things you're secretly kinda libertariany about

no easy stuff like drugs and the military

not secretly, I'm pretty laissez-faire about guns

adult consensual sex
maybe that counts as easy (hur hur)

define "libertariany"

believe that X would be better if we did not regulate it or regulated it 'less'

mostly #2

I believe everybody has a right to poop

http://flag.blackened.net/af/images/mlc_sm.jpg imo

that said i'm p 'libertarian party' when it comes to guns

my own money

i have misgivings about the welfare state and its effect on communities in my city. like it's definitely not a wholly positive thing. otoh im not sure i can really go for cutting the money given to vulnerable people. ambivalent really.

Market systems fail spectacularly in two fields. They don't make investments in education, research, infrastructure and preventative healthcare for which the forseeable payoff isn't immediate; and they don't price externalities like pollution and habitat destruction.

Outside those areas which Libertarians utterly neglect, and the ones there's consensus on (internal & external security, dispute resolution), there are countries that have done fine hewing fairly close to the libertarian line on quite a few issues.

The Netherlands are more permissive wrt recreational drug use & sexual identity/transactions, and don't seem much the worse for it. Singapore doesn't have government healthcare providers, a single payer, or directed elder care like the U.S. Medicare system, or public wealth transfers like Social Security, and they do fine. Costa Rica hasn't had a permanent standing army for 64 years. Monetary systems without central banks constantly intervening to set the time-value of money (interest rates) have worked fine for most of history.

I'll never vote libertarian again (my first presidential vote at age 18 was for Ron Paul in 1988) due to the gaping lapses in their thinking about market failures noted above, but I'm pretty open to a smaller government footprint in a lot of fields.

http://www.shotgunnews.com/files/2012/01/pink-pistols-logo-012412.jpg

the more interesting ilx thread i think: things you're secretly kinda totalitarian about

bit disingenuous to compare costa rica's lack of a standing army to the united states

also comparing monetary systems of most of history to today doesn't make a lot of sense. I'll take 20th century economic growth over 'most of history'.

guns, private property rights, some "public safety" stuff

alcohol regulations, especially in canada. (is that too easy?)

anything everyone on ilx agrees on is too easy

'I'm for gay rights and against corporate welfare' = zzzz

maybe smoking? Like I feel that if a pub want to allow smoking, that's ok

that's better

things you're secretly kinda totalitarian about

― Mordy, Monday, February 13, 2012 3:28 AM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

can be no absence of a social safety net--i don't care if it's provided by solidarity communities or by strong central government, my conscience can't abide the nonexistence of a net for the least of us.

maybe smoking? Like I feel that if a pub want to allow smoking, that's ok

― sonderborg

yeah this too. and i hate smoking and enjoy smoke free pubs. but it just seems wrong that it's illegal to have a pub where people can smoke.

yeah lots of people thought that before smoking wa known to cause cancer and copd

xxp:
The U.S. Army was 98,000 in 1914 before mobilizing to 3+ million by 1918 and won WWI. It was 175,000 in 1939, mobilizing to 8+ million by 1945 and contributing the the Allied victory. So long as the ability to mobilize is retained, the U.S. could easily secure our own borders with cadre-sized standing forces, and be deterred from the post-WWII succession of foolish interventions.

The Federal Reserve was started as "lender of last resort". Ie, they stood ready to offer loans to banks facing a depositor run, but for short periods and at high rates. Now, they are the "lender of first resort", providing normal operating liquidity and buying trashy assets from member banks.

Arguably, the current economic morass was in large part created by Greenspan's Fed through its interventions after the 1994 Mexican crisis, 1998 Asian/Russian crisis, and 2001 Nasdaq collapse, which reduced risk aversion among lenders, reinflated speculative asset bubbles, and bringing about our decade's cascade of Minsky moments. Perhaps short sharp shocked treatment is useful for keeping the bankers wary.

that's an argument against bad central banking, not an argument against central banking

p. totalitarian about no smoking in bars tbh

tho cigar bar/hookah places should totally be allowed to exist

xp: Agreed, there are pretty good CBs, like the Deutsche Bundesbank 1948-2002. But any institution that can cause serious harm under the mismanagement of a few bad men (Alan Greenspan, Arthur Burns in the 70s) seriously requires scope reduction.

^for "bad men" above, read "short-sighted leaders"

xp cad - i'm also libertariany about the right to die/physician-assisted suicide, so a bar that allows smoking doesn't give me any moral qualms.

What about hate speech? I sometimes think the US got this one right.

Otherwise, I'm not sure I can think of much!

xp cad - i'm also libertariany about the right to die/physician-assisted suicide, so a bar that allows smoking doesn't give me any moral qualms.

― sarahell, Sunday, February 12, 2012 11:15 PM (56 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah i'm fine with assisted suicide but i'm not really fine with general public health hazards?

zoning

recycling

bonfires

doin whatever i want (applies only to me)

freedom

cad - do you have a problem with people who smoke having a party at their house where they and their guests smoke?

Where do libertarians stand on Fair Use and copyright? They take the side of copyright owners, don't they? I bet they do.

oh yeah ip for sure I am liberty abt

that's an issue where there's gonna be a p huge divide I think xp

cad - do you have a problem with people who smoke having a party at their house where they and their guests smoke?

― sarahell, Sunday, February 12, 2012 11:20 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

nope!

children voting

see, i would be okay with a bar that allowed smoking, if everyone who worked there and attended the bar agreed that it was acceptable (assuming there are other bars that people who don't want to be in a smoking-allowed bar can go to).

Otherwise, I'm not sure I can think of much!

(To be clear, this refers to things that are 'not easy' that I'm libertariany about. There are lots of things that the US got right, especially jazz.)

yeah my thing with it is i'm pretty sure the bar smoking ban is an all-or-none proposition and i'll take none

see, i would be okay with a bar that allowed smoking, if everyone who worked there and attended the bar agreed that it was acceptable (assuming there are other bars that people who don't want to be in a smoking-allowed bar can go to).

How many bars like that were there prior to the bans?

And how much leverage do the workers really have in these situations?

xp

a. public unions *sometimes might not have* the public's welfare in mind w/ their pay and benefit deals and *sometimes* that can be a bad thing.
b. environmental review can be counterproductive when it makes things that are pretty clearly 'environmentally good' like public transit or dense housing take longer to build / cost more money

in California, there is (or was) an exemption from the smoking ban for owner-operated bars, basically, ones without employees other than the owner(s).

Those aren't exactly libertarian positions though.

xp to iatee

well they're cases where 'good government' might require fighting w/ interest groups we traditionally side w/

There seems a pretty big divide among libertarians on IP law. Here's a lengthy lecture by a libertarian IP attorney entitled Why ‘Intellectual Property’ is not Genuine Property.

ip law : libertarians :: honey : vegans

every time i go into the rare bar or restaurant or coffee place where smoking is allowed i'm kinda glad that the ban exists.

you know what they say a libertarian is a vegan whos been covered in honey

huh never heard that one

libertarians are correct to value freedom, but they are incorrect for believing that freedom is found in the rights of the individual. there is a higher form of freedom, and that is in conformity with a greater whole.

it must be tough to "bee" a libertarian

c. flat tax

(everyone making over 200k pays 70%, everyone else pays nothing)

I'm torn on smoking in bars. I get the idea that bars should be able to decide whether to allow smoking or not, but at the same time there's not exactly perfect freedom of movement for people in the industry - a lot of times there aren't comparable-income or comparable-hour jobs available to the people stuck working in the smoke.

sometimes i like to be in a smoky bar, most of the time i prefer not to. otoh i live somewhere with a real mild climate, so going outside to smoke is not that unpleasant.

alcohol regulations, especially in canada. (is that too easy?)

I'm weirdly ambivalent about this one. As profoundly as I enjoyed the bounties to be had in the States, there's a part of me that actually thinks that there's something to be said for alcohol not being as cheap and available.

xp: What I meant by my question upthread was "How many bars were there that chose not to allow smoking before the bans?"

d. people can smoke in bars but they have to give money to everyone around them to make up for the health costs

The LCBO is obviously a bit crap though.

xpost

xp - but that's why there's already such an enormous tax on cigarettes though!

is it libertarian of me to wish that my cigarette tax money worked like social security, that it gets repaid to me when i get old?

Ha, that Stephan Kinsella guy is so hardcore against anti-bribery laws!

the beauty of cigarette-social security is that you don't have to worry about getting old

not everyone who smokes dies young!

