"Left Wing" President: Drill, baby, drill!

Funkenpants wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

We're not a monolithic but we are a block and it's centre-right. President Obama didn't run as a left wing President. We may sway a little bit one way or the other for a time but our fulcrum is centre-right.

That's self-justifying revisionism. If you'd listened to the "center-right" folks during most periods of American history we wouldn't have many freedoms and protections that are no considered centrist. FDR passed social legislation and other laws that at the time were considered radical by right wingers but are now considered normal.

That's because Americans, more than being conservative or liberal, are themselves revisionist, so I think you can both be right. It's just that when we retcon history, we retcon to the right, while say, the Canadians retcon to the left. So we get someone like Sarah Palin running as some kind of frontier libertarian, all the while being governor of a state where the oil industry is socialist, an idea so radical even the Europeans think of it as too left wing. Notice how the Tea Party complains about everything *but* the extensions of Unemployment Insurance? The signs about keeping government out of Medicare? Where was the Tea Party when Medicare Part D was signed into law?

Like you're saying Funkenpants, left wing New Deal/Great Society ideas that have become sacred cows to the right as much as the left; like you're saying Ulairi, we're center right with regards to the future even if we've retconned our political past.

We have to remember, everything changed with the Vietnam War-Watergate period. Up until then, America wasn't nearly as different from other western liberal democracies as we are now: we had faith in government back then, right and left. What that period of our history did is it created distrust in government on the right and the left. There was a thread on here about the Tea Party being not Christian fundamentalists or modern day Dixiecrats: they're old hippies who miss the good old days of anti-government protest. Only these days they're not college kids looking to do drugs and get laid, they're middle management going through a mid-life crisis. So now they're on the right wing not the left because they sold out. Or as they like to tell themselves, 'bought in'.

Think about it: Germany had the Long March of the '68ers through government; our supposed counter-culture chanted at the Democrat President who pushed through Medicare, the Civil Rights legislation, and the War on Poverty "hey hey LBJ/how many kids did you kill today" until an incumbent President dropped out of the election in '68.

I mean, America is the country where we elect politicians based on how prosperous the country is--like the saying goes, "it's the economy, stupid"--yet we all think we're cowboys in charge of our own economic destiny. In other words, we act a bit crazy: we want our politicians to fix the economy, but we don't want government involved in our economy. We think the free market will fix everything, and then we blame our politicians when it doesn't fix it fast enough. We're like the people in Rapture telling Andrew Ryan he needs to intervene in the economy, but then when they do, we blame them for not having faith in the Great Chain of Being.

Americans are Ryan when they don't like what government is doing, and Lamb when they do.

edit: found the article about this I was looking for.


We want Washington and the states to fix all of our problems now. At the same time, we want government to shrink, spend less, and reduce our taxes. We dislike government in the abstract: According to CNN, 67 percent of people favor balancing the budget even when the country is in a recession or a war, which is madness. But we love government in the particular: Even larger majorities oppose the kind of spending cuts that would reduce projected deficits, let alone eliminate them. Nearly half the public wants to cancel the Obama stimulus, and a strong majority doesn't want another round of it. But 80-plus percent of people want to extend unemployment benefits and to spend more money on roads and bridges. There's another term for that stuff: more stimulus spending.

Funkenpants wrote:

How can you separate out energy policy from climate policy? Absent climate change or pollution concerns, there's no reason to favor electricity produced by green sources over that produced by combustion. And we have plenty of stuff to burn.

As for the right being crippled, Obama's job approval ratings on healthcare aren't breaking 50%. That's hardly a ringing endorsement or a sign that the republicans are spent as a political force.

So I see you're abandoning any defense of our oil consumption and pathetic attempts to boost domestic production...

As for electrical generation, you can flip the entire conversation from cutting pollution to developing American clean energy technology and selling it globally, which will generate much needed jobs. No ones going to pay for dirty coal technology after all. They want the new shiny of wind, solar, wave, etc.

And when the coal industry whines about how any restraint on them will increase energy prices, Obama can play them off the nuclear industry, which he's already announced his support of. Then the coal industry will be hemmed in by multiple electrical generation industries that produce little to no C02.

As for Obama's approval rating on health care, look at it this way: at the height and hype of hysteria over health care, and after months of whipping people up into a frenzy about it, only 55% of Americans didn't like how he was handling the issue (and a majority still thought he was doing an overall good job as president). If that's supposed to be mighty show of political force by the Republicans, then they have some problems. What do you think that number will be in November when everyone has moved on?

OG_slinger wrote:

So I see you're abandoning any defense of our oil consumption and pathetic attempts to boost domestic production...

