Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > I knew it! (The SHOCKING truth about Libertarians)

I knew it! (The SHOCKING truth about Libertarians)
Thread Tools
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2014, 02:21 PM
 
In search of libertarians | Pew Research Center
A lot of people misidentify as them. But more importantly:
Their largest representation is among the group we call Business Conservatives; 27% of this group says the term libertarian describes them well. Business Conservatives generally support limited government, have positive views of business and the U.S. economic system, and are more moderate than other conservative groups on the issue of homosexuality. However, they are also supportive of an activist foreign policy and do not have a libertarian profile on issues of civil liberties.
This fits with my personal observation that libertarians tend to be concerned mostly with money and social issues take a big back seat to that.

Also, this would probably describe the Lefts's favorite boogeymen the Kochs pretty accurately.


Other interesting facts from the poll:
About one-in-ten Americans (11%) describe themselves as libertarian and know what the term means.
Note, the qualifier is "know what the term means", not hold the positions.

Self-described libertarians tend to be modestly more supportive of some libertarian positions, but few of them hold consistent libertarian opinions on the role of government, foreign policy and social issues.
There also were partisan differences; 14% of independents and 12% of Republicans said they are libertarian, compared with 6% of Democrats.
When it comes to attitudes about the size and scope of government, people who say the term libertarian describes them well (and who are able to correctly define the term) are somewhat more likely than the public overall to say government regulation of business does more harm than good (56% vs. 47%). However, about four-in-ten libertarians say that government regulation of business is necessary to protect the public interest (41%).

The attitudes of libertarians similarly differ from the public on government aid to the poor; they are more likely than the public to say “government aid to the poor does more harm than good by making people too dependent on government assistance” (57% vs. 48%), yet about four-in-ten (38%) say it “does more good than harm because people can’t get out of poverty until their basic needs are met.”

FT_libertarian-marijuanaLibertarianism is associated with limited government involvement in the social sphere. In this regard, self-described libertarians are somewhat more supportive of legalizing marijuana than the public overall (65% vs. 54%).

But there are only slight differences between libertarians and the public in views of the acceptability of homosexuality. And they are about as likely as others to favor allowing the police “to stop and search anyone who fits the general description of a crime suspect” (42% of libertarians, 41% of the public).

Libertarians, U.S. Role in World AffairsSimilarly, self-described libertarians do not differ a great deal from the public in opinions about foreign policy. Libertarianism is generally associated with a less activist foreign policy, yet a greater share of self-described libertarians (43%) than the public (35%) think “it is best for the future of our country to be active in world affairs.”

And in views of the tradeoff between defending against terrorism and protecting civil liberties, large majorities of both the public (74%) and self-described libertarians (82%) say “Americans shouldn’t have to give up privacy and freedom in order to be safe from terrorism.”

To be honest, I thought the differences would be more stark, and maybe they would be if it broke it down by more than just everyone, but something like 41% of Libertarians saying government regulation is necessary really flies in the face of the typical self-indtified libertarian you'll meet on the internet.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2014, 02:23 PM
 
Lucky for me I'm a constitutional conservative.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2014, 02:24 PM
 
…and yes, that was a purposeful click bait styled thread title. For the lulz.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2014, 02:32 PM
 
I identify as a libertarian, but as I've said many times before, it's a philosophy, not a script you crib from to make policy.

I'm furthest from the Libertarian "ideal" when it comes to foreign policy. I'm pretty interventionist.

With economic policy, my origin point is extreme right, but that gets pulled centrist by practical concerns. I think it's important to note however, centrist originating from the extreme right is a different animal than centrist originating from the extreme left.

When it comes to social issues, I've pinned the needle at "maximum freedom" on every position quiz I've ever taken.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2014, 02:40 PM
 
I usually identify as libertarian. However, regulation of business is needed in monopoly situations. If there is no competition, then competition won't keep them in line. ie - cable companies, that divide up territory and carefully never compete for the same customers. However, I'd make most of the regulation dependent on competition. If competitors develop, most regs go away.

Foreign policy - we should be cautious here. We're broke, and interventions cost a ton. If in doubt, don't intervene. Our grandkids already have a heck of a CC bill to pay off.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2014, 02:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I identify as a libertarian, but as I've said many times before, it's a philosophy, not a script you crib from to make policy.

