Why Libertarianism is Better Than That Other Crap

[Industrialsize]

"...The Founders, the most progressive of them included, did believe in limited government. The question for us today: Why? http://www.toomuchonline.org/art_2010/securing.jpgToday’s conservatives don’t bother with that question. For good reason, as historian James Huston explained over a decade ago in his still timely epic, Securing the Fruits of Labor: The American Concept of Wealth Distribution 1765-1900. The Founders believed in “limited government” because they wanted to limit what today’s conservatives celebrate: the concentration of wealth.
America’s revolutionaries had read their history. Every previous attempt to establish republican rule, they knew from that history, had failed. Athens. Rome. Venice. Florence. The cause of that failure, as the Founders came to see it: a deep and divisive maldistribution of wealth...."

Did the Founders Want Government Small? | OurFuture.org

Besides the Founding Fathers, Emerson also recognized that the concentration of wealth was inimical to democracy.

Just consider what the lib spearhead (that immigrant Muslim), and the Obama Supreme Court, aided and abetted by the ACLU, is attempting to do, by strengthening the power and position of large international corporations, and expanding the power, control, and influence of this corporate, big government complex over the life of every individual, to the point of domination, and the case for the Tea Party movement and libertarianism becomes ever so compelling.

Did you actually call the first African-American President as "spearhead"?

 

[ECUBiBoy]

I agreed with about 20% of the video, mostly the parts that highlight very particular flaws in our current system. But much of it was utopian and idealistic. I can never shake the sense that Libertarians, like Communists or other radicals, imagine that there narrow philosophy is "the one true faith". Again, I think pointing to very particular flaws is very helpful. But I always roll my eyes when a movement invokes it's sacred texts.

One think I'd like from a bunch of Rothbard-followers is acknowledgement that they had a big falling out with the Koch's and much of what know passes as 'Libertarian' isn't the quasi-anarchic ideas of yore, but rather simple corporatism.

ECUBiBoy, if you really are in Goldsboro, do you like Scott's Barbecue? As to their sauce, I think "it's the best ye' ever tasted".

Hopefully, you at least agree that the porno scanners are part of those flaws. I guess it's safe to say that the Cato Institute represents the split between Rothbard and Koch. Rothbard's always been true to the Lysander-Spooner-style anarchism, whereas Koch is the one who should be associated with corporatism and beltway libertarianism. That's why I said visit LewRockwell.com (or the Mises Institute) and not Cato. I could also mention a few other turncoat losers such as Bill Buckley Jr.

I have heard of Scott's BBQ, but have not tried it. I like McCall's quite a bit though. In Greenville, they have a really good one called B's BBQ. There's a lot of great places like that around here.

 

[D_Myer_Dogasflees]

what is the tea party movement?

 

[B_Nick4444]

Did you actually call the first African-American President as "spearhead"?

OMG!

yes, since I don't think in terms of race or ethnicity

I'll try to edit, but if I can't, please accept the change to "leader"

 

[wallyj84]

"...The Founders, the most progressive of them included, did believe in limited government. The question for us today: Why? http://www.toomuchonline.org/art_2010/securing.jpgToday’s conservatives don’t bother with that question. For good reason, as historian James Huston explained over a decade ago in his still timely epic, Securing the Fruits of Labor: The American Concept of Wealth Distribution 1765-1900. The Founders believed in “limited government” because they wanted to limit what today’s conservatives celebrate: the concentration of wealth.
America’s revolutionaries had read their history. Every previous attempt to establish republican rule, they knew from that history, had failed. Athens. Rome. Venice. Florence. The cause of that failure, as the Founders came to see it: a deep and divisive maldistribution of wealth...."

Did the Founders Want Government Small? | OurFuture.org

Besides the Founding Fathers, Emerson also recognized that the concentration of wealth was inimical to democracy.

Just consider what the lib spearhead (that immigrant Muslim), and the Obama Supreme Court, aided and abetted by the ACLU, is attempting to do, by strengthening the power and position of large international corporations, and expanding the power, control, and influence of this corporate, big government complex over the life of every individual, to the point of domination, and the case for the Tea Party movement and libertarianism becomes ever so compelling.

As they point out in the article you linked to, in the time of the Founders the country was largely agrarian where wealth was heavily related to labor. That's no longer the case. We aren't an agrarian society anymore. the US has an industrial/service economy. The methods for limiting the concentration of wealth in a modern economy will be different from the methods used in an agrarian society.

Maybe back in the 1700's limited government was the answer to an intense concentration of wealth, but the economy has changed so much that limited government is not the answer to wealth concentration anymore.

 

[Bbucko]

I think it's simple minds who go along with our current system. It's the sheeple who think government interference is the right way to do things as opposed to cooperation and rule of law (rule of law, not rule of people/tyrants).

Personally, I think the best Simple Minds' effort was Theme For Great Cities :biggrin1:

As to the video, it was so chock-a-block with jingoism and "code words" that someone unfamiliar with the subject would need a pen and paper to take notes and hours to research what's actually being said. I also found the nipple-buttons on the guy's shirt oddly distracting.