I didn't start out defending any of these things. How can I be in the position of abandoning them here? All I'm saying is that energy policy is inextricably linked to global warming. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be worrying about clean energy. And there are going to be huge battles over restricting combustion, or taxing it, and energy usage that go far beyond "drill, baby, drill."

OG_slinger wrote:

If that's supposed to be mighty show of political force by the Republicans, then they have some problems. What do you think that number will be in November when everyone has moved on?

I don't remember saying Republicans had put on a "mighty show of political force," only that they did okay out of the HCR fight given that they were in a small minority and had no veto in the White House. You're the guy portraying Obama as triumphantly standing across the prostrate bodies of defeated opponents, no?

Ulairi wrote:

The United States is not a racist country.

Definitely disagree with this. In fact, I'd say more evidence supports the notion that this country is racist than exists which points to the contrary.

The country was founded as a racist nation and continues to exist as one in large part due to centuries of racist legislation and preferential government policy. Hell, the very first law passed in this country after the ratification of the Constitution - before money was raised for an army, before it was decided how to apportion taxation or determine what constituted property, the very first law passed was the Naturalization Act which said that all free white people and only free white people could be citizens of the United States.

The Homestead Act of 1862 distributed over 240 million acres of essentially free land to white people (wonder if those pro-property Libertarians take these types of things into account when arguing property rights).

The FHA and VA loans from the 1930's to 1960's helped over 15 million white families afford housing from virtually interest free loans while these same loans were off-limits to blacks. By the 60's nearly half of all mortgages received by whites were being written under this blatantly racist and preferential government plan. Indeed it's what created the white middle class as we know it. And all of this property and wealth has been handed down through generations and explains why even the poorest whites have greater net worth than middle class blacks.

There's oodles of statistics and data regarding institutional racism, from job opportunities, to racial profiling to income disparities, to hiring discrimination, to housing discrimination (2008 saw a record number of race-based housing discrimination complaints). And that's just scratching the surface.

Then there's individual racism. Blackface and Ghetto parties at college campuses such as Clemson, TExas A&M, Whitman College, Macalester COllege, William Jewel College, UC San Diego, MIT, Univeristy of Texas at Austin - just to name a few - is an increasing trend. The hanging of nooses here here here and here is becoming more pronounced. And let's not forget the rampant racism that has appeared since Obama's induction. Here's a looooooong list from ABCNews. And let's not forget that lovely community pool in Pennsylvania that kicked out a group of black kids whose school paid the fees for them to swim there because "it would change the complexion of the pool." What's even more disturbing is the behavior of the white folks who were swimming when the black kids showed up.

America not a racist country? Only if you're not paying attention.

FSeven wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

The United States is not a racist country.

Definitely disagree with this. In fact, I'd say more evidence supports the notion that this country is racist than exists which points to the contrary.

The country was founded as a racist nation and continues to exist as one in large part due to centuries of racist legislation and preferential government policy.

I think Ulairi's point was that we're no more racist than a lot of other countries. I totally agree we were founded as a racist nation, which I think is why America looks more racist than other countries: from the beginning race issues have been, well, an issue.

I feel like we've been here before. I'm definitely wondering what it has to do with oil exploration.

LobsterMobster wrote:

I feel like we've been here before. I'm definitely wondering what it has to do with oil exploration.

Oil's black?

LobsterMobster wrote:

I feel like we've been here before. I'm definitely wondering what it has to do with oil exploration.

Oil is black, wind turbines are white, and reactor cores glow blue. Conflict!

Edit: Curse you and you short, Tannhausering replies!

This move is not only about the price of oil in our tanks however. The expansion of oil fields into the gulf will have a profound effect on coastal economies as the infrastructure to construct and support these efforts is put into place. Creating a lot of jobs in this region, especially in this economy, may also garner support for the Democratic party in an area were they have been weak for decades.

I saw a short article on CNN the other day that said this was only going to open up more drilling off the coast of Virginia but would not affect any other areas. Other articles seem to be saying it's opening up the entire Gulf Coast. Anyone know where these two versions are coming from?

We might as well rape the rest of the oil out of the ground so we can implement clean energy quicker.

I used to be all against this kind of stuff and then at some point realized the fruitlessness of that stand. The sooner we use up all the oil the sooner we can start fueling our vehicles with the magic space dust I produce after I eat too many Chalupas.

Kehama wrote:

I saw a short article on CNN the other day that said this was only going to open up more drilling off the coast of Virginia but would not affect any other areas. Other articles seem to be saying it's opening up the entire Gulf Coast. Anyone know where these two versions are coming from?

Here's more information.

