Dispatches from Libertopia

[lisarea]

Atlas Shrugged producers turn to Kickstarter for help warning others against moochers

[specious_reasons]

Sean O'Neal is a national treasure.

[Janet]

Agreed emphatically on Sean O'Neal. The two Atlas Shrugged movies check out like mad from our library. That amuses me greatly. It's so nice that people take Ayn Rand's ideas to heart so strongly that they use a socialist institution to help access them.

[BrotherMan]

[Sauron]

Moar Binswanger:

This argument is the logical extension of an argument that many American entrepreneurs and investors make, which is that they are the country's "job creators" and therefore deserve almost all of the country's income and wealth. These "job creators," this argument goes, should pay their employees as little as possible and keep every penny of profit for themselves. After all, they deserve it: They're the ones who "create" the jobs that sustain the country.

It's no surprise why this argument is popular among entrepreneurs and investors: Instead of making them feel selfish about taking such a big share of the country's wealth for themselves, it actually makes them feel magnanimous. If they weren't "creating all those jobs," then most Americans would have nothing to do!

Unfortunately, this argument is both startlingly selfish and economically wrong.

What actually "creates jobs" in an economy is a healthy economic ecosystem, one comprised of entrepreneurs, investors, employees, and, critically, customers.

Successful entrepreneurs do play a valuable and important role in this ecosystem: They start companies that develop products and services that people want, and they guide the companies that produce them.

Successful investors also play a valuable and important role: They provide the capital necessary for companies to invest in new products and services.

But without talented employees who make a company's products and services, and — just as important — without financially healthy customers who buy them, entrepreneurs and investors can't create any sustainable jobs.

So to suggest that entrepreneurs and investors deserve all the credit or compensation in the economy is absurd.

[Sauron]

The chairman of AIG, the failed insurance company, thinks that public outrage over Wall St. bonuses rises to the level of lynch mobs in the South that hunted blacks down and hung them.

Last I checked, nobody was hanging CEOs or investment bankers by a tree, burning crosses on their lawns, or dragging them by a chain behind a truck for five miles. (Not that it wouldn't be a good deterrent).

This is also why I have no sympathy for the 1% - attempting to equate their social discomfort at being exposed for greed is not the moral equivalent of being lynched.

The uproar over bonuses “was intended to stir public anger, to get everybody out there with their pitch forks and their hangman nooses, and all that-sort of like what we did in the Deep South [decades ago]. And I think it was just as bad and just as wrong.”

[erimir]

FB convo:

Originally Posted by original libertarian

Only essential US Government Functions are now working. Why are my taxes normally sponsoring non-essential government? ....

Originally Posted by lolbert

Every dollar of $3.7 trillion in federal spending and every one of the 2.7 million federal employees are important!

Originally Posted by lolbert

govt paychecks forcibly stolen from mine and those who can't find work thanks to new taxes and regulations created by bureaucratic hacks at agencies like the EPA...

Originally Posted by lolbert

But you know, if the US's federal govt's role in society shrunk to say that of bankrupt shitholes like Singapore's, society WILL collapse.

Originally Posted by lolbert

Because the US and UK in the 19th century experienced no progress. HK is starving without "protections for our workers, a safety net, and PUBLIC investments in our future." I suggest if you don't like limited government you should move to strong govt societies like the DPRK, Cuba, Soviet Union, and various other socialist utopias that empowered the workers and gave out a social safety net.

Originally Posted by me

Singapore... One party rule for 50+ years, low freedom of speech and assembly, no trial by jury, draconian drug laws, etc. In addition to the health care mandatory savings mentioned above, they have some government hospitals with substantial subsidies, which is hardly the "free market". Why do I see libertarians point to them as an example so often, exactly?

Why not find a functioning libertarian society to point to instead?

Originally Posted by lolbert

^^ Hong Kong, US & UK in the 19th century, some cantons of Switzerland, Chile. Furthermore, within societies you see much better functioning of healthcare services in areas that have the least amount of government intervention (elective procedures). Obviously nothing is entirely free market, but Singapore's health system is even more free market than the US's because there are price incentives driving most behavior. We're all effectively forced into some kind of nationalized healthcare system -- the big difference is that Singapore's is matched funded with a price system while the US's is a ponzi scheme with no price rationing and restricted to certain incomes/ages.

