liberty student: Hmm, I'll check that out. 25 years before he became a Paleocon.
Hmm, I'll check that out. 25 years before he became a Paleocon.
Oh wow, excellent; generalizing someone's specific character & choice in becoming an a$$hole (http://fusionistlibertarian.blogspot.com/2008/01/rockwell-rothbard-race-war.html) towards other individuals. I see what you did "thar".
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
liberty student: Brainpolice: I think that Ego should read Rothbard's "Left and Right: The Prospects For Liberty", as well as Roderick Long's speech in retrospective of it, and let it sink in real good. Hmm, I'll check that out. 25 years before he became a Paleocon.
Brainpolice: I think that Ego should read Rothbard's "Left and Right: The Prospects For Liberty", as well as Roderick Long's speech in retrospective of it, and let it sink in real good.
I think that Ego should read Rothbard's "Left and Right: The Prospects For Liberty", as well as Roderick Long's speech in retrospective of it, and let it sink in real good.
An unfortunate developement.....
Towards the end of his life it seems that Rothbard was beginning to lose his mind.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Niccolò: liberty student: Brainpolice: I think that Ego should read Rothbard's "Left and Right: The Prospects For Liberty", as well as Roderick Long's speech in retrospective of it, and let it sink in real good. Hmm, I'll check that out. 25 years before he became a Paleocon. Towards the end of his life it seems that Rothbard was beginning to lose his mind
Towards the end of his life it seems that Rothbard was beginning to lose his mind
or hope
The state is a disease and Liberty is the both the victim and the only means to a lasting cure.
ThorsMitersaw: or hope
Indeed, one or the other seems to be most likely. Unfortunately, Rothbard was too eager for success in his lifetime for his own good. He played the game of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and got burnt for it. Even more unfortunate, his example of opportunism and impatience seem to breathe into the movement of modern libertarianism.
I agree with SEK3 entirely. We're strict Rothbardians, even more Rothbardian than Rothbard!
Brainpolice:An unfortunate developement.....
Or an evolution.
I'm just sayin'
While it's true that many anarchists will never be our allies, quite a few of them are intelligent enough to figure out that their form of anarchism is compatible with ours. I have a much harder time believing that "conservatives" will support the abolition of government. As soon as you say "anarcho" they'll think your the son of satan.
I think any irrational attachment to the "left" or "right" is harmful. Irrational meaning that their goals are opposed to ours and such an alliance will never be fruitful. Right now, however, I see more potential allies on the so-called "left" and much more infiltration from the right. The paleocons are watering libertarianism down. We shouldn't want to "restore the republic" but to abolish the state.
One question: do any of you right leaners see the absurdity inherent absurdity in being an "anarchist" who wants to shut down the borders? This is what I mean by "irrational."
majevska: While it's true that many anarchists will never be our allies, quite a few of them are intelligent enough to figure out that their form of anarchism is compatible with ours. I have a much harder time believing that "conservatives" will support the abolition of government. As soon as you say "anarcho" they'll think your the son of satan. I think any irrational attachment to the "left" or "right" is harmful. Irrational meaning that their goals are opposed to ours and such an alliance will never be fruitful. Right now, however, I see more potential allies on the so-called "left" and much more infiltration from the right. The paleocons are watering libertarianism down. We shouldn't want to "restore the republic" but to abolish the state. One question: do any of you right leaners see the absurdity inherent absurdity in being an "anarchist" who wants to shut down the borders? This is what I mean by "irrational."
I've held the view from a while now that the biggest infiltration of the libertarian movement that's taking place comes from the paleoconservatives, who bring in nationalist and protectionist sentiments. And there is also a neoconservative infiltration that manifests itself most of all in many contemporary Objectivists, who seem to be venomous warmongers. In my experience, many self-proclaimed libertarians in America differ very little from conservatives - in a bad sense. Since the libertarian party's PR campaign mostly consists of repeating conservative platitudes like "limited government", "less taxes" and "personal responsibility" - it has mislead conservatives into thinking that they are libertarians, as if they are essentially the same thing.
