# Rep Justin Amash becomes first Libertarian member of Congress.



## Subtle Demise (May 3, 2020)

Former Republican representative from MI, Justin Amash just officially changed his party affiliation to Libertarian, making him the first Libertarian to hold a federal office. 

For me, this is exciting news! Hopefully this means that those of us who value personal liberty will no longer be seen as a lunatic fringe group, but a real contender in the political space. I mean, doing no harm and minding your own business is the core of morality right? I don't understand why it took 250+ years for the nation to just now start figuring that out. Doesn't seem like too radical of an idea to me lol.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 4, 2020)

Being in a place where a few defectors/protests were made among the incumbent set (2004 or so the UK saw one of the lords plump for UKIP before being kicked out to then join them for over a decade, even at their peak they were still considered a protest vote/spoil vote/political threat but still something of a joke) it still tends to be an uphill struggle. Though at the same time such things don't hurt the more grass roots stuff (get local council types, get mayors, get judges, get police, get state level government, get circuit judges...) to have someone to look up to. The UK is primarily a two party setup but there are genuine other parties in play, even not counting the ones from a complicated history that do it as a protest, where the US has been two party for a long time. To that end at best look to being an interest group or biasing factor within a bigger party unless something crazy like proportional voting happens.

Second question. Is he likely to be reelected? It is a few years yet but eh and does he have anything like the name recognition to come back?

Third question as I am too bone idle to go looking things up. Where did he sit within the Republican party before then? I seriously do not know but were I to bet on things I would probably go with him being one of the so called never-trump set (one Mr Trump represents a fundamental shift in the party, one some of the more traditional establishment is not so fond of), and this being some form of protest or maybe sanction dodge. There might possibly be some heartfelt change of opinion/this genuinely represents my principles somewhere in there but would hardly be said to be a driving force.


----------



## WiiCurious (May 4, 2020)

Subtle Demise said:


> lunatic fringe group



Look at that! You're almost self-aware.

You know Ayn Rand collected social security, right?


----------



## Subtle Demise (May 4, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> Is he likely to be reelected? It is a few years yet but eh and does he have anything like the name recognition to come back?


He's been a representative since 2011, so he should have some recognition.


FAST6191 said:


> Where did he sit within the Republican party before then?


A lot of Republicans call him a "traitor" for being publicly critical of many of Trump's policies, but the more logical and moderate members of the party see some sense in what he says. He has earned the favor of independents and possibly some democrats for his criticisms, so hopefully it works out for him. I doubt he'll win the presidency that he plans on running for, but at the very least should get another term in the House.


WiiCurious said:


> Look at that! You're almost self-aware.
> 
> You know Ayn Rand collected social security, right?


1. How do you feel about the war on drugs?
2. How about gun control?
3. How about the endless unconstitutional wars of aggression?
4. Why do I care about Ayn Rand's finances? Collecting Social Security is just taking back your stolen money anyway, so again, why do I care? I think the constitutional amendment calling for a direct income tax needs repealed, but I'm not one of those "all taxation is theft" AnCaps either.
5. Why is it that being radical left or radical right is socially acceptable, but wanting to be left alone is some kind of extremist view?


----------



## FGFlann (May 4, 2020)

Great in the short term but in a national system dominated by tribal voting, ditching your party seems like the fast track to not being re-elected.


----------



## WiiCurious (May 4, 2020)

Nvm.


----------



## FGFlann (May 4, 2020)

WiiCurious said:


> "Being left alone" translates into radical right.


----------



## WiiCurious (May 4, 2020)

Don't really want to get into it.

You call it being left alone. 
I call it defunding the social safety net and letting poor people starve to death.

Or allowing people who like killing other people to walk around with guns. 

Or allowing businesses to screw over consumers because the free market will take care of bad actors. 

Or letting people work for slave wages because a minimum wage is governmental overreach.


----------



## FGFlann (May 4, 2020)

The concept of liberty does not prescribe the abandonment of the poor or the legalization of murder. The concepts you're describing are more akin to anarchy. But even ancaps have fanciful value systems like the non-aggression principle.


