4
5

Why the hate Cascadia? (self.Cascadia)

No_LotR_No_Life が 投稿

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

Today for the first time ever, I felt uncomfortable on /r/Cascadia. There was a post that was cross linked from /r/Libertarian that drew an immensely negative response mostly over the Libertarian mindset. So my question is why the hate Cascadia? Do most of you guys harbor distrust/disdain for Libertarian thinking? I understand that a vast majority of Cascadian independence supporters are liberal or have left leaning ideologies, but is that a reason to blast and belittle someone over their political thought process? I always thought that this subreddit was for furthering the discussion and cause for an independent Cascadian State. This is just my opinion, on what happened today, and I mean it's your subreddit too, but I fail to see how calling an entire political school of thought the "bargain basement of political philosophy" brings about Cascadia any sooner.

Edit-I think that my original question might have been lost in the discussion, but it's been a great(for the most part) read for me. I'm not calling for Libertarian Cascadia, far from that /u/rakista totally hits the nail on the head when touching on one party totalitarianism that rule by only Libertarians would bring about. I was more asking why so much hostility to Libertarian nuances such as individual rights, property rights, and more power at local levels as opposed to national levels.

Thanks for the discussion, it's what I was looking for.

上位 200 件のコメント全て表示する 434
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]TheChokeColumbia Basin[M] 39ポイント40ポイント  (1子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

First, I'd like to remind people not to downvote something because they disagree with it. This is a legitimate question that I think warrants discussion.

For the OP. Cascadia has a wide variety of political stances. You are going to run into people that do not like libertarianism. Cascadia is not a libertarian movement necessarily, though I do know of a few libertarians that support the idea.

The point is, Cascadia is about a region that contains people with a wide array of views. I'm sorry that you felt uncomfortable, but bear in mind that a few person's views are not representative of every Cascadian's view just like a few person's views are not representative of any demographic.

[–]No_LotR_No_Life[S] 18ポイント19ポイント  (0子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

Well, there is no need to apologize and thank you for the response, I'm not trying to cause any problems, and I mean part of my Libertarian philosophy is the absolute freedom of self expression, so if they are against my views, they have every right. I was more bringing up the lack of meaningful discussion and just blatant bashing. I totally agree with you that the movement itself isn't a Libertarian movement, and it's a people's movement. I just want to bring up that today was the first time on this subreddit I felt a genuine lack of civility.

[–]mirth23 29ポイント30ポイント  (10子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

Personally, I distrust ANY political stance that is based more on ideology than pragmatism. "Trust me, a totally free market will completely solve all people's problems" absolutely flies in the face of common sense in my opinion.

Look at what happened to workers right after the Industrial Revolution started, and what happens to workers in third world countries today. As long as big corporations exist, the vast majority of them will exploit people in whatever way they can. Unions and the worker rights laws they helped get passed curbed many of the issues in the US, which is way better off than the life of factory workers in Asia where they do not enjoy similar rights (i.e., there is little regulation, libretarian style). I'm not even getting into ancillary issues like pollution...

Cascadia has a strong culture of unions (look up the Wobbly Wars) and also environmentalism, both of which seem incompatible with most modern libretarian rhetoric.

Cascadia does get along with the more "stay out of my private business" aspect of libretarianism, just not the fiscal part.

[–]No_LotR_No_Life[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (9子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

Ya, I and that is the part of Libertarianism that most strongly support, but my biggest qualm with an economy that is state supported/entwined with the state is that it allows imo greater ease for corruption.

[–]mirth23 14ポイント15ポイント  (8子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

Personally I like the idea of reduced power at the federal level but more power at the state and municipal level. I think governments tend to get more corrupt when they are more distanced from the people they theoretically represent.

The thing I feel libertarianism seems to miss, IMO, is that government is at least supposed to be taking care of its people. A corporation only answers to its shareholders and the bottom line. I have no clue how more libertarianism is supposed to fix things like powerful, entrenched medical insurance companies colluding to keep rates high. I would vastly prefer to see more/saner regulation in that domain. People can vote with their wallets but for some services they don't always have a reasonable choice.

[–]No_LotR_No_Life[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

Totally valid points, it's so nice not to be accused as a sexist, greedy bastard in the comments I get. I would say that who entrenches the insurance company? In my opinion it is a combination of the government and the people. With a much weaker government, I would think that in turn entrenchment of said insurance company would be reduced. That would leave entrenchment by the people. If a new company were to offer more attractive rates, the people (being enlightened and wise(the weakest part of my arguement IMO)) would leave the company with high rates for the new company with lower rates.

Who is easier to bribe to keep things the high rates the way they are? A couple elected officials, or a bunch of customers who are pissed off and now have a more attractive alternative option.

[–]mirth23 10ポイント11ポイント  (2子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

The thing is, the only reason these companies bother bribing the Government is they need to. With total de-regulation, they would be free to collude to their heart's content.

I get your argument for industries that compete to sell disposable goods, but it's a different ballgame for the service industry. In order for a major service like a bank or insurance company to be successful and inexpensive, they require a lot of clients. I'm not convinced there would be a way for a hypothetical fairly priced insurance company to enter the market in the first place, if it wanted to offer a cheap/comprehensive product.

One other aspect of this in my mind is the fact that one aspect of regulation is requiring companies to provide coverage. I had a friend who was unemployed and during that time was diagnosed with some ambiguous symptoms. She was basically uninsurable at that point - all companies wanted at least $800/month or something crazy like that because her profile was considered so risky. In most strongly libertarian scenarios, people like her are basically screwed [you greedy bastard]. ;)

[–]forty2skatesOlympic Empire 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

One other aspect of this in my mind is the fact that one aspect of regulation is requiring companies to provide coverage.

This is incredibly important. Telecom is the perfect example. Forgetting about internet and cable for a moment and focusing just on basic phone service, the only reason that the sparsely populated areas of the country have phone lines at all is the mandate to do so and the Universal Service Fund we all pay into. A lot of the small phone companies (many also provide DSL and/or Cable as well these days) that deliver service in remote regions simply cannot operate at a profit without the USF funds that all all phone lines pay into. In the utopian Libertarian society if you live in the country and, I don't know, raise organic sheep, if you want a phone, hey fuck you. Pay for it yourself. That's 42 poles per mile at ~$5k a pop not including the wire, or you could trench at ~$22 per foot. Can't afford it? Too bad, phone lines are for closers.

With regards to internet, it's a little more complicated but the basics are the same. The USF is currently transitioning into the Connect America Fund with a similar mandate to increase the broadband infrastructure in the country and specifically in rural locations. Want fast internet in this country, live in a rural place with an ISP that is on top of current technology.

