I remember Rush in the 1970s — I even have a couple of their albums (in vinyl, so no, I haven’t listened to them in probably 30 years), but they always annoyed me with that selfish Libertarian pseudo-intellectual crap.
In the Seventies, Peart rankled the rock press with an affinity for libertarian hero Ayn Rand — he cited her “genius” in liner notes, and critics promptly labeled Rush fascists. Rush’s breakthrough mini-rock opera, 1976’s 2112, is, in part, a riff on Rand’s sci-fi novel Anthem. There’s nothing wildly controversial about 2112’s pro-individuality message: It’s hard to imagine anyone siding with the bad guys who want to dictate “the words you read/The songs you sing/The pictures that give pleasure to your eyes.” But Rush’s earlier musical take on Rand, 1975’s unimaginatively titled “Anthem,” is more problematic, railing against the kind of generosity that Peart now routinely practices: “Begging hands and bleeding hearts will/Only cry out for more.” And “The Trees,” an allegorical power ballad about maples dooming a forest by agitating for “equal rights” with lofty oaks, was strident enough to convince a young Rand Paul that he had finally found a right-wing rock band.
But now…
Peart outgrew his Ayn Rand phase years ago, and now describes himself as a “bleeding-heart libertarian,” citing his trips to Africa as transformative. He claims to stand by the message of “The Trees,” but other than that, his bleeding-heart side seems dominant. Peart just became a U.S. citizen, and he is unlikely to vote for Rand Paul, or any Republican. Peart says that it’s “very obvious” that Paul “hates women and brown people” — and Rush sent a cease-and-desist order to get Paul to stop quoting “The Trees” in his speeches.
“For a person of my sensibility, you’re only left with the Democratic party,” says Peart, who also calls George W. Bush “an instrument of evil.” “If you’re a compassionate person at all. The whole health-care thing — denying mercy to suffering people? What? This is Christian?”
Peart himself is not a Christian, having doubted the existence of God since he was a small child: “I sang the hymns and I read the Bible stories, but I was always perplexed, like, ‘Really? Jesus wants you for a sunbeam? For a what?’ ” In explicitly atheistic songs like “Freewill,” he mocked those who “choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.” And 1991’s “Roll the Bones” posits a chillingly random cosmos, where unlucky children are “born only to suffer”: “We go out in the world and take our chances/Fate is just the weight of circumstances. . . . Why are we here?/Because we’re here/Roll the bones.”
<jaw drops>
OK, maybe I could listen to a Rush song or two now without suffering as much painful cognitive dissonance. They’re not high on my list of music I’d like to listen to, but I might be able to tolerate it for a bit.
Bonus! The libertarians at Reason are mildly distressed.
Neil Young: Sorry, Donald, But I Support Bernie Sanders
I’ve never liked Rush very much, and being a drum player myself, I’ve never been a fan of Peart either. Nice to know he changed his heart though. I didn’t know he was libertarian.
Yeah, I was a really strong critic of the Trees and Anthem when I was young, despite loving many of Rush’s songs. [I wouldn’t really have noticed Anthem, save that someone called my attention to it and pushed Rand’s book into my hand. I read the book and thought less of the song with every page.] Whatever I thought of Peart’s politics then, it was obviously he was skilled with words and I admired that.
I left Rush behind in my late teens, but I had heard quite a number of years ago that Peart had rejected Rand. I don’t remember when it was that I heard that, but probably before 2005. He’s had some serious tragedy: his wife and daughter (only child, I think?) both died. That was the late nineties. If he hadn’t given up Rand before then, I doubt his attachment to her philosophy lasted much longer than that.
If the lyrics aren’t your thing, ignore them: the music can be quite compelling and they are witty, unaffected people who love their fans. Alex’ Rock HOF speech is a classic.
Nice music compilation at the end of that link.
The story reminds me of something that happened at casa Giliell this morning. My youngest came dressed in her sister’s t-shirt. I asked her “did you ask your sister for permission?” She kissed me on the cheek. I sent her back to ask, and she came back wearing one of her own shirts. I understand it must be frustrating when all you get to use for political campaigns is Meatloaf, but you should behave better than a 5 year old who fancies her sister’s Ts.
I’ll write more when I have time, but there’s more awesomeness from Rush in their later works. The album Snakes & Arrows was largely about religion.
Lyrics from the song Faithless (btw, Peart writes all the lyrics for the band):
I’ve got my own moral compass to steer by
A guiding star beats a spirit in the sky
And all the preaching voices –
Empty vessels ring so loud
As they move among the crowd
Fools and thieves are well disguised
In the temple and market place
In the temple and market place
…
I don’t have faith in faith
I don’t believe in belief
You can call me faithless
You can call me faithless
But I still cling to hope
And I believe in love
And that’s faith enough for me
And that’s faith enough for me
davidgentile @ 4
I hate this attitude. There are only so many hours in one person’s lifetime. There just isn’t enough time to consume all the good music/art/movies/books/games/whatever. You have to make choices. If the thing that is a deal breaker for someone is that they find the lyrics objectionable, that’s just as legitimate a reason to give that group a pass as anything else you could name.
I love JRR Tolkien, but I disagree with his politics. Luckily, with Rush this whole Ayn Rand thing ended decades ago. I love their music, I will be at Madison Square Garden on June 29th, and I don’t care who knows it.
Snakes & Arrows is full of SJW goodness. Far Cry and The Larger Bowl also bear mentioning.
Psst. Over here. Yeah, uhh… I actually kind of enjoy Rush. Not so much the mid-70s overblown prog-epics like 2112, but more the 80s/early 90s new wave-esque Rush that made great tunes like “Subdivisions,” “Red Sector A,” and “Ghost of a Chance.” Maybe it has to do with growing up in Buffalo, where Rush are virtually a religion of their own. But even an aging-hipster-indie-punk like me has secret Rush CDs in his collection.
Reading the comments at Reason are depressing. Were libertarians always little more than right-wing nuts with delusions of intellectual supremacy?
My infatuation with Rush pretty much ended after their first album, before Neil Peart joined the band. “Working Man” is a great little hard rock anthem and the whole record is raw and bursting with energy. Sure, Peart can play 27/5 time, but his technical wankery makes everything after, say, A Farewell To Kings unlistenable. And in conclusion, everyone can just get the hell off my lawn.
zibble @11
Another definition of libertarian is a conservative who wants to smoke pot.
I’m glad he left Rand behind. Really, I think it was much farther back than most give him credit for. The number of songs he’s written exhorting altruistic ideals far outnumber anything he’s written that might be called “objectivist” or libertarian. And certainly more recent songs like “The Larger Bowl” (and the things he’s said regarding hunger and charity) show how far he’s evolved on these kinds of issues, and that he values compassion as a high ideal.
zibble: Yes. I’ve been listening to libertarian bullshit since I was 18 (1978), and I have no idea why any reasonable person — or even any person just TRYING to be reasonable — would ever fall for any of that horseshit.
As for Rush’s lyrics, what few I listened to (“2112” and “A Farewell to Kings”) didn’t seem all that overtly “libertarian,” just the kind of generic romanticism, individualism and anti-authoritarianism that normally appeals to teenagers pushing boundaries. I never heard “The Trees,” but from what’s been said here, it sounds laughably asinine. And the anti-religion lyrics I’ve seen quoted here are rather…unimpressive, as in nothing I hadn’t heard before.
I first learned about Ayn Rand through Rush, and some of their early material like “Anthem” does rub me the wrong way (though Geddy Lee’s voice was so high-pitched way back when that you could barely make out a damn thing he was singing anyway). But they grew both musically and lyrically over the years, and there are more than enough themes in their post-1981 songs and albums to make any Randroid cry.
My interest in Rush has ebbed up and down over the years. Nowadays, I’ve reached peace and I’m ready to defend Peart, Lifeson, and Lee for their parts in one of the most creative, enduring, and entertaining bands in the world.
I discovered Rush at about 16 or so, about the time I discovered Rand. Somewhere between Spirit of Radio and Tom Sawyer. Still love both of those, and many from their whole catalog. I outgrew Rand and libertarianism a long time ago, but Rush still rocks. As others have said, their later catalog is very good.
I started listening to Rush because I was told it was a prog-rock group. It’s hard for me to understand the lyrics for most of their songs. My “gateway” song was the video for “Malignant Narcissism”, an instrumental piece. The video was an illustration of a growing tree with the branches being marked as different religions. There was a tree for the ancient religions, one for the eastern religions, and one for the Abramic religions (that started with an apple). Then at the end there’s a lumberjack with a huge chainsaw with the facial expression of “OK, let’s go to work.” I just mostly like their music and guitar skills. Maybe I should take a closer look at the lyrics.
