Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

"Libertarian/conservative" environmentalists?

proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 12:07:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Been off DDO for a while, but had an interesting (to me) topic I'm looking for smart people to discuss:

I consider myself both a (pragmatic/real world) libertarian and an environmentalist. Doesn't seem like a TOTAL contradiction to me, and I'm aware of others who have claimed both labels. However, in today's polarized political climate it strikes many that way--contradictory.

It would be very interesting to me to get feedback and discussion on the topic. Not only from "libertarian/conservative" environmentalists,* but from others with intelligent things to say about the topic.

THANKS, I hope, in advance!

* ["libertarian/conservative" is in quotes, but "environmentalist" is not for a reason, and I'm happy to include that in the discussion.]
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 11:14:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 12:07:05 AM, proglib wrote:
Been off DDO for a while, but had an interesting (to me) topic I'm looking for smart people to discuss:

I consider myself both a (pragmatic/real world) libertarian and an environmentalist. Doesn't seem like a TOTAL contradiction to me, and I'm aware of others who have claimed both labels. However, in today's polarized political climate it strikes many that way--contradictory.

It would be very interesting to me to get feedback and discussion on the topic. Not only from "libertarian/conservative" environmentalists,* but from others with intelligent things to say about the topic.

THANKS, I hope, in advance!

* ["libertarian/conservative" is in quotes, but "environmentalist" is not for a reason, and I'm happy to include that in the discussion.]

lol, this probably describes my political alignment too, although I'm not 100% on board with the science behind environmentalism.

Basically, I look at cars, and think - they're far too big. Reduce the size of a car to accommodate for one person, and maybe have modular pieces fit in together to add transport capacity and extra passengers (maybe extra passengers would have their own cars, and the cars could just connect with each other). This would cut down on so much waste - roads would be smaller, energy consumption for transportation would be much less (imagine fueling something weighing 1/4 as much as a normal car). This could lead to shrinking city sizes, leading to smaller commutes, etc. I haven't even gone into pollution benefits.

Add in smart roads and it would be much easier to automate driving with smaller cars, which for me would be a holy grail of sorts...I hate driving.

The problem would be getting everyone on board with such a system, and convincing people to give up their SUVs, lol.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 11:42:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
So without laws to make them, do we just hope that businesses respect the environment? The Tragedy of the Commons deals away with economic self-interest supplying an impetus to be sustainable...
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 2:38:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 11:42:00 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
So without laws to make them, do we just hope that businesses respect the environment? The Tragedy of the Commons deals away with economic self-interest supplying an impetus to be sustainable...

So who makes the government respect the environment?
Answer: the same people who make businesses respect the environment in a free market. The government base their policies on what will get them reelected, i.e. the will of the people. Businesses base their policies on what will make them a profit, i.e. the will of the customers.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 4:55:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 2:38:34 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/12/2014 11:42:00 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
So without laws to make them, do we just hope that businesses respect the environment? The Tragedy of the Commons deals away with economic self-interest supplying an impetus to be sustainable...

So who makes the government respect the environment?

Answer: the same people who make businesses respect the environment in a free market. The government base their policies on what will get them reelected, i.e. the will of the people. Businesses base their policies on what will make them a profit, i.e. the will of the customers.

Customers suffer from an informational problem: they have not the ability to be able to determine which products come from environmentally-friendly firms.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 10:54:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 4:55:49 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 1/12/2014 2:38:34 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/12/2014 11:42:00 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
So without laws to make them, do we just hope that businesses respect the environment? The Tragedy of the Commons deals away with economic self-interest supplying an impetus to be sustainable...

So who makes the government respect the environment?

Answer: the same people who make businesses respect the environment in a free market. The government base their policies on what will get them reelected, i.e. the will of the people. Businesses base their policies on what will make them a profit, i.e. the will of the customers.

Customers suffer from an informational problem: they have not the ability to be able to determine which products come from environmentally-friendly firms.

Nor can they tell which politician is really implementing an environmentally friendly policy, let alone a practical one.