It opens one location off the coast of Virginia for drilling and opens the Atlantic Coast and a chunk of the Gulf to exploration (I think it's two thirds of the area that used to be restricted is now open in the Gulf).

Kehama wrote:

I saw a short article on CNN the other day that said this was only going to open up more drilling off the coast of Virginia but would not affect any other areas. Other articles seem to be saying it's opening up the entire Gulf Coast. Anyone know where these two versions are coming from?

In the maritime trade publications I've been following, one of the significant areas that exploration and drilling would take place is the gulf coast of Florida. Apparently initial surveys have found a substantial quantity of oil under the sea floor there.

I highly doubt that price at the pump will be effected though, as OPEC would likely reduce production to keep the price of oil per barrel were they want it.

I do feel better about this under a Democrat controlled white house and congress than I would have under a Republican administration. If oversight and enforcement is carried out this can work out for both sides of the divide. Not everyone will be happy, but when does that ever happen?

The flip side of Obama opening up areas for oil exploration: new CAFE standards introduced.

Cars have to get 38 MPG and light trucks 34.1 MPG by 2016.

From the GOA report:

* Potential benefits for consumers and society. The agencies estimate that the new standards will result in approximately 1.8 billion barrels of oil savings and 950 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions reductions over the lifetime of vehicles sold in model years 2012 through 2016. In addition, the agencies estimate that new and more fuel-efficient vehicles will save consumers more than $4,000 in gasoline costs over a model year 2016 vehicle's lifetime.

* Potential costs for consumers, automobile manufacturers, and others. The agencies estimate that the proposed standards would require manufacturers to incorporate additional fuel-saving technology into vehicles, which would increase the average cost of a model year 2016 vehicle by around $1,100. As a result, this will increase the purchase price of vehicles for consumers, or manufacturers will receive lower
profits from vehicle sales, or both. However, the agencies estimate that the total benefits of the proposed standards will outweigh the costs, providing net benefits to society of nearly $200 billion over
the lifetimes of the model year 2012 to 2016 vehicles. In addition, the estimated lifetime fuel savings exceeds the $1,100 increase in vehicle cost for a model year 2016 vehicle, yielding a net savings of about $3,000 for consumers.

See how easy that was? And in less time than it would take to spin up exploration, drilling, and pumping. All while saving the average consumer thousands of dollars.

How does the 1.8 billion barrels in savings stack up to the expansion of exploration and drilling? The one spot in off the cost of Virginia only holds 130 million barrels of oil and expert estimate that the reserves of the entire Atlantic Coast and Gulf is 5.8 billion barrels.

FSeven wrote:

The Homestead Act of 1862 distributed over 240 million acres of essentially free land to white people (wonder if those pro-property Libertarians take these types of things into account when arguing property rights).

Yes, because Libertarians are such strong supporters of government-supported systematic genocide to steal land to hand out to your citizens. *eye roll* American society at the time was far more racist and destructive towards Indians than blacks, which is quite stunning when you consider how poorly blacks were treated (both slave and free). This is one of the reasons that private property is so important - it helps show how blatantly wrong things like the Louisiana Purchase and the Homestead Act really are.

Also, in keeping with the thread, much of the land now being exploited for natural gas, oil, and other things was land that was "appropriated" in this way and is still owned by the government, such as much of northern Alaska. One might wonder how differently that area and off-shore drilling would be if there were private ownership of those areas. Who knows, perhaps the President couldn't simply "allow" drilling!

Ulairi wrote:

We are a centre-right nation.

Bull. We're an extremely diverse nation where the corporate owned media has been whipping the populace into a frenzy of fear for over 15 years. A nation where media doesn't investigate right wing terrorism. A nation where a large portion of the population who are libertarian or liberal have given up and decided the system is so terribly broken that it's beyond repair and that all you can do is work at your job and prepare for the worst. I put myself in that camp.

We're not center-right. We're a broken nation where the formerly hopeful have given up and the fearful xenophobes haven't.

Aetius wrote:
FSeven wrote:

The Homestead Act of 1862 distributed over 240 million acres of essentially free land to white people (wonder if those pro-property Libertarians take these types of things into account when arguing property rights).

Yes, because Libertarians are such strong supporters of government-supported systematic genocide to steal land to hand out to your citizens. *eye roll* American society at the time was far more racist and destructive towards Indians than blacks, which is quite stunning when you consider how poorly blacks were treated (both slave and free). This is one of the reasons that private property is so important - it helps show how blatantly wrong things like the Louisiana Purchase and the Homestead Act really are.