I'm furthest from the Libertarian "ideal" when it comes to foreign policy. I'm pretty interventionist.

With economic policy, my origin point is extreme right, but that gets pulled centrist by practical concerns. I think it's important to note however, centrist originating from the extreme right is a different animal than centrist originating from the extreme left.

When it comes to social issues, I've pinned the needle at "maximum freedom" on every position quiz I've ever taken.
In the recent time here, I feel like your concern for social issues (civil liberties) far overshadows any fiscal concerns you may have.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2014, 03:09 PM
 
I'd agree with that assessment, and am glad to hear it comes off that way.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2014, 03:41 PM
 
Posterchild libertarian here, which isn't the same as a Libertarian.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2014, 02:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I usually identify as libertarian. However, regulation of business is needed in monopoly situations. If there is no competition, then competition won't keep them in line. ie - cable companies, that divide up territory and carefully never compete for the same customers. However, I'd make most of the regulation dependent on competition. If competitors develop, most regs go away.
I've heard the argument regulation got us into this mess in the first place. Cable companies got in bed with local governments when they were building infrastructure.

In Chicago, we didn't get cable until the late 80's because City Hall wouldn't let anything through until the proper hands were greased.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2014, 04:16 PM
 
It was a bit of damned if you do, damned if you don't, situation. The problem is cost is a big barrier to entry. I'm assuming they made the deals to help guarantee return on investment on what would be a large initial sunk cost. I won't pretend to know how log it would have taken cable to "naturally" penetrate (is it getting hot in here) more rural areas, but if you look at internet right now, it could have been a long-ass while. (Though in the latter case, we've been taxed to give them breaks for them to build infrastructure they're not building and trying to pass off to their more expensive and less valuable wireless options)

The second problem is how much these companies litigate to maintain those monopolies.
Edit: Ex http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...run-broadband/
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2014, 09:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
…and yes, that was a purposeful click bait styled thread title. For the lulz.
Social conservatives hate them! Number 3 will BLOW YOUR MIND.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2014, 10:19 AM
 
We're in the process of installing fiber to all residents in our rural community, funded by municipal bonds. The cost is going to be $3.2M (or roughly $45 /household for 10 years). That's pretty reasonable for 100Mb/20Mb (down/up) access. Yeah, I'm helping facilitate it (and matching the amount raised through the sale of the bonds). Why? Because Bellsouth (AT&T) broke its contract with us. Hell, they haven't even started running fiber in this part of the state, but now they're like, "No fair! We were just about to get started!" That's okay AT&T, if you want you can bid on the ISP contract (along with ~20 other companies), but the infrastructure is ours, forever.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2014, 10:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
We're in the process of installing fiber to all residents in our rural community, funded by municipal bonds. The cost is going to be $3.2M (or roughly $45 /household for 10 years). That's pretty reasonable for 100Mb/20Mb (down/up) access. Yeah, I'm helping facilitate it (and matching the amount raised through the sale of the bonds). Why? Because Bellsouth (AT&T) broke its contract with us. Hell, they haven't even started running fiber in this part of the state, but now they're like, "No fair! We were just about to get started!" That's okay AT&T, if you want you can bid on the ISP contract (along with ~20 other companies), but the infrastructure is ours, forever.
Because you picked one of my favorite topics to rage on…
AT&T: Cities should never offer Internet service where ISPs already do or might later | Ars Technica
“GONs [government-owned networks] should not be utilized where the private sector already is providing broadband or can be expected to do so in a reasonable timeframe,”
AT&T isn't opposed to government handouts, though, as long as they are flowing to the private sector. Community broadband networks “should not receive any preferential tax treatment,” AT&T argued.
Holy shit.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2014, 10:59 AM
 
It isn't "government owned", it's a community funded private network, owned by the people (shareholders) who live in the community.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2014, 11:09 AM
 
I'm sure AT&T is still opposed.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2015, 03:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
This fits with my personal observation that libertarians tend to be concerned mostly with money and social issues take a big back seat to that.

Also, this would probably describe the Lefts's favorite boogeymen the Kochs pretty accurately.

