[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Cult Watch
See other Cult Watch Articles

Title: Here's Why Libertarians Are Mostly Men
Source: Mother Jones
URL Source: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr ... hy-libertarians-are-mostly-men
Published: Jun 8, 2015
Author: Kevin Drum
Post Date: 2015-06-08 09:21:53 by Willie Green
Keywords: None
Views: 11476
Comments: 54

Jeet Heer investigates a burning question today: why are most libertarians men? He offers several plausible explanations, but I think he misses the real one, perhaps because it's pretty unflattering to libertarians.

So here's the quick answer: Hardcore libertarianism is a fantasy. It's a fantasy where the strongest and most self-reliant folks end up at the top of the heap, and a fair number of men share the fantasy that they are these folks. They believe they've been held back by rules and regulations designed to help the weak, and in a libertarian culture their talents would be obvious and they'd naturally rise to positions of power and influence.

Most of them are wrong, of course. In a truly libertarian culture, nearly all of them would be squashed like ants—mostly by the same people who are squashing them now. But the fantasy lives on regardless.

Few women share this fantasy. I don't know why, and I don't really want to play amateur sociologist and guess. Perhaps it's something as simple as the plain observation that in the more libertarian past, women were subjugated to men almost completely. Why would that seem like an appealing fantasy?

Anyway, this is obviously simplistic and unflattering, and libertarians are going to be offended by it. Sorry. But feel free to take some guesses in comments about why women don't take to libertarianism as strongly as men.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 52.

#1. To: Willie Green (#0)

Hardcore libertarianism is a fantasy.

It's a fantasy where the strongest and most self-reliant folks end up at the top of the heap, and a fair number of men share the fantasy that they are these folks.

They believe they've been held back by rules and regulations designed to help the weak, and in a libertarian culture their talents would be obvious and they'd naturally rise to positions of power and influence.

I think Mr. Drum is correct.

I think we could also restate his premise like this:

Conservatism is a fantasy.

It's a fantasy where the strongest and most self-reliant folks end up at the top of the heap, and a fair number of republicans share the fantasy that they are these folks.

They believe they've been held back by rules and regulations designed to help the 99%, and in a truely conservative culture their talents would be obvious and they'd naturally rise to positions of power and influence.

Most of them are wrong, of course.

Jameson  posted on  2015-06-08   9:36:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Jameson (#1)

Leftism is a fantasy.

It's a fantasy where politicians can be trusted to help the weak, poor, and indigent.

They believe that politicians are selfless "public servants" who care more about "society" than their own lust for power and control over others.

This is wrong, of course.

cranko  posted on  2015-06-08   9:44:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: cranko (#2)

It's a fantasy where politicians can be trusted to help the weak, poor, and indigent.

So the GI Bill, TVA, Hoover Dam, SS were all failures?

Pericles  posted on  2015-06-08   10:05:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Pericles, cranko (#3)

It's a fantasy where politicians can be trusted to help the weak, poor, and indigent.

So the GI Bill, TVA, Hoover Dam, SS were all failures?

Neither of these government programs, save perhaps SS was designed or intended to help the weak, poor and indigent. And frankly none, save perhaps SS, do that today. Fortunately the GI Bill and Hoover Dam have some useful life in them. The SS is going broke and will not be around of much longer to help anyone. Further the Federal government of late is even fcking up the military, which in no way exists to help the weak, poor and indigent of the U.S. save for national catastrophes.

But I know a good uber liberal sych as yourself truly believes that no-one succeeds in life without the help of the government. After all you didn't build anything or achieving anything in your life without Big Brother having given it to you, right?

SOSO  posted on  2015-06-08   11:44:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: SOSO (#6)

"The SS is going broke and will not be around of much longer to help anyone."

"... the military, which in no way exists to help the weak, poor and indigent of the U.S..."

Social Security currently runs a surplus, as you know, and IMHO our next president and congress will follow in the footsteps of Ron Reagan and make the changes necessary to guarantee solvency far into the future.

As for your comment about the military, no one could disagree that the DOD's spending is out of control and frivolous, their treatment of veterans is unacceptable, and their management structure is dysfunctional. However, for a whole bunch of young Americans, the military is the option of last resort for any gainful employment.....

Jameson  posted on  2015-06-08   12:02:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Jameson (#10)

Social Security currently runs a surplus, as you know,

No, I don't know. Please document this.

SOSO  posted on  2015-06-08   12:13:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: SOSO (#15)

No, I don't know.

Now you do.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/assets.html

Learning is fun!

Jameson  posted on  2015-06-08   12:26:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: Jameson, SOSO (#16)

Now you do.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/assets.html

Learning is fun!