I guess it’s understandable (though not acceptable) that when you’re young, strong, privileged, and ambitious that you would be selfish. As you get older, you realize that the really selfish thing to do is help others so that we create a better society for everyone to live in, because each individual will also tend to benefit. Goodness is not a zero-sum proposition, that for one person to get better another person has to suffer. We must try to create a rising tide that lifts all boats. If a few at the top must live with 10 yachts instead of 12 yachts, that’s just a “hardship” that they will have to bear. As Elizabeth Warren points out, no one is successful on their own.
There are only two types of Libertarians. The shills who oppose “government meddling” in form of business regulation so that their corporate masters can more easily continue their project of restratifying society into a pyramidal, neo-feudal configuration with them at the top, and the racists who oppose “government meddling” in form of anti-discrimination laws so they can one fine day start hanging brown people again.
@20 applehead
I think the first group might be better described as people who generally believe they can reason their way out of having any obligation to be a decent person.
I think you also overlooked a third group, which are the people who might generally be considered politically liberal, except they think anything from 9/11 to AIDS was a government conspiracy, so naturally we’re better off without a government of any kind.
@7: I think they are just saying that, if you ignore the lyrics, there is still a lot of artistic value. It is up to you whether or not that is worth your time. It’s not a call that you MUST IGNORE THEM AND LISTEN. No where did #4 say that not listening to music for distaste of lyrics was wrong or bad or that someone must do otherwise. Christ.
I never really pay much attention to the lyrics of a song until I really get into it. I grew up playing the guitar, and so I listen more to the instruments than the singer. Not that I ignore the singer altogether, I just listen to how the singer sings, and the notes he/she sings more than the words. That’s why I guess I like Eddie Vedder so much. He sings with passion, but you can’t understand a word he says, and I don’t care.
Anyway, this is why I’m conflicted about “The Trees”. I fell in love with the classical guitar opening, and how the slowly it built up by adding Lee and his bass, and then the energy explodes when Peart comes in. Then I paid attention to the lyrics. Now when I hear the song, I specifically pay attention to the music, and try to ignore the stupid things the lyrics say.
The lyrics of the Canadian National Anthem make a lot more sense now…
@Seven of Mine #7, Matt #22 got my point. I understand Seven’s point and sometimes, but not always, follow that logic. Many songs are ear candy with misunderstood or even unintelligible lyrics: Born in the USA and Every Breath She Takes are the former, Pumped Up Kicks the latter.
I seem to recall Peart saying recently “Ayn Rand is the kind of writer who seems really deep when you’re 20 years old”. Ouch!
I’m placing a skeptical “Camera Eye” on Neil Peart’s alleged libertarianism given his statement on healthcare. All 3 of the band members have benefited from universal healthcare in Canada. I recall seeing a video of a young Alex Lifeson in the early 70s arguing with his working class parents. He was ditching college to join some band called Rush. Imagine if his struggling family was instead in the US without the Canadian safety nets.
That being said, I don’t think it’s their politics is what’s controversial. They are a prog rock band. Some can’t stand Geddy Lee’s screeching voice but most don’t like 2112 for the same reasons they hate “Close to the Edge” or “Gates of Delirium” by Yes. Or “Supper’s Ready” by Genesis. They hate the sheer length of those songs. Personally I’m a die hard prog rock fan and totally engrossed by Rush, Yes, Pink Floyd, King Crimson, etc…
And I just saw Rush in Detroit as part of their 40th anniversary tour. They were quite awesome. And sitting beside me was a woman wearing an “Occupy Wall Street” t-shirt. Oh, the irony! A like-minded liberal belting out individualist lyrics “We are the priests of the Temples of Syrinx!!!” along with the rest of us. But whatever your political stance, “one likes to believe in the freedom of music”.
I never really heard Rush in their Randian phase, so find it kinda hard to dislike them much for it, now, if this was really a youthful dalliance. A lot of people seem to think Rand is brilliant if they come across her young enough. And then grow out of it. I’m probably lucky I only got to her by my mid-20s or so; I’ve no idea what I’d have made of her earlier (as it was, I found her a) turgid and b) toxic).
… Funny thought, or I guess funny to me: there’s a few oft-quoted variations around on the notion that progressive politics are something people grow out of. Not so as I’ve observed. Or not at all universally. Nor is Peart’s growing up at all the only exhibit. Maybe it’s that I lived through the 80s, when there were more than a few non-fiction Alex Keatons around, but, on the contrary, I’ve come to think of red suspenders more as the thing you’ll later wish they had fewer pictures of you wearing.
(/On Rush more generally, honestly, I’ve never much got the appeal. Can’t say I dislike them, exactly, just always found their sound a bit bland. The odd song was a bit catchy, I guess. And I think I’ve one thing on tape, somewhere, assuming it hasn’t turned into Queen, as I’m told all cassettes eventually do, if left in the sun on the dash of a car. Hoping this sentiment doesn’t get my citizenship revoked or something.)
ragdish @27
A woman at a Rush concert? You’re making that up!
joel @29
Yes indeed, Joel. In fact, there were several women, people of different ages and even folks with their grandchildren at this gig. It is truly a mark of progress when all genders sing together in a deep voice “Subdivisions!”.
I grew up in Canada and always loved Rush — especially their Subdivisions song, which came out when I was a young lass in high school. Good to see that Peart has figured out American politics. The Democratic party may not be perfect (certainly not as liberal as some of the left wing parties in Canada), but it’s far better than the Republican party, which in my opinion is downright scary if you’re a minority (racial, religious or sexual). I don’t want any of the Clown Car Occupants anywhere near the White House.
I always thought this was the Canadian National Anthem.
Yeah, Rush grew out of the libertarian thing ages ago. Everybody reads Anthem as a teenager and thinks it’s the coolest thing. And then they pick up the Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged and most realize what bullshit they are a couple of chapters in. They briefly touch on it in the Behind the Lighted Stagedocumentary, and there’s a few interviews on YouTube that get into it a bit more.
Just saw them here in Tampa a couple of weeks ago. If you like even just one or two songs of theirs, I recommend going to a show if you can. They’re playing great, great production. Gives me goosebumps every time 15,000 of my closest friends and I shout along to the 2112 Overture or sing Closer to the Heart together. Last few tours I’ve been to, it’s been so cool seeing more and more families at shows. Anyway, go if you can, it’s likely to be their last tour, largely due to Alex’s arthritis. They sound like they’ll still record together when ever they get the itch, and aren’t saying they’ll never play live again, but health issues for Alex and Neil and all 3 wanting to spend more time with family make me doubt we’ll see another major tour. Maybe a 50th anniversary show or three, but I doubt much more. Really wish I had the money to fly up to a Toronto show or out to L.A. for the final one.
Anyway, here’s a pic of Alex reading Hitch.
Peart’s books were good. I’m sure Africa was an eye opener for him. He was doing a rough country bicycle tour with less than luxurious digs, then after seeing all that joined his family in Paris. That kind of culture shock, for a thinking person, drives home the role of happenstance in life, since I’m sure he realized not everyone could just leave back country Africa for a fancy Paris hotel, not being rich rock stars. Losing both his child and his wife soon after probably also drove home the role of pure dumb luck – good and bad – in life. Once you have that in mind, you can’t be a libertarian.
I also love the fact that Reason just can’t bring itself to admit that the Pauls are racists. I have no problem with saying that Christopher Hitchens was both a clever writer and talker who often made a good showing for atheism and a war-mongering misogynist shithead. People rarely are just what you wish.
“a young Rand Paul … had finally found a right-wing rock band”
Remarkable. At that time I also was young and I thought the lyrics quite funny – but nothing more than that. No profound political message or something.
Btw the lyrics of Witch Hunt are quite anti right-wing. I mean
“Quick to judge
Quick to anger
Slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice
And fear walk hand in hand…”
seems to me like written with Rand Paul in mind ….
Alverant
Thanks for pointing out “Malignant Narcissism”, I hadn’t seen it. I haven’t listened to anything they’ve done in years.
I was Rush fan in the late 80s because the “cool” older kids in the Methodist youth group liked them. Better than any christian band they were listening to. Anyone remember DC Talk? Saw them on tour for Roll the Bones and the “why are we here? because we’re here” was just when I was seeing through the bullshit of the church.
Also, agree that The Trees is a great listen, even if the lyrics sound like a reactionary on Fox News.
