When choosing between two evils, I always like to try the one I've never tried before. - Mae West

MATHSEX · MASTER BATOR

RE: OBAMA ELECTED

john31584 · Zinc Saucier

So....numbers?

-- Edited by john31584 at 14:42, 2008-11-06

Dexter · Worst Poster of Always

The stock market dropped because a report listing tons of loss jobs was published. It had nothing to do with Obama. Wall Street doesn't really care who's taking office on the 20th, they care about what's going on right now.

Jason · Only in cartoons

So yeah, I actually wasn't seriously positing that Barack Obama's election caused the stock markets to drop... It was a poor attempt at humor, teasing the Obama supporters who seem to imagine swift and perfect fixes to all of our nation's ills.

DEATHPIGGIE · I'm fat and nobody likes me

Jason · Only in cartoons

God bless the Onion.

DEATHPIGGIE · I'm fat and nobody likes me

So on the other side of the coin, people who opposed Obama are going way overboard. I don't know if this is normally how liberals are after an election of a Republican like Bush, but my GOD it's annoying as ****.

Even on boards of what I thought were real intellectuals...They're talking about survivalist bull****, and how to get through the next four years of Socialist expansionism. They say how the federal government is just going to grow and grow, neglecting that Bush and Reagan saw the largest expansions of the Fed and the Executive branch in 40 years.

Jason · Only in cartoons

This is a good article to read, even if you don't identify as a libertarian: http://reason.com/news/show/129932.html

Reason Magazine is great; its writers always so... reasonable.

DEATHPIGGIE · I'm fat and nobody likes me

Far too many kind words towards liberals and even Marxists. That is one of the biggest down falls of the libertarian movement. They want to mate with anything that will have it. Whenever I start to feel sympathetic to libertarians again, I see something like this.

Jason · Only in cartoons

It strikes me as unlikely that you will be able to persuasively prove a priori that libertarian economic policy is beneficial. This can only be proven with the argument from effect. The moral argument doesn't work; it succeeds in making people firmer more confident libertarians, but it does not convert anyone to this line of thinking. Only through a respectful discourse can libertarians and liberals reconcile their differences (I agree that there is more hope in talking to liberals than boneheaded conservatives) and actually make a better society. This is so important when you consider that they are holding all the cards right now. They control the executive, and they control both houses of Congress.

The libertarian needn't agree with the liberal, but he should do what he can to work with the liberal to make the world more livable for him.

DEATHPIGGIE · I'm fat and nobody likes me

The two biggest problems I have with the Right today is 1. the overwhelming influence of the Religious Right and 2. Their increasing Keynesian influences.

So, my second biggest problem is they are aligning with what they ostensibly call their enemies.

The Liberals and conservatives are not people to be mingled with. This can be seen clearly with the two big libertarian figures of the last election; Barr and Paul. The corruption of conservatism is obvious, but now Libertarians are becoming far too sympathetic with the liberals who support social superficials like abortion and gay marriage, but often times for the wrong reason. They clearly don't believe in individual rights, the right to choose or any other good fundamentals.

DEATHPIGGIE · I'm fat and nobody likes me

Jason wrote:

It strikes me as unlikely that you will be able to persuasively prove a priori that libertarian economic policy is beneficial. This can only be proven with the argument from effect. The moral argument doesn't work; it succeeds in making people firmer more confident libertarians, but it does not convert anyone to this line of thinking. Only through a respectful discourse can libertarians and liberals reconcile their differences (I agree that there is more hope in talking to liberals than boneheaded conservatives) and actually make a better society. This is so important when you consider that they are holding all the cards right now. They control the executive, and they control both houses of Congress.

The libertarian needn't agree with the liberal, but he should do what he can to work with the liberal to make the world more livable for him.

The moral argument is the basis of everything, in my opinion. If something is moral, there is no distinction between that and the "practical" side. A society where men don't own their own bodies or property is not a practical society, no matter how many people supposedly prosper.