And speaking of "sheeple" (a term I dislike intensely, as it denigrates the concept of consensus), the female in the vid has to be the most corruptible and easily-manipulated animated character ever created. She goes from informed skeptic to true believer in fewer than five minutes.

There has been a yin/yang in American politics since its initial settlement: urbanized people who understand the value of cooperation and consensus-building (along with the obvious requirement of some government to identify these needs and follow-up on their execution) and rural people who lived by their own Libertarian set of rules; their isolation facilitated this, as large chunks of legislation designed to keep order among the masses were completely irrelevant to their lives.

True Libertarianism requires small pockets of isolated, culturally-homogeneous equals (peers, if you'd prefer) who share nearly-identical values in order to function. Instead of Somalia (which is pure, lawless anarchy), one might better look at the isolated and stubbornly independent residents of central and, especially, northern New Hampshire. They live with minimal government because so little governing is required.

But New Hampshire is notorious for its toll roads (which are still in deplorable condition) and their astronomical property taxes (no income tax, nor any sales tax) yet still have one of the worst public school systems in the Northeast. And the lackadaisical enforcement of local statutes is only for residents. The tourists (whom they require to survive in a state with no real industry except tourism) are subject to a much stricter interpretation of the law, especially when sporting a Massachusetts plate :wink:

Coastal Maine, especially northeast of Bar Harbor, is another great example, though they tend to be more tourist-friendly, and Vermont is hardly the commie hellhole some may believe it to be. True American Libertarianism has always been the rule rather than the exception in northern New England, where it makes sense. In the more urban and industrialized southern part of the region, community is valued higher than individualism: the first subway in North America was built in Boston (antedating even Paris' Metro).

 

[B_Nick4444]

what is the tea party movement?

Tea Party Patriots | Find Your Local Tea Party

it's a spontaneous, grass roots movements springing to the defense of America, against the forces of statist-corporate collectivism at work, in various forms, to destroy America and American values, and to reconstruct the nation along a programmatic, collective utopian vision, through various forms of social. political, and economic engineering

since it's beginning with Teddy Roosevelt's Progressives, it has taken various forms (Teddy Roosevelt was anti-corporation, Franklin Roosevelt, and Obama, of course, have major hard-ons for large corporate domination). The major founding architect of the current form was initiated Franklin Roosevelt.

Another major figure was Lyndon Johnson.

Along with other forms of fascism, racial/ethic status is a large element -- kindly note the form it takes by reading the prior posts -- it creates certain defined and legally protected status and entitlements for certain ideologically defined ethic, racial, and gender categories, proscribing speech and action for some of these protected categories.

Indeed, like other ideological systems, it has certain litmus tests to discredit or invalidate anyone who deviates from the doctrine. Just as Islam has its "infidels", and Marxist-Leninists had their "Trotskyites", libs today have their "bigots".

One has to tow the party line regarding women, minorities, immigrants, or gays; to do otherwise risks censure.

It also insists on domination by the corporate statist complex, and dependence on it, hence, the urgent drive for national healthcare, and "regulatory reform" that makes it impossible for any but the largest corporations to be players in the economic field -- in the case of the latter, smaller local and regional banks will be unable to function, driving dependence by contracting opportunities for small businesses, thus accelerating dependence on government and the larger corporations, further restricting speech, and action, and, of course, thinking.

Even more chilling, is the drive for the acceptance of pseudo-scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming; Once that doctrine is in place, the way is paved for replacement of the current system of exchange with carbon currency, which would require a system of social, economic, and political control that would surpass the wildest wet-dreams of the Young Turks, the Roosevelts, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and the current libs.

 

[B_Nick4444]

As they point out in the article you linked to, in the time of the Founders the country was largely agrarian where wealth was heavily related to labor. That's no longer the case. We aren't an agrarian society anymore. the US has an industrial/service economy. The methods for limiting the concentration of wealth in a modern economy will be different from the methods used in an agrarian society.

Maybe back in the 1700's limited government was the answer to an intense concentration of wealth, but the economy has changed so much that limited government is not the answer to wealth concentration anymore.

as a review of American economic history and legislation will show, it didn't "change" on its own; it would be correct to say it was "directed" to its current form

 

[B_talltpaguy]

Tea Party Patriots | Find Your Local Tea Party

it's a spontaneous, grass roots movements springing to the defense of America, against the forces of statist-corporate collectivism at work, in various forms, to destroy America and American values, and to reconstruct the nation along a programmatic, collective utopian vision, through various forms of social. political, and economic engineering

BWAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!! lolololololol

 

[wallyj84]

as a review of American economic history and legislation will show, it didn't "change" on its own; it would be correct to say it was "directed" to its current form

Does that really matter? The fact remains that with the economic system we have now old methods for limiting concentration of wealth no longer work.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Did you actually call the first African-American President as "spearhead"?

Seriously, how much longer do we have to "tolerate" NickyBigot? My ignore list is just too long to add yet another imbecile to it.