Well, in that case the colonization of America by Europeans was wrong. You'd have to put the state charters of the original thirteen colonies and the organic law of the United States in that same category. We weren't sold Manhattan Island for twenty-four American dollars’ worth of beads and mirrors--at best, we were leased the non-exclusive right to enjoyment of it.

edit: It's not that people think Libertarians are such strong supporters of government-supported systematic genocide to steal land, it's just people think Libertarians don't realize how far-reaching their ideology is and the impact it will have when applied to the real world. If we enact some kind of Libertarian state tomorrow, how do we know what belongs to whom considering our existing system of property is unjust? Do we take all the property in the United States and divide it up with an equal share going to each person? Or do we allow someone who got rich in an unjust system to carry over their competitive advantage through wealth in the market to the new system? And of course, what do we do with children?

This is starting to sound more like an MMO/New Game+ issue...

Also, in keeping with the thread, much of the land now being exploited for natural gas, oil, and other things was land that was "appropriated" in this way and is still owned by the government, such as much of northern Alaska. One might wonder how differently that area and off-shore drilling would be if there were private ownership of those areas. Who knows, perhaps the President couldn't simply "allow" drilling!

None? I mean, if I own coastline downstream from those areas, can they keep their drilling activities from affecting my property? This is the problem with extreme views of private property ownership: how do you deal with the concept of nuisance? The people who would own those off-shore drilling areas would have to negotiate with each and every property owner their actions would effect.

Not to mention places in Alaska like ANWR would be under the control of the Inupiat, so who knows if there would be much drilling at all.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Well, in that case the colonization of America by Europeans was wrong.

Historically, that's been well established for a long time.

edit: It's not that people think Libertarians are such strong supporters of government-supported systematic genocide to steal land, it's just people think Libertarians don't realize how far-reaching their ideology is and the impact it will have when applied to the real world.

Ummm... ok. It should obvious from even the most cursory glance at libertarian literature and thought that libertarians fully understand just how different such a system would be. The reason we advocate it is because we believe it will have a very significant impact on our society - that's kinda the point.

If we enact some kind of Libertarian state tomorrow, how do we know what belongs to whom considering our existing system of property is unjust?

Like all imperfect systems, we would have to start with the existing structure. It would accomplish very little to disenfranchise current owners, and would cause huge problems. However, there is a very large amount of land owned by the federal and state governments that would eventually need to be dealt with, as well as offshore issues.

Do we take all the property in the United States and divide it up with an equal share going to each person? Or do we allow someone who got rich in an unjust system to carry over their competitive advantage through wealth in the market to the new system?

There's no practical way to do that. Who decides? The best solution is to begin enforcing a private property system and remove as much of the current injustice as possible.

And of course, what do we do with children?

I'm not sure why this is included, but ... we'd do the same thing we do now? Culturally, this seems unlikely to change.

Also, in keeping with the thread, much of the land now being exploited for natural gas, oil, and other things was land that was "appropriated" in this way and is still owned by the government, such as much of northern Alaska. One might wonder how differently that area and off-shore drilling would be if there were private ownership of those areas. Who knows, perhaps the President couldn't simply "allow" drilling!

None? I mean, if I own coastline downstream from those areas, can they keep their drilling activities from affecting my property?

That would be an important question, yes. One might even consider it the important question.

This is the problem with extreme views of private property ownership: how do you deal with the concept of nuisance? The people who would own those off-shore drilling areas would have to negotiate with each and every property owner their actions would effect.

You deal with it the same way we deal with it now - only more so, because things like fracking violations might actually be prosecuted instead of being protected by law. And negotiating about impacts is exactly what we want - do you think that off-shore drilling companies should be able to ignore the properties they affect?

Not to mention places in Alaska like ANWR would be under the control of the Inupiat, so who knows if there would be much drilling at all.

I'm having difficulty seeing the problem with that.

Malor wrote:
While I'm not crazy about the idea of our coastline being littered with oil platforms I get the demand and need to tap into all sources

It's pure stupidity. There's not enough oil there to make much of an economic difference, but there's more than enough to wreck a good chunk of the Gulf Coast if something goes wrong.

Plus, oil will only get more valuable over time, and the longer we wait to tap into it, the more use we will get out of it. There will come a time when people are horrified at the thought of burning oil instead of making things with it. That would be when to drill for it.

There is quite a bit of oil there. The question is how much are the companies willing to spend to get to it. From what I've read, Chevron's investments in deep sea drilling is really starting to pay off in the Gulf. A taste of the articles:

Significant Oil Discovery in the Gulf of Mexico

Gulf of Mexico: New Technology Delivers Oil Jackpot

In the Gulf, there's anywhere from 36 billion to 41.5 billion barrels of undiscovered, recoverable oil and 161 trillion to 207 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered natural gas, according to the Minerals Management Service.
LobsterMobster wrote:

I feel like we've been here before. I'm definitely wondering what it has to do with oil exploration.

