Skip to main content
Update
Non-financial boards have been closed.

Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.

Fool.com | The Motley Fool Community
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 2
It's nice to see at least one speak out on the disasterous Bush administration. From LewRockwell.com,--the premier anti-state/pro-market site on the net

An Economist Against Bush and Kerry
by Mark Thornton


http://www.lewrockwell.com/thornton/thornton14.html

In August of 2000 I warned that voting for Bush was a very big mistake.

Tell it, brother.

Bush turned out to be worse than my wildest dreams. Today I will present some alternatives for 2004.

None of us could have imagined.

With Bush being a full-blown disaster in terms of the economy, foreign policy, and social policy, my fellow economists should be dragging their tails between their legs in shame.

How do you shame an economist?

Without 9/11, Greenspan might have allowed for the normal recession and correction of all the investment excesses of the late 1990s and today we would be in a real, not phony, recovery.

Amen. The same phony recovery that the overpriced bible of free markets and free trade, The Economist wrote about February 24, 2004 edition. Phonier than a three dollar bill because of:

1. Ridiculous and unsustainable deficit spending stimulus that would have made Keynes and any New Dealer proud.

2. Greenspan's bizarre "free money" policy post 9/11 that is stoking the fires of inflation, the real government theft.

3. Phony employment numbers and even more phony GDP numbers and nothing but blather about the great "productivity" from GreenBush. What a joke.

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2577317

And amidst all this what are the libertarians worried about? Well, when they aren't hung up on their minimum wage fetish, they are yada-ing on again about socialized healthcare. None of them seem to have spit to say about the 540 billion dollar Bush boondoggle that has already started to inflate dug prices as Mr. Thornton said they would. No, they aren't real libertarians but instead just knee-jerk defenders of the current socialist President.

No, the libertarians are content to remain utterly irrelevant with their grand theorizing about the evils of someone else's socialized medicine or socialized medicine in principle. The shame of the libertarians. So what is happening in the land of socialized medicine, Canada?

Since August 2003, full-time employment has grown by 315,000 (+2.5%) while part-time employment has declined by 24,000 (-0.8%). Weakness in part-time employment was concentrated in the first quarter of this year.

http://www.statcan.ca/english/Subjects/Labour/LFS/lfs-en.htm

With a tenth of the population of the US that would equal about 3.2 million jobs, compared to Bush's 1.5 million, with a big assist from Greenspan, that isn't sustainable. Canadians, meanwhile, with their Liberal government are enjoying balanced budgets and trade surpluses etc. Ontario advertises universal, government healthcare as a competitive advantage, in the US, for obvious reasons. If the corporations don't have to worry about it so much it's a load off their back.

But the libertarians yada on, decades behind. So far behind they think they are in front.



Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 17
And amidst all this what are the libertarians worried about? Well, when they aren't hung up on their minimum wage fetish, they are yada-ing on again about socialized healthcare. None of them seem to have spit to say about the 540 billion dollar Bush boondoggle that has already started to inflate dug prices as Mr. Thornton said they would. No, they aren't real libertarians but instead just knee-jerk defenders of the current socialist President.

I beg your pardon? Libertarians certainly do argue against "their minimum wage fetish," whatever that might mean (you think the minimum wage is okay?), and against socialized healthcare, single payer, National Health, Hillarycare, call it what you will.

You've completely lost me about libertarians allegedly not having spit to say about the Bush bookdoggle (there are some many of them, which one are you referring to?).

No, the libertarians are content to remain utterly irrelevant with their grand theorizing about the evils of someone else's socialized medicine or socialized medicine in principle. The shame of the libertarians. So what is happening in the land of socialized medicine, Canada?
Canadians, meanwhile, with their Liberal government are enjoying balanced budgets and trade surpluses etc.

I am no defender of Shrubster's deficits, but let's get real:
it's barely 5% of GDP, and in a $40 trillion international capital market, I don't see financing it to be a big problem.
The real problem is government spending, not the deficit. And the Canadian government is at least as maladroit at spending as Generalissimo Shrubster-Cheney.

The trade deficit/surplus is the economic bogeyman of the day.
A current account deficit/surplus must always be offset by a capital
account surplus/deficit.
If country X (say the U.S.) runs a current account deficit, it must have a capital account surplus, which means that foreigners find it a good place to invest their capital. A long as country X's currency is allowed to float (instead of being fixed), it will achieve external balance against the rest of the world.
Canada's markets are doing relatively well because of the worldwide commodity boom, which benefits a natural resource-based economy such as Canada's. But Canada's current account trade surplus doesn't *by itself* indicate that Canada's economy is stronger that the U.S.

Ontario advertises universal, government healthcare as a competitive advantage, in the US, for obvious reasons. If the corporations don't have to worry about it so much it's a load off their back.

Do you actually believe that there is such a thing as an economic free lunch? Who pays for Canada's wonderful healthcare system and who would pay for the healthcare benefits of all those workers to be employed in Canada instead of south of the border--the tooth fairy?

If government healthcare is a "competitive advantage," I'll take socialist healthcare any day, as long as I'm allowed to read Orwell in the waiting room.

But the libertarians yada on, decades behind. So far behind they think they are in front.

Murray Rothbard used to quip that his bedrock libertarian principles never deviated one iota, but as politicians shifted their views on all manner of subjects in the face of economic reality, sooner of later he'd be proved right on each, one by one.

ValueSnark
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
None of them seem to have spit to say about the 540 billion dollar Bush boondoggle that has already started to inflate dug prices as Mr. Thornton said they would.

Libertarians most certainly have railed Bush on this point. I'm a Conservative and I've even said that this entire Mediscare plan was a disaster! Not only that, I also was upset by the billions of dollars Bush pledged to throw away on AIDS in Africa (that place is so corrupt the people who need it will never see a dime of it anyway) and letting Mexicans collect Social Security (I'd rather see the entire program eliminated, not expanded!) Bush is not getting a free pass from anyone on these policies.

Mike
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Hello ValueSnark,

Thanks for the intelligent reply.

I beg your pardon? Libertarians certainly do argue against "their minimum wage fetish,"....

I wasn't clear--my fault--but I really meant why are libertarians so hung up on what is a trivial issue. My fault for not being clearer.

You've completely lost me about libertarians allegedly not having spit to say about the Bush bookdoggle....

Well....so many, it would have been nice to be linked to one. Anyway, I linked Thornton, so that qualifies. Where were the real powerful libertarian voices BEFORE the boondoggle was passed? Can you give me one that condemned that? Most of the libertarians I know were too busy defending Bush.

I am no defender of Shrubster's deficits, but let's get real:
it's barely 5% of GDP,...


Right, so you are not including all the SS/medicare surplus being blown by Bush/Republican Congress. 200 billion or so this year. That's why Bush deficits as % are way bigger than Reagans. Not a very good analysis I'm afraid. And I take it you agree with the phony federal accounting--that doesn't include future, certain, known obligations on SS/Medicare. Shouldn't libertarians be a little sharper on these things if they are going to make an effective case against big government--ala Bush and the 540 billion? (10yrs). Disappointing to see such a pedestrian analysis of the fiscal situation.

Canada's markets are doing relatively well because of the worldwide commodity boom,....

Yes, there is always some excuse. What was the excuse when the commodities were in the pits and Canada was still running surpluses with US and the rest of the world? What's the US excuse? Current accounts deficts a bogeyman? Tell it to Buffett and anyone else who doesn't believe in a free lunch.