According to:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2014/opdx122014.xls

and

www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a3.html (Calender year 2014)

... the trust fund currently has $60,206 billion in non-loaned assets (as of CY14).

The rest of the funds are in in IOUs that the GrubberMint is using to fund their drunken spending binges.

Federal Old-Age And Survivors Insurance Trust Fund (in millions of $USD)
Prior Month OutstandingLoaned2,695,604
Current Month IssuedNew loans98,271
Current Month RedeemedPayments on loans
64,605
Current Month OutstandingNew balance
2,729,270
Total assets remaining Trust balance (2,789,476) - Loans (2,729,270)
60,206

.........

On that note:

Why do some people describe the "special issue" securities held by the trust funds as worthless IOUs? What is SSA's reaction to this criticism?
Money flowing into the trust funds is invested in U. S. Government securities. Because the government spends this borrowed cash, some people see the trust fund assets as an accumulation of securities that the government will be unable to make good on in the future. Without legislation to restore long-range solvency of the trust funds, redemption of long-term securities prior to maturity would be necessary.
Far from being "worthless IOUs," the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government. The government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal government.
Many options are being considered to restore long-range trust fund solvency. These options are being considered now, well in advance of the year the funds are likely to be exhausted. It is thus likely that legislation will be enacted to restore long-term solvency, making it unlikely that the trust funds' securities will need to be redeemed on a large scale prior to maturity.

......

Of course, the Trustees for the fund claim that the program will be solvent until 2035, not including the fact that the nation carries debts far exceeding the ledger balance of the trust fund. As far as I can tell, if you owe $18 trillion in debt, of which $2.7 trillion is owed to the trust fund (that is out of the over $5 trillion owed in Government Account debt), it would be nigh impossible to pay off the SS fund or any other public fund.

TheFireBert  posted on  2015-06-08   19:05:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: TheFireBert, Jameson (#26)

Of course, the Trustees for the fund claim that the program will be solvent until 2035, not including the fact that the nation carries debts far exceeding the ledger balance of the trust fund. As far as I can tell, if you owe $18 trillion in debt, of which $2.7 trillion is owed to the trust fund (that is out of the over $5 trillion owed in Government Account debt), it would be nigh impossible to pay off the SS fund or any other public fund.

On the positive side it doesn't have to be repaid all at once. Howver, a defualt on any U.S. Government full faith and credit debt will affect all of them.

SOSO  posted on  2015-06-08   20:23:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: SOSO (#31)

Howver, a defualt on any U.S. Government full faith and credit debt will affect all of them.

...However.....Default.....

Please give someone else your keys..

There will never be a default. Sorry.

Jameson  posted on  2015-06-08   21:28:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: Jameson (#33)

There will never be a default. Sorry.

And if you like your doctor you can keep you doctor. Never is a long time. Besides there are other actions that can be taking to avoid a technical default which de facto are a restructuring to avoid a technical default. IMO that is a distinction without much of a difference. Why do you think people younger than 40 believe that they will not see a penny in SS payments after having paid into the system for 10-20 years? Sorry but I would call that a default.

SOSO  posted on  2015-06-08   21:34:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: SOSO (#34)

Why do you think people younger than 40 believe that they will not see a penny in SS payments after having paid into the system for 10-20 years?

Don't know, I know lots of people under 40, I can't think of one who shares your negative perspective.

But anyway, believe whatever you wish....

On the other hand....what are you willing to do to make sure that the next generation(s) have the same security and opportunities as the earlier generations?

Jameson  posted on  2015-06-08   21:48:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: Jameson (#35)

On the other hand....what are you willing to do to make sure that the next generation(s) have the same security and opportunities as the earlier generations?

I don't have to do anything. If the system is going bankrupt then it either needs to be fixed or phased out. In either case the question is what to do about (1) those that paid into the system all of their working life (about 40 or 50+ years) and are presently receiveing benefits (generally 62 and over), (2) those that are near retirement age (50-62 years old) and paid into the system for 30-40+ years), (3) those that are say between 35 and 50 years old and paid into the system for 20-30+ years), (4) those between 18-35 years old and paid into the system for less than 20 years, and, those at any age that never paid into the system.

I don't see a fix that would not require increasing the retirement age for people under 50 (perhaps 40), raising the rate, raising the income cap or a combination of all three.

On balance I probably would favor phasing out the sytem (1) leaving present retirees and recipients of SS as is, (2) maintaining the system only long enough to allow those near retirement age (e.g. - 55 and older) to continue on as is until retirement, and, (3) then paying off all others, in a lump sum of over time, that have contributed into the system a pro rata amount.

No solution will be perfect but there appears little reason to perpetuate the SS system as is or even at all.

SOSO  posted on  2015-06-08   23:06:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: SOSO, Jameson (#36)

I don't see a fix that would not require increasing the retirement age for people under 50 (perhaps 40), raising the rate, raising the income cap or a combination of all three.

