Your Top 5 Policies

[Rhinoqulous]

Victus wrote

Most of the libertarians on the forum have been pretty constantly brow-beaten fr not caring about other human beings, so I wanted to see what kinds of policies people who allegedly care about other human beings would prioritize given a limited number of options. Puppies appear to have been their first choice.

Really? Puppies were the only thing brought up in this thread? I seem to recall a few other things suggested prior to Stern wanting "objective value" placed on not torturing puppies and pushing this thread off-topic for seven pages.

1) Abolishing Term for Life for British Bishops in Parliament
2) Disestablish the link between the Church of England and the Head of State
3) Laws akin to Truth in Advertising for Religious Claims
4) Outlawing the teaching of Creationism and Intelligent Design
5) Campaign donation reform
6) Tax system reform
7) Term limit reform
8) Abolishing Capital Punishment
9) A Flat Tax
10) Taxation of Churches
11) Outlawing For-Profit Military and Prisons
12) Abolishing Vice Laws
13) Eliminating the notion of Corporations as Persons
14) Eliminating Super PACs
15) Reformation of Telecommunications Laws
16) Universal Health Care
18) Drug Law Reform
19) Marriage Law Reform

And finally, as a 20th policy suggestion (by a non-libertarian) we get Nationalization of Animal Cruelty laws. So, you sanctimonious prick, care to comment on the 19 other things brought up besides Animal Cruelty?

[Victus]

Rhinoqulous wrote

Really? Puppies were the only thing brought up in this thread?

Puppies, based on the extent of the discussion, seem to have been the most popular by far.

Rhino wrote

I seem to recall a few other things suggested prior to Stern wanting "objective value" placed on not torturing puppies and pushing this thread off-topic for seven pages... So, you sanctimonious prick, care to comment on the 19 other things brought up besides Animal Cruelty?

Ok...

Rhino wrote

1) Abolishing Term for Life for British Bishops in Parliament
2) Disestablish the link between the Church of England and the Head of State

3) Laws akin to Truth in Advertising for Religious Claims
4) Outlawing the teaching of Creationism and Intelligent Design[/quote]

Negligible effect on human welfare.

Rhino wrote

5) Campaign donation reform

Limits freedom of speech.

Rhino wrote

6) Tax system reform

To make it more progressive.

Rhino wrote

7) Term limit reform

Marginal effects.

Rhino wrote

8) Abolishing Capital Punishment

Entirely worthwhile, but affecting a relatively limited number of people.

Rhino wrote

9) A Flat Tax

Entirely worthwhile, but I'm not sure the efficiency gains would be that big.

Rhino wrote

10) Taxation of Churches

Worthwhile, but not much revenue to be had (i.e., inconsequential).

Rhino wrote

11) Outlawing For-Profit Military and Prisons

Worthwhile, but unlikely to have major effects (prisons being the end-point for what are typically dysfunctional systems).

Rhino wrote

12) Abolishing Vice Laws

Extremely worthwhile.

Rhino wrote

13) Eliminating the notion of Corporations as Persons

No obvious effect if they are still recognized as legal entities.

Rhino wrote

14) Eliminating Super PACs

Limits on political speech.

Rhino wrote

15) Reformation of Telecommunications Laws

Regulating the internet.

Rhino wrote

16) Universal Health Care

More free stuff for people in the top 25% of the worlds' income earners. Very high priority.

Rhino wrote

18) Drug Law Reform

Very worthwhile, especially in the US.

Rhino wrote

19) Marriage Law Reform

Worthwhile, but affects only a small percentage of the population directly.

Rhino wrote

And finally, as a 20th policy suggestion (by a non-libertarian) we get Nationalization of Animal Cruelty laws.

Doesn't even affect people.

So my point stands. Given 5 policies to work with, almost everyone chose some combination of "free stuff for rich people", "I hate corporations!" and "Quick, let's help this relatively small group I sympathize with!". Oh, and "I like puppies!".