A lot of people go through a libertarian phase. I never did, but it’s common enough.
I’m not old enough to remember Rush from the ’70s, but I’ve been listening casually since the ’90s, and I’ve always liked the band.
Rand, on the other hand, always struck me as vacuous.
“Spirit of Radio” is one of the best songs ever.
I was ridiculously into Rush in middle school and high school, like 1992-1997. I made a point of buying all their albums on both CD and vinyl when record companies weren’t even making vinyl for a while. At least the ones that existed on both. I found them so incredibly profound and moving and couldn’t stop going on about them. It was one of the things that made even other geeks, especially the boys, bully me. Everyone else was either really into Metallica, Garth Brooks, Snoop Dogg, or the Spice Girls. It was really divided into subcultural camps where the music you listened to and the cloths you wore were tribal markers and I didn’t fit into any group. I thought all their songs were about being an alienated nerd with the world against you, which really spoke to me back then, but now that narrative is a Big Red Flag for MRAs and the like. I somehow totally misinterpreted “The Trees.” I honestly thought the oaks were supposed to be the bad guys. I thought it was pro-revolution for the maples. When I got older I even thought the maples and oaks were metaphors for Canada and Britain. Now I look back and realize I was way off, and the listener was supposed to look at the oaks being cut down as a bad thing. I was always a little sad that it was oak trees and not bullying people being cut down, but I literally upon reading this post just realized that they used trees as a metaphor because it appeals to environmental sensibilities by trying to make the listener feel upset about oak trees being cut down. I like my interpretation better, though. Death of the author and all that.
@Tom Weiss, #39:
In practical terms, big-L American Libertarians and Fascists as defined by Benito Mussolini are not really all that different. Libertarians want to abolish all restraint against the rich, effectively turning every single citizen into a pawn of large corporations which they would be totally unable to resist, while Fascism-as-defined meant merging the government with large corporations. The only difference is what shows up on the stationery, the policies and the outcomes would be the same.
This is why thinking people tend to dismiss Libertarians as nitwits; in any theoretical world where people are nice enough and efficient enough for Libertarianism to be a practical theory, people would be so nice and so efficient that any configuration of society would be acceptable — Libertarianism assumes that nobody will break certain unwritten rules of behavior, and those rules would mean that even a dictator would necessarily be a decent human being and their dictatorship would be a utopia.
Blockquote fail, of course. I trust it’s obvious where the tag was supposed to end…
In the eighties I was an anarchist. I guess that’s pretty close to libertarian, except that I did care for social justice.
Hey ragdish another die-hard prog fan here!
I had noticed that the later Rush stuff was still defiantly atheist, but with a much more humanitarian slant.
BTW, have you listened to any Porcupine Tree/Steven Wilson?
Anarchism is just libertarianism for the alternative scene rather than the mainstream.
Where libertopians target sheltered, overprivileged/-entitled teens by providing a handy-dandy rationalization for their repulsive selfishness, anarchists target fair trade goods buyers, hemp clothes wearers and all kinds of societal rebels, wannabe or genuine, by providing a rationalization for their anomie.
Both, however, ultimately serve to reinforce the status quo. Anarchism only breeds political apathy, and that benefits the very elites anarchists like to think they struggle against.
@applehead #46
You put it excellently but I don’t think it’s true. As an anarchist I was far from political apathetic. I was more the Occupy kind of guy (though no movement of that name existed back then) and so were my friends. I’d call myself more apathetic today.
I wish more writers would understand that fascists and libertarians are political opposites.
No, they’re really not. If you read a sample of early fascist literature (mostly Italian, with one famous German exception), as I did in high school, you’d see the similarities with both Ayn Rand’s rhetoric and the obvious agendas of other prominent libertarians.
Libertarians use a lot of “individualist” rhetoric to oppose all forms of collective progress or problem-solving — just like the European fascists, who ridiculed democratic governments and rule of law as a bunch of useless gasbags talking and compromising and making deals and shackling strong young superheroes from taking bold action to cut out the dead wood and get the trains to run on time. The only difference between US libertarians and European fascists is the nationalist myths and stereotypes to which they pander.
…Both, however, ultimately serve to reinforce the status quo. Anarchism only breeds political apathy…
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that anarchism breeds political paralysis, because it already rejects the only tool known to have any effect on global social problems: vigorous collective action led by powerful democratic governments.
As an anarchist I was far from political apathetic. I was more the Occupy kind of guy (though no movement of that name existed back then) and so were my friends. I’d call myself more apathetic today.
And your anarchist movement failed to achieve most of its objectives because it was anarchistic and lacked effective leadership and organizational advantage or continuity. Perhaps that’s why you’ve become more apathetic since then.
What an interesting – and completely wrong – way to think about it. (What exactly does “abolish all restraint against the rich” mean btw??) Wikipedia describes fascism as “a form of reactionary authoritarian nationalism.” Mussolini and Hitler were all about government authoritarianism and control – to the extent they partnered with industry, it was still the government who was in control. This is anathema to all small or big L libertarians today who err on the side of less government control and more freedom.
Libertarians today do not want to merge government with large corporations, quite the opposite actually. Many libertarians rail against the ever-growing regulatory state which works to the benefit of large corporations at the expense of small upstarts. Corporations want to limit their potential competition, and they gladly hop into bed with government regulators for the point of increasing barriers to market entry. If you want a look at a Party which is in bed with large corporations, look to the Democratic Party – although to be fair the Republicans have their share of corporation men too. There’s a reason the Clinton’s make $25 million a year giving speeches, she might just be in a position to hand out political favors in a couple years.
So you may think libertarians are nitwits, but you’ll have to come up with another reason. You’re completely mis-representing their views.
Libertarians don’t oppose all forms of collective progress (another intesting turn of phrase) but they do oppose most of the ones forces upon us by government, preferring to let the private sector work things out most of the time. Facscists are exactly as you describe – “taking bold action” to “get the trains to run on time” by using the coercive power of government. Once again, fascism is “authoritarian” and libertarians are anything but.
Think about Hitler or Mussolini as libertarians – laughable! Hitler would still have hated Jews but if he philosophically opposed using the power of government for coercive ends he couldn’t have rounded the Jews up. And Mussolini, for his love of efficiency, would have outsourced the Italian rail system to a private company to get the trains to run on time!
I was a libertarian once, in my foolish youth. Though even then I had my limits–one time I was expounding my philosophy to a co-worker and she said, “have you read Ayn Rand? I think you’d like Objectivism.” I said, “hey now, I do have some morals!”
But I eventually grew up and realized that the better off my neighbors are, the better off I will be. Contrary to what libertarians claim to believe, human beings are social animals, and the welfare of one of us (even the “least” of us) contributes to the welfare of all. Therefore, it is in all our best interests to collaborate and share the resources of all planet. Libertarians want to grab all they can and screw over everyone they can, not realizing that their Galt-ian paradise would quickly mean their own demise.
But then, I’m a radical–I think every human being deserves enough food to eat, a decent place to live, and a decent education, and I’m willing to pay my share to help make that happen. Apparently that makes me evil.
Tom Weiss @ 50
It’s fascinating how libertarians define “freedom” as “unrestricted control of personal property”. As opposed to, say, “having a voice in government” or “not having to scrabble for starvation wages” or “being protected from institutionalized discrimination”.
Correct. They want the corporations in control of the government, instead. Except for the anarcho-capitalists, who want corporations to be the government.
And you think that removing any checks on their power at all (except for the allmighty Invisible Hand of the Free Market, of course) will increase competition and decrease barriers to entry?
Tom W~~~ @50 wrote:
hmmm, good to know. _You_ can barely see the “corporation men” in the Republican party. Seems the Kochs are just a token of the corporate aspect of Rethuglica.
I must admit, I see the exact opposite status. That corporate influence on politics is exemplified by the Rethuglican Party, the Demoducks have their “fair share” as well, and are much less influential in the Demoduck Party (where the motivation is to just party on)
Wikipedia describes fascism as “a form of reactionary authoritarian nationalism.”
Yes, and practically all of the interest-groups who support libertarianism are reactionary, authoritarian, and nationalistic. Examples include (but are not limited to) “states’ rights” segregationists, opponents of Roe vs. Wade, southern nationalists, anti-government survivalist militia wingnuts, anti-environmentalists, anti-tax activists, anti-regulation activists, and opponents of nearly every effort by the national government to fight discrimination, improve quality of life, or enhance individual liberty. That’s why libertarians are consistently joined at the hip with that other overtly fascist party, the Republicans.
