On 08/07/2017 05:33 PM, juan wrote: > On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 19:27:23 -0400 > Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:
>> I'm not following. Are you saying that most "healthy adults" are >> libertarians? If that was the case, then indeed we would expect >> society to be libertarian. But since the US (in this case) is >> anything but libertarian, then your premise is false? It seems >> kinda obvious that most 'healthy' adults are either left wing >> fascists or right wing fascists. Not healthy at all of course.
>I would not say that most healthy adults are Libertarians; I would say >that the Nolan Chart should diagnose most healthy adults as >Libertarians. That's what makes it a high value recruiting tool for the >Libertarian Party. "What you always were has a name, and even a >political party working for what YOU want!" Anyone working for any >Party can /say/ that to anyone else, but the Libertarians present a >convincing illusion of objective proof.
What basis do you have to say it's an "illusion", rather than what, in principle, it might very well be. I remember clearly, in about 1975, reading my first Libertarian literature that my uncle had. It didn't need to convince me: I knew I was already 'there'.
Given this, and I very much doubt my experience is greatly different than that of other people, I think most such people will be quite satisfied that this is in no way an "illusion"
Republicans and Democrats don't have that. Given how much such parties actual positions can vary, I doubt that any young adult (or older) is going to view Republican or Democrat positions and say, "Wow! That's where I always was!!!" They can't: For example, in the 1960's, liberals' positions for very much in favor of free-speech. Now look where they are!!
>Whether the likely outcomes of implementing the Party's policy agenda resemble the promised results, bears no relation to the recruitment process.
Please say that again, in understandable wording.
>The Libertarian Party does divert a lot of bright, capable people down a blind alley. They are presented with a believable ideology that, if adopted as national policy, would remove present restraints (such as they are) from our Robber Baron capitalists. Whether this is a good or bad idea is left as an exercise.
I guess you believe that those same "Robber Baron capitalists" don't derive their power FROM government, rather than being restricted or impeded by government. Think again.
Consider the Shay's Rebellion. (distilled spirits tax, applied in a distinct and biased way to favor big, influential distillers, and impede much smaller, western distillers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion An early example of what should be called "crony capitalism".
Or, much more recently, the Epi-pen controversy. The manufacturer was able to hugely raise prices. It turns out that the reason was simple: Despite the fact that the patent had run out, the Federal government was putting other obstructions and restrictions on potential competitors. The result is that the one incumbent manufacturer was effectively being rewarded with a monopoly, probably based on his relationsihp with the government itself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epinephrine_autoinjector
So, stop thinking that government exists to impede the formation of monopolies and crony capitalists. It does quite the opposite. Pretending it does the former actually makes society worse, rather than better.