“Not necesarily mutually exclusive” in that you can come up with a logically consistent position to marry fiscal “conservatism” with just about anything. You could say “I want lower taxes, and I want the government to round up anyone with green eyes and shoot them” while claiming that because as long as you’re cutting the net amount of money the government uses, you’re still dedicated to the cause of reducing government interference in your life.
No, the problem here is that you’re trying to hide being haughty principles to disguise mere self interest. You don’t want to (overtly) say “I got mine, fuck everyone else”, you want to dress it up in noble ideas about how you’re taking a principled stance about how much government interferes with people’s lives.
Which is why it doesn’t ring true when people who defend themselves with philosophical claims about how the government should be smaller and interfere with people’s lives less turn around and say “I want the government to lower my taxes and legislate people’s sexuality” - you’re admitting that you’re not standing for some sacred libertarian principle of government not interfering in people’s lives, you’re saying you’re fine with the government doing some invasive shit, so long as it’s what’s you approve of. But then you disguise it in attempts to appear to be about philosophy and ideas, when it’s really just being a dick.
And that’s *exactly *what I’ve seen righties do on other fora, specifically to deal with gay marriage. “I’m not homophobic! No, the only reason I don’t think gays should be able to marry is because it’ll cost the government more money! See? I’m just being fiscally sound!”
Well SB, you appear to have a stone cold soul-read on me, so I guess there’s nothing I can say in my defense–you can see into my soul and will know I am simply covering up my selfishness.
The problem for you is that the soul-read mechanism works two ways. You hide behind haughty malleable nonsense like “fairness” and “social justice,” but in your heart of hearts you just hate rich people and want more of your stuff (both for yourself and for those in your favored groups). Your attitude is “Fuck you, give me yours.” You also have a deep belief in the fundamental worthlessness of every person, especially poor people and black people, so you think they need people like you to ever get ahead.
I can’t tell if you’re trying to mock me as a parody, making some sort of counterpoint to a charicatured archetype because that’s what you assume I’m doing to you in the first place, or if you actually think that what you just said actually applies to me.
If it’s the former, it really misses the mark, because I’m quite on target when I describe how you, personally, are an asshole. I don’t dance around making you a stereotype or putting you in groups - you’ve posted many times the material needed to make an accurate assessment of your assholitude.
If it’s the latter - then ironically you’re just doing the same thing you just said. You think of me as some generic lefty and your description of me is comically off.
I’ve never mentioned “social justice” or anything like that in a positive way in my entire life. I have no inherent hatred towards rich people. I most certainly don’t advocate to get “more of my stuff for myself and my favored groups” - there have actually been times in my life where I’ve been eligible for government aid of various types, and I needed it, and yet I agonized over the decision because I’m way more concerned with my own ethical conduct beyond what’s healthy or rational, and ended up turning it down because I felt like I shouldn’t use something that I don’t think should exist. And I’m as staunchly against affirmative action as anyone on this board.
So… pretty much wrong on all counts.
You’re not very good at … everything you try to do on this board.
Remember, I’m talking about self-described “small government” advocates, not “fiscal conservatives” per se. Sure, people can be in favor of lower taxes and lower government spending overall (which is what “fiscal conservative” generally means in practice) while still supporting very invasive government measures to regulate people’s private lives. But such people are not consistently upholding a principle of “small government”.
If “small government” advocates are so quick to condemn the government’s intrusive forays into the wallets of its citizens because of a general objection to government intrusiveness, then yes, principled consistency does obligate them to oppose the government’s intrusive forays into the bedrooms of its citizens as well.
To the extent that a self-described “small government” conservative condemns the former while not really caring about the latter, he doesn’t qualify as a plausible advocate of a “small government” conservative position.
He may indeed qualify as a principled fiscal conservative, but that’s not the same thing, and is not what the OP was talking about.
No – there seems to be a correct logical analysis on this board that if someone advocates “small government” they are debarred from advocating any position that makes the government larger. (And, no, they don’t get to wriggle out of that contradiction by advocating contraction in one area to cover up expansion in another.)
Doesn’t work that way. All he’s doing is engaging in special pleading to say that the government should do X and not do Y – which is in effect advocating government large enough to cover the entire range delimited by both and acting in accordance with his personal whims.
Great Ghu, we’ve found someone who literally does not comprehend the old “apples and oranges” metaphor.
Gah, just when I think the intellectual contortions used to square these clowns’ agenda with the “small government” shibboleth can’t get any more absurd, they proceed to do precisely that.
By this “reasoning”, a Libertopia where the only laws are prohibitions against force and fraud on the one hand, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge on the other hand, would be indistinguishable from one another on the “small government” scale – both governments, after all, are simply enforcing the criminal laws of their respective jurisdictions.
Well then, sounds like we are both equally skilled at assessing the other’s inner mental processes. “Fuck you, I’ve got mine” is about the furthest idea from my own personal beliefs I can think of. I advocate smaller government for pragmatic policy-based reasons, not because I simply want to pay fewer taxes. You are free to disbelieve me (as you apparently do), but dismissing everything I say based on your belief that it’s all a cover for “FY, IGM” just shows how little you understand the issues and have the abilit to argue on a policy level.
Here’s the thing. I’ve considered myself for most of my adult life to be a utilitarian libertarian. What I mean by that is that I want the best result for the most people - the best result on average in terms of running a society to maximize the good and minimize the suffering.
Most people who go in with those same intentions tend to be authoritarians. They tend to want what’s best for everyone, and if only they could reshape society how they want it, society would result in pretty good outcomes for everyone. Essentially, “if I were in charge, everything would be great” leads to all sorts of communist or totalitarian or otherwise shitty places.
Ultimately, I figured a fair playing field, with no one else trying to force their ideas for designing society would ultimately result in a the most optimal society.