All roads lead to Rome...

DSGamer wrote:

We're not center-right. We're a broken nation where the formerly hopeful have given up and the fearful xenophobes haven't.

Yeah, that's what he said. Center-right.

Aetius wrote:
edit: It's not that people think Libertarians are such strong supporters of government-supported systematic genocide to steal land, it's just people think Libertarians don't realize how far-reaching their ideology is and the impact it will have when applied to the real world.

Ummm... ok. It should obvious from even the most cursory glance at libertarian literature and thought that libertarians fully understand just how different such a system would be. The reason we advocate it is because we believe it will have a very significant impact on our society - that's kinda the point.

And my point is that although they know it will be significantly different, they don't understand just *how* significant. They have faith that not only will their vision of private property lead to greater justice, but it will also lead to greater prosperity. Maybe it's that I'm not as familiar with Libertarian literature as you are, but I rarely see them admit we might wind up in a corporate feudal dystopia where people cannot find work unless they sign contracts that exchange the lifetime value of their labor for employment, and I usually hear about some wonderful world of economic miracles.

If we enact some kind of Libertarian state tomorrow, how do we know what belongs to whom considering our existing system of property is unjust?

Like all imperfect systems, we would have to start with the existing structure.

That I think is the root problem people have: a Libertarian system is like a general amnesty for looters. And unlike all imperfect systems, you're not starting with the existing structure, you're ending with it: Libertarianism is an end to government involvement in structuring society--that's the big difference between it and any other system. Whatever happens from that point on cannot ever be restructured.

It would accomplish very little to disenfranchise current owners, and would cause huge problems. However, there is a very large amount of land owned by the federal and state governments that would eventually need to be dealt with, as well as offshore issues.

Do we take all the property in the United States and divide it up with an equal share going to each person? Or do we allow someone who got rich in an unjust system to carry over their competitive advantage through wealth in the market to the new system?

There's no practical way to do that. Who decides?

And why would disenfranchising current owners cause huge problems when most people would be further enfranchised? If we took all the wealth in America and spread it out equally, wouldn't most people be enriched? Don't decide: split it all up equally at market rates and then begin enforcing a private property system. What's wrong with that?

The best solution is to begin enforcing a private property system and remove as much of the current injustice as possible.

Is it? Isn't enforcing a Libertarian private property system now and forever really just locking us into whatever end state the current injustices are built to lead us to? Why not some kind of transitory state where we aim to make it so that when government takes its hands off of property, society is structured to evolve along the lines that Libertarians always promise it will?

And of course, what do we do with children?

I'm not sure why this is included, but ... we'd do the same thing we do now? Culturally, this seems unlikely to change.

What we do now is we try and structure society so that they can have prosperous lives. In a Libertarian system we can't--government isn't supposed to structure society at all, it's just supposed to protect property rights.

One might wonder how differently that area and off-shore drilling would be if there were private ownership of those areas.

None? I mean, if I own coastline downstream from those areas, can they keep their drilling activities from affecting my property?

That would be an important question, yes. One might even consider it the important question.

This is the problem with extreme views of private property ownership: how do you deal with the concept of nuisance? The people who would own those off-shore drilling areas would have to negotiate with each and every property owner their actions would effect.

You deal with it the same way we deal with it now - only more so, because things like fracking violations might actually be prosecuted instead of being protected by law.

And negotiating about impacts is exactly what we want - do you think that off-shore drilling companies should be able to ignore the properties they affect?

Well, that's the whole problem: what *is* a violation in this system? Short of everyone encasing their property in Faraday cages, there's always going to be the question of what is and is not a violation. Once property rights can no longer consider the economic prosperity of society as a whole--or even of the two parties involved--in making its decision, we could wind up with some very weird and very inefficient decisions.

Not to mention places in Alaska like ANWR would be under the control of the Inupiat, so who knows if there would be much drilling at all.

I'm having difficulty seeing the problem with that.

You said above: "One might wonder how differently that area and off-shore drilling would be if there were private ownership of those areas." The difficulty with that is it would be no different: there would be no more drilling in ANWR than there is today.

You can't argue that a Libertarian system would result in more drilling, and then when shown it won't, say you don't see the problem with that. Like I said above: "even the most cursory glance at libertarian literature and thought" shows that Libertarians promise not only justice, but prosperity. You can't say 'this system will result in justice AND more drilling' and then when show it will not result in more drilling--and might result in far less--say you don't see the problem.

That's the issue I think people have with Libertarianism: it promises to both Taste Great AND be Less Filling. When it turns out only to be less filling, they pretend they never promised it would also taste great.