Source: My father is the COO of a rural telecom and I just received a bid from my own rural cable provider for getting coax a 1/2 mile in to my house.

[–]mirth23 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

That's a great example. IMO, infrastructure in general is better handled/regulated by government if your goal is to get reasonable, equal service to all people. In the US, availability and reliability of heavily regulated old school POTS was vastly superior to the current state of mobile service in densely packed and extremely rural locales. Same basic situation applies to mass transit and energy (look at the Enron scandal for capitalism driving up prices artificially due in part to lax regulations).

[–]jaroo -3ポイント-2ポイント  (3子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

I have no clue how more libertarianism is supposed to fix things like powerful, entrenched medical insurance companies colluding to keep rates high.

Libertarianism would seek to provide more options, more choice, and more freedom. This would chip away at entrenched power.

The latest healthcare bill provides a great example of this. Remember the "public option" debate? You may have missed it because it was promptly squashed in congress (mostly by Republicans). Basically, there was a provision to allow states and communities the right to provide health insurance to those who wanted to opt-in. Oregon and Washington both have some form of healthcare for poor residents already, so they could simply modify this program to allow anyone to join, at their free will. People wouldn't be forced to give up their private insurance if they liked it, but they could do if the service was better. Naturally, the insurance lobby in DC promptly squashed this option and held the entire bill hostage until it was completely off the table. Why? They said it would compete with the private sector, and they actually got away with that.

I can't see how a libertarian could argue against that provision in the bill. Give people a choice, if they like a state-administered program better, they should be free to join. If the right-wingers are correct in their belief that government programs never work, then nobody would join, they'd essentially lose "customers", and the private status-quo system would prevail. Seems fair, effective, and liberty wins in the end.

As it is now, we're all now going to be forced to give money to corrupt insurance companies, whether we like it or not. It's a worst of both worlds scenario.

[–]mirth23 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

I am aware of the "public option" and was sad (and unsurprised) to see it go. At least some libretarians I've met would hate it because it's the government doing anything - they might say the government is wasting their tax dollars by unfairly competing with business and therefore it interferes with the magicl powers of the free market. I'd love to see a public option and I'd be surprised to see it considered a libretarian option. Didn't it get squashed partly because it was "socialist"?

[–]retrojoeWashington 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

That option ONLY exists because of the government. A private company would not provide it. You just gave us an anti-libertarian argument.

[–]jaroo 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

That option ONLY exists because of the government. You just gave us an anti-libertarian argument.

First, that option DOESN'T exist because it was made illegal BY government. It could have existed, but in this case, the authoritarian government we currently have in DC stopped it, meaning they are to blame. Libertarians should have supported the "public option", because it would grant more liberty to individuals and to some degree, local communities and states, and for them, liberty should be the goal.

Second, libertarian does not equal anti-government. Libertarian philosophy simply guides how government functions, with the belief that cooperation is better than coercion.

Government must exist, it just should have limited power to force people to do things against their will...like purchase health "insurance" from a private company at the threat of fines and imprisonment.

[–]ComradeKoolaid 63ポイント64ポイント  (137子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

Well see that's the problem; at least in my admittedly biased view point it is a bargain basement political philosophy.

It's all well and good to talk about utopia and the free market working hand in hand with a free society but at the end of the day it just seems to me like so much masturbation of any political ideology without any of the merit of challenging some of the established conventions or asking any real meaningful questions of it's own.

There is nothing wrong with the view point, but it all seems so lazy and slapdash.

[–]Vroome 72ポイント73ポイント  (113子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

There is nothing wrong with the view point

There is at least one thing fundamentally wrong with libertarianism; namely, that property rights are considered the only right one needs and that civil rights don't exist. As a Cascadian of the female persuasion I don't like the idea of having my access to healthcare determined by the whim of the doctor I go to.

In a libertarian society, doctors could do what they did before we had civil rights for women and refuse to treat them because they think women who are raped are sinful. That is A-OK in libertarian philosophy and I, for one, find it disgustingly naive.

[–]RPrevolution -1ポイント0ポイント  (6子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

and that civil rights don't exist

Could you be more specific / provide an example?

[–]Vroome 3ポイント4ポイント  (5子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

All natural rights theory, esp Lockean Property Rights theory believe solely in property rights. Even political liberty, the right to vote, is based on property rights as renters are considered not invested in society.

So if you rent and are a libertarian, you are campaigning against your own political liberty.

[–]LDL2 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

You are blatantly incorrect about lockean property rights. Most libertarians don't even accept the lockean proviseo which they are based on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockean_proviso

http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/08/down-with-the-lockean-proviso/

No, it is based on the Lockean idea that the right to land is an equal right.

By that I mean: the idea that an individual has "property" in land only to the extent that there is, in the words of John Locke, "enough, and as good left in common for others." In that sense, the right to land is not a collective right, but an individual right that exists independently of the collective (i.e. "society"). The equality of this right is merely a limitation that arises from the presence of others with like rights.

By contrast, a collective right to land dictates that an individual does not have a right to use any land unless society -- either explicitly or by omission -- has granted him the right to do so.

With the equal right to land, one does not require the consent of society to use land. The right to the use of land belongs at birth to each individual. So while the consent of others is not needed, it is, nevertheless, necessary that in the exercise of that right, one does not infringe upon the equal right of others -- i.e., violate Locke's proviso that there be "enough, and as good left in common for others." And since the rental value of land provides an accurate measure of the extent to which said proviso has been violated, "others" should be compensated in accordance with that value. At the same time, of course, all taxes on labor and capital should be abolished, since they violate the exclusive right that each individual has to the fruits of his own labor.

[–]Vroome 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

I've read Nozick, I know of the Lockean Proviso and even his miniarchism was not coherent, he admitted so himself, I reject your point. Only the most extreme reading of Lockean property rights with zero common goods, resources, or services is coherent as anything else is a wish list because libertarians can't say one thing is a common good like public roads while denying public healthcare.

There are dozens of sets of natural rights theories by the way, all claiming to be inalienable. Which set -- God -- do you believe in?

[–]LDL2 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

Only the most extreme reading of Lockean property rights with zero common goods, resources, or services is coherent as anything else is a wish list because libertarians can't say one thing is a common good like public roads while denying public healthcare.

Uh services are very much different. A moron can figure out why so I won't rehash that. Most goods are easily determined as well though there is a grey area you aren't likely to reach. The best answer I can give you is to read some economics-(early economics) and to mention you are close on the resources front.

