The Republican Utopia

[BigRedBuster]

2 minutes ago, zoogs said:

They're both wealthy donors with different and opposing views, but...

 

Surely you can appreciate there's no comparison in the way they are talked about. The Koch brothers are demonized by the left for things like promoting climate denialism and using dark money organizations (which you could argue is not a big deal). They're regarded as libertarians and opposed for bad policies they believe in as well as their use of money to influence (which is a broader problem). From the right, Soros is a socialist wacko who buses people to fake protests and stirs dissent via Antifa and BLM in order to destabilize America.

 

Remember when we had actual alt-right trolls here during the election? Every other word out of their mouth was "SOROS!" This needs to be paid as much lip service as "let me tell you, if you believe Big Pharma isn't behind vaccines, you have a credibility issue." 

 

 

 

 

You're all for getting big money out of politics....as long as it can still be given to the Dems.

[zoogs]

Wow!

 

I would encourage you, as a reasonable unaffiliated voter, to moderate your hypersensitivity to party associations on either side. 

 

How on earth did you read that out of my post? Seriously.

[RedDenver]

2 hours ago, zoogs said:

Wow!

 

I would encourage you, as a reasonable unaffiliated voter, to moderate your hypersensitivity to party associations on either side. 

 

How on earth did you read that out of my post? Seriously.

You clearly made the implication that while both the Kochs and Soros are using money to influence politics, the Kochs are bad and Soros is not.

[zoogs]

Yes! Obviously. Jesus, guys. The Koch brothers and Soros are not the same. For goodness sake, one guy funds people who support campaign finance regulations and efforts to defend them; the other tries to bulldoze campaign finance regulations. The arguments against the Koch brothers specifically are based on policy opposition as well as the nature of their opposition. The arguments against Soros are nutty conspiracies whipped up by alt-right agitators in the US and especially in Europe. And yes, there's a nonpartisan issue about big donors in politics generally. 

 

They don't behave in the same ways, they don't support the same things, they're not equally pertinent stories. To say that the Kochs are fighting for bad things in worse ways than Soros is not to say that the donors issue doesn't exist as long as they're supporting Dems. Come on. It was a small reminder to not give credence to the way that despots from Hungary to Trump and his media arm use Soros as their public enemy of choice. Understand where it's similar and where it's not. Understand that Koch criticisms from the left (the kind of people who would also say, for example, the Democrats should not rely so much on their big donor class) are not the same as Soros screaming from the far, far right.

 

I feel like there's a switch that goes off, for some, the minute they identify a way to crow about "the Dems". How far down this whataboutism road are we going to go?

 

Read about it.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/10/10/whos-afraid-of-george-soros/

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-did-george-soros-become-the-favorite-boogeyman-of-the-right-2017-5

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/12/soros-philanthropy/547247/

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/10/spreading-the-free-market-gospel/413239/

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/08/30/covert-operations

 

 

[Landlord]

Unrelated to this bout of talking past each other, 

 

are there examples in the world, either present tense or historically, of thriving libertarian economies? Or just thriving, free countries that are quite fiscally conservative? 

[BigRedBuster]

10 hours ago, zoogs said:

Yes! Obviously. Jesus, guys. The Koch brothers and Soros are not the same. For goodness sake, one guy funds people who support campaign finance regulations and efforts to defend them; the other tries to bulldoze campaign finance regulations. The arguments against the Koch brothers specifically are based on policy opposition as well as the nature of their opposition. The arguments against Soros are nutty conspiracies whipped up by alt-right agitators in the US and especially in Europe. And yes, there's a nonpartisan issue about big donors in politics generally. 

 

They don't behave in the same ways, they don't support the same things, they're not equally pertinent stories. To say that the Kochs are fighting for bad things in worse ways than Soros is not to say that the donors issue doesn't exist as long as they're supporting Dems. Come on. It was a small reminder to not give credence to the way that despots from Hungary to Trump and his media arm use Soros as their public enemy of choice. Understand where it's similar and where it's not. Understand that Koch criticisms from the left (the kind of people who would also say, for example, the Democrats should not rely so much on their big donor class) are not the same as Soros screaming from the far, far right.

 

So....basically.....you support big money in politics as long as that money goes to the side of issues the you support.

 

Got it.

[zoogs]

Wow. Turn off the blinders.

 

It’s possible to think wealth disparity and outsize donor influence is an undesirable reality we should move away from while also acknowledging that people who use their money to fight things like illiberal despots and *big money in politics* are not in the same category as people who want greater, easier role of their money and also promote climate denial, among other things that benefit their own continuing industry. How, by the way, do you reconcile your supposed concern about “big money influence” when the rubric of “let people keep what they earned” and “corporate tax cuts” is exactly what leads us to this pass? You don’t allow a small class of people to possess the lion’s share of means and then suppose they will not use it to wield the lion’s share of power, especially political power. 