TheArtOfScience wrote:

We might as well rape the rest of the oil out of the ground so we can implement clean energy quicker.

This actually is kinda the most logical statement so far.

I mean, as far as American culture goes, you're going to have to pry our oil dependence out of our cold dead hands.

I find it rather ironic that alot of the conservative right groups complain about the downfall of the nuclear family and as soon as we get a president that proposes ideas that will benefit entire communities they start calling foul.

I sometimes start to seriously wonder how much brainwashing has been going on in our society for the last 60 years to condition folks into being obese, wasteful polluters.

nel e nel wrote:

I sometimes start to seriously wonder how much brainwashing has been going on in our society for the last 60 years to condition folks into being obese, wasteful polluters.

I think "Manifest Destiny" has a lot to do with that. =)

And after some thought, I do think that, eventually, we will "rape the rest of the oil" out of American soil. But someone earlier upthread mentioned that the longer we wait to do that, the greater value we can get from our investment. Generally speaking, I consider it a safe bet to assume oil prices will be higher in three decades than they are now.

For that matter, I'm not altogether convinced that being dependent on foreign oil is a horrible thing. It may put our conventional military in a weakened position, but as we've learned over the last decade, insurgents also do that; and it does little to threaten our economic or nuclear weapons. OPEC can shut off every drop of oil to us tomorrow and we'll still have a fleet of submarines capable of turning every patch of dirt on this planet into dust for years to come.

And meanwhile we're taking their fuel at prices significantly less than they will be later on. (if we could use that to build a post-oil infrastructure, that'd be great, but we're not the most forward thinking nation.)

CheezePavilion wrote:

And my point is that although they know it will be significantly different, they don't understand just *how* significant.

Believe me, there is a huge body of work, especially anarchist work, discussing many different possible ways a minarchist or stateless society could work. If there is anything that libertarians and freedom activists understand, it is just how totally, fundamentally different such a society would be.

They have faith that not only will their vision of private property lead to greater justice, but it will also lead to greater prosperity.

The first part, definitely. The second part is routinely identified as helpful and convenient - most libertarians would endorse the first even if it meant less economic prosperity.

Maybe it's that I'm not as familiar with Libertarian literature as you are, but I rarely see them admit we might wind up in a corporate feudal dystopia where people cannot find work unless they sign contracts that exchange the lifetime value of their labor for employment, and I usually hear about some wonderful world of economic miracles.

That's because there is no evidence that such a thing would ever occur - and in fact, there is significant evidence that the "corporate fuedal dystopia" is where we are currently headed, because of the expansion of government influence and the resulting corporate-government ties.

That I think is the root problem people have: a Libertarian system is like a general amnesty for looters.

Ok - who are the looters? Am I a looter because I make a good salary and own part of my company? How about prosperous worker-owned co-ops - do we loot them them as well to spread things out? As soon as you can point them out and prove that they obtained their wealth via theft, then we should prosecute them. That, of course, is the hard part. Indeed, there are a significant number of people who should be prosecuted today even in our current system, but have not been. It's all too convenient to say "general amnesty for looters" without identifying who those people are. I guarantee that there will be as many definitions of who the looters are as there are people in the country.

And unlike all imperfect systems, you're not starting with the existing structure, you're ending with it: Libertarianism is an end to government involvement in structuring society--that's the big difference between it and any other system. Whatever happens from that point on cannot ever be restructured.

First of all, even a libertarian government would not be able to simply "declare the end of government involvement in structuring society". And second, while that would be the goal, saying that society would not be restructured in the absence of government doesn't make sense - it would be constantly restructured by the people who live in it, according to their needs and wants - not according to what some politician thinks is the best idea to get him re-elected. Libertarians don't want to "design" a better system - we want everyone to have the freedom to design their own systems, as long as those systems don't involve hurting people to get what you want.

And why would disenfranchising current owners cause huge problems when most people would be further enfranchised? If we took all the wealth in America and spread it out equally, wouldn't most people be enriched? Don't decide: split it all up equally at market rates and then begin enforcing a private property system. What's wrong with that?

Who gets their stuff taken? Are you going to barge into my neighbor's house and take his TV because you think he obtained it in an unjust system? Who makes those decisions? Should we just have a "Free-for-All Day" where anyone can go anywhere and take anything they want? The only way to do what you are suggesting is by force, which is the very thing libertarians are trying to end and which is endemic to our current system (re: bank bailouts, ARRA, etc).

The best solution is to begin enforcing a private property system and remove as much of the current injustice as possible.

Is it? Isn't enforcing a Libertarian private property system now and forever really just locking us into whatever end state the current injustices are built to lead us to? Why not some kind of transitory state where we aim to make it so that when government takes its hands off of property, society is structured to evolve along the lines that Libertarians always promise it will?

