Merkins 2012

[Philboid Studge]

2012 ... shirley it be the end of the world.

But leading up to it could be entertaining, what with a Shitlord in the White House and a clown car filled with challengers competing for both the Big Job and the title of Who Iz Most Stoopid.



Let us use this thread to track the krazy, hypochristy, the fail parade, teh gay-hate, and especially the God-blathering that spurts from all our Merkin candidates like loggorrhea spurts from an Imodium salesman's gob.

I lead us off with the Great White Hope from Texas, as yet undeclared, but he'll toss his hat in the ring soon because God Almighty wills him to be a tosser.

The pastors told Perry of God’s grand plan for Texas. A chain of powerful prophecies had proclaimed that Texas was “The Prophet State,” anointed by God to lead the United States into revival and Godly government. And the governor would have a special role.

The day before the meeting, Schlueter had received a prophetic message from Chuck Pierce, an influential prophet from Denton, Texas. God had apparently commanded Schlueter—through Pierce—to “pray by lifting the hand of the one I show you that is in the place of civil rule.”

Gov. Perry, it seemed.

Schlueter had prayed before his congregation: “Lord Jesus I bring to you today Gov. Perry. ... I am just bringing you his hand and I pray Lord that he will grasp ahold of it. For if he does you will use him mightily.”

And grasp ahold the governor did. At the end of their meeting, Perry asked the two pastors to pray over him. As the pastors would later recount, the Lord spoke prophetically as Schlueter laid his hands on Perry, their heads bowed before a painting of the Battle of the Alamo. Schlueter “declared over [Perry] that there was a leadership role beyond Texas and that Texas had a role beyond what people understand,” Long later told his congregation.

[Smellyoldgit]

We had a little poke at the krazy a while back - please tell me she's the satire candidate.

[ubs]

Smellyoldgit wrote

We had a little poke at the krazy a while back - please tell me she's the satire candidate.

All but Romney are rodeo clowns (intended to draw fire...I'm guessing you probably don't go to rodeos). I think the GOP has decided it's the Mormon's turn.

Well all but Romney and Paul, but the big media companies hate Paul because he's down on corporate welfare in all it's many forms and pro free speech.

Interestingly there is one atheist candidate on the Repug side - Gary Johnson. He sounds pretty libertarian but I've noticed that he's careful to avoid any conversations about our military involvement, which I take to mean that he is pro-military spending.

Probably I'll end up voting for Paul.

[Victus]

ubs wrote

All but Romney are rodeo clowns (intended to draw fire...I'm guessing you probably don't go to rodeos). I think the GOP has decided it's the Mormon's turn.

Well all but Romney and Paul, but the big media companies hate Paul because he's down on corporate welfare in all it's many forms and pro free speech.

Interestingly there is one atheist candidate on the Repug side - Gary Johnson. He sounds pretty libertarian but I've noticed that he's careful to avoid any conversations about our military involvement, which I take to mean that he is pro-military spending.

Probably I'll end up voting for Paul.

If I were in the US, I would be stuck somewhere between Johnson (pragmatic libertarianism) and Paul (probably even more libertarian than me). The former might have some popular appeal (Ok, not really). The latter is so libertarian, that there would probably be at least some policy improvements from him being elected (which is even less likely than with Johnson).

As per Johnson on the military, I hear good things.

[Irreligious]

I have a hard time believing that the bulk of the American voting public would be all that attracted to a genuine, dyed-in-the-wool libertarian candidate.

Oh, sure, there are lots of folks who would like to see other folks cut off at the knees and deprived of government services, but those same people don't, themselves, want to be cut off from government largess.

The minute they're in need, they'll be demanding government-funded bootstraps.

[Irreligious]

Anyone surprised?

[ubs]

Well, I'm not a big believer in the idea that the US is a democracy, but on the slim chance that I might help save someone's life I will vote and Paul is the only anti war candidate on the entire roster.

[Philboid Studge]

Victus, 'pragmatic libertarian' is a bit of an oxymoron, since pragmatism requires real-world decision-making.

[Victus]

Irr wrote

I have a hard time believing that the bulk of the American voting public would be all that attracted to a genuine, dyed-in-the-wool libertarian candidate.

Oh, sure, there are lots of folks who would like to see other folks cut off at the knees and deprived of government services, but those same people don't, themselves, want to be cut off from government largess.

The minute they're in need, they'll be demanding government-funded bootstraps.

I agree completely. Most people are after a free ride in life, and are willing to forcibly take from others to get it.

ubs wrote

Well, I'm not a big believer in the idea that the US is a democracy, but on the slim chance that I might help save someone's life I will vote and Paul is the only anti war candidate on the entire roster.

Indeed. It's all well and good to decry inane regulations against barbershops (and props if a candidate does), but if they can't stand up and say "we shouldn't be fighting 4-5 wars on foreign soil", then they're missing something pretty huge.

I actually don't think the policy problems in the US stem from it no longer being a democracy. I think it just boils down to voters being irrational. Markets should replace democracy whenever possible.

