New poll: Harper - Conservatives headed for third place next election?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

They voluntarily choose and agree to, WHERE, WHEN, WHAT, WHO and HOW they will work. It is all a matter of choice.

That's an assertion, not an argument. Articles of libertarian faith do not trump reality - "choice" can be limited or entirely eliminated by factors outside the individual's control.

When you are an unskilled labourer, do you have the choice to grab a few million dollars of venture capital to open your own software development company? Does an engineer "choose" to get an engineering-related job, or is his choice circumscribed by his education? If your single mother needs you to drop out of school to help pay the bills for your six brothers and sisters, can you "choose" instead to go off for 7 years to get a law degree and become a lawyer instead?

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Your key word is "wages". In a free society you can choose to work for wages or not. It is YOUR choice.

In our current society, I can choose to pay taxes or not, too! Look - your libertarian utopia is achievable today! Just "choose" not to pay taxes, "choose" to ignore laws that circumscribe your economic freedom, and you're golden!

Or maybe your definition of "choice" is ridiculously simplistic. Choice implies the consequences of different actions have somewhat comparable outcomes that a rational person can evaluate and decide between.

Originally Posted by Shawnski

People have "survived" for millennia. What the hell are you talking about "no other way"? For the truly needy, for example, a volunteerist society is far more likely to be able to not only identify the needs of an individual but address them. That is what a voluntary community does.

Based on what evidence? Yet again, another axiom of libertarianism glitzed up to sound like an argument.

Back around 100-150 years ago, we had a capitalist/feudalist society that depended upon volunteerism to ameliorate social ills. It was almost universally unsuccessful. And yet, somehow, it'll be different now? Why is that?

Originally Posted by Shawnski

And other groups, i.e. like the Hutterites seem to do very well on their own.

Oh yes, if you like repression, regimentation, and patriarchy. And, for that matter, communal ownership of property. Does any of that really resonate with libertarian ideals?

Originally Posted by Shawnski

At least I have tried to address more of YOUR post than you did from one line of MINE.

The entire philosophy of libertarianism relies upon false premises, so one line is all that really needs addressing. It's a simplistic approach to a world of complexities, and appeals to those who fail to understand that the simpler the system, the easier it is to corrupt and control.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by jammies

That's an assertion, not an argument. Articles of libertarian faith do not trump reality - "choice" can be limited or entirely eliminated by factors outside the individual's control.

When you are an unskilled labourer, do you have the choice to grab a few million dollars of venture capital to open your own software development company? Does an engineer "choose" to get an engineering-related job, or is his choice circumscribed by his education? If your single mother needs you to drop out of school to help pay the bills for your six brothers and sisters, can you "choose" instead to go off for 7 years to get a law degree and become a lawyer instead?



In our current society, I can choose to pay taxes or not, too! Look - your libertarian utopia is achievable today! Just "choose" not to pay taxes, "choose" to ignore laws that circumscribe your economic freedom, and you're golden!

Or maybe your definition of "choice" is ridiculously simplistic. Choice implies the consequences of different actions have somewhat comparable outcomes that a rational person can evaluate and decide between.





Based on what evidence? Yet again, another axiom of libertarianism glitzed up to sound like an argument.

Back around 100-150 years ago, we had a capitalist/feudalist society that depended upon volunteerism to ameliorate social ills. It was almost universally unsuccessful. And yet, somehow, it'll be different now? Why is that?



Oh yes, if you like repression, regimentation, and patriarchy. And, for that matter, communal ownership of property. Does any of that really resonate with libertarian ideals?



The entire philosophy of libertarianism relies upon false premises, so one line is all that really needs addressing. It's a simplistic approach to a world of complexities, and appeals to those who fail to understand that the simpler the system, the easier it is to corrupt and control.

I'd like to pay you for this exceptional post with this rock, its legal tender as defined by admiralty law.

we are all unpersons in the pursuit of our government ranked designation.

Chip me elvis

[mariners_fever]

Don't forget that this poll was done by EKOS, run by Frank Graves, an known Liberal operative.