Thought experiment--if we can just keep issuing US paper let's just import all the goods and services we use and issue US paper in exchange. Oh, that's crazy. Yeah, so when does it become a problem? When libertarians say so?

Do you actually believe that there is such a thing as an economic free lunch?

No, but you libertarians obviously do with huge budget and trade deficits.

You don't provide any facts on socialized medicine so I won't bother with the rest of your argument.

Anyway, thanks for the standard Bush defense. That's about all we get from "libertarians" at TMF. Like I said, nice to see Mr. Thornton is made of a little better stuff. Although, 1 in a 100,000 heard of Russo? I doubt it. Nader will take that vote since libertarians insist on being irrelevant and preoccupied with their minimum wage fetishes etc.

Doesn't really matter, power and getting-things-done wise, does it? Libertarians don't count there anymore because they insist on just defending Bush. Thanks again for the reply.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
"Doesn't really matter, power and getting-things-done wise, does it? Libertarians don't count there anymore because they insist on just defending Bush. Thanks again for the reply."

======================================================================

In my 10 years of Libertarian activism, I have never, ever, come across a single Libertarian candidate that said anything favorable about any member of the Bush family. You'll have to cite examples (and lots of them) for me to take this statement (and therefore anything in your posts on this list) seriously.

-JAR

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Where were the real powerful libertarian voices BEFORE the boondoggle was passed? Can you give me one that condemned that? Most of the libertarians I know were too busy defending Bush.

There were a number of articles at lewrockwell.com and mises.org.
Can you name one libertarian who defended Shrubster on anything?

[e: the budget]:
right, so you are not including all the SS/medicare surplus being blown by Bush/Republican Congress. 200 billion or so this year. That's why Bush deficits as % are way bigger than Reagans. Not a very good analysis I'm afraid. And I take it you agree with the phony federal accounting--that doesn't include future, certain, known obligations on SS/Medicare. Shouldn't libertarians be a little sharper on these things if they are going to make an effective case against big government--ala Bush and the 540 billion? (10yrs).

To reiterate what I said, the federal deficits are a manifestation of higher spending, which is the real problem, not the deficit per se.
(See my previous post on budget deficits.)
Before 43, there were huge deficits under FDR (32) and Reagan (40), but the world didn't collapse *because* of the deficits. Under Ronnie, inflation and interest rates even came down and the dollar was generally strong, at least before the Plaza accord and Baker's talking down of the buck.
FDR's deficits didn't cause the criminal internment of 2,000+ U.S. citizens of Japanese descent, didn't help him hatch his court-packing scheme, didn't help him confiscate the peoples' gold, didn't help him launch his antiSocial inSecurity hokem, but Federal spending aided and abetted all these actions and more.
The same is true with Ronnie and Dumbya.
The deficit didn't aid and abet Iran-contra and the propping up of the Taliban in Afghanistan in their war against the Soviets (thanks, Ronnie, for your part in causing 9/11), nor did it cause 43 to invade Iraq, but without government spending, these things wouldn't have happened.

That's why left-liberals love to lash out at budget deficits. Doing so can let them pretend to be against their version of "big government," while ignoring the fact that their tax-and-spend policies have done at least as much as the GOP to give us the big government they profess to want to tame.
FDR lambasted Hoover for his deficits with rhetoric that was a sharp as any you'll ever read, but that was before he lied the U.S. into WW II and ran mountainous deficits that made Hoover's seem like a molehill.

Government accounting is not exactly up to GAAP, but then it's not a profit making entity. And I didn't mention all those off-budget expenditures either.
But all this stuff is fat, and it's the muscle that causes the damage, as Roy A. Childs used to point out. RAC always said to cut out the muscle of government and to ignore the fat. He was right.
Government spending is the muscle, especially on the military and so-called social welfare spending.

[On Canada's markets]:
What was the excuse when the commodities were in the pits and Canada was still running surpluses with US and the rest of the world? What's the US excuse? Current accounts deficts a bogeyman? Tell it to Buffett and anyone else who doesn't believe in a free lunch.

Canada hasn't always run surpluses and the looney was low even when Canada was running a surplus. There is more to foreign exchange movements than budget deficits/surpluses. Buffett's rationale for his bet against the dollar--which hasn't been doing as well recently--is a half truth at best and ignores other conditions such as changes in interest rates, which aren't ultimately caused by deficits, that matter more.

The rest of your post is too incoherent to warrant a reply.

ValueSnark



















Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Can you name one libertarian who defended Shrubster on anything?

How about the Libertarian Party of the US? I'm assuming that's a good enough source.

On SS reform, I see no daylight between Bush and Libertarian Party platform. Privatize a system that is supposedly "broke". Broke only because of the ridiculous Reagan/Bush tax cuts. There is this difference:

The federal government owns assets worth trillions of dollars - assets that it simply doesn't need to perform its Constitutional functions. By selling those assets over time, we can keep the promises that were made to today's retirees, and to those nearing retirement, while freeing the rest of America from a failed Social Security system.

http://www.lp.org/issues/social-security.html

So the Libertarians want to sell off the US to pay for SS/Medicare promises made already. The great advantage over raising taxes or borrowing to bridge the gap in funding in a move to privatization. Jack Kemp, for example, says about a trillion or more will have to be borrowed to bridge the funding gap.

Then again, why not hold Greenspan/Reagan/Congress 1983 to the promises they made when they asked everyone--including Libertarians--to pay their SS taxes up front--hence the huge SS/Medicare surpluses. And now GreenBush are trying to weasel out because Reagan/Bush blew every penny. Why aren't Libertarians screaming about the phony Reeagan/Bush/Greenspan promises--540 billion.

I notice you still didn't link any articles, like I do. I'll take that to mean you can't.

And get this! His plan, like every other one I've see guarantees a person they can't do any worse than SS/Medicare returns--although you could do better!!!. Beautiful. And them because you can't have every fool that loaded up on garbage.com in charge of the retirement money if the government (Big Daddy) is going to guarantee a minimum return--you get into government approved investments. You have to.

Is there a bigger recipe for huge government??, yet Libertarians are in favor--because they haven't thought out fully the consequenceses of their position. Sugar and spice and everything nice.

Thanks again for the replies. Something has to be done. But if Libertarians cling to really simplistic answers they aren't going to get very far.

PS--I may be unfair on this because I depended a great deal on a supposed "Libertarian" on the CE board and he did little but defend Bush. So I'm probably not representing the position of most "libertarians" fairly.






Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
How about the Libertarian Party of the US? I'm assuming that's a good enough source.

Hmmm. You must not go to the Libertarian Party site very often. Try entering Bush in the search function on www.lp.org. See what kind of "defense" they give Bush.

Here's some examples:

LP Press Release: Bush's plan to launch invasion of Iraq is totally unjustified, Libertarians say (August 8, 2002)

LP Press Release: Bush blasts corporate fraud, but what about government fraud? (September 26, 2002)

LP Press Release: Bush's decision to oppose bill to arm pilots is great news for terrorists, Libertarians say (May 3, 2002)

LP Press Release: Bush's State of the Union speech was a historic 'missed opportunity' (January 30, 2002)

LP News Online: March 2001: From the Director: Why George W. Bush will be bad for liberty


So on and so on. Didn't see one title that defended Bush on anything. I'm a little unclear, therefore, on your assertion that the Libertarian Party defends Bush.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
PS--I may be unfair on this because I depended a great deal on a supposed "Libertarian" on the CE board and he did little but defend Bush. So I'm probably not representing the position of most "libertarians" fairly.