Seriously, libertarians’ interpretation of the Constitution is not at all different from Michele Bachmann’s: a Federal government so small and underfunded that it can’t even enforce the US Constitution on US soil.
…all small or big L libertarians today who err on the side of less government control and more freedom.
Experience proves that those two things do NOT go together. In fact, EVERY major advance in human liberty and prosperity has been accomplished with the indispensable intervention of a government, from the writing of the Bill of Rights, to the abolition of slavery, to rural electrification, to the crushing of Nazism, to the advancements of women’s and minority rights since WW-II, to public education for all, to that wondrous thing that used to be called ARPANET. Show me any country, anywhere on Earth, where the people are freer than ours with LESS government than we have.
Libertarians don’t oppose all forms of collective progress (another intesting turn of phrase) but they do oppose most of the ones forces upon us by government, preferring to let the private sector work things out most of the time.
Right — libertarians don’t oppose all forms of collective progress, just the ones that are known to work.
#34 – Ah, but Hitchens was only a war monger once the Iraq nonsense started. Until then, he was vehemently anti-imperialist and anti-war. I think 9/11 made some people go crazy, especially since it was coupled by fear about a virulent religion’s ascendancy. I don’t believe that he was misogynist, though, just sexist. He could be so annoying about how women didn’t have a sense of humor – that sort of thing. But he’d never write a “Dear Muslima” letter, as Dawkins did. Hitchens wasn’t clueless.
As far as Ayn Rand goes, when I was a librarian, I loosely grouped students. The Rand group was always loaded with socially inept and awkward boys, possibly because they wanted to be men who wouldn’t need to depend on anyone else. They’d riffle through The Fountainhead, asking my opinion, to which I’d reply, “Read it to see for yourself.” When they returned the book, nearly all of them were excited that I’d recommended it, which I hadn’t. If they came back to visit after a year or two of college, they wondered why they’d ever liked it. Having studied fine novels, they’d realized what a god-awful writer and lazy thinker Rand was.
Jonathan Yardley wrote a piece in the Washington Post on Catcher in the Rye, titled in part, “Holden Caulfield, Aging Gracelessly.” After re-reading it as an adult, Yardley was amazed that his young self had loved it so much. He wrote, “The combination of Salinger’s execrable prose and Caulfield’s jejune narcissism produced effects comparable to mainlining castor oil.” Thank god for grown men.
Both books can be a lifeline to boys; neither should be admired by men.
What I came to say is that there’s a test called The Political Compass; you can find it here: http://www.politicalcompass.org/.
It’s well-known enough that many of you have probably taken it. In the U.S., libertarianism is viewed as solely a right-wing phenomenon, but there’s a left-wing libertarian school of thought, too. Because of extremists on the right, we don’t see that here. (Hell, someone as centrist as Bill Clinton is called a liberal. A politician who’s not especially liberal, Barack Obama, is called a socialist. )
It’s likely that Peart has had a change of heart. Given the tragedies in his life, I hope this isn’t just a another phase. But If he reads some “execrable prose” again, we might in for lyrics inspired by Leviticus.
Tom Weiss@50,
Very, very simple: slash taxation, remove regulations protecting the environment, employees and consumers, allow unlimited personal and corporate donations to political campaigns, slash welfare so people have to take shitty jobs at poverty wages. You know – what libertarians want.
What complete bilge you are talking is very easy to see by a glance at the American political scene, where you see libertarians in close alliance with theocratic proto-fascists in the Republican Party.
Have any actual evidence for these claims? This list of major donors indicates that your second claim is complete crap: the big donors to the Democrats are mostly unions, while the largest corporate donors either give roughly equally to both major parties, or predominantly to the Republicans. As for regulations, corporations will support them when doing so is profitable, and oppose them when they would cut profits. The tobacco industry has spent decades fighting constraints on smoking, the fossil fuel industries campaigning against anti-pollution measures and any action to limit carbon emissions. In addition to their direct political donations, big corporations (and mega-rich individuals) make big donations to libertarian “think-tanks” – just look at the Koch brothers, Richard Mellon Scaife, Peter Thiel, etc.
Minor nit-pick perhaps, but this caught my eye:
Would it be less chilling if the children suffered because god had personally decided they should? Wouldn’t that just mean that there was no hope of ever changing things?
Why not? Private groups can kill people just as well as state groups. The brown shirts existed, and engaged in politically motivated violence, years before they became an official state organization.
I take it you have never heard of the extensive history of anti-Jewish pogroms in mediaeval Europe… Or, for that matter, lynching in the US. Or the Rwandan genocide. Or the People’s Crusade. I could go on… Non-state actors are perfectly capable of doing terrible things, and people are perfectly capable of organising themselves in large numbers independently of government.
Regarding the OP, I love me some Rush, but even as a teenager, I don’t think I was quite foolish enough to base my politics on my musical tastes.
We’re getting into the “positive rights” discussion here, where “freedom” doesn’t actually mean “freedom” becuase how can I enjoy freedom if I don’t have a cell phone and a big screen TV. A bit off topic from my “libertarians aren’t fascists” point, although in another sense you are helping me make that point.
Wrong. Libertarians want government to do very specific things. Here’s an introduction: http://www.libertarianism.org/media/exploring-liberty/introduction-libertarian-thought
Do you argue with eveyone the same way? Without bothering to learn what their arguments actually are?
You’re missing the point. Regulations are not checks on corporations power – they, at least in part, ADD to a corporation’s power. Any regulation which increases the barriers to entry or increases the cost of regulatory compliance shrinks the potential field of competitors. The less competiton, the less innovation a company has to do which equates to less value for the consumer. The taxi industry is HIGHLY regulated and in most cities it is a monopoly – a government created monopoly. Uber is threatening that monopoly by offering a better product for the same/similar rates (except in specific situations). Think of the old taxi model as representative of Democrats and some Republicans, then think of Uber as libertarian, and you’ll about have it right.
But again – none of what either you or I are describing is fascistic. It’s not possible to lump libertarians and fascists together without a whole bunch of dishonesty.
I wonder if you’ve looked into what the Kochs actually believe. A lot of their political arguments would – like a lot of libertarian arguments – work against their business interests.
That’s a mouthful. To begin with, libertarians are the antithesis of “authoritarian.” You can keep using that word, but it doesn’t mean what you think it means. Republicans are closer to libertarians than Democrats are, but Republicans are ok with using state power for their own ends in certain situations. Democrats are all for expading the coersive power of the state in almost every direction – which means under this construct it is Democrats who are the closest to fascist. We can have a debate about the legitimate role for government in all of the other things you mention, but my guess is a libertarian would err on the side of freedom in almost every case and you would err on the side of more authoritarian federal government power.
This, I fear, is the root of your problem. Libertarians don’t want anarchy. A strong central government is as indespensible to their philosophy as it is to progressives. The difference lies in what that government does.
Now to your specific points – the Bill of Rights was written by people who revolted against a tyrannous government. And as it stands progressives generally dislike the document as written and want to change it – indeed every Democrat in the Senate voted to change the First Amendment last year, and from our previous discussions I know you want to change or abolish the Second.
Your littany of things which to you are “bad” would find at least some common ground with a libertarian. The main difference between a libertarian world and a progressive one is not the ends – both groups of people generally want similar things – it is who holds the power. Progressives are ok with government holding all of that power and libertarians are very skeptical of government, for good reason in my mind.
I also have to address your ARPANET fallacy…sure what we today call the internet was once a government research program. So what? Government had almost no say in how the technology was used when it became massively popular and the internet has been treated, until very recently, with libertarian kid gloves. That’s why a place like this can exist without regulation – PZ can do whatever the hell he wants with this site and no one – certainly in government – is going to tell him any different. This has been a good thing! The chaotic internet self orders – as if some invisible hand were guiding the process.
The best thing the government ever did was get the hell out of controlling the internet.
But, again, we’re way off the topic. But from the discussion it should be abundantly clear that libertarians are nowhere near the fascists you claim they are.
Hahahahahahahahaha! Good one! You should work that up into a stand-up routine. You’d have them rolling in the aisles!
The Koch brothers’ biggest interests are in the oil industry. Their biggest political activity is funding lies about climate change by the Heritage Foundation, the Cato “Institute”, and Americans for Prosperity. They were instrumental (through Americans for Prosperity, which also funds the “Tea Party” movement), they influenced more than 400 members of Congress to sign a pledge to vote against climate change legislation that does not include equivalent tax cuts. They have funded the union-busting Scott walker, efforts to reduce minimum wages in multiple states, and reports claiming Social Security is on the brink of collapse. They are, in short, limitlessly greedy, selfish liars – or libertarians, to put it more briefly.