----------



## notimp (May 4, 2020)

Subtle Demise said:


> 3. How about the endless unconstitutional wars of aggression?


Higher moral goals as a society only ever can be met if basic needs (jobs, growth, security, but you can use other terms, doesnt have to be those) are addressed.

System of international law, or universal human rights were set up as a power share that only ever work, if the dominating power at the time is willing to share in those principals, because it gets perceived benefits out of them as well.

"We are only fighting back, if we are attacked" as part of a constitution usually only ever means - you have to convince your population first, that an act of aggression is necessary. And cant do that by glorifying a concept like war, as something you build better societies with.

Historically it kind of never meant that 'wars of aggression' (the stronger side provoking them) stopped.

So bad cards on ending wars of aggression through a moral argument alone.  (Not that easy.)

(Short contemporary example: "International trade deals are all bad, climate deals bad, UN bad, WHO bad, so bad, bad deals - US never getting what it deserves, deals are rotten, we have to make new deals. 'merica first!!111! " == population be like: "Hell yeah! Aggression! We be getting, what we be deserving! Finally!" Animosity in every country around the world against the US increases. Thats just a small example to show, that usually what the big power to be gets out of them is stability. If you are intelligent, you increase your gains through less obvious (as 'conquering'  ) avenues. Doesnt mean that the current set up ('power share') is fair. Only means you get more out of it, if you promote stability. Also there are always those countries, that are on the out. And they are 'fair game'. ("Their dictators be so bad, we be bringing them democracy!" You need them to be out of the loop, because you f.e. need their resources. And if they'd also share 'fairly' in the profits, your societies wouldnt be able to keep current levels of wealth. So you prop up a few pansies, make sure they are corrupt, and visit them with your military if they start to believe that they've become powerful on their own.) Also if there are large power shifts, rhetoric becomes more aggressive again. (Because the stability of your society gets threatened.) If only it were as easy as 'but in our constitution it says...'  (Thats basically there so your first thought of action doesnt become 'what if we attacked our neighboring country'? People would get opportunities through that! They'd love it!  And thats really just there, because the negative effects are so immediate (retaliation...), if the country you could potentially be exploiting/developing, isnt able to retaliate directly (9/11 was a first, something like that wasnt supposed to happen!) - moral considerations are reduced by a factor of distance..  ))


----------



## Subtle Demise (May 4, 2020)

WiiCurious said:


> Don't really want to get into it.
> 
> You call it being left alone.
> I call it defunding the social safety net and letting poor people starve to death.
> ...


Government "charity" falls victim to a "trickle down" effect. The money goes through so much bureaucracy and change so many hands, and each one needs a piece of it. The welfare state is unsustainable in the long term, and in the fave of true crisis, as the current pandemic is slowly teaching us. Also, who's talking about legalizing murder? An armed populace is necessary to deter absolute tyranny. There's a good reason it's taken a good 250 years to get to the authoritarian state we're in now. They've had to slowly chip away at freedom since Washington put down the Whiskey Rebellion. Plus in the hypothetical libertarian society, we would need a defense against those who would try to fill the inevitable power vacuum.

Also, I have no problem with regulations that actually protect workers and consumers. What I have a problem with is regulations that hurt small businesses and help the big ones muscle out the competition. Government choosing winners and losers in the economy.


notimp said:


> Higher moral goals as a society only ever can be met if basic needs (jobs, growth, security, but you can use other terms, doesnt have to be those) are addressed.
> 
> System of international law, or universal human rights were set up as a power share that only ever work, if the dominating power at the time is willing to share in those principals, because it gets perceived benefits out of them as well.
> 
> ...


I accept the fact that war is a necessary evil. Mankind will never reach a utopian "world peace". What I'm talking about is that Article 1 of our constitution lays out specific instructions for going to war, and also trying to police the globe and installing puppet dictatorships that always turn on us in 30 years or so probably isn't the best foreign policy if you want to keep allies and not have another Pearl Harbor or 9/11 in retaliation.


----------



## notimp (May 4, 2020)

Subtle Demise said:


> Government "charity" falls victim to a "trickle down" effect. The money goes through so much bureaucracy and change so many hands, and each one needs a piece of it.


