Can you give one reason why you would NOT vote for a Libertarian?

[JBeukema]

Thank you, Woodrow Wilson.
**** Wilson.

You say **** Wilson, yet seem to advocate exactly the same meddlesome internationalist interventionist military policy he employed.

What gives??

First off, I repeat: **** Wilson and his lies, racist policies, and his warmongering.

Secondly, what do you man I ' seem to advocate exactly the same meddlesome internationalist interventionist military policy he employed'?

 

[Agnapostate]

A true free market is a true capitalist economy - that is - no involvement by the state on economic affairs (except to enforce voluntary made contracts) . No "special interest," - government is not smart or capable enough to possibly make economic decisions on behalf of the people. The power has to be within each individual to act freely and voluntarily. That is what makes it free. The power to choose has to be left to the individual - who else can know the self-interests of another? It is just not possible. People need to have the freedom to make their own economic decisions if we want a society to be most prosperous, most creative, and most happy. This can only be achieved through capitalism and the respect for private property.

Wrong again. Capitalism has always relied on markets of a mixed sort, since the government is an integral stabilizing and growth agent in the capitalist economy. For example, consider trade policy. Unrestricted market competition is not in the ultimate interests of the "weaker" participants, so traditionally, it's been typical for countries to use the state sector to extend protection over infant industries and thus facilitate their development and eventual ability to compete with others, thereby maximizing dynamic comparative advantage. The empirical literature supports this view. For instance, we could refer to Yu's A new perspective on the role of the government in economic development: Coordination under uncertainty. As noted by the abstract:

This paper argues that the government possesses certain unique features that allow it to restrict competition, and provide stable and reliable conditions under which firms organise, compete, cooperate and exchange. The coordinating perspective is employed to re-examine the arguments for industrial policies regarding private investment decisions, market competition, diffusion of technologies and tariff protection on infant industries. This paper concludes that dynamic private enterprises assisted by government coordination policies explains the rapid economic growths in post-war Japan and the Asian newly industrialising economies.

That's actually one of the reasons why capitalism retains anti-libertarian elements; not only does the institution of wage labor involve the creation of hierarchies every bit as authoritarian as those of the state, but the state itself continues to be a major player in the capitalist economy, whereas the minimization or abolition of the state is a necessary condition of a legitimately libertarian economy. The LP's refusal to acknowledge this is a critical reason why I shall not support them.

 

[JBeukema]

Would Japan have bombed Pearl were it not for the oil embargo?

...or the AVG (Flying Tigers) that had been deployed in China since the summer of '41?

? I'd not heard of that. Clarification requested.

 

[elvis]

You say **** Wilson, yet seem to advocate exactly the same meddlesome internationalist interventionist military policy he employed.

What gives??

First off, I repeat: **** Wilson and his lies, racist policies, and his warmongering.

Secondly, what do you man I ' seem to advocate exactly the same meddlesome internationalist interventionist military policy he employed'?

don't like it that he was a fan of "Birth of a Nation"?

 

[Lightfiend]

No, libertarians would never adopt socialist policies of Canada.

This reference to socialism is drivel. Social democratic capitalism (which isn't even technically the economic system of Canada, for that matter), conflicts with legitimate socialist principles in that it ultimately maintains the private ownership of the means of production, thus constituting a sustainment of capitalism. However, legitimate libertarians are necessarily socialists.

Canada's one-payer health insurance is most certainly a socialist policy. It is just the social takeover of health insurance, not health care, but it is still a socialist takeover of an otherwise private industry.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Does not work and we have lots of wars to prove it.

Like which wars??

WWI where Wilson did his damndest to provoke the Central Powers, who didn't bite, and Wilson intervened anyways??

WWII, where FDR deliberately provoked the Japanese??

Korea, where Truman intervened by executive fiat??

'Nam, where LBJ lied about the Golf of Tonkin incident??

WW1 occurred in part because the US prior to the war refused to be involved in European affairs.

WW2 happened because Europe refused to do anything about Hitler. The US again refused to be involved in European affairs.

Korea occurred because the Soviet Union armed, trained and supplied the North Koreans and then ordered them to invade to test the will of the West. The US was involved because we had treaty obligations and we fared poorly in the first months because we let our military dwindle to nothing.

Vietnam was another test between the Soviets and the West. And in the end on that one the Soviets got what they wanted. Why? Because the liberals refused to honor our treaties.

Grenada occurred because the Soviets and Cuba believed the US was a paper tiger. Panama occurred because the US let Noriega think he could dictate to the US anything he wanted.

Kuwait Occurred because an IDIOTIC Ambassador let Saddam believe the US would do nothing if he invaded Kuwait.

 

[Oddball]

And how are those private donations working for events that aren't loud, publicized, and made for TV events?

More often than not, way more than gubmint bureaucrats -who sponge off for themselves at least 2/3 of the monies expropriated for the sainted poooooor- end up contributing.

Really? Can I see the figures for this?

It's been a well known fact that gubmint aid eats up about 2/3 of the monies for welfare programs in bureaucracy and overhead, where private charities come in at about 10%-15%, for quite some time now.