So why not take your drivel elsewhere? It's got little or nothing to do with us, thanks.

-NGR
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
PS--I may be unfair on this because I depended a great deal on a supposed "Libertarian" on the CE board and he did little but defend Bush. So I'm probably not representing the position of most "libertarians" fairly.


Probably because the debate was between who is better...Kerry or Bush. While I think most Libertarians think Bush is dreadful, most would probably rather have Bush over Kerry any day if the choice was between just those two.

Eric
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Probably because the debate was between who is better...Kerry or Bush. While I think most Libertarians think Bush is dreadful, most would probably rather have Bush over Kerry any day if the choice was between just those two.

ya know, I just don't get that. I think Kerry is dreadful, no doubt about it, a mealy mouthed, flip flopping, vote whore - BUT, I see his policies, as being much more likely to lead to LESS government and LESS government interference in people's lives, here and abroad, than Bush's...by far...I mean BY FAR.. I can't think of one single issue where Bush's policies are nearer to Libertarian philosophies than Kerry's. Oh ok, tax cuts. But tax cuts done in a way that destroys the U.S. balance sheet are going to end up costing us all a whole lot more.

Kerry could not be worse than Bush, hell my dog could not be worse than Bush - Bush is simply the most incompetent person to ever hold the office.

I prefer someone in there who has the mental ability to handle it, even if I don't agree with all their policies.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
ya know, I just don't get that. I think Kerry is dreadful, no doubt about it, a mealy mouthed, flip flopping, vote whore - BUT, I see his policies, as being much more likely to lead to LESS government and LESS government interference in people's lives, here and abroad, than Bush's...by far...I mean BY FAR..

Give me some examples. Iraq? Kerry voted for the Iraq war and last I knew has vowed to finish what was started. Healthcare? Most democrats including Kerry stated that Bush's policies weren't enough. I don't have the link handy, but I seem to remember a link that added up Kerry's campaign promises and they added up to a total dollar amount greater than the agendas that Bush has.

I prefer someone in there who has the mental ability to handle it, even if I don't agree with all their policies.

Mental ability? You just stated Kerry is a flip flopping vote whore. Seems like he is lacking in any kind of conviction for anything whatsoever. He certainly doesn't have the mental ability to follow through on any of his own convictions.

Eric
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
PS--I may be unfair on this because I depended a great deal on a supposed "Libertarian" on the CE board and he did little but defend Bush. So I'm probably not representing the position of most "libertarians" fairly.

So why not take your drivel elsewhere? It's got little or nothing to do with us, thanks.


BTW, the libertarian he is discussing is JGII. Shortly after his death he posted a rant titled, "Where are The Libertarians", and it was a fairly obvious slam at JGII. He got nagged, ragged, and P-Boxed over there, and finally decided to take it over here.
I guess he couldn't win a battle of wits with JGII when he was alive so he figured he would try now that he's dead. I guess that's the only way he'd win.
Crass.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
ya know, I just don't get that. I think Kerry is dreadful, no doubt about it, a mealy mouthed, flip flopping, vote whore - BUT, I see his policies, as being much more likely to lead to LESS government and LESS government interference in people's lives, here and abroad, than Bush's...by far...I mean BY FAR.. I can't think of one single issue where Bush's policies are nearer to Libertarian philosophies than Kerry's. Oh ok, tax cuts. But tax cuts done in a way that destroys the U.S. balance sheet are going to end up costing us all a whole lot more.


Have you found a policy that you can actually hold him to? Everything I've seen he changes his mind more than any female (including me).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Have you found a policy that you can actually hold him to? Everything I've seen he changes his mind more than any female (including me).

lol - I don't disagree with that, nor with much of what eboller said - you won't get me to go out too far on a limb to defend Kerry - I do worry that Iraq will get worse under him. However, I KNOW that we would NOT be in Iraq if Kerry or McCain or Buchanan or almost anybody else was President. Surely you know that too despite the little jab about Kerry "voting for it".

You are also right that apparently Bush's and Kerry's opinions about the government's role in health care etc differ little - but, IMO, Kerry would have approached the problem in a more thoughful way - he is clearly a more thoughtful person. Bush NOT ONLY gave us the most costly government social program EVER, he did it in the most costly and complicated and unfair way possible, just like he has done everything else. But I'm sure Bush was completely disconnected from the process, just as he is disconnected from all things he is supposed to be in charge of. Bush is completely INCOMPETENT. He is PLAIN STUPID. Period. I question the intelligence of anyone who can't see that. Fire his sorry ass. ANYBODY would be better. I DON'T LIKE KERRY and I would be very close to not voting at all if I did not feel it was my patriotic duty to vote AGAINST BUSH - he is clearly the worst President of all time and I have zero doubt that history will record it that way. He is deadly dangerous to America and to MY FREEDOM AND YOUR FREEDOM.

I don't call myself a Libertarian these days, but I have called myself Libertarian in the past. I have voted Libertarian. I don't understand how anybody who calls themselves Libertarian can defend Bush. He is the anti-Libertarian...if not the anti-Christ.


.......
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 19
I KNOW that we would NOT be in Iraq if Kerry or McCain or Buchanan or almost anybody else was President.

McCain strongly supported invading Iraq. He called for military action against Saddam during the debate about the invasion. He continues to support the effort in Iraq and consistently calls for strong action by the Bush administration to bring democracy to Iraq.

Your anti-Bush bias has colored your judgment if you think most of the Congress opposed invading Iraq because they did not. The Congress made regime change in Iraq the policy of the United States during the Clinton administration and approved the use of force against Iraq again and again for over a decade. Kerry only jumped on the anti-invasion bandwagon after he fell behind in the primary race for the Democrat nomination.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Your anti-Bush bias has colored your judgment if you think most of the Congress opposed invading Iraq because they did not.

I didn't say that. I said that we would never have invaded Iraq...... Yes, after Bush pushed us to the brink of war with his lies, John Kerry and Hilary Clinton and most of the rest of Congress voted for a resolution that itself was full of lies, but NO OTHER PRESIDENT would have EVER taken us to that point under those circumstances.

"Anti-bush bias..." LOL. I give up. You guys go on believing what you want. I won't bother you anymore. I'm not a troll. I just thought I might find some actual Libertarian thinking on a board called Libertarian Fools. Guess I was wrong. See ya...

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Hmmm. You must not go to the Libertarian Party site very often.

Admitedly, I don't. But when I did today what do I find on the "foreign policy" platform. Zero on Iraq or even much on anything else.

Libertarian foreign policy: Ending welfare for nations -- foreign aid

http://www.lp.org/issues/foreign-policy.html

That's fine but really....

Anyway, I appreciate all the responses and they were better than the thread title deserved. I hope we can agree this can't continue and, imo, the only viable alternative is Kerry, although if it looks like the election is not that close (I think Bush is going to lose big) I plan to vote for Nader. None of the "libertarians" on Current Events even bothered mentioning Russo so how would anyone know about him? Personally, I wish any Libertarian candidates well and hope they siphon off as many votes from Bush as possible.

