Judson Phillips, president of Tea Party Nation, thinks that it makes sense that voting rights in the United States should be restricted to those who own property. He believes that property owners have more of a “vested stake” in a community than do people who do not own property. That’s what he claimed on a weekly program hosted by Tea Party Nation recently.
BTW, Phillips is the individual who sent an email to members of his organization in October telling them that they should vote for the Independent candidate over Rep. Keith Ellison in the November election for 5th Congressional District in Minnesota. Phillips wrote the following about Ellison in his email: “There are a lot of liberals who need to be retired this year, but there are few I can think of more deserving than Keith Ellison. Ellison is one of the most radical members of congress. He has a ZERO rating from the American Conservative Union. He is the only Muslim member of congress.”
Meanwhile—Rushbo ranted on about poor folks recently on his radio program. In a “media tweak of the day,” Limbaugh asked listeners if they thought that people who can’t feed and clothe themselves and who receive government assistance should be allowed to vote. It was just a “think piece” Rushbo said as he asked his listeners to imagine how different the political make-up of this country would be if such people couldn’t vote.
In a Psycho Talk segment on his MSNBC program, Ed Schultz “tweaked” Limbaugh back.
Maybe Phillips and Limbaugh ought to get together to establish an organization for the purpose of taking voting rights away from certain Americans whom they deem unworthy. Why not return to the good old political days when only property-owning white men had the right to vote. Right???
Sources:
– Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger
Because she, like a typical Libertarian, is too dumb to realize she’s lost.
You two have that in common.
Which is nice.
Von Mises was a fool.
Also something you and your buddy have in common.
As to the mislabeled response? It’s hard to tell you two apart since you’re both equally greedy and ignorant. Peas in a rotten pod.
As to Madison? I may be smarter than Madison, but certainly not smarter than Jefferson, however – and more importantly – I’m in agreement with Alexander Hamilton and the Supreme Court. Hamilton argued that the general welfare clause granted Congress the power to spend without limitation for the general welfare of the nation. The winner of this debate was decided 150 years later in United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936) where the Court found that Hamilton’s interpretation was the correct interpretation.
Sucks to be wrong yet again, doesn’t it, apologists for greed?
ekeyra:
he doesn’t like Von Mises and other contemporary economists who believe in free markets and free trade. He also doesn’t want us to know that Marx is his man, so he uses Adam Smith.
But he is a polymath so who knows, maybe he thinks Adam Smith is the best. Since he is a genius he is right and you are wrong.
Why are you arguing with a polymath?
Mike Spindell:
yay, your team won. Good for you.
By the way, ekeyra cleaned Buddha is Laughing’s clock above. But how do you have an discussion/argument with someone who thinks James Madison is wrong about the Constitution. Now that’s just funny and I will assume you think him (Madison) to be wrong as well from your comments.
McHome Schooled,
“The only people who believe socialist dogma are poor people and intellectuals educated to a point beyond there ability to comprehend. Oh and people who like to use the force of government to compel other people to accept their ideas.”
B that was from chan’s post…so feel free to go back and actually read what i said and respond to that instead of attributing chans thoughts to mine.
Also love how you keep accusing me of being stuck in the 16 century but then keep bringing up adam smith as the end-all of economic thought.
Mike,
And here I thought Libertarianism could never work because it’s based on the idea that we’re all individuals working towards our own self interest. We’re really individual members of a pack working towards the pack’s self interest as well as our own.
Buddha,
(Warning incredibly clumsy segue to follow)
My wife is usually on to something.
Like when she kept telling everyone “no the Baby’s going to be a Girl.” We all doubted her because, well there hasn’t been a female born to my part of the family in 30 some odd years. Going to have to start that count again come April.