He also predicted a mighty loss for Harper in 2011

[Resolute 14]

Yeah, I was going to bring up the fact that EKOS consistently underpolls the Conservatives, but the overall topic really moved past Tinordi's cherry-picked poll about two replies in so it didn't seem terribly relevant. Also, the overall recent trend among all polling firms is Liberal up, Conservative down.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Yeah, I was going to bring up the fact that EKOS consistently underpolls the Conservatives, but the overall topic really moved past Tinordi's cherry-picked poll about two replies in so it didn't seem terribly relevant. Also, the overall recent trend among all polling firms is Liberal up, Conservative down.

Yeah, if you look at meta polling site ThreeHundredEight, the Liberals have been consistently gaining at the expense of both the Conservatives and the NDP. I highly suspect the poll in the OP is an outlier, but the trend is definitely in their favour.

http://www.threehundredeight.com/p/canada.html

Large image spoilered for size:

Spoiler!

[evman150]

Just want to thank psycnet and jammies and others for their thoughtful posts against libertarianism.

Libertarians exemplify the sentiment that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Do you really believe this nonsense?

"Hey, I'm a single mother with two kids and a high school diploma, I'm going to work where, when, for who I want. And if that doesn't work for me, the "volunteerist society" that some guy made up will help me out".

Single motherhood is a great example of government policies sending us in the wrong direction. And it is also one that we could have lengthy discussions and debates about.

I cannot think of a better "think of the children" issue.

And it dovetails with the two working parents phenomenon.

Where once you would have someone earning and someone nurturing, now it is likely you have both (or no one) earning and neither (or no one) nurturing.

Internet babies. Think of that concept for a second. And it is the path we are on.

Parental nurturing is key to healthy development of children.

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Why not believe it? It has been working perfectly fine in Somalia for decades!!

Ahh, the warcry of illogical statists. Somalia!!

I guess I should just yell back "North Korea!!" or.... "Oilers!!!"

Originally Posted by Tinordi

I love the dispatches from the Libertarian abstraction. Just so fundamentally untethered from the realities of nation-states and modern governments. It's even more hopelessly utopian and dangerous than Marxism.

Major practical issues are simply buffed out of what such a reality would lead to. It's like libertarians have never read a history book and remain willfully ignorant of 7000 years of human civilization.

It bellies belief that such an intellectually, historically, psychologically bankrupt ideology has such currency.

LOL. Your indoctrination appears almost complete. I give you credit for being a linguistic florist. Congrats.

But your posts scream "intellectual vegetarian!"

No meat.

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Last page, but I think most people's biggest problem with Libertarianism is the "Screw you, got mine" mindset. Libertarianism isn't socially liberal, because Libertarianism doesn't believe in safety nets.

I think the tenet that best describes what you've written is Philosophical Communitarianism (screw you, we got ours), or possibly Classical Liberalism.

I think you are confusing Ayn Rand's objectivism with libertarianism.

Rand hated libertarians.

Libertarians care. I care. The mindsets you talk about are ones painted upon us. In some cases, it is probably true, however that is not even remotely close to the norm.

One could argue that those who believe the state should look after people are the selfish ones. Instead of taking a personal stake in helping to resolve an individual's needs (and resolving the root cause), people wash their hands of issues by throwing money at problems. This in turn can result in a variety of moral hazards.

There is lots of great discussion about depression here on CP. I would posit that the alarming increase in cases partially fueled from moral hazards such as the family issue I discussed in my reply to Rouge. The seed of depression is often planted in early childhood. Moral hazard at work.

[Flash Walken]

Shawnski, that reads like a snake oil salesman.

[nik-]

I actually find it sad that the Conservatives are going so hard on this Marijuana thing. Do they honestly feel it matters that much to Canadians? Can they not see that public opinion is shifting and is continuing to shift?

It makes no sense to move so contrary to the public in order to maintain power.

[Chill Cosby]

Depending, of course, on the tangibility of the benefits (more expansive health care, free day care or perhaps free university and the like) how would people honestly feel about every province having an HST of around 20-25%?

Would you be for something like that? Or against it? Considering the financial situation in Alberta, I feel as though we'd see incredible benefit with more taxation.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

I think you are confusing Ayn Rand's objectivism with libertarianism.

Rand hated libertarians.

Libertarians care. I care. The mindsets you talk about are ones painted upon us. In some cases, it is probably true, however that is not even remotely close to the norm.