This is remarkable: 61 comments discussing Rush, and no one has yet mentioned their biggest hit. “Spirit of the Radio” has been mentioned, “The Trees”, “Malignant Narcissism”, “Subdivisions”, “Working Man”, “Witch Hunt”, and several others. But not The Big One. Interesting.
@56 Nick
The numbers you cite cover “employees of the organization, its PAC and in some cases its own treasury.” As such it is not a strict indicator of how “left” or “right” a company is. However some are faily obvious, like Tom Steyer’s organization at #5 on that list – also interesting that all of his spending took place during the last election cycle, enough to take him to that position on the all-time list.
http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/deepening-divide-between-republicans-and-democrats-over-business-regulation/
So progressives like more regulation and libertarians like less regulation. This isn’t news, but my point is that “less regulation” isn’t necessarily the position a specific business would take. Why? Because less regulation opens the door to more competition, and the first priority of a business is to stay in business, not to make more money. The more barriers to entry, the higher the cost of regulatory compliance, the less competition. Some republicans are just as bad as democrats on this issue, but if Democrats were indeed the party “fighting against big business” then why would the left receive ANY donations from Comcast, for example, instead of the 53% they received in 2014.
Here’s the larger point – the more powerful the government, the more money corporations will pay to curry favor with that government. The progressive platform guarantees that big money will stay in politics because it would expand upon the regulatory system we have right now. The only way to get big money out of politics is to lessen the power of the government. Apple’s CEO doesn’t get $25 mil a year in speaking fees, the Clintons do because they have – or she has the potential to have – a hell of a lot more power.
And one more time, none of this sounds fascistic, which was my original point.
Speaking of Rush (this thread is about Rush, eh?) Having not been much of a fan at all (barely aware of them, actually), the only vague memory of the Rush name I have was as a band that did a song for The Great White North for five bucks (or somethin). I know I should Google it myself but it seems more friendly to ask people to answer my question, rather than that intertubez software thingy.
@61 Nick – How off topic are we now? We went from fascists to “greedy liars.” I guess I can call that a win.
Speaking of greedy, progressives never seem to understand Adam Smith’s insight that humans desire to “be loved, and to be lovely.” The Kochs, for example, are very large philanthropists, when they’re allowed to be that is. Some small minded folk give them back their donations because they don’t like their politics.
In terms of climate change – the only thing that will threaten their pipeline or refining business is a new type of energy humans haven’t discovered yet. Current renewable technologies – even if the US completely switched to them tomorrow – would not make a dent in climate change projections. China is already producing more CO2 than anyone on the planet and India won’t be far behind. No this is what I had in mind when I made the statement I did: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/12/corporate-good-guy-of-the-week-koch-industries.php
They oppose subsidies even when they would directly profit if they utilized them.
The Kochs want someone to invent the thing that will replace oil. They think we should be discussing public polices which promote innovation and incentivize this kind of discovery, instead of subsidizing old, tired solutions which really aren’t solutions at all.
I have no idea what Scott Walker has to do with your argument, or social security. But once again I notice that you’re not calling libertarians fascist anymore, so my work might be done for the day.
pffft, so credible, when the industry under discussion is a small subsidiary of theirs, that if grown much larger (multiplayerwise) could wipe out their profits from their oil businesses. And why they are so opposed to alternate energy sources, even if they sold a few wind turbines and solar panels here and there, and got subsidies from the feds. I dispute their “good guy” status, as ‘opposing guv subsidies as subsidies, even if they benefit’.
I’m still blinded by the attitude that they are protectionists who are dependent on the flow of oil, to increase the cash flow into their pockets.
citation please
citation please
? such as solar and wind? old and tired?
Just because China and India are polluting more than us, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t look for an alternative to offer them instead of just telling them “STOP IT”.
Yes, the problem is very far along, maybe we’re too late to stop the climatechange, but maybe we can slow down our contribution and get a little more time before flooding every coastal city, and California’s drought sweep across the Bread Basket.
No one needs millions, much less billions, of dollars. And frankly, no one deserves such obscene wealth, especially since all such wealth is founded on stolen land and stolen work.
Justice demands that resources be allocated fairly and evenly among the populace. Income derived from the exploitation of resources (whether natural–oil,coal, whatever–or labor) should be likewise fairly allocated. No one became a billionaire solely through their own labor. Everyone, ultimately, shares in the burdens of society, and everyone should reap the rewards.
Unfortunately, far too many people still think they have a shot at becoming one of the elite few, and so they selfishly adopt philosophies such as libertarianism. Of course, they are wrong–only the tiniest percentage of humans will ever be lucky enough to share in the wealth–but they don’t seem to realize this. The “American Dream” is nothing more than an illusion fostered by the ruling class to blind the working class (and, formerly, the middle class, before it got wiped out) to their true situation.
@Raging Bee #49 – Too much honor. My friends and I really did not deserve the term “movement”.
P.S. On second thought, apathetic is not the right word. I don’t go protesting on the streets anymore but I still try to make the world a better place by means that we usually do not call “political”. For example, my job is at a grass root organization where people with mental illnesses are working to improve their lives. This may contribute more to my ideals than engaging in politics.
Tom@60: “Regulations are not checks on corporations power – they, at least in part, ADD to a corporation’s power. Any regulation which increases the barriers to entry or increases the cost of regulatory compliance shrinks the potential field of competitors. The less competiton, the less innovation a company has to do which equates to less value for the consumer.”
This is flatly wrong. Regulations preventing corporations from dumping toxic compounds into the air or water do not add to their power, nor do they result in less innovation, nor do they equate to less value for the consumer? In fact, those regulations do the exact opposite of what you claim.
Libertarian-ism is often summed up as “Your right to swing your fist ends at someone else’s nose”. What many, if not most, of them forget is how far that deregulated corporate fist really swings, and how many get hurt by it.
Tom @65: “Current renewable technologies – even if the US completely switched to them tomorrow – would not make a dent in climate change projections.”
Source? Which projections under which scenarios? From what I know, we are committed to the current warming for the next several decades even if we switched now due to the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere and transport between air/ocean. However, significant reductions in emissions now would result in effects realized after those several decades that would certainly diverge from projections based on higher emissions scenarios. What you said is one of those things supported by misinformation by organizations like those supported by the Kochs.
Ah, yet another illustration of why it’s pointless to argue with a Libertarian. In Tom Weiss’ world, history does not exist (or else we would have to admit that Libertarian policy has already failed, repeatedly, every time it has been tried), corporations do not seek profits at anyone’s expense, and somehow a group which is created for private profit is more considerate of the rights of other people than a government for which those people vote. It’s easy to see why people like the Koch brothers or Ron Paul would encourage big-L Libertarianism — they’re laughing all the way to the bank. But with people like Tom Weiss it’s less obvious. Does he really believe that the world he lives in — where governments have to enforce building codes, health codes, lower limits on wages, and educational standards because private industry sure as hell won’t, and where essentially all infrastructure was created by and maintained by government because private industry never would — would somehow be better if all those things vanished? Is he delusional, or just a fool? (Or is he possibly getting paid to keep on posting — oddly enough, Cracked keeps publishing articles by people who are employed to do just that, and it’s always always always on behalf of the large, corporate rich.)
And, as usual, Tom doesn’t believe that rich people would ever seek to hurt others. And if they did, he would say (trust me, I’ve talked with Libertarians before) then it would be okay for people to organize a way to stop that. Of course, in order to be effective, it would have to be permanent employment for some people, otherwise every time someone was under threat of violence they would have to wait while everyone put things together. And such a thing would require funding — most efficiently provided by annual charges. An interesting idea! We could call them “police”, and the charges “taxes”! And to try to avoid hurting people with this system, we could have people who know a lot about the history of crime and what is considered appropriate punishment — we could call them “judges”! And when food producers are too lax about keeping their food clean, we could have “health inspectors” who enforce “health and safety regulations” and are also paid for by these mysterious “taxes”! And to deal with fires, which are unavoidable, we could have a “fire department”! And when, as people do despite the best efforts of Libertarians, there is a call to protect the poor and the elderly, we could have “social services” and “case workers”! And to protect the country as a whole, we could have an army, and… and…
It would all work, and be totally, totally different from those nasty old “Governments” we have now.
Basically, the system Libertarians want, in which government is effectively abolished, is the longest and most painful path between having a government and having a government, forcing everything to be reinvented after people are hurt by removing the damn things in the first place.