Far be it from me to but in at this point to this ongoing discussion, where basically those I agree with, like Buddha, are pulverizing thse whose views I disdain. I must say though that I am taken with Buddha’s views on libertarianism and sociopathy. There is a correllation I think between the intellectual leaders of the movement and being a true sociopath. Then there are those, like L.Chan perhaps, who have deluded themselves into believing this stuff because it is an excuse for their own good fortune.
This is not dissimilar to Donald Trump writing books and doing seminars on creating wealth, when his greatest accomplishment was to be born into a family that was rich and owned a large amount of real estate, at a time when real estate prices were booming. I don’t know if L.Chan is wealthy, or is even a “self made man,” but he certainly exhibits similar smugness of belief, even as his every argument is destroyed.
The saddest type of libertarian to me though is the one believing the John Wayne macho myth, because this type is merely deluded into acting afainst their own self interests, on the basis of a nostalgic reality that never was.
Finally, any movement whose Saint is Ayn Rand, a third rate writer of bodice ripping romance novels, is lacking a connection to reality. Libertarianism can’t work, ever, because those who get the guns will always wind up running things, especially with the rest of the people “doing their own thing” with no thought for others.
Buddha is Laughing:
so now you know more than James Madison? You are delusional.
“What I want to know is how my transaction, if it is of mutual benefit to the 2 people involved, harms someone else?”
Example: The deal to store toxic waste at Love Canal was to two parties benefit. And to the physical and economic detriment of an entire town. It was created by private interests and the proper clean up by government was hindered by corporatist graft riddled politicians (oligarchs).
“If it does harm someone else then they can call a lawyer and sue the 2 parties who did the harming.”
See above. The Equal Protection Clause is germane to the application of the law – all of it. You seek unequal application of the law – plain and simple. Also, this statement naively assumes special interest lobbyists haven’t watered down the law in favor of their corporate masters or that corporations aren’t hiding their liability behind a shell game of “sell the toxic asset” like the chemical companies did at Love Canal. The neutering of Federal agencies like the FDA and EPA – and recent attacks on class actions in Federal court by big business – are perfect examples of inequity that favors the few over the needs of the many. The root of both problems – bad business practices and corporate graft – lies squarely with business.
“By your logic we should all be paying for each other, last time I looked provide for the General Welfare doesn’t mean that.”
It’s not my fault you are too dense to realize general welfare and common good are synonymous. That Madison didn’t understand that would fall under the category of his failing as well.
“You insulted a good many decent people by calling Libertarians sociopaths.”
Awwww. You like to throw stones at the liberals but whine like a little kid when they throw stones back. Suck it up, buttercup.
Except I’m not de-humanizing anyone. Sociopaths are human. They are just not very good humans. I’m merely offering an accurate description of Libertarians selfish behavior. You also assume I think Libertarians are good or decent people. By definition, sociopaths are not good and decent people. Since Libertarians act just like sociopaths (only concerned with themselves, looking to avoid responsibility for their bad acts), they are not good and decent people. If that insults you? Good.
To be clear: I have not called for the rounding up and/or mass execution of Libertarians. I have simply attacked the foundations of their ridiculously selfish and myopic beliefs. If you also want to suppress dissent by intimating I’m a Marxist Nazi, then I guess you’re a totalitarian propagandist on top of being an oligarchical sociopath – which makes you far more of a Nazi than me, the declared and demonstrated egalitarian humanist and democratic socialist. If I don’t think anyone is special, I sure as Hell don’t think Libertarians are special, let alone deserving of any kind of respect based on both their venal beliefs and ridiculous actions. If you don’t like being discredited for bad ideas and selfish behavior? Don’t adopt bad ideas and act selfish.
_____
Gyges,
First, your wife is on to something there. Economics, like psychology, is not called a “soft science” for no reason.
Second, Utopians are idealists, usually of the seeking type and they usually quit seeking perfection when they realize perfection is impossible. I have no issue with those who try on different hats in search of an ideal, but when you put the hat on for good? If it’s a bad hat, I’m going to say so.
