|
Post by jdredd on Jun 13, 2010 22:49:26 GMT -5
www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/business/media/14fox.html?hpwIs Libertarianism the "Next Big Thing"? Or just a passing fad? Are people ready for a philosophy that includes no foreign entanglements (Will we leave NATO?), no drug prohibitions, open borders? Oh wait, this is sanitized Libertarianism that is just against vague "big government", which simply means corporations get free reign. Whoopee.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jun 14, 2010 13:37:47 GMT -5
No one has anything to say on this, huh? OH well, I can go on by myself... Here is a side of Libertarianism that the GOP would rather ignore, I believe: www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-0614-preble-militarycuts-20100614,0,4297704.story Both these guys are from the Cato Institute, the notorious Libertarian think tank. Are Americans really ready to dismantle our Empire? What about "Fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here"?
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Jun 14, 2010 17:04:47 GMT -5
No one has anything to say on this, huh? OH well, I can go on by myself... Here is a side of Libertarianism that the GOP would rather ignore, I believe: www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-0614-preble-militarycuts-20100614,0,4297704.story Both these guys are from the Cato Institute, the notorious Libertarian think tank. Are Americans really ready to dismantle our Empire? What about "Fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here"? I fail to see how you connect the dots of dismantling when you guys voted for dismantling America, fundamentally change the country. The only dismantling needed is reversing the idiocy of the current administration. I’m pretty happy with the constitution, when we replace the liar-in-chief we can return to America’s fundamentals. The article makes sense to me. There are a couple of points not addressed. If military personnel are cut where will those people find jobs in the Obama economy, remember his 8% promise. Secondly overseas bases allow America to respond to disasters. Maybe I missing your point but it’s hot outside and I’m a little dizzy, oh boy it’s time for Michael Savage. Gee I though you guys hated the Cato Institute.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jun 15, 2010 3:27:34 GMT -5
No one has anything to say on this, huh? OH well, I can go on by myself... Here is a side of Libertarianism that the GOP would rather ignore, I believe: www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-0614-preble-militarycuts-20100614,0,4297704.story Both these guys are from the Cato Institute, the notorious Libertarian think tank. Are Americans really ready to dismantle our Empire? What about "Fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here"? I fail to see how you connect the dots of dismantling when you guys voted for dismantling America, fundamentally change the country. The only dismantling needed is reversing the idiocy of the current administration. I’m pretty happy with the constitution, when we replace the liar-in-chief we can return to America’s fundamentals. The article makes sense to me. There are a couple of points not addressed. If military personnel are cut where will those people find jobs in the Obama economy, remember his 8% promise. Secondly overseas bases allow America to respond to disasters. Maybe I missing your point but it’s hot outside and I’m a little dizzy, oh boy it’s time for Michael Savage. Gee I though you guys hated the Cato Institute. I'm not sure "hate" is the word. Contempt, perhaps.