Just the Feds:

Current receipts (billions of dollars)
2000--2,053.8
2001--2,017.8
2002--1,860.7
2003--1,850.8 (-200 billion dollars)


Current expenditures (billions)
2000--1,864.4
2001--1,967.3
2002--2,100.7
2003--2,263.9 (++400 billion dollars)

Then I asked:

What do libertarians think about that?

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=20839907

No response from the Current Events board "liberatarians."

Thanks for the responses and good luck to the Libertarians.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
Probably because the debate was between who is better...Kerry or Bush. While I think most Libertarians think Bush is dreadful, most would probably rather have Bush over Kerry any day if the choice was between just those two.

In response to a poll question I've seen cited recently, I firmly believe that Bush is leading the country in the wrong direction. And Kerry is complaining about the slow pace - not the direction.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 14
However, I KNOW that we would NOT be in Iraq if Kerry or McCain or Buchanan or almost anybody else was President.

I agree - you are quite correct on this one.

Bush I had a year and a half to get it right, and failed.

Clinton had 8 years to get it right, and failed.

Bush II took two years to get it right.

Kerry and McCain would never have gotten it right before the UN did, and the UN would never have gotten it right until the French, Germans, and Russians all stopped taking bribes.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
You are also right that apparently Bush's and Kerry's opinions about the government's role in health care etc differ little - but, IMO, Kerry would have approached the problem in a more thoughful way - he is clearly a more thoughtful person. Bush NOT ONLY gave us the most costly government social program EVER, he did it in the most costly and complicated and unfair way possible, just like he has done everything else.

I guess you've never bothered to read anything about what Kerry is ACTUALLY like once in office. I've lived under him, and don't care to ever again. Try chicking out his voting history - Oh, that's right, you can't, he hasn't been voting. Isn't it nice of the taxpayers of Massachusetts to pay him even though he doesn't do his job?

BTW, I quit reading when I got to this:
But I'm sure Bush was completely disconnected from the process, just as he is disconnected from all things he is supposed to be in charge of. Bush is completely INCOMPETENT. He is PLAIN STUPID.

If you can't present a better argument than that, give it up. That statement shows me you are biased and have no decent argument FOR Kerry.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
"Anti-bush bias..." LOL. I give up. You guys go on believing what you want. I won't bother you anymore. I'm not a troll. I just thought I might find some actual Libertarian thinking on a board called Libertarian Fools. Guess I was wrong. See ya...

I think you confused Libertarian with Liberal.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
I think you confused Libertarian with Liberal.

WRONG. You have confused Libertarian with FASCIST. You and apparently most of the other people that hang out here are very confused about your political philosophy! The thinking on this board DOES NOT represent Libertarian thinking! Period. Someone in this thread posted what a great thing it was the Bush has invaded a foreign country that posed no threat to us and he received 13 recs so far! That is one of the most ANTI-Libertarian things I can imagine, and is in total and complete opposition to the thinking of all the top Libertarian leaders of the past few decades. Have you ever heard of Ron Paul or Harry Browne or even Pat Buchanan??? Get a f'king clue!

You need to change the name of this board from Libertarian Fools to Just Plain Fools because this board is absolutely clueless about Libertarianism...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
If you can't present a better argument than that, give it up. That statement shows me you are biased and have no decent argument FOR Kerry.

I agree.

Once the Left's argument deteriorates into a "Bush is stupid" or "Bush is a shrub" rant, its usually best to end the debate. Ironically, a poster reveals his/her own stupidity when resorting to these tactics. Its also ironic when you consider that those who make this statement often are much less accomplished or educated than "Bush the imbecile." Bush isn't an intellectual wizard and is a child of privilege but he clearly isn't stupid.

wolvy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 12
Period. Someone in this thread posted what a great thing it was the Bush has invaded a foreign country that posed no threat to us and he received 13 recs so far!

My reason for reccing the post was more along the lines that I think Kerry wouldn't have even done anything regarding terrorism without waiting for UN approval for anything. I'm not talking Iraq although that may have been the discussion at hand. Personally, I don't think we should have focused our efforts on Iraq, but it should be focused somewhere...stopping Al Qaeda for instance. I don't trust Kerry to do anything at all in regards to terrorism that hasn't been started already. Plus, rather than take our sovereign right to defend ourselves, he would be sitting and groveling to the UN til the cows came home. Talk about un-Libertarian. Again, I'm not necessarily talking Iraq, but I do think we have a right to respond to Al Qaeda and go wherever we need to to flush them out.

There are plenty of Libertarians that feel the war on Iraq is correct. That certainly isn't the strict Libertarian platform, however, I don't think that implies they are fascist. Many of the folks here are huge "fans" of Ron Paul and will most likely vote for a Libertarian candidate (even one that is against the war in Iraq). What you see as Bush lovers (hmmm, no dirty thoughts) are more likely asking for reasons for HATING Bush with no reasons given as many of the liberals who have all of a sudden popped up on this board are doing. Then throwing up Kerry as a better offering. They don't present any arguments other than the standard "Bush is a fascist" or "Shrub this, Shrub that". They don't respond as to how Kerry would be so much better. You offered Kerry as better than Bush...frankly I find them quite close to the same. However, neither is Libertarian, so I don't see how your offering of Kerry being better than Bush makes you any more Libertarian than someone saying Bush is better than Kerry.

You are trying to blanketly say that people here who have defended Bush on a couple of issues are blanketly fascist or pro-Bush. You are quite incorrect and obviously haven't spent much time on this board if you feel that way. I invite you to stay a little longer and when some of the Liberal anti-Bush (with no arguments given) crowd dies off then I think you will see much more Libertarian postings.

Eric
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
eric,
Thanks for that thoughtful reply.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
WRONG. You have confused Libertarian with FASCIST. You and apparently most of the other people that hang out here are very confused about your political philosophy! The thinking on this board DOES NOT represent Libertarian thinking! Period. Someone in this thread posted what a great thing it was the Bush has invaded a foreign country that posed no threat to us and he received 13 recs so far! That is one of the most ANTI-Libertarian things I can imagine, and is in total and complete opposition to the thinking of all the top Libertarian leaders of the past few decades. Have you ever heard of Ron Paul or Harry Browne or even Pat Buchanan??? Get a f'king clue!

You need to change the name of this board from Libertarian Fools to Just Plain Fools because this board is absolutely clueless about Libertarianism...


With many more posts such as yours, Just Plain Fools might become an appropriate name for the board. Personally, I think you're focusing on Libertarian thinking at the expense of alternative libertarian philosophy. In this alternative libertarian thinking, aggressive confrontation of a totalitarian threat while advancing freedom is not only acceptable but preferable to the alternative. Passivity in the face of certain totalitarian threats (Baathism, Nazism, Communism, etc.) can lead to obliteration of our current free state. With the loss of freedom comes the defeat of libertarianism. Your defense of the rights of a dictator at the expense of the rights of tens of millions of others is in direct conflict with my libertarian ideals.

I respect true pacifists or others who argue intelligently that a war is not worth the human costs. I do not respect those that dishonestly argue against war no matter what the human cost for irrational partisan reasons.

wolvy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
No problem. Hopefully, you'll find some things of interest here even if it doesn't fit completely with all your thoughts regarding politics. I think you'll find a lot of agreement on many topics with others here if you have a libertarian bent on some things and certainly not everyone here is in agreement on the Iraq issue...we've just been over it a gazillion times so there isn't really much deep discussion about it anymore.

