Koch Brothers - Libertarianism In Practice

[Leo Gura]

Some folks here have been asking about what's wrong with libertarianism, it's not a big deal, etc.

Well, here's some facts about the Koch Bros, who are massive libertarians.

 

 

 

[Nivsch]

@Leo Gura I just showed the video to a libertarian person i have an argument with, and his answer was: "So we will not produce electricity? What is your alternative?"

[Leo Gura]

@Nivsch Green New Deal

Research it.

[Andrew Rogers]

Ok, and if a cooked businessman lobbies a leftist government to buy his "green" electricity at a double price? Is it any better? I see the only solution would be a minimal government, that would not have rights to decide on such issues at all.

[Girzo]

1 hour ago, Andrew Rogers said:

only solution

no

[Andrew Rogers]

4 minutes ago, Girzo said:

no

any better ideas?

[Girzo]

Million. The government has enormous power to negotiate prices. I don't know how it is in the US, but in my country, the energy grid is public and regulated, so this gives an enormous upper-hand for the rulers. The government can fund it's own research into technology if the one available is not efficient and too pricey. They can forcefully divide the lobbying organization, so they have to compete fairly, etc. I am not a specialist there.

It seems like a non-issue currently, too. Compared to the already existing, filthy rich oil and coal lobby, no "green" lobbyist can even start to compete. Many green companies are run by a completely different set of values and wouldn't do it even if they could. Don't assume equality there. Quite the contrary, if you leave the current system in place you can be 100% sure the oil lobby will try to pull the thing you are worried about, increase the price of green energy 2x when the fossil fuels run out.

The whole idea of "minimal government is the only solution to the clean energy issue" is pure ideology. "Germany has economical issues after the war. There is only one solution! Eradicate Jews." I am not saying the idea is as bad as what Hitler has done, just pointing out a pattern.

What we need is not less government, but a more effective and natural one, less hierarchical, less corrupted, more in the hands of people.

Edited August 29, 2019 by Girzo

[Andrew Rogers]

Quote

The whole idea of "minimal government is the only solution to the clean energy issue" is pure ideology. "Germany has economical issues after the war. There is only one solution! Eradicate Jews." I am not saying the idea is as bad as what Hitler has done, just pointing out a pattern.

I don't see a pattern here. I am advocating for less government possibilities for intervention, while Hitler did quite the opposite - maximum governemnt intervention.

Quote

What we need is not less government, but a more effective and natural one, less hierarchical, less corrupted, more in the hands of people.

How do you see that working in real life? Of course, if we would just have a warehouse with 'good & competent' people that we would elect to the key positions... the problem is that we don't have such warehouse. And even good people might become corrupt pretty quickly, once they get to power.

[Girzo]

@Andrew Rogers The pattern is an ideology. "The only solution" is a purely ideological stance. In the real world, there is never a single possible solution.

Not to say that reducing government seems more like delegating the problem somewhere else than really solving it. Hoping that reducing taxes on all the big oil companies will solve the clean energy problem is at best wishful thinking, at worse deeply deluded. Having control over public infrastructure is a wet dream of corrupted capitalists, this would allow them to grow profits indefinitely (at your cost obviously).

35 minutes ago, Andrew Rogers said:

How do you see that working in real life?

As it always was. The current ruling generation dies off, it gets replaced by a newer, a little more conscious one, and so on, and so on. Evolution never sleeps and death is its safety valve. Take notice that almost no-one nowadays thinks that slavery is a good thing (or at least speaks about it), while there have been a lot of pro-slavery people in the past. They didn't change their opinions, they either died or were forced to accept the new reality.

As to how to make that process quicker, I have no idea. If I knew I would be happily fulfilling my life purpose doing exactly that.

Edited August 29, 2019 by Girzo

[Andrew Rogers]

corrupted capitalists = socialists.

Quote

it gets replaced by a newer, a little more conscious one, and so on, and so on.

There is also a problem that with the growing affluence the lag between making the wrong choice and life hammering you on the head gets longer, the new generations becomes detached from the reality. Look at what AOC is proposing?

[Girzo]

10 minutes ago, Andrew Rogers said:

corrupted capitalists = socialists

lol

10 minutes ago, Andrew Rogers said:

Look at what AOC is proposing?

Just done that.

lol x 2

Edited August 29, 2019 by Girzo

[Andrew Rogers]

1 minute ago, Girzo said:

lol

Just done that.

lol x 2

So its better to leave the decisions to the people, rather then corrupt & stupid politicians.

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Andrew Rogers said:

I don't see a pattern here. I am advocating for less government possibilities for intervention, while Hitler did quite the opposite - maximum governemnt intervention.