With regard to political and civil freedoms, it should be totally obvious that economic freedom is a lot more important to standard of living outcomes and the necessary condition for most other freedoms.

Originally Posted by me

Switzerland has universal healthcare with an insurance mandate including strict regulations on insurance companies that prohibit profit on basic insurance plans. Most Hong Kong hospitals are government run. Chile has a public option for insurance and government hospitals.

US and UK in the 19th century... I assume you mean AFTER slavery... So going after that, in the US this was the time of robber barons, little safety regulation (yay Great Chicago Fire), brutal repression of African-Americans, few rights for women, etc. And why would the 19th century US be a good model for healthcare? UK in the 19th century, a monarchic empire whose wealth was built on the exploitation of colonized peoples around the world.

Would you care to try again to point to a functioning libertarian society?

[Watser?]

He did. That is exactly what these assholes think was the ideal society. You prolly gave them a hard-on with 'robber barons, little safety regulation (yay Great Chicago Fire), brutal repression of African-Americans, few rights for women'.

[Qingdai]

[Vivisectus]

Hey, have a look at the way private police is really working awesomely well in Laos, Nigeria and JoBurg in South Africa!

On the upside, I can afford WAY more police power than all those snivelling broke-ass libertards, because they are all disgruntled teens and tweens anyway, and I would find it hilarious to have a few examples of them experience the police system that they seem to want so bad up close and personal.

On the downside, corruption, brutality, murders, and a private police force basically operating as a gang in it's own right and running what can only be described as a protection racket.

[Sauron]

I was reading this for info on who was behind Ted Cruz and - not surprisingly - it's Big Money. But I was also struck by this new approach to traditional robber baron capitalists trying to rebrand themselves as "libertarian". It reminds me of wacko creationists a few years ago, trying to rebrand themselves as "Intelligent Design" folks, because they realized that the 'creationist' label was badly damaged and had little credibility. The new label, 'Intelligent Design', was fresh, shiny, and seemed to be seeking a middle way. Plus, new. Therefore, appealing - and without a track record to answer for.

Peter Thiel, 45, Gave $2 million to Club for Growth Super PAC

An early backer of Facebook and a co-founder of PayPal, Peter Thiel is a radical, self-described libertarian who believes that “the great task for libertarians is to find an escape from politics in all its forms.” To that end, he and Patri Friedman (grandson of economist Milton) have formed a nonprofit dedicated to the creation of floating cities -- which they call "seasteads" -- where people can “peacefully test new ideas for government.”

Virginia James, 69, gave $1.2 million

Almost nothing is known about James, who is listed in public records as an investor who lives in Lambertville, N.J. Her listed home phone number rang a few times when we called before it started making screeching fax transmission sounds. She did not respond to an e-mail sent to an AOL address also listed in public records.

[...]

John Childs, 72, gave $1.1 million

John Childs is the chairman and founder of the Boston-based private equity firm JW Childs, though Childs appears to spend most of his time in Florida. The press-shy executive is a longtime big Republican donor. He gave $1 million to Mitt Romney’s super PAC Restore Our Future last year. He’s also given to Republican Reps. Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan in recent years. The firm JW Childs is a relatively small player in the private equity world and has invested in Brookstone and Sunny Delight.

Robert Arnott, 59, gave $750,000

Arnott, the chairman and chief executive of California-based Research Affiliates, told USA Today last month that he wasn’t concerned about Republican infighting and that he’s not a Republican or a Democrat but a libertarian worried about Obamacare. “Why screw up the economy to force into action something that’s so sloppily written and that will be such a drain on the macro-economy?” he said. In other interviews, Arnott has described “daunting headwinds” heading toward the U.S. economy, what he terms a “3-D hurricane” made up of debt, deficit and demographics.

