most Democrats seem reluctant to do.

New Congressman, Alan Grayson, seems the exception.

He's going for the throat.

I did inhale.

If we legalized "euthanasia on demand," perhaps we'd be surprised at how many folks opted in.

Personally, having observed that health care is currently an environmental disaster, I've accepted that perhaps euthanasia is a gift to fellow generations.

of course this viewpoint shows that atheism has indeed taken hold of my soul and I no longer think that morality or ethics trump the forces that created mankind and the rest of creation.

meaning that you haven't given up the idea of a creator.

Morality and ethics are not for trumping the forces of nature. They are (instinctual and legalistic, respectively) tools for governing ourselves.

Rene Descartes said it well: the initial cause is always greater than or equal to its effect; hence, whatever created man-- be it the big bang-- or whatever, it has to have more potential than mankind.

so-- when I use the word creation, I'm accepting Descartes' analysis that mankind is effect not cause.

and, if mankind is effect, his morality isn't all that powerful and contained by the initial cause.

Descartes wrote prior to David Hume's critique of causality. Since Hume's analysis, the concept of causality is hotly debated. The pre-Humean concept of cause has not been justified and for the most part remains a vestige of medieval thinking preserved in the common sense view of the world.

The law of causality, I believe, like much that passes muster among philosophers, is a relic of a bygone age, surviving, like the monarchy, only because it is erroneously supposed to do no harm. (Russell, 1913, p. 1).

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Robert M. Pirsig organizes human affairs into levels. His are Biological, Social, and Intellectual. Events in the one can not entirely be predicted by the other. One can't predict the principles of biology from the principles of chemistry.

An example (I believe it's his) he provides is the following: A computer is made up of hardware and software. It is not possible to predict that an assemblage of transistors will be able to design computers, model the weather, play an MP3.

This "emergence" seems to contradict some aspects of causality.

when I was talking "cause and effect," it was a philosophical argument that, for example, when a bomb explodes, it has the potential to release a certain amount of energy.

similarly, life (cause) created animals, plants, humans, etc... (effects) and it did it without a single college course, etc...; that fact is pretty damn interesting to me! the cause of life, as we know, has been an obsession for many minds...

I've spoken with at my local banks are totally against the "bailout" money. They are also hopping mad at the money being given to the auto companies. They did not participate in the derivative stuff.

There are two factions in charge:

Elites:

We can't be bankrupt, we still have ink left.

Populist Hooverites:

We can saw the front half of the titanic off from the back half of the titanic.

The reality is that every bank profited from the housing bubble. They all sell their mortgages on the secondary market, and the deal flow on that was from the "deriv" stuff. All of it. What everyone is trying to do right now is say that because they didn't touch the toxic waste, they are not responsible.

It's bullshit.

Since Americans want bullshit policies, then they are going to get the downward spiral they crave. Since sexist monsters like Don still continue to have some kind of counter-culture cred, there is no place for any counter body of opinion to get started. From every direction, from every side, in every form, there is an almost unadulterated stream of garbage.

That's why i am leaving agonist. Since the powers that be here want to purvey sexism, racism and ignorance, clearly I am not suited to the community.

Enjoy the collapse, and be proud of your work people.

where did that come from? [b/c Don wrote about strippers back in the day?]

A moot point perhaps now, but Stirling what is your political orientation anyway? Adjectives or nouns acceptable.

I mean, if you followed thru with shutting down the global empire and replacing the Federal Reserve Bank system with something more like the Katherine Fitts Solari Index Fund kind of Main Street investment model, well ya know our government would be pretty well suited. So those are radical elements of Ron Paul's thing, but would probably work pretty well.

Let's all chill out a little bit here. Who, besides perhaps Krugman and Nuriel Rubini, is not providing garbage? (and as a bonus i have heard some surprisingly weird/narsty stories about Rubini, actually)

People like dailykos community are pretty much bent on Obama boosting. I like Cryptogon.com but that's just one guy. The Alex Jones set are flagging elite schemes that we should be watchful of, but there is definitely a strain of white populism on that place.

Ron Paul was the only guy on that GOP side of the aisle telling them the empire needed to end, and he has gotten the anti-authoritarian Right in this country to actually engage with things. On balance that's good.