I’ve loved Rush since I was 15, and have seen them live twice…amazing band, decent people…the pinnacle of Canadian rock music. I’m not surprised at all that an intelligent guy like Peart would grow out of Ayn Rand’s bullshit philosophy. I confess to have gone through an identical phase in my late teens; now, I look back at myself and wonder how I could be so blind.
Libertarianism is based on the fallacy that people deserve what they earn (to what degree this is believed to be true amongst Libertarians varies, but there is certainly a strain that sees 100% of a person’s success or failure as of their own making), and that therefore people should be free to do what they want with their money, with very few (some would say no) restrictions.
Reality indicates that not only are we subject to the randomness of life (where we are born, to whom and the opportunities we are therefore born to are all factors over which we have no control), a person’s worth (and potential contribution to their society) is more than their income. Capitalism simply doesn’t take all of the things a society needs to be stable, fair, and strong into account. We need regulation and taxation because people acting on their own, as they deem best, cannot possibly provide true equality of opportunity for all people, or find solutions to global problems like climate change. It is ironic (and very sad) that so many people who have seized opportunities and found monetary success (by virtue of having been born white males – usually – in stable, democratic countries, made so by socialist policies) are now arguing that we should tear down those very policies and halt the progress that we have made to afford similar opportunities to women and minorities.
I am still undecided about whether ultimately we have any actual free will (though I love the Rush song of the same title), but I know that at the very least, random chance is a massive contributor to the path our life will follow (Roll the Bones baby!). So I am very glad to hear that Neal Peart has long ago abandoned Objectivism and realized that he won the life lottery in being born in Canada (like me), a country that, while not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, at least is a stable democracy with a relatively strong social safety net that helps to give all of its citizens the opportunity to live their best life (though it is not nearly strong enough and has failed hundreds of thousands of native Canadians through the years). We need to be better, all of us, all over the world, to ensure that future generations will be able to enjoy a bountiful Earth, in societies that strive to provide equality to all of their citizens…Libertarianism is not a philosophy that will take us down this path.
I was wondering how long it would take a libertarian to show up. Tom Weiss is typical, trying to sell the idea that corporate feudalism guarantees freedom. What’s left unmentioned is that this freedom involves the majority of people living in crushing poverty while a tiny percentage controls the economy.
I’ll take government regulation over the freedom to starve in the gutter. Tom Weiss obviously thinks otherwise.
The problem with big-L Libertarianism can be summed up in six words: “All the freedom you can afford”. Most Libertarians don’t say that they want to fuck over the poor bastards on the low end of the economic scale… and I can believe that in most cases, they’re sincere about not wanting to fuck over poor folks… but regardless of whether “fuck the poor” is an explicitly stated goal of Libertarianism, a whole damn lot of the policies Libertarians advocate would, as a practical matter, have real-world consequences which end up fucking the poor just as badly as if “fuck the poor” really and truly was an explicit Libertarian goal.
Oh, we don’t need Government to do X, because private citizens can do X themselves—Sure, but “private citizens can do X themselves necessarily requires that “private citizens” have the resources to, you know, do X. Which means that poor folks are out of luck. One immediate Libertarian response would be Oh, but rich people can supply the resources to do X for the poor!—but this response ignores the brute historical fact that back before the evil, overreaching Government got into the business of doing X, rich people didn’t supply the resources to do X. So we’ve got good, empirical, historical reason to believe that for many Xs, the Government getting out of doing X will, in consequence, result in X not being done at all.
If human beings actually did behave the way they’d have to behave in order for Libertarianism to work, there would be no need to adopt Libertarianism to achieve its ostensible, stated goals.
Tom Weiss wrote:
This deserves a hearty “Fuck You”. How you get from “you ought to be able to vote, and not starve” to “you ought to be entitled to a big screen TV and fancy cell phone” as if the two things were even close to equal displays a shocking lack of sympathy for anyone but yourself.
And since your “Obamaphone” rhetoric is plainly transparent, would you like to get indignant about the fact poor people have refrigerators? Cell phones are no less essential for those working irregular, part-time shift work than a refrigerator is for everyone. It should not surprise you that poor people sometimes have to get them, and a (subsidized) $0 iPhone doesn’t cost them anymore than a $0 Android phone, so you’ll see poor people with iPhones. And before you bring it up, no, BOYD or pay-as-you-go devices aren’t a better option because few will have the money for the upfront cost. The bitter irony of living in poverty is that it actually costs significantly more to live than being lower middle class.
Except, of course, that they fund ALEC, which got laws drafted (and passed) putting surtaxes on wind or solar power generation. Oh, and Americans for Prosperity opposed a constitutional amendment in Florida to strike some language in it that prohibit buying power from anything but a utility company, under the guise of fighting something different (“net metering”).
So, please remind me again how they somehow want to be put out of business, because it seems they’re using their funded mouthpieces to prevent upstarts.
ck @77
One major problem with libertarianism is it does not survive contact with the real world. Like many ideologies, it presumes that everyone and that’s everyone will act in an altruistic way. It just takes a small number of people to be selfish for this sort of ideology to fail. Feudalism worked on the basis of “my grandfather was the biggest, meanest asshole around, that’s why I’m the lord and you’re not.” Corporate feudalism will work (is working?) in the same way.
@50 Tom Weiss proclaims: “Libertarians today do not want to merge government with large corporations”
And when libertarians get it their way this happens:
http://static3.ad.nl/static/photo/2013/9/13/4/20130403024415/media_xll_1590499.jpg
Thanks, large corporations.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0W0EgZVmYf4/URKI2J8A52I/AAAAAAAAGVo/ZNiCoSWH1mk/s1600/Goudzoekers.jpg
Thanks, small enterprises.
This happens in the interior of Suriname, some 800 km north of the equator. Screw the maroons and the native Surinamese – who cares that they can’t eat fish anymore because of mercury pollution? Not Tom Weiss, who drools when seeing this libertarian paradise. See, the only reason this can happen is (a weak) government not merging.
I’ll just mention again, if you like or are familiar with even a couple of Rush’s songs, grab the opportunity and go see them if they’re coming to your area. It’s probably the last chance and it really is a GREAT show. The only other shows I’ve seen that IMHO compete in terms of production (lights/stage/visuals etc) are past Rush shows, Metallica, David Bowie on his Sound + Vision tour and Iron Maiden. (OK, Pink Floyd and Genesis too,, but that’s like another level) And I had shitty seats in the nosebleeds this time. Geddy mentions it in the Beyond the Lighted Stage documentary, that whatever one thinks of KISS, they were always committed to putting on the best show, to give the fans the most for their money, and that that’s one of the most important lessons they learned opening for them in the 70’s. And you won’t see a show where the crowd is in more in tune with the band, anywhere. Seriously, just about everyone knows every lyric, fill, and riff.
Also, not really a spoiler, but an explanation of the production. Pretty cool how they setlist went backwards chronologically, and how the stage was slowly deconstructed from their present arena rock spectacle to their church basement/school dance gig origins.
I probably seem kind of pushy, but as I see more and more bands that I grew up listening to on the radio retiring or having members die, etc., I’ve realized that I shouldn’t pass up what is or may be my last opportunity to see them. Kind of a band bucket list. Still pissed that I never made it to the Who show a couple of months ago, Roger Waters’ The Wall or Dio’s last tour. Hoping there’ll still be a chance to catch Paul McCartney, Black Sabbath, U2, and Iron Maiden in the future. Don’t know how much longer Dweezil will keep the Zappa Plays Zappa thing going, so I’ll be at Jannus Landing in September. Managed to see Plant & Page, Yes (3 times), Genesis, and Pink Floyd.
Like many ideologies, it presumes that everyone and that’s everyone will act in an altruistic way.
No, it doesn’t; it assumes that everyone SHOULD act in a selfish way, and that everyone’s selfishness will automagically make everything wonderful. In the looking-glass world of libertarian ideology, altruism is BAD, especially when it’s an obligation that interferes with proper selfish job-creators.
re 81:
exactly. Objectivism demands: everyone be selfish; to do everything to better themselves, without stealing, or hurting, etc. [ The Virtue of Selfishness opcit ] and reluctantly allows one to be altruistic, if and only if they demand it of themselves. Her big objection was Government FORCING people to act ‘altruistic’ by stealing their moneys, by calling it taxation. blah blah blah.
Quoting Raging Bee @81 for Truth:
and that everyone’s selfishness will automagically make everything wonderful.
Tom Weiss, please spend a few minutes googling. Yes, the Kochs have made huge donations to museums and universities. That comes with strings attached. They veto professors that universities want to hire with their donations, and the museum exhibits they have funded send a pretty strong message that climate change is nothing to worry about.