My point is, if a business is outed for dumping toxic sludge, the business will lose customers. If a business implements green initiatives, they gain customers.

In fact the satisfaction gained from a green product can offset the satisfaction gained from the quality of the product. If a green product functions at half the quality of a polluting product, it can still be more profitable if the sale is targeted towards environmentalists and other market segments with a green fetish.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 8:37:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 10:54:01 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:55:49 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 1/12/2014 2:38:34 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/12/2014 11:42:00 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
So without laws to make them, do we just hope that businesses respect the environment? The Tragedy of the Commons deals away with economic self-interest supplying an impetus to be sustainable...

So who makes the government respect the environment?

Answer: the same people who make businesses respect the environment in a free market. The government base their policies on what will get them reelected, i.e. the will of the people. Businesses base their policies on what will make them a profit, i.e. the will of the customers.

Customers suffer from an informational problem: they have not the ability to be able to determine which products come from environmentally-friendly firms.

Nor can they tell which politician is really implementing an environmentally friendly policy, let alone a practical one.

My point is, if a business is outed for dumping toxic sludge, the business will lose customers. If a business implements green initiatives, they gain customers.

In fact the satisfaction gained from a green product can offset the satisfaction gained from the quality of the product. If a green product functions at half the quality of a polluting product, it can still be more profitable if the sale is targeted towards environmentalists and other market segments with a green fetish.

My version of libertarianism is a bit different from Dan's, though I respect his opinions.

For me, libertarianism, does NOT mean a lack of laws. Put simply (naively?) it means that laws are only to prevent violence, theft or fraud.

Certainly there would be a law against me throwing garbage on your property. So there would also be a law against me polluting a river or the air or whatever.

It becomes more complicated for other cases, such as when the "externalities" as economists call things like pollution are much smaller per capita and only do real harm in the aggregate.

For example, the laws that brought us catalytic converters ("CC" for short) on personal automobiles. There was no single person whom I was harming with my driving pre-CC, however, in the aggregate we were turning our skies brown and causing real physical harm to "sensitive receptors"--babies, kids with asthma, seniors, etc.

[Sorry for the late reply. I'm only on DDO a couple times a week these days.]

Cheers
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 11:36:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 8:37:35 PM, proglib wrote:
At 1/12/2014 10:54:01 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:55:49 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 1/12/2014 2:38:34 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/12/2014 11:42:00 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
So without laws to make them, do we just hope that businesses respect the environment? The Tragedy of the Commons deals away with economic self-interest supplying an impetus to be sustainable...

So who makes the government respect the environment?

Answer: the same people who make businesses respect the environment in a free market. The government base their policies on what will get them reelected, i.e. the will of the people. Businesses base their policies on what will make them a profit, i.e. the will of the customers.

Customers suffer from an informational problem: they have not the ability to be able to determine which products come from environmentally-friendly firms.

Nor can they tell which politician is really implementing an environmentally friendly policy, let alone a practical one.

My point is, if a business is outed for dumping toxic sludge, the business will lose customers. If a business implements green initiatives, they gain customers.

In fact the satisfaction gained from a green product can offset the satisfaction gained from the quality of the product. If a green product functions at half the quality of a polluting product, it can still be more profitable if the sale is targeted towards environmentalists and other market segments with a green fetish.

My version of libertarianism is a bit different from Dan's, though I respect his opinions.

For me, libertarianism, does NOT mean a lack of laws. Put simply (naively?) it means that laws are only to prevent violence, theft or fraud.

I don't believe Libertarianism is the lack of laws; that is anarchism. Libertarianism is the political doctrine that favors individualism over collectivism. Anarchism is left wing libertarianism, and classic liberalism is right wing libertarianism.
I am a classic liberal, because I believe the sole purpose of the state is to protect life, liberty, and property.

Certainly there would be a law against me throwing garbage on your property. So there would also be a law against me polluting a river or the air or whatever.

This does not negate my point about the driving forces of a successful business and the similarities to the driving forces of a successful political career.
It becomes more complicated for other cases, such as when the "externalities" as economists call things like pollution are much smaller per capita and only do real harm in the aggregate.