You're making the assumption that the current biases would be reinforced by a Libertarian system. The evidence points to the opposite. Corporations in general hate free markets, because they're hard - they vastly prefer the crony mercantilism we're leaning towards today (in the U.S. and elsewhere). And you're assuming that Libertarians could somehow plan a way to accomplish what you are suggesting, when any Libertarian will tell you that such planning does not and cannot work - especially in a free market.

What we do now is we try and structure society so that they can have prosperous lives. In a Libertarian system we can't--government isn't supposed to structure society at all, it's just supposed to protect property rights.

On the contrary, "we" can - just not by government force, which Libertarians think tends to actually make things worse rather than better. If such a system were ever to be implemented, the only thing it would stop "us" from doing is forcing other people to raise their kids a certain way. There would be nothing stopping anyone from trying to find the best schools for their kids.

Well, that's the whole problem: what *is* a violation in this system? Short of everyone encasing their property in Faraday cages, there's always going to be the question of what is and is not a violation. Once property rights can no longer consider the economic prosperity of society as a whole--or even of the two parties involved--in making its decision, we could wind up with some very weird and very inefficient decisions.

If we were even at the point of having that dicussion rather than talking about which politically-favored companies are going to get the drilling contracts ...

Not to mention places in Alaska like ANWR would be under the control of the Inupiat, so who knows if there would be much drilling at all.

I'm having difficulty seeing the problem with that.

You said above: "One might wonder how differently that area and off-shore drilling would be if there were private ownership of those areas." The difficulty with that is it would be no different: there would be no more drilling in ANWR than there is today.

There's no way to know that.

You can't argue that a Libertarian system would result in more drilling, and then when shown it won't, say you don't see the problem with that.

I supposed it's a good thing that I didn't argue that a Libertarian "system" would result in more drilling - I'm not sure where you got that. It's quite likely that it would not, since the side effects of drilling for oil are pretty severe and environmental groups would be sure to all over the drillers or would be outright buying the property to prevent drilling. Whether that's good or bad is a much larger and more complex question.

Like I said above: "even the most cursory glance at libertarian literature and thought" shows that Libertarians promise not only justice, but prosperity. You can't say 'this system will result in justice AND more drilling' and then when show it will not result in more drilling--and might result in far less--say you don't see the problem.

Huh? Drilling != prosperity. Honestly I think we could deal with a good bit less drilling and that we would be more prosperous because of that - certainly the market thinks so, since the government currently heavily subsidizes oil drilling to maintain our current levels. In any case, recovering from those market distortions would take decades.

The Libertarian argument is not justice and prosperity. It is that justice, freedom, and responsibility are imperative, and we think it also happens to lead to prosperity. Even if it didn't, a more just and more free society would be a far better place to live.

Aetius wrote:
Not to mention places in Alaska like ANWR would be under the control of the Inupiat, so who knows if there would be much drilling at all.

I'm having difficulty seeing the problem with that.

You said above: "One might wonder how differently that area and off-shore drilling would be if there were private ownership of those areas." The difficulty with that is it would be no different: there would be no more drilling in ANWR than there is today.

There's no way to know that.

So basically, you stopped by to ask us to wonder about what it would be like under a Libertarian system even though there's no way to know if it that system would make a difference? ;-D

You can't argue that a Libertarian system would result in more drilling, and then when shown it won't, say you don't see the problem with that.

I supposed it's a good thing that I didn't argue that a Libertarian "system" would result in more drilling - I'm not sure where you got that. It's quite likely that it would not, since the side effects of drilling for oil are pretty severe and environmental groups would be sure to all over the drillers or would be outright buying the property to prevent drilling. Whether that's good or bad is a much larger and more complex question.

Um, isn't that "much larger and more complex question" what the thread is about?

CheezePavilion wrote:

Um, isn't that "much larger and more complex question" what the thread is about?

Well, I thought (and was arguing) about whether it was good or bad that one man can unilaterally make sweeping changes such as the one we're discussing, and whether or not a system with more private property would have made that decision difficult or impossible.

I mean, I'll dig into our oil-based economy and the perverse system of incentives that prop it up if you like.

Aetius wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Um, isn't that "much larger and more complex question" what the thread is about?

Well, I thought (and was arguing) about whether it was good or bad that one man can unilaterally make sweeping changes such as the one we're discussing,

Yeah, but I don't think you're saying that the problem here is that there's not enough governmental due process as if a couple hundred men making the decision bicamerally would fix anything. I think you were saying that the problem was government process at all.

and whether or not a system with more private property would have made that decision difficult or impossible.