Those aren’t philanthropic donations. They’re advertisements.
BTW, do you remember what happened when the UK outsourced its railways to private enterprise?
Tom Weiss@63,65
1) Admittedly I missed Fahr, but despite him, your claim about Democrats being the ones in bed with corporations is clearly refuted by the list I linked to as a whole.
2) I haven’t said libertarians are fascists (I don’t suffer from the fuckwitted libertarian inability to make distinctions between views I oppose), so your smug note that I’m not doing so “any more” is either sloppy or dishonest – typically libertarian, in other words. I have said, which is the simple truth, that they are closely allied with theocratic proto-fascists in the Republican Party. The reason is simple: both are opposed to anything which might place limits on inequality, which has expanded enormously in the USA over the past few decades.
3)
This is blatantly false, and it’s hard to believe you don’t know it. Of course, mitigating climate change requires international agreements (which libertarians have done absolutely nothing to promote, prefering in most cases simply to deny the science), but the USA is a far greater producer of greenhouse gases than China or India on a per capita basis, remains responsible for around 20% of total global emissions, and is absolutely essential to any serious progress, both in regard to its own emissions, and to those essential international agreements, and necessary technology transfer to poorer countries. Solar power alone is easily capable of replacing the majority of fossil fuel use over the next few decades, leaving aside other technologies. The claim that some new magic technology is needed is a barefaced lie.
4) You don’t make any attempt to refute the examples I gave of the Kochs lobbying and funding lies in their own interests. As for your example of their virtue @65, it might be a bit more impressive if there was any indication of how much they are giving up.
Well don’t blame me for your failures of comprehension – but of course I expect them from libertarians, who are expert at overlooking the most obvious connections. As libertarians – and greedy, selfish liars – the Kochs oppose anything that might cost them money, or give employees some bargaining power with corporations such as theirs – like unions and social security. Hence their support for Scott Walker, and campaigns against social security, are examples of libertarian ideology being in their material interest – like their funding of climate change denialist liars.
I found Rush through Ayn Rand when I was in my late teens. While I’ve long fallen out of love with Rand, Rush are still one my favourite bands. The whole ‘Snakes and Ladders’ album is incredible (imo) and my sister recently gave me their “Exit… Stage Left” vinyl for my birthday (so much love for it).
I saw them live back in 2011 during their UK tour at London’s O2. Amazing set, one of the few bands I’ve seen that almost sound better live. And I was one of the few women in the crowd – the queues for the men’s loos at the halftime break were stretching around the lobby while we walked straight into the women’s. Very strange experience but the show was great!
SOMEONE had better at least mention the elephant in the room: Geddy Lee can’t sing anymore. Even in his prime his voice was thin and squeaky, but back then he was always at least on pitch. Not anymore. He sings all over the place, and it’s excruciating. Granted, it might still be worth the price of admission just to hear Malignant Narcissism and La Villa Strangiato, since all three guys still kick ass on their instruments. But you’d better bring earplugs for the tunes where Lee sings.
It’s kind of ironic that PZ titles a post “Even Libertarians can smarten up” — and within 24 hours, Tom Weiss goes a long way toward disproving that assertion. Checkmate, liberal pinko.
That’s a mouthful. To begin with, libertarians are the antithesis of “authoritarian.” You can keep using that word, but it doesn’t mean what you think it means.
First, you quoted a paragraph of mine, and then changed the subject entirely. Your failure, or inability, to address my point is noted.
And second, I am not arguing about the use of words; I’m arguing about what policies libertarians are known to advocate, and their easily foreseeable and known consequences. Changing the subject to word usage only shows your dishonesty and intellectual cowardice.
Republicans are closer to libertarians than Democrats are, but Republicans are ok with using state power for their own ends in certain situations. Democrats are all for expading the coersive power of the state in almost every direction – which means under this construct it is Democrats who are the closest to fascist.
The use of state power is not “fascist.” Certain policies are fascist, and it is libertarians and Republicans, not Democrats, who advocate those policies. Your attempt to twist words is consistent with the dishonest and manipulative style of argument that has underlain libertarian rhetoric for as long as I’ve been hearing it.
Now to your specific points…
It is perfectly clear that you are completely ignoring my specific points that you quote just before that “response.” And it’s also obvious that you’re ignoring them because you know they prove you dead wrong. The only exception being…
…the Bill of Rights was written by people who revolted against a tyrannous government.
Specifically, it was drafted and ratified by GOVERNMENTS, which then had to enforce it against all who would infringe on the rights it described. (And, as I said before, libertarians OPPOSE all meaningful attempts to enforce those rights.)
I also have to address your ARPANET fallacy…sure what we today call the internet was once a government research program.
Yes — like most of the technology whose huge benefits we now take for granted and consider necessities, the Internet started with GOVERNMENT demand, funding, and/or guidance. Which once again disproves the libertarians’ bullshit about how private business is the source of all innovation and government never innovates or creates wealth.
And as it stands progressives generally dislike the document as written and want to change it – indeed every Democrat in the Senate voted to change the First Amendment last year, and from our previous discussions I know you want to change or abolish the Second.
Specific citations required. When did ANYONE “vote to change the First Amendment?”
Regulations are not checks on corporations power – they, at least in part, ADD to a corporation’s power. Any regulation which increases the barriers to entry or increases the cost of regulatory compliance shrinks the potential field of competitors.
When it comes to regulation, there more levels of libertarian dishonesty and doubletalk than I have time to discuss. From one end of their asses, they say regulation is evil because it’s HARMFUL to business; and from the other end (as we see above), they say it’s evil because it HELPS business. And both of these self-contradictory pander-points ignore the fact that regulations have helped PEOPLE in a variety of ways, such as cleaner air, safer products, more stable financial sector, less discrimination, etc.
Furthermore, libertarian critics of regulation never base their critique on specific merits or demerits of specific regs — it’s vague generalities and bullshit all the way down, because they’re both unwilling and unable to deal with reality on its own terms. “The libertarian critique of regulation” only shows how deeply dishonest, cynical, and manipulative libertarian rhetoric really is.
The progressive platform guarantees that big money will stay in politics…
Was there never any big money in politics before any “progressive platform” came along? This sort of blather is typical of libertarians: a vague generalization that sounds kinda believable but has absolutely no grounding in history. Anyone who reads even a smattering of US history can tell you that, yes, there was plenty of big money, favoritism and corruption in politics LONG before any “progressive platform” was ever created. Before the Founders even died, in fact. So no, getting rid of progressive policies will not “get big money out of politics” — it will only get checks and balances out of politics, which is exactly what the big-money folks want.
The Kochs want someone to invent the thing that will replace oil. They think we should be discussing public polices which promote innovation and incentivize this kind of discovery, instead of subsidizing old, tired solutions which really aren’t solutions at all.
That sounds like something lifted straight from a Koch Industries press release, empty promises, obsolete poo-pooing of new technologies and all. Ever heard of Solar Mamas? Seems people in Africa are making progress while you white libertards sit in your self-important bubble-verse and pretend you know everything and no on else has any good ideas.
Speaking of greedy, progressives never seem to understand Adam Smith’s insight that humans desire to “be loved, and to be lovely.”
Whose ass did you pull that from? I’ve never met a progressive (or anyone else for that matter) who had any trouble understanding that humans want to be loved. Just another bit of empty pomposity from the libertarian who wants to sound witty.
PS: I asked Tom Weiss for an example of a country where people are freer with less government regulation, and he totally failed to provide any examples. He also failed to cite even one significant advancement in human liberty that didn’t involve significant government action. Libertarianism is nothing more than one big, slick, manipulative, big-budget ad campaign; and like nearly all other such ad campaigns, it avoids and obscures reality as much as possible.
Libertarianism is based on the flawed concept that large powerful groups that cannot be held accountable provide greater freedom than large powerful groups that have some modicum of accountability.
I’ve seen how large corporations operate in a non-regulated space. Look at how Microsoft used nothing but contracts to freeze out competition (not raising the barrier to entry, but walling off entry altogether) to maintain their own monopoly, even though their products were demonstrably inferior to the competition. This to the point where they were very late to the game on the internet, yet were able to use their OS monopoly to force their inferior browser into the market, and then used that to try to lock out other browsers by pushing ActiveX. It took government intervention and the collective efforts of thousands of volunteer programmers to break that monopoly and forestall the attempted hijacking of the internet.
The internet itself would not exist without government. It began as a government project, and survives today only because of government regulation and intervention.
