Wearing Guns, and Support for (R-douchebag) Ron Paul, on Their Hips

[jpak]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/us/politics/pahrump-nev-wears-guns-and-ron-paul-support-on-its-hip.html

PAHRUMP, Nev. — On rare occasions, when a brave — or foolish — local official here proposes banning firearms from government buildings or meetings, he is met with howls of protests by sidearm-wearing residents who pack public hearings. Shocked tourists on the way to Death Valley periodically call the local sheriff’s office to report someone wearing a pistol in plain view. That is their right, they are told.

This is a town — unincorporated, to be sure — where many folks have little need for much government, whether manifested by permits, stop signs, gun regulations or anything that would threaten Pahrump’s brothels. That goes for surrounding Nye County as well, which is more than twice the size of New Jersey but is home to only 44,000 residents, mostly in Pahrump.

This is the heart of Ron Paul country, the one county in Nevada that the 76-year-old congressman from Texas carried in the 2008 Republican caucuses, and a place that wears its libertarianism proudly.

It is also a place where many people come to be left alone. “There are a lot of people who hide in Pahrump,” said Carl England Jr., who, as pastor of a Baptist church here and also proprietor of a local septic business, knows a lot about his neighbors.

<much more>

[baldguy]

1. "Libertarianism" is a synonym for childish stupidity.

Always has been.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

7. My mistake.

I was told the same about name calling.

[mvccd1000]

8. Interesting

I've always equated childhood with needing someone to look out for you and provide for you, while adults provide for themselves and those who depend on them.

Seen through that lens, it would seem that the libertarians are the adults while those who are looking to cede all control to the government are the childish ones.

[baldguy]

10. Right. "Every man for himself", "Screw the other guy" & "Mine, all mine!. Me! Me! Me!"

are political philosophies for adults, not petulant & selfish children.



http://www.angryflower.com/



http://leftycartoons.com/

You go with that. Just don't use any public roads, or the electrical grid, or any national communications network, or expect to sue anyone in court when you get screwed.

[mvccd1000]

12. As long as we're completely misrepresenting each others' positions...

... don't expect to choose where you go to school or work, or where you live or what you drive, or what doctor you can go to or how many kids you can have, or even how often or what you eat. It's possible you might make a choice that is bad for you or offensive for someone else, so it's much better to let the government decide for you, "for society's sake."

(Obviously not a very realistic scenario, but just as representative as your example of libertarian philosophy.)

[baldguy]

18. You're being facetious. Or should I say "childish"?

You know as well as I do those things are decided by economics, not the govt.

I'd love to have my kids go to the best schools in the world & have a job that pays a great deal, and that's easy & fascinating & fulfilling all at once. I'd love own a big house that's maintenance free & doesn't cost anything to run. I'd love to have a big, fast & stylish car.

But, of course I don't have the money for those things. (And simple physics prevents others from being available.)

But what I can have is pretty good public schools for my kids - if my community values education & is willing to pay for it as a community. I can have a car that's safe & fuel efficient because the govt forced the manufacturers to make them so. I can work in a safe place because OSHA has regulations which require it to be safe. And I my job has a decent wage, with medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation in exchange for my labor because the govt forced employers to bargain with the union my grandfathers & fathers were able to join. This wage allows me to own a house that's big enough for me & my family, in a neighborhood that's safe because of the police & fire depts, which are funded by the taxes I pay. The food I eat is safe to eat & my high blood pressure medication won't kill me because the FDA has enacted regulations to ensure that they are safe.

Libertarians have opposed everyone of these benefits provided by the govt. And most of them blithely unaware of why they exist and how they benefit from them. Libertarians use every one of them & more, all the while saying: "We don’t need those big govt liberals ruining our lives; after all, I’m a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have”.

[BiggJawn]

39. +100

[krispos42]

44. Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican

Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn’t think he should loose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

<more>

http://tvnewslies.org/tvnl/index.php/editorial/guest-commentary/21099-day-in-the-life-of-joe-middle-class-republican.html

[baldguy]

47. Libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke pot.

[Callisto32]

14. Rampant mischaracterization.

Smoke and mirrors.

Oh, and your own fiat.