I don't believe in natural rights outside of a thought experiment that can prove quite useful to understand how societies are best functioning.

コメントをもっと表示する (106 返事)

    [–]No_LotR_No_Life[S] 3ポイント4ポイント  (20子コメント)

    ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

    Okay, your opinion based on your views, shaped on your experiences. Thanks for the response. Could you reiterate on why you think it seems lazy and slapdash, I'm not try to start anything, I just genuinely want to know why?

    [–]ComradeKoolaid 43ポイント44ポイント  (19子コメント)

    ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

    It is a philosophy that wants to feed the hungry and heal the sick but you want the robber baron to keep his exploitative company unrestrained by any factor except the free market.

    It's a position of contradictions so caught up in treating the symptoms they don't stop to look at the actual illness. For all it's talk of personal freedom Vroome brought up a very good point. What if you need medical care but no doctor will treat you; because for whatever reason they refuse to?

    It ends up going half-way in both directions and ends up going nowhere at all.

    [–]Corvus133 -3ポイント-2ポイント  (1子コメント)

    ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

    "Utopia?"

    Stopped reading there.

    Funny that people preaching "freedom" would mean utopia. What part of earning and pursuing your own interests sounds utopian outside the idea of choice?

    Isn't promising free health care, education, retirement pensions, etc. more like a "utopia?" Where everyone ALWAYS wins even when no one really does, long term?

    I never understood this notion of "utopia" combined with "freedom." The very notion that "freedom" would lead to "utopia" would defeat the whole notion of "freedom."

    The only utopia existing is what people perceive utopia to be. Some perceive farming to be utopia and others see it as sitting around and having everything done for you (which is how I view it). The farmer, in my example, is just "happy with life."

    We aren't after utopia's.

    [–]ComradeKoolaid 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

    ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

    Stopped reading there.

    So did I.

    [–]retrojoeWashington 93ポイント94ポイント  (57子コメント)

    ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

    Many of us who've encountered libertarians before have come to the conclusion that the majority of you are selfish, hypocritical, or both. Understand that you're generally represented by people who are extremists and have no appreciation for shades of grey, like Randians (example 2) and Paulites (when American Prospect, RedState AND GQ refer to someone as a nutjob, that's fairly indicative). Basically, you lot start from the assumption that people start life with sufficient resources and that (economically, if not actually) might makes right, having no sympathy for people who started their lives in the shitter, or got there thru no fault of their own.

    If none of that makes obvious sense, try starting with this.

    [–]Ovrgeneralizationist 28ポイント29ポイント  (10子コメント)

    ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

    We have the same issue with these guys in New Hampshire. They try to disrupt local politics by being loud and generally annoying at town hall meetings and try to shut others up by repeatedly beating them over the head with unproven shaky ideology which doesn't really apply in the real world and society in general. They get all butthurt when you point out that they are basically attempting to invade the state and are pissing off the locals. If more of them were moderate and not some An-cap crazies or racist tea partier types we might even find common ground. We then hear arguments that there is a vast array of moderates in the mix and that the crazies are only a tiny vocal minority but the fact is that they are the ones standing up to be counted while these supposed moderates are nowhere to be seen. If there is supposedly a vast majority of moderates they are too shy to counter the extremists and are allowing the crazies to speak for them. All of this is the perfect storm for New Hampshire not liking self identified libertarians despite that the way much of the state is run is pretty close to a lot of moderate libertarian ideology.

    [–]UI_GaltIdaho 12ポイント13ポイント  (26子コメント)

    ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

    Left-libertarianism is distinct from some of the mainstream Koch-type ideologies. Many left-libertarians live in the PNW, I encourage progressives/liberals to look into this branch of the philosophy as I think we have a lot of crossover between the two groups.

    [–]leftofmarx 31ポイント32ポイント  (22子コメント)

    ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

    I have no problem with social libertarianism. It's economic and regulatory libertarianism which scares me.

    [–]UI_GaltIdaho 0ポイント1ポイント  (10子コメント)

    ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

    What is your definition of economic and regulatory libertarianism?

    [–]garypooper 31ポイント32ポイント  (6子コメント)

    ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

    Economic theories that practice implementing a set in stone ideology instead of being a dynamic part of the rest of social sciences.

    Austrian Economics claims it knows not only the natural rights of man but in praxeology claims it knows the "axioms" that guide human behaviour, like the "action principle". If that were even remotely true, praxeology would replace all the social sciences. It failed to even stay remotely relevant.

    [–][deleted] 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

    ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

    Rothbardian economics is what keeps right libertarianism from being taken seriously. Unfortunately, Rothbardian economics is also what defines you and distinguishes you from other ideologies. Tough break.

    [–]UI_GaltIdaho -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

    ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

    Rothbardian economics is not the same as Austrian economics. Also you don't have to just bash on something if it's bad you can state why in logical arguments.

    [–][deleted] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

    Why should I waste my time? It's not important to me that you understand.

    [–]retrojoeWashington 14ポイント15ポイント  (1子コメント)

    ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

    It would help if you could link some good examples of your philosophy. Otherwise, it just sounds like "oh yeah, those guys are dicks, but we're not."

    [–]UI_GaltIdaho 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

    ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

    Great point! Try this: Left-wing Market Anarchism. I also appreciate Stefan Molyneux including his theories on secular ethics and peaceful parenting.

    Very open to your response or links you think I/we can learn from.

    [–]cascadianowSalish Sea Ecoregion 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

    ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

    I think this is very true. Ideas like decentralization of power, local autonomy and representation are all fairly libertarian concepts.

    [–]No_LotR_No_Life[S] 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

    ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

    Okay, thanks for the read, I skimmed it and hopefully will be able to get a chance to look at it when I get home.

    [–]Gdubs76 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

    ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

    Many of us who've encountered libertarians before have come to the conclusion that the majority of you are selfish, hypocritical, or both.

    Funny because we see this same problem with the entire political spectrum. Politicians being the worst offenders of them all.

    If you are going to name call you should at least put actual arguments and logical connecting conclusions to make a point - rather than just rhetorical prose that's not even that entertaining.

    [–][deleted] -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

    ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

    The logic is right there in front of you. Open your eyes.

    [–]RPrevolution -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

    Have you really encountered many selfish libertarians, or is that judgment based on the characteristic you think someone with a certain political and economic ideology would be?

    I think much of the emotion and conflict that arises when politics or religion are discussed stems from conflating the assumed result of a system with the intentions of the supporter.

    [–]filmnutsWashington 17ポイント18ポイント  (9子コメント)

    ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

    The problem with libertarianism is that it runs counter to many of the core values of Cascadia.