Eric
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
"I KNOW that we would NOT be in Iraq if Kerry or McCain or Buchanan or almost anybody else was President."

======================================================================

Kerry is perhaps more libertarian than Bush because of Kerry's stand on social issues, but only barely.

As far as Iraq, Kerry and McCain both voted for the war, McCain still staunchly defends it to this day, and I don't know about Pat Buchanan, but his sister, Bay Buchanan, who has roughly the same views as her brother, also supported the war.

You must have drunk the anti-bush kool-aid.

-JAR

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
"None of the 'libertarians' on Current Events even bothered mentioning Russo"

=======================================================================

Probably because the candidate is Michael Badnarik.

Nader is more anit-libertarian than Bush, IMHO. At least Bush believes in capitalism. Nader is a communist. He may be liberal on social issues, but not very.

-JAR
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"Isn't it nice of the taxpayers of Massachusetts to pay him even though he doesn't do his job?"

======================================================================

Actually, it's the U.S. taxpayers that are paying him, and I, as a voter in Mass., am perfectly happy with him not voting. Aren't you?

-JAR

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
"Have you ever heard of Ron Paul or Harry Browne or even Pat Buchanan??? Get a ****** clue!"

======================================================================

Please don't swear on this list. Even if it's disguised a little. It's not that I'm worried about anyone reading a swear word, but it's just plain rude.

Pat Buchanan is NOT even close to a libertarian (little 'l' or big 'L').

As for Ron Paul (Republican), Harry Browne, and other leaders of the Libertarian party, the Libertarian party is not a group of single-minded robots.

(l)ibertarians believe in *limited* government, not *no* government. *No* government is anarchy. (l)ibertarians believe that the government is charged with only one task: to protect the civil liberties of its citizens from aggression, both foreign and domestic. Those Libertarians that support the Iraq war are in the minority in the Libertarain party, but their view is consistent because they believe that, if left unchecked, that Saddam Hussein would have been a major threat to the U.S.

Personally, I believe he was the second biggest threat to world peace, and therefore my civil liberties (second to UBL). So I believe it was the duty of the U.S. government to defend me against that threat. I also believe that NOW was the right time to do it, while he was still weak. This is consistent with Libertarianism if you believe the above. If you don't believe it, then it isn't consistent, and that's where the split in the party lies (probably 4 to 1 against the war, I'd bet).

There's a prominent Libertarian radio talk show host in the Boston Area that is a firm supporter of the war. He doesn't like Bush in general, and neither do I.

I believe the LP leaders would really like to believe he wasn't a threat, because they saw that Bush was going to be hurt politically. Just my opinion.

-JAR
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
WRONG. You have confused Libertarian with FASCIST. You and apparently most of the other people that hang out here are very confused about your political philosophy! The thinking on this board DOES NOT represent Libertarian thinking! Period.

You spew venom and invective while adding nothing to the discussion on this board. I doubt that many here care about your opinion of their political philosophy. I don't. It seems that the only libertarian thinking that you embrace is the most extreme variety of isolationism and anti-Americanism.

Someone in this thread posted what a great thing it was the Bush has invaded a foreign country that posed no threat to us and he received 13 recs so far!

The claim that Iraq posed no threat to us is laughable. One might debate the likelihood and severity of the threat, but claim that there is absolutely no threat is so far over the top that a reasonable person dismisses it out of hand. The past three administrations over the past decade and a half certainly claim that Iraq poses a threat and have used military force accordingly. But you focus on Bush as the source of all evil. That smacks of fanaticism.

That is one of the most ANTI-Libertarian things I can imagine, and is in total and complete opposition to the thinking of all the top Libertarian leaders of the past few decades. Have you ever heard of Ron Paul or Harry Browne or even Pat Buchanan??? Get a f'king clue!

You seem to rely more on your imagination than on factual information and rational thought. Your emotional tirades and name calling are a far cry from the civil tone of most of the debate on this board. I suggest that you search for your own clue. When you have a problem with virtually everyone in a group such as those who post on this board then you might want to consider whether the source of the problem is you rather than everyone else.

You need to change the name of this board from Libertarian Fools to Just Plain Fools because this board is absolutely clueless about Libertarianism...

You come here and assume that your opinion on the matter is fact and then castigate others for not falling in line with your fanatical beliefs. That smacks of the totalitarian thinking that you ascribe to others. How small of you.

Prometheuss
Oh, and we'll keep the name, thank you.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
There are plenty of Libertarians that feel the war on Iraq is correct.

That's like saying that there are plenty of vegetarians who eat pork chops.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
There are plenty of Libertarians that feel the war on Iraq is correct.

That's like saying that there are plenty of vegetarians who eat pork chops.


Nonsense. I suggust you read "Libertarian Just War Theory" by Wendy McElroy (http://www.zetetics.com/mac/articles/justwar.html). Only those who believe in some fantasy of a libertarian utopia believe that a nation should never go to war. Many (probably most) libertarians are too practical for such soft headed thinking which would enslave a libertarian nation to some brutal regime in short order.

As Wendy McElroy notes: [L]ibertarians tend to view the American Revolution as a noble struggle, waged for the principles of "natural rights" and "no government without the consent of the governed." In short, it was a just war. Furthermore, I know few libertarians who consider opposition to Hitler and Nazi Germany in WWII as anything but just and proper.

Even Alexander Mosely, author of "A Philosophy of War", concedes that free-market and libertarian philosophy needs to become embedded in our cultural outlook before war dissipates completely.

Regards,
Prometheuss





Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
WRONG. You have confused Libertarian with FASCIST. You and apparently most of the other people that hang out here are very confused about your political philosophy! The thinking on this board DOES NOT represent Libertarian thinking! Period. Someone in this thread posted what a great thing it was the Bush has invaded a foreign country that posed no threat to us and he received 13 recs so far! That is one of the most ANTI-Libertarian things I can imagine, and is in total and complete opposition to the thinking of all the top Libertarian leaders of the past few decades. Have you ever heard of Ron Paul or Harry Browne or even Pat Buchanan??? Get a f'king clue!

You need to change the name of this board from Libertarian Fools to Just Plain Fools because this board is absolutely clueless about Libertarianism...


1. Do not yell. I am right here and it simply makes you look like a newbie or Howard Dean.
2. I know the difference between Libertarian and Fascist. Apparently yo do not if you consider our country even remotely close to a fascist state.
3. I think you need to double-check you facts before telling people what is or isn't historically accurate.
4. Simply because you cannot think of a better argument does not mean swearing will help your argument.
Now, please stop acting like a child. I have two already and so far, you do not behave as well as they do.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Kerry is perhaps more libertarian than Bush because of Kerry's stand on social issues, but only barely.

Huh???
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"None of the 'libertarians' on Current Events even bothered mentioning Russo"

I was at the convention, and Russo turned me off fairly quickly. he would be a great campaign manager, but I certainly would not want him as a candidate. He tried a stunt just before the debate that was really tacky and it showed big time. I heard later that he basically tried to bribe the delegates, which wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Probably because the candidate is Michael Badnarik.

Of the three, Barnarik, Russo, and Nolan, Badnarik was the best during the debates, but I thought higher of Nolan's responses to questions when "up close and personal."
For a more detailed account:
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=20834755&sort=whole

Nader is more anit-libertarian than Bush, IMHO. At least Bush believes in capitalism. Nader is a communist. He may be liberal on social issues, but not very.