But that idea goes under threat from several directions. It’s not only the well intentioned utopianists who pose a threat from unintended consequences, but it’s people advocating “freedom” in the name of empowering the already powerful, and crushing the powerless. A society in which industry magnates and robber barons and the politically powerful can enforce their own power by crushing everyone else is not a utilitarian society.
I’ve come to realize that as a utilitarian libertarian, I have almost no political allies. There are some basically academic libertarians who are on the same wavelength as me, but most people dressing themselves up in libertarianism are more like the tea party - people who are happy to proclaim some love of freedom and small government when it’s an issue on which they want reduced government involvement, but feel free to turn around and use the government in a way that’s not at all conducive to freedom. They have no real ethical or ideological purity - they’re just wrapping themselves up in some libertarian sound bites to push their own social engineering agenda.
And there are people who simply like the idea of something like a fuedal society - where the few powerful elite crush the rest, who are living without power and have generally shitty lives. They imagine themselves to be amongst the elite - whether they are or not (I know people who make 20k a year who would fight to the death to make sure billionaires didn’t pay a penny more into society because they’re so sure that they will be billionaires any day now), and they get off on the idea of crushing everyone else. These people speak in terms of libertarian ideology when their intentions aren’t truly about a free meritocracy. They really seek to empower the powerful and to crush everyone else and have the government either stay out of the way or actively help them.
So it’s tricky for me to apply my values to the real world. Many of the people who I happen to agree with on some policy issues, I agree with almost coincidentally - they advocate those positions because they’re dicks, and I’m advocating them because I want the best result for everyone. Do I ally with them, even though they’re evil, and though they’d enact certain policies I’d agree with, would certainly enact harmful ones I didn’t?
And people on the other end tend to be better people, to have better intentions, but to be naive and not understand the consequences of their actions. Do I ally with them, knowing at least they’ll try to do what’s right and what’s good, knowing that they’ll probably fail at it?
In practice, it’s become easier for me to stay clear because the populist movement of the tea party is essentially entirely hollow, false, bullshit libertarianism. There’s no way I’m getting on board with that shit.
In practice, the result is that I don’t ally with any particular political group. I’m willing to comment on specific issues, to try to advocate my point and position on those issues, but I’m not signing up to any particular partisan mentality.
The reason I bring this issue up is that I completely understand there are “fiscal conservatives” and libertarians who are good people who want what’s best on the whole. I’d like to think I am one. So I’m not attacking from a position of a leftist saying that all libertarians are evil.
So with that in mind, I say this: You, Rand Rover, are an asshole. You, not libertarianism, not “fiscal conservatives”, you personally, with the views you’ve expressed extensively on this board are an asshole. The reason I go after you so much is not because I’m a leftist and you are my natural enemy, but rather because you, and people like you, should be my ally, and are not. Because you’re an asshole.
Because it’s not merely that we both want the best result for everyone - that we maximize happiness and minimize suffering and we have differing ideas. You have no interest in that. You would let the rest of humanity burn if it would make your life any better. Any political positions we share are coincidental and we likely share them for opposite reasons. You are the reason that people like me can’t get our voices heard in the political arena, because everyone is convinced that people like you are the face of “fiscal conservatism” or libertarianism. And maybe they’re right.
This isn’t a blanket statement I make towards all conservative or libertarian leaning folks on this board. There are many people who are just as libertarian leaning or right leaning as you who I will never speak of in this way. Because you, personally, regardless of group affiliation, are an asshole.
Sure, clarifies things a great deal by showing you are a complete loon. What positions I hold or things I have said have lead you to the concusion that I would let other people burn if it makes my own life better? I’m sure your aswer will be some useless bullshit like “all your posts” or somesuch, but I’m curious so I thought it would ask.
Also, you really shouldn’t call yourself any kind of libertarian. You really have much more in common with the general SDMB liberal douche crowd. You are all for utilitarianism . . . If only everyone would agree with you about what exactly would provide the most good for the greatest number. You don’t have the courage to sit back, acknowledge that you don’t know better than anyone else how to run their life, and just let things take their course while insuring that people play fair. You have to meddle to increase utility as you define it, which makes you the same as your brethren here but just with a different name that allows you to not think you are meddling.
Really? Do you honestly believe that my world view is not sane? Do you think I’m actually detached from sanity?
Well, for example, this thread. Look at your tone. Is your attitude “Yeah, I realize there’s a problem and it’s a shame that some people get hosed by their insurance companies, and others have no access to health care, but I think the solution here is worse than the problem, we have to come up with something else”?
No, it’s gleeful. HAHAHAHA YOU GUYS THOUGHT YOU MIGHT GET ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE BUT NOW YOU’RE NOT, EAT MY ASS!!! LOTS OF PEOPLE WILL SUFFER, I WIN!!!
I take this as a compliment, in as far as I said before, at least the people here are trying to do good. If I had more in common with your intents, I would probably kill myself. I mean that with no hyperbole - as I said, I have a bizarrely strict ethical standard I hold myself to, and I would be utterly disgusted as to be so evil.
Ok, let me turn this around. What the fuck are you talking about? Get specific. You asked for specific posts from your history above, and I linked.
What have I said on these boards that indicate anything in the last paragraph?
Liberal douches: feared by conservative twats everywhere!
Nah, you can’t ever get perfect agreement or an exact result on that question.
However, we liberals are perfectly happy to settle for an adequate (though imperfect) mechanism for determining what approximately would provide the most good for the greatest number: namely, representative democracy with a substructure of inalienable civil rights.
Well, if you’re going to publicly acknowledge that you can’t figure out a distinction between Libertopia and Khmer Rouge Cambodia on the small government versus large government axis, the rest of us can just carry on ignoring you and moving on to something that makes sense.
