The Pathology of Leftist Denial

It seems like you think a person who supports having drones fly over America is more-or-less the same as someone who favors a social safety net designed to provide aid to the needy. They are all statist parasites to be crushed, and nothing they say can be right because they are "statists." It doesn't matter to you if people on the Left oppose having drones fly over America because they still believe in the "state," which needs to be crushed at all costs.

BTW, you rightists hijacked the term libertarianism from the European Left in the 1970s. So apparently you are okay with stealing terminology from people that you hate.

 

i used to see kids on youtube do that, too


i think you had to be 13 to comment there or maybe that was myspace

anyway, this kid used to challenge my assertions, then simply say he had proven me wrong

yet he gave no evidence to support what he said, but he would quickly finish by saying, "i won & you lost"

it was quite funny; in another instance he made a ridiculously inaccurate claim which i easily refuted, then asked him

"what grade are you in?", to my surprise has said, "the seventh" then gave me a hilarious lecture on agism

i guess you missed the article i posted this morning, i'll re-post it here:


Why the free market is like quantum mechanics (and both are unrealistic constructs)

By Ashutosh Jogalekar - May 13, 2013


Free market evangelists need to take a closer look at the fundamentals of their approach

If we were omniscient and had infinitely fast and perfect computers, perhaps we could use quantum mechanics to explain chemistry, biology, economics and psychology. In reality, no amount of quantum mechanical theorizing can explain how molecular aggregates coalesce to give rise to self-replicating assemblies, let alone how these assemblies acquire the capacity for consciousness, introspection and purposeful action.

Now imagine someone who has started out with the honest and admirable goal of trying to apply quantum mechanics to understand the behavior of a “simple” biological system like a protein. He knows for a fact that quantum mechanics can account for (not explain) all of chemistry- the great physicist Paul Dirac himself said that. He has complete confidence that quantum mechanics is really the best way to get the most accurate estimates of thermodynamic free energy, solubility, molecular charges and a variety of other important chemical properties for his favorite protein.

But as our brave protagonist actually starts working out the equations, he starts struggling. After all the Schrodinger equation can be solved exactly only for the hydrogen atom. Even a simple protein constitutes a system that is infinitely more complex. The complexity forces our embattled savant to make cruel approximations at every stage. At some point, not only is he forced to commit the blasphemy of using classical mechanics for simulating the motion of the protein, but he also has to stoop to using empirical data for parameterizing many of his models. At one point he finds himself fighting against the Uncertainty Principle itself!

In the end our hero is chagrined. He started out with the lofty dream of using quantum mechanics to create an atomic-level description of his favorite protein. He ended up instead with a set of approximations, parameters from experiments, and classical mechanics-derived quantities which were required simply for explaining the features of the system. Prediction was not even an option at this point.

But his colleagues were delighted; long experience had taught them that in most cases the best you can hope for are useful models and not accurate theories. The patchwork model actually gave fairly useful answers. Like most models in chemistry, it had some explanatory and predictive value. Even though the model was imperfect and they did not completely understand why it worked, it worked well enough to spit out useful numbers. But this modest degree of success held no sway for our bright young scientist. He stubbornly insisted that if only we had an infinitely fast computer and an unlimited amount of time, quantum mechanics would no doubt have been spectacularly successful at predicting every property of his system with one hundred percent accuracy. Maybe next time he should just wait until he gets a perfectly accurate computer and has an infinite amount of time.

I state this parable to illustrate what I think is a rather unwarranted swathe of criticism that you occasionally hear from libertarians about the financial crisis during the last few years. The reasons for the financial crisis are many, probably more complex than the laws of quantum mechanics, and society will surely keep on debating them for years. But one of the most common reasons cited by libertarians (usually in the form of a complaint) for the failure of the economy is that we should not blame the free market for what happened because we didn’t actually have a free market. If only we had a chance to have a perfect free market (or at least freer than what it is), things would take care of themselves. Not surprisingly, this line of argument quickly leads to the case for less instead of more regulation.

Notwithstanding the fact that this argument inches uncomfortably close to arguments made by the most vocal proponents of socialism during the twentieth century (“There was nothing wrong with the system per se, only with the way it was implemented&#8221, I think the argument is fundamentally misleading. Yes, maybe a perfect free market wouldn’t have led to the crisis, but that’s like our young chemist saying that infinitely accurate computers and approximation-free quantum mechanics would not have led to the kind of imperfect models that he ended up with. The problem is that there are so many obstacles in the application of quantum mechanics to a real-life chemical system that we are simply forced to abandon the dream of using it for describing and predicting such systems with speed and efficiency. Unless we come up with a practical prescription for how quantum mechanics is going to address all the obstacles in a real-world system without making approximations, it seems futile to argue that it can really take us to the nirvana of sixteen decimal places.