Nader doesn't rank high enough to be a communist. He is a socialist. His platform makes the USSR look tame. The thought of him in a national office scares the bejesus out of me.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Isn't it nice of the taxpayers of Massachusetts to pay him even though he doesn't do his job?"

======================================================================

Actually, it's the U.S. taxpayers that are paying him, and I, as a voter in Mass., am perfectly happy with him not voting. Aren't you?


Now that you mention it, it's worth the money if he won't vote.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
There's a prominent Libertarian radio talk show host in the Boston Area that is a firm supporter of the war. He doesn't like Bush in general, and neither do I.

Who? Is it Howie Carr? I don't know much about his actual politics other than a few scraps I've heard and liked.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Nonsense. I suggust you read "Libertarian Just War Theory"

Talk about nonsense! You find one obscure web publication and you think that counters ALL Libertarian philosophy ever written, the Libertarian political platform, the writings and speeches of ALL the Libertarian Party's current and former Presidential Candidates???

That is simply ludicrous...and demonstrates a pathetic lack of understanding of Libertarianism, or more likely a complete disinterest in REAL Libertarianism.

You know, I came to this board as someone with a great deal of affinity with much of REAL Libertarian philosophy, who has supported Libertarian candidates, thinking I might find some like minds. I am absolutely incredulous at what I have found.

You have every right to support pre-emptive war or any other BIG GOVERNMENT, freedom stealing idea you like, but don't PRETEND for a second that it has ANYTHING to do with Libertarianism. That is an INSULT to REAL Libertarians! I find it deeply offensive.

==============

From Michael Badnarik - 2004 Libertarian Presidential Candidate
http://www.badnarik.org/Issues/IraqWar.php

The War in Iraq is a failure, and the U.S. government should never have waged it. As your president, one of my first tasks will be to begin the orderly process of bringing our troops home as quickly as can safely be accomplished.

More and more Americans are coming to oppose the war, the war hawks and high government officials are beginning to distance themselves from the president, and the U.S. seems more willing than ever to pull out of Iraq.

But this is not enough. We need to learn how this disaster happened, so we can prevent future disasters from happening.

First, allow me to dispel a myth. People in the Middle East do not hate us for our freedom. They do not hate us for our lifestyle. They hate us because we have spent many years attempting to force them to emulate our lifestyle.

The U.S. government has meddled in the affairs of the Middle East far too long, always with horrendous results. It overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran and replaced him with the Shah. After making Iranians the enemies of Americans, the U.S. government gave weapons, intelligence and money to Iran's mortal adversary, Saddam Hussein. The U.S. government also helped Libyan

Col. Qaddafi come to power, propped up the Saudi monarchy and the Egyptian regime, and gave assistance to Osama bin Laden.

Most Americans have forgotten these events. But the people of the Middle East will always remember.

It was because of American troops in Saudi Arabia, lethal sanctions on Iraq, support for states in serious violation of International Law, and siding with Israel in its dispute with the Palestinians to the tune of more than $3 billion per year in taxpayers' funds that 3,000 innocent Americans paid the ultimate price on September 11, 2001.

The proper response would have been to present the evidence as to who committed the heinous act both to Congress and to the people, and have Congress authorize the president to track down the individuals actually responsible, doing everything possible to avoid inflicting harm on innocents.

A Libertarian president would not have sent the military trampling about the world, racking up a death count in the thousands, wasting tax money on destroying and re-building infrastructure, creating more enemies, and doing the kinds of things that led to 9/11 in the first place.

We cannot undo history, unfortunately.

The U.S. government has never succeeded in establishing freedom and democracy in any of its foreign adventures in the last fifty years.

Freedom and democracy are blessings any people must establish for themselves.

Here at home, war leads to a decline in civil liberties, higher taxes, and wartime economic measures that blur the line between business and state, allowing politically favored corporations to profit at the expense of taxpayers.

Libertarians understand the importance of adhering to the Constitution, because it is designed to limit the power of the state here and abroad. And we especially understand the danger of war, which expands the power of the government far beyond its constitutional limits.

The founders of this country knew that war should not be initiated at the president's whim, and so the constitutional authority to wage war rests with Congress.

James Madison, father of the Constitution, said, "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." He also said, "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. . ."

In short, a libertarian foreign policy is one of national defense, and not international offense. It would protect our country, not police the world.

I'm Michael Badnarik, Libertarian for President. I ask the tough questions---to give you answers that really work!

============
From former Libertarian Presidential Candidate Ron Paul :
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr072103.htm
Hopefully, we will soon seriously consider the foreign policy approach advocated by our Founding Fathers, a policy of nonintervention in the affairs of other nations. Avoiding entangling alliances and staying out of the internal affairs of other nations is the policy most conducive to peace and prosperity. Policing the world and nation building are not proper for our constitutional republic.
--------
And this from Ron Paul:
Justifying preemption is not an answer to avoiding appeasement. Very few wars are necessary. Very few wars are good wars. And this one does not qualify. Most wars are costly beyond measure, in life and limb and economic hardship. In this regard, this war does qualify:
566 deaths, 10,000 casualties, and hundreds of billions of dollars for a victory requiring self-deception.

and another from Ron Paul:

Even if we assume that anything will be an improvement over the Hussein regime, the fundamental question remains: Why should young Americans be hurt or killed to liberate foreign nations? I have never heard a convincing answer to this question. If we sacrifice 500 lives to liberate Iraq, should we sacrifice five million American lives to liberate the people of North Korea, Taiwan, Tibet, China, Cuba, and countless African nations? Should we invade every country that has an oppressive government? Are nation-building and empire part of our national credo? Those who answer yes to these questions should have the integrity to admit that our founders urged the opposite approach, namely a foreign policy rooted in staying out of the affairs of other nations..


============

From former Libertarian Presidential Candidate Harry Browne:

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/SupportOurBoys.htm
[...]
And when they come home, they will have learned that life is cheap, that collateral damage is inevitable, that killing people that had nothing against you is sometimes necessary. Our boys will never be the same again. Is this how we want our children to turn out?

Some of them won't even come home, since collateral damage works both ways.

Of those who do come home, some will suffer for years — perhaps for the rest of their lives — from guilt, or with unexplained symptoms arising from the firing of weapons armed with depleted uranium. Is this what you want for your children.

If your child is one of the casualties, what will you think ten years from now — when Iraq is no more a democratic, friendly nation than it is now? What will you think when it becomes obvious that this wasn't a war against Saddam Hussein, it was a war against reason — the first in a series of empire-building adventures against the likes of Iran, Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and who-knows-who-else?

Is this why you had children — to send them off to kill and to risk their lives in a meaningless war for the benefit of a handful of politicians?

I'm sorry Senator Lieberman and Senator Graham, but I not only think you're mealy-mouthed, I think you're disgraceful. If the country really should "come together" now, it should be united against the idea of attacking a virtually defenseless nation on the unverified say-so of a known liar.

To "come together" to support insanity is not patriotic, it is not reason, it is not moral. It simply makes you as guilty as the people perpetrating this war.

If you really want to support our boys over there, do the honorable thing:

Demand that they be brought home now.

=============

from the Libertarian Platform adopted at July 2002 convention:

[...]