For example, the laws that brought us catalytic converters ("CC" for short) on personal automobiles. There was no single person whom I was harming with my driving pre-CC, however, in the aggregate we were turning our skies brown and causing real physical harm to "sensitive receptors"--babies, kids with asthma, seniors, etc.

[Sorry for the late reply. I'm only on DDO a couple times a week these days.]

Cheers
And the same movement that forced lawmakers to pass regulations would have pushed businesses to build cleaner cars.

Regulations are not always a bad thing. When there are regulations prohibiting withholding information from the consumer, it is actually beneficial. The more aware a consumer is of a product the more efficient the consumption; that is to say, the more satisfaction the consumer will gain when choosing what goods to consume. Take for example ingredients labels; these help increase the consumer's overall satisfaction of a good or service. If the consumer still chooses to stuff their face with Twinkies, it is their prerogative.

In the case of a product that harms others in the community simply by using it, the state has the authority to regulate or prohibit the such products. For example; the state has the right to mandate drivers obtain a drivers license, and to prohibit the blind from obtaining such a license. This ensures people don't drive alone until they are fairly competent behind the wheel, and can actually see where they are going.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2014 4:18:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 11:36:11 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/16/2014 8:37:35 PM, proglib wrote:
At 1/12/2014 10:54:01 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:55:49 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 1/12/2014 2:38:34 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/12/2014 11:42:00 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
So without laws to make them, do we just hope that businesses respect the environment? The Tragedy of the Commons deals away with economic self-interest supplying an impetus to be sustainable...

So who makes the government respect the environment?

Answer: the same people who make businesses respect the environment in a free market. The government base their policies on what will get them reelected, i.e. the will of the people. Businesses base their policies on what will make them a profit, i.e. the will of the customers.

Customers suffer from an informational problem: they have not the ability to be able to determine which products come from environmentally-friendly firms.

Nor can they tell which politician is really implementing an environmentally friendly policy, let alone a practical one.

My point is, if a business is outed for dumping toxic sludge, the business will lose customers. If a business implements green initiatives, they gain customers.

In fact the satisfaction gained from a green product can offset the satisfaction gained from the quality of the product. If a green product functions at half the quality of a polluting product, it can still be more profitable if the sale is targeted towards environmentalists and other market segments with a green fetish.

My version of libertarianism is a bit different from Dan's, though I respect his opinions.

For me, libertarianism, does NOT mean a lack of laws. Put simply (naively?) it means that laws are only to prevent violence, theft or fraud.

I don't believe Libertarianism is the lack of laws; that is anarchism. Libertarianism is the political doctrine that favors individualism over collectivism. Anarchism is left wing libertarianism, and classic liberalism is right wing libertarianism.
I am a classic liberal, because I believe the sole purpose of the state is to protect life, liberty, and property.

Certainly there would be a law against me throwing garbage on your property. So there would also be a law against me polluting a river or the air or whatever.

This does not negate my point about the driving forces of a successful business and the similarities to the driving forces of a successful political career.
It becomes more complicated for other cases, such as when the "externalities" as economists call things like pollution are much smaller per capita and only do real harm in the aggregate.

For example, the laws that brought us catalytic converters ("CC" for short) on personal automobiles. There was no single person whom I was harming with my driving pre-CC, however, in the aggregate we were turning our skies brown and causing real physical harm to "sensitive receptors"--babies, kids with asthma, seniors, etc.

[Sorry for the late reply. I'm only on DDO a couple times a week these days.]

Cheers
And the same movement that forced lawmakers to pass regulations would have pushed businesses to build cleaner cars.

Regulations are not always a bad thing. When there are regulations prohibiting withholding information from the consumer, it is actually beneficial. The more aware a consumer is of a product the more efficient the consumption; that is to say, the more satisfaction the consumer will gain when choosing what goods to consume. Take for example ingredients labels; these help increase the consumer's overall satisfaction of a good or service. If the consumer still chooses to stuff their face with Twinkies, it is their prerogative.