    In the discussion of the poster that led to all this, /u/vinylshrapnel makes a comment that I think summarizes the problem. (Let me clarify that I don't think /u/vinylshrapnel speaks for all libertarians.)

    If I homeschool my kids, why should I be forced to subsidize the education of others?

    From my experience, it seems like the sentiment, "I shouldn't be forced to do anything even at the expense of the community," is a core value of libertarianism; the individual trumps the group. It also seems that libertarians ignore or are unaware of the indirect benefits they receive from public institutions, or they do recognize the indirect benefits, but feel they should receive them without having to pay into the public institutions. The perception from this is that libertarians are selfish and/or ignorant.

    At the core of Cascadia is the idea that we all share something in common: living in this great, unique place; and that we should work together to solve our problems and improve Cascadia. If libertarians are in it for themselves, then they aren't really trying to make Cascadia better, they're just trying to improve their own condition. While the two may at times overlap, they have very separate and incompatible end goals.

    [–]BrotherMagnetoSeattle 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

    ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

    This is exactly my issue with libertarianism, and I feel that part of the reason that other thread degenerated into such a shitshow is that when people say "there are issues with libertarianism and its effects on the community," the libertarians hop to reply with "why do you hate personal responsibility and freedom??!!11one," lodging themselves firmly in unhelpful dualism.

    [–]UsesMemesAtWrongTime -5ポイント-4ポイント  (6子コメント)

    ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

    If you truly feel that people must be forced to do x, y, and z, then you should have no moral qualms of holding the gun yourself and threatening people to do x, y, and z.

    [–]filmnutsWashington 7ポイント8ポイント  (5子コメント)

    ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

    I'm not in favor of forcing anyone to do anything. That's like saying that pro-choice people are in favor of killing babies. It's an intentional misinterpretation in an attempt to discredit an argument.

    I'm in favor of cooperation and collectively working towards the betterment of the entire group, rather than just oneself.

    [–]UsesMemesAtWrongTime 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

    ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

    And if somebody refuses to "cooperate"? What do you do to them? Or what do you say should be done to them?

    [–]bleepbloopmusic 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

    ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

    What does an ancap do when someone refuses to cooperate with their notion of private property?

    [–]UsesMemesAtWrongTime -4ポイント-3ポイント  (2子コメント)

    ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

    What do you do when someone refuses to cooperate with you? Usually, you can work it out on your own. If not, you seek third party arbitration (that you both agree to) for a judgment.

    Calling it an ancap notion of private property is disingenuous since everybody already has a notion of private property. People are just inconsistent about the application. But ask anybody and they are all (save for absolute pacifists) willing to use some violence to defend their property at some point.

    Private property requires homesteading and an ability to defend it. States merely fulfill the latter requirement. It's absurd how a State can lay claim to land that's never been explored or worked upon by its minions. It makes as much sense as me going to antarctica, planting a flag at one spot, and calling the whole land mass mine (oh wait, States already did that long ago).

    [–]bleepbloopmusic 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

    ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

    Just so we're clear, maintenance of private property requires force(conveniently distantiated by bureaucratic rigamarole like DROs, and letters in the mail i imagine), and this is justified because everyone but some pacifists would do that. Which is different from how people defend states on the basis that everyone does it already because...

    And you're right that everyone creates ad-hoc notions of property(or possession, ownership), like 'my chair' in a classroom, or 'my plot of land' staked out in a primitive fashion you call homesteading. But these are often idiosyncratic and culturally based. They come with arbitrary rules worked out by social consensus, which can vary quite widely. Property is every bit as much a collective regime as anything else, not private or individual.

    [–]MaunaLoona -4ポイント-3ポイント  (0子コメント)

    ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

    At the core of Cascadia is the idea that we all share something in common: living in this great, unique place; and that we should work together to solve our problems and improve Cascadia

    You're calling me selfish because I won't help you? Why don't you help me by minding your own business? Why are you so selfish?

    [–]chimney3Salem 14ポイント15ポイント  (0子コメント)

    ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

    I may not be particularly libertarian but having seen that thread, I have to say I expected more open minded understanding from cascadia of all places. We can do a better job eschewing an idea that that level of dismissiveness.

    [–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

    ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

    [deleted]

      [–]tinyj316Grand Poobah 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

      This type of behavior is unacceptable, and will not be tolerated.

      [–]TheLateThagSimmonsSeattle 19ポイント20ポイント  (0子コメント)

      ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

      American-Libertarians tend to live inside an extremely privileged bubble, and as a result they have a hard time figuring out why people dislike their views. It is less about the actual positions taken by American-Libertarians, more about where those positions lead to.

      Most of their biggest concerns are steeped in white, middle class, male, privilege.

      This, regardless of whether we agree on a given subject, we can't really take them seriously because of their illogical and narrow minded viewpoints that lead them to their conclusions (even when their conclusions are correct). It's like being in middle school, performing an algebra equation, in which you do it all wrong but end up getting the right answer... You don't deserve the credit for your homework.

      The Cascadian region is extremely diverse despite being very progressive. Even our conservatives are progressive.

      Edit: A point brought up on /r/LibertarianLeft a while back...

      • While Conservatives want us to go back to 1980, with capitalism in full swing and deep religious principles, (right) Libertarians want us to go back to 1780.

      We shouldn't be desiring to go backwards.

      [–][deleted] 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

      ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

      I consider myself Libertarian.

      The concept of Cascadia exists outside of this subreddit so there are a lot of different political beliefs that see value in Cascadia. Most users on r/cascadia are environmental progressives.They also, judging from what I've read, see all conservatives as being in line with the national Republican Party.

      There is a large divide between conservatives in the PNW and the rest of the country that people on r/cascadia don't see. Even looking at the new Washington State Republican Chairwoman (she was just elected like a week ago), she is very pro gay marriage. I would say most conservatives in the PNW are environmental libertarians. And libertarians and progressives have a lot in common, particularly with civil liberties. Add in the environment and all we would debate over is economics which I hope would come to a happy medium.

      I fear if the right and left do not see what we have in common then Cascadia will never be.