Not usually true. Bureaucrats usually dont work for a commission, but salaries that normally are fixed. (Depends on the country. If they work for 'commission' you usually have a corruption problem that goes deeper (everything about running institutions is basically about creating this thing that never does anything not by the book, and if all goes well should be extremely boring, slow, but also reliable.)).

Bureaucracies usually work slow. They shouldnt necessarily have an overlapping competency issue. When a new government is sworn in, there are fights about budgets and competency, but those should be pretty defined after a few months.

Governments dont usually resort to charity (charity = entirely voluntary, subject to big fluctuations (one year you give some, the other year you dont), and dependent on a buch of things that aren related to general developments within a society). With governments your are usually talking about social security (insurance), or benefits (funding peoples minimum living requirements, non negotiable).

Trickle down not working is usually associated with neoliberalism (criticism of neoliberaljsim), Where the idea is, that markets will solve everything, but usually tend to create monopolies, cartels and in the last few decades, very few, very rich folks and a middle class thats receding.

In classic liberal economic theory - you invest into people at the top, they create economic opportunity, and because they do it well, product prices come down, and as a result everyone is more happy than before (more jobs, cheaper goods). Trickle down failing means, that money at the top isnt reinvested into the real economy in a country anymore - but rather in casino economies (trying to attract more money, then cashing out), or different countries - without benefiting your economy. Thats the classic 'trickle down failing'.

Now why dont you invest into individual small people as a state then? Classic economic theory says, they would invest it less well (booze and women..  ), creating fewer jobs.

Where do you get the money? If you are trying to do 'regulatory' stuff (f.e. crisis), the FED usually prints it. If it comes to taxes, those usually arent used to 'stimulate an economy' (tax cuts are used for that purpose usually, if done well) but to pay for peoples retirement and make your society more 'equal'. (Because the market does not.) edit: An exception to that would f.e. be state funded infrastructure programs, but even those usually arent tax based if they are intended to stimulate the economy (usually you increase national debt for those).

FED (printing money) usually makes sure, that money doesnt get lost "in government" (thats a large part of what they do.).


If you are referring to the current discussion about does the corona bailout need more oversight or not - the fear here is not that 'money will get lost in government', but that it will take too long, thus the economic crisis will widen, therefore, you basically give it to corperations for free and dont look too closely (getting it there faster).

The idea that 'politicians make too much money' is usually just a red herring. ('populist') In the US election campaigns are way, way, way too expensive though (and all money has to be sourced from the private sector, not from f.e. grants), which means, that politicians can be bought (favors) that way. But thats usually not money they get to hold on to. While in office they are granting favors, and then get book deals or speaking engagements in return..   (Revolving door, not necessarily unwanted (if they are doing a good job, in regards to the economy). The idea is basically, that they get heavily 'informed' by economic interests (finance ministers coming from Goldmann...  ), but while in government can decide separately - for a few years, for the benefit of the country (electoral base, that brought them into power), and then maybe get back into the private sector.

Regardless there should be congress and the senate as a counter balance. But in the US they usually dont work so well - which means - corporate state issue. (Private interests have too much influence.) Thats still not your tax dollars being misappropriated though..  ('Military industrial complex would be an example where misappropriation is 'rumored'.  ) Usually. That rather means, politicians make suboptimal decisions, and get payed off later in life. (When they get back into the private sector as advisors, f.e... ))

Thats the rough cut.


Subtle Demise said:


> The welfare state is unsustainable in the long term, and in the fave of true crisis, as the current pandemic is slowly teaching us.


Wellfare state is a PR term. And something like a broader social security very much is viable. The US is the only developed country in the world left, that doesnt have universal health care for their citizens, that has a medical system thats not worth much for the general public (someone sneezes and it becomes overtaxed...  ). That has social security systems that run out of funding about a month into a curfew - and large, large populations that live paycheck to paycheck - none of this is normal in the rest of the developed world.

How do you achieve to make those things 'better'? Higher taxes on your middle classes basically. But also reigning in a private healthcare system in the US that has stopped competing really, and has run amok.