Koch Brothers Support Scott Walker: The donors and the Wisconsin governor have different views on criminal justice.

Here’s why the Kochs’ apparent enthusiasm for Walker’s presidential prospects is surprising: Of all the Republicans who are expected to run for the party’s nomination, Walker stands out as distinctly unfriendly toward criminal justice reform.
In a November 2014 story for Yahoo News Liz Goodwin interviewed Koch Industries lead counsel Mark Holden, who has emerged as the Kochs’ voice on criminal justice reform. Holden indicated that David and Charles Koch would not necessarily be trying to advance their views on incarceration and overcriminalization by backing pro-reform candidates in elections.

“That’s not what’s driving what we’re doing,” Holden told Goodwin at the time. “We are focused more on the society well-being side of it here. We should all put the politics aside because that can muddle things.” The point itself was a bit muddled, but the takeaway seemed clear enough: People should not expect the Kochs’ actions as political donors to dovetail with their activism in the criminal justice realm.
Yuuuuuuuuuup
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2015, 05:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
funded by municipal bonds
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
It isn't "government owned", it's a community funded private network
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2015, 02:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
It shouldn't be confusing. The community paid for it and they own it, it's a co-op with issued bonds.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2015, 05:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
It shouldn't be confusing. The community paid for it and they own it, it's a co-op with issued bonds.
My confusion lies with the seeming contradiction that it was paid for using municipal bonds but is not government owned. If it's privately owned, how can they use municipal bonds? I could be wrong, but my understanding is that municipal bonds can only be used to fund publicly owned projects. Public owned = government owned. I'm not questioning the truthfulness of the statement, just trying to understand how that could work with private ownership.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2015, 10:10 AM
 
Though the vast majority of the time a Muni is a bond issued by a city or county, that's not always the case, occasionally they are issued by a community, as a co-op, for establishing a public works or utility. (Ex. an electric company in an adjoining area raised the capital through them to get started, which is what gave me the idea)
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2015, 10:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Though the vast majority of the time a Muni is a bond issued by a city or county, that's not always the case, occasionally they are issued by a community, as a co-op, for establishing a public works or utility. (Ex. an electric company in an adjoining area raised the capital through them to get started, which is what gave me the idea)
I did not know that. Thanks.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2015, 03:12 PM
 
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2015, 03:18 PM
 
The only question I have is if someone ate the goat afterwards.

If they did, I'm okay with it.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2015, 04:22 PM
 
I haven't heard of any goat sacrifices actually working.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2015, 04:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I haven't heard of any goat sacrifices actually working.
Only when they're kosher.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Demonhood
Administrator
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Land of the Easily Amused
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2015, 09:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I haven't heard of any goat sacrifices actually working.
Certainly didn't work for the goat.

Besides, no one does ancient Latin justice nowadays. You can't summon a spirit worth a damn with a valley girl accent on your ancient tongues.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2015, 09:58 PM
 
Veni, vidi, gnarly.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2015, 01:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by Demonhood View Post
Certainly didn't work for the goat.

Besides, no one does ancient Latin justice nowadays. You can't summon a spirit worth a damn with a valley girl accent on your ancient tongues.
Hollywood-types during occult rituals = freaking hilarious
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2015, 02:13 AM
 
Delta Green had faux Scientologists doing this.

Of course, since it's Delta Green, everything Lovecraft wrote was true, and it turned out to be a problem.

A faux Scientologists ending up phased into solid objects kind of problem.

Very messy.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2015, 12:13 PM
 
I'm impressed he actually gave an interview.
​Charles Koch: I'm fighting against special interests - CBS News
"But do you think it's healthy for the system that so much money is coming out of a relatively small group of people?"
"Listen, if I didn't think it was healthy or fair, I wouldn't do it. Because what we're after, is to fight against special interests."

"Some people would look at you and say you're a special interest."
"Yeah, but my interest is, just as it's been in business, is what will help people improve their lives, and to get rid of these special interests. That's the whole thing that drives me."
Koch says he does not consider himself a Republican. "Not at all. I consider myself a classical liberal. The way I look at it is the Democrats are taking us at about 100 miles an hour over the financial cliff, and towards this two-tiered society. And the Republicans are taking us there at 70 miles an hour."
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:55 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,