      [–]Waldo_Jeffers 13ポイント14ポイント  (2子コメント)

      ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

      Seriously? You really don't know why libertarians make people wary? Here's a good start:

      http://jimleff.blogspot.com/2011/06/how-i-outgrew-libertarianism.html

      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-05/libertarians-are-the-new-communists.html

      http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/

      Note that Brin is a libertarian himself, but an awesome and critical one. I'd be glad to have HIM on my side, but not the Randroid kill-the-poor crowd that has largely, and sadly, coopted the name "libertarian." For the record, I have no problem at all with left-libertarians or civil libertarians, just with people who genuinely believe deep down that the Free Market Pixies will alleviate all the moral failings of unregulated capitalism. :p

      FWIW, I do tend to lean in favor of gun rights and get absolutely livid when I hear the phrase "educate yourself" (smirk) so I am not purely a stereotypical Cascadian liberal, here. Frankly, if I had my way, our national politics would be Green vs. Libertarian instead of DNC vs. GOP -- I at least see fiscal libertarians as honorable and sincere enemies! I'm just really getting tired of the "I got mine, so what's the problem?" crowd.

      [–]No_LotR_No_Life[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

      ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

      Fair points, but a huge government with massive bureaucracy run by people across the country, who in my view are in bed with the corporate elite makes me wary. As for you being a liberal who leans pro gun....can I give you an internet hug?

      As for the free market pixies.....yes that is a problem I have with the libertarian philosophy because even though I truly believe that if people truly subscribed to the free market we wouldn't have some of the problems we see here. And I am totally against the "I got mine, so what's the problem" but I am also against an establishment forcing someone to be charitable. That isn't charity, that's Robin Hood vigilantism right there.

      I realize alot of people here believe the government should be responsible for that. That's fair and I respect that. However I would rather see all that done by private charities via willing donations. I guess that offends people here, and I'm not trying too, it's just what I believe.

      [–]Waldo_Jeffers 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

      ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

      Yes, re: the hug but you should really direct it to my boyfriend and our shootist housemates, who got me over my aversion to guns. I have to admit, though, I really dig the fact they go to a range that disallows any targets with a human figure on them. I still don't like guns, but just could not in good conscience believe they're a threat in the hands of most of the people who want them. I think people should have to demonstrate competence in order to be licensed, but other than that don't really have a problem with 'em.

      [–][deleted] 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

      ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

      I for one think we need to throw the "ism" and "ian/ic" notions out the window. We skew one way or the other because of the way media frames it. That's much of what's wrong with the current North America model...we root for teams rather than solving problems. People become passionate about a set of ideals with a label rather than solving problems.

      I think it should be simple.

      Equality, Protection of our quality of life (whether it be economy, or ecology), & efficient and effective society.

      Whatever the means to get this, without one infringing on the other should be considered and not labeled.

      [–]adamjohnson182North Cascades 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

      ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

      Do most of you guys harbor distrust/disdain for Libertarian thinking?

      Yes, when it comes to regulation and economics. Libertarians would have us return to a property-rights system, (there are CONSTANT calls to repeal the EPA) which is basically what we had when we were lighting rivers on fire and slapping corporations on the wrist for heinous environmental crimes. Individuals do not have the means or power to pursue many of these types of claims, and I'm thankful that we have an EPA. Are there problems within the agency? Undoubtebly. But we don't need to jettison it or the Clean Air Act because there are a few stupid rules they've enacted.

      The entire idea of a free market is just awful, awful economics and I'm thankful we haven't adopted it here in the US.

      [–]cbslurp 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

      ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

      But we don't need to jettison it or the Clean Air Act because there are a few stupid rules they've enacted.

      the analogy i like is a bike with shitty brakes. what you want to do is remove the brake pads, put new ones on, mess around with little adjustments until they work well, and ride off into your beautiful future. what libertarians want to do is tear out the brakes.

      [–]leftofmarx 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

      ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

      Because social democracy is the best model for a nation to follow, and libertarianism, when applied to economics and governance outside of social issues, is a failed model that would lead to a failed state.

      [–]saghalieVancouver 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

      ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

      I posted a negative reaction partly because I don't like the idea of associating Cascadia with a particular ideology, nor do I like badly argued and badly reasoned posters that tend to misunderstand or misinterpret other people's arguments. That poster was just plain bad, regardless of who does it.

      [–]No_LotR_No_Life[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

      If you think those are bad, you should see the ones in the U district in Seattle.

      [–]RandsFoodStampsWashington 7ポイント8ポイント  (7子コメント)

      ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

      Libertarians are primarily right wing Republicans or neo-confederates.

      [–]UsesMemesAtWrongTime 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

      ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

      Coming from a long time troll of libertarian subreddits.

      Instead of criticizing the ideas, you just attack people. And for the record, I'm neither republican or confederate.

      [–]RandsFoodStampsWashington -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

      ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

      Looks like the brigade is here after SRD posted this.

      Coming from a long time troll

      Says the guy with a 2mo. account.

      [–]UsesMemesAtWrongTime -3ポイント-2ポイント  (1子コメント)

      ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

      2 year account. WTF are you talking about?

      [–]RPrevolution 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

      ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrcM5exDxcc

      [–]bleepbloopmusic 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

      ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

      lol nice strawzombie argument

      [–]RPrevolution 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

      ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

      Neo-confederaaaaaate

      [–]ChaosMotor 3ポイント4ポイント  (16子コメント)

      ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

      one party totalitarianism that rule by only Libertarians would bring about

      What is totalitarian about the philosophy of leaving others alone?

      [–]TheLateThagSimmonsSeattle 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

      ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

      American-libertarianism is pro-capitalist. That's the opposite of leaving people alone.

      [–]ChaosMotor 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

      ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

      How?

      [–]youdidntredditPortland -1ポイント0ポイント  (12子コメント)

      ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

      Because you can't get elected and would have to force it onto people.

      [–]ChaosMotor 1ポイント2ポイント  (11子コメント)

      ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

      The entire point is to not force things on people, you're saying we'd have to force the concept on people of not forcing things on people?

      Do you realize how insane your objection is?

      [–]youdidntredditPortland 0ポイント1ポイント  (10子コメント)

      ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

      Well you are not going to win an election. So how else will a Libertarian socoety happen?

      [–]ChaosMotor 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

      ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

      Did the world move from monarchies to democracies through elections? Or because the people demanded it?

      [–]RPrevolution 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

      ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

      Revolution can only revolve around elections?

      [–]youdidntredditPortland 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

      See my comment about the vanguard leading the apathetic people.

      [–]Vroome 10ポイント11ポイント  (162子コメント)

      ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

      Because as a woman I don't like the idea of my employer having the right to pay me less than men. That right there sinks libertarianism for me. There are 1000's of other reasons.

      [–]cascadianowSalish Sea Ecoregion 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

      ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

      This could also be applied to towards discrimination based on race or sexual orientation as well.

      [–]ChaosMotor 3ポイント4ポイント  (44子コメント)

      ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

      Why would you want to work for someone who discriminates against you?

      [–][deleted] -1ポイント0ポイント  (5子コメント)

      ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

      Why would you want to work for someone who discriminates against you?