PS wrote

Victus, 'pragmatic libertarian' is a bit of an oxymoron, since pragmatism requires real-world decision-making.

Since economic freedom is highly correlated with things like wealth and health on the national level, there is indeed a school of thought/policies that support liberty not for its own sake, but for its positive knock-on effects. That is, even if you don't believe that its wrong to restrict peoples' freedoms, you can still think that it's counterproductive vis a vis improving human welfare. Consequently, there are pragmatic libertarians who basically, "I care about poverty, so I support free markets".

[Irreligious]

Victus wrote

I agree completely. Most people are after a free ride in life, and are willing to forcibly take from others to get it.

So, if that's how most people are in reality, how is it pragmatic to be a libertarian? You're fighting human nature, no?

[Victus]

Irreligious wrote

So, if that's how most people are in reality, how is it pragmatic to be a libertarian? You're fighting human nature, no?

No more so than arguing against religion.

[Irreligious]

The free exercise of religion is a guaranteed right under the U.S. Constitution. All the arguing in the world won't change that. Which is why, I guess, no serious candidate for the U.S. presidency has ever run on an anti-religion platform. Admirable as it might be to some, it still wouldn't be very pragmatic.

[Victus]

Irreligious wrote

The free exercise of religion is a guaranteed right under the U.S. Constitution. All the arguing in the world won't change that.

And yet, we all here argue against religion all the same. Again, arguing in favor of libertarianism is no less pragmatic or cutting against human nature than arguing in favor of atheism. Both are minority positions that are not intuitively appealing to those unwilling to put considerable thought towards the topic. Both are positions based on a combination of logic and evidence, often running contrary to positions based on the touchy-feelys.

Irr wrote

Which is why, I guess, no serious candidate for the U.S. presidency has ever run on an anti-religion platform. Admirable as it might be to some, it still wouldn't be very pragmatic.

Even running on a secular (but not overtly anti-religious) platform that basically ignored religion on the whole would be political suicide, even though atheism is (as far as anyone here can discern) obviously correct. At the same time, most would/do reject a libertarian platform, even though the empirical evidence to date leans heavily in its favor (even if you're trying to maximize human welfare/happiness).

Voters aren't rational.

[Davin]

Victus wrote

And yet, we all here argue against religion all the same. Again, arguing in favor of libertarianism is no less pragmatic or cutting against human nature than arguing in favor of atheism. Both are minority positions that are not intuitively appealing to those unwilling to put considerable thought towards the topic. Both are positions based on a combination of logic and evidence, often running contrary to positions based on the touchy-feelys.

That's a great little bit of preaching, but could you answer the question?

"So, if that's how most people are in reality, how is it pragmatic to be a libertarian? You're fighting human nature, no?"

Notice that your answer was about arguing for libertarianism, not being a libertarian.

Victus wrote

Even running on a secular (but not overtly anti-religious) platform that basically ignored religion on the whole would be political suicide, even though atheism is (as far as anyone here can discern) obviously correct.

Atheism cannot be correct, being correct would imply making a claim.

Victus wrote

At the same time, most would/do reject a libertarian platform, even though the empirical evidence to date leans heavily in its favor (even if you're trying to maximize human welfare/happiness).

What empirical evidence are you talking about and how does it favor libertarianism?

[Victus]

Davin wrote

That's a great little bit of preaching, but could you answer the question?

Asked and answered.

Davin wrote

Notice that your answer was about arguing for libertarianism, not being a libertarian.

The quote you generated from my response is not responding to that question. My response...

Victus wrote

No more so than arguing against religion.

...answers the question. Irr's question (above) asks how it can be pragmatic to be a libertarian (i.e., to support/argue for libertarian policies - which is all it means to 'be' a libertarian, since its a political philosophy). Being a libertarian is about as pragmatic as being an atheist. I'm not likely to convince any great numbers of people of either position, even though there is really good arguments/evidence for both. Since Irr argues for atheism, I can only assume that he doesn't find this level of (un)pragmatism to be problematic.

More to the point, when I say 'pragmatic libertarianism', I'm using the term in its commonly-used consequentialist context, wherein the label describes support for libertarian policies contingent on their ability to improve (or not-destroy) human welfare/happiness/whatever. Whether or not libertarianism cuts against voter preferences is irrelevant as to whether it is 'pragmatic' by this definition. So the question misses the point.

Davin wrote

Atheism cannot be correct, being correct would imply making a claim.

Strong atheism makes the claim that God does/can not possibly exist.

Davin wrote

What empirical evidence are you talking about and how does it favor libertarianism?

Broadly, you can go check out LearnLiberty, which has videos that explain some basic economics (search under 'economics') and EconLog (and affiliated sites) which is often data-driven (or argument-driven, as the case may be). Otherwise, it's a broad request. I could more easily respond if you narrow it down to a specific policy point (e.g., minimum wage, regulation, etc). Otherwise, I'm not sure where to start.