One could argue that those who believe the state should look after people are the selfish ones. Instead of taking a personal stake in helping to resolve an individual's needs (and resolving the root cause), people wash their hands of issues by throwing money at problems. This in turn can result in a variety of moral hazards.

There is lots of great discussion about depression here on CP. I would posit that the alarming increase in cases partially fueled from moral hazards such as the family issue I discussed in my reply to Rouge. The seed of depression is often planted in early childhood. Moral hazard at work.

Objectivism and libertarianism go hand in hand. For christsakes, they even share a Wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberta...nd_Objectivism

If you think libertarianism has been co-opted by fedora-wearing woman-hating poor person-expoiting objectivists, I have bad news.

The most visible "libertarians" of the last 30 years, John Hospers, Milton Friedman, Paul Ryan, Ron Paul, Rand Paul etc. etc. are all Objectivist Libertarians. As well, almost every naive South Park-libertarian I've known has eventually morphed into an Objectivist Libertarian.

They are most certainly not all Penn Jillette (who just comes across as an ideologue imo).

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

Considering the financial situation in Alberta, I feel as though we'd see incredible benefit with more taxation.

We need to spend our current tax dollars better. I've dealt with the government on an operational level and even though most of the people mean well the way they do things is bizarre at times and inefficient at the best of times. That's not even taking account the money that is misspent as we are seeing with the Redford travel scandals. That is just the tip of the iceberg.

Now if you want to argue that we should change taxation and put more royalty dollars into savings then I would agree with you but not until they clean up the current mess. The government can always find ways to spend more money.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

Depending, of course, on the tangibility of the benefits (more expansive health care, free day care or perhaps free university and the like) how would people honestly feel about every province having an HST of around 20-25%?

Would you be for something like that? Or against it? Considering the financial situation in Alberta, I feel as though we'd see incredible benefit with more taxation.

I have a few problems with free daycare and free university.

If you assume that everyone pays into a pot (taxes) then single income families who chose to have one parent stay home are now paying higher taxes so that another family can put their kid in daycare and have both parents work. I did not consider single parents because I think there are better ways to help them out than to provide everyone with free daycare.

Following the same assumption, a lot of jobs do not require a university education. If you raise taxes to provide free education then you are raising taxes on those without university education, who typically make less money, to provide a benefit to those who will receive a university education and typically make more money.

In both cases, you have a system that benefits those with more money at the expense of those with less money.

For tuition costs, I would much rather see increased financial aid in the form of loans. Possibly linked to your tax rate. Maybe tuition is free, but you have to pay a higher tax rate for ten years.

As for free daycare, I would much rather see an increase in baby bonuses or some other payment that the parents can spend as they see fit.

On the tax front, I am not against higher taxes outright, but I think I would rather see the money go to the lower levels of government. I like the idea of a hike to the HST to provide money for municipalities.

[Resolute 14]

Pretty much what GP Matt said.

Plus, a new tax at a rate of 20-25% is completely asinine, particularly given the reasoning given is basically "because government knows how to spend my money better than I do". As currently worded, Chill, your proposal sees me pay an incredible amount of money for absolutely no benefit.

[afc wimbledon]

I see no logic for free universal post secondary education, I can see huge logic in helping people qualify in occupations we need.
We do not need more English teachers, if you want to study that, it's a hobby.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I see no logic for free universal post secondary education, I can see huge logic in helping people qualify in occupations we need.
We do not need more English teachers, if you want to study that, it's a hobby.

Maybe just 2-free years of post secondary, so it covers those in trades and subsidizes those in other (vital) fields?

[FlamesAddiction]

How does it work in countries that do have free university if the person flunks out or quits? Do they have to pay it back?

I would favour a system that issues loans that are forgivable on a percent based on how in demand the specialty is and how well they actually do in it.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by jammies

That's an assertion, not an argument. Articles of libertarian faith do not trump reality - "choice" can be limited or entirely eliminated by factors outside the individual's control.

When you are an unskilled labourer, do you have the choice to grab a few million dollars of venture capital to open your own software development company? Does an engineer "choose" to get an engineering-related job, or is his choice circumscribed by his education? If your single mother needs you to drop out of school to help pay the bills for your six brothers and sisters, can you "choose" instead to go off for 7 years to get a law degree and become a lawyer instead?