      I'll give you a more serious answer: because you have to work for someone to feed yourself. I don't work at a job I hate because I like it, but because I have to. FWIW, that is a big gripe people have with libertarianism. It assumes we live in a world where people are free to pick and choose jobs like designer outfits.

      [–]ChaosMotor -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

      ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

      Without the government to make it so hard to start a business, you would have much more freedom of choice in employment, and if you didn't like your employer, you'd be much more able to start your own company.

      コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

        [–]No_LotR_No_Life[S] 4ポイント5ポイント  (50子コメント)

        ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

        Okay, cool thanks for your response. I appreciate hearing an actual comment that comes from a very real reason. I'm not trying to start anything, but if I may: If I started a business, built it from the ground up, and put my life into it, why can't I do what I want with it. Yes, I totally agree women should have equal working conditions and pay, let me state that right now. But the point is,if it's my business and then someone tells me what I can or can't do, is that business still mine? Anyway, if you're still reading, thanks. I'd love a response, not trying to argue, but I love discussions like this..much to a lot of people's chagrin. Thanks again.

        [–]Vroome 16ポイント17ポイント  (49子コメント)

        ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

        My right to equal pay is greater than your property rights because I believe that civil rights and property rights need to be balanced against each other and the world is not black and white. Most Americans and I would bet 90%+ of women agree with me.

        Do you understand that women were being paid 1/10th the wages of men at the turn of the last century?

        [–]No_LotR_No_Life[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (39子コメント)

        ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

        I'm curious, was that question meant to be some underhanded blow or to belittle me? And you are telling me your right is more important toyou, of course it is. I'm willing to bet 100% of Americans would agree that their rights are more important to them than someone else's right is to that person. As for a good answer to your challenge, I don't think I have one, or at least a good one. All I can say is that I don't like the idea to live in a society that needs an institution to force equality for equality to exist. But I'll admit I am an idealist. Thanks for the civility.

        [–]rakistaTimbers Army 14ポイント15ポイント  (18子コメント)

        ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

        This is absurd, you likely live in a white male privilege bubble with zero concept with how the other half lives. Let alone groups still persecuted and disadvantaged in our current system like minors, homosexuals, transexuals, drug users.

        You do realize in a libertarian nation that you will quickly devolve into company towns where a single corporation will dictate policy to everyone renting there, right? Koch Brothers could ban all MMOs because it interferes with their worker's productivity simply by turning it off at the town-owned firewall.

        I support women's rights, it is sad that you don't.

        [–]_cascadian_ 5ポイント6ポイント  (6子コメント)

        ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

        I agree with you, but no need to be so harsh. I used to be a libertarian when I was young, but eventually switched left as I came to a few realizations. These kind of posts didn't help sway me much as I recall. Save the hate for the system and those who perpetuate it.

        [–]rakistaTimbers Army 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

        ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

        Fine, I'll smoke some Cascadian medical MJ and calm down.

        I just want Cascadia to be a democratic nation not a social experiment in an academic philosophy.

        [–]_cascadian_ 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

        ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

        Once again, I agree. Enjoy my friend! Burn down some MJ and then burn some Rand. I can't believe I used to like that shit when I was young.

        [–]TheLateThagSimmonsSeattle 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

        ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

        Use Atlas Shrugged as rolling paper.

        [–]_cascadian_ -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

        ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

        I don't think it's even close to worthy of the honor, but to each their own :)

        [–]throwaway-o -5ポイント-4ポイント  (10子コメント)

        ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

        This is absurd, you likely live in a white male privilege bubble with zero concept with how the other half lives.

        You're a dishonest asshole who immediately jumps to personal attacks and defamation.

        And don't bitch about me calling you an asshole. You are an asshole and you started with the attacks first.

        [–][deleted] 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

        ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

        Some compelling logic there... I won't say it.

        [–]rakistaTimbers Army -1ポイント0ポイント  (8子コメント)

        ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

        Why do I have you tagged as "Liar: Claims to be millionaire software dev".

        [–]throwaway-o -2ポイント-1ポイント  (7子コメント)

        ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

        Because you lie indiscriminately, even to yourself. You are an autonomous human being, no one can prevent you a priori from being scum.

        [–]rakistaTimbers Army 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

        ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

        Oh, I found it.

        http://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/1l46e5/anarchocapitalist_in_ranarcho_capitalism_posts/cbvy47h

        So, how is it making 800-900k a year and posting dozens of time on Reddit per day? You make more than 99% of EA, you must be a genius.

        Lol.

        [–]throwaway-o -1ポイント0ポイント  (5子コメント)

        ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

        /u/rashitsta:

        "Wah wah wah I am a peasant who confuses salary with income and I defame well-off people, whom I detest and envy, by lying about them as I call them liars".

        Enjoy your hateramen. Protip: add an egg right as it comes out of the microwave to make it more nutritious -- you're welcome. Nom!

        [–]Vroome 3ポイント4ポイント  (19子コメント)

        ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

        I'm willing to bet 100% of Americans would agree that their rights are more important to them than someone else's right is to that person.

        I admit you have property rights, I just don't think they are limitless. You don't even admit I have civil rights. See the difference?

        I don't like the idea to live in a society that needs an institution to force equality for equality to exist. But I'll admit I am an idealist.

        So you want to create a society based on how you wish humans acted rather than how they actually act?

        [–]No_LotR_No_Life[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (18子コメント)

        ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

        I've seen humans act pretty civilly. But you raise a good point. I can see how that could easily be a point of contention. Also, I'm not calling for Anarchy on the streets, with no government to enforce laws.

        So you want to create a society based on how you wish humans acted rather than how they actually act?

        I'm not an expert on libertarianism, I'm just a subscriber to the school of thought, but I'm pretty sure there are still laws for public safety. (If you referring to violence by that) If you are referring to big business taking over in a free market with no regulation, then I concede that is a threat. But is that any better than a government having the ability to crush its civilians, spy one them, take their property? Business can fail and there are repercussions and hardships. I still think that's better than a failed government. Does that make sense? (not try to be an asshole, I just can see that not making any sense...God I'm terrible at explaining shit)

        Also, I see what you mean when you say:

        I admit you have property rights, I just don't think they are limitless. You don't even admit I have civil rights. See the difference?

        I find it troubling I couldn't articulate that better, because I absolutely believe in civil rights. You're right, and I concede that government does need to protect some of our rights. I enjoyed discussing this with you and you raised great points. I really do appreciate the civility....and you probably think I'm an idiot. Anyway I probably won't respond again because I want to watch Wilfred. Hope you enjoy the nice weather coming this way.