Robert Mercer, 67, gave $600,000

Mercer is a co-chief executive of Renaissance Technologies, a major hedge fund known as a quant because the firm relies on algorithms cooked up by math and physics PhDs to figure out the best trades to make. Mercer, who is also a member of the National Rifle Association, said in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, “I’m happy going through my life without saying anything to anybody.” Household staff sued Mercer in July, accusing him of not paying overtime and cutting their pay when they didn’t replace shampoo bottles when less than one-third of the bottle remained and “failing to properly close doors,” according to the complaint. Last year, Mercer gave $2 million to the Republican super PAC American Crossroads.

Paul Singer, 69, gave $100,000

Singer, one of the world’s most successful hedge fund managers, is known for his sharply-worded letters to investors that rail against everything from the Federal Reserve to the government of Argentina. In a letter to investors last year, Singer referred to the Fed’s bond-buying stimulus program as “arrant idiocy.” He has also called for increased oversight of the banks. “A great deal of stupidity has chipped away at the massive advantages of Western civilization, which could terminally decline if it remains on the current path,” Singer wrote in 2012. “But these problems can be solved — and swiftly — if the right leaders emerge.”

[Sauron]

An internet friend was trying to argue with me that the Koch Brothers were libertarians because (once upon a time, 32 years ago) he met David Koch and chatted with him. That, plus they funded CATO and Reason magazine.

(Apparently that's a common defense that gets invoked whenever anyone dares to question their fidelity to libertarianism; since this discussion with my friend, I've seen the argument a couple more times.)

Anyhow, I reminded him that the Koch Brothers were in a lawsuit with CATO over the direction of the company, precisely *because* they wanted to control CATO's focus, and specialize in pro-business, anti-tax issues instead of social issues like immigration reform, gay marriage, and decriminalization of drugs:

Reduced to its simplest level, says Bruce Bartlett, a conservative economist and historian who briefly worked at Cato and who has fallen out with the Kochs, the dispute came down to control of the think tank’s post-Crane future: “It was about making sure that when he left they would name his successor.” Under Crane, Cato achieved a degree of intellectual independence, pushing not only the predictable anti-government, pro-business views of the Kochs but also some ideas that clashed with the Republican platform, including opposition to the use of torture during the Bush years and support for gay rights and drug legalization—both of which David Koch supports, but which he and his brother have not made priorities.

As Bartlett put it, “It’s clear to me that the Kochs have abandoned libertarianism and essentially thrown in totally with the G.O.P. They are putting in place a structure that will gradually erode Cato’s independence and move it closer to the American Enterprise Institute and Heritage Foundation.”

I also reminded him that - really - talk is cheap. I'm far more concerned with how someone spends their time, influence and their donations. That's a far better indicator of whether or not someone is a real libertarian, or just borrowing the moniker because it's less controversial (and less disgusting) than the more accurate alternative, "Republican". Follow the money:

The sums of money spent in furthering Koch (pronounced like the drink coke, no matter how tempting it is to rhyme it with rock) interests and power are staggering. But what is most disturbing is how rapidly they are growing. In 2004, the CPI found, the Kochs spent a "mere" $857,000 on lobbying. In 2008, that had grown to $20m dollars. Over the next two years, they then spent a further $20.5m.

The causes are varied but self-centred around the vital interests of Koch Industries such as oil, energy, chemicals and financial products. Employing no less than 30 lobbyists in Washington, Koch Industries has lobbied to change more than 100 pieces of federal legislation. They included trying to loosen regulations on potentially poisonous substances like dioxins, benzene and asbestos. They have pushed back against restrictions on carbon emissions and funded thinktanks and groups that promote efforts to discredit climate change science. They tried to soften attempts at financial reform where the Kochs operate in the derivatives market. Wherever a law touched on a Koch corporate interests, there were the company's lobbyists trying to gut, deaden or defeat any attempt at regulation.

When the Koch Brothers spend $20m lobbying Washington for immigration reform, gay marriage, decriminalizing drugs, etc. feel free to call me and let me know. Until that time, however, they remain ordinary robber baron capitalists.

[Dingfod]

The Koch bros. are not libertarian, they use libertarians. And anyone else they can.