To me it seems that libertarians are ignoring similar obstacles in pursuit of their dream of a perfect free market. What are these obstacles? Most of them are actually well known: There’s imperfect competition because of the existence of inherent inequalities, leading to monopolies. There’s all that special interest lobbying, encouraged by politicians, which discourages true competition and allows monopolies to get a head start. There’s dispassionate cost/benefit analysis by corporations that often leads them to pollute the environment to their heart’s content. There’s information asymmetry, which simply keeps people from knowing all the facts.

But all these problems are really part of a great stumbling block- human nature itself. All the obstacles described above are basically the consequence of ingrained, rather unseemly human qualities- greed and the lust for power, the temptation to deceive, and a relentless focus on short-term goals at long-term expense. In reality, many obstacles in the way of a truly free market are put there not by zealous government regulators but by the inconvenient inequalities and stresses endemic in any complex system. I don’t see these qualities disappearing from our world anytime soon.

Now of course, I do agree that the free market was invented to curb some of the worst excesses of these inequities, and it has worked remarkably well in this regard. But the approach has limitations. Maybe libertarians need to understand that the last vestiges of the dark side of humanity can never be exorcised since they are an indelible part of what makes us human. So unless we come up with practical solutions to the problem of human nature itself – a difficult goal, to put it mildly – it’s rather futile to keep on chanting that all our problems would be solved if only we could somehow make these inherently human qualities disappear.

The final argument that libertarians usually make is this: Just because there are obstacles in the way of a goal that may seem insurmountable, it does not mean we should not even try to achieve perfection. Now that’s a perfectly laudable attitude, but the problem is that unless you come up with a practical solution for all the problems that you face on the way, your goal is just going to remain an abstract and unworkable ideal, not exactly the kind of solution that’s desirable in the practical arenas of politics and economics. Politics especially is the art of the possible, an endeavor where imperfect solutions which all sides can agree upon are far more preferable to abstract, idealized solutions on which it’s impossible to have consensus (just witness our current political gridlock). More importantly, sometimes a relentless drive toward one goal at the expense of everything else creates problems of other kinds; the science analogy in our previous example would be unimaginably expensive calculations, scientists laid-off because of the lack of results, overheating of the computers leading to fires etc. In case of economics we have all seen these problems.

Personally my main problem with “strong” libertarianism is that it often fails to consider the other aspects of the system, instead looking at every problem exclusively through the lens of lower taxes and greater market freedom, as if resolving these variables will take care of everything else. But that’s not the case. There’s the well-known problem of externalities and unintended consequences, there’s the problem of unregulated firms getting ‘too big to fail’ and there’s the persistent problem of growing income inequality; all these problems will still exist to varying extents in a libertarian’s perfect world because they are built into human nature and the workings of complex systems. Surely we have to admit that these are real issues too.

So what should libertarians do? Well, didn’t our intrepid quantum mechanic grudgingly accept the intervention of approximations and parameterization in his pursuit of the perfect theory of protein function? These approximations seemed ugly but he had to use them to circumvent the intrinsic limitations of quantum mechanics. Similarly, perhaps free marketers could realize that at least in some cases government intervention, no matter how ugly it may seem, may be the only way to reach a workable goal. It may not be the best of all worlds, but it could be the least of all evils. What would have happened if our bright young scientist had kept on insisting that he wouldn’t budge an inch if he were forced to use anything other than approximation-free quantum mechanics? He would have ended up with nothing. And in economics even more than in chemistry, a model that partly works is better than a model that does not exist. As Churchill put it, “Sometimes it’s not enough to do our best; we need to do what’s necessary”. It’s an adage that free marketers need to ponder.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2013/05/13/why-the-free-market-is-like-quantum-mechanics-and-both-are-fanciful-constructs/

 

First off, it's not a democracy. This isn't "Athens". It's a republic. Second, I'd dismantle the federal government and allow people to freely associate. Your type would cluster back up and form ohhhhh a union of worker socialist republics under Obama. The conservatives would form the protestant version of Vatican City. The rest of us would develop into tiny communities, mostly agrarian and get along just fine in small states and communes.

Why do you say that? Because statists kill a lot of people you assume nonstatists will too?