And furthermore, perhaps we should look seriously at reducing the scope of the feds away from Education (which appears to have made America stupid and schools ruined anyway), and intervening with housing cash schemes that usually get ripped off by the usual suspects anyway (see Savings & Loan etc).

The benefit of this site, among others, is a sense of international conciliation, ideological hetereogeneity, a general lack of snippishness (this thread is the angriest i've seen in a while), and just enough comments to be interesting without overwhelming.

If there is a better site i don't know where it is. I'll take Don and everyone else over the yobbering liberal pretty boys & the Kool Kids any day!
--
Hongpong.com

I've read this site for quite awhile, but have, until now refrained from commenting.

I think that it is a place which has a wealth of congenial discourse on important (and some not so pressingly important) matters.

Though I often see great insight in what you have to say,
you, it would seem, think that this should be some type of a
prog-politburo where only party line opinions should be discussed.

Whatever... I for one would like to say - Boo Hoo.

Personally, I welcome exchange of views with people who may differ from my own, as long as they are genuine in their beliefs. I may not agree with them, and may even become enraged with what they say, but I welcome the exchange, and do my utmost not to condemn those that would engage in an open spirit of debate.

"Paulism" would be an excellent case in point. While I think that a deep reading of what he proposes reveals his positions to be both simplistic and dangerous. That does not change the fact that a not-insignificant number of people take a shine to what he has to say.
That being the case, the ideas should be refuted. Flinging ad hominems and storming away in a snit does noone any good and does a disservice to the ideas of open discourse and the "marketplace of ideas".

But if you wish to leave, that is your option, and if that is the attitude that you take, well, then good riddance - you do noone any good acting like that.

Now, some may think me presumptious, posting for the first time with something like this in response to a "regular". I do however care about this site, the good people herein, and the bits of insight I've
derived from it...

So tough cookies if you don't approve.

approved of slavery, women being denied the right to vote, and the belief that angels and sky fairies watch out for football players.

why don't you try defending "paulism" on its face. no one here is shutting you down. i have a lot of friends who are pretty dumb, in terms of their understanding of economic or political theory. that doesn't mean i let it slide when they spout off with the more ignorant of comments that in fact support destructive policies that kill people. which modern day "paulist" libertarianism does.

republicans, xtians, and libertarians always strike me as the very first in line to Whine like Babies when someone is brave enough to tell them they're full of shit. "oooh, you hurt my feelings. it's so uncivil!" if your faith is that weak, you don't belong in the blogosphere. and again: do you have a substantive contribution to make, other than "stirling quit picking on the historically and factually challenged libertarians?"

*that* is what real blogging is all about. put up, or go back to lurking. the libertards have no problem ignoring facts and speaking up for themselves.

as far as I'm concerned, the democrats shifted production abroad because of environmental laws at home; the democrats shifted production abroad because of labor laws at home; manufacturers have shifted their production methods from people to machines to shed workers; our investment schemes enabled the corporate culture to grow larger; etc...

truly, laws have monetized the cultural changes we are seeing.

the Paulian perspective is to go on strike and rally against the "sucking away" (as ross perot famously characterized it) of democracy.

i.e., as far as I can tell, scared people always betray the next generation as long as they get a little mercy in return.

perhaps i should inform you that i did my doctoral work at the University of Chicago Divinity school. i can't help it.

would you care to back up your claims about how it's all the dems fault that we're in this mess? and don't get me wrong (or, you could read my blog [correntewire.com] and check out my creds)- i'm no fucking defender or fan of most dems. but really, i sort of hate this whole "there's no difference" crap. it's crap. if dems are (and i think they are) weak, spineless, compliant, willingly ignorant, etc., there's a simple reason why i support them, over fringe candidates like Paul or Nader. it's because occasionally, they respond to pressure from Little People like me. whereas republicans? yeah, like they listen to anyone worth less than 50m. and with dems, i've got a good shot at (and have been part of successful) efforts to unseat them and replace them with *real* populists, to which Paul only pretends. you libtards have all reviewed his actual voting record, right? in his universe, we wimmin don't count, in his ideal utopia of Libertarian freedumb. or did you miss his opposition to my right to control my own body?