 

[B_Nick4444]

Definition of SPEARHEAD

1
: the sharp-pointed head of a spear

2
: a leading element, force, or influence in an undertaking or development

Spearhead - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[Bbucko]

Seriously, how much longer do we have to "tolerate" NickyBigot? My ignore list is just too long to add yet another imbecile to it.

My Ignore List is reserved for the true elites of assholism: Nick simply doesn't measure up :wink:

 

[B_Nick4444]

Does that really matter? The fact remains that with the economic system we have now old methods for limiting concentration of wealth no longer work.

just as it was directed to its current form, it can be re-directed to a different form

once the libs are ousted, of course

just out of curiousity are you European? (don't mean anything by that -- just curious, given the fatalism I sense may be behind the statement)

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Definition of SPEARHEAD

1
: the sharp-pointed head of a spear

2
: a leading element, force, or influence in an undertaking or development

Spearhead - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Don't think for one second that anyone believes you're THAT naive. With all of the words in the English Dictionary out there, you just randomly chose one that has a blatantly obvious, racial double entendre. Or do you forget you also referred to the articulate negro president as a Kenyan among other stupid things?

Seriously... be smart and STFU while you still can.

 

[B_Nick4444]

was actually thinking of a phrase from my old prep school days referring to the King of Spain as "the spearhead of Roman Catholicism" describing Phillips' role in promoting that doctrine, just as Obama is the current promoter of the corporate-statist lib doctrine

BTW, it is an everyday occurrence for Americans to describe themselves as being "English", "German", "Mexican", "Italian", even though they may have never set foot in any of those ancestral lands

so, your reference to "Kenyan" does not support your contention

 

[B_VinylBoy]

was actually thinking of a phrase from my old prep school days referring to the King of Spain as "the spearhead of Roman Catholicism" describing Phillips' role in promoting that doctrine, just as Obama is the current promoter of the corporate-statist lib doctrine

BTW, it is an everyday occurrence for Americans to describe themselves as being "English", "German", "Mexican", "Italian", even though they may have never set foot in any of those ancestral lands

so, your reference to "Kenyan" does not support your contention

Keep squirming. It'll only make you even more guilty than you already are.

 

[wallyj84]

just as it was directed to its current form, it can be re-directed to a different form

once the libs are ousted, of course

just out of curiousity are you European? (don't mean anything by that -- just curious, given the fatalism I sense may be behind the statement)

So you want to return the US to a pre-industrial agrarian society?

 

[deleted15807]

Seriously, how much longer do we have to "tolerate" NickyBigot?

He's quite deft in how he does it, walking right up to the line but never clearly crossing it.

In 1980 Ronald Reagan announced his candidacy for president in Philadelphia, Mississippi. Ronnie oh so delicately walked right up to the line a la Nick4x by announcing his candidacy in that city of all cities. He knew and the crowd knew why.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Ronald Reagan: A Legacy of Crack and Cheese[/FONT]

 

[maxcok]

And that's been the conservative rocket fuel since Ronald Reagan. There are no complex issues. There are simple brute force answers to every problem.

And ideology and blind party loyalty trump reality, even when they work against your own self-interest.

I don't worry about elections all that much. I emphasize discussion and getting the right ideas out there.

Yes, philosophical political discussions are soo useful right now. Who are you getting the "right ideas" out to? Who's listening to you? What good is it doing? You better start worrying about elections, because whether or not you noticed from your lofty academic tower, we're in a crisis here. Wake up. This ship is on the rocks. This is not politics as usual, and what happens from here forward will affect the country and all of us in profound, fundamental ways. Including you. For a long time to come, or as long as the people and the country can survive being bled to death. And unless you're worth many, many millions or billions, you're not going to like it very much. If the corporatists seal their permanent lock on power, which they are on the verge of doing, all your philosophizing won't amount to squat. There won't be a do over.

Just consider what the high profile lib leader (Obama), and the Obama Supreme Court, aided and abetted by the ACLU, is attempting to do, by strengthening the power and position of large international corporations, and expanding the power, control, and influence of this corporate, big government complex over the life of every individual, to the point of domination, and the case for the Tea Party movement and libertarianism becomes ever so compelling.

LMAO. Please explain what constitutes "the Obama Supreme Court". The Muslim Kenyan Socialist is now also a Corporatist? My, my, he wears a lot of funny hats, doesn't he? And the ACLU is now working on the behalf of international corporations?? You do realize that the Tea Party is corporate sponsored, don't you, and has been completely co-opted by the corporate Republican establishment - who are now throwing all their secret money there to buy hit pieces to bring down Democrats instead of making donations to the party? Is this Orwellian Newspeak you're spouting? Are you now conducting a deliberate disinformation campaign on their behalf? Or are you just drunk again?

what is the tea party movement?

Are you serious? What are you even doing here? You do realize this is the Politics forum, don't you?

Tea Party Patriots | Find Your Local Tea Party

it's a spontaneous, grass roots movements . . .

:rofl:

. . . springing to the defense of America, . . .

:chairfall::lmao: