US General Election Thread III: Clinton vs. Trump

[Llamalandia]

Gutting everything is libertarian, but also stupid. I'd rather have things gradually scaled back.

But leaving that aside for the moment, when most people talk about the government getting stuff done, that usually means sticking its nose in social justice issues or meddling with the economy or intervening in foreign affairs or stuff like that which Libertarians want less of.

Sticking its nose in social justice? If the Government doesn't create a just society, who's going to do it? And please, before you say 'the free market' the rich 1%'ers controlling that aren't about to undo an unjust system that gives them an advantage.

Ummm, that presupposes a just society is desirable. Not necessarily saying it isn't but it is certainly lesss important to me than freedom and liberty. Also that's not entirely true. Look at all the companies that have been upset about transgender bathroom laws for instance. That's the 1% fighting against state sponsored discrimination.

[Philjia]

Sticking its nose in social justice? If the Government doesn't create a just society, who's going to do it? And please, before you say 'the free market' the rich 1%'ers controlling that aren't about to undo an unjust system that gives them an advantage.

Ummm, that presupposes a just society is desirable. Not necessarily saying it isn't but it is certainly lesss important to me than freedom and liberty. Also that's not entirely true. Look at all the companies that have been upset about transgender bathroom laws for instance. That's the 1% fighting against state sponsored discrimination.

Because they already know it will benefit them.

[Llamalandia]

Gutting everything is libertarian, but also stupid. I'd rather have things gradually scaled back.

But leaving that aside for the moment, when most people talk about the government getting stuff done, that usually means sticking its nose in social justice issues or meddling with the economy or intervening in foreign affairs or stuff like that which Libertarians want less of.

Despite their capitalistic mindset, many libertarians seem suspiciously isolationist. Given the USA's history, does that mean libertarianism is simply a cleverly marketed rebranding of concepts that were abandoned in the past for good reasons?

Some do seem that way. Though, I think the vast majority are still pro free trade. In terms of border control, they are actually pretty liberal in general, though not universally so. I certainly I am not. Again libertarianism is not just anarchism, we do see some role for government.

[Llamalandia]

Ummm, that presupposes a just society is desirable. Not necessarily saying it isn't but it is certainly lesss important to me than freedom and liberty. Also that's not entirely true. Look at all the companies that have been upset about transgender bathroom laws for instance. That's the 1% fighting against state sponsored discrimination.

Because they already know it will benefit them.

Sounds like the free market at work to me.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

Sticking its nose in social justice? If the Government doesn't create a just society, who's going to do it? And please, before you say 'the free market' the rich 1%'ers controlling that aren't about to undo an unjust system that gives them an advantage.

Ummm, that presupposes a just society is desirable. Not necessarily saying it isn't but it is certainly lesss important to me than freedom and liberty. Also that's not entirely true.

A just society isn't at odds with freedom and liberty. An unjust one is. A 'libertarian' state would actually be massively un-free due to the oppressive systems it would allow to continue

Look at all the companies that have been upset about transgender bathroom laws for instance. That's the 1% fighting against state sponsored discrimination.

And look what good its done. McCrory dug in his heels. And also look at the businesses which ignored it. The only thing thats going to stop McCrory is the lawsuit filed by Loretta Lynch and the Federal Judge that rules on it.

[Philjia]

Because they already know it will benefit them.

Sounds like the free market at work to me.

The free market is only reacting to existing forces.

[Trumpostan]

Gutting everything is libertarian, but also stupid. I'd rather have things gradually scaled back.

But leaving that aside for the moment, when most people talk about the government getting stuff done, that usually means sticking its nose in social justice issues or meddling with the economy or intervening in foreign affairs or stuff like that which Libertarians want less of.

Sticking its nose in social justice? If the Government doesn't create a just society, who's going to do it? And please, before you say 'the free market' the rich 1%'ers controlling that aren't about to undo an unjust system that gives them an advantage.

And that is exactly it. It's the people who can afford to that support such policies. And while Gary Johnson and a few others may be decent people, the party platform is beyond reprehensible.

[Uiiop]

Sticking its nose in social justice? If the Government doesn't create a just society, who's going to do it? And please, before you say 'the free market' the rich 1%'ers controlling that aren't about to undo an unjust system that gives them an advantage.

Ummm, that presupposes a just society is desirable. Not necessarily saying it isn't but it is certainly lesss important to me than freedom and liberty. Also that's not entirely true. Look at all the companies that have been upset about transgender bathroom laws for instance. That's the 1% fighting against state sponsored discrimination.

That's not all she said though...how would bathrooms give them an advantage over everyone else?
In fact it more supports her point since you only gave an example of them supporting a just society when it's not against their own interest.

[Hurdergaryp]

Despite their capitalistic mindset, many libertarians seem suspiciously isolationist. Given the USA's history, does that mean libertarianism is simply a cleverly marketed rebranding of concepts that were abandoned in the past for good reasons?

Some do seem that way. Though, I think the vast majority are still pro free trade. In terms of border control, they are actually pretty liberal in general, though not universally so. I certainly I am not. Again libertarianism is not just anarchism, we do see some role for government.

The anarcho-capitalist crowd excluded, of course.

[Llamalandia]

Ummm, that presupposes a just society is desirable. Not necessarily saying it isn't but it is certainly lesss important to me than freedom and liberty. Also that's not entirely true.

A just society isn't at odds with freedom and liberty. An unjust one is. A 'libertarian' state would actually be massively un-free due to the oppressive systems it would allow to continue

Look at all the companies that have been upset about transgender bathroom laws for instance. That's the 1% fighting against state sponsored discrimination.

And look what good its done. McCrory dug in his heels. And also look at the businesses which ignored it. The only thing thats going to stop McCrory is the lawsuit filed by Loretta Lynch and the Federal Judge that rules on it.

That's a very difficult position to actually defend. I mean, think about inequality. Technically it is unjust for some people to have more wealth than others. But rectifying that imbalance would infringe on the freedom of the individual to acquire and own wealth and property.
Unless you are defining justice and fairness seperately.

[Gauthier]

Is there a minimum number of justices the supreme court has to have filled? I mean a divided govt, likely means we won't see any new appointments going through. Ginsberg can't live forever, neither can Thomas. I can easily see the court being reduced as low as five during a CLinton presidency.

No. Because Dems stand to take a majority in the Senate if they win enough down-ballot races in November alone, and could have a supermajority in both houses with in two years.

Also, thats preferable to Trump appointing conservative looney toons to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges and Roe v. Wade.

Or even Brown v. Board of Education if given the chance.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

That's a very difficult position to actually defend. I mean, think about inequality. Technically it is unjust for some people to have more wealth than others. But rectifying that imbalance would infringe on the freedom of the individual to acquire and own wealth and property.
Unless you are defining justice and fairness seperately.

Its not difficult to defend unless you think that you have some freedom of exploitation.

[Llamalandia]

Ummm, that presupposes a just society is desirable. Not necessarily saying it isn't but it is certainly lesss important to me than freedom and liberty. Also that's not entirely true. Look at all the companies that have been upset about transgender bathroom laws for instance. That's the 1% fighting against state sponsored discrimination.

That's not all she said though...how would bathrooms give them an advantage over everyone else?
In fact it more supports her point since you only gave an example of them supporting a just society when it's not against their own interest.

That sounds pretty Randian to me. Not saying that libertarianism ==Randian objectivism but there is a lot of overlap.

[The Romulan Republic]

No. Because Dems stand to take a majority in the Senate if they win enough down-ballot races in November alone, and could have a supermajority in both houses with in two years.

Also, thats preferable to Trump appointing conservative looney toons to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges and Roe v. Wade.

Or even Brown v. Board of Education if given the chance.

Given the way the Republican Party is going, if it survives that long, I give it five to ten years before its openly campaigning on repealing Amendments 13 and 14.

[Llamalandia]

No. Because Dems stand to take a majority in the Senate if they win enough down-ballot races in November alone, and could have a supermajority in both houses with in two years.

Also, thats preferable to Trump appointing conservative looney toons to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges and Roe v. Wade.

Or even Brown v. Board of Education if given the chance.

I seriously doubt gay marriage will be overturned. Roe v. Wade maybe but that seems pretty unlikely too.

[Llamalandia]

That's a very difficult position to actually defend. I mean, think about inequality. Technically it is unjust for some people to have more wealth than others. But rectifying that imbalance would infringe on the freedom of the individual to acquire and own wealth and property.
Unless you are defining justice and fairness seperately.

Its not difficult to defend unless you think that you have some freedom of exploitation.

Well, yup you pretty much do.

[Gauthier]

Or even Brown v. Board of Education if given the chance.

I seriously doubt gay marriage will be overturned. Roe v. Wade maybe but that seems pretty unlikely too.

The same Republican Party with the platform declaring children in gay families are more likely to become druggie criminals and that Gay Conversion Therapy is a valid medical option won't overturn Obergefeld v. Hodges? Uh huh, sure they won't.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

Its not difficult to defend unless you think that you have some freedom of exploitation.

Well, yup you pretty much do.

No, you don't. Your a libertarian, don't you guys worship the NAP? Exploiting someone most certainly harms that person. Its an act of aggression and I dare say violence against a person. You don't have the freedom to murder, rape, or assault a person. Similarly, there is no freedom of exploitation.

[Hurdergaryp]

I seriously doubt gay marriage will be overturned. Roe v. Wade maybe but that seems pretty unlikely too.

The same Republican Party with the platform declaring children in gay families are more likely to become druggie criminals and that Gay Conversion Therapy is a valid medical option won't overturn Obergefeld v. Hodges? Uh huh, sure they won't/

For the GOP is a decent and civilized party willing to fight for the rights of every minority.

[Llamalandia]

I seriously doubt gay marriage will be overturned. Roe v. Wade maybe but that seems pretty unlikely too.

The same Republican Party with the platform declaring children in gay families are more likely to become druggie criminals and that Gay Conversion Therapy is a valid medical option won't overturn Obergefeld v. Hodges? Uh huh, sure they won't/

They might want to, but I highly doubt the supreme court would. Plus, it is trump, who, for all his faults, doesn't seem to have a problem with teh gayz. I mean aside from picking Mike Pence as VP, there's little evidence of an antilgbt position on the part of the candidate himself.

[USS Monitor]

Gutting everything is libertarian, but also stupid. I'd rather have things gradually scaled back.

But leaving that aside for the moment, when most people talk about the government getting stuff done, that usually means sticking its nose in social justice issues or meddling with the economy or intervening in foreign affairs or stuff like that which Libertarians want less of.

Sticking its nose in social justice? If the Government doesn't create a just society, who's going to do it? And please, before you say 'the free market' the rich 1%'ers controlling that aren't about to undo an unjust system that gives them an advantage.

I support some basic antidiscrimination laws and enough of a social safety net so people don't literally starve if they screw up, but beyond that it's up to individual people to make their way in the world, and it's up to them whether they "better themselves" or not. And there's no shame in it if you don't move up. I think that's where we really go wrong, shaming working-class people for being working-class, even if they support themselves so they're not a burden on anyone. It's not really sustainable to have everyone live like middle-class American suburbanites, so we shouldn't be pushing for everyone to live that way.

[Llamalandia]

Well, yup you pretty much do.

No, you don't. Your a libertarian, don't you guys worship the NAP? Exploiting someone most certainly harms that person. Its an act of aggression and I dare say violence against a person. You don't have the freedom to murder, rape, or assault a person. Similarly, there is no freedom of exploitation.

Yeah, non-aggression. Not all exploitation requires use of force or aggression. I mean in the Marxist sense all waged labor is basically exploitation of the Proletariat. But the idea of ownership and capitalist exploitation isn't really a problem.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

No, you don't. Your a libertarian, don't you guys worship the NAP? Exploiting someone most certainly harms that person. Its an act of aggression and I dare say violence against a person. You don't have the freedom to murder, rape, or assault a person. Similarly, there is no freedom of exploitation.

Yeah, non-aggression. Not all exploitation requires use of force or aggression. I mean in the Marxist sense all waged labor is basically exploitation of the Proletariat. But the idea of ownership and capitalist exploitation isn't really a problem.

Paying someone a wage that they can't support themselves on is certainly a form of exploitation. Especially if we live in a society, which we do, where it is very likely that person has no means of escaping this exploitation.

[Gauthier]

The same Republican Party with the platform declaring children in gay families are more likely to become druggie criminals and that Gay Conversion Therapy is a valid medical option won't overturn Obergefeld v. Hodges? Uh huh, sure they won't/

They might want to, but I highly doubt the supreme court would. Plus, it is trump, who, for all his faults, doesn't seem to have a problem with teh gayz. I mean aside from picking Mike Pence as VP, there's little evidence of an antilgbt position on the part of the candidate himself.

Which is naively assuming a Republican-controlled Senate would refuse to confirm any right-angled ideologue that Trump picked with the spin of a wheel. Hell, they'd confirm a Frankenstein stitched together from the remains of Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia if Trump nominated it.

[Llamalandia]

Yeah, non-aggression. Not all exploitation requires use of force or aggression. I mean in the Marxist sense all waged labor is basically exploitation of the Proletariat. But the idea of ownership and capitalist exploitation isn't really a problem.

Paying someone a wage that they can't support themselves on is certainly a form of exploitation. Especially if we live in a society, which we do, where it is very likely that person has no means of escaping this exploitation.

Lots of smart industrious hard working people have gone from very humble (read poor) beginnings to become very wealthy. An even larger proportion have become middle class. Plus hey, contracts freely entered into. If you don't like the job you don't have to take it. Heck for that matter there is no obligation to live in society to begin with.