Balanced Rebellion Going Viral

[1972Shocker]

Dead Abe Lincloln's thoughts on the 2016 Presidential Election:

http://balancedrebellion.com/

[wufan]

That's pretty good!

[1972Shocker]

That's pretty good!

Not sure the matching part of it would actually work because you have no way of holding a person to a commitment to vote one way or the other. However, I don't think that is really the point. Clearly, the goal is to create more visibility and name recognition for Gary Johnson in an attempt to boost his poll numbers high enough to get into the debates.

Johnson readily admits that his only chance of being relevant is dependent on getting into the presidential debates. I would like to see him in but my sense at this point in time is that it probably is not going to happen.

I had already planned on voting the Johnson/Weld ticket. However, I don't think you should vote for anyone unless you think their policies are generally good for America and that their character actually makes them fit for office. The latter disqualifies Clinton and Trump irrespective of their policies.

That said, I sort of understand the vote against the person I hate the most approach although whatever we end up with could be pretty bad whichever way it goes.

In any case, I thought this video was kind of humorous and creative if nothing else.

[Steeleshocker]

I wish all political ads were this good.

I'd feel safe to turn on my TV again.

[Aargh]

I have some concerns about the Libertarian approach to free markets. Truly free markets work to protect consumers. We are so far removed from that model that getting there would be a Herculean task. In our current system, which some claim has too much government regulation, EpiPens price gets increased 400% because the company making them can do it. I am fearful of what would happen if there was no threat of government regulation. Price-gouging would seem to be the way most corporation would go. The difficulty of entering markets (because of such things as facilities and cost) makes it difficult for a free market model to work.

Previous Libertarian platforms have included the elimination of OSHA and the EPA. Those agencies only exist because we, as a nation, got tired of unregulated pollution and unsafe working conditions. Those two platform planks seem to indicate a willingness to accept a certain number of deaths if that makes running a business more efficient. I don't think I'm quite ready to accept that argument.

Then there's the part about eliminating income taxes, Social Security, and Medicare. The theory seems to be that somehow corporations will be pressured by marketplace factors to become philanthropic and donate to charity.

What replaces the income tax? The pattern I've seen in eliminating income taxes is to go to some sort of tax policy like a sales tax, which tends to widen the gap between the wealthy and the poor and limits the spending ability of the low end of the economic scale. That's a negative on economic growth and tends to create people who have nothing, so they have nothing to lose. People with nothing to lose often end up in criminal activity. Jail is not a deterrnet.

[wu_shizzle]

The Epipen price gouging is the direct result of cronyism and government over-regulation.

https://fee.org/articles/don-t-blame-capitalism-for-your-pricey-epipen

[shockmonster]

Yes. congress and regulatory agencies are In the pockets of Big Pharma. The answer is to unleash true capitalism on the public and we would be protected from abuses, drugs would be safe, and costs would go down. Actually, America pays for the rest of the world to have cheaper, safe drugs. Sometimes, history is forgotten.

[wufan]

The Epipen price gouging is the direct result of cronyism and government over-regulation.

https://fee.org/articles/don-t-blame...-pricey-epipen

Interestingly price gouging isn't possible without the FDA providing a monopoly; and yet the people cry for more regulations.

[shocka khan]

I have some concerns about the Libertarian approach to free markets. Truly free markets work to protect consumers. We are so far removed from that model that getting there would be a Herculean task. In our current system, which some claim has too much government regulation, EpiPens price gets increased 400% because the company making them can do it. I am fearful of what would happen if there was no threat of government regulation. Price-gouging would seem to be the way most corporation would go. The difficulty of entering markets (because of such things as facilities and cost) makes it difficult for a free market model to work.

Previous Libertarian platforms have included the elimination of OSHA and the EPA. Those agencies only exist because we, as a nation, got tired of unregulated pollution and unsafe working conditions. Those two platform planks seem to indicate a willingness to accept a certain number of deaths if that makes running a business more efficient. I don't think I'm quite ready to accept that argument.

Then there's the part about eliminating income taxes, Social Security, and Medicare. The theory seems to be that somehow corporations will be pressured by marketplace factors to become philanthropic and donate to charity.

What replaces the income tax? The pattern I've seen in eliminating income taxes is to go to some sort of tax policy like a sales tax, which tends to widen the gap between the wealthy and the poor and limits the spending ability of the low end of the economic scale. That's a negative on economic growth and tends to create people who have nothing, so they have nothing to lose. People with nothing to lose often end up in criminal activity. Jail is not a deterrnet.

A true libertarian would also miss structural changes in our economy and how they impact our military and law enforcement. Until the last few years, I'm sure that a libertarian would have thought that all the money spent by the government to protect our networks was a huge waste of money.

The whole game changed when the Chinese and Russians started hacking into our protected networks.

A libertarian, up to that point in time would have been against the development of a national security infrastructure to protect critical business (banking, power grid, refineries, you could get somewhat creative here) on the grounds that it wasn't really needed for our defense (as up to that time the biggest risk we had to our infrastructure would have been crooks and script kiddies). We would have very much been behind the curve when trying to defend against nation-state hacking.

I think libertarianism is a great theory, as I am very sympathetic to the notion that government ought to be as small as possible and, most importantly, live within its means. On the other hand, I think the whole libertarian movement has a blind spot on emerging issues like computer security. Our world is so interconnected and moves with so much speed, there must be a balance between the vision of what kind of government policy we will need to implement in order to get us to that future horizon and the need to have that smaller government.

My conclusion is that while libertarianism has many worthwhile facets, it is quaint and unworkable in today's world.

[shocka khan]

Interestingly price gouging isn't possible without the FDA providing a monopoly; and yet the people cry for more regulations.

The FDA did not take into consideration what would happen when they provided the monopoly. They were looking at efficacy and safety. I would bet that future decisions will also take into consideration the competitive landscape.

This is less a reflection on the failures of the FDA as it is a decline in the morality of our country as a whole. Past generations would be against this kind of profiteering for moralistic reasons. Mostly unfettered capitalism has turned that whole notion on its head.

This is why you see so many young people saying that capitalism is a failure. They have a point. It is not working for them and it not working for the rest of us, in some cases. I just don't have any idea of what you would replace it with. I enjoy my constitutional rights.

[1972Shocker]

The thing is that Johnson/Weld are probably not true libettarians. They probably take more crap from the pure Libertarians than anyone else. Whether their brand of fiscal conservatism will pull the Libertarian party more into the mainstream remains to be seen. However, philosophical discussions aside the bottom line is the two major parties have nominated two of the weakest candidates they could find and it is arguable that neither of them is fit to be president of the United States. My opinion is the Johnson/Weld are by far the best choice and, in my case, have a platform closest to my philosophical leanings. And when it comes character and fitness for office Johnson/Weld re clearly superior to Clintrump.

[shocka khan]

Here's an interesting but relevant article I came across this morning that reinforces my point. Looks like someone (maybe a nation-state) infiltrated the voter registration databases in Arizona and Illinois.......

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fbi-says-foreign-hackers-penetrated-000000175.html

[jdshock]

The Epipen price gouging is the direct result of cronyism and government over-regulation.

https://fee.org/articles/don-t-blame...-pricey-epipen

Interestingly price gouging isn't possible without the FDA providing a monopoly; and yet the people cry for more regulations.

In your perfect world, would medication receive any kind of patent-esque protection? I am not sure what I think about this topic, but I am not sure I've really heard people on the right criticize the protection that medication gets. The argument is always that the companies wouldn't innovate if they didn't receive the protection.

My personal opinion is that the epi-pen fiasco wouldn't happen in a pure-capitalist market but it also wouldn't happen under someone like Bernie Sanders. I have no doubt that it will continue to happen under someone like Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

A true libertarian would also miss structural changes in our economy and how they impact our military and law enforcement. Until the last few years, I'm sure that a libertarian would have thought that all the money spent by the government to protect our networks was a huge waste of money.

The whole game changed when the Chinese and Russians started hacking into our protected networks.

A libertarian, up to that point in time would have been against the development of a national security infrastructure to protect critical business (banking, power grid, refineries, you could get somewhat creative here) on the grounds that it wasn't really needed for our defense (as up to that time the biggest risk we had to our infrastructure would have been crooks and script kiddies). We would have very much been behind the curve when trying to defend against nation-state hacking.

I think libertarianism is a great theory, as I am very sympathetic to the notion that government ought to be as small as possible and, most importantly, live within its means. On the other hand, I think the whole libertarian movement has a blind spot on emerging issues like computer security. Our world is so interconnected and moves with so much speed, there must be a balance between the vision of what kind of government policy we will need to implement in order to get us to that future horizon and the need to have that smaller government.

My conclusion is that while libertarianism has many worthwhile facets, it is quaint and unworkable in today's world.

I think the problem isn't with libertarianism as a concept, but with the current leaders of that movement and the political climate they operate under. They are such a marginalized and powerless group that they've become a freak show in order to gain any attention at all. The party looks more like a comic-con convention than a serious political movement. I see no reason a good libertarian leader couldn't still be very much able to recognize serious threats like network hacking and attacks to national infrastructure, even if we hadn't yet seen large scale examples just yet. The true roles of government need not be throw out amidst the fight against government overregulation in people's personal lives.

The problem is, there aren't many good libertarian leaders, and we live in a political climate that encourages the rise of crazy clown-show fools instead. The current Libertarian Party has lost sight of the fact that "less regulation" is the goal, not "zero regulation". Libertarianism is not supposed to be all out anarchy. Unfortunately, limited regulation isn't allowed to be called good in today's climate. Instead, it is a race to position one's self as in favor of zero government, and we get spectacles like the May 2016 Libertarian Debate where they argued whether the U.S. should have gotten involved in WW2. I kid you not, at that same debate, portions of the crowd actually booed at the following:
- When Gary Johnson suggested the government should have the right to restrict blind people from obtaining driver's licenses
- When Austin Petersen suggested that we should have at least some laws restricting the sale of heroin to five-year-olds

Democrats could be much better than Hillary Clinton, but Clinton is their representative.
Republicans could be much better than Donald Trump, but Trump is their representative.
Libertarians could be much better than what their entire party has become, but their party is what it is.

Unfortunately, we do not see the best versions of any of these parties. Theories can be wonderful, but politics is nasty.

[Aargh]

JH4P brought up something that's been a concern of mine for years. We keep electing lawmakers who feel it's their duty to enact laws, so they do. After a couple hundred years of that, we end up with so many laws that it can become difficult to function as either private or corporate citizens.

Untangling the mess is an incredibly difficult task.