really, your assertion that "democrats shifted production abroad" is just ignorant. i live in MI. my family is deep with the union tradition here. you really don't know what the fuck you're talking about. i say this as the First Critic of Dem failure to protect the unions and production related jobs. but if you think it was "all the Dems fault" that our manufacturing base went to china/overseas, you clearly don't know jack about the history of the issue.

ummm, look at Jimmy Carter. His administration let Chrysler renegotiate their union contracts:

The loans stipulated major concessions from Chrysler’s workers, represented by the United Autoworkers Union (UAW). The political and media elite had successfully shifted blame for the corporation’s collapse—and by extension the overall decline of US capitalism—onto the working class. [Source: wsws.org]

When Clinton came along, he ushered in NAFTA and it had terrible impacts on Michigan! Moreover, when GW ran for president, the unions were split and I remember unions saying: "we're now going to vote for who supports us, not by party line!" so, indeed, in 2000 the unions were quite mad at Clinton for betraying them!

Now we have Obama and he wants workers to give back even more in order for the automakers to get loans (pork).

Say what you want about Nadar and Paul but when you vote for a Democrat-- hoping to get a drop of water, you've lost the possibility of getting a glass of water.

Personally, I think the ignorant part of democracy is that republicans run as democrats and democrats run as republicans so we really don't know who is who.

BTW: you might want to nicen your language a bit!

life would be a free-for-all, and if you think you would be a winner against the giant corporations and military industrial complex operating with no impunity, good luck. The US would be even more in a race to the bottom that it is.

Libertarianism (anarchy) only works in an enlightened society that comprehends right relationship between self-interest and the common good, and we aren't there yet. In such a society, laws and regulations are not needed. Otherwise, those beneath the top tier get increasingly crushed, and the de facto "law" is ruthless exploitation of all who are not able to prevent it.

a libertarian policy is not a free-for-all since the court system becomes crucial to resolving disputes.

historically, the democrats supported governence through the courts whereas the republicans worked on gutting it-- especially during the past 8 years.

personally, I don't think that political ideology has anything to do with who or who doesn't get crushed. based on what you post, I think we both think, to some degree, that "natural limits" impose that.

the reason why we could be in for a major fall in "quality of life" is because cheap energy, untapped resources and a growing population let us ride an exponential curve upwards.

however, fires die out after the fuel that sustains them burns out.

a libertarian policy is not a free-for-all since the court system becomes crucial to resolving disputes.

The crisis that we are in is the result not only of incompetence but also criminal nonfeasance and malfeasance. So far, no one is talking about prosecuting the vast criminal conspiracy that led to this mess, and it is not certain by any means that the courts would be amenable to it, any more than the previous administration is going to be held accountable for war crimes (crimes against humanity) and crimes against the state.

What is needed is accountability. I agree with the basic libertarian principle in this regard and have stated it often: freedom is requisite for open society, freedom implies responsibility, and responsibility entails accountability. The problem is that while Republicans preach this, they have a two-tier interpretation of it, and the Dems are too spineless to confront them on it, or else they are sold out to the top.

The problems we're having now are ones that have slushed around forever.

So, in my mind, we either have a vast criminal conspiracy or the simple problem of people fighting for survival. Since I'm currently atheistic, I'd say that people are fighting for survival since I don't believe in heaven on earth.

Indeed, enforcement is a problem and always will be. Political ideology won't change that.

Interestingly enough, Ron Paul noted that if White Collar criminals were charged with the crimes they commit, there would be more white people in jail than black people from Washington DC in jail....

I don't think so. I actually agree with Libertarianism and the 1972 platform of the Libertarian Party. As a matter of fact, it is the basis of liberalism. However, this is an overarching political philosophy that must be adapted to practical governance, which requires adaption to political economy.

The Libertarian notion of political economy is based essentially on microeconomics and political economy is based on macroeconomics. This is a fundamental flaw of Libertarianism. When Libertarians try to assert it as the basis for governing, they are being naive — which is what Stirling is saying. They just haven't thought the thing through economically in terms of formalisms semantically interpreted in terms of evidence. In short, Libertarianism remains a noble ideology until it is translated into a macroeconomics that can reasonably be expected to work in governing a complex society. So far, no one has bothered to do that, and there are many reasons to think that it won't work very well, based on what is already known and shown.