OK, I read through most of Kinsella's article. Thanks for linking it, Sanpaku. I'm not as hardcore as him. I'm OK with having some copyright and patent laws. I just think I should be able to photocopy handouts and play DVDs and CDs in class without needing to jump through multiple hoops.

d. people can smoke in bars but they have to give money to everyone around them to make up for the health costs

― iatee, Sunday, February 12, 2012 11:48 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

people can smoke in bars but they have to do everyones laundry

it must "sting" sometimes to "bee" a part of the libertarian party w/the trouble they have getting traction on the political landscape.

doin whatever i want (applies only to me)

― lag∞n, Sunday, February 12, 2012 11:19 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

p much

it must "sting" sometimes to "bee" a part of the libertarian party w/the trouble they have getting traction on the political landscape.

― omar little, Monday, February 13, 2012 12:25 AM (2 seconds ago)

honey, you don't know the half of it

not everyone who smokes dies young!

damn straight! smoking ages you something fierce, so it doesn't take very long to become an old smoker.

i feel like techy libertarians have positions weird enough to put them in the vegans covered in honey category

or whatever

"wll, cover me with ip law and throw me to the libertarians"

Answer #7 urgent & key here - Europe has left-identifying Libertarians too.

But any institution that can cause serious harm under the mismanagement of a few bad men (Alan Greenspan, Arthur Burns in the 70s) seriously requires scope reduction.

Or better regulation! <- statist until I die.

fiat currencies.

a. public unions *sometimes might not have* the public's welfare in mind w/ their pay and benefit deals and *sometimes* that can be a bad thing.

Not sure why they *should* have "the public welfare" in mind. That's not what unions are for. It's the job of the elected officials dealing with them to keep the public welfare in mind when structuring contracts.

Yes, the bit of the public that's actually employed in the public union doesn't have anyone else on their side, is sort've the point of the unions.

if i knew more about libertarian positions i'd probably agree with some of them

people above who said you're libertarian about guns: are you guys actually anti-regulation? I support gun ownership (and I've always thought this was one of the areas where I was pretty "lol conservative" by ilxor standards), but feel that things like background checks are good for public safety. are you guys really totally hands-off "libertarian" on this?

Why would you support gun ownership?

self-defense and hunting. note that I dont own a gun, but might in the future and have friends who do.

There's times I'm glad I'm not American

8am to midnight, 7/365

i'm not really interested in a "why own guns" convo. more interested in the thoughts of left wingers who support gun rights to the point that they would consider themselves libertarian about it.

Scared the world governemnt's coming after them?

sometimes I get in trouble on ilx because i'm up and running before the rest of my continent.

i sort of support gun ownership tho i think it might've been better if the genie had never been let out of the lamp. but i'm cool with the notion that a state doesn't hold a monopoly on firearms.

i feel like the aspect of government that regulates gun ownership is as far as I can tell a left-wing impulse: regulation in the interests of public safety. keeping guns out of the hands of convicted criminals, specifiically.

like it seems to me that it's difficult to argue that gun ownership hasn't had some terrible consequences in countries that allow it, but there's a big question about whether those consequences are sufficient to outweigh an adult's right to own a firearm, and to what extent you can separate a gun culture from gun legislation.

a left-wing impulse: regulation in the interests of public safety

i think most right-wingers who aren't some shade of libertarian are also happy for the state to legislate in matters of public health and safety?

or if not happy, at least consider it a necessary evil

maybe it depends on how we define public health and safety, but I can think of an instance when they would. like

ok, that's not entirely true.

care to elaborate? are you thinking about healthcare? i have a thick head this morning.

CPAC basically building a bonfire in the shape of the EPA, though?

xp £5 it's abortion.

I think that's a moot point when the state holds a monopoly on tanks and drones and nukes

I secretly love fast sports cars and feel the US should use its vast land resources to build racetracks in every county, people would park their fast cars in the 'clubhouse garage' and race them on weekends, however your car is not allowed onto a public highway if it gets under 30mpg, but you can go 110+ mph on the racetrack ^_^

dayo, i will support you if you want to run for office. that's the best.

noodle, i was thinking specifically of conservative take on environmental regulations, but also healthcare. i do realize that cons do legislate in the name of public safety though, often i guess in terms of crime. i dont know really though. feel like reading up on this once i get to the office.

i personally find firing guns incredibly amusing but the country would for sure be a better place were they just not available

But there are already threads about whether or not guns should be available. I just wanted clarification from people on why they would choose a "libertarian" stance.

i'd have that stance because i think "competent adults" - not gonna argue the toss about that now - shd be free to do as they wish as long as that freedom doesn't actively curtail the rights of other people. in practice obviously that is massively complicated. unless you're a libertarian i guess.

its because guns are sweet to fire and i should be able to do what i want

the things i'm libertariany about i'm not secretly libertarian about, like sex and drugs but then i imagine most libertarians never have good sex or drugs so its like

yah but its important that they have the right to

the notion of rights divorced from power is an interesting and problematic one

But there are already threads about whether or not guns should be available. I just wanted clarification from people on why they would choose a "libertarian" stance.

― The Austerity of PONIES (beachville), Monday, February 13, 2012 8:54 AM (14 minutes ago)

the OP asks for issuse ppl think should be "less" reglated more than "not" regulated

Fair point. However, as a person who thinks people should be able to own guns if they want, I'm not against the existing amount of regulation.

I wanna see a thread on "Things you would be sorta totalitarian about if it they weren't inherently wrong and kind of fascist".

ENBB. ENBB. You can make that thread!

that theme definitely has more resonance with me, my libertarian side is entirely dull, but i'm sure i could make a good well-meaning totalitarian.

theres not very much that im libertarian abt tbh. at least nothing thats been mentioned on this thread.

xp - No way I'm starting that. By all means you go ahead and do so.

all you gun nuts are insane btw but i guess weve covered that

hope youre enjoying your pheasant hunting

zoning was referenced itt max, surely zoning

i'm cool with the notion that a state doesn't hold a monopoly on firearms

"they got the guns but we got the numbers" <-------- Jimbo bringin' it

xps to ENBB: oh no, after you, please.

nr absolutist on free speech (had a fight with my housemate about this news story just last week http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-16609303)

I would be fine w/ guns being legal if they were taxed so they cost $1 billion each and all the money goes to make up for the misery they inflict on society. it would be good for capitalism cause then people would have to work really hard to afford a gun.

oh yeah i missed zoning. no more zoning. down with the state

im like 100% ok with the state holding a monopoly on firearms but really id rather no one have guns not even soldiers. make them fight with swords again

not a big issue really, we mostly fight we robots today anyway

with

drones dropping swords on pakistan

gotta make sure theyre pointed down though

http://www.fromoldbooks.org/OldEngland/pages/0869-Attack-on-the-walls-of-a-besieged-town/0869-Attack-on-the-walls-of-a-besieged-town-q75-500x412.jpg

the truth about 9/11

e. state secession

Here's a v banal one, not for me but for my dad (because libertarianisn is really banal and boring and this should illustrate why): he bought a big van for towing/moving things. It has an electronic system that senses the air pressure in each tire, in case the driver doesn't ever, ever check and can't tell if a tire is low from how it feels to drive. (My dad can tell if the car got enough sleep last night by how it drives, I'm surprised he even bothers to take them apart to confirm his suspicions.)

The tire pressure sensor system cost several thousand bucks and was mandatory under some kind of safety measure. He was p mad about that, because he's not a person that would ever forget to check, or not notice, not like THOSE OTHER PEOPLE. And why should he have to pay for something that only protects them from their own stupidity?

I don't know if this is anything a "real" libertarian thinks, but I don't think children should be required to attend school.

(also that we should be waaaaay more aggressive in kicking children out of school, but that's more the totalitarian in me than the libertarian)

what about a 10 y/o whose parents died

i think i'd be libertarian about most things if THOSE OTHER PEOPLE were a bit less dumb and a bit less dicks

or lag∞n otm

I don't think children should be required to attend school.

totally disagree with u here

magic runes

I dunno about orphans, but don't think schooling is the central question there.

xp yeah I know my Dewey well enough to have p mixed feelings about my school views

it's pretty hard to argue that a 12 y/o can make informed and rational decisions about their future and the value of education

esp w/ dead parents

re: guns, I'm pretty comfortable with the federal status quo, I think states with useless 'assault-weapon' bans should alter or repeal them. Would not be averse to suppressors being easier to acquire as there's basically no negative to their use by civilians.

'makes it easier to murder someone and not get caught' seems like it might contain some negative somewhere

eh, I think 12 year olds can make decisions as informed & rational about their futures & educations as most adults do

(which is obviously "not well")

there are pretty concrete differences between how a 12 y/o's brain works and how a 30 y/o's brain works and there are scientific reasons for why teenagers are more irrational than adults

Yep. Adolescent brain research is fascinating to me.

The parts of the brain that are responsible for decision making aren't fully developed until the early 20s iirc.

take away their drivers licenses, then, let them walk to whatever they want to do with their time

but I think there are a lot of children for whom formal schooling has v little value & I don't see why they should be forced to do something that has v little value. & given the quality of education most American children get, I don't see that much is lost for them qua their futures in our service-oriented futures.

you are not gonna sweet talk me w/ this take away their drivers licenses talk

12 year olds don't have drivers licenses

by the time you can get a drivers license you don't have to attend school anymore

xxp That'll do wonders for equality of opportunity.

i firmly believe all children should be educated by gangs

we should demolish the boy & girl scouts and give every child a gun

I guess that is where I get kinda libertarian-y

'makes it easier to murder someone and not get caught' seems like it might contain some negative somewhere

i believe all children should be educated by other children with swords

gets it^

but I think there are a lot of children for whom formal schooling has v little value & I don't see why they should be forced to do something that has v little value. & given the quality of education most American children get, I don't see that much is lost for them qua their futures in our service-oriented futures.

― Euler, Monday, February 13, 2012 10:25 AM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark

this is an argument for increasing the quality of education in america, not for increasing the number of street urchins

Free speech! But this is pretty easy for a liberal in the USA. I stuggle with some of our newer hate crime laws. I support the idea of punishing people who engage in racially motivated intimidation and violence, but I'm uncomfortable with how the state starts getting involved with right and wrong thinking.

I love how much harder it is to sue for slander in the USA than elsewhere.

was replying to points about adolescent brain structure

wrt say nine year olds quitting school: if we could eliminate the schooling requirement I'd like to see adult education take a step forward to compensate, because it might be that lots of idiot children will realize they can get something of value in night classes etc. sigh: but it's hard when you have to make money. wage slavery makes these things hard.

my thinking on this is a hazy idea that the requirement of public school went hand in hand with a certain kind of economy, or better an *expectation* of a certain kind of economy, that indeed *did* exist, but has now passed, but now there's traction & we don't think about what will come next. but we ought to.

those kids are in adult education classes, you need to learn how to read and do math before you can take night classes

i would like to see a wider variety of educational approaches available to everyone

including gangs

i would like to see a wider variety of educational approaches available to everyone

― lag∞n, Monday, February 13, 2012 10:35 AM (21 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

otm esp the gangs part

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Nx1WBgjY9RA/SbfA6dPUezI/AAAAAAAAAP8/qZgaCClYyA0/s400/west+all.jpeg

but I think there are a lot of children for whom formal schooling has v little value & I don't see why they should be forced to do something that has v little value. & given the quality of education most American children get, I don't see that much is lost for them qua their futures in our service-oriented futures.

― Euler, Monday, February 13, 2012 10:25 AM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

poor children, for example. i'm sure there are plenty of 13 year olds whose families would be better off in the short-term if they could get a job at McDonald's instead of going to school

f. altho I'm for gubernment health care, we would prob be healthier if we let literally anybody practice medicine than the racket we got now

Are we going to ship all these hypothetical 12 year olds who have quit school to countries that allow 12 year olds to work?

we aren't gonna, the free market is gonna

oh, I meant "we" in the "secret libertarians who are going to get rich from our new libertarian paradise" way

despite my bedrock commitment to nearly total liberty i dont think invisible hands should be allowed to touch children

I'm pretty libertarian about shoveling my sidewalks. If people want to walk their dogs or walk places on the sidewalk in front of my house they can clean it off themselves

lol u r a terrible lazy monster

g. most american sports leagues should be declared cartels and I'd be cool w/ the hypercapitalist euro soccer model (otoh would be cool also w/ green bay packers socialism being forced on every team in the nation)

My cousin thinks it should be easier to practice medicine. "Why do I need to go to someone who spent years studying all that complex stuff when I just need someone to mend an ankle or prescribe meds for an ear infection?"

I tried to explain why his thinking was obviously problematic, but he wouldn't budge.

^^^He also doesn't think there's any reason for anyone to get an education beyond literacy and basic life skills.

He thinks cross-cultural stories about dragons are evidence for men co-existing with dinosaurs.

he's otm tho

relegation and promotion would be awesomely hilarious additions to the american sports scene but thats neither here nor there, m8

tbh, a little annoyed when friends renew their cyclical campaign flirtation with Ron Paul. It's always couched as this, "yeah, there are things I don't agree with, but there are other things I do agree with, and besides, the country's in such bad shape we need a radical change!" argument. I can only shake my head and remind myself how much better the country is, even hurting, than it would be under Ron Paul, with all his attendant destructive policies, brilliantly presented/marketed as this philosophy of proud self-reliance but which boils down in the details to "fuck all y'all." Or more specifically, "the states should have the right to fuck all y'all."

I'm not very libertarian myself about too much beyond the usual stuff. I even walk around the neighborhood once in a while picking up trash (because it's infringing on my right now to look at beer cans at the bus stop). What is the convoluted libertarian stance on abortion these days? Is it "keep your hands off my body!" or "keep your hands off my unborn baby!"?

How about tort reform? Are libertarians pro frivolous lawsuits or con?

I think most people are con frivolous lawsuits tbh

I mean not lawyers obv

relegation and promotion would be awesomely hilarious additions to the american sports scene but thats neither here nor there, m8

I spend a lot of time thinking about how this would work, it wouldn't even be too hard w/ baseball

It would be pretty hard w/ baseball in that you'd have to blow up everything about player development and how hundreds of minor league teams work and TV contracts (local and national) and pretty much everything else about the sport.

xpost "I should be able to sue whomever I choose! Who are you to limit my personal powers accorded me by the constitution!?"

sometimes a secret libertarian just has to blow shit up

w/ a free market nyc would have like 20 mlb teams and morbs wouldn't have to be a mets fan

every subway stop has its own team

Without zoning or anything, NYC would probably also have 20 different stadiums and 37% less residential housing.

Multi-millionaires can just buy multiple blocks of depressed neighborhoods and tear them down, put up an infield.

not really, stadiums are a pretty shitty use of space and mostly get built cause taxpayers love em

w/o zoning nyc would have far far more residential housing

yup

London has, what, 6-8 legit soccer franchises (ie capable of staying in the PL on the reg) with no competition equivalent to the NBA, NFL or NHL.
NYC might be able to support one more MLB team, but it's more likely that a Euro model would contract teams overall and NYC would stick at 2.

presumably farm teams could continue being owned by their parent clubs and things would stay relatively the same as far as the A-ball --> big leagues career path goes

Was thinking, if the average house in Detroit is now, what, $8000 or whatever, could some multi-millionaire just move in, but a few dozen square blocks, and build his own new city?

yeah sure man do whatever u want

yes, but nobody would come because his city would be in detroit

Like Lesotho.

presumably farm teams could continue being owned by their parent clubs and things would stay relatively the same as far as the A-ball --> big leagues career path goes

Farm teams are generally owned independently of MLB teams with deals in place that tie them to the big league team.

yeah sorry i shouldn't have said "owned" because they are very rarely actually owned by the parent club right?

i dunno, just try it out and see what happens! i guess you could have a rule that any time 2 teams affiliated with the same parent are playing in the same division then..... uh.. hmm ok

Food stuff. People can eat whatever the hell they want and shouldn't be given shit about it.

^^ and all health insurance should be private, right?

not really, stadiums are a pretty shitty use of space and mostly get built cause taxpayers love em

i think they're more often built because no mayor/executive wants to be remembered as the one who let [beloved team] get away. taxpayers may love their teams, but they're not that keen on tax money being used to build things for rich owners.

depends on the case, sometimes stupid voters do go w/ it

but yeah the 20 teams in nyc would prob share like 4 stadiums

~efficiency~

it's almost like you don't need a stadium all to yourself if you are willing to pretend a jets fan wasn't in your seat an hour ago

Food stuff. People can eat whatever the hell they want and shouldn't be given shit about it.