I agree that there are more potential allies on "the left" right now for a number of reasons. For the past few decades it has been conservatives who have most often had the presidency (and I'd argue that some of the democrats count here), and this has spawned a "left-wing" opposition to the warfare state, executive powers and the surveillance apparatus. Furthermore, while their rationale for it is often warped, it is "the left" who more dominately opposes corporatism. It also true that "the left" is more likely to oppose victimless crimes in areas that are often looked down on culturally such as drugs and prostitution. This isn't to say that libertarians should ally indiscriminately with "the left", of course.
Niccolò: Indeed, one or the other seems to be most likely. Unfortunately, Rothbard was too eager for success in his lifetime for his own good. He played the game of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and got burnt for it. Even more unfortunate, his example of opportunism and impatience seem to breathe into the movement of modern libertarianism. I agree with SEK3 entirely. We're strict Rothbardians, even more Rothbardian than Rothbard!
I think the difference is, that theory and practice are two different things.
While some might be able to post perfect libertarian theory on a forum, practicing it in real life is gradual.
Folks don't get introduced, absorb all of the lit, comprehend it perfectly, burn their papers, start growing their own vegetables and cancel their bank accounts.
The theory on this forum is interesting, but it is still theory. What's workable and achievable, what actually "advances the ball" towards true liberty so-to-speak, that's gradualism. Even the agorists, don't drop completely out of statist society.
Brainpolice: majevska: While it's true that many anarchists will never be our allies, quite a few of them are intelligent enough to figure out that their form of anarchism is compatible with ours. I have a much harder time believing that "conservatives" will support the abolition of government. As soon as you say "anarcho" they'll think your the son of satan. I think any irrational attachment to the "left" or "right" is harmful. Irrational meaning that their goals are opposed to ours and such an alliance will never be fruitful. Right now, however, I see more potential allies on the so-called "left" and much more infiltration from the right. The paleocons are watering libertarianism down. We shouldn't want to "restore the republic" but to abolish the state. One question: do any of you right leaners see the absurdity inherent absurdity in being an "anarchist" who wants to shut down the borders? This is what I mean by "irrational." I've held the view from a while now that the biggest infiltration of the libertarian movement that's taking place comes from the paleoconservatives, who bring in nationalist and protectionist sentiments. And there is also a neoconservative infiltration that manifests itself most of all in many contemporary Objectivists, who seem to be venomous warmongers. In my experience, many self-proclaimed libertarians in America differ very little from conservatives - in a bad sense. Since the libertarian party's PR campaign mostly consists of repeating conservative platitudes like "limited government", "less taxes" and "personal responsibility" - it has mislead conservatives into thinking that they are libertarians, as if they are essentially the same thing. I agree that there are more potential allies on "the left" right now for a number of reasons. For the past few decades it has been conservatives who have most often had the presidency (and I'd argue that some of the democrats count here), and this has spawned a "left-wing" opposition to the warfare state, executive powers and the surveillance apparatus. Furthermore, while their rationale for it is often warped, it is "the left" who more dominately opposes corporatism. It also true that "the left" is more likely to oppose victimless crimes in areas that are often looked down on culturally such as drugs and prostitution. This isn't to say that libertarians should ally indiscriminately with "the left", of course.
*sigh*
I'll take this occasion to use the semicolon in a new way!
Ignoring the fact that making money is a victimless crime that the left wants to punish; ignoring the fact more and more rightists are becoming anti-war and anti-Bush every day; and ignoring the fact that it's rightists who are more likely to support cutting taxes, cutting price controls, and privatizing government functions; most modern leftists are, at their core, collectivists who view the state as the solution to all problems; while most modern rightists are, at their core, confused, inconsistent individualists who view the state and taxation as necessary evils.
How did I do (regarding my semicolon usage)
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Which part, the first or the second? Some days, I wonder about the second, but they're certainly not as lost as leftists. I've seen so many more rightists become libertarians than leftists become libertarians (and I don't mean faux-libertarians, either).