The macroeconomic ideology on which Libertarianism is based is insufficient for governing a complex society such as the US, let alone a world developing in the direction of globalism. It simply disregards a vast body of economic knowledge that is vital to progress in the mistaken belief that frontier principles are applicable in this environment. They aren't, and that's why we are using them anymore in political economy.

I guess that I don't have a problem with Libertarian naivety. Everyone picks their poison and drinks it.

You see, this isn’t a brainstorming session — it’s a collision of fundamentally incompatible world views. If one thing is clear from the stimulus debate, it’s that the two parties have utterly different economic doctrines. Democrats believe in something more or less like standard textbook macroeconomics; Republicans believe in a doctrine under which tax cuts are the universal elixir, and government spending is almost always bad.

Bipartisan Bromides

While Krugman does not address Libertarianism, what he says of the Republicanism is similar. Economically, they are both ideologies.

he's perpetuating the myth that we have two diametrically opposed parties. in the past, I've described the democrats as the Jesuits and the republicans as Catholic; thus, the two parties are like the north and south pole on a magnet-- you can't have one without the other and neither party is superior because one balances (theoretically) the other and that's why they call it political theater.

But one party might be more right than the other on a particular issue, and this may be demonstrable on the basis of evidence rather than appeal to ideology.

the notion of "right versus wrong" is an aesthetic. If someone was omniscient (Christ was the mythical all knowing) then we would have a benchmark; however, since nobody is all knowing, the democrats and republicans are like the left and right foot that try to keep the body walking.

personally, I don't believe we really understand the motivations of our legislators; all we have is their public statements about their motivations.

i.e. legislators who write laws because of beefy bribes are doing it for their own selfishness not because they cling to their ideology.

as a libertarian, I acknowledge that the "power of the purse" corrupts... that's not an uncommon thought: "money changes people" as they say. I've seen it in myself; my family members; etc...

It is well known that Alan Greenspan was in his younger days a member of Ayn Rand inner circle and a libertarian if not a member of the Libertarian Party. Greenspan almost singlehandedly sunk the global economy because of his self-admitted naivete. The acknowledged "maestro" is most responsible for blowing up the financial system because of his failed ideology.

I certainly don't blindly endorse Ayn Ran; a lot of folks who latch onto her become selfish and self serving.

Enlightened libertarians understand that the world is interconnected in a positive way, etc...

Greenspan, I'd imagine, is trying to make sure that the winners of the free market don't buy the market and that the next generation inherits power through the rules of meritocracy. Unfortunately, it's a messy job.

If you actually read what I wrote, you'd see that I *DO NOT* agree with Paul specifically, or the libertarians generally...

If hurling out straw men which you can then cut down is "real blogging", then perhaps you are right and I should go back to lurking.

"simplistic and dangerous."

but what the hell was your point, then? summed up sentence by sentence, you spend far more time telling critics of libertarian nonsense to be tolerant and "civil" to what you yourself claim to dismiss. you do this...why? and look over to your left (heh): stirling isn't a "regular," he's one of the people who've created and maintained this blog. i guess you missed that in your lurking, or fail to understand the difference b/w "contributor" and "commenter."

do we have to tolerate pro-child slavery and totalitarians here, to satisfy your desire for "debate?" that's basically how i read your initial post. again, i ask: if "debate" with libertarian ideas is so valuable, please identify which parts of them are worthy of debating, in civilized, compassionate, rational, historically informed society?

I can see that you believe passsionately in what you advocate, and that is something that I can admire.

It just seems that too often people seem to take "shortcuts" with their reasoning and jump on past the process to the conclusion. In a nutshell, instead of ranting at Don and stamping off in a huff, I would have liked to see an actual refutation of ideas and not a bunch of namecalling followed by the equivalent of "you suck. I'm going home".

I don't believe that things are quite as cut and dried regarding libertarianism as you would portray. If things were as cut and dried as in the case of the issues of slavery or totalitarianism, such absolute dismissal might be warranted.