― Jeff, Monday, February 13, 2012 11:26 AM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

there is no law against eating whatever u want, the moratorium on shit giving may run afoul of the 1st amendment tho

prostitution's an "easy" one right? i'm p libertarian about prostitutes

how many do you own

I'm interested in trading some of mine

that's the thing i'm libertarian about they should be free to choose who they want, all of mine want only me sorry

that's what they think now but I can offer then part ownership in my staten island sword swingers mlb team

I'm a free speech absolutist, which is kind of ho-hum in the US, but makes it impossible to find a political home in most European countries if you're otherwise leftist.

yeah euros are so uptight about a little free expression don't get it

after living in the UK for awhile i have to say it's really nice to live somewhere that prohibits election ads

God, that would be awesome.

yeah, i just don't know if there is any way in hell to square that with a constitutional guarantee of protected political speech

-believe ppl shd not talk in the library
-they shd bring their books back on time
-homeless ppls shdnt look at porn on the computers
-no running
-no food or drinks allowed inside

all of those beliefs are secret-fascist not secret-libertarian including the idea that libraries should exist

i think i've said this b4 but i'm kinda libertariany about 'the arts'.

suspect a secret-fascist thread on ilx would be way longer than this one

i can't even think of all the things i would have to contribute also i wear my fascism openly

also not-so-secret

xp lol

i want that nazi haircut that's so hot right now

things you're secretly kinda fascisty about
alright

after living in the UK for awhile i have to say it's really nice to live somewhere that prohibits election ads

― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Monday, 13 February 2012 17:35 (30 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

ha yes. party political broadcasts are amazing.

h. ignoring regulatory 'race to the bottom' type arguments w/ developing countries, there's nothing morally better about an american having a job than someone in another developed country having a job

that said i'm p 'libertarian party' when it comes to guns

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Sunday, February 12, 2012 8:36 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

woah BIG HOOS pack heat like the oven door!

h. ignoring regulatory 'race to the bottom' type arguments w/ developing countries, there's nothing morally better about an american having a job than someone in another developed country having a job

― iatee, Monday, February 13, 2012 1:42 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

is this libertarian? i'm libertarian about this, too!

it turns libertariany when you draw out the policy implications

People who think a practice should be banned because they saw on TV that someone got hurt doing it will be made to wear armbands. (not sure if this is more libertariany or fascisty)

eh, I think 12 year olds can make decisions as informed & rational about their futures & educations as most adults do

Wait, seriously?

I'm a free speech absolutist, which is kind of ho-hum in the US

How absolute though? Are you fine with e.g. death threats? Libel/slander? Deliberate misinformation in journalism or education?

people ought to be able to buy, sell and trade whatever they like in any manner they like, provided that the product's risks are clearly communicated.

prostitution should be legal. same with public nudity, at least in certain contexts.

people have a "basic human right" to endanger and even end their own lives.

otoh, i'm very much in favor of gun control.

prostitution should be legal. same with public nudity, at least in certain contexts.

like, say, "in public"

so you're okay w/ flashers?

death threats = not protected (as assault) when believable; Libel/slander and deliberate misinformation = can't be forbidden but can lead to civil liability; Nazi stuff = free and open (because easily contractible); Hate speech = see Nazi stuff but see also death threats; pornography and violent imagery = legal but access restrictable, might be evidence of prosecutable crimes committed in its production but is not in itself contraband.

The Nazi stuff seems to be the stickiest wicket where I live. It's dumb, because boneheads do use the "they ban our words because they fear our truths" arguments very effectively 'round here.

being 'libertariany' about zoning should really go in the fascisty thread -- basically you want to remove all local power over land use in favor of a larger body or plan.

it's less land-use restrictive but very politically restrictive, if that makes sense. nimby politics are like the most ancient kind of politics.

so you're okay w/ flashers?

no! that's why i made that "certain contexts" caveat.

xp to goole:

sorta, but local vs national is sorta on another political axis. it's like if the fed gov't passed a law against a local gov't's tax or welfare program.

getting flashed is super hilarious though

if flashing were legal it would prob lose its appeal to a lot of people fast

Smoking bans
Mandatory seat-belt laws

getting flashed is super hilarious though

You are speaking purely about yourself on that, I presume.

if flashing were legal it would prob lose its appeal to a lot of people fast

yes and no. people wouldn't be as able to get away with "shocking" nudity, but yr tossers and bone flashers would probably still get a sick thrill. not on board w everybody gets to be naked all the time everywhere as social policy, at least not in the here and now. but i definitely think we would all benefit by substantially lowering the american prudishness threshhold.

American prudishness is evergreen.

lol a guy once masturbated at me on a beach and i kept laughing and he kept getting more into it and the more he got into it the funnier i thought it was. it is a shame this has only happened once, laughter is an excellent stress reliever and works the abs

u should try masturbation

thats more of a tricep exercise

if you do it the boring way, ya sure

i thought i was a 'free speech absolutist' until citizens united happened and suddenly every libertarian i was friends with was crowing on their FB or twitter about what a great victory it was for the 1st amendment.

not really 'libertariany' about drugs either; i don't think the country would be better off if you could buy crack cocaine and heroin at wal-mart.

i. gov't should not subsidize disaster insurance

This shit: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/tories-on-e-snooping-stand-with-us-or-with-the-child-pornographers/article2336889/

May be an easy one though.

Maybe, like, farm subsidies? For the most part, though, libertarians seem emotionally immature and willfully ignorant of history. Libertarianism would probably be really great in a perfect world with an enlightened populace, but I mean...

I don't know that they're willfully "ignorant of history" so much as that they're deliberately ahistorical, which is even more problematic imo. Get into a debate with one of these doctrinaire Von Mises/Hayek types and watch how quickly they try to move the terms of discussion from actually existing social relations to abstractions like "liberty" and "coercion." Watch a Rothbard as he runs as fast as he can from the world into the comforting arms of metaphysics, because he and his ilk know that if you get into the nitty gritty of history their principles are easily contradicted by reality.

So these kinda ~intellectual pillars~ are deliberately ahistorical as a rhetorical tactic--it's the only ground on which they can get close to winning arguments--and their followers take this historical shallowness and treat it as the height of reason. If you're not arguing principle--that is, if you're talking about history and the real world--then they don't think your argument is sufficiently high-minded. "What about principle," they'll press you. When you tell them that 50 years of horrific American child labor are a pretty good argument against letting "the free market" sort out child labor issues, they'll accuse you of selling out the principle of voluntary labor.

It's all very backing-into-a-corner-firing-a-machine-gun in rhetorical style, which I suppose is fitting given that so many of them end up that way in reality too.

hoos OTM, all kinds of M

hoos i wonder if you've seen those arguments in the past year between mises-affiliated folks and graeber himself? p revealing stuff.

what's most amazing about that kind libertarian is not only that it's deliberately ahistorical, but that it has a such a strongly implied historical pattern at work behind everything. (i'm thinking of some crazy shit i read by hoppe). ie there was a time when men were free, but then somebody invented coercion and it all went to shit. but i never hear who that is! FDR? louis xiv? st paul? gilgamesh? colonial america seems to be the eden of this mindset but the details are left very muddy.

whenever i see these guys talk about 'the economically placid 19th century' i'm just like, ok this is a cult. (mad inflation during shakespeare's day, for ex.)

Citizens United is a dumb decision; spending isn't speech and the entire line of cases leading up to that decision was wrong-headed.

you guys this is the thread 2b secret libertarians, every other thread on ilx is for hating libertarians

this is a safe zone where we will trade w/ each other and make contracts and shoot guns, so many guns

citizens united is a crime against man and god (belongs in fascisty tho)

[oop, iatee on point]

OK, fair enough, I just want to be more libertarian than thou when it comes to my free speech absolutism -- which is based on the idea that speech is speech and not something else. Citizens United is only loved by dumb libertarians (yes, yes Department of Redundancy Department time).

individuals should be free to break contracts without consequence

(shoots you)

hoos i wonder if you've seen those arguments in the past year between mises-affiliated folks and graeber himself? p revealing stuff.

yes i have! yes it is!

colonial america seems to be the eden of this mindset but the details are left very muddy.

― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, February 14, 2012 6:39 AM (41 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

for reaaaalz

(shoots at iatee)

(shoots contracts out of a contract gun)

(shoots pens that sign the contracts in midair)

my god

HOOsteen, there was a pretty big discussion above that was partly inspired by your

that said i'm p 'libertarian party' when it comes to guns

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Sunday, February 12, 2012 9:36 PM (2 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I got a response from milo. How bout you? Note that I'm not trying to be provocative or anything. Just curious.

In Finland there's a huge system where the state subsidizes various art institutions... While I think the idea is good in theory, in practice a disproportionate amount of the money goes to "high art" institutions, like opera and classical music orchestras, while various forms of "low art" (i.e. stuff that working class and lower middle class people enjoy) get much less. The justification for this is that without the state support many of the high art institutions would face an economical crisis and possibly go bankrupt. The most obvious example of this is the National Opera, which gets more than half of its budget from the subsidies, and much less from the actual ticket sales. While I've nothing against opera and enjoy some of that stuff myself, basically I think that if people don't want to listen to opera enough to support it, just let it die! Various art forms have born and died throughout history (sometimes to be resurrected again decades or centuries later), there's no need for them to be kept artificially alive just because the higher-class people who decide on the subsidies think some art form is more valuable than another one.

there should be no traffic laws

this is something im libertarian about

no traffic laws, no sidewalks, no parking on roads

that sounds like a traffic law son

its a parking law

I'm libertarian about politics and religion, which to me means I like diversity, I don't want to turn on the television and see only people who think like me, I like to see conservative viewpoints or learn about people's religious beliefs. Some people think "libertarian" means "I hate God" or something.

I didn't know that people thought that!

While I've nothing against opera and enjoy some of that stuff myself, basically I think that if people don't want to listen to opera enough to support it, just let it die! Various art forms have born and died throughout history (sometimes to be resurrected again decades or centuries later), there's no need for them to be kept artificially alive just because the higher-class people who decide on the subsidies think some art form is more valuable than another one.

it's not that simple. there may be Higher Class people acting as cultural gatekeepers of art funding and there may not, but if the state subsidises culture that otherwise wdn't happen or wd be severely curtailed then it does so for the benefit of all its members. it's like saying there shd be no publically subsidised art galleries because if people care enough, they'll shell out the odd million pounds to have their own art collection.

i'd agree there are issues around the way arts are funded but state-subsidised opera exists to allow all sorts of people to enjoy it, not just dudes in top hats and monocles.

if all that many wanted it it'd be sustainable without subvention is the argument.

I dunno where i stand on that tbh, i'd always kneejerk towards public money having better things to be doing than supporting sports/arts/whatever but meh gotta do something with all that phat cash i guess

abstract industrial steel sculptures in the middle of roundabouts ca do one, tho

like i say i recognise that arts grants is fraught with contestible issues. but tbh all governments jizz away enough money on stuff that's actively evil that it seems curmudgeonly to moan about stuff that actually brings people pleasure

arts funding is not just for the sake of promulgating culture or whatever high purposes it espouses, but also as a kind of soft (and effective) job creation scheme for a population w/o a lot of koosh

There are also state prestige/display things bound up with top-end opera & ballet so they might get disproportionate money, but yeah, subsidies in uk at least for that stuff are usually tied up with affordable seats, community programmes afaict.

I'm pro-arts but in the U.S. the pro-arts position isn't articulated well. It's a fair question to ask how the U.S. in general benefits from, say, the funding of European classical programs. I think our country surely benefits from support for American cultural endeavors like jazz or folk music programs. I don't think our democracy has any substance, however, without educational programming.

It's a fair question to ask how the U.S. in general benefits from, say, the funding of European classical programs. I think our country surely benefits from support for American cultural endeavors like jazz or folk music programs.

this strikes me as a very strange and sort of jingoistic thing to say. people and cultures can benefit from art/the arts whether or not the work in question is entirely "homegrown".

Smoking in pubs should be allowed. FFS!

it's interesting how many smokers seem to think that

Also at this stage aren't they (classical / jazz / folk) mostly "things you only do if someone's paying you to"?

yeah, living in a non-smoking country is a joy, tbph

NV- i was kind of agreeing with you on 'gotta spend it somehow, opera won't kill anyone'

you can replace 'opera' w/ any other form of music there tho

I'm against funding for classical music because I hate old people

I don't see how my statement is either strange or jingoistic when the same "argument" can be found in the mission statements of many American cultural organizations. Public interest is what justifies arts funding whether it is public or private. For example, PBS support for Ken Burns. Is Ken Burns stuff jingoistic or are documentaries about jazz, Frank Lloyd Wright and Prohibition globally as well as domestically relevant?

being 'libertariany' about zoning should really go in the fascisty thread -- basically you want to remove all local power over land use in favor of a larger body or plan.

it's less land-use restrictive but very politically restrictive, if that makes sense. nimby politics are like the most ancient kind of politics.

― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Monday, February 13, 2012 2:46 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

naw being able to do what u want on YOUR LAND w/o yr neighbors saying shit is the heart of libertarianism, of course thats not really why i want zoning relaxed, but then im not libertarian

Question: if the majority of pub patrons wanted pubs to be non-smoking, why didn't enterprising landlords open hugely successful no-smoking pubs before the smoking ban came into play?

(i actually quite like my little walks outside to meet new and interesting and cool people who smoke tbh but still)

because large groups of people are likely to have at least one smoker who's gonna bitch about it

plus it wouldn't be as 'cool' as the other bars

it's like they had a non-smoking casino in vegas, it went nowhere, but everyone can agree that casinos in vegas are the most disgusting smelling thing in the universe. still, nobody wants to party in the mormon casino.

people who smoke are cool by default.

smoking is bad for you

people didnt realize how much they liked it until after the law was in effect

Smoking in pubs should be allowed. FFS!

― The Invisible Superstars (dog latin), Tuesday, February 14, 2012 6:40 AM (22 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

it's interesting how many smokers seem to think that

― iatee, Tuesday, February 14, 2012 6:41 AM (21 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i am a nonsmoker, and i think smoking in bars should be legal, so long as there are dedicated, well-ventilated spaces for it. along with dedicated, well-ventilated spaces for nonsmokers.

actually I'd prefer if they had to do it in a small enclosed room

o you don't like the smoke I thought you liked smoke

the fascist thread is over there btw

this is the libertarian thread I do what I want

they can smoke but they have to keep all the smoke inside them until theyre outside

Vaguely remember an article from like 10 years ago about how the problem with getting kids not to start smoking isn't that "smoking" is cool, it's that SMOKERS are cool (or "cool" to 12yos or w/e).

it's cos we just don't care

All smokers have to wear 1950s-style bubble space helmets all the time and their car windows are locked permanently in the "up" position.

not giving a fuck isnt cool you know whats cool listening to the government

dunno if you guys knew this but smoking is bad for you, and for the people who are around you when youre smoking

The smoking ban has ruined fun in our town - especially music venues. As a promoter, it's basically impossible to keep a room full because everyone's outside smoking, and even the non-smokers stand outside with their mates. So between acts the place is basically empty, this ruins the atmosphere and then people stop coming to live shows because all they do is stand outside, so it's not worth the cost of the ticket. Most of the venues and pubs don't even have the means to create comfortable smoking areas so smoking queues just spill out all over the shop creating excessive litter, extraneous noise, not to mention an inconvenience for people trying to get past. There was a noticeable number of pubs and venues that had to close or have their live music license revoked within a year or so of the smoking ban.

Plus, for fuck's sake - pubs are supposed to be dens of sin. You should be able to smoke in them.

sounds like a lot of people in england should quit smoking then

put the bands outside problem solved

i am a nonsmoker, and i think smoking in bars should be legal, so long as there are dedicated, well-ventilated spaces for it. along with dedicated, well-ventilated spaces for nonsmokers.

― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Tuesday, 14 February 2012 15:06 (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This.

people stop coming to live shows because all they do is stand outside, so it's not worth the cost of the ticket.

do these people understand what a live show is?

lag∞n, you've never been to the uk huh?

lag∞n is actually prince charles

do these people understand what a live show is?

― ledge, Tuesday, 14 February 2012 15:11 (16 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

?

for real tho the smoking ban is really a workplace safety issue, like you couldnt have a factory thats full of smoke

i think that is the truest answer tbh

i would pay good money to remain outside many music venues

I don't see how my statement is either strange or jingoistic when the same "argument" can be found in the mission statements of many American cultural organizations. Public interest is what justifies arts funding whether it is public or private. For example, PBS support for Ken Burns. Is Ken Burns stuff jingoistic or are documentaries about jazz, Frank Lloyd Wright and Prohibition globally as well as domestically relevant?

sure, but public interest can be served by the support of homegrown art forms as well as arts that have their roots elsewhere. suggesting that we cut funding for ostensibly "european" art forms in favor of "american" ones strikes me as at least slightly suspect. supporting homegrown art and art forms /= jingoism, but specifically opposing the funding of not-officially-homegrown stuff does seem to slide in that direction.

Sure it's not worth the cost of the ticket if you're not actually gonna like go inside and see the band.

People who think live shows are primarily a place to hang out with their mates should be killed, basically.

xp to dl

Also, they're going to so much trouble covering up the cigarette installations in off-licences and supermarkets, and yet smokers are encouraged to display their bad habits to all and sundry on pub doorsteps. FFFUU---

lag∞n, you've never been to the uk huh?

― The Invisible Superstars (dog latin), Tuesday, February 14, 2012 10:12 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i meant put the band outside of the pub next to the smokers on the sidewalk or wee footpath or w/e tf u call it

for real tho the smoking ban is really a workplace safety issue, like you couldnt have a factory thats full of smoke

you could probably have a factory that was full of smoke if it was a smoke factory. servers could wear oxygen masks if they're so worried about their "health", problem solved.

dunno if you guys knew this but smoking is bad for you, and for the people who are around you when youre smoking

this is libertarian thread, point is not to care abt other people's problems

Sure it's not worth the cost of the ticket if you're not actually gonna like go inside and see the band.

People who think live shows are primarily a place to hang out with their mates should be killed, basically.

xp to dl

― ledge, Tuesday, 14 February 2012 15:14 (13 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Well, that's exactly the point. The club I promote at has a flight of steps leading from the main entrance. First band comes off, everyone goes outside to smoke/chat, next band comes on to an empty room. Basically the whole venue never fills up because a good chunk of audience are wrapped up in a conversation outside, not knowing that the next band has started. I'm talking about smaller, local gigs in a medium-sized town here where fledgling bands need all the support they can get.

i am a nonsmoker, and i think smoking in bars should be legal, so long as there are dedicated, well-ventilated spaces for it. along with dedicated, well-ventilated spaces for nonsmokers.
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Tuesday, 14 February 2012 15:06 (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

We tried this for a while in Maryland before banning smoking outright.

wee footpath or w/e tf u call it

jho you are a gifted troll. Hats off to you in this instance, you are the most annoying ever.

it sounds like people are lame in the uk more than the laws are lame

there are smoking bans in america and nightlife and fun still exists, we made it happen

live music is the worst tho its so loud and u stand there just watching it

Ireland has not entirely ground to halt either...

jho you are a gifted troll. Hats off to you in this instance, you are the most annoying ever.

― one little aioli (Laurel), Tuesday, February 14, 2012 10:18 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i seem to have snared an anglophile in my net *twists moustache*

phones. they're called phones.

the idea that people like cigarettes so much that if they're banned somewhere they're gonna take down a country's fun, all of it

I thought it was hilars. I tip my tam o'shanter to you.

I have a fair singing voice, but in a smoky gig area, forget it.

in ny when the smoking ban past smokers took to the pages of the village voice claiming they were just gonna stay home cause party time is over now lol

dont all the bars close in england at lik 9pm too

I thought it was hilars. I tip my tam o'shanter to you.

― one little aioli (Laurel), Tuesday, February 14, 2012 10:24 AM (45 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

;)

it's true, go to the east village today on a friday night, it's like a ghost town

also smoking is really bad, i suggest that if you smoke you should quit

how could any city create nightlife without a foundation of cigarettes, the one and only fuel for having fun

p sure that's speed.

its funny cause i dont know one smoker now who doesnt approve of the ban, theyre all my clothes dont reek of smoke i realized i i like smoking but not second hand smoke i get to take a lil break on the side walk and make new friends so on and so forth

i meant put the band outside of the pub next to the smokers on the sidewalk or wee footpath or w/e tf u call it

― lag∞n, Tuesday, 14 February 2012 15:15 (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This would obviously add to more noise problems for neighbours etc. Plus outdoor music licenses are basically impossible to get hold of these days.

yah i was jus joking, it would be a funny innovation tho

i do like going outside you get conversations starting and it makes a pleasant break from being bombarded by loud shitty music

Plus outdoor music licenses are basically impossible to get hold of these days.

again, sounds like the uk has other problems to deal w/

drizzle

iatee's solution for uk nightlife:
a. let anywhere get a liquor license
b. let anywhere be open 24/7
c. increase cigarette taxes and use the money hire a team of american consultants to teach uk people how to have fun without smoking

NV: Yes, this is an advantage. I'm pretty used to it now and I do like to get out of the stuffy pub and chat with people. Still, there's no denying it's impacted severely on bar-trade and venue-trade in our town. Not so much in bigger cities where venues have the advantage of being next to other venues in built-up areas in nightlife district. Smaller towns that once used to have a bustling number of pubs are now awfully quiet, especially in the week - obv not helped by the recession, but mostly cos pubs just aren't much fun anymore cos everyone's standing shivering outside or guarding the table before their mates get back. The biggest club in Hitchin, an 800 capacity venue that has always hosted live music was closed down and turned into a massive echoey gastropub with no music, simply because live music isn't drawing crowds anymore.

itt iatees discourses on fun

dl it sounds like somebody needs to.... SHAKE UP your little town

http://www.heyuguys.co.uk/images/2011/09/Footloose-Kevin-Bacon-1984.jpg

I have studied fun for many years and believe it can be created using fun-science

places that are boring are not boring on accident they are boring on purpose, because the people there want it to be boring, they used fun-science but they used it for evil

dl it sounds like somebody needs to.... SHAKE UP your little town

― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 14 February 2012 15:42 (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Good grief, I'm trying. We do a pretty good job with our shows, but gone are the days where audiences will go to a gig just for the sake of it (i.e. never having heard of the band).

Smaller towns that once used to have a bustling number of pubs are now awfully quiet, especially in the week - obv not helped by the recession, but mostly cos pubs just aren't much fun anymore cos everyone's standing shivering outside or guarding the table before their mates get back.

this is so weird. UK ppl: is this really true? US ppl: has anything similar happened here? cuz i've seen no change at all. people still go to bars, they just spend a bit more time outside them now, and everyone seems to have adjusted happily. plus smoking seems to have gone way, way down in general.

maybe americans use the bar less as a general social space that appeals to the entire community, and more as a den of iniquity with appeal only to a fallen few, so the fact that certain people are now staying home isn't a problem, cuz they were always staying home. it's only the dedicated that made it out in the first place.

Yeah, that's how it happened in Ireland, all the smokers just went "Oh well I was planning on giving up anyway"

irish people have studied fun science for centuries tho

http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/8/88907/1339674-tremors1_super.jpg

j. I'm okay w/ semi-privitizing the postal service. probably. makes it more expensive to send shit far away isn't nec bad in itself and it'd be a catalyst for making more bills, etc. all go digital.

that LRB piece on the mess that is the privatized dutch postal service made me stop flirting with post office privatization

well ups and fedex are fine if you reallly need to send sometime

something

like they are more expensive and they prob should be cause 'sending shit far away' shouldn't be an activity we encourage when there are alternatives

I like the smoking ban.

Prostitution, drugs, sex. Let people do what they want.

human sacrifice

sorry, the sun god needs to be fed sometimes

i do like going outside you get conversations starting and it makes a pleasant break from being bombarded by loud shitty music

I've noticed for a while that more socializing goes on among smokers outside than among drinkers inside. Sidewalks are the new bars. This could lead to smokers reproducing more than the general population.

reproducing infants with low birth weight and cleft palates

http://www.zillow.com/blog/files/2011/12/Lagasse_Photo.jpg

This actually swayed me a little towards privatizing the Canadian postal service: http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/06/17/rain-or-shine-the-monopoly-must-end/

It's a pretty dumb article.

I think 'is mail service something that should be subsidized in 2012?' is an question worth asking tho.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v33/n09/james-meek/in-the-sorting-office

privatizing the postal service doesnt seem to have worked out v well for the netherlands

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/sunday-review/the-junking-of-the-postal-service.html

The fact is that the primary beneficiary of the United States Postal Service today is arguably the advertisers whose leaflets and catalogs flood our mailboxes. First-class mail — items like bills and letters that require a 44-cent stamp — fell 6.6 percent in 2010 alone, continuing a five-year-long plunge. Last year was the first time that fewer than 50 percent of bills in the United States were paid by mail. There were 9.3 billion pounds of “standard mail” — the low-cost postage category available to mass advertisers — but only 3.7 billion of first-class mail.

it's less privitizing and more 'our system for sending packages already is privitized, our reasons for sending paper stopped existing'

I actively avoid UPS and FedEx tbh

so do I, because they're more expensive. but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

merits asking, definitely

UPS works awesomely in my area, the postal service does a reasonable job with the exception of their delivery of some other guy's mail to me, occasionally. I like postal mail for magazine delivery but I'm pretty sure iatee will tell me that magazines should be read at the library because the use of paper and transportation to get them to me is destroying the world.

well iatee's vision of the future is locking everyone into densely-packed urban gulag camps where only billionaires can afford to do anything more than 20 blocks away from their residence, including work, so I think we can pretty much ignore anything he says

I guess my main point is from an environmental pov if anything instead of subsidizing the transportation of 'unnecessary' parcels we should be taxing it. making the decision to go for the physical magazine should be more expensive. and ups/fedex have proven to be reliable. xp

ups/fedex have proven to be reliable in concert with an exising postal service.

yep, they use the USPS for the "final mile" delivery of packages where they don't maintain routes, because it isn't profitable for them to do so.

basically, without USPS I would never be able to send anything to my parents, ever

it isn't profitable for the usps to do it either, and that's why it's having a huge crisis. and the usps model isn't gonna 'get better' - people are only going to pay more bills online in the future etc.

But maybe we should consider dissolving this constitutionally mandadted service that is still used heavily and helps to guaruntee social and economic cohesion because computers and invisible hand?

you can't see it, but you can feel it

The question here is "Shouldn't public services have other metrics than profitability?"

I mean, how profitable are roads?

(not v libertariany, I'm aware)

xp AP has it!

roads shouldn't be subsidized either, duh

But maybe we should consider dissolving this constitutionally mandadted service that is still used heavily and helps to guaruntee social and economic cohesion because computers and invisible hand?

lol the invisible hand called global warming

iatee is like the unrestrained capitalist libertarian of doom

btw there are countries where all of these things are not subsidized and people pay for that shit, but I do not think any of us would like it there

haha I'm like the least libertarian person on ilx

you're kind of the least and the most

I think if we want to credibly incorporate long-term environmental costs into our policy making - which I think is more important than the short-term 'economic and social cohesion' you get from masking the costs of living in the middle of nowhere - you have to accept that certain things are going to be worse off for certain people.

well iatee's vision of the future is locking everyone into densely-packed urban gulag camps where only billionaires can afford to do anything more than 20 blocks away from their residence, including work, so I think we can pretty much ignore anything he says

― (thinks and smiles) (DJP), Tuesday, February 21, 2012 10:31 AM (44 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

oh come on this is silly - all billionaires will be executed in this fantasy world

'how do we stop global warming and ps also change literally nothing about the way we live'

iatee otm

iatee still otm, 'lol only billionaires could afford to do whatever' once long-term environmental costs are fully factored in only reinforces the urgency for change

maybe this is another one of my secret libertarianisms but I think transparency is essential for good gov't and included under the umbrella of government transparency is cost transparency. even ignoring the environmental pov - problem with flat-rate postage is that it allows people to not see the costs. whether or not people in nyc should keep subsidizing mail service for people in rural idaho it wouldn't hurt to include "the total cost for sending this letter was $4?" on the stamp.

then do the same thing w/ rural freeways.

red state lobbyists snuck that question mark in my post

iatee, should we make most of the country a national park? would we allow visitors to this park? how would they travel to it?

"Fuck everybody who doesn't already live in New York" is kind of the least useful political ideology ever.

my political ideology is 'I want everyone to be able to afford to live in new york' and iirc you are someone who has mentioned he would enjoy living in new york but cannot

so your scheme to making it affordable to live in New York is to... make it more expensive to live everywhere else?

yeah thats kind of how it works!

Not New York, San Francisco. If I'm going to live in a shoebox and survive on ramen, I at least want weather I enjoy.

Not sure how Queens is getting its veggies when gas costs $23 a gallon.

also: fuck the Yankees, Mets, Giants, Jets, Knicks and Nets, at least in SF I'd have rooting interests to listen to on the radio while I build my hobo fire

Not sure how Queens is getting its veggies when gas costs $23 a gallon.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Tuesday, February 21, 2012 2:19 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

queens will basically be the only place getting veggies when gas costs $23 a gallon!

at least in SF I'd have rooting interests

I only read this part of the sentence at first and it's more entertaining if I use the non-american version of "rooting"

xp Staten Island sol

in europe gas costs multiple times as much as it does here in and yet, they manage to eat vegetables, somehow

I live in a state that's larger than France. I can't imagine that has anything at all to do with differences in transportation.

queens is much smaller than both your state and france

And has no arable farm land.

are you a farmer, milo?

its true. how will queens get vegetables? if only there were farms in new york, connecticut, or new jersey.

See, I like the idea that the crazy growth of the 20th century was on the back of exploitation of the natural resources of the americas and the access to cheap energy, but it seems too reductive to think that the system's ills sprout from that as well.

fwiw I think a medium-sized country is going to end up following in the wake of China, not the US, and the patterns of use and models we'll end up with will reflect that

Whether western industry and the scientific innovation of the US/China has a part in it, that's a good question.

I have a vegetable garden.

All of this is to say that your forcing everyone into urban gulags idea is wicked-awesome Stalinism, but aside from being completely unrealistic: NYC is pretty much the definition of not-self sustaining. You can feel good about riding the bus and subway and living blocks from work, but your food and material goods are getting trucked in just like everyone else's.

Farms in NY, Connecticut and NJ = industrial ag producing and trucking food into the glorious metropolis

i dont get what your alternative is here

what rankles isn't concern for the environment, it's the blindingly smug sense of superiority that you know something all the yokels in the rest of the country don't and the unwillingness to entertain the idea that adapting the rest of America (which is lolhuge if you haven't noticed) to a more sustainable model rather than trying to make Blade Runner happen.

trucking in food is expensive, will continue to be expensive. population density offsets that expense.

NYC is pretty much the definition of not-self sustaining. You can feel good about riding the bus and subway and living blocks from work, but your food and material goods are getting trucked in just like everyone else's.

not only do I agree w/ that, I think attempts to pretend like big cities can be self-sustaining are misguided. but most americans do not work as farmers, in fact very few do. most people have service sector jobs that are not particularly related to the ag economy.

I don't think farmers should move to brooklyn, but I do think a lot of people need to realize they're not farmers.

I think most people realize that they aren't farmers

fwiw i am not literally proposing the forced relocation of the entirety of the united states to new hampshire

j/k i totally am

in europe gas costs multiple times as much as it does here in and yet, they manage to eat vegetables, somehow

― iatee

i dunno where you get your info but vegetables are an unheard-of luxury here

They could have dolphin farms in the East River

I think most people realize that they aren't farmers

― (thinks and smiles) (DJP), Tuesday, February 21, 2012 1:33 PM (17 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i though you were into WoW

There is no real alternative right now, that's why even good politicians have to balance concern with the future with concern for the present. But ideas that venture anywhere near making Utah and Iowa and George more sustainable are infinitely more useful than iatee's schtick.

I think most people realize that they aren't farmers

yeah you would think, but we operate w/ a policy model that sorta assumes they are

hahaha goole

take my hovercycle over to the east rivers famous dolphin-meat shack before another shift at the content mine

what are these ideas that venture near making utah and iowa and george more sustainable that don't involve people giving things up?

iirc in 2025 we get microwave power and in 2050 fusion power

I think most people realize that they aren't farmers

― (thinks and smiles) (DJP), Tuesday, February 21, 2012 2:33 PM (57 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Frances Farmer didn't, and look what happened to her. ;_;

Where are your ideas "involving people giving things up"? 'We need to make gas and mail prohibitively' expensive isn't sustainably giving things up, it's destroying the livelihood and social fabric of most Americans. Including urbanites.

I know it's a typo but I love the idea of a big dude named George just greedily consuming vast amounts of resources while US policy makers look on in horror going "George, dude... you have to become more sustainable."

I think you don't understand the word 'sustainability', it doesn't mean 'we get to sustain the lifestyles we have now forever'

I think you don't understand the word 'sustainability', it doesn't mean 'we get to sustain the lifestyles we have now forever'

― iatee

the only type of sustainability that ppl are going to vote for does, is the problem

on the one hand i'm not opposed to certain things in the commons being subsidized.

on the other hand i don't think getting filled envelopes of paper put in your door every day is all that crucial to the social fabric

Right, instead it means sackcloth and ashes for all.

