said of _any_ government, real-world or theory.
> [@](#):
>
> Any discrepancy between reality and ideology is either ignored (and those who inquire repeatedly about it get Pitted for it), or else reality is blamed for its obstinacy.
Like problems with the legal system right now? Are you saying **this does not happen today** as a matter of fact? That you don’t hear these exact same criticisms right now? That there are no problems of ideologies today?
If you did it would be BS, total BS. I hear you talking about them all the time on these boards. How you don’t like this ideology and you have a problem with that action and so on and so forth. Why? What’s your problem? You feel like you’re being a little pressured to conform? To be an unwilling party to behavior you disagree with? Is the real world not conforming to your ideals?
That is a weak criticism IMO, real weak.
**Dewey** , I guess that all depends on what you mean by “pure”. And I don’t mean that as some kind of semantic quibbling. I mean, we’re talking about governments in theory, and you are attacking them on a matter of implimentation. I can much imagine similar arguments about the implimentation of democracy. I mean, how are laws ever going to be made if we can just overturn them! That’s like anarchy! We can’t just make up laws whenever we want. But it is such “pure” ideologies that drive implimentations. What line can the government cross? What line can’t it? And so on.
I don’t understand what you often expect from **Lib** in these sort of debates. A working mathematical model of the economy?
I sometimes feel like people say, “What is Libertaria going to do about _THIS_? Huh? Huh?” Well, what is Ameritopia going to do about slavery? Huh? Huh?
---
### Author:  [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)
#### Post date: [February 16, 2003, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheats-them-and-how/155252/47 "2003-02-16T03:16:49Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by erislover \*
> \*\*I sometimes feel like people say, “What is Libertaria going to do about _THIS_? Huh? Huh?” Well, what is Ameritopia going to do about slavery? Huh? Huh? \*\*
It might have benefited many of the peoples of the world if the architects of the Communist revolution had been forced to answer “what is Commutopia going to do about _THIS_? Huh? Huh?” If you want to radically restructure the way the world is governed, it isn’t a bad idea to have some of those questions jammed down your throat.
And as far as Ameritopia: read the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers. There was a lot of that “what about THIS?” stuff going back and forth. Good thing, too.
---
### Author:  [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)
#### Post date: [February 16, 2003, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheats-them-and-how/155252/48 "2003-02-16T03:46:54Z")
Of course it is a good thing. So is ideology. So is implimenting ideologies if you hold them. So where are we, then?
---
### Author:  [@The\_Ace\_of\_Swords](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ace_of_Swords)
#### Post date: [February 16, 2003, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheats-them-and-how/155252/49 "2003-02-16T04:55:36Z")
**Libertarian** : Of the several arguments against various posters in your pit threads, I think only one is a valid reason for skipping a question in GD, namely: _Purposely disrupting the debate._ You mentioned a panoply of other issues with regards to a variety of posters, which to my eyes, seem petty and critically detract from the respect and appreciation I would otherwise give your arguments.
Despite whatever contrempts we’ve had in the past, please consider this advice: I _do not_ think that **DCU** is guilty of disrupting your debate – rather, I think you are seriously overreacting to **DCU** (and other posters’) minor snarky pokes as he poses questions as is common style, for reasons known only to you; Certainly, if you find a poster to be indeed disrupting debate in the future, my honest advice is that warning that poster in-thread is a better option; And _in general_ the pattern and intensity of pit threads is poor enough to indicate a break may be in order.
Turning to **Dewey Cheatem Undhow** , you’ve made several good and thoughtful points to me of late – let me return the favor: No, you’re not required to be any more respectful of **Libertarian** and his threads than you are of any of the others in which you participate, _which isn’t to say_ you couldn’t stand to be more respectful of debate across the board. By respectful of debate, I mean appreciating, understanding, and respecting the individual points, effort, and the bandwidth issues in the debate, while refraining from signs of deliberate distortion, misrepresentation, logical fallacy or strawmen. I’ve made similar complaint of you in the past, which says to me that this may, also, be a pattern that needs breaking.
---
### Author:  [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)
#### Post date: [February 16, 2003, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheats-them-and-how/155252/50 "2003-02-16T05:09:09Z")
**erislover** , take a chill pill. Yes, the system we have has problems that need fixing, but the system itself isn’t the problem. The basic framework of a democratic republic, with checks and balances and a mix of private enterprise and public works, with defined and guaranteed rights and responsibilities all around, is the best humanity has come up with _in the real world_. It’s what most who don’t have it want.