All you ever have.

[AtheistCrusader]

56. If we're going for any semblance of accuracy here, Dagny Taggard DOES cook and clean

for John Galt to repay him for his expenditures on her medical care when her plane crashes into Galt's Gulch. And some of the characters that held industrial lead positons before they went 'on strike' most certainly do grow food in the valley. So the first cartoon is completely stupid, apparently drawn by someone who never read the book.

The second cartoon is better.

[DanTex]

13. The classic quote about Atlas Shrugged:

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

I've seen it attributed to Paul Krugman, but it looks like he got it from here:
http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2009/03/ephemera-2009-7.html
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/28/rule-by-the-ridiculous/

[Callisto32]

15. One can be a libertarian without worshipping or even being able to stand Rand.

In fact, I find Rand to be pretty disgusting, ignoring the very humanity that I seek to further through my libertarian philosophy.

Objectivism and libertarianism are NOT the same.

[jpak]

20. Libertarians are assholes - Ron Paul being the prime example

yup

[Callisto32]

24. Are you always this abusive to people you don't know.

Thing is, jpak. If I called YOU an asshole, I'd have proof.

[rl6214]

27. Yes he is, juvenile name calling is all he's got

He can't get into a discussion without throwing out a few insults and resorting to his normal shtick.

[provis99]

54. many people on DU call republicans assholes, too.

How about defending Republicans against DU now, too?

[Remmah2]

30. Ron Paul's a libertarian.

What's your excuse?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

45. oh, snap!

nice.

[DanTex]

28. I've read and been told that there's a difference, but never bothered to figure out what it was.

My understanding is that there's not much difference between the two when it comes to political philosophy. From what I've seen, both libertarians and objectivists believe in essentially unfettered laissez faire capitalism, and are drawn to platitudes like "taxation is slavery", etc. And, yes, I believe this is childish. In reality the government has an important role to play in many areas of society.

[Callisto32]

29. What do you believe to be the foundational philosophy of libertarianism?

Would you be surprised to learn that quite a few of us feel that it is a two pronged fork consisting of something akin to Kant's categorical imperative and the harm principle?

It often grows out of a belief that you cannot, and should not try to, own or control others. No human being is in a better position to make decisions for an individual than that person. They may have motivations or beliefs that you consider "wrong" or "against their own best interests" but that isn't your call to make. You cannot know the entirety of another person's situation and so cannot make decisions for them. After accepting this as true, I could no longer accept the notion that initiation of force is morally justifiable.

If these are the concerns of child, so be it.

[DanTex]

32. It's not the principles, it's the way that they are applied that I object to.

The "harm principle" is great in theory, but can easily be taken to far. For example, strictly speaking it wouldn't allow the government to regulate who is able to perform surgery via medical licensing. It also wouldn't allow things like social security or medicare, which force people to pay into a collective insurance system even if they might prefer not to. And it wouldn't allow the government to pass laws protecting workers from, say, toxic chemicals in the workplace. And so on.

That kind of stuff might sound great in the abstract, but in reality, it's, yes, childish. You need government in these and other areas of society otherwise things simply wouldn't function.

[gejohnston]

41. I agree with you to a point

Would not the "harm theory" also be applied to protect the above? Taking the theory too far could also bring it full circle.
Factory A dumps crap in the river and harms people at town B, the theory would apply. The down side is it would be enforced in civil court after half of town B are dead. That is why the plutocrats love "tort reform".
In the end right wing libertarianism (as understood by many people now) protects some institutions like corporations from government and individuals but not individuals from corporations. It seems that right wing libertarianism puts capitalism above people and government (profits over people and everything else).
Left wing libertarianism, like Noam Chomsky, tend to view capitalism and government as equally bad.

But then, what do I know? I'm the guy that thinks taking any ideology too seriously is folly.

[DanTex]

42. Wow! We agree on something!

I think the current common use of the term "libertarianism" refers to what you are describing as "right-wing libertarianism" (i.e. the Milton Friedman stuff). At least that's how I use it and how I've seen it used.