We could be really sustainable and just cull the herd.

I don't understand how long-term sustainability includes making it more difficult for people to travel to other areas for work or making it prohibitively expensive for businesses to transfer tangible goods to other locations.

It makes a lot more sense to say "we should break the United States up into smaller countries responsible for their own people/infrastructures" than it does to say "we should make everything prohibitively expensive so people can't afford to live anywhere".

I don't understand how long-term sustainability includes making it more difficult for people to travel to other areas for work or making it prohibitively expensive for businesses to transfer tangible goods to other locations.

because...those things...are often not sustainable?

Old people are not sustainable.
http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTMwOTY3NTE5NF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNDYxNDcyMg@@._V1._SY317_.jpg

is iatee vegetarian y/n?

I don't understand how long-term sustainability includes making it more difficult for people to travel to other areas for work

just more expensive, tbh, and not just for work

or making it prohibitively expensive for businesses to transfer tangible goods to other locations.

not necessarily 'prohibitively', then, throw out a figure that isn't prohibitive or at which prohibitive is approached and i suppose it's a place to start

old people are not sustainable

well, not in the long run, usually, no

iatee, you are basically saying, "modern society is destroying the Earth; how can I destroy modern society while still getting to live in the NYC I know and love?" and the answer is "you can't"

i think iatee knows that he cant live in the nyc he "knows and loves"

is iatee vegetarian y/n?

I try to eat less meat tho I was vegetarian in hs and my hair started falling out. in any case I don't think individual decisions are gonna save the world which is why 'tax red meat and use the money to offset emissions' is a better idea than 'trying to guilt everyone into being vegetarian'

Can't wait for the new paradise in which ppl once again are born, live and die within 5 miles of one spot. "You want to see the Parthenon? You should've got yourself born in Greece, my friend."

I question whether iatee really speaks about anything he "knows and loves" or if it's kind of a theoretical persona stance. The whole thing kind of reads not far off from his "I am a lawyer who owns a beemer" persona he was pulling when that one rube dropped by ilx.

I''m not sure, but I think I live in George.

whoa whoa whoa mock iatee all you want but I won't have you sullying the good name of Jay Batman.

refusing basic healthcare to anyone over the age of 65 would save a lot of resources
denying heating fuel to people who live in cold climates, also a good idea (sorry NYC!)
obese Americans starved until their BMIs drop below 20

People unable to find work within walking distance of their residence can be sent to a labor prison

I was going to say that this conversation belongs on the fascist thread, but it made me want to move to the country and buy a pickup with a gun rack and burn my trash so I'm conflicted

idg how my opinions on good public policy are 'a persona'. they might be absurdist in the context of modern american politics but remember I'm the dude who defends obama in the politics thread, so I'm p aware of their context within the spectrum of american politics. that doesn't, incidentally, mean they there's something wrong with pricing greenhouse emissions and encouraging environmentally efficient lifestyles.

summary execution of all pets

Man, people seem to be hearing "gas should cost $23/gal" what's actually being (accurately) said is "gas costs $23/gal (probably much higher), we're just not paying the full bill up front".

'people have to pay for the environmental effects of driving' = 'iatee is a fascist'

Or pets can only be fed food made from the remains of the elderly who die off

Full-blown libertarianism would eventually result in a world where nothing much lived besides humans, cockroaches, dust mites, algae and bacteria. But they would all reach a certain kind of equalibrium. Voila! Sustainability! (/doomer)

Did you know that overall, cooling air is a lot less power-consuming than heating? There's really no reason to have large cities as far north as NYC unless there's a significant stabilizing effect due to ocean/mountain proximity. Which NYC doesn't have.

totally agree, which is why we should be building more big cities in california

I think it's more that you have a lot of interesting ideas that proscribe what large swaths of society at large should be doing, but you seldom address your own stake in this!

btw I just completely misused the word proscribe, ignore me

I don't care what society 'should be doing', I care about pricing things w/ environmental goals in mind

and cooling is less necessary than heating - no a/c in the south would require reconfiguring houses to old vernacular styles with sleeping porches and shit, but you aren't going to die sleeping outside in a Mississippi summer

man ppl get really bent out of shape by this stuff

How is "pricing things w/ environmental goals in mind" not a thing that society would do?

eugenics program to breed people who can run marathons to deliver news from urban city-state to urban city-state

the chances of anything iatee 'wants' happening in america's political context are close to zero, so everybody can take it easy

Being libertarian doesn't mean not giving a direction for society! It means that specific direction is limited government, subsidies, and intervention

marketing campaign to turn unused NYC subway and sewer tunnels into 21st century artists' lofts
art supplies restricted for wastefulness (oops)

new TV production banned, all citizens have to watch media projected from a central location onto night-time clouds. No clouds, tough shit.

wow I had no idea raising the gas tax would have so many unforeseen consequences

no, this is the libertarian thread, you have to pose it as not subsidizing roads or subsidizing gasoline

Just spitballing ways to save the planet.

makes you think

haha

I go to a conference call and this place turns venomous. Waaahhh happen?

tbh, though, the effects from denying healthcare to the elderly is probably not that far off from designing policies to either uproot people or make living where they do untenable - going to be a lot of holdouts fighting back or dying off
and killing off old people would undeniably be good for the environment, whereas herding people together generally hasn't been

whereas herding people together generally hasn't been

Do you...have anything to support this or are you just mad now?

yeah now that i think about it probably better to just leave things as they are

milo

you are continuing on this path as if ppl have been arguing against your ideas to kill off (note- think about a better euphemism for this) nearlydeads, when tbf nobody is fighting you on these vital reforms

Do I have any evidence that urbanization (partic. rapid urbanization) isn't good for the environment?
Sure: the Industrial Revolution. Contemporary China.

I'm not mad, I just think iatee's views - or at least his ways of stating them - are tailor-made for reductio ad absurdum, in that they start off on the absurd continuum.

'raise taxes on things that cause global warming'?

Seriously - if iatee were more serious about needing radical ideas to save the world (rather than, as noted, wanting the NYC he loves), he would be encouraging agrarianism and population reduction. Mankind is never quite so sustainable as when it needs the farmland directly beneath its feet to survive.

why do people think I love nyc so much

killing off old people would undeniably be good for the environment

Wha? Old people don't reproduce. They have few years left to consume resources. They eat like birds. It's you young 'uns who will be vigorously spawning all those ravenous children, demanding ice cream and Gameboys, and ruining the planet for the next century!

I don't even own a I <3 ny shirt

my vision of the future is locking everyone into densely-packed urban gulag camps where only billionaires can afford to do anything more than 20 blocks away from their residence, including work.

― iatee, Tuesday, February 21, 2012 9:31 AM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Do you own a I 8====) NY shirt?

why do people think I love nyc so much

well consider the possibility that climate change will make it worse

no

iatee wants to ruin the yokels' lives... to save them!!!!

Set up another round of tornados, floods, hurricanes, and droughts for everyone! They're on the house!

Climate change and other human impacts are going to make things worse, and (TMI) combine to be the reason I don't think I ever want to have kids. I don't want to bring people into a world where their kids probably won't get to experience seafood (as a minor example) or maintain a comfortable existence at all.
But making life shittier for most people right now - but in a way that won't effect structural change - is kinda dumb and punitive toward people for having the lives they were born into. And is clearly unrealistic to boot, since no one will buy in. Like I said, ideas about sustainability that accept the size of the US and its population (encouraging mass transit in any mid-sized city, better and faster rail networks, governments actively teaching people to grow some of their own food when possible) are a lot more valuable.

are you suuuuuuuure that raising taxes on things that contribute to global warming "wont effect structural change"

we're having a hell of a time getting buy-in on mass transit in mid-size cities and faster rail networks. i'd hate to see the reaction to the idea of "governments actively teaching people to grow some of their own food when possible"

the whole point of 'making' forms of carbon energy more expensive is that stuff like transit networks, farming and mfging processes, housing sizes, and so on, adjust or retrofit as needed

yup, mass-transit is uncompetitive in midsized cities when we build and fund its competition, gas is cheap and transit-oriented neighborhoods are illegal to build. dealing w/ those things are as important as spending more money on transit. making it difficult to drive or own a car is the best way to fund public transit.

are as important = is as important

Iatee, what do you think of cap and trade?

humanity's last hope