IV. Foreign Affairs

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and the defense -- against attack from abroad -- of the lives, liberty, and property of the American people on American soil. Provision of such defense must respect the individual rights of people everywhere.

The principle of non-intervention should guide relationships between governments. The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade, travel, and immigration.

[....]

The Principle: The important principle in foreign policy should be the elimination of intervention by the United States government in the affairs of other nations.

[...]

Military Policy
Any U.S. military policy should have the objective of providing security for the lives, liberty and property of the American people in the U.S. as inexpensively as possible and without undermining the liberties it is designed to protect.


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Only those who believe in some fantasy of a libertarian utopia believe that a nation should never go to war.


The point was not about "any" war, the point was about the war on Iraq.

JIm
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
There's a prominent Libertarian radio talk show host in the Boston Area that is a firm supporter of the war. He doesn't like Bush in general, and neither do I.

Who? Is it Howie Carr? I don't know much about his actual politics other than a few scraps I've heard and liked.

=======================================================================

David Brudnoy is an LP member who has the highest-rated talk show of his time slot (last I heard it was highest-rated for all time slots) from 7-10pm on WBZ 1030 AM in Boston. WBZ is clear channel, but at that time, I doubt you could get reception in Georgia.

I've been listening to his show for 12 years now. He's the most intelligent and thoughtful person on the radio in the U.S. that I've ever heard. About half of his topics have nothing to do with politics, but are about science/history/sociology etc. He's a professor at Boston University.

He wrote an autobiography several years back titled _Life_Is_Not_A_Rehearsal_.

He actually got both speaker Finneran (Democrat) and Governor Romney (Republican) on air to agree that he will get to serve out Kerry's term if Kerry wins the presidency, in exchange for the promise that he wouldn't run again. But I guess they've renegged on the deal (it was all tounge-in-cheek of course) and there's going to be a special election right away in that case...

-JAR
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
"You have every right to support pre-emptive war or any other BIG GOVERNMENT, freedom stealing idea you like, but don't PRETEND for a second that it has ANYTHING to do with Libertarianism. That is an INSULT to REAL Libertarians! I find it deeply offensive."

=======================================================================

Offensive? Seriously, you're offended because of someone's *idea*? Really? Is this a bit of hyperbole, or did someone actually hurt you with an intellectual discussion?

Now you're going to tell me what I can and can't call libertarian? That doesn't sound very libertarian to me. If I published a book with my view of libertarianism, would you burn it?

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what the point of this dicussion board is if not to freely exchange ideas we may or may not agree with, and to learn from the discussion. I have no use for it if I'm not going to gain insight into other people's ideas.

So, explain to me, why are you here?

-JAR
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
Talk about nonsense! You find one obscure web publication and you think that counters ALL Libertarian philosophy ever written, the Libertarian political platform, the writings and speeches of ALL the Libertarian Party's current and former Presidential Candidates???

There you go again painting with a broad stroke. As if disagreeing with the party on one issue makes that person un-libertarian. Not every libertarian (even the ones you have mentioned) are on board with every issue that the Libertarian party professes. You know why? Cause people actually come up with their own conclusions. People think, they don't blindly follow some party platform just so they can say they are Libertarian.

Surely, you don't follow the thoughts of any particular party all the way do you, yet you probably label yourself as someone from a particular party? If you are so disgusted by the commentary here then leave. If you want to discuss why the war in Iraq is good or a bad idea that is fine. Present some arguments as to why you believe one way or the other. Don't just come here and label everyone un-libertarian just because some folks disagree with the party platform on ONE friggin' issue.

Eric
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
You have every right to support pre-emptive war or any other BIG GOVERNMENT, freedom stealing idea you like, but don't PRETEND for a second that it has ANYTHING to do with Libertarianism. That is an INSULT to REAL Libertarians! I find it deeply offensive.

Your offended. Oh really?

Statements from Pituophis:
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=20987016&sort=whole#20988539
I actually used to consider myself a Libertarian and still find agreement with many of their philosophies as expressed by Harry Browne and Ron Paul and others, though at other times, I find their adherance to ideological dogma at the expense of rational thought to be extremely agravating....For instance, I support Ron Paul's calls for "smaller government" but his statement that he "would never" vote against ANY tax cut is...just dumb

You find people discussing topics on a Libertarian board offensive, yet you call the very people you hold up as the Libertarian ideal dumb.

But some of the most vigorous assaults on the Bush administration over the war in Iraq and his big-spending ways have come from Ron Paul, Harry Browne, even Pat Buchanan and other Libertarians...just check out the LewRockwell website....so I find a lot of common ground with them but I disagree on some other basic philosophies so I could never vote for them.

You disagree with "some other basic philosophies" of the Libertarians and "could never vote for them", yet you come here and criticize people for having differing thoughts on an issue. So we must blindly follow a party platform, otherwise we can't be true Libertarians? Fine don't label anyone as Libertarian here, regardless of the fact that many here will be voting Libertarian. I find your arguments to be very strange. We are talking about one issue...Iraq. Yet you label the board as fascist and big government based on one issue. You truly are a joke.

Eric
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Furthermore, I know few libertarians who consider opposition to Hitler and Nazi Germany in WWII as anything but just and proper.

Maybe you know few libertarians.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Don't just come here and label everyone un-libertarian just because some folks disagree with the party platform on ONE friggin' issue.

...I suspect we would agree on a lot other things eric....but this is not just "one friggin issue"...well, yes, it is a single issue, but it is at the crux, at the very heart of Libertarianism...to "disagree with the platform" on that issue is not just un-libertarian, it is anti-libertarian, just as virtally every poilicy of the Bush administation is anti-libertarian...

Here's something else for you and the peanut gallery to ignore - Well known Libertarian, Lew Rockwell (ever heard of him???), had a good article about Bush and Kerry yesterday that does a very good job of reflecting my own position - http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/who-cares.html

If you want to discuss why the war in Iraq is good or a bad idea that is fine...

no, I DON'T want to do that - you and everyone else that has responded to my posts has gone out of their way to ignore what I have said and to go off on a campaign of destroying your own strawmen to the cheers of the peanut gallery...

This debate has nothing to do with the merits of this particular preemptive war - the debate has always been whether or not engaging in this particular preemptive war is compatible with ANY known Libertarian philosophy...Heck, I would be satisfied with seeing any evidence that it is not 180 opposed to any known Libertarian philosophy. I have given you ample evidence that it IS NOT compatible and the people on this board have offered NOTHING but misdirection and insults to counter that. Why? Because clearly you have no argument.

Clever, copying and pasting my comments from another board - I don't know what you think that proves - other than you are willing to engage in any tricky ad hominem tactic to avoid admitting how wrong you are... I said nothing there that I wouldn't repeat here...

If you are so disgusted by the commentary here then leave...

I will take that advice - I should have left long before now - I've done nothing but raise my blood preseure - I just thought there might be some Libertarians that hang out here - clearly I was wrong...


............
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
"This debate has nothing to do with the merits of this particular preemptive war - the debate has always been whether or not engaging in this particular preemptive war is compatible with ANY known Libertarian philosophy...Heck, I would be satisfied with seeing any evidence that it is not 180 opposed to any known Libertarian philosophy. I have given you ample evidence that it IS NOT compatible and the people on this board have offered NOTHING but misdirection and insults to counter that. Why? Because clearly you have no argument."