Comparing them to totalitarianism or slavery is disingenuous and a dangerous misreading of what they represent and, more importantly, a VERY dangerous misreading of the very real populist appeal that they have to the "everyperson"...

The ideals of self sufficiency, independence, defense of freedom and the like run deep in the Americal psyche and it is these concepts that libertarians deliberately appeal to. Such an appeal on these bases is, however childish and superficial, and serves to mask the deeper and quite plutocratic agenda that many (most?) libertian aligned people are advocating - for brevity's sake, as I don't want to gobble too much space here, that could be termed "screw everyone else I got mine".

Simply excoriating the libertarian, without acknowledging their powerful, if misguided, appeal not only does one's own argument a disservice, but actually serves to strenthen the appeal of that philosophy in the eyes of those who know a little about it but may be on the brink and undecided as to what to think. To meet their misrepresentations with scorn, derision, and insult, I believe, strengthens their cause and hurts that of their opponents. Even though the libertarians visions of the economy are somewhere just a whisker away from totally insane, if that cannot be conveyed, clearly and cooly, to the "hoi polloi" who don't scrutinize economic or governmental philosophies very closely, then all is lost.

Ultimately, it's just that something about the way Sterling took Don to task rubbed me the wrong way. Something having to do with those taking the high road walking the walk...

If I came off as a clueless scold, I apologize. I sometimes have a habit of blundering headfirst into things I *know* I should probably not step into. I'll try to resist the urge in the future, though I can't promise anything...

3948573905 windows open right now, work and blog related. forgive me, o tolerant and civil one.

first off: it's "Stirling." that's always one of my peeves about his detractors here; is it so hard to spell his name right? this only goes with my impression that you're not really reading what's written here, and that you didn't perceive he's a founding member of this group only supports that belief. seems i'm not the only one with a skimming problem. /end pedant/ trust me, i'm not a spelling nazi, i just think it's not that hard to get bloggers' names right, yo?

secondly: it's not up to me to defend, nor attack, libertarian ideas. i'm not the one trying to say we need to tolerate them. if you think my comparison to totalitarianism is incorrect, please demonstrate why, and how, with links and sources.

i'll give you a break. i believe that libertarianism, as constructed in the initial post, is childish, foolish, ignorant of history, and selfish. to my understanding, there has never been a successful example of libertarian society that lasted, any more than there has been a long-lasting "people's utopia" that uberliberals like me dream about. let's just be plain: do we want things like public schools, roads, fire departments, hospitals and emergency agencies? it's a simple question of 'yes or no.' in most libertarian constructs i read about at posts like these, those defending the libertarian construct fail to account for those things. in their gun-toting, freedumb loving mythologies, i'm never quite clear who, exactly, is going to "willingly" pay and contribute to those things. "let's just all not pay taxes and manna will fall from heaven!" seems to be more the 'logic' they employ. sorry, children, but "civilization" is more complicated than that. someone has to pay for it.

you obviously don't know me well, nor the irony that is this conversation i'm having with you just now, so i'll stress two points which are factually true about me:
1. i have put up not a few posts at my semi-popular blog defending libertarians, to the chagrin and scorn of people like stirling
2. ron paul doesn't believe that "libertarianism" extends to women. any true "libertarian" who fails to understand this, is, imho, simply an ingorant fool and asshat. or do i have the right to tell you when it's ok for you boys to jerk off, and into what, in the libertarian construct of your dreams?

nah. didn't think so.

Points taken (and snark is cool by me, as I am often anything but tolerant and civil - I sometimes do manage to try though), and I'll duly kick myself for getting the spelling of the name wrong (getting it right IS important...and polite after all)

I'm kinda rushed here, but you are correct that I don't know you (or more precisely your commentary) well. I've read this blog on and off since around the time of the invasion of Iraq. At that point I was desperately seeking some type of reason in what was going on and soemhow I found my way here. I do admit though, that I filter a good bit out, especially with regard to much of the comments.

We obviously differ in approach and numerous particulars from what I can glean, but (I think) I can see where you're comin from, and can respect that. (and, forthe record, I truly don't think that liberty should be the sole preserve of property owning white males ala Paul and the like)...

back to lurking...

I like reading your postings - though they are sometimes difficult to follow - not least because your writings assume more economic background than I have. Well, how else does one learn?