For all the brow beating about not caring about the poor that goes on on these forums, given the choice of their five most cherished policies, most here went along with a series trivial options with dubious effects under the best of conditions. No one lifted a finger to help the poorest on the planet.

But it's all worth it - just as long as the puppies are safe. Right?

[Sternwallow]

Victus wrote

But it's all worth it - just as long as the puppies are safe. Right?

Puppies follow the smoothest, most pleasant trajectory when kicked. Other animals are less stable while in flight.

[Kate]

[Smellyoldgit]

[Kate]

[ubs]

[Smellyoldgit]

[ubs]

Salon has posted a new Declaration of Independence that makes me think they read RA

Warning: Not a freedom loving declaration.

[Victus]

ubs wrote

Salon has posted a new Declaration of Independence that makes me think they read RA

Warning: Not a freedom loving declaration.

It gets marginally better near the end, but the average effect is still head-exploding stupidity, I think. The first half can basically be summed up as, "Stuff costs money? Awww!".

[lostsheep]

Sternwallow wrote

Puppies follow the smoothest, most pleasant trajectory when kicked. Other animals are less stable while in flight.

That's so mean...and it's wrong. Cats and kitties are far better fliers, and what about angry birds?

[lostsheep]

Victus: How the fuck is limiting campaign contributions and super PACs limiting free speech? Do you think the wealthy deserve more votes?

Also, animal cruelty laws benefit human beings in the same way environmental laws benefit human beings. These are long term benefits, not short term benefits.

[Victus]

lostsheep wrote

Victus: How the fuck is limiting campaign contributions and super PACs limiting free speech?

Suppose you wanted to stand on the street corner handing out pamphlets for your preferred candidate - should that be illegal? Obviously not - this is free speech at its finest.

Suppose that instead of standing on the corner with pamphlets, you merely wanted to buy the pamphlets for the person volunteering to hand them out. Again, interfering either with your purchase of the pamphlets or with their free distribution would constitute an obvious violation of free speech.

Now suppose that in the above examples, instead of an anonymous volunteer it was the candidate themselves. What difference would that make in terms of the effect of outlawing the distribution or finance of said pamphlets (or any other media or form of support) on free speech? None, obviously.

LS wrote

Do you think the wealthy deserve more votes?

And how do you propose that they translate their wealth into votes?

LS wrote

Also, animal cruelty laws benefit human beings in the same way environmental laws benefit human beings. These are long term benefits, not short term benefits.

Go ahead and explain the long-term benefits of of making it illegal to cook dogs alive, then.

[nkb]

Victus wrote

Suppose you wanted to stand on the street corner handing out pamphlets for your preferred candidate - should that be illegal? Obviously not - this is free speech at its finest.

Suppose that instead of standing on the corner with pamphlets, you merely wanted to buy the pamphlets for the person volunteering to hand them out. Again, interfering either with your purchase of the pamphlets or with their free distribution would constitute an obvious violation of free speech.

Now suppose that in the above examples, instead of an anonymous volunteer it was the candidate themselves. What difference would that make in terms of the effect of outlawing the distribution or finance of said pamphlets (or any other media or form of support) on free speech? None, obviously.

Not having Super PACs stops them from doing this, how?

All it does is allows people and corporations to hide behind entities that act as anonymous fronts.

Free speech is cool, I'm all for it, but it should apply to individual people, not corporations, ridiculous Supreme Court decisions notwithstanding.

[Victus]

nkb wrote

Not having Super PACs stops them from doing this, how?

All it does is allows people and corporations to hide behind entities that act as anonymous fronts.

So? Suppose you wanted to pay for a candidate's pamphlets anonymously. What would be the problem with that?

nkb wrote

Free speech is cool, I'm all for it, but it should apply to individual people, not corporations, ridiculous Supreme Court decisions notwithstanding.

Corporations are simply groups of people. Do those people lose their free speech rights when they group together? Obviously not.

Out of curiosity, should free speech apply to unions?