Ego: Brainpolice: majevska: While it's true that many anarchists will never be our allies, quite a few of them are intelligent enough to figure out that their form of anarchism is compatible with ours. I have a much harder time believing that "conservatives" will support the abolition of government. As soon as you say "anarcho" they'll think your the son of satan. I think any irrational attachment to the "left" or "right" is harmful. Irrational meaning that their goals are opposed to ours and such an alliance will never be fruitful. Right now, however, I see more potential allies on the so-called "left" and much more infiltration from the right. The paleocons are watering libertarianism down. We shouldn't want to "restore the republic" but to abolish the state. One question: do any of you right leaners see the absurdity inherent absurdity in being an "anarchist" who wants to shut down the borders? This is what I mean by "irrational." I've held the view from a while now that the biggest infiltration of the libertarian movement that's taking place comes from the paleoconservatives, who bring in nationalist and protectionist sentiments. And there is also a neoconservative infiltration that manifests itself most of all in many contemporary Objectivists, who seem to be venomous warmongers. In my experience, many self-proclaimed libertarians in America differ very little from conservatives - in a bad sense. Since the libertarian party's PR campaign mostly consists of repeating conservative platitudes like "limited government", "less taxes" and "personal responsibility" - it has mislead conservatives into thinking that they are libertarians, as if they are essentially the same thing. I agree that there are more potential allies on "the left" right now for a number of reasons. For the past few decades it has been conservatives who have most often had the presidency (and I'd argue that some of the democrats count here), and this has spawned a "left-wing" opposition to the warfare state, executive powers and the surveillance apparatus. Furthermore, while their rationale for it is often warped, it is "the left" who more dominately opposes corporatism. It also true that "the left" is more likely to oppose victimless crimes in areas that are often looked down on culturally such as drugs and prostitution. This isn't to say that libertarians should ally indiscriminately with "the left", of course. *sigh* I'll take this occasion to use the semicolon in a new way! Ignoring the fact that making money is a victimless crime that the left wants to punish; ignoring the fact more and more rightists are becoming anti-war and anti-Bush every day; and ignoring the fact that it's rightists who are more likely to support cutting taxes, cutting price controls, and privatizing government functions; most modern leftists are, at their core, collectivists who view the state as the solution to all problems; while most modern rightists are, at their core, individualists who view the state and taxation as necessary evils. How did I do?
Ignoring the fact that making money is a victimless crime that the left wants to punish; ignoring the fact more and more rightists are becoming anti-war and anti-Bush every day; and ignoring the fact that it's rightists who are more likely to support cutting taxes, cutting price controls, and privatizing government functions; most modern leftists are, at their core, collectivists who view the state as the solution to all problems; while most modern rightists are, at their core, individualists who view the state and taxation as necessary evils.
How did I do?
You did rather well - at reinforcing the false left-right paradime of contemporary politics.
Most rightists are not individualists, they are right-wing collectivists. The degree of "necessary evil" supported by most rightists is not particularly libertarian. They are all statists to the core. Most rightists are some combination of the following: corporatists, militarists, nationalists, theocrats, protectionists, monarchists, racists. All of which are collectivist ideologies in their own ways. Paleoconservatives are a bunch of nationalist, protectionistic and racist dufases who would expand the state in the name of protecting "national sovereignty" and "our culture". Neoconservatives are a bunch of militaristic, corporatist pricks who would expand the state in the name of defeating "radical islam" and maintaining corporate dominance. Theoconservatives are a bunch of drones still living in the middle ages inside of the heads and would expand the state in the name of defeating the "secular left".
Let's face it: the contemporary right is incredibly statist. They are not libertarians. Libertarians need to stop idolizing the right before they become just like them: reactionary statists with different cultural preferances than "the left".
I emphasize the following from a LIBERTARIAN perspective: Contemporary conservatives do not support free markets. They do not support non-intervention abroad. They do not support philosophical individualism. They do not support private property rights. The idea that they have those traits is largely a myth that any libertarian with good sense should have rejected long ago. These are FALSE ADVERTISEMENTS, not accurate depictions of the objective content of what conservatives support. At best, conservatives support liberty for their prefered special interest groups while opposing liberty for everyone else - just like all other political factions. This is simply how politics works.