Higher minimum wages - which mean, that some unqualified jobs may have to die out or be heavily subsidized. The US is a rich country - with a redistribution issue.

On the other hand you could see that as 'more opportunity' (for some individuals) - but looking at social fluidity, that hasnt been exactly true since the eighties. But the problem here isn't so much greed, but that 'new economic opportunities' become fewer and fewer (societies not necessarily growing anymore, ...). Which means, rich people get richer, much more likely than someone new can make it, by doing something entrepreneurial (Etsy? Uber? Taskrabbit?  ).

The curfews arent showing us that 'a welfare state cant work', because - no one is working. (And machines arent doing all the work (wealth creation) yet..  ). If no one is working you cant have a welfare state, yes. If most people are working, you can have one though..  (At least one more pronounced than in the US, that much is certain.  )



Subtle Demise said:


> An armed populace is necessary to deter absolute tyranny.


No, see europe. Its only necessary to give them a right to protest. Then they can strike in the streets, and if they attract masses, they can stop production and economic life - therefore forcing political change.
If you have a gun, state nowadays has a drone. *puff*
Now the issue in the US might be, that its harder to get masses to march in a capital f.e., because of lower population density. Guns still wont help in toppling a government though. Not anymore.  Thats just a romantic (?) plotline some people want to hold onto.

The last time an armed rebellion did anything good, or wasnt immediately interrupted by some Swat unit, was exactly - never..  Police and FBI might let it go on for a while to better identify and infiltrate leadership structures, but thats it. (Same with Occupy Wallstreet..  (So activist movements, that bank on civil unrest, and protest.) )


Subtle Demise said:


> I accept the fact that war is a necessary evil. Mankind will never reach a utopian "world peace".


We were actually pretty close - the last few decades. 

Quick explaination.

US = hegemon (have military bases all around the world, controlling shipping and trading routes) their job was to keep everything going (trade active). Issue here is, if a country wants a regime change, and they strike - because economy is interconnected, if thats an important resource rich country, stopping trade and resources from flowing, would hurt the entire world. So if there was a chance of that happening, the US usually intervened militarily. So in those countries you dont want 'young idealistic hotheads' that get into power through revolutions, which is why even the US often preferred dictators (more predictable) in those regions.

There are regional conflicts, that basically result from countries at the edge of a 'economic union' becoming more wealthy, as they have more active trade with other unions (as they have borders.  ) thereby becoming more wealthy, thereby wanting to separate from the main union, at which point you usually also intervene militarily. (Thats what russia mostly does, but thats also the conflict between China and Taiwan f.e..)

Then there are some instable regions that could become part of one economic block or another - (Venezuela f.e.), but there arent very many of those these days - an even fewer where you would intervene militarily (usually you just impose sanctions..).

The point I'm trying to make is not 'its human nature - war will always exist', because you can channel that into "trade wars" so people trying to make it there, which is much less costly in terms of lives..  But that wars (of aggression) have been used to keep that system relatively stable throughout the last few decades.

Again - rough cut. 

Also democracy, mainly a thing so you can have 'government change' without a country coming to a standstill. And for that you need institutions (steered by political leaders, but not political themselves). (That arent corrupt.  ) Which kind of brings us full circle. 

Also I'm sure I've left important stuff out..  (Like, what happens, if there should be something like 'limits to growth' globally.)

edit: Bunch of edits made. I think I'm done now.


----------



## notimp (May 5, 2020)

Subtle Demise said:


> An armed populace is necessary to deter absolute tyranny.


In related news (coming out of Stillwater, Oklahoma):


> In first 3 hours of face mask rule, multiple employees are threatened with violence
> 
> “In the short time beginning on May 1, 2020, that face coverings have been required for entry into stores/restaurants, store employees have been threatened with physical violence and showered with verbal abuse,” Stillwater City Manager Norman McNickle said in a statement.
> 
> “In addition, there has been one threat of violence using a firearm. This has occurred in three short hours and in the face of clear medical evidence that face coverings helps contain the spread of Covid-19.”