In all your examples, you are specifying a single option, not a range of choices. In the case of the labourer, if that person desires to be the owner of a software company they can make choices that, over time, can yield that result. He/she can learn, develop ideas, crowd source funds and ultimately reach his/her goal.

The engineer is not limited to engineering related jobs. That is a choice, regardless of education. Perhaps that person decides to learn another discipline and ends up in a totally unrelated field.

As for the person who is asked to drop out of school to care for his brother/sisters, that is also a choice. Perhaps he/she could do both. Perhaps that person does drop out for a period of time and subsequently resumes study. Perhaps there is other family to help.

Originally Posted by jammies

In our current society, I can choose to pay taxes or not, too! Look - your libertarian utopia is achievable today! Just "choose" not to pay taxes, "choose" to ignore laws that circumscribe your economic freedom, and you're golden!

Or maybe your definition of "choice" is ridiculously simplistic. Choice implies the consequences of different actions have somewhat comparable outcomes that a rational person can evaluate and decide between.

In our current society, there is no choice in taxes. In one form or another, they touch everything. From labour to goods and services, monies are taken and used for causes of which you have little to no say.

And if you are meaning that "comparable outcomes" relates to "similar outcomes", that isn't true at all. Your choice can have radically different outcomes. Not sure what you are getting at with this whole point.

Originally Posted by jammies

Based on what evidence? Yet again, another axiom of libertarianism glitzed up to sound like an argument.

Back around 100-150 years ago, we had a capitalist/feudalist society that depended upon volunteerism to ameliorate social ills. It was almost universally unsuccessful. And yet, somehow, it'll be different now? Why is that?

Almost universally unsuccessful? Are you mad?

it is around that time that life expectancy started to climb dramatically. Inventions created in that era have us living like kings now. The health and wealth of society has risen BECAUSE of that era, not in spite of it.

As the saying goes, necessity if the mother of invention. When many individuals had the same needs, it resulted in people finding ways to address them. The state didn't invent the refrigerator. It didn't come up with pasteurization. It didn't conceive and build the light bulb.

Society thrived.

Originally Posted by jammies

Oh yes, if you like repression, regimentation, and patriarchy. And, for that matter, communal ownership of property. Does any of that really resonate with libertarian ideals?

It's a choice they make. Not my cup of tea though.

Originally Posted by jammies

The entire philosophy of libertarianism relies upon false premises, so one line is all that really needs addressing. It's a simplistic approach to a world of complexities, and appeals to those who fail to understand that the simpler the system, the easier it is to corrupt and control.

What false premises? For someone that demands examples, you rarely go into any details yourself.

And according to your logic, if the simpler the system the easier it is to corrupt then how are we faring today? Should corruption and control almost be eliminated by now? We are as complex as ever. And one could argue the same about being controlled.

I am not failing to understand anything. I am also not professing to be all-wise either. I continue to study and learn.

If you were to ask me if I had a button that, if pushed, would immediately eradicate all government, I would NOT push it. There is simply too many people who have developed dependencies on the current system. This is a generational issue and will take time to correct.

Until then, politicians will continue to ensure these dependencies because dependent voters are dependable voters.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

The state didn't invent the refrigerator. It didn't come up with pasteurization. It didn't conceive and build the light bulb.

Are you suggesting that we would have pasteurized milk, light bulbs, and refrigerators if we were living in a stateless society? with no patent laws (to provide incentive to inventors)? with no electrical regulation (to efficiently and safely build and maintain electrical grids, etc.)? without police and firefighters (to you, know, stop my neighbor from stealing my refrigerator or put out the fire when my unregulated electrical lines fall into disrepair and set my house on fire)?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

In all your examples, you are specifying a single option, not a range of choices. In the case of the labourer, if that person desires to be the owner of a software company they can make choices that, over time, can yield that result. He/she can learn, develop ideas, crowd source funds and ultimately reach his/her goal.

In fact, it would be utterly impossible for anyone to own a software company in the absence of a state. I suppose libertarianism is fair in that sense: life's choices would be brutally limited for everyone (although no doubt more limited for some [i.e., the weak] than others.)

EDIT: Indeed, it would be utterly impossible to "own" anything without some sort of state or authority.