Common traits of a conservative may be: a hobbesian view of human nature, idolization of the police and military, a desire to outlaw culturally undesired behaviors, a desire to preserve political traditions, knee-jerk defenses of corporate power, a desire to use political means to achieve cultural uniformity, a desire to preserve political borders, support for a surveillance apparatus, the idea that the military must be kept big, a desire to invade disliked countries, support for political favors to various industries, a preferance for the use of monetary inflation and borrowing over taxation, support for the "right" of states to be authoritarian in defiance of the feds, political hegomonic trade agreements, and so on.
Libertarianism isn't thinly defined by making a few tax cuts and fighting minimum wage increases. There is much more at stake.
Brainpolice: I emphasize the following from a LIBERTARIAN perspective: Contemporary conservatives do not support free markets. They do not support non-intervention abroad. They do not support philosophical individualism. They do not support private property rights. The idea that they have those traits is largely a myth that any libertarian with good sense should have rejected long ago. These are FALSE ADVERTISEMENTS, not accurate depictions of the objective content of what conservatives support. At best, conservatives support liberty for their prefered special interest groups while opposing liberty for everyone else - just like all other political factions. This is simply how politics works. Common traits of a conservative may be: a hobbesian view of human nature, idolization of the police and military, a desire to outlaw culturally undesired behaviors, a desire to preserve political traditions, knee-jerk defenses of corporate power, a desire to use political means to achieve cultural uniformity, a desire to preserve political borders, support for a surveillance apparatus, the idea that the military must be kept big, a desire to invade disliked countries, support for political favors to various industries, a preferance for the use of monetary inflation and borrowing over taxation, support for the "right" of states to be authoritarian in defiance of the feds, political hegomonic trade agreements, and so on. Libertarianism isn't thinly defined by making a few tax cuts and fighting minimum wage increases. There is much more at stake.
I agree 100%. Now, apply that same vicious analysis to leftists!
See what I mean? It's far more hopeless.
Ego: Ignoring the fact that making money is a victimless crime that the left wants to punish; ignoring the fact more and more rightists are becoming anti-war and anti-Bush every day; and ignoring the fact that it's rightists who are more likely to support cutting taxes, cutting price controls, and privatizing government functions; most modern leftists are, at their core, collectivists who view the state as the solution to all problems; while most modern rightists are, at their core, confused, inconsistent individualists who view the state and taxation as necessary evils. How did I do?
I don't buy what you're saying about the right. You're spot on about the left, though.
Brainpolice:I've held the view from a while now that the biggest infiltration of the libertarian movement that's taking place comes from the paleoconservatives, who bring in nationalist and protectionist sentiments. And there is also a neoconservative infiltration that manifests itself most of all in many contemporary Objectivists, who seem to be venomous warmongers. In my experience, many self-proclaimed libertarians in America differ very little from conservatives - in a bad sense. Since the libertarian party's PR campaign mostly consists of repeating conservative platitudes like "limited government", "less taxes" and "personal responsibility" - it has mislead conservatives into thinking that they are libertarians, as if they are essentially the same thing. I agree that there are more potential allies on "the left" right now for a number of reasons. For the past few decades it has been conservatives who have most often had the presidency (and I'd argue that some of the democrats count here), and this has spawned a "left-wing" opposition to the warfare state, executive powers and the surveillance apparatus. Furthermore, while their rationale for it is often warped, it is "the left" who more dominately opposes corporatism. It also true that "the left" is more likely to oppose victimless crimes in areas that are often looked down on culturally such as drugs and prostitution. This isn't to say that libertarians should ally indiscriminately with "the left", of course.
Brother, the most vehement opposition "on principle" to the warfare state comes from Ron Paul. The most vehement opposition to executive overreach, comes from Ron Paul. Unless you can point out anyone on the left, who is more pro-liberty than Paul.
Now I have no doubt that Paul is more paleocon, minarchist than Ancap. But that's makes my point perfectly. Your closest ally in government is in fact, RIGHT of center.
The left oppose corporatism, and endorse socialism. Socialists don't oppose victimless crimes, they make everyone a victim with their bleeding heart ignorance.
You and others complain about nationalism and protectionism, but the nationalism by the more ideologically pure elements is in response to even more statist government. And the protectionism is backlash against the welfare state.
The libertarian paradigm in my opinion, can't be implemented in chunks. You can't open borders with a wildly out of control welfare state. Opening the borders might satisfy some element of libertarianism, but it won't dissolve the welfare state. It will in fact make the effects of welfarism even worse.