Laissez-faire economics have proven themselves time and time again to be far superior to 1930s Keynesianism. Ludwig Von Mises has continued to be proven right and the pricks of the Socialist revolutions have continued to be proven wrong in BASIC economics.

I think arguing for capitalism without the moral aspect is impotent. It naturally leads to people working for their own sakes, and this has been an increasing criticism from both major candidates. We need rules and regs to make sure people aren't acting for themselves. Country First. Selfishness is not a virtue. Selflessness is glory.

Jason · Only in cartoons

My big problems with the right are manyfold: (1) Their nationalistic collectivism bundled with militarism, (2) The blatent disregard for basic human rights (e.g. torture), (3) The influence of radical religious fundamentalism, which is both anti-intellectual and anti-scientific, (4) Their betrayal of fiscal conservativism and sound money, (5) Their growing tendency to view economic interests in terms of corporate interests, leading to corruption and impediments to entrepreneurship.

I could go on.

DEATHPIGGIE · I'm fat and nobody likes me

Nationalism is definitely a problem, and while I support use of the military, McCain and I disagree heavily on what being involved in the military even means, and why we should use military force.

Case-in-point: lets stay in Iraq for 100 years, until the job is done. The consequences don't matter, it's just our moral duty.

Of course he has also made some creepy comments about conscription and how it was just "not practical at the moment."
That says A LOT.

Jason · Only in cartoons

DEATHPIGGIE wrote:
The moral argument is the basis of everything, in my opinion. If something is moral, there is no distinction between that and the "practical" side. A society where men don't own their own bodies or property is not a practical society, no matter how many people supposedly prosper.

Laissez-faire economics have proven themselves time and time again to be far superior to 1930s Keynesianism. Ludwig Von Mises has continued to be proven right and the pricks of the Socialist revolutions have continued to be proven wrong in BASIC economics.

I think arguing for capitalism without the moral aspect is impotent. It naturally leads to people working for their own sakes, and this has been an increasing criticism from both major candidates. We need rules and regs to make sure people aren't acting for themselves. Country First. Selfishness is not a virtue. Selflessness is glory.

I don't mean to say that the moral argument isn't sound, but only that it is not successful in convincing people to adopt libertarian worldviews.

I of course agree that laissez-faire has proven itself effective time and time again.

As I mentioned before, the right is not more collectivist than the left. I do not propose and alliance with anyone, but I do propose cooperation. I will not give up any of my values, but I will work towards making the world we live in more free.

Jason · Only in cartoons

You know what sucks?

The economy will probably grow in the next ten years and people will attribute this to Obama's economic policy, opposed to Bush's "deregulation".

DEATHPIGGIE · I'm fat and nobody likes me

On people not accepting the argument from morality, I think the last weeks of the McCain campaign showed one thing: people don't like the concept of wealth redistribution. We saw the biggest jumps in McCain's numbers when he started bringing that up, and while people were not able to fully comprehend what was being said (If they had, they wouldn't have been at the McCain rally long), I think it shows a lot of strength that people know what is moral. They don't want the government using their money for the sake of others

DEATHPIGGIE · I'm fat and nobody likes me

Jason wrote:

You know what sucks?

The economy will probably grow in the next ten years and people will attribute this to Obama's economic policy, opposed to Bush's "deregulation".

All that Sarbanes-Oxley deregulation
*Rolls eyes*

Jason · Only in cartoons

DEATHPIGGIE wrote:

On people not accepting the argument from morality, I think the last weeks of the McCain campaign showed one thing: people don't like the concept of wealth redistribution. We saw the biggest jumps in McCain's numbers when he started bringing that up, and while people were not able to fully comprehend what was being said (If they had, they wouldn't have been at the McCain rally long), I think it shows a lot of strength that people know what is moral. They don't want the government using their money for the sake of others

I do think that the argument from morality works with people who already have libertarian leanings. A lot of people out there, however, have very different conceptions of social justice.

john31584 · Zinc Saucier

So, North Carolina was just called for Obama, not that it affects the outcome, but it does bring him up to 364 electoral votes.

That just leaves Missouri, which looks like it's going to go to McCain by a very narrow margin.