The "harm theory" would not protect things like social security and medicare, because these are simply government run insurance programs that everyone is forced to enroll in against their will (that's how a libertarian would put it). As far as dumping toxic crap in a river, or messing up a surgery, yes, in principle the "harm theory" would allow the victims to sue for compensation. Of course, as you point out the downside is that half the people in the town are already dead.

And it is ironic that modern-day libertarians and right-wingers tend to support "tort reform". Milton Friedman was famously opposed to medical licensing, arguing that the free market would do a better job of sorting out the good doctor from the quacks. And one of his arguments about how the market would accomplish this was malpractice lawsuits:

There is still another way in which licensure, and the associated monopoly in the practice of medicine, tend to render standards of practice low. I have already suggested that it renders the average quality of practice low by reducing the number of physicians, by reducing the aggregate number of hours available from trained physicians for more rather than less important tasks, and by reducing the incentive for research and development. It renders it low also by making it much more difficult for private individuals to collect from physicians for malpractice. One of the protections of the individual citizen against incompetence is protection against fraud and the ability to bring suit in the court against malpractice. Some suits are brought, and physicians complain a great deal about how much they have to pay for malpractice insurance. Yet suits for malpractice are fewer and less successful than they would be were it not for the watchful eye of the medical association. It is not easy to get a physician to testify against a fellow physician when he faces the sanction of being denied the right to practice in an "approved" hospital. The testimony generally has to come from members of panels set up by medical associations themselves, always, of course, in the alleged interest of the patients.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0194e.asp

And now you see the same people who idolize Milton Friedman arguing for "tort reform" because frivolous lawsuits are supposedly crippling industries. One of the many problems with libertarianism is that it requires non-corrupt politicians, because the whole thing falls apart if influential industries are able to bribe (umm, I mean lobby...) the government in order to get laws changed in their favor. For example, the law that protects the gun industry from civil lawsuits...

[gejohnston]

43. the gun industry is not protected against civil law suits

or at least all law suits, only ones dreamed up by Brady that operates as a SLAPP suit. For example, someone murders someone with a Colt, sue Colt (where the criminal bought it off of a corrupt NYPD cop for example. NYPD has had such scandals) even though Colt did nothing wrong.

In 2002, Kahr lost a wrongful death suit because the gun was stolen from the factory by an employee who was also a prohibited person. They should have lost that one.

[Callisto32]

17. Hmm.

Funny, 6-0 we should leave this alone.

DU juries don't think this is abusive.

Maybe they do want DU to be an intellectual circle-jerk after all.

Edit: I realize this doesn't make sense on its own. After the silencing of a number of posts, I wanted to see if juries would be a quick to silence someone on the "other" side of the issue. Suspicion confirmed.

[baldguy]

19. Crying because your prejudices aren't supported by the majority of DU?

Par for the course.

[Callisto32]

25. No.

Pointing out that fora shouldn't silence people, even if their positions are minorities.

I know MANY D's who count themselves libertarians. Your post was abusive and bigoted to THEM. If you could see past your own, whatever the hell it...you know what, fuck it.

[baldguy]

33. OH! Those poor, helpless Libertarians! (Not to mention anonymous & hypothetical, too!)

According to your own admission, they're totally helpless & unable to defend their irrational & illogical fantasies SO YOU WERE FORCED TO SELFLESSLY STEP IN AND DO IT FOR THEM!

BLESS YOU, sir! BLESS YOU, you Brave Internet Warrior! It's truly marvelous that you would go so far out of your way to prevent the SILENCING of those POOR libertarians! (Who aren't here & haven't posted anything.)

I guess the fact that you would SILENCE ME in the process never crossed your mind, huh?

[Callisto32]

48. Oh, it absolutely did.

But, you see. I was functioning under a theory (supported by evidence) that you would NOT be silenced, thus creating a greater record in furtherance of my theory.

Hell, I would have posted up your abuse for all to see.

[baldguy]

49. To paraphrase Harry Truman:

I don't post abuse about "gun enthusiasts". I just tell the truth about them and they think it's abuse.

[gejohnston]

50. Harry S. Truman

Pro union
Pro single payer
gun nut

http://vicepresidents.com/blog/2011/11/19/veep-poll-which-veep-had-the-coolest-gun/

[baldguy]

51. He was also a member of the KKK.

He got over it.