Sorry, but at least the right has an intellectual head start on ideas like low taxes, sound money, smaller government. You've got a shot (albeit not a great one) of selling free markets to conservatives, you don't have a shot in hell of selling it to a modern liberal.
Think about Rush Limbaugh. In my mind, he's a pretty standard rightist, aside from the fact that he's more pro-tax-funded-war than most others.
Is there a better way to describe Rush? I'd say I hit it spot-on.
Anyways, my "how did I do?" was regarding my semicolon usage.
Ego: Brainpolice: I emphasize the following from a LIBERTARIAN perspective: Contemporary conservatives do not support free markets. They do not support non-intervention abroad. They do not support philosophical individualism. They do not support private property rights. The idea that they have those traits is largely a myth that any libertarian with good sense should have rejected long ago. These are FALSE ADVERTISEMENTS, not accurate depictions of the objective content of what conservatives support. At best, conservatives support liberty for their prefered special interest groups while opposing liberty for everyone else - just like all other political factions. This is simply how politics works. Common traits of a conservative may be: a hobbesian view of human nature, idolization of the police and military, a desire to outlaw culturally undesired behaviors, a desire to preserve political traditions, knee-jerk defenses of corporate power, a desire to use political means to achieve cultural uniformity, a desire to preserve political borders, support for a surveillance apparatus, the idea that the military must be kept big, a desire to invade disliked countries, support for political favors to various industries, a preferance for the use of monetary inflation and borrowing over taxation, support for the "right" of states to be authoritarian in defiance of the feds, political hegomonic trade agreements, and so on. Libertarianism isn't thinly defined by making a few tax cuts and fighting minimum wage increases. There is much more at stake. I agree 100%
I agree 100%
Really?
Ego: Ignoring the fact that making money is a victimless crime that the left wants to punish; ignoring the fact more and more rightists are becoming anti-war and anti-Bush every day; and ignoring the fact that it's rightists who are more likely to support cutting taxes, cutting price controls, and privatizing government functions; most modern leftists are, at their core, collectivists who view the state as the solution to all problems; while most modern rightists are, at their core, confused, inconsistent individualists who view the state and taxation as necessary evils.
If anyone has any doubt about this then I recommend going any number of conservative forums (hannity forums, freerepublic, protestwarrior, politicalcrossfire etc.) and look for yourself. They're filled with the average conservative voter.
minorgrey: Brainpolice: I emphasize the following from a LIBERTARIAN perspective: Contemporary conservatives do not support free markets. They do not support non-intervention abroad. They do not support philosophical individualism. They do not support private property rights. The idea that they have those traits is largely a myth that any libertarian with good sense should have rejected long ago. These are FALSE ADVERTISEMENTS, not accurate depictions of the objective content of what conservatives support. At best, conservatives support liberty for their prefered special interest groups while opposing liberty for everyone else - just like all other political factions. This is simply how politics works. Common traits of a conservative may be: a hobbesian view of human nature, idolization of the police and military, a desire to outlaw culturally undesired behaviors, a desire to preserve political traditions, knee-jerk defenses of corporate power, a desire to use political means to achieve cultural uniformity, a desire to preserve political borders, support for a surveillance apparatus, the idea that the military must be kept big, a desire to invade disliked countries, support for political favors to various industries, a preferance for the use of monetary inflation and borrowing over taxation, support for the "right" of states to be authoritarian in defiance of the feds, political hegomonic trade agreements, and so on. Libertarianism isn't thinly defined by making a few tax cuts and fighting minimum wage increases. There is much more at stake. If anyone has any doubt about this then I recommend going any number of conservative forums (hannity forums, freerepublic, protestwarrior, politicalcrossfire etc.) and look for yourself. They're filled with the average conservative voter.
But they support tax cuts, so they're are allies!
But they hate corporations, so they are allies!
So is conservatism the definition of conservatism, or is it defined by the actions and beliefs of the people who call themselves conservatives?
Because I think we're running into the domain of little Nicky's "purge" rhetoric. The faux libertarians must go, because they are not real libertarians, and based on that, one could argue that many of today's conservatives do not adequately address true conservatism.