Depends--if one man owned all that land, he could!

It's not like the government used any force to make that decision--the only force the government used was in acquiring the land in the first place, which makes it no different than a private citizen who was granted the land by the government. That makes the decision to use the land indistinguishable from a Libertarian point of view whether it's the President or someone who got the land because the government used force to take it and then gave it to him as private property.

The decision for the government to become an owner of private property? Sure--but that pertains as much to the government building basketball hoops on public park land as it does to drilling on public land for oil, which means it's mostly irrelevant for purposes of this discussion, isn't it?

It's more like coming into a courtroom where two lawyers are arguing which way the judge should decide, and saying the judge shouldn't decide because the judge has no jurisdiction. That doesn't mean you think the lawyer arguing the case should be dismissed on the facts of the case is any more correct than the other lawyer, it means you think both lawyers are wrong.

I'll make this short because it's technically off-topic, so if I miss anything critical, let me know:

Aetius wrote:

If there is anything that libertarians and freedom activists understand, it is just how totally, fundamentally different such a society would be.

Really? Who has considered what to do with corporations with millions of stockholders? I mean, you're not going to keep limited liability entities around, right? That is as much an example of government theft by force as taxes are, allowing people to use laws like the corporate veil to shield them from the consequences of their actions. How do we deal with them?

Ok - who are the looters? Am I a looter because I make a good salary and own part of my company? How about prosperous worker-owned co-ops - do we loot them them as well to spread things out? As soon as you can point them out and prove that they obtained their wealth via theft, then we should prosecute them. That, of course, is the hard part.

Why is it hard? Just look at the laws under which they were obtained and you'll know. If someone's company lobbied for a tax break, then they should have to return the money they saved from that tax break. People should only be able to keep the value they received through voluntary exchange. The rest of the money should be returned to the rightful owners if they can be identified, or distributed equally to the other members of the country.

And second, while that would be the goal, saying that society would not be restructured in the absence of government doesn't make sense - it would be constantly restructured by the people who live in it, according to their needs and wants - not according to what some politician thinks is the best idea to get him re-elected.

What's the difference? Isn't what gets a politician re-elected consist of appealing to the needs and wants of the people?

Who gets their stuff taken? Are you going to barge into my neighbor's house and take his TV because you think he obtained it in an unjust system? Who makes those decisions? Should we just have a "Free-for-All Day" where anyone can go anywhere and take anything they want? The only way to do what you are suggesting is by force, which is the very thing libertarians are trying to end and which is endemic to our current system (re: bank bailouts, ARRA, etc).

Libertarians aren't trying to end force (well, maybe the anarchists are): even 'night watchmen' types advocate the use of government force to protect property.

Who makes those decisions? You just did by bringing up the bank bailouts and ARRA. Take that money back and spread it out equally.

I mean, what are we going to do with all the property that the government owns? That alone should allow us to, for the most part, equalize wealth in society.

You're making the assumption that the current biases would be reinforced by a Libertarian system. The evidence points to the opposite.

No, I'm not making assumptions, I'm either looking at different evidence or seeing the evidence you see differently. Don't assume just because I disagree with you that our disagreement is due to a difference in method, when it could be because of a difference in facts or judgment.

If such a system were ever to be implemented, the only thing it would stop "us" from doing is forcing other people to raise their kids a certain way.

Why is that a good thing? Children are not property: of course we can force other people to raise their kids a certain way, just like we can force them not to steal from their neighbors or assault their friends or even mistreat their family members incapacitated by age or illness. Children are human beings with rights that deserve protection. Why does a person of 80 with a mental age of 8 deserve less protection of their rights than an 8 year old? If Libertarianism is all about freedom from force, what happened to children's rights?

Honestly I think we could deal with a good bit less drilling and that we would be more prosperous because of that - certainly the market thinks so, since the government currently heavily subsidizes oil drilling to maintain our current levels.

That assumes the market is perfectly efficient. Government subsides are in many cases designed to solve market inefficiencies, like a tragedy of the commons situation, or when the market as a whole would benefit from taking a certain course, only each individual company runs the risk of not being the one that benefits and so no one takes the first step.

I think a lot of Libertarian hostility to government intervention is based on misunderstandings like this.

The Libertarian argument is not justice and prosperity. It is that justice, freedom, and responsibility are imperative, and we think it also happens to lead to prosperity. Even if it didn't, a more just and more free society would be a far better place to live.

I wonder how much of that is real thinking as opposed to *wishful* thinking. I mean, if this is really about responsibility, this is the end of limited liability entities and our economy as we know it. Even a lefty liberal like me can concede how essential corporations are to the prosperity we see in our society today.