Buddha,
Honestly, I think he was just shocked that somebody has read the Bible and still didn’t believe the Bible. Sort of like how shocked Byron was when I said “yeah I’ve read Mises and didn’t find him convincing.” I actually get mises.org’s daily e-mail. It’s mildly interesting sometimes, and a good way to expose myself to different view points.
As to the religion of economics, maybe it’s because (as my wife is fond of pointing out) there’s a lot of it that’s not really science. Although there’s some economists that sure are trying. (I really like like Dan Ariely. http://danariely.com/)
I can’t think of any field of study that invites pseudoscience like economics. There’s just this left over streak of “who needs empiricism? We’ve got a PHILOSOPHY!”
Ekerya and Buddha,
As a former libertarian (I never joined the party because they made you sign this weird pledge thing), I think Buddha’s missing a third type (and I honestly think this, if not the majority, than a significant minority): the Utopian. They think if we can change this one thing about society, it’d solve all the other problems. That’s probably naive, but it’s also such a part of human nature that calling it stupid is calling most of us stupid. Including myself.
What I want to know is how my transaction, if it is of mutual benefit to the 2 people involved, harms someone else?
If it does harm someone else then they can call a lawyer and sue the 2 parties who did the harming. I am not a lawyer but I don’t think the equal protection clause is germane to a mutually agreeable exchange of goods and services.
By your logic we should all be paying for each other, last time I looked provide for the General Welfare doesn’t mean that. As Madison said ““If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one.”
So anyway you slice it what you want is unlimited government which is tyranny. And you try and pose as a defender of freedom. My ass. You wouldn’t know Lady Liberty if she knocked you in the head, you have too much Mao and Lenin and Marx on the brain.
You insulted a good many decent people by calling Libertarians sociopaths. That is exactly what the Nazis did before they fired up the gas chambers, they dehumanized the Jews.
McHome Schooled,
“The only people who believe socialist dogma are poor people and intellectuals educated to a point beyond there ability to comprehend. Oh and people who like to use the force of government to compel other people to accept their ideas.”
And people who able to comprehend that society is like any chain – only as strong as the weakest links – and are capable of empathy, unlike sociopaths. Which oddly enough, most Libertarians are sociopaths. The rest are just dumb. Some are even dumb sociopaths.
You’re still stuck in that 16th Century abusive market model by confusing free markets with free trade.
_____________
Chan,
You did forget the Equal Protection Clause though.
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
By desiring the removal of taxation and regulation of business, you are looking to pass costs of your voluntary market transactions on to society which is also a form of income redistribution as it forces society to pay the costs of your voluntary transactions which you are unwilling to bear in the name of profitability. It’s welfare for the wealthy – combined with a desire to avoid responsibility for your bad actions – born on the backs of the majority, without their consent, due process and without representation. The Equal Protection Clause makes this kind of evasion of taxation and regulation untenable as a duty of justice. You don’t get to be more equal than others in the blind eye of the law. That includes forcing your costs of your chosen business onto others not directly involved in your transactions. You seek to avoid the tyranny of the masses by replacing it with the tyranny of the few. And that’s not just dumb – it’s as anti-American ideal as desiring a monarchy. What you and people like Rush want is simply oligarchy, not democracy. Corporatism – Mussolini’s preferred term for fascism – is just another form of oligarchy. This country was founded to escape tyranny – of all sorts – not just the sort that keeps you from living out your venal oligarchical dreams of unlimited profit and unconscionable avoidance of responsibility for your bad acts. Two-tiered societies create inequity, inequity creates injustice, injustice creates social strife, social strife creates warfare. Ask the French and the Russians. Yours is a destructive path with the transactional costs of the few being born by the many, and like all destructive paths, ultimately self-destructive.
Nice try, but no cigar.
Bob Esq:
If you will read above in my post to Elaine M., I made it quite clear that I was making a point to Gyges. I also made it quite clear that I thought literature wsa just as important as science.