By that metric, modern liberals are soft minded narcissitic socialists if DailyKOS is any example.
Do we really believe that today's idiot or lowest common denominator is the benchmark for these paradigms?
Ego: But they hate corporations, so they are allies!
Precisely. BrainPolice is applying a sliding scale when measuring the right and left separately. Heck, even collectively.
I am having a hard time believing that someone would make the case for welfarism over warfarism.
I'm sorry, is someone saying we should support statist liberals? I don't care what flavor of anarchism they are as long as they don't force it on me. If they can do that then it's all-good.
liberty student: Ego: But they hate corporations, so they are allies! Precisely. BrainPolice is applying a sliding scale when measuring the right and left separately. Heck, even collectively. I am having a hard time believing that someone would make the case for welfarism over warfarism.
Really? You don't see one as being more destructive than the other? In one case I have something taken from me to feed to another person... in the other case I have something taken from me to kill another person. If I had to choose I'd rather have rampant welfare over rampant warfare.
I'd rather have rampant warfare over rampant welfare. Why? One of the two has proven itself never to end; the other always burns out.
Ego: I'd rather have rampant warfare over rampant welfare. Why? One of the two has proven itself never to end; the other always burns out.
I don't follow your logic at all and have already refuted this in previous threads. The warfare state does not end. It has continued and grown perpetually. New enemies are manufactured when older ones go away. The warfare state apparatus does not usually dissapear when war is over. They just find a new enemy. For example, what happened when the cold war ended? The warfare apparatus merely turned to "radical Islam" and "terrorism" as the new enemy. The warfare state doesn't "burn out". It's arguably the most serious problem facing us today. We've practically had perpetual war for decades.
Furthermore, as minorgrey points out, warfare actually murders people. I consider murder to be much more serious of a crime than theft. I'd most certainly rather be cheated out of some of my money than to be killed. At least I'm still alive after being robbed. The same can't be said of warfare, which is merely institutionalized mass-murder. Also, the warfare state is funded through the exact same means as the welfare state. It involves just as much wealth redistribution, only the wealth is redistributed to wealthy elites and industries instead of poor and disabled people.
I don't see how wealth redistribution + murder is superior to wealth redistribution to poor folks. The rationale you give for why welfare is so bad is part of the same reason why warfare is bad. So your distinction strikes me as nonsensical if not hypocritical or inconsistant.
You think that socialist programs haven't killed people? Are you serious? Socialist planning has probably killed more people than every war combined, ever. It's ruined the lives and liberty of billions more than that.
In addition, wars have come and gone through history; tens of thousands have been fought, and all of them have ended. Welfare states are self-perpetuating; warfare states will inevitably fall. I'll go search for the thread you're referencing, we had an excellent discussion going.
You think that socialist programs haven't killed people? Are you serious? Socialist planning has probably killed more people than every war combined, ever.
The warfare state is a state-socialist program. A huge one that makes up approximately 1/3 of the federal budget. That's not minor! It involves just as much central planning and wealth redistribution as any welfare scheme. It requires the exact same means that any left-liberal domestic program does. This website is full of resources providing an economic analysis of the effects of the warfare state, and it's not pretty. So once again, why do you make a distinction where none exists? They're two heads of the exact same hydra. Except one directly murders people. I don't deny that the welfare state leads to deaths as well, but they are not direct murders in the way that the warfare state perpetuates.
Plus, wars have come and gone through history; tens of thousands have been fought, and all of them have ended. Welfare states are self-perpetuating, warfare states will inevitably fall.
No, no, no. I'm talking about warfare states. The military-industrial apparatus itself. It does not go away after a single war. It is self-perpetuating as well. Military intervention abroad breeds the conditions for future military intervention, and military planners make a career out of finding new enemies so that more wars can be fought. Throughout the whole ordeal, even in so-called "peace-time", the military continues to be funded through extortion money and be full of government bureaucracy. Over the past century, the American warfare apparatus has done nothing but grow and grow, and we've practically been in a state of perpetual warfare. So your claims are simply false. I don't understand this perspective.
Ego:most modern rightists are, at their core, confused, inconsistent individualists who view the state and taxation as necessary evils.