> Due to the threats of violence, Mayor Will Joyce amended the emergency order to encourage, rather than require, face coverings in the city of 50,000 people.


https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/05...tiple-employees-are-threatened-with-violence/

Look at all the tyranny that prevented.  (*sarcasm*)

edit: Oh, and in Michigan civilians shot and killed a security guard that wanted to enforce the face mask requirement:
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/04/us/michigan-security-guard-mask-killing-trnd/index.html


----------



## Subtle Demise (May 7, 2020)

notimp said:


> Not usually true. Bureaucrats usually dont work for a commission, but salaries that normally are fixed. (Depends on the country. If they work for 'commission' you usually have a corruption problem that goes deeper (everything about running institutions is basically about creating this thing that never does anything not by the book, and if all goes well should be extremely boring, slow, but also reliable.)).
> 
> Bureaucracies usually work slow. They shouldnt necessarily have an overlapping competency issue. When a new government is sworn in, there are fights about budgets and competency, but those should be pretty defined after a few months.
> 
> ...


We can have libertarian policies at the local and domestic side, while still maintaining international diplomacy, albeit with far less imperialism and world policing. My opinion is that liberty is the natural state, and that anyone asserting any kind of authority os initiating violence. Now people can consent to authority, like most do, or a cycle of rebellion and suppression can begin and continue until an equilibrium is reached, which brings me to:


notimp said:


> In related news (coming out of Stillwater, Oklahoma):
> 
> 
> https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/05...tiple-employees-are-threatened-with-violence/
> ...


I can point out two car accidents and use that as an argument for banning motor vehicles, but that's disingenuous. What I should do is draw your attention to the standoff at the Bundy ranch. A group of armed ideologues managed to get the government to stand down, despite being ridiculously outnumbered and outgunned (never a fair fight with authoritarians, eh?). Not to mention the loss of Vietnam and the fact that dudes in Afghanistan with rusty AKs, pajamas and flip flops have been holding their own against the most well-funded military in the world for close to 20 years now. Kinda puts holes in the whole "but they got nukes and drones" argument. Plus drones and missile launches require human operators and functioning supply lines. Remove one or both, and the playing field is level again.


----------



## x65943 (May 7, 2020)

Woot

He said he was considering running for president on the Libertarian ticket as well


----------



## Chary (May 7, 2020)

So...he was elected as a Republican but swapped parties while still in office? It’s nice to see other parties actually get some limelight, but who’s to say it’ll end up mattering? People entrenched in the two party system might just vote him out come next election, once they find out he doesn’t play for their “team”...


----------



## x65943 (May 7, 2020)

Chary said:


> So...he was elected as a Republican but swapped parties while still in office? It’s nice to see other parties actually get some limelight, but who’s to say it’ll end up mattering? People entrenched in the two party system might just vote him out come next election, once they find out he doesn’t play for their “team”...


Yeah he knows he has zero chance of winning - he only switched affiliation because he knew he would lose in the primary

The whole switch was optics - he is already hated by the right for voting to convict Donald Trump

The running for Lib president is a last ditch effort to salvage his dead political career

All that said, woot more publicity for the libs!!

I'll vote for him - he'll lose, but us libs always do


----------



## notimp (May 7, 2020)

Subtle Demise said:


> I can point out two car accidents and use that as an argument for banning motor vehicles, but that's disingenuous. What I should do is draw your attention to the standoff at the Bundy ranch..


Fair. (In argument.) But a little extreme on your associations..  (flowerful).


I believe that "the natural state of man" is an esoteric concept. Its like proclaiming "the ideal state of man is", but replacing ideal with natural to make it more 'inevitable sounding'. (With stuff like that my PR filter is tingling..  (I cant turn that off  ))

But I have nothing against your political convictions. Even though they call for a pretty hefty restructuring of society...  (Henry David Thoreau style )

edit: Also I wasnt advocating the stuff in my longer posting as 'ideal', i just gave what I believe to be a rundown of how a few national and international government systems were structured in the past - and a bit of its internal logic. I'm not trying to say, that that was the best possible thing imaginable. Its a flawed system - but at least it prevented large scale altercations in the past.

Also I maybe should add to that, that there is something like the United Nations, which I all but ignored...  So what I sketched out by no means is complete.


----------