======================================================================

Two arguments were given (one by me) as to why support of the Iraq war is consistent with Libertarian philosophy.

misdirection and insults? No, that seems to be how you operate.

-JAR

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 13
Talk about nonsense! You find one obscure web publication and you think that counters ALL Libertarian philosophy ever written, the Libertarian political platform, the writings and speeches of ALL the Libertarian Party's current and former Presidential Candidates???

You are sadly confused if you think that the Libertarian Party speaks for all libertarians. They do not. Most libertarians do not vote for Libertarian Party candidates. You confuse the party and the extreme, out of touch candidates that it produces with libertarian philosophy and thought. Quote libertarian philosophy and construct your own argument if you want to change minds. Quoting politicians as authorities is a fascist approach to rhetoric. I gave you a philosophic argument that reconciles just war theory with libertarian thought. You did not respond to the ideas in any way, shape or form.

Let's get back to your claim that libertarians supporting war is like vegetarians eating pork chops. The core belief of a vegetarian is that it is always wrong to eat meat. The proper analogy to war would be pacifists and not libertarians. E.g.: Saying that there are plenty of pacifists that feel the war on Iraq is correct is like saying that there are plenty of vegetarians who eat pork chop. The challenge for you is to explain why you think libertarians are pacifists. The core belief of a libertarian is in individual liberty. Fighting a war to prevent a government from tyrannizing people advances liberty.

Regards,
Prometheuss
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Only those who believe in some fantasy of a libertarian utopia believe that a nation should never go to war.


The point was not about "any" war, the point was about the war on Iraq.

JIm


I suggest you read what he wrote:

"That's [libertarians supporting war against Iraq] like saying that there are plenty of vegetarians who eat pork chops."

The core belief of a vegetarian is that it is always wrong to eat meat. The proper analogy to war would be to pacifists and not to libertarians. The core belief of a libertarian is in individual liberty. A libertarian might believe that war in Iraq protects liberties in the US and advances liberty.

Regards,
Prometheuss


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
Here's something else for you and the peanut gallery to ignore - Well known Libertarian, Lew Rockwell (ever heard of him???), had a good article about Bush and Kerry yesterday that does a very good job of reflecting my own position - http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/who-cares.html

Uh yeah. I go to lewrockwell.com everyday. I read the same article. He basically points out that Kerry's ideas on every topic including Iraq are WORSE than Bush's!

The same pattern repeats itself on Iraq. Here is Bush's most vulnerable spot. And what does Kerry manage to do? In what is an amazing feat of disastrous political maneuvering, he has carved out a position that is even worse than Bush's! He favors putting more troops in Iraq and putting them under the command of the UN. Now here is a position that seems perfectly designed to alienate every last red-blooded American, a position that can only meet with approval among some tiny segments of the Eastern Establishment intelligentsia. It seems to show that Kerry is completely out of touch, not just with middle America, but with any realities of American political culture.

Yet you sound like you would prefer Kerry to Bush. At least you seemed to have stated as much earlier in the thread, correct me if I'm wrong. If his position is worse than Bush's on this issue, why would you prefer Kerry to Bush? That's what I don't understand about the Kerry supporters. Most are clearly just anti-Bush...which is fine. I'm anti-Bush. However, their alternative is to prop up John Kerry, which as Lew Rockwell points out, is worse on the issues most sensitive to Libertarians and others. The very issues he could win on by taking a better stance he is succeeding in giving worse alternatives.

no, I DON'T want to do that - you and everyone else that has responded to my posts has gone out of their way to ignore what I have said and to go off on a campaign of destroying your own strawmen to the cheers of the peanut gallery...

When you come onto a board and start spouting the word fascisim, you expect to be responded to in a decent manner? Get real. If you present a coherent argument without the caps and without the melodrama I think people will respond in a clear and concise manner. You have made some good points, but unfortunately, you've chosen to add venom to your arguments. There's been many great discussions here on a variety of subjects. Sadly, I'll admit this board is going downhill, but it isn't because of those who have been regulars here. There seems to be a certain influx from the PA boards and honestly some of your posts have felt of that sort. We've had many good discussions on the bad aspects of George Bush, so it is incredibly funny that you find everyone to be a Bush supporter here.

This debate has nothing to do with the merits of this particular preemptive war - the debate has always been whether or not engaging in this particular preemptive war is compatible with ANY known Libertarian philosophy...Heck, I would be satisfied with seeing any evidence that it is not 180 opposed to any known Libertarian philosophy. I have given you ample evidence that it IS NOT compatible and the people on this board have offered NOTHING but misdirection and insults to counter that. Why? Because clearly you have no argument.

It is not compatible with the Libertarian platform. This I will agree with you on. You have provided evidence of Libertarian folks who disagree with the war. If you believe that someone who is pro-war cannot be a Libertarian...fine. However, does that mean they can't have thoughts on subject matter in a public forum? What do we label someone who is pro Iraq war but Libertarian (the party) on everything else? Should I condemn every Republican and Democrat that doesn't walk the entire party platform? I could post the names of Libertarians that are pro-war, but how would that help the argument, if you will just label them as non-Libertarians. Ron Paul doesn't agree with the Libertarian Party 100%. So is he non-Libertarian?

Clever, copying and pasting my comments from another board - I don't know what you think that proves - other than you are willing to engage in any tricky ad hominem tactic to avoid admitting how wrong you are... I said nothing there that I wouldn't repeat here...

I'm not trying to be clever. You stated that you were offended. Yet you call the folks you hold up as the Libertarian example as dumb.

Eric
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
You have every right to support pre-emptive war or any other BIG GOVERNMENT, freedom stealing idea you like, but don't PRETEND for a second that it has ANYTHING to do with Libertarianism. That is an INSULT to REAL Libertarians! I find it deeply offensive.

I find you and your attitude deeply offensive. Please go away.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
...I suspect we would agree on a lot other things eric....but this is not just "one friggin issue"...well, yes, it is a single issue,

Is your name John Kerry? You can't seem to make up your mind.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Nader doesn't rank high enough to be a communist. He is a socialist.

A Communist is merely an impatient Socialist. They both have the same goals, they just prefer different means. They're different sides of the same evil coin, so it doesn't matter which "label" best fits Nader in this regard.

Mike
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
A Communist is merely an impatient Socialist. They both have the same goals, they just prefer different means. They're different sides of the same evil coin, so it doesn't matter which "label" best fits Nader in this regard.

I always think of a socialist as an impatient communist. I remember a quote I heard, "The truest form of a Democracy is a true communism."
True, and very scary.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
I always think of a socialist as an impatient communist.

They both want to bring around Marx's revolution, the difference being that Socialists are willing to start political parties and implement their policies piecemeal over time unti the revolution occurs naturally (all the while priming the pump of Utopia) while Communists want the revolution to start today, ready or not. In this sense, a Communist is just an impatient Socialist. They both read from the same flawed playbook, one group just wants to jump the gun (or rather use the gun and jump everyone else.)

And yes, it is scary that people are perfectly willing to ignore the destruction wrought by Socialism/Communism every time it has been tried under the guise that it was simply "done the wrong way." As Einstein said, insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Just to set the score straight: US under Capitalism = most propserous country ever, USSR/North Korea et. al under Communism/Socialism = miserable totalitarian regimes rife with famine and suffering. Hmmm, I wonder which model is the better one to live under?

Mike
Print the post Back To Top