In the case of a product that harms others in the community simply by using it, the state has the authority to regulate or prohibit the such products. For example; the state has the right to mandate drivers obtain a drivers license, and to prohibit the blind from obtaining such a license. This ensures people don't drive alone until they are fairly competent behind the wheel, and can actually see where they are going.

Not much that I disagree with here.

I'd nit pick about anarchism being left wing. There are certainly right wing anarchists--anarcho capitalists would qualify. There aren't as many, and most anarchists are probably anti-property and lean left.

Other than that, while I do agree with the theoretical power of consumers to influence producers towards cleaner products, e.g., catalytic converters, I also think this is a case where government can use its regulatory tools more powerfully and quickly than consumer pressure. I'm unaware of any place where consumer pressure alone cleaned up cars. I think of all the countries in the world with terrible pollution from vehicle use.

Cheers
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2014 4:36:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/17/2014 4:18:12 AM, proglib wrote:
At 1/16/2014 11:36:11 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/16/2014 8:37:35 PM, proglib wrote:
At 1/12/2014 10:54:01 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:55:49 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 1/12/2014 2:38:34 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/12/2014 11:42:00 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
So without laws to make them, do we just hope that businesses respect the environment? The Tragedy of the Commons deals away with economic self-interest supplying an impetus to be sustainable...

So who makes the government respect the environment?

Answer: the same people who make businesses respect the environment in a free market. The government base their policies on what will get them reelected, i.e. the will of the people. Businesses base their policies on what will make them a profit, i.e. the will of the customers.

Customers suffer from an informational problem: they have not the ability to be able to determine which products come from environmentally-friendly firms.

Nor can they tell which politician is really implementing an environmentally friendly policy, let alone a practical one.

My point is, if a business is outed for dumping toxic sludge, the business will lose customers. If a business implements green initiatives, they gain customers.

In fact the satisfaction gained from a green product can offset the satisfaction gained from the quality of the product. If a green product functions at half the quality of a polluting product, it can still be more profitable if the sale is targeted towards environmentalists and other market segments with a green fetish.

My version of libertarianism is a bit different from Dan's, though I respect his opinions.

For me, libertarianism, does NOT mean a lack of laws. Put simply (naively?) it means that laws are only to prevent violence, theft or fraud.

I don't believe Libertarianism is the lack of laws; that is anarchism. Libertarianism is the political doctrine that favors individualism over collectivism. Anarchism is left wing libertarianism, and classic liberalism is right wing libertarianism.
I am a classic liberal, because I believe the sole purpose of the state is to protect life, liberty, and property.

Certainly there would be a law against me throwing garbage on your property. So there would also be a law against me polluting a river or the air or whatever.

This does not negate my point about the driving forces of a successful business and the similarities to the driving forces of a successful political career.
It becomes more complicated for other cases, such as when the "externalities" as economists call things like pollution are much smaller per capita and only do real harm in the aggregate.

For example, the laws that brought us catalytic converters ("CC" for short) on personal automobiles. There was no single person whom I was harming with my driving pre-CC, however, in the aggregate we were turning our skies brown and causing real physical harm to "sensitive receptors"--babies, kids with asthma, seniors, etc.

[Sorry for the late reply. I'm only on DDO a couple times a week these days.]

Cheers
And the same movement that forced lawmakers to pass regulations would have pushed businesses to build cleaner cars.

Regulations are not always a bad thing. When there are regulations prohibiting withholding information from the consumer, it is actually beneficial. The more aware a consumer is of a product the more efficient the consumption; that is to say, the more satisfaction the consumer will gain when choosing what goods to consume. Take for example ingredients labels; these help increase the consumer's overall satisfaction of a good or service. If the consumer still chooses to stuff their face with Twinkies, it is their prerogative.

In the case of a product that harms others in the community simply by using it, the state has the authority to regulate or prohibit the such products. For example; the state has the right to mandate drivers obtain a drivers license, and to prohibit the blind from obtaining such a license. This ensures people don't drive alone until they are fairly competent behind the wheel, and can actually see where they are going.