 

For goodness sake, not buying into *far* right fearmongering and propaganda about Soros is not a controversial point. When “shouting about both sides” becomes a stronger preference than your policy views, you can end up in some pretty weird places. Have some deeper interest in things than abstract outrage.

[BigRedBuster]

7 minutes ago, zoogs said:

Wow. Turn off the blinders.

 

It’s possible to think wealth disparity and outsize donor influence is an undesirable reality we should move away from while also acknowledging that people who use their money to fight things like illiberal despots and *big money in politics* are not in the same category as people who want greater, easier role of their money and also promote climate denial, among other things that benefit their own continuing industry. How, by the way, do you reconcile your supposed concern about “big money influence” when the rubric of “let people keep what they earned” and “corporate tax cuts” is exactly what leads us to this pass? You don’t allow a small class of people to possess the lion’s share of means and then suppose they will not use it to wield the lion’s share of power, especially political power. 

 

For goodness sake, not buying into *far* right fearmongering and propaganda about Soros is not a controversial point. When “shouting about both sides” becomes a stronger preference than your policy views, you can end up in some pretty weird places. Have some deeper interest in things than abstract outrage.

I'm for taking big money and billionaires and their influence out of politics no matter what side their on.

 

You obviously don't agree with that.

[zoogs]

I do agree with that. 

 

Wealth disparity and outsize donor influence is not a desirable reality.

 

It's a shame all you're interested in is loudly proclaiming your own purity.

[BigRedBuster]

5 minutes ago, zoogs said:

It's a shame all you're interested in is loudly proclaiming your own purity.

 

This comment basically exposes where you come from politically.  You disdain anything Republican and you're offended when someone claims they have no desire to be a Democrat or criticizes Democrats.

 

It's OK.  A lot of people are all in for a party just like you.  

[zoogs]

Yeah, OK. I'm not offended. I do like to make arguments, especially about policy, when I think someone is wrong or when a superficial point should be fleshed out more. I don't know what you think you're accomplishing here, but you are the only one of us who has a hyper response to any real or imagined association to party. Does everything reduce to "You're just a Dem shill!" and "nooooo I am not a Republican no no noooo" to you? That's unfortunate.

 

Being all in for "both sides suck" doesn't make you pure. Just confused. 

 

I've tried to engage in good faith. Oh well.

[RedDenver]

10 hours ago, Landlord said:

Unrelated to this bout of talking past each other, 

 

are there examples in the world, either present tense or historically, of thriving libertarian economies? Or just thriving, free countries that are quite fiscally conservative? 

Countries without (or very weak) governments are essentially extreme libertarian economies as there's absolutely no regulation.

[teachercd]

7 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Countries without (or very weak) governments are essentially extreme libertarian economies as there's absolutely no regulation.

Some of those countries are a lot of fun!

 

And some are terrifying!  Ha

Edited January 10, 2018 by teachercd

[BigRedBuster]

5 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Countries without (or very weak) governments are essentially extreme libertarian economies as there's absolutely no regulation.

That's really why I can't wrap my head around being a true libertarian economically.  One of the government's main rolls is to establish an economic system where commerce can flourish in a  fair manner.  That isn't done by getting rid of all regulation and just let the place be a wild wild west show.  It's done by putting in regulations that benefit both the consumer and the business providing the service or product.

 

The Banking industry is a prime example.  It would be disastrous if we did away with all banking regulations.  The system that is in place is an amazingly efficient system that allows commerce to take place in a controlled environment.  Now...yes....there are tweaks that could happen that would make it better and more fair.  But, in general, it's a great system....in very large part due to the framework and regulations the government has put in place over time.

[RedDenver]

Just now, BigRedBuster said:

That's really why I can't wrap my head around being a true libertarian economically.  One of the government's main rolls is to establish an economic system where commerce can flourish in a  fair manner.  That isn't done by getting rid of all regulation and just let the place be a wild wild west show.  It's done by putting in regulations that benefit both the consumer and the business providing the service or product.

 

The Banking industry is a prime example.  It would be disastrous if we did away with all banking regulations.  The system that is in place is an amazingly efficient system that allows commerce to take place in a controlled environment.  Now...yes....there are tweaks that could happen that would make it better and more fair.  But, in general, it's a great system....in very large part due to the framework and regulations the government has put in place over time.

Yep.

 

I've said this before, but I view libertarianism as a beautiful ideal that's the other side of the coin from the beautiful ideal of communism. In ideal communism, we get rid of the evil corporations, and we live happily ever after. In ideal libertarianism, we get rid of the evil government, and we live happily ever after. Both fail to recognize that the world isn't that simple, and we need to balance powerful forces like governments and corporations so that none can abuse their power.