 

Libertarians go back as far as Jefferson and Robespierre. It was a wide range then, its a wide range now. And I don't think statists with their killing machines get to stand on the moral high ground and talk about crushing when death, destruction, and force is all you guys got.

 

You're all drama. Wait till the Republicans get back in the white house, then you'll go back to accusing anyone who criticizes the government of siding with terrorists. If you had one original thought I swear I'd have a heart attack

 

Thought you might be interested but western and central Europe are in the bottom half of the happiness range in spite of your free stuff:

***************


To gauge the relative happiness of residents in 148 countries, the Gallup organization called roughly 1,000 people in each country and asked about their experiences the day before. Among other things, people were asked if they smiled a lot yesterday, if they felt respected all day, if they were well-rested and if they learned or accomplished something interesting.

The countries that reported the highest rates of "yes" answers to these questions were Panama and Paraguay, with an 85 percent positive rate each. El Salvador and Venezuela were next, followed by Trinidad and Tobago, Thailand, Guatemala, the Philippines, Ecuador and Costa Rica.

The United States scored in the top half of the poll, at No. 33. Some other wealthy Western nations were near the middle: Germany and France, for example, tied for 47th spot with Somaliland, a relatively poor African region of Somalia.

Many of the nations that scored lowest in the Gallup poll were — not surprisingly — war-torn countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, or places where ethnic strife or political instability were commonplace, including Serbia, Belarus and Azerbaijan.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ml+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

AND you rank as the world's worst tourists for rudeness factors

http://www.businessinsider.com/worst-behaved-tourists-2013-5?op=1

So while you're having your discussion on crazy Republicans understand that people in South America in governments that can barely maintain operations and are rife with corruption but fewer laws by something like 50,000 --yes, literally--are happier than you.

Not only does neither wealth and work (Singapore) equate to happiness nor socialism (Germany) but actual--and this ought to be crazy surprise for you but spending time with your family and extended family actually make humans happier, being well rested, laughing, etc

I know...hard to believe.

 

Can you quit pretending you are nonpartisan? You're like the world's worst impersonator of an objective independent. Jeez, because Ethereal doesn't like progressives he's a Republican and likes Republicans?. Okay, Goldwater. Did you get that out of a progressive fortune cookie: He who doesn't like socialism is secretly a Republican. Your lucky numbers are 7 19 4 and hahahah

What's next? Oh! I know! He's racist because he doesn't like Obama.

lol

 

Geeze, breathe a little.

While you're at it...you might want to accept the fact that you're a LIMO, and yes, it's true that Ethereal doesn't like progressives because he's a Republican and likes Rush Limbaugh.

PS, you won't find any posts by me accusing people of being racists. You may find me accusing people of being Stormfront fans.

 

This is really the only reason why I'd like to see the GOP in power again. Those who are trying to reduce the powers of the government now will be doing just the opposite when/if the GOP is in power again. It will be interesting.

 

Because 10 years from now, if Reaganism is left unchecked, the Mexican economy will surpass our own, 20 families will own 99% of everything, and you will be selling Chik-lets on an unpaved street corner. Live and let live my white arse.

 

The state is the instrument of oppression for elites and mobs. There is no need to seize control of it when you can simply withdraw from it. Cut off the financial and monetary lifelines of the state - taxation and FIAT money - and it will simply whither away.

 

They'll take back the white house in 2016, because the Democratic bench will have been exhausted by 8 years in power. It's the same reason Bush won in 2000, which is apathy from Democrats.

When that happens, all the pseudo Libertarians, Tea Partiers, and all other disguised Republicans will go back to being loyal patriots to the President

 

Thugs are people who use violence and the threat of violence against peaceful people as a means of achieving their own subjective ends. That describes your elected officials perfectly.

I never said or implied anything about "freeloading" off of anyone. I am perfectly willing to pay for whatever goods or services I need and consent to purchase, unlike the Democratic base, whose entire existence is predicated upon getting handouts from the state at virtually no cost to themselves.

Because the money is used by DNC propagandists and shills to buy votes from ACTUAL freeloaders who expect something for nothing. The DNC is the party of freeloaders!

 

That is complete nonsense.

You don't want to pay for government. We don't get to individually choose what we want Govt to do. No freeloaders.

You're the one who doesn't want to pay for the Govt.