|
|
|
Post by dj on Jun 17, 2010 20:20:22 GMT -5
www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/business/media/14fox.html?hpwIs Libertarianism the "Next Big Thing"? Or just a passing fad? Are people ready for a philosophy that includes no foreign entanglements (Will we leave NATO?), no drug prohibitions, open borders? Oh wait, this is sanitized Libertarianism that is just against vague "big government", which simply means corporations get free reign. Whoopee. Libertarianism is always the next big thing. So it will not go away, but it will not dominate. This is simply because libertarianism is what you might call an ideological baseline. As a vague concept it is pure and simple and logical... as long as you don't get too specific. For instance, an overriding principle in libertarianism is non-interference by the government in the lives of its citizenry. Perfectly wonderful idea. However, there is no defining limit to this concept - not one that has ever been satisfactorily established between the fervent libertarians and the passing libertarians. Meaning, "non-interference" extended to its logical conclusion ends in anarchy. The question is, how do you have a government of the people which is not supposed to govern in any significant way? Another principle of libertarianism is a sort of isolationism: non-interference in foreign countries' affairs. Then again, how does one conduct and protect free international trade and travel? How does one deal with aggressive belligerents around the world? Ultimately, libertarianism is sort of a political ideal, which one can use as a guide to setting standards of conduct and as a framework for basic decisionmaking, but it's certainly not a plausible overriding structure. Come to think of it, the libertarian relationship to politics and political bodies is similar to that of the tea party movement. In its simplest sense, the impetus for the formation of the Tea Party movement, allegedly, was as a spontaneous backlash to overbearing, coercive, anti-free-enterprise, taxationist government. Like libertarianism, however, there is no real way to codify a set of tenets of Tea Party absolutes to any real extent without probably alienating various factions of the whole. Some Tea Party people are strictly anti-tax expansion people. Some are anti-illegal alien. Some are anti-abortion. Some are all. But we're finding that most are averse to coordinating a leadership body and establishing a platform of beliefs and goals. This is sort of antithetical to the underlying motivations in the first place. "If we're anti-big-government, why are we establishing a leadership hierarchy"?? (On a funny note, this is always the problem with any anti-authority groups like the hippie/socialist/anarchist movements.) Back to your original question, dredd, no, America will never be ready for "pure" libertarianism, because that would entail open borders, abolition of many to most government agencies, no foreign relations to speak of, etc. It would nullify monetary policy oversight and so on, too. This is why I describe myself as libertarian-ish.
|
|
|
Post by animal on Jun 17, 2010 22:48:04 GMT -5
when I hear "libertarian" I think Lyndon LaRouche.... and then shut my head off.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jun 18, 2010 0:41:19 GMT -5
www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/business/media/14fox.html?hpwIs Libertarianism the "Next Big Thing"? Or just a passing fad? Are people ready for a philosophy that includes no foreign entanglements (Will we leave NATO?), no drug prohibitions, open borders? Oh wait, this is sanitized Libertarianism that is just against vague "big government", which simply means corporations get free reign. Whoopee. Libertarianism is always the next big thing. So it will not go away, but it will not dominate. This is simply because libertarianism is what you might call an ideological baseline. As a vague concept it is pure and simple and logical... as long as you don't get too specific. For instance, an overriding principle in libertarianism is non-interference by the government in the lives of its citizenry. Perfectly wonderful idea. However, there is no defining limit to this concept - not one that has ever been satisfactorily established between the fervent libertarians and the passing libertarians. Meaning, "non-interference" extended to its logical conclusion ends in anarchy. The question is, how do you have a government of the people which is not supposed to govern in any significant way? Another principle of libertarianism is a sort of isolationism: non-interference in foreign countries' affairs. Then again, how does one conduct and protect free international trade and travel? How does one deal with aggressive belligerents around the world? Ultimately, libertarianism is sort of a political ideal, which one can use as a guide to setting standards of conduct and as a framework for basic decisionmaking, but it's certainly not a plausible overriding structure. Come to think of it, the libertarian relationship to politics and political bodies is similar to that of the tea party movement. In its simplest sense, the impetus for the formation of the Tea Party movement, allegedly, was as a spontaneous backlash to overbearing, coercive, anti-free-enterprise, taxationist government. Like libertarianism, however, there is no real way to codify a set of tenets of Tea Party absolutes to any real extent without probably alienating various factions of the whole. Some Tea Party people are strictly anti-tax expansion people. Some are anti-illegal alien. Some are anti-abortion. Some are all. But we're finding that most are averse to coordinating a leadership body and establishing a platform of beliefs and goals. This is sort of antithetical to the underlying motivations in the first place. " If we're anti-big-government, why are we establishing a leadership hierarchy"?? (On a funny note, this is always the problem with any anti-authority groups like the hippie/socialist/anarchist movements.) Back to your original question, dredd, no, America will never be ready for "pure" libertarianism, because that would entail open borders, abolition of many to most government agencies, no foreign relations to speak of, etc. It would nullify monetary policy oversight and so on, too. This is why I describe myself as libertarian-ish. Indeed, when your ideal is complete individual liberty and individual responsibility, it's hard to make any kind of organized effort. It's like herding cats. Why should I work with you when you won't modify your behavior to accommodate me?