Part of having such a system, though, is the responsibility we all have to cooperate to improve it when and where we can. Don’t mistake the identification of problems and the desire for solutions to be denunciations of the validity of the system itself .
But Libertaria cannot even exist in the real world, offering no way to deal with even the most trivial instance of humans disagreeing and unable or unwilling to “negotiate” a solution. See the difference? Reality vs. fantasy.
---
### Author:  [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)
#### Post date: [February 16, 2003, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheats-them-and-how/155252/51 "2003-02-16T05:16:47Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \*
> But Libertaria cannot even exist in the real world
What was that you said? Don’t mistake the identification of problems and the desire for solutions to be denunciations of the validity of the system itself.
> [@](#):
>
> …offering no way to deal with even the most trivial instance of humans disagreeing and unable or unwilling to “negotiate” a solution. See the difference?
Not yet.
---
### Author:  [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)
#### Post date: [February 16, 2003, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheats-them-and-how/155252/52 "2003-02-16T05:24:28Z")
What **Elvisl1ves** said was righteous and true.
I would add that to suggest a libertarian improvement to the present system is fine. Delegating services out to private companies through contract to save the government money is an example. Suggesting major reform to the public education system might be another. Vouchers have a libertarian quality, enable the private sector to push the public sector to improve.
But, I think the US Constitution _has_ a very libertarian character. Sometimes it is interpreted in such a way that I find the government is being too intrusive. For example, if California wants to allow marijuana to go to whoever, I think the federal government should stay out of it. I base that on a reserved police powers argument - to me, a very libertarian notion found in the US Constitution. The Tenth Amendment is a libertarian gold standard for what should be in a constitution. Now, if we could just get a little movement on how it is interpreted.
---
### Author:  [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)
#### Post date: [February 16, 2003, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheats-them-and-how/155252/53 "2003-02-16T05:44:08Z")
**erislover** , try a little experiment, then. Declare Libertaria in your own household. Try to negotiate everything with your housemate(s). See what happens the next time nobody wants to cook dinner or do the dishes. Then come back and tell us how well it worked, and how well the principles would translate to the entire world.
---
### Author:  [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)
#### Post date: [February 16, 2003, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheats-them-and-how/155252/54 "2003-02-16T05:53:29Z")
😕 I have anarchy in my house. We have no rules here. What the hell is your house like?! LOL
---
### Author:  [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)
#### Post date: [February 16, 2003, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheats-them-and-how/155252/55 "2003-02-16T05:54:41Z")
Well, not that we don’t have _rules_, but we certainly have no authority to appeal to. Never have in any situation I’ve lived in, to tell the truth.
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [February 16, 2003, 10:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheats-them-and-how/155252/56 "2003-02-16T10:30:58Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \*
> \*\ ***erislover** , try a little experiment, then. Declare Libertaria in your own household. Try to negotiate everything with your housemate(s). See what happens the next time nobody wants to cook dinner or do the dishes. Then come back and tell us how well it worked, and how well the principles would translate to the entire world. \*\*
You’ve made houselholds into an Ionesco play. You forgot to introduce an economy. The cook and dishwasher housemates are entrepreneurs. The eaters pay the cook and dishwasher or else they don’t eat. It won’t be long before the cook and dishwasher expand out into other households and get rich.
---
### Author:  [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)
#### Post date: [February 16, 2003, 11:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheats-them-and-how/155252/57 "2003-02-16T11:12:51Z")
Like: “Forget it you, guys, I’m going to work for the kids next door. They pay better.”
---
### Author:  [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)
#### Post date: [February 16, 2003, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheats-them-and-how/155252/58 "2003-02-16T11:13:52Z")
Shouldn’t be a comma after “you”. Sigh.
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [February 16, 2003, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheats-them-and-how/155252/59 "2003-02-16T11:21:42Z")
You also missed in your haste that Elvis posited a household of housemates, not a family with children.
---
### Author:  [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)
#### Post date: [February 16, 2003, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheats-them-and-how/155252/60 "2003-02-16T11:32:38Z")
I didn’t mean to be taken seriously. I was just imagining how it would work in my house. 🙂
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheats-them-and-how/155252.md?page=2)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dewey-cheats-them-and-how/155252.md?page=4)