The Koch brothers, astroturfing and funding the tea party,

jasonof2000

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 6, 2008
Messages
1,936
Location
Delmarva Peninsula
Car(s)
2013 Lincoln MKT, 2002 Miata SE, 2012 Honda NC700
The Libertarian Party platform called for the abolition of the F.B.I. and the C.I.A., as well as of federal regulatory agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Energy. The Party wanted to end Social Security, minimum-wage laws, gun control, and all personal and corporate income taxes; it proposed the legalization of prostitution, recreational drugs, and suicide. Government should be reduced to only one function: the protection of individual rights

I like some of their stands, but sadly most of those I agree upon are big no's for the tea party. What I find striking is that the Kochs, who don't seem to be overly religious are funding these religious fanatics, only because they agree on other issues.
 
Maybe instead of taking an article at face value, you should visit here: http://www.cato.org to get an idea of how Libertarianism works. Like any political thought, there is not one "do all, end all" philosophy.

What I do like is that Libertarians like me are scaring the shit out of big government left and right wingers.
 
Maybe instead of taking an article at face value, you should visit here: http://www.cato.org to get an idea of how Libertarianism works. Like any political thought, there is not one "do all, end all" philosophy.

What I do like is that Libertarians like me are scaring the shit out of big government left and right wingers.

How about you read the article, those 2 asshats started the Kato Group and it isn't as ideal as you think.
 
it proposed the legalization of prostitution, recreational drugs, and suicide.
I'm with them on this. Criminalization of prostitution and drugs use simply doesn't work. Selling drugs might be a different issue, but criminalizing the users is bonkers. As for prostitution, I don't like it, but I don't know of any evidence that making it criminal leads to less prostitution. If anything, it should lead to the market going into hiding, and becoming even more rough.

Suicide says itself. It's completely moronic to make that illegal. Digression time; in old catholic Europe, if you got caught trying to commit suicide, the penalty was.. wait for it.. death.

I like to say I'm a social democratic liberal-conservative pragmatic. It should make it easy to read what I think about ideologies. I think there's no one fit all ideologi. Pick and mix, that's my philosophy. I'm far from an economic liberal. But I am a social liberal. Even if I'm conservative in some things.

To dedicate oneself to one whole truth in the guise of liberalism/libertanism is as foolish as being an orthodox marxist. It just won't work.
 
Maybe instead of taking an article at face value, you should visit here: http://www.cato.org to get an idea of how Libertarianism works. Like any political thought, there is not one "do all, end all" philosophy.

What I do like is that Libertarians like me are scaring the shit out of big government left and right wingers.


Libertarianism is like communism works great in theory but in actuallity fails because people don't live up the the assumptions in the theory. I am saying this as someone who has voted for Libertarian canditates and agrees with some of their positions.

As for the Cato...

One of their reps was on CNBC the other day trying to argue that we are educating our workers too much and that is part of the problem with the current workforce. In the new economy he said many people won't even need a college degree because the jobs that are left won't require one so paying for degree is a waste of money. He was arguing that in general for a large portion of the population education was a waste.

I agree that some people shouldn't go to college. Some should go to trade school or just right into the workforce but the idea that we educate people too much in this country is insane. We are falling behind in math, science, engineering etc. when compared to the rest of the world.

The only way that makes sense is if you want a large underclass of people that you can take advantage of and trap in lower paying low skill jobs. Exactly what lots of corporations do want.


Case in point.

Morenci, Arizona is one of the last company towns in the US.

It used to be owned by the Phelps-Dodge company but is now owned by Freeport-McMoRan after they bought Phelps-Dodge.

My roommate in college worked there as an intern and later as an entry level engineer. The entire town population is employed by the company. The school teachers, police, shop owners, gas statioin EVERYTHING.

The company doesn't want an educated workforce they want to give them just enough education so that they can drive a haultruck like their dad did or work a drilling machine. The county the town is in had one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the state and country at one point. Not sure if they still do but probably. No sex education in schools and there is nothing to do in the town. There is one bowling alley/bar and that is about it. What do you think kids are going to do? Have sex and have kids at an early age.

Those kids doin't go to college because now they have their own kids. They have a low education level and go to work for the mine driving a haul truck. Their kids go to work for the mine in 18 or so years too and the cycle repeats itself. The company provides very cheap rent, 250 a month rent for a 2 bedroom house at the time my roommate worked there, which of course encourages the people to stay there.

None of the engineers and managment people are from the town. The lower level engineers and mangers live there but no one else does. Everyone else lives 45 minutes to an hour away.
 
british_rover, I think you'll like an old quote from one of Norway's less known post-war labour Prime Ministers, Odvar Nordli:

It wouldn't suprise me if macroeconomists made an equation to prove that it's unprofitable to live.
(nor: Jeg ville ikke blitt overrasket om makro?konomer regnet ut at det ikke l?nner seg ? leve.)
 
Right-wing astroturfing has exploded in the last couple years. It seems like you can't find a significant right-wing "grassroots" group without extremely wealthy backers. This, in and of itself, doesn't surprise me. But the amount of money behind it does though, I suppose.

Jay said:
What I do like is that Libertarians like me are scaring the shit out of big government left and right wingers.
Meh. I don't think too many far right politicians will do that well this fall. Look at Sharron Angle out in Nevada. Harry Reid has been grossly unpopular and he still polls slightly better than her. Republicans (not "conservatives"/teabaggers/libertarians) should be able to pick up the House in November. Should, unless crazy bastards keep winning GOP primaries.

Like some others here I do agree with some of the libertarian platform. Mostly just the social aspect. As for the economic aspect, I think we came close enough to that during the US' Gilded Age. Actually, we've got an even greater income disparity now than we did back then. Personally I'm waiting for another Teddy Roosevelt or Eisenhower to come along and nip that in the butt (along with a bunch of trustbusting). But I'm not going to hold my breath. Not when the great majority of Americans are so painfully ignorant of politics and what is actually in their best interest.
 
Top