[lpetrich]

Ayn Rand slammed libertarians as "hippies of the right" (“Libertarians” —Ayn Rand Lexicon), but that doesn't make much sense to me, since her beliefs are a form of right-libertarianism. It's like Trotskyists vs. Maoists. From the outside, one finds it hard to tell the difference.

[The Man]

It doesn't surprise me that a woman who ran her own personality cult didn't think very highly of 'libertarians' (a term which was pilfered from the left, like almost everything else about 'libertarianism' that's actually worth paying attention to). Personality cults tend to be pretty authoritarian in nature. She may have claimed to espouse anti-authoritarian views, but the way she treated her underlings makes it pretty plain that this was just lip service. Of course, it also shouldn't really surprise anyone that a person who espoused such slavish devotion to capitalism, an intrinsically hierarchical economic system, would turn out to be a fan of hierarchy in other aspects of her life as well. And we also can't forget her collecting Social Security.

[AynMisesLibertarian]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

The Koch bros. are not libertarian, they use libertarians. And anyone else they can.

Ah the old leftist retarded idiocy that conservatives,libertarians and right-winger in general are "used" by a power elite while leftists are morally supermen who understand the "true reality"

Leftists act like conspiracy theorists cult members,they don't care about logic and economics but only about a feeling of superiority because they act like Robin Hood(even if Robin Hood stole from the State and the sheriff not from the productive capitalist,but who care? leftist understand fairy just like they understand the science of economics:ZERO)

[AynMisesLibertarian]

Originally Posted by The Man

It doesn't surprise me that a woman who ran her own personality cult didn't think very highly of 'libertarians' (a term which was [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_D%C3%A9jacque]

Term change with time, for example "liberal" was a term used by classical liberal AKA today libertarians

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by AynMisesLibertarian

Ah the old leftist retarded idiocy that conservatives,libertarians and right-winger in general are "used" by a power elite while leftists are morally supermen who understand the "true reality"

Leftists act like conspiracy theorists cult members,they don't care about logic and economics but only about a feeling of superiority because they act like Robin Hood(even if Robin Hood stole from the State and the sheriff not from the productive capitalist,but who care? leftist understand fairy just like they understand the science of economics:ZERO)

Are you 12?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

Are you 12?

Intellectually, if not actually. Sadly, this is probably Ted Cruz.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by AynMisesLibertarian

Ah the old leftist retarded idiocy that conservatives,libertarians and right-winger in general are "used" by a power elite while leftists are morally supermen who understand the "true reality"

Leftists act like conspiracy theorists cult members,they don't care about logic and economics but only about a feeling of superiority because they act like Robin Hood(even if Robin Hood stole from the State and the sheriff not from the productive capitalist,but who care? leftist understand fairy just like they understand the science of economics:ZERO)

Well, if you're gonna be like that you make it very easy to argue that lolbertarians are clueless idiots.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by EinWhinyPlagiarian

leftist understand fairy just like they understand the science of economics:ZERO)

Have you decided if economics is a hard science, or a soft science yet?

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by EinWhinyPlagiarian

Term change with time, for example "liberal" was a term used by classical liberal AKA today libertarians

So you think that the term "libertarian" meant something different to Ayn Rand, than it does today?

Feel free to demonstrate that.

[Pan Narrans]

[Stormlight]

Originally Posted by AynMisesLibertarian

Robin Hood stole from the State and the sheriff not from the productive capitalist,but who care? leftist understand fairy just like they understand the science of economics:ZERO)

Oh, dear. Please never stop posting here!

[Stormlight]

Originally Posted by AynMisesLibertarian

Ah the old leftist retarded idiocy that conservatives,libertarians and right-winger in general are "used" by a power elite while leftists are morally supermen who understand the "true reality"

Leftists act like conspiracy theorists cult members,they don't care about logic and economics but only about a feeling of superiority because they act like Robin Hood(even if Robin Hood stole from the State and the sheriff not from the productive capitalist,but who care? leftist understand fairy just like they understand the science of economics:ZERO)

Also:

God Invented Economists To Make Astrologers Look Good -- So Why Do Economists Get All The Nobel Prizes? - Forbes

looool