Not much that I disagree with here.

I'd nit pick about anarchism being left wing. There are certainly right wing anarchists--anarcho capitalists would qualify. There aren't as many, and most anarchists are probably anti-property and lean left.

Other than that, while I do agree with the theoretical power of consumers to influence producers towards cleaner products, e.g., catalytic converters, I also think this is a case where government can use its regulatory tools more powerfully and quickly than consumer pressure. I'm unaware of any place where consumer pressure alone cleaned up cars. I think of all the countries in the world with terrible pollution from vehicle use.

Cheers

Being a capitalist does not make you right wing. Anarchism is a left wing approach to individualism. Classic Liberalism aka Minarchism is a right wing approach. Anarchists advocate reformation while Minarchists advocate "laissez faire" (leaving things be).
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 7:43:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/17/2014 4:36:18 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/17/2014 4:18:12 AM, proglib wrote:
At 1/16/2014 11:36:11 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/16/2014 8:37:35 PM, proglib wrote:
At 1/12/2014 10:54:01 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:55:49 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 1/12/2014 2:38:34 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/12/2014 11:42:00 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
So without laws to make them, do we just hope that businesses respect the environment? The Tragedy of the Commons deals away with economic self-interest supplying an impetus to be sustainable...

So who makes the government respect the environment?

Answer: the same people who make businesses respect the environment in a free market. The government base their policies on what will get them reelected, i.e. the will of the people. Businesses base their policies on what will make them a profit, i.e. the will of the customers.

Customers suffer from an informational problem: they have not the ability to be able to determine which products come from environmentally-friendly firms.

Nor can they tell which politician is really implementing an environmentally friendly policy, let alone a practical one.

My point is, if a business is outed for dumping toxic sludge, the business will lose customers. If a business implements green initiatives, they gain customers.

In fact the satisfaction gained from a green product can offset the satisfaction gained from the quality of the product. If a green product functions at half the quality of a polluting product, it can still be more profitable if the sale is targeted towards environmentalists and other market segments with a green fetish.

My version of libertarianism is a bit different from Dan's, though I respect his opinions.

For me, libertarianism, does NOT mean a lack of laws. Put simply (naively?) it means that laws are only to prevent violence, theft or fraud.

I don't believe Libertarianism is the lack of laws; that is anarchism. Libertarianism is the political doctrine that favors individualism over collectivism. Anarchism is left wing libertarianism, and classic liberalism is right wing libertarianism.
I am a classic liberal, because I believe the sole purpose of the state is to protect life, liberty, and property.

Certainly there would be a law against me throwing garbage on your property. So there would also be a law against me polluting a river or the air or whatever.

This does not negate my point about the driving forces of a successful business and the similarities to the driving forces of a successful political career.
It becomes more complicated for other cases, such as when the "externalities" as economists call things like pollution are much smaller per capita and only do real harm in the aggregate.

For example, the laws that brought us catalytic converters ("CC" for short) on personal automobiles. There was no single person whom I was harming with my driving pre-CC, however, in the aggregate we were turning our skies brown and causing real physical harm to "sensitive receptors"--babies, kids with asthma, seniors, etc.

[Sorry for the late reply. I'm only on DDO a couple times a week these days.]

Cheers
And the same movement that forced lawmakers to pass regulations would have pushed businesses to build cleaner cars.

Regulations are not always a bad thing. When there are regulations prohibiting withholding information from the consumer, it is actually beneficial. The more aware a consumer is of a product the more efficient the consumption; that is to say, the more satisfaction the consumer will gain when choosing what goods to consume. Take for example ingredients labels; these help increase the consumer's overall satisfaction of a good or service. If the consumer still chooses to stuff their face with Twinkies, it is their prerogative.

In the case of a product that harms others in the community simply by using it, the state has the authority to regulate or prohibit the such products. For example; the state has the right to mandate drivers obtain a drivers license, and to prohibit the blind from obtaining such a license. This ensures people don't drive alone until they are fairly competent behind the wheel, and can actually see where they are going.

Not much that I disagree with here.