Science and philosophy are both necessary.
“Philosophy studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man, and of man’s relationship to existence. As against the special sciences, which deal only with particular aspects, philosophy deals with those aspects of the universe which pertain to everything that exists. In the realm of cognition, the special sciences are the trees, but philosophy is the soil which makes the forest possible.”
But thank you for your insights.
Chan L.,
First, I have to begin by admitting that I, while I was a physics major in college, once shared the same disdain for literature majors as you have. However, a couple of courses in metaphysics and epistemology turned out to be quite humbling. Mastery of the mother tongue is a necessity for communicating; delegating your rhetoric and argumentation to others is simply weakness on your part. If your principles are truly worth being heard and defended then the best person to ensure that is you. To that end you’ll want to read “Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance” by Robert Pirsig.
That aside, regarding your post on self-ownership, please note that this nation’s theory of property, i.e. ‘the pursuit of happiness, is predicated on the theory of self-ownership as explained in Ch. 5 of Locke’s 2nd Treatise:
“Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself.”
Your best delineation of moral implications regarding duties owed to self v. duties owed to state are spelled out by Kant in his Metaphysics of Morals
“All duties are either duties of right, that is, juridical duties (officia juris), or duties of virtue, that is, ethical duties (officia virtutis s. ethica). Juridical duties are such as may be promulgated by external legislation; ethical duties are those for which such legislation is not possible. The reason why the latter cannot be properly made the subject of external legislation is because they relate to an end or final purpose, which is itself, at the same time, embraced in these duties, and which it is a duty for the individual to have as such. But no external legislation can cause any one to adopt a particular intention, or to propose to himself a certain purpose; for this depends upon an internal condition or act of the mind itself. However, external actions conducive to such a mental condition may be commanded, without its being implied that the individual will of necessity make them an end to himself.”
http://www.constitution.org/kant/ntrometa.htm
As you’ll find in Pirsig’s arguments in “Zen,” a finely tuned scientific mind is only half the equation.
ekeyra:
Like I said there have been people thinking about this stuff long after adam smith
*****************
AS most of them have acknowledged, none any better.
ekeyra:
I heard an interesting item on the radio yesterday and may explain why Buddha is Laughing thinks that capitalism is so bad. Warren Buffet, that liberal shit head, is for the death tax which doesn’t necessarily make sense until you know that he has ownership of life insurance companies which make a hefty profit because of the death tax. Life insurance proceeds are not subject to the death tax. Pretty funny huh?
So here we have a liberal captain of industry lobbying Washington to keep the death tax so he can line his pockets off the hard work of others. Buddha has his number but what Buddha doesn’t seem to realize is that socialism makes this kind of shit possible due to the control exerted by central planning.
Buffet also likes the death tax because he can buy family owned companies when they have to sell to pay the tax. Buffet is a real piece of shit, but he is not a free market capitalist. He is a liberal. Rather ironic isn’t it?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So Buddha and Gyges why don’t you take some of your own advice. Maybe the crap you learned in school about economics isn’t really so. There is much more evidence that ekeyra and I are correct about everything we have said.
The only people who believe socialist dogma are poor people and intellectuals educated to a point beyond there ability to comprehend. Oh and people who like to use the force of government to compel other people to accept their ideas.
Buddha is Laughing:
“Stupid policies? No, I don’t support stupid polices which by default means I don’t support Congress. Especially the Senate. Haven’t for a long time. Most of them are complicit in the ongoing treason and subversion of the Constitution. They don’t get my support. They get my scorn for not upholding their oath of office to protect the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic – largely because many of them are domestic enemies of the Constitution or anything that threatens the bottom line of their corporate masters.”
then you will really like this article by Walter Williams:
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williamns120810.php3
here are a couple of excerpts:
“My initial assumption is that we each own ourselves. I am my private property and you are yours. If we accept the notion that people own themselves, then it’s easy to discover what forms of conduct are moral and immoral. Immoral acts are those that violate self-ownership. Murder, rape, assault and slavery are immoral because those acts violate private property. So is theft, broadly defined as taking the rightful property of one person and giving it to another.”