[baldguy]

52. This is interesting:

What was once considered prohibited hate speech in this forum is no longer considered such:

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your alert

Mail Message
At Sun Feb 5, 2012, 02:09 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

Harry S. Truman

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

YOUR COMMENTS:

Are we going to allow name-calling hate speech against gun owners like "gun-nut" again?

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sun Feb 5, 2012, 02:15 PM, and voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Truth be told, the entire thread seems like one big name-calling festival.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: "gun-nut" is hate speech? Really?

Would "whiney" be hate speech too?
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: nothing offensive about this at all.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Harry's been dead a long time, I doubt his feelings are hurt.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: to say gun-nut is hate speech is really stretching the definition of hate speech.

Thank you.

So to hell with you all of you gun nuts!

[gejohnston]

53. I was never offended by it

so, what's your point?

[baldguy]

34. Oh Yeah: since you probably lack the gene to understand it -

[Tuesday Afternoon]

46. Callisto32,

I know how you feel...

the subtleties are lost on these juries.

[ManiacJoe]

2. At least BaldGuy attempted to start a conversation.

Jpak, did you want to give it a try? Is there anything particular in that article you found worthy of discussion?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

4. herewith is jpak's attempt at starting a conversation --

(R-douchebag)


subtle, eh . . .

[Callisto32]

26. Like when he called me an asshole?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

31. yeah, like that --

send it to the jury

I have read in H&M that some people don't care about the idiots in the gungeon so --- good luck with it.

[DonP]

3. How many shot and dead so far?

I'm assuming that with all those stupid people, and all those guns the place must be awash in bodies by now.

What's the running count on dead voters so far? Must be much higher than Maine, or comparable counties in Florida right?

[jody]

5. Obama "I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun

away."

Surely Obama means in public -- doesn't he?

[BiggJawn]

6. Mark Pahrump off my list of places to retire...

Don't mind the neighbours carrying-uh, I mean "toting", but I don't think I could get used to the Libertarianism.

Especially with a busy-body baptist preacher poking around in my cesspit...

[rl6214]

9. But isn't Pahrump where they have all the bordellos?

How can there be a baptist preacher poking around with all of the hookers getting poked around? Or is that what the baptist preacher is poking?

[BiggJawn]

11. Well, they said he knows what all his neighbours are doing...

Maybe he's not Southern Baptist?
What a conflict... "Hi, welcome to Pahrump, we don't do health inspections of restaurants or test the drinking water, but we got bordellos..."

[Callisto32]

16. What, exactly, do you believe libertarianism to be?

I ask because being left alone if you don't harm anybody seems an odd thing to not be able to get used to.

[BiggJawn]

37. What do I believe Libertarianism to be?

An interesting thought-experiment, like Anarchy, but totally worthless as a way to conduct society.

For a practical example of a Libertarian society, check out Somalia.

[gejohnston]

40. Libertarian societies possible?

In Somalia local thugs became defacto governments. If I understand right wing libertarianism correctly (left wing versions do OK in small pre-industrial societies and what is left of indigenous societies) it is more like the "who has the gold gets to rule the company town".

[slackmaster]

21. It's sad to see all the hatred for Librarians in this thread

[DonP]

22. But, but ... they're evil Librarians with guns

I'm still waiting for the word on thje latest body count from all these obviously stupid Librarians shooting everybody in the neighborhood up.

No word from Jpak yet.

Any minute now ...

[Angus86]

35. Indeed.

<--- Gun-toting Librarian

However, my body count is still zero.

[DonP]

36. He loves posting stories where nothing happened. Part of his ritual google dump.

He got all excited when Scott Walker banned guns in a couple state buildings. Nothing happened, nobody got shot or threatened but it gave him pleasure for about a haf hour. Then they sold a record number of ccw permits in two weeks and he got all whiny and depressed when blood didn't run in the streets.

[BiggJawn]

38. Betcha those books get returned on time...n/t

[jpak]

23. LOL!

[ileus]

55. New York times whines about Nevada firearm laws.

New York needs to keep it's nose out of Virginia and Nevada's business.