That is an authoritarian/totalitarian government in which people lack power. Empowering government does not assume an authoritarian/totalitarian government. In democratic socialism, it is a democracy in which people have the majority of power and use government as a tool to express the public power.

[Bodigger]

9 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

That is an authoritarian/totalitarian government in which people lack power. Empowering government does not assume an authoritarian/totalitarian government. In democratic socialism, it is a democracy in which people have the majority of power and use government as a tool to express the public power.

I see most large cities incorporating the socialist platforms and I don't see it working.  Do you think a form of this would work if it was done on a voluntary basis and not forced?

[Girzo]

@Andrew Rogers  Just to be clear, I lol'd at you saying that AOC proposes something ridiculous. 

16 minutes ago, Andrew Rogers said:

So its better to leave the decisions to the people, rather then corrupt & stupid politicians.

I get what are you pointing at and AGREE with you that more power to the people, advanced self-governing and minimal central government would be awesome. But reducing regulation is not how to get there. Otherwise big corporations are gona hijack the power instead of giving it to people. A lot more of evolving is needed before we can shrink the government.

[Andrew Rogers]

13 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

In democratic socialism, it is a democracy in which people have the majority of power and use government as a tool to express the public power.

The problem I see here that people get to vote how to redistribute someone else' money to themselves. It is just a theft made look nice.

[Andrew Rogers]

Just now, Girzo said:

@Andrew Rogers  Just to be clear, I lol'd at you saying that AOC proposes something ridiculous. 

I get what are you pointing at and AGREE with you that more power to the people, advanced self-governing and minimal central government would be awesome. But reducing regulation is not how to get there. Otherwise big corporations are gona hijack the power instead of giving it to people. A lot more of evolving is needed before we can shrink the government.

Don't you think that currently it is much easier for big corporations to buy off a few politicians, then a whole bunch of people?

Yes, people can be wrong, yes, they can made stupid decisions. But so can, and often do, politicians.

[Gidiot]

@Andrew Rogers as leo says... ALL of politics is voting to redistribute resources. What do you tell people under imminent domain when the government builds a new road or football stadium. Is that robbery? No taxes aren’t theft that’s a shortsighted argument, you overlook the Social contract, if there was no social contract and I still had to pay taxes I wouldn’t like that, but it’s an exchange, and an exchange you won’t get out of and a silly topic to argue about.

lets argue about where our taxes would go and how redistributing those taxes would benefit society.

 

you don’t have to “steal” anyone’s money if you fix the system designed to NOT redistribute unfairly and unequally in the first place. 
 

billionaires used to effectively be taxed out of existence in the USA in the FDR era (a very economically equal period, social issues aside). and now there are numerous amounts of them.

 

billionaires should be taxed out of existence.

workers should get higher wages and a percentage of profits in other benefits.

if that seems radical to you then you’re part of the problem.

[Forestluv]

4 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

I see most large cities incorporating the socialist platforms and I don't see it working.  Do you think a form of this would work if it was done on a voluntary basis and not forced?

I am not referring to socialist platforms. I am referring to democratic socialist platforms.

It would be extremely challenging to implement due to the development of 100+ years of capitalist/corporatist infrastructure, conditioning and inequality. So, your question of "on a voluntary basis" is nuanced. To me, voluntary means well-informed. If elitist corporation-driven media convince the populace that democratic socialism is the same as stalinistic socialism - I would not consider that a voluntary basis. Similarly, misrepresenting tax bills so the populace believes that they will benefit and the uber wealthy will not is also not a voluntary decision. It is similar to giving consent. If you volunteered for a clinical study and were told it was a sedative already approved in the EU and consented, yet  it was actually a new anti-psychotic drug that had never been tested in humans - that is not consent. You did not consent for the experiment - regardless of whether or not you were aware of the lie.

Regarding "forcing" a population. The source of the force is very important. Are powerful corporations applying the force? Or are people applying the force? Top-down force is very different than bottom-up force. For example, "democracy dollars" gives more power to the people - this will lead toward bottom-up forces in which the people express themselves through the government. This would be a major structural change in the U.S. government and it is what Bernie Sanders advocates. This is the "democracy" component of democratic socialism and it is very important to distinguish it from old-school socialism.

[Andrew Rogers]

3 minutes ago, Gidiot said:

@Andrew Rogers billionaires used to effectively be taxed out of existence in the USA in the FDR era (a very economically equal period, social issues aside). and now there are numerous amounts of them.

billionaires should be taxed out of existence.

workers should get higher wages and a percentage of profits in other benefits.

if that seems radical to you then you’re part of the problem.

Why just tax billionaires out of existence? Why not ship them off to Siberia, or just shoot them and redistribute their property, as it was done in Russia, China, etc. ?