        [–]Vroome 13ポイント14ポイント  (17子コメント)

        ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

        I'm just a subscriber to the school of thought, but I'm pretty sure there are still laws for public safety.

        Right but there are also no laws for setting car emissions, pharmaceutical purity laws, medical licenses, driver's licenses etc. Your neighbor could just burn his trash instead of paying for trash service.

        If you are referring to big business taking over in a free market with no regulation, then I concede that is a threat. But is that any better than a government having the ability to crush its civilians, spy one them, take their property? Business can fail and there are repercussions and hardships

        Which one can be changed through a hopefully open democratic process? Which one can only the shareholders change behind closed doors?

        I find it troubling I couldn't articulate that better, because I absolutely believe in civil rights. You're right, and I concede that government does need to protect some of our rights

        You sound like you have labelled yourself as a libertarian and may not in fact be one. This is entirely common and nothing to be ashamed of.

        [–]No_LotR_No_Life[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (9子コメント)

        ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

        Well that episode sucked.....It could be that I'm not a libertarian, but what I see described as Libertarianism today, and the school of thought that I adhere to is:

        Power should be vested as close to the people as possible. AKA very small federal government, state government, very strong local government. (Which is why I really do like the Cascadia movement) Individual Rights

        The Property Rights Your wage question really is something that is hard to reconcile, but I honestly believe that if someone wants to alienate half the talent in the world they won't last too long.

        The Freedom to Make Your Own Intelligent Choice As long as others right to safety isn't compromised.

        If you could point me towards that party, believe me I'll go change my facebook profile right now....tryingtobefunny

        [–]PJL 10ポイント11ポイント  (2子コメント)

        ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

        I honestly believe that if someone wants to alienate half the talent in the world they won't last too long.

        What if they just refuse to hire homosexuals? People of mixed race where one of the parents is of persian decent? Do you think capitalism will step in to protect a smaller minority, based on the good will of people who are willing to spend slightly more or get a slightly worse product or have to drive further to do their shopping?

        Wal-mart could have an official policy of turning away transgendered farsi speakers. They could put it on their commercials. Do you think that would hurt their business badly? Should we take that chance?

        [–]duuuh -4ポイント-3ポイント  (1子コメント)

        ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

        Wal-mart just voluntarily made their benefits available to same sex spouses. So, yes, I do think market forces will protect a small minority.

        (It's not just the good will of people who are willing to change their spending habits. It's also the ability to attract employees from a larger pool.)

        Edit: The downvotes are exactly the point of the OPs post. Is this a Cascadia lefty circle-jerk or this about Cascadia?

        [–]garypooper 7ポイント8ポイント  (5子コメント)

        ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

        Green party is for strong local government and they want to remove either corporations or government from interfering with individual liberty.

        They are pro-universal healthcare, free college and believe in local direct democracy.

        Independent party of OR is a mish mash of left and right wing that talk out who and what they want to support on their ballot.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Party_of_Oregon

        Modern Whig Party is probably closest.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Whig_Party

        The six tenets of the Modern Whig philosophy are:

        Fiscal responsibility – "The Modern Whig philosophy is to empower the states with the resources to handle their unique affairs."

        Energy independence – "Reduce dependence on foreign oil by developing practical sources of alternative energy. This will have the simultaneous effect of changing the national security dynamic."

        Education/Scientific advancement – "Increased public and private emphasis on fields such as space, oceanic, medical and nanotechnology. Also, providing common-sense solutions to enhance our educational system from pre-school to university-level studies."

        States' rights – "Each state can determine its course of action based on local values and unique needs."

        Social progression – "Government should refrain from legislating morality."

        Veterans' affairs – "Vigilant advocacy relating to the medical, financial, and overall well-being of our military families and veterans."

        [–]dt084 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

        ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

        You can't provide universal health care or free college without violating civil liberties (assuming they are provided by a government, not a charity)

        [–]No_LotR_No_Life[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

        ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

        But seriously that Whig shit is spot on....offtofacebook

        [–]No_LotR_No_Life[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

        ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

        Really, I am for the destruction of all parties. Thanks for the posts though, really interesting.

        [–]Uncle_Bill -1ポイント0ポイント  (6子コメント)

        ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

        For pollution, there is certainly harm done to others that can be recompensed and prevented. Libertarians believe in the responsibility of people, you can't infringe on other's right(with pollution).

        [–]Vroome 2ポイント3ポイント  (5子コメント)

        ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

        That is nice. I don't want to have to sue my neighbor every time he burns car tires.

        [–]Corvus133 -4ポイント-3ポイント  (1子コメント)

        ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

        If you have to make up stupid scenarios then your points are moot. If you think everyone is going to burn tires 24/7 then you are very naive especially if you think they dont, now, because of government.

        Seriously, think critical because that thought was stupid. Dont make up stupid things and list it as fact.

        [–]Effability -3ポイント-2ポイント  (2子コメント)

        ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

        Sounds like refusing to take responsibility for ones environment. One of our societal problems is that people want to push all responsibilities onto the government to force their neighbors to follow arbitrary rules written by the biggest polluters/criminals.

        コメントをもっと表示する (9 返事)

          [–]TheLateThagSimmonsSeattle 2ポイント3ポイント  (35子コメント)

          ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

          And American-Libertarians still wonder why so few women are on their side.

          Edit: if you ever doubt that American-Libertarians are actually very racist and very sexist, just bring up "white privilege" and/or "male privilege" around them. Go ahead, I dare you.

          [–]NuclearWookie 3ポイント4ポイント  (24子コメント)

          ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

          "white privilege" and/or "male privilege" around them.

          I didn't realize not agreeing with the leftist version of racism and sexism made me a racist or a sexist.

          EDIT: To clarify, nothing is more racist and sexist than merely looking at a person's skin color or sex and then assuming things based on that. My distant relatives that live in shacks in an abandoned coal mining town in Appalachia would be amused to know that they're "privileged" by their skin color.

          [–]rakistaTimbers Army 3ポイント4ポイント  (9子コメント)

          ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

          Every libertarian I've met has been for gay marriage, marijuana legalization etc but what they don't comprehend is that not everyone in society thinks like they do. They've never been denied a job because they have a gay lisp, they have never spent 10 years in prison for being black with a bag of weed etc.

          [–]TheLateThagSimmonsSeattle 11ポイント12ポイント  (7子コメント)

          ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

          Yeah. Even when they have the right answers, they have the wrong reasons for those answers.

          Taxation is probably the greatest crime ever known to mankind in their mind.