“First, let’s ask: Where does Congress get handout money? One thing for sure, it’s not from the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus nor is it congressmen reaching into their own pockets. The only way for Congress to give one American one dollar is to first, through the tax code, take that dollar from some other American. It must forcibly use one American to serve another American. Forcibly using one person to serve another is one way to describe slavery. As such, it violates self-ownership.”
I really like this part, that James Madison guy was a real smart fellow.
“When the principles of self-ownership are taken into account, two-thirds to three-quarters of what Congress does violate those principles to one degree or another as well as the Constitution to which they’ve sworn to uphold and defend. In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 to assist some French refugees, James Madison, the father of our Constitution, stood on the floor of the House to object, saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” Did James Madison miss something in the Constitution?
You might answer, “He forgot the general welfare clause.” No, he had that covered, saying, “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one.””
“Smith equates price not with the cost of the production of the item but the amount you are willing to pay to avoid undergoing those costs yourself in producing it – time. material costs, etc.”
Price, cost, value, whatever term you want to use for subjective human preference, is irrelevant to any factors regarding any items production and relies solely on the subjective usefulness of the item sought by the consumer vs. the subjective usefulness of what that same consumer is willing to give up in exchange for it. google marginal utility theory of value. Like I said there have been people thinking about this stuff long after adam smith.
B libertarians, who oppose government action on principle and are fundamentally opposed to government intervention into the free market are just in it for the government corporate handouts, which they oppose? Keep spinning that wheel.
Also people cant afford houses because home prices were bid up by an inordinate amount of price speculation fueled by cheap credit provided by the federal reserve interest rate tinkering and fractional reserve banking. Then when prices fell and the market tried to correct itself the 700 billion in taxpayer funds you accused chan of stealing went to politically connected financial institutions to keep them from collapsing under the weight of their own bad investments. When private risks are backed by public funds there is a term for it, moral hazard, and it is why libertarians oppose government intervention in principle. If the government had done nothing at all and allowed home prices to fall they would be affordable to a vast majority of people who are still unable to meet the artificially inflated prices.
Gyges,
Perhaps. For a social science, economics seems to encourage many people to forget the science part and treat it like a religion. I’m not sure if this is specifically endemic to the topic or if it’s a result of 75 years of economic propaganda which was further exacerbated by the Cold War. Probably a little of both.
I find the same phenomena often comes up in discussing psychology. You get people who are locked into a preferred mode – psychoanalytics, behavioralism, gestalt, etc. – and their tunnel vision from being locked in that mode blinds them to considering that no model work in a vacuum. I’m not saying favoring a particular approach is necessarily wrong. For some applications, a narrower approach is simply more practical. For example, I know Canadian Eh has a preference for behavioralism from conversations with her. It is simply the better tool box for her job. However, she’s also not closed minded about other approaches. She’s both reasonable and pragmatic about application. But when modal thought blinds you to flaws in the model or useful functionality from other models? That’s a reasoning problem.
I submit that your suggested tactic only works on people with enough reason to realize the futility of their actions.
Judson Phillips is a fool, so all our military personnel, firemen, policemen and elderly who don’t own property can’t vote?
How about all people who have filed bankruptcy can’t vote (like Judson Phillips), or those you fail to answer questions about our country history can’t run for public office (like Sarah Palin or Christine O’donnell), how about that, please.
Elaine,
He thinks I’m an English major. No idea why, but he does. Also, he was trying to goad me into pissing match.
Buddha,
My brother in law once tried to convince me that the world was ending. As proof he used Biblical prophecy. I asked him “what if I don’t believe in the Bible? How will you prove to me that it’s true?” Which shut him up.
Very satisfying experience. Might even be repeatable.