Meanwhile, corporations curtail freedoms all the time. From dress codes to monitoring social networks, corporations demand compliance with their view of what is appropriate. Want to dye your hair blue, but also maintain a decent-paying job? Good luck with that.
Now, you could say, “Choose a place where you can dye your hair blue.” But that’s exactly my point: you are then choosing between a specific job, and whether to accede to their restrictions on your freedoms. Further, that assumes you have a choice. Many people don’t have a choice of work. This is due to the power differential between groups of people (in this case, corporations) and individuals.
The simple fact is, participation in any group requires giving up certain freedoms. Ultimately, the freedoms you give up are determined by those in power. In a capitalist libertarian society, that power rests with those who control the resources, which is, at best, a plutocracy.
If you limit government power, you yield that power to those that can fill the vacuum. I have not yet heard a single Libertarian argument explaining how corporations will not abuse that power. I mean, as in the case of Microsoft (along with many other cases through history), we have actual evidence that corporations do that already, in the exact framework proposed by Libertarianism (binding contracts).
I’ve used this analogy before, but I think it’s still fitting. A libertarian society is like rush hour in a major city with all its traffic signs and signals removed. Also, a very few can afford tanks.
It seems most of the people who advocate Libertarianism assume they will be the ones in the tanks and insist that everyone has equal opportunity to buy a tank.
If you limit government power, you yield that power to those that can fill the vacuum. I have not yet heard a single Libertarian argument explaining how corporations will not abuse that power.
I once heard some Cato Institute wanker say that if we remove all regulation, businesses will “take responsibility.” Automagically I guess, he never described a specific sequence of events.
It seems most of the people who advocate Libertarianism assume they will be the ones in the tanks and insist that everyone has equal opportunity to buy a tank.
Sort of like Mitt Romney saying that OF COURSE private insurers are always happy to write health insurance for poor and unemployed people.
Raging Bee:
Yes! Exactly!
That’s some of that corporate responsibility all the young kids are talking about these days.
Yes, he has had a change of heart, and has pointed this out many times. I’ve always been bothered by lyrics I didn’t agree with and/or the politics of the author. It’s not just 1970s progressive metal; the “classical” world has a similar discussion regarding Wagner. One does have to take in the larger picture, though. I can’t listen to “Run for your life” by the Beatles, though most of their other stuff is very good (and even the music here is OK, but the lyrics are trash). Lennon later said “I’m sorry I wrote it”. Can one appreciate Bach’s religious music and not be annoyed by the lyrics? Some people can. Which reminds me: Bach always wrote SDG on his manuscripts: solo Deo gloria, for the glory of God alone. I recently saw the same abbreviation with the same meaning somewhere else, in a museum—on an executioner’s sword.
One has to be careful comparing apples and oranges. Lennon and Peart wrote those lyrics in their 20s. The difference to many of us is that there is a record (pun, as always, intended) of them. I think that most people have changed their minds on things, but are happy that no-one knows what they used to think.
“and critics promptly labeled Rush fascists”
A classic case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater: either you are a bleeding-heart liberal, or you are a Nazi. There is nothing else. This, of course, is a false dichotomy, one that libertarians have long been aware of, being closer to conservatives on economic issues and closer to liberals on social issues. Peart’s retort back in those days was great: “Right, we’re the only Nazi band with a Jewish bassist”. Geddy Lee (like Jerry Coyne) describes himself as a “cultural Jew”. His parents actually met while detained at Auschwitz. His name (formerly a stage name, now his legal name) came from his Polish grandmother’s thickly accented attempt to pronounce “Gary”. (Geddy Lee was born as Gary Lee Weinrib.)
Can one appreciate Bach’s religious music and not be annoyed by the lyrics? Some people can.
I can, if only because they’re in a language I don’t understand. Same goes for Gregorian Chant.
But I see your point. I kinda like “Babylon is Fallen” by a band (English?) whose name I never remembered — it’s obvious radical-Christian apocalyptic triumphalism, but it’s DAMN GOOD obvious radical-Christian apocalyptic triumphalism.
Okay, the band name is Bread and Roses, though the song is also described as “trad.” So maybe it’s a much older song redone by a modern rock band.
@Raging Bee #87: I am guessing this is what Tom Weiss is calling an attempt to change the first amendment. Apparently regulating the ability of super PACs to buy elections away from the people is an attack on free speech.
Peart supposedly stated in the April/May 1980 issue of “Modern Drummer” that there is no message in “The Trees”, it’s just about trees acting like people. No political message or allegory at all.
Phillip Helbig wrote:
I used to be a lot more sympathetic to that argument, but after enduring years of glibertarians explaining why they oppose legislation legalizing gay marriage (or any other affirmation and encoding of a right into law) because they oppose anything that increases the size of government, it seems my patience has run out. Libertarians like to talk about social freedom, but they don’t want anything actually done about it. Unfortunately, talk is cheap.
The basic libertarian misunderstanding is that freedom is the absence of rules. It is quite the opposite: rules are meant to guarantee freedom. Traffic rules ensure that everybody has equal opportunity to move from here to there. Tax rules ensure that everybody contributes fairly to common facilities. Of course a certain rule may not meet the principle, but that doesn’t disqualify the principle itself. Less rules do not increase freedom. Better rules do.
I understand your frustration. ask them why “legalizing something means moar government interventionism?”
The gov’s laws define what is illegal, what people are not allowed to do. Telling the gov to legalize something is telling them to void one of the laws and STOP enforcing it. In the end, legalizing gay marriage is the government stopping watching who is getting married, and not butting in if the government objects to two guys, or two “girls”, getting hitched. Simplify the government’s role to ensuring: only _two_persons_ can get married (with full consent from both).
This is what I understand of TRUE Libertarianism. yeah, it’s your freedom to hate gay, but to stop every gay couple from getting married (when they want to) is inflicting harm on them, and contradicts your “freedom to swing your fist if it doesn’t hit someone’s nose”. Banning gay marriage effectively hits the gay couples in the nose. So follow your principles and get those laws off the books that ban gay marriage (or define marriage to be applicable only to a specific type of pairing).
I’m really glad he got a change of heart, but why does it always take a trip to Africa to figure out that the current state of global politics is shitty for a lot of people?
slithey tove @100
Libertarian freedom is the freedom to do what they decide is allowable. That’s why libertarian Ron Paul wants to outlaw abortion under all circumstances because he disapproves of abortion. Did you actually think libertarians were in favor of freedom for the great unwashed?
slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem)) wrote:
Well, I messed up that blockquote. Obviously the last paragraph was supposed to be my reply, rather than a nested blockquote.
Here are some books which are described as leftist libertarian:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/libleftbooks
You’ll notice Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Thomas Pikkety, and a few others I suspect you’ve all read.
These are the suggested libertarian writers:
Milton Friedman, Thomas L. Friedman, Ayn Rand, P J O’Rourke, Ron Paul, and others I suspect you’ve read, too. http://www.politicalcompass.org/librightbooks
I’m sure that as soon as you seen those authors, the differences will be clear.
Each type of libertarian has areas we can disagree about, but I believe only a minority of us would agree more with the fringe end of the right-wing libertarians. They come with serious disdain for anyone who needs any help at all, and save their highest respect for “them’s that’s got their own.” In the U.S., the playing field is so uneven that success is bestowed by luck and grace, not earned by all but a few. Yet rightist libertarians deny that. They also come with the church bullshit. Ugh.
When I heard Ron Paul during the debates, he sounded both naive and cruel. He saved some of his most serious disdain for health care, saying that private charity would deliver health care better than the government. That doesn’t even make fiscal sense. When you hear someone such as Bush pere talking about “a thousand points of light,” Paul sounds the same. Let the crumbs fall to the working and underclass. Nowadays, that would apply to the shrinking middle class, as well.
A classic case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater: either you are a bleeding-heart liberal, or you are a Nazi.
I agree that this is a false dichotomy that too many liberals have overplayed in the last few decades — but Ayn Rand really was a bit of a fascist (though not a Nazi), so anyone who chooses to identify with her, or call her a “genius,” can reasonably be said to have earned the label “fascist.”
Here are some books which are described as leftist libertarian…
Please give some examples of specific policies advocated by “leftist libertarians” that are better than either liberal or right-libertarian policies.
Oh, and by what metric is Picketty a “libertarian?” Last I checked, everyone who comes close to calling themselves “libertarian” was calling Picketty a Marxist and screaming bloody murder about his idea that maybe we should make more effort to redistribute wealth away from the wealthiest.