          [–][削除されました]  (3子コメント)

          ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

          [deleted]

            [–]Patrick5555 -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

            ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

            I used to rage at comments like yours, authoritarian statist hogwash. now I feel a cool breeze hit my face every time I think about cryptocurrency and its implications.

            コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

              [–]garypooper 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

              ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

              Yet it is literally the basis for all of civilization beyond tribal.

              We have found tax records in cuneiform, Ancient Egyptian and taxes were used throughout the Greek and Roman empires. Those taxes may have gone to king's splendors but they also paid for roads, programs for the poor, and other social services.

              コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                [–][deleted] -4ポイント-3ポイント  (1子コメント)

                ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

                this comment is being brigaded by SSS.

                [–]Philll 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

                ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

                The market is a great tool, but it's also an imperfect tool. It doesn't capture externalities. There are tremendous time delays (in the short run, which can be years, things are sticky). The future isn't well represented. It does little for equity. The things that makes markets work perfectly (rational agents, perfect information, etc.), are rarely present. Etc.

                These are not controversial views. Economists generally recognize these shortcomings. So while the market is an excellent tool, it's foolish to raise it to the level of deity, and trust it to take care of everything.

                I guess I take issue with libertarians, in part, because they pretend to know far more about economics than they actually do. Everything's premised on some laughably heroic assumptions.

                [–]captdimitriOregon 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

                ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

                Because there's no room for the commons when all property is private, or even state-owned.

                [–][削除されました]  (3子コメント)

                ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

                [deleted]

                  [–]NouberNouSeattle 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

                  ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

                  You are wrong. Socially libertarian, fiscally very left. Most everyone I talk to sees Cascadian ideals closely aligned with the Nordic countries. High taxes, efficient and all encompassing social services, and very socially liberal policies (gay rights, civil rights, etc).

                  Libertarianism, fiscal/economic libertarianism, is what Cascadia is trying to get away from in the rest of the US.

                  [–]RPrevolution 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

                  I didn't know anything about Cascadia before I was directed to this post. If people here are representative of the group, it's even more vitriolic and antagonistic to other ideologies than /r/politics, /r/atheism, and /r/anarchism

                  [–][deleted] 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

                  ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

                  I can't explain it, but I can agree that I noticed the same thing several months ago in this sub[1]. Most of the rest of the Internet is almost shockingly friendly to proponents of small gov't, but much of reddit[2] is weirdly exempt. My best theory is that reddit came about around the time when the "teabaggers" were the most visible 3rd party and gave Libertarianism a deservedly bad name. Combine this with the age-old plague of outspoken Rand fans, and the Socialist redditors got very outspoken against them. The end result is that the friendly, pragmatic pro-freedom voices ran away to have discussions elsewhere, and the upvote/downvote brigade that remains is what you saw yesterday.

                  [1] For the curious, I made one comment about defending individual rights and had at least two people immediately come out accusing me of being a crazy Christian/Republican (I'm far from it), and then my comments were buried in downvotes within an hour. I've since stopped posting on this sub for the most part.

                  [2] /r/Seattle also comes to mind. If you haven't been following for a few years it might be harder to see, but the downvote brigade has wildly swung back and forth between discussion-crushing support for personal freedoms or absolute adherence to populist/socialist mores. It is almost impossible to guess which group will prevail on a given day, but it absolutely stifles the informative/defensible discussions that generally characterise the PNW in meatspace.

                  [–]No_LotR_No_Life[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

                  ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

                  Thanks for the reply, and I'd agree when I thought of Libertarians I use to think far right and then it was just a stone throw away from the Tea Party.

                  [–][deleted] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

                  See Also: the huge number of downvotes I received just for that reply to you. It was, at best, a one-off theory and set of observations about our sub, and it has 3 downvotes and 2 upvotes. This is why I don't post here anymore. Reddiquite and nettiquite are dead.

                  [–]jaroo -5ポイント-4ポイント  (11子コメント)

                  ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

                  I figured most of the people behind the Cascadia independence movement were libertarians. I'm surprised to hear people argue for more government involvement on a Cascadia thread.

                  Don't people realize that government has been the source of our problems these days, not the solution?

                  People tend to forget that there are other ways to fix problems in society than turning to government to fix everything.

                  [–]NouberNouSeattle 9ポイント10ポイント  (10子コメント)

                  ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

                  No, bad government is the problem. Good government works.

                  Look at the Nordic countries.

                  [–]RPrevolution 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

                  ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

                  I'm guessing you believe in social contract theory?

                  [–]jaroo -1ポイント0ポイント  (5子コメント)

                  ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

                  Yes, good government works better than bad government...amazing how that happens.

                  So, do we just sit around in a police state and wait for government to get better, or do we limit its power and put our energy into things that will ACTUALLY work?

                  Replace "Nordic" with "wealthy, homogeneous, and small" and your statement remains true. The US is none of those things which is why it makes no sense to look to them as a model.

                  [–]filmnutsWashington 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

                  ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

                  So, do we just sit around in a police state

                  A police state isn't good government. And if you're talking about changing it, why not change it to good government, rather than reducing government? I don't see what your point here is.

                  Nobody is talking about the entire US. We're talking about Cascadia, a wealthy, relatively homogenous and small region.

                  [–]jaroo 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

                  ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

                  I would love to change it to a good government, but I don't see how that can happen as long as it has so much power as it does today. Our federal government has become increasingly militarized, secretive, authoritarian, and down right powerful. You can't change an institution like that---it won't let you. Why would it?

                  It's like trying to sail through a gale with all your sails up. Want to improve your course? Reef in your sails...it'll be much easier to steer.

                  [–]jaroo 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

                  ...or just jump in your life raft and escape....FREE CASCADIA!

                  [–]BrotherMagnetoSeattle -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

                  ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

                  Cascadia is wealthy, homogenous, and small. :)

                  E: FB

                  [–]jaroo 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

                  Small, yes. Wealthy? In parts. But it's certainly not homogeneous. Native Americans settled first, white homesteaders came on the Oregon Trail, Mexicans have been migrating north and south for hundreds of years, Chinese immigrants came in the 19th century by the thousands, Vietnamese by the hundreds of thousands after the war, Seattle was the first stop for many Japanese and Pacific Islanders, the Californians will never stop coming, and these days it seems to be mostly white college grads from the midwest flooding in.

                  Each have their own story, language, culture, and vision for their future.

                  In Nordic countries, walk down the street and you'll see families that are pretty much the same as your own. That makes it a lot easier to agree on how to govern, how to manage healthcare, and so on. In Cascadia, I think we need a much more libertarian, live and let-live approach, allowing people to coexist peacefully and productively without threatening the customs and habits of all the different groups we have here.