Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here
Of possible interest.
Someone define “neoconservative” for me.
Libertarians arguments all resolve to “I want to smoke dope”
Give me a break!
“Neoconservative” is such an over-used term that it has no meaning ...
- Conservatives usually use the term to refer to tax-cut-and-spend Republicans ... in this case I am not a NeoCon.
- Liberals use it to refer to foriegn-policy-hawks and war-on-terror-proponents ... in this case, I am a NeoCon.
- Libertarians and Ron-Paul-cult-members would have you believe the two groups (spenders and hawks) are one-and-the-same ... they’re just wrong.
So who is this schmuck talking about?
SnakeDoc
A neoconservative is, by definition, someone who was a liberal, but is now conservative.
Liberal and conservative are just labels. Libertarian is a name that has some actual meaning. A libertarian values the same things regardless of the country they are in. “Conservative” and “liberal” derive their meaning from the context of the country and government in which they exist. A conservative in the current Russia has much different values than a conservative in the US.
Option two is the choice of both Democrats and Republicans (with slightly differing emphasis) and it remains wildly popular, because everyone of all political views thinks things could be better if only government would just force "those people" to change their behavior. However, history has shown option two inevitably leads to tyranny, even in the hands of well-intentioned leaders.
It takes a lot of courage to stand up for option one, because you will be attacked by everybody. Freedom is scary. That's why there are so few real libertarians these days.
“NeoCons?” .... LOL!!! Here we go again.
These “NeoCons” have names, Jack Hunter? If so, then NAME ‘em and back it up. Name a single “ex-socialists who migrated Right” that is “devoted to promoting the maintenance and expansion of America’s global empire”.
Help us out here, Jack(ass). I’m drawing a blank.
http://politicalquiz.net/
And Reagan was the one who confronted the soviets on multiple fronts with multiple proxy wars and broke their back.
Its better, if you want to have a discussion, to just lay out what it is you believe rather than throwing epithets around. If you think we should withdraw from Afghanistan, say so and explain how we can make such a withdrawal work.
We are in the process of drawing down our forces in Iraq as the Iraqis are assuming control. If you want to accelerate that process, and bring the forces out quicker, say so and explain how it works. Right now we are assuming we'll leave a force in Kuwait as a reserve that could intervene if the Iranians try to crush the government in Baghdad or any of the other gulf states. If thats a mistake, say so and defend it.
If you are a pragmatist who thinks our friendship with Israel is the cause of all our troubles in the world, again, say so. Then we can have an actual discussion or debate about the specifics of your or our views.
Just calling someone a neocon doesn't mean much. Most of us here aren't jewish intellectuals, and if we were, the word still muddies more than it clarifies.
I contend that they are pseudo-conservatives, rather than neo-conservatives.
By way of clarification: Rather than “new” conservatives, which implies that they are simply the next generation of conservatives, I contend that they are “false” conservatives; that is, not really conservative at all.
How’s that for semantics?
Interestingly enough, the figure who Ron Paul most resembles is the late Nebraska congressman Howard Buffet, who was the father of a certain billionaire we all know.
Answer this to resolve the question. Was it the neo-cons or the libertarians that drove the GOP to election destruction? Who drove the GOP car over the cliff Wolfowitz or Paul?
If America can be looked at as a ‘house’, heres how I would describe what each ideology or “ism” intends.
Obamaism-a blend of fasism and corpratism, this is the cockroaches in the walls of the American house. The cockroaches (Obamaism) got in because they were lured by the tasty termites (liberals) that had been infesting the house for many decades.Democrats address the new cockroach problem by introducing more termites into the walls, hoping to satisfy the roaches with liberal termites inside of structural load bearing material, which the roaches have already started to eat for the past 18 months. Republicans are addressing the problem by claiming that introducing more termites only feeds the problem, then offering to feed fewer termites into the walls, if elected in November. Paul Ryan says he can wean the roaches (Obamaisms) completely off the termites (liberals) and save the whole house (America), over the next twenty years with his plan. Unfortunatly his plan was on a sheet of paper eaten by roaches while its assigned guard was awol attending a lesbian lapdance club meet and greet. So what other plans are there? Anarchism, suggests that we invest in a book of matches, burn the house down, and call the problem solved. Socialism, suggests we sell the house to the Chinese government who we than hope will fix it, and allow us to be a renter. Neo-conservatism suggests we move ourselves into the inside of walls, and give the roaches the rooms and furniture, figuring we can make the world safe for democracy if we show the roaches the ways of our lives. Conservatives call the Orkin man, but ask for an exorcist first. This fails when the exorcist takes all the money we had alloted for him, and the Orkin man. We tell the Orkin man it is his moral duty to serve us non profit, he flys his non-four fingers, and goes. The libertarian proposal is to leave the house and bargain for the tree house in the back yard. ‘Who are we to initiate force against the roaches?’, they ask. After a month, the house is vacated , and the roaches head up the tree to the tree house. Of course the tree and tree house are gone, just a pile of ash, rumour has it, Murray Rothbard was there with a match. Just prior to total collapse, the owners call a group of economists...see the next post...
If America is a “house”, what would a group of laborers do to improve it, if those laborers were from different economic schools?
“Keynes” Day Laborers Inc would run down to home depot, before even looking up close at the house, and purchase new paint, insisting that without a florescent color, no house is worth saving. They never make it back to the work site, they get stuck at a brothel.
“Marx” Man-power To The People Dot Gov. show up. They try to organize a strike, fail, then brake in, steel the copper pipes, and leave.
“Milt Friedman” For Hires Company comes along. They go through the entire house with a fine tooth comb. The house (America) they deem savable. They call Orkin, wait a week, come back, knock down a couple of walls, expand some rooms, wallpaper over some holes, put an addition in, and replace the doorbell.
FA Hayek Temp Agency shows up. They like Milts work. They paint the house a fitting color, and pave the driveway.
Finally, L. V. Mises Co shows up. They chuckle. Windows and doors are replaced. Structural walls are inspected and replaced. Plumbing, electrical, insulation, completely updated. Garage is expanded from one car to three car. Pool in the back. House lifted up and new foundation is poured, reenforced concrete,ect.. ofcourse.
Larry Summers and Paul Krugman drive by later to see Mises work.Larry says to Paul..”I like it, but can we fix it Paul?”