Two recent Minnesota Public Radio/Humphrey Institute polls on the Minnesota U.S. Senate race both find Independence Party candidate Dean Barkley at 14 percent, while a Survey USA poll has Barkley at 19 percent and a recent Minneapolis Star Tribune Minnesota Poll had Barkley at 18 percent.
59 Comments
Comments are closed.
Agreed.
You know, GE… This banter actually helped me understand what true libertarianism is and what it was all about. Although I suspect I my views stray from classical liberalism/libertarianism, America would best be served to have one party pushing this agenda in Congress and state legislatures. It’s too bad the Libertarian Party is has become whatever it is currently (in my opinion).
Classical liberals are the original liberals, who fought the mercantilist/feudalist/royalist conservatives. Classical liberals believe in laissez-faire capitalism and free trade, representative government, separation of church and state, and civil liberties.
This is what “liberal” meant until the term was hijacked by socialists and social democrats during the New Deal. Hence the need for prefacing with “classical.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberal
There is a lot of overlap between classical liberalism and libertarianism, but the two terms are not quite synonymous.
I’m going to ask… What’s a classical liberal?
I always thought “liberal” was pro-choice, against war at all cost, human rights advocate, anti-death penalty, pro gun control, environmentalist, support gay rights, etc.
I suspect many liberals (my version) have a few issues where they can be a bit more conservative.
There are plenty of classical liberals.
ModernWhig,
You may be one of the few liberals here, but you are not the only Whig!
This site is a good resource because you will get opinions and commentary that is not readily available in the mainstream context. You may not agree with much, but you will learn a lot about various points of view.
Am I one of the few honest to god liberals on this site?
Ross,
I will try to take the high road, and not be as confrontational as G.E. The way I see it, either the employee at the banana plant is voluntary doing his job, or he is a slave whose status is protected by the government.
If it is the first scenario, then clearly the employee sees that he will benefit more from working at the banana plant then from not working at the banana plant. He values his income more than his safety. Given that scenario, you would actually be making his life worse by forcing people not to buy bananas from his employer. If his employer has a lot of foreign customers, then that means he is doing a good job, and is being rewarded for it monetarily. If he weren’t either he would be fired or banana sales would go down. By placing a trade barrier with the intended purpose of protecting that employee, you ensure that he would not be rewarded accordingly for his services. Also, the United States has less bananas. This is a lose-lose situation. Clearly, a win-win situation would be one that allows unrestricted free trade, because Americans benefit with more bananas, and the employer and employee benefit from greater income.
If his status is the latter, then chances are he is living under an authoritarian/socialist regime. If a trade barrier is placed against that country, then the American people have less bananas, but the authoritarian government he lives under is still in place, and can benefit politically from blaming the United States for their poverty. This is a lose-lose situation. Alternatively, if there is unrestricted free trade, then the authortarian state is still in place, but the American people have more bananas. This is a win-lose situation, which is preferable to a lose-lose situation.
Ross – Understood, and I apologize for missing your comment #42. I only talk this way to friends and enemies, and I consider you a friend.
I think we both misinterpreted each other, GE. I find it hard to have a discussion like this online. You don’t get tone of voice, body language, etc.
Maybe you can’t tell from these comments, but I practically live in a house of mirrors. It’s a rare day when I’m sure of myself about something like what we were talking about.
BTW: My comment #43 was made before reading Ross’s #42; and my #47 in response to paulie is in reference to everything Ross said prior to #42.
Nor Ron Paul’s. But so what? I can only be me.
Vin – Well, ultimately, a “statist” is someone who believes in “the state” — that is, non-voluntary territorial monopoly government. In that sense, someone is either a statist or an anarchist. However, generally people refer to someone as being “more statist” the more government they favor. George W. Bush is a bigger statist than Pat Buchanan, but both are statists. That would be the strictest definition.
paulie – I tried defending Ross’s positions on non-violent grounds, and then he makes blanket statements like “free trade is not fair” and proceeds to say I’m supporting violence by buying organic bananas. He then puts words into my mouth, says I said things I didn’t say (repeatedly) and speaks from authority when he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. You can handle him gently if you’d like, but I find that insulting. He’s 15, but he’s smart enough to know better and hyper-tolerance of his embrace of theft and murder is not going to provoke him to take a good look in the mirror.
For all G.E.’s praise of Mary Ruwart, he sure doesn’t emulate her methods of explaining libertarian positions to non-libertarians…
GE,
I’ve never heard of the term “statist” before reading comments on this site. I’m sincerely curious as to what your definition is.
There are other intellectual terms I have learned since reading this site, such as paleo-conservative, but “statist” is thrown around as something bad. Thanks!
GE
Ross is showing a sincere interest in learning. Your response is to call him a moron and an idiot. I realize that kind of approach works on you, but for most people, it causes them to lose interest in considering your ideas seriously, rather than gain any. Which is a shame, because you are essentially correct.
Ross – No consequences? Where do you get this from? To the extent that foreign workers are abused, it is because their governments condone that abuse. To the extent you just don’t like the conditions that they voluntarily agree to work under; TOO BAD.
Having jurisdiction over imports is the same as restricting a foreigner’s right to sell to me — and my right to buy from a foreigner. It is central-planning communism. It is evil, stupid, and it doesn’t work. If the public lie factories taught economics, you’d know that. That’s why even your Zionist hero Tom Friedman is for what he thinks is “free trade” and mocks morons like you.
What makes you think there would be no courts? You’re an idiot, Ross.
If you think buying bananas initiates force, then you are so beyond redemption with stupidity and immorality, there’s no hope for you.
What about the employer changes his business because he doesn’t have a market without the US? Or how about nothing changes and the employee dies from working at the banana plant, but just a slightly slower death?
It’s not like I passionately believe in the right of the state to regulate trade. I just got a little tired of GE’s attitude and overreacted. I’m sorry.
GE, I’m not sure of myself. I don’t know that fair trade regulations are the best way to make sure that the environment and human rights are protected. The only thing I strive for in what I support is the happiness of every person on Earth.
And I’ve thought about the basic idea behind your philosophy: it is wrong to initiate force. That seems to make sense, but I just don’t know enough to decide one way or the other on it.
So for now, I’ll just keep reading and thinking and debating, and maybe some day I’ll favor absolute freedom in every situation. I don’t know.
Ross,
Which would you rather happen? The employee gets abused by his employer, or the employee starves to death because the U.S. placed an embargo on the product he makes, and thus can’t afford food?
“Employers should not abuse workers.” So what if, in your world, an employer does abuse workers? There are no consequences. THAT’S EVIL.
The US doesn’t have jurisdiction over anywhere but the US, but it does have a say in what is imported to the US.
You called what I believe evil (which was a mischaracterization on your part to begin with), and therefore I said you were calling me evil.
How would you sue your employer if there aren’t any courts to sue him in?
I never said I could run the world and I don’t know why you would go out of your way to call me stupid.
You buying bananas (this is a hypothetical, so I don’t care if you buy organic or not, even though some “organic” plantations really do use pesticides) DOES initiate force. It does it indirectly, though.
Not very nice, are you G.E.?
In summary: Ross wants people to vote for politicians to enact laws to prevent them from buying things they obviously want or else they wouldn’t buy them. That’s just fucking stupid, period. It doesn’t even make one iota of sense.
Public school really fails you, doesn’t it, Ross? I did NOT call YOU evil.
My ability to buy and sell across borders does NOT initiate force. It does NOT limit anyone’s freedom.
I don’t buy bananas that have pesticides sprayed on them. I buy organic. Years ago, there wasn’t demand for organic products, but now there is. The marketplace provides me with the product that I want, so long as it is profitable to do so.
What you want is to use the government’s guns to enforce YOUR choices on the rest of us. It isn’t good enough for you to buy what you want to buy, you want to limit the choices of others. That is evil.
Employers should not abuse workers. If an employer abuses me, I will not work for him and/or I will sue him. What you fail to understand is that you don’t have any jurisdiction over Ecuador or wherever. You don’t get to run their countries and you don’t have the right to interfere in labor negotiations. You are a little budding totalitarian with a neocon mindset. It’s quite depressing.
Your solution is to limit my rights and the rights of others. I have the right to do anything that does not initiate force, Ross. You do not have the right, nor are you anywhere close to being smart enough, to run the world according to your narrow values.
There! You just called me evil!
But if your freedom to “buy and sell across borders” results in the limiting of others’ freedoms (ie, the workers who make the products you would be buying and selling), then what do you make of that?
An example: You want to buy a banana in a world with no trade restrictions. So you go to the store and buy a Ecuadorian banana. But to grow the banana, the company that grew it sprayed pesticides on the fields while their workers were in it. Plus, the government of Ecuador has limited the civil rights of the plantation workers in order to increase profits from the banana industry, an important sector of their economy. So by having the right to buy that particular banana, you are getting rid of that workers’ right to clean air and civil rights.
But if a fair trade policy were instituted that had certain environmental and human rights standards for imports, you could still buy bananas, but they just wouldn’t limit the rights of the people working to grow them.
Ross – You support the idea that bureaucrats can restrict my freedom to buy and sell across borders. Ultimately, you think that I should be killed for engaging in voluntary exchange. That’s evil.
I didn’t say that every “Muslim” is a statist, but it is a fact that the Koran prescribes an Islamic state, whereas the Bible does not prescribe a Christian state.
I’m not trying to “alienate” anyone; but denying fact in the name of political correctness is not morally acceptable to me.
“Trent – You’re really a dedicated pro-religionist, aren’t you? The Koran prescribes an Islamic state; period. Islam is a statist religion just like Judaism is a violent racist religion. Religions are ideologies and deserve no extra respect just because they’re based on superstition instead of poor logic.”
Though I am an atheist myself, I don’t think it is fair to label anyone who follows a religion as “statist”. Even though the Judeo-Christian religions live by the Golden Rule, that doesn’t seem to prevent the overwhelming majority of those religions from being statists. Likewise, just because the Islamic religion prescibes the creation of a Muslim state doesn’t prevent minorities of Muslims from being libertarians. As much as I think that religion is bull, libertarianism isn’t going to go anywhere by alienating the major religions.
“He opposes factory farming”
Well, “factory farming” creates huge cost advantages. That’s why it’s used. The few family farms left hate it because they obviously can’t compete at the same level of quality. They need to specialize and find their market niches or exit the market altogether. And I haven’t heard Franken come out and oppose confinement at high stocking density techniques outright. He’s been trying to get the ag vote and putting political pressure on large producers is not the way to do it.
I’d love to join this fray and make some of the points GE is making, but without the distracting vitriol. Unfortunately, I’m having carpal tunnel issues, so no can do.
mscrib, please give Jake Witmer a call at 907-250-5503. He wants to learn more about marketing the LP to small businesses.
And Trent is correct about Dean Ahmad.
Is G.E. just some Dadaist online installation piece created by some art student? Maybe. It would be pretty good…
As much as I dislike Tom Friedman’s columns and books, I don’t think using words like “evil” helps anything. He’s certainly done some good in the fact that he has gotten many people to accept the benefits of globalization.
Throwing “Zionist” around is pretty useless, too, considering Israel was already created 60 years ago and is unlikely to go away (it being the strongest nation in the Middle East). The national movement has been recognized. The goals of Zionism were achieved long ago and Israel has successfully defended itself from outside threats. Ex post facto Zionist doesn’t have the same ring to it, though…
I don’t have an ideology! And freedom doesn’t have just one definition, GE. Freedom doesn’t mean “anarcho-capitalism.”
Ross – How can you say you don’t hate freedom? Look at your political positions and the base of your ideology. I don’t care if you “lose respect” for me. If I didn’t tell the truth about statism, I’d lose respect for myself.
Trent – You’re really a dedicated pro-religionist, aren’t you? The Koran prescribes an Islamic state; period. Islam is a statist religion just like Judaism is a violent racist religion. Religions are ideologies and deserve no extra respect just because they’re based on superstition instead of poor logic.
You said Tom Friedman is a Zionist neocon violence-monger, and he’s my “hero mold.” I’m not going to search through all of IPR’s comments, but you really throw the word evil around.
And me hating freedom is a statement of fact? You’re ridiculous, GE. I usually don’t have too much of a problem with you, even if you say stuff that I vehemently disagree with and say things that are offensive to me, but this is really starting to make me lose some respect for you, if you can honestly think that without seeing the absurdness of it.
GE,
Feel free to check out the Minaret of Freedom Institute. Islamists do not neccesarily = statist anymore than Christians do.
No it is not a matter of fact that he hates freedom. People have different views on freedom
I didn’t say you were a “Zionist neocon violence-monger,” I said the evil Thomas Friedman was. And if you can find where I said you were “evil,” I will deeply apologize — but I didn’t; I said your twisted views were evil because they are. And to say you hate freedom is just a statement of fact; sorry.
Saying I “hate freedom” and I’m a “Zionist neocon violence-monger” and all the times you’ve called me evil. And while some of those things aren’t typically insults, the way you (mis)used them was like an insult.
What personal attack? Characterizing someone’s political positions (accurately) is not a “personal attack.”
I’m saying, stop the personal attacks on people.
Suck what up where? I’m fine with people disagreeing with me. What’s your problem?
GE for Gods sake! People disagree with you, suck it up. I’m sure you are a big boy and can respect people for their disagreements.
There would be no “state” in my “ideal society.” That does not mean there would be no “government” — there would be many governments, which would be voluntary in nature.
Regardless, if someone were accused of murder, he would be tried, and if found guilty, then he would be made to pay restitution to the family and/or heirs of the victim, up to a maximum penalty of his or her own life.
GE, would there be any punishment for one person murdering someone else in your ideal society? Or would that be illegal for the government to do, because coercion of any kind would be illegal?
You find the views of non-violence and voluntary cooperation as disagreeable as I find theft and murder?
darolew – who are you talking to?
Yes, I know, you disagree with Friedman so he’s evil. And guess what, I’m evil too! And I hate freedom!
GE, I find your views just as disagreeable as you find mine. But I don’t go around calling you names and being annoying because if it. Maybe if you actually talked to people rather than talking at them there would be a few more “anarcho-capitalists.”
“The market” (i.e. the aggregate of individual choices made freely and voluntarily) doesn’t have a “conscience,” but central planners in the politburo do!
Tom Friedman is another Zionist neocon violence-monger: the Ross Levin hero mold. And even he’d mock your “fair trade” Communism.
The producer has no incentive to tell you country of origin because THERE IS NOT SUFFICIENT AGGREGATE DEMAND for that information. If there were, you’d know. And if child labor were legalized, then there probably would be sufficient aggregate demand from people who hate freedom like you.
Trying to help third-world countries by not buying (or selling) their products is absurd. Embargoes against Cuba and Iraq have done nothing but hurt the general population. Protectionism does the same thing, as does fair trade, itself a current of protectionism. Poor countries have the worst records when it comes to child labor and pollution. Free trade makes everyone involved richer. Thus, free trade helps end pollution and child labor abuse. What does fair trade do? How does making the country poorer do to promote progress? Nothing. Progress comes through an increase in the standard of living, and that comes through free trade, not withholding trade for any reason.
In the words of Tom Friedman (who might have been quoting someone else), “The market doesn’t have a conscience.”
Tell me how I’m supposed to know if something is produced by child labor if the producer has no incentive to tell me.
I’m not against the right of children to work – and children can work in the current US. There are just limits to the kind of work they can do and limits to the hours they can work.
Ross is like an Uncle Tom to young people; an anti-feminist woman, etc. How can you be against the right of children to work? Put on your brown shirt and salute the state! You would fit right in in Nazi Germany, Hitler Youth.
You think a group of central planning communists can ensure “fairness” better than the marketplace.
If you don’t like child labor, then don’t buy child-labor produced products and encourage others not to, either. If a vast majority don’t want them, then there won’t be any.
You are such a brainwashed bootlicking sycophant and violence-monger that you think majorities can elect governments to force them to do things they otherwise wouldn’t do.
Free trade is not fair trade. Fair trade ensures environmental, social, and economic standards for workers and companies. True free trade (REAL free trade) would technically allow things like child labor and unregulated pollution. Although it could be argued that pollution could be controlled through property rights, but I honestly don’t know much about that, especially in other countries.
They could be.
Factory farms tend to infringe on their neighbor’s property rights.
Renewable energy could be supported by taking away subsidies from Big Oil and more strictly enforcing property rights.
Free trade is fair trade.
But… of course, these aren’t what Israel-first neocon Franken means.
As for the other two things: if only they were true.
Are those supposed to be good things?!
He opposes factory farming, supports renewable energy, supports some kind of fair trade, is opposed to standardized testing, wants to pull out of Iraq. Those are a few things.
What’s good about Al Franken?
What’s wrong with Al Franken?
I think if the alternatives were Al Franken or a Republican incumbent, I would think very seriously about other choices, too.