This is a bit of an over-generalization. While your characterization is certainly true in some cases, it would be just as accurate to say that modern rightists are, at their core, confused, inconsistent nationalists who view the state as their god and taxation as tithe money.
Whatever the state says or demands they accept as truth or law without thought; or rather, for them it becomes truth or law (they are uber-relativists in this regard). As I mentioned (somewhere) in an earlier thread, whatever (obvioustly inchoate) individualist/libertarian bent still exists in the heart of the typical rightist is just the effect of the right's appealing to tradition to justify policy and having been strongly associated with individualism/libertarianism in the past (viz. the old right).
In other words a libertarian-minded individual and a statist-minded individual are equally likely, after being introduced to politics, to label themselves 'conservative' and eventually become an ugly amalgam of the two.
Diminishing Marginal Utility - IT'S THE LAW!
liberty student:So is conservatism the definition of conservatism, or is it defined by the actions and beliefs of the people who call themselves conservatives?
By that metric, modern liberals are soft minded narcissitic socialists if DailyKOS is any example.Do we really believe that today's idiot or lowest common denominator is the benchmark for these paradigms?
I've never met a conservative that was ok with eliminating the state and I haven't seen many average liberals rally for it either (thought they seem to be more comfortable with me saying I'm an anarchist then when I say it to a conservative).
I'm typing up a separate response, but I refreshed and saw this. This simply proves my point in another thread that "anarchist" is now synonymous with "black flag-waving car-burning leftist".
Ego: I've never met a conservative that was ok with eliminating the state and I haven't seen many average liberals rally for it either (thought they seem to be more comfortable with me saying I'm an anarchist then when I say it to a conservative). I'm typing up a separate response, but I refreshed and saw this. This simply proves my point in another thread that "anarchist" is now synonymous with "black flag-waving car-burning leftist".
That is the pop-culture mischaracterization of anarchists. And I don't see how anything in minorgrey's posts proves such a ridiculous "point". All she pointed out was that in her experiences liberals are slightly more comfortable with her saying that she's an anarchist. How does this prove that anarchists are "black flag-waving car-burning leftists"?
...because I have encountered the exact same reaction that she has.
As soon as I explain what I actually believe, though, they change their attitude from, "we probably agree, but you're much more radical than I am", to, "YOU'RE AN EVIL RIGHT-WINGER WHO WON'T MAKE THE RICH PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE".
Ego: ...because I have encountered the exact same reaction that she has. As soon as I explain what I actually believe, though, they change their attitude from, "we probably agree, but you're much more radical than I am", to, "YOU'RE AN EVIL RIGHT-WINGER WHO WON'T MAKE THE RICH PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE".
I've experienced similar knee-jerk attacks from "the right". As soon as I explain my position on foreign policy and war, it's "you're a defeatist defender of the Islamo-fascists who hates America! Move to Cuba, commie!". Or as soon as I explain my position on immigration and borders to a paleoconservative, it's "you're an evil one-worlder who supports vagrancy and tresspassing!".
It goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and......
Brainpolice:The warfare state is a state-socialist program.
Very true; in fact it should be a dead giveaway by the rhetoric used to defend it (i.e. war is commonly rationalized by the attackers by saying they have a duty to "help" the people whose lives they are destroying), which is very similar to that used by those calling for wealth redistribution.
Brainpolice: Plus, wars have come and gone through history; tens of thousands have been fought, and all of them have ended. Welfare states are self-perpetuating, warfare states will inevitably fall. No, no, no. I'm talking about warfare states. The military-industrial apparatus itself. It does not go away after a single war. It is self-perpetuating as well.
No, no, no. I'm talking about warfare states. The military-industrial apparatus itself. It does not go away after a single war. It is self-perpetuating as well.
Being self-perpetuating should be distinguished from being self-sustaining. Both are the former but neither of them is the latter.
... and, incidentally, when I explain that funding a military is no different from funding welfare; or when I make them realize that they oppose welfare on the grounds that it's income-redistribution while at the same time support a tax-funded military, they see the light. I've seen it happen several times.
In fact, it was a leftist who supported war and welfare that initially caused me to come to that very conclusion.