I'd nit pick about anarchism being left wing. There are certainly right wing anarchists--anarcho capitalists would qualify. There aren't as many, and most anarchists are probably anti-property and lean left.

Other than that, while I do agree with the theoretical power of consumers to influence producers towards cleaner products, e.g., catalytic converters, I also think this is a case where government can use its regulatory tools more powerfully and quickly than consumer pressure. I'm unaware of any place where consumer pressure alone cleaned up cars. I think of all the countries in the world with terrible pollution from vehicle use.

Cheers

Being a capitalist does not make you right wing. Anarchism is a left wing approach to individualism. Classic Liberalism aka Minarchism is a right wing approach. Anarchists advocate reformation while Minarchists advocate "laissez faire" (leaving things be).

I beg to differ on your definitions.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

in the first paragraph it basically points out that anarchism can support "anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism."

Extreme collectivism is generally considered left wing. However, extreme individualism is certainly not left wing per se.

We could discuss this further, and a case could be made IMHO that extreme right wing thinking doesn't mesh well with anarchism, but there seem to be a lot of anti-government reactionaries running around these days.

What definition of right wing are you using that excludes anarchism?

Oh, and I certainly agree with your statement that "Being a capitalist does not make you right wing. " I consider myself capitalist and sort of centrist (or non-winged, LOL.:D)
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2014 11:22:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 7:43:21 PM, proglib wrote:
At 1/17/2014 4:36:18 PM, DanT wrote:

Oh, and I certainly agree with your statement that "Being a capitalist does not make you right wing. " I consider myself capitalist and sort of centrist (or non-winged, LOL.:D)

I think it's fair to say that someone who supports free markets holds a right wing position on the topic, even if overall they are a moderate.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2014 7:59:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/19/2014 11:22:28 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/18/2014 7:43:21 PM, proglib wrote:
At 1/17/2014 4:36:18 PM, DanT wrote:

Oh, and I certainly agree with your statement that "Being a capitalist does not make you right wing. " I consider myself capitalist and sort of centrist (or non-winged, LOL.:D)

I think it's fair to say that someone who supports free markets holds a right wing position on the topic, even if overall they are a moderate.

Depends.

However, being a capitalist and supporting the free exchange of goods between consenting adults when externalities are regulated, I don't think that is necessarily a "right wing" position.

I think of the right as conservatives and reactionaries. The previous paragraph includes support for legalized prostitution, legalized drug use, etc., etc.

It is IMHO a very moderate position. Most US citizens, and probably most non-socialists would support the free exchange of most goods when externalities are regulated.

Did I get that all balled up and over-complicated? (Or just wrong? LOL...:D)

Thanks for your comment, by the way!
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 2:29:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/21/2014 7:59:27 PM, proglib wrote:
At 1/19/2014 11:22:28 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/18/2014 7:43:21 PM, proglib wrote:
At 1/17/2014 4:36:18 PM, DanT wrote:

Oh, and I certainly agree with your statement that "Being a capitalist does not make you right wing. " I consider myself capitalist and sort of centrist (or non-winged, LOL.:D)

I think it's fair to say that someone who supports free markets holds a right wing position on the topic, even if overall they are a moderate.

Depends.

However, being a capitalist and supporting the free exchange of goods between consenting adults when externalities are regulated, I don't think that is necessarily a "right wing" position.

I think of the right as conservatives and reactionaries. The previous paragraph includes support for legalized prostitution, legalized drug use, etc., etc.

It is IMHO a very moderate position. Most US citizens, and probably most non-socialists would support the free exchange of most goods when externalities are regulated.

Did I get that all balled up and over-complicated? (Or just wrong? LOL...:D)

Thanks for your comment, by the way!

I could be wrong. I'm generally not at all comfortable using "left" and "right" in politics. The way I see it, "free markets" is on one end of the spectrum, and "centralized economic planning" is on the other side, the former being "right" and the latter being "left".

I think what you described in the underlined is indeed a very moderate position. A lot of Republicans would want those regulations on externalities to be removed, and I see that as being a far right position.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?