 

Isn't it amazing how a DNC propagandist like Iriemon can call me a freeloader even though his party is the biggest bunch of freeloading parasites in the country? He also fancies me a "1%" apologist, even though he's the one who supported the BUSH BAILOUTS and QE, two massive forms of CORPORATE WELFARE that goes directly to the 1%. If these DNC shills weren't being hypocritical, they'd be doing nothing at all...

 

No, your repeated assertions are nonsense. What I speak is the unvarnished truth, which is why you cannot actually refute anything I said and must rely on making contradictory assertions with no substance or explanation.

I don't want to pay for immoral wars, corporate welfare, state monopolies, or oppressive social policies. If you want to pay for them, then be my guest. But I have no moral or lawful obligation to pay for those things and your hypocritical attempt to label me a "freeloader" will do nothing to establish such an obligation.

Doesn't make me a freeloader in the slightest. I don't need any of their services. I can provide for myself.

 

I oppose all forms of initiatory violence and theft. Anyone with a moral foundation would do the same. You think that just because you have good intentions that somehow it absolves you of the violence and oppression inherent to your belief system. Well, it doesn't. Your good intentions are no different than the good intentions of the control freaks who want to spy on us and fly drones over the country. It's all for the "greater good"...

 

Your presumptuous blather is entirely unfounded, as usual.

 

Your simplistic and jaundiced attitude is amply evident, but you seem unable to explain who the folks you like to demonize are.

If they exist outside your head, do they, if we can call upon reality and gauge whether your dastards are actually comprised of most decent folks, include all of the 65,917,257 Americans who re-elected the President in preference to Willard Romney? If not all, just provide the names of those that upset you.

Sometimes, paranoia can be overcome by confronting specifics.

 

You appear to be trying, in your feeble way, to shirk the debt and responsibility to your nation that derives from your having been empowered by the hard-won benison of freedom with which you have been gifted. If you do not recognize those benefits, why don't you just go away?

Stop sponging off Americans by usurping its infrastructure, public safety, military protection, commercial regulatory structures, and the diverse facilitations of your quality of life made possible by patriotic Americans whilst bellywhinging that you owe nothing.

It's quite churlish.

 

I think I might prefer to live under a government that wasn't in the process of morphing into a maniacal menagerie of excesses.

 

I breathe, I eat, I sleep, I enjoy myself. I also like to point out closet partisans in my spare time.

Whatever, ninja.

PS, you won't find any posts by me accusing people of being racists. You may find me accusing people of being Stormfront fans.[/QUOTE]

 

Good idea. Instead of showing everyone how we libertarians are HYPOTHETICALLY and SUPPOSEDLY going to destroy the country with our reliance on individual liberty and free markets, why don't we post examples of how progressive-socialist ideology is ALREADY destroying the country...

Let's start with Obama's political stomping grounds, Chicago.

Here is the racial distribution of blacks in Chicago over four decades:



Notice how the black population has remained confined (segregated) largely to the same areas. Those areas, of course, are decrepit, crime-ridden urban nightmares where people are stuffed like sardines into equally decrepit public housing:



And for black men who decide they want to make some money for themselves and their families outside of the DNC's patronage system, they will get thrown into jail by the unionized police forces:



And while we're on the topic of unions, why don't we take a look at Chicago's financial status?

And let's look at the DISMAL state of their public education system, shall we?

Corruption?

Chicago Called Most Corrupt City In Nation

I could go on and on, and yet, small government Caligula would have us believe that somehow things will get worse if these places are reformed to reflect libertarian values of individual liberty, self-reliance, and free markets. How much worse could they get!?

 

You're projecting. Just because you're a garden variety GOP propagandist, doesn't mean everybody on the left is a DNC propagandist

 

I am shirking the immorality of the coercion, intimidation, and theft that forms the entire basis for your cancerous ideology.

Amazing. The champions of the freeloading, sponge class are trying to accuse the champions of self-reliance and personal responsibility of "usurping" infrastructure and the like. Are you so bleeding ignorant that you do not realize my ideology necessitates that everyone pay for their USE of whatever services or goods they may need or desire? There will be no "freeloading" or "sponging" in a libertarian society. No, every individual will be expected to pay OUT OF THEIR OWN POCKET for those services and goods they deem necessary to their own happiness and well-being. It is YOU and the progressive-socialist axis who are encouraging sponging and freeloading with your endless cries for more socialization of costs.

Not nearly as churlish as your hypocritical and dissonant accusations of sponging off of a system that in actuality oppresses me and wastes trillions of tax dollars on political favoritism and corruption. The next time you find yourself whining about Bush's wars and the military industrial complex, just remember where they got the money from!