If you do go, good luck with whatever you pursue - perhaps let us know where you land on the 'net?

isn't the first time he has said he is leaving

his masterpieces need our ignorance as motivation...

I've seen all day.
have a good one.
I'm going to work((cough)like Don(cough))

We all need to get away for a bit sometimes.

Stirling is one of my favorite writers and one of my favorite people, and perhaps the primary reason I read The Agonist, despite being on the center-left.

Thus has this particular troll resided exclusively under Mr. Newberry's posts, and thus does this particular troll hope that Mr. Newberry returns soon. :)

Do you really think his views are typical of this site?

I don't think they are typical of the USA either. I can't remember the last time I heard the term "trickle-down" in tones other than of scorn and facetiousness. If people in the USA thought that what was needed was tax cuts, they wouldn't have voted Obama.

I think that the term "trickle down" got a bad rap. Open a Calculus book and it's trickle down from Leibniz and Newton.

The problem with the term "trickle down" is that we apparently associate corruption with it.

However, Bach, Beethoven, etc... were poring out of my headphones today thanks to trickle down. The musicians were keeping alive the thoughts of those folks...

The old name for 'trickle-down'. Back when horses were in the streets...

“The Playboy reader invites a female acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Picasso, Nietzsche, jazz, sex.” - Hugh Hefner

road a horse and saved the day! give the right people the right resources and magic things can happen.

and the right to voice them like everyone else here. He also should be given the same consideration everyone else is given...meaning no personal insults. Attacking the content of a post is fine and encouraged, attacking another member with personal insults is not.

Always enjoyed your work since the bopnews days and hope to continue to do so wherever you end up hanging your virtual hat. You are clearly a brilliant individual but c'mon you also have some major anger management issues.

Open dialog is the only thing left. Stay around, argue,debate or remain silent but never surrender. Stick around.

"It is pretty hard to tell what does bring happiness; poverty and wealth have both failed." —Kin Hubbard

it's hard to tell who's in Nazi party. American Empire-- as far as I can tell, allowed Americans to have a "high quality of life" at the expense of others.

So many philosophers write about downfall.

Freud, for example, writes that our hopes are ultimately destructive; Kant, in a similar vein, put forth categorical imperatives:

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

unfortunately, as humans, we become like deer and become blinded by headlights in the moral domain.

Ron Paul talks to the truth that irrationality (darwinism) is the central unifying force, not rationalism.

not. Hasn't Krugman explained over and over that the FreddyFanny loans weren't the source the the sub-prime difficultites?

money is a man made invention. moreover, I think you'd be "on the money" if you said that "civilization costs violence."

that's true but the environmental cost and the cost to extract resources is becoming "super sized."

other nations spend far less on health care and education and get better results so the current problems aren't necessarily caused by funding....

can we have things like environmental protection and health care for less money than we spend on aborted failures and partial attempts on them now? of course.

do i expect Ron Paul, libertarians, or republicans to accomplish that? wtf are you smoking, dood.

as i said above: dems are highly flawed. please read my blog. i'm all over them. but this whole nonsense about "tax cuts will restart the economy," which is where this debate began, is utter bullshit. rather than distract from that point, why don't you libertarian folks try to prove the points you make with historical data, grounded in a demonstrable political and economic record. you don't seem to want to do that, and rather seem to prefer attacking me for standing in as a proxy for Stirling, whom I know is long tired and bored by this kind of uninformed, juvvie crap. read a book, already. one that isn't published by a rich republican laughing at how easy it is to hook you into the "flat tax" mythology.

ummmm, I think you're hitting the "reply button" before you read what we write since libertarians certainly use historical data. I posted historical facts to show that EVERY democratic administration has given huge body blows to the labor movement; Obama is continuing the trend.

as a libertarian, I'm simply being pragmatic that you can't vote for a God, only a fallen angel.

The Tenth Amendment says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." I don't see Jack about setting education standards in there. That is a key point that anti-Paul people feel entitled to skip over because it's become totally hegemonic to do so.

For some time now, the extensive expansion of legislative reach has been justified by the interstate commerce clause, which has been blest by the judiciary. No going back now, it seems. It's the law of the land.