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Apr 23, 2011 15:04:55 GMT -5
www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0421-thai-trafficking-20110421,0,6167205.story "Global Horizons recruited Thai men to the farms under a legal farmworker program from 2003 to 2007 with false promises of steady, high-paying jobs — then confiscated their passports and threatened them with deportation if they complained about work conditions, according to two civil complaints announced Wednesday in Los Angeles. To secure the jobs, the workers were charged recruitment fees as high as $25,000, forcing many of them to take on staggering debt, according to Anna Park, regional attorney for the commission's Los Angeles office." Under Libertarianism, this would not even be illegal.
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Apr 23, 2011 21:13:35 GMT -5
Under Libertarianism, this would not even be illegal. I'll give ya the benefit of doubt that the bong was packed to tight otherwise you are a certifiable nutcase. Toke one for me.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jul 30, 2011 1:00:19 GMT -5
What is happening is what I was afraid of if a large contingent of Libertarians (T-Partyers) ever came to Congress: Government Paralysis.
But of course, that is what Libertarians believe is a virtue.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jun 4, 2012 0:15:49 GMT -5
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/3/hallow-in-oregon-chemist-offers-gop-a-unifying-for/"Some take it as a sign of GOP metamorphosis that the Oregon party leadership has embraced Mr. Robinson, the kind of candidate whom the GOP establishment would have cold-shouldered before the tea party’s electoral successes in 2010. Hardly a run-of-the-mill GOP candidate, Mr. Robinson has won the endorsement of the Libertarian Party in Oregon’s 4th Congressional District as he seeks to unseat Rep. Peter A. DeFazio, a liberal Democrat and 13-term incumbent." With the extremist Libertarian ideology becoming mainstream in the GOP, I wonder if it will help or hurt Romney in November? One thing I would bet on: If Romney gets into the WH, he'll leave the Libertarians and TPers out in the cold.
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Jun 4, 2012 11:27:30 GMT -5
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/3/hallow-in-oregon-chemist-offers-gop-a-unifying-for/"Some take it as a sign of GOP metamorphosis that the Oregon party leadership has embraced Mr. Robinson, the kind of candidate whom the GOP establishment would have cold-shouldered before the tea party’s electoral successes in 2010. Hardly a run-of-the-mill GOP candidate, Mr. Robinson has won the endorsement of the Libertarian Party in Oregon’s 4th Congressional District as he seeks to unseat Rep. Peter A. DeFazio, a liberal Democrat and 13-term incumbent." With the extremist Libertarian ideology becoming mainstream in the GOP, I wonder if it will help or hurt Romney in November? One thing I would bet on: If Romney gets into the WH, he'll leave the Libertarians and TPers out in the cold. Oregon is nearing the toss-up column, even the radicals in Clackamas county are beginning to see the light. If Romney throws the Tea Party under the bus he also may be a one term president.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jun 4, 2012 14:10:38 GMT -5
There is one amusing thing I've noted recently: Even with my teenage grandchildren, "Tea Partyer" is synonymous with crazy person.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jun 25, 2012 23:08:11 GMT -5
Uh-oh, trouble in Libertarianland: www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/jun/24/catos-president-forced-step-down/"The Cato Institute's co-founder and president, Edward Crane, has been forced out by the libertarian organization’s board of directors, according to inside sources. John A. Allison, former chairman and CEO of BB&T Corporation, will take over as interim president." "Board members Charles Koch and David Koch have clashed publicly with Mr. Crane. A lawsuit the Koch brothers filed in Kansas settled this week, shifting power from shareholders to the board. The Kochs have veto power over who is appointed as Mr. Crane’s successor. Mr. Allison will lead the search for a permanent replacement."
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jul 8, 2012 21:24:16 GMT -5
I was watching an FBN special on jobs, and they were talking about "gridlock"in Congress, and the dirtbag from the Koch's libertarian Cato Institute let the cat out of the bag: He said "gridlock is probably a good thing". Why wouldn't someone who hates government be happy when it is paralyzed?
|
|