Here's a solution that I came up with at least a dozen years ago:

Both major political parties perpetuate The Big Lie regarding Social Security. The Big Lie has existed since Social Security's inception. The debate over "privatization" is only the latest version of The Big Lie.
The Big Lie is that Social Security is some kind of retirement savings plan.
It is NOT.
Social Security is a socialist income redistribution scheme, nothing else.
Those who are working are taxed to provide a "safety net" for those who are less fortunate.
Originally, this meant retirees and surviving dependents.
Congress has, of course, complicated it far beyond this over the last 75 years.
But one fact remains: it is NOT a "savings plan", it is an income redistribution scheme.
A major facet of The Big Lie is that "we have to do something" so that Social Security remains solvent in the future.
Poppycock!
In today's age of modern computerization, the computation for operating an income redistribution scheme that remains perpetually solvent is quite simple:

Last month's total SS tax receipts = Next month's total SS tax disbursements

The only change necessary to the current system is that monthly payments to eligible recipients would be a variable amount, not fixed.

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO NEED FOR A MULTI-TRILLION DOLLAR "TRUST" FUND!!! .. a one month "cushion" is all that is necessary. As our economy grows, those on SS automatically share in the prosperity... In leaner years, SS recipients have to tighten their belts, just like everybody else... but they still have a "safety net"
Congress should NEVER have been permitted to confiscate so much money from the American People in the name of The Big Lie. This fund is nothing but a slush fund that Congress raids to pay for other government expenditures. If private sector employers did the same thing with their companies' pension funds, they'd be placed in prison.

I used to post that rant all the time.
Needless to say, it'll never get traction in the real world.

Willie Green  posted on  2015-06-09   7:28:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: Willie Green, SOSO, Jameson (#39)

1) Last month's total SS tax receipts = Next month's total SS tax disbursements

2) This fund is nothing but a slush fund that Congress raids to pay for other government expenditures.

1... You pretty much summed up what the current scheme is now. The only thing that is missing is the fact that - next [month's] disbursements will incrementally outpace last [month's] receipts - as the GrubberMint continues to expand the payout categories and eligible persons to include more at the bottom of the wealth pile at increased expense of those at the middle of that pile (no need for Richie Rich to worry about petty things like "paying into SS" from his investment accounts).

2... That is also exactly what I was trying to explain to Jameson, and another reason why young people are now waking up to the fact that the GrubberMint has lied to them and will never be able to privatize the non-existent funds or pay back those trillions of dollars in intragovernmental debts.

TheFireBert  posted on  2015-06-11   18:42:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: TheFireBert, Willie Green, Jameson (#51)

2... That is also exactly what I was trying to explain to Jameson, and another reason why young people are now waking up to the fact that the GrubberMint has lied to them and will never be able to ...............pay back those trillions of dollars in intragovernmental debts.

Not so. The government will just slowly replace the debt owed to the SS fund by new debt, probably bonds but maybe shorter term notes. In other words, what the government has borrowed from SS will eventually show up as government debt on the books, not hidden as is presently the deliberate case.

"1... You pretty much summed up what the current scheme is now. The only thing that is missing is the fact that - next [month's] disbursements will incrementally outpace last [month's] receipts - as the GrubberMint continues to expand the payout categories and eligible persons to include more at the bottom of the wealth pile at increased expense of those at the middle of that pile (no need for Richie Rich to worry about petty things like "paying into SS" from his investment accounts)."

This is why SS should slowly be phased out. It indeed has turned into something more like a welfare entitlement program for those that have never paid into the system. For those that have paid into it, AS REQUIRED BY LAW, getting back their money, without interest, is hardly an entitlement. And I would remind that the money paid into a person's SS account includes BOTH what is deducted from the person's paycheck PLUS an equal amount paid by the person's employer (including himself if self-employed) in lieu of higher wages - presently the SS rate is over 15.3% of the average person' salary).

It is a myth that people receive more in SS payments than what was contributed by them and their employer, especially since the contributions do not accrue interest which would generally exceed the amount of the contributed amount over 40+ years of paying into the system.

If I had saved 15.3% of my salary since I started paying into the system in 1965, even at just a money market savings account rate of interest, I (and my estate) would have well over $1 million in savings instead of the monthly SS payments for which I have earned (which will cease upon my death) that will never come close to $1 million even if I live to be 100 years old. On balance, the government mandated itself one hell of a good deal at my expense, and for just about everyone who is LEGALLY required to pay into the system.

Medicare is a different thing altogether. We can discuss that separately.

SOSO  posted on  2015-06-11   21:52:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 52.

        There are no replies to Comment # 52.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 52.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com