On top of that, the money pissed away on bureaucrats ends up exaggerating the real extent of the need for those programs.

 

[Oddball]

Does not work and we have lots of wars to prove it.

Like which wars??

WWI where Wilson did his damndest to provoke the Central Powers, who didn't bite, and Wilson intervened anyways??

WWII, where FDR deliberately provoked the Japanese??

Korea, where Truman intervened by executive fiat??

'Nam, where LBJ lied about the Golf of Tonkin incident??

WW1 occurred in part because the US prior to the war refused to be involved in European affairs.

WW2 happened because Europe refused to do anything about Hitler. The US again refused to be involved in European affairs.

Korea occurred because the Soviet Union armed, trained and supplied the North Koreans and then ordered them to invade to test the will of the West. The US was involved because we had treaty obligations and we fared poorly in the first months because we let our military dwindle to nothing.

Vietnam was another test between the Soviets and the West. And in the end on that one the Soviets got what they wanted. Why? Because the liberals refused to honor our treaties.

Grenada occurred because the Soviets and Cuba believed the US was a paper tiger. Panama occurred because the US let Noriega think he could dictate to the US anything he wanted.

Kuwait Occurred because an IDIOTIC Ambassador let Saddam believe the US would do nothing if he invaded Kuwait.

You're almost as good at re-writing history to suit your politics as liberals are.

 

[elvis]

Does not work and we have lots of wars to prove it.

Like which wars??

WWI where Wilson did his damndest to provoke the Central Powers, who didn't bite, and Wilson intervened anyways??

WWII, where FDR deliberately provoked the Japanese??

Korea, where Truman intervened by executive fiat??

'Nam, where LBJ lied about the Golf of Tonkin incident??

WW1 occurred in part because the US prior to the war refused to be involved in European affairs.

WW2 happened because Europe refused to do anything about Hitler. The US again refused to be involved in European affairs.

Korea occurred because the Soviet Union armed, trained and supplied the North Koreans and then ordered them to invade to test the will of the West. The US was involved because we had treaty obligations and we fared poorly in the first months because we let our military dwindle to nothing.

Vietnam was another test between the Soviets and the West. And in the end on that one the Soviets got what they wanted. Why? Because the liberals refused to honor our treaties.

Grenada occurred because the Soviets and Cuba believed the US was a paper tiger. Panama occurred because the US let Noriega think he could dictate to the US anything he wanted.

Kuwait Occurred because an IDIOTIC Ambassador let Saddam believe the US would do nothing if he invaded Kuwait.

In regard to WW2, should we have sent troops into the rheinland in 1936 even though France and Britain refused? (this was Hitler's first violation of Versailles.)

 

[JBeukema]

You say **** Wilson, yet seem to advocate exactly the same meddlesome internationalist interventionist military policy he employed.

What gives??

First off, I repeat: **** Wilson and his lies, racist policies, and his warmongering.

Secondly, what do you man I ' seem to advocate exactly the same meddlesome internationalist interventionist military policy he employed'?

don't like it that he was a fan of "Birth of a Nation"?

That's his own business. The racist policies he instituted in the hiring of federal employees, and the effective reversal of changed that had been made by those before him to provide opportunities to rise to positions more suitable to their skills (though equality was still a ways away) is another matter, however. He removed Blacks from positions that had been set aside fro persons of color and effectively purged his administration and all aspects if the Fed that he could of anyone of color. This was counterproductive to the cause of racial equality.

 

[Oddball]

In regard to WW2, should we have sent troops into the rheinland in 1936 even though France and Britain refused? (this was Hitler's first violation of Versailles.)

Not even close.

I believe that his assembling of a General staff was the first, which happened waaaay before occupying the Sudatenland.

 

[Agnapostate]

Canada's one-payer health insurance is most certainly a socialist policy. It is just the social takeover of health insurance, not health care, but it is still a socialist takeover of an otherwise private industry.

Incorrect. Socialism is constituted only by collective ownership and management of the means of production. Welfare state policies to ensure appropriate public good provisions are in fact opposed to socialism since they bring about macroeconomic stabilization in the present economy and maintain the physical efficiency of the working class. They also serve as crude appeasements that deter the adoption of "subversive" ideologies, and ensure an allegiance to liberal and social democratic doctrines. All this has the effect of ultimately sustaining capitalist economic structure, thus functioning as an obstacle to the implementation of socialism.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Like which wars??

WWI where Wilson did his damndest to provoke the Central Powers, who didn't bite, and Wilson intervened anyways??

WWII, where FDR deliberately provoked the Japanese??

Korea, where Truman intervened by executive fiat??

'Nam, where LBJ lied about the Golf of Tonkin incident??

WW1 occurred in part because the US prior to the war refused to be involved in European affairs.

WW2 happened because Europe refused to do anything about Hitler. The US again refused to be involved in European affairs.

Korea occurred because the Soviet Union armed, trained and supplied the North Koreans and then ordered them to invade to test the will of the West. The US was involved because we had treaty obligations and we fared poorly in the first months because we let our military dwindle to nothing.

Vietnam was another test between the Soviets and the West. And in the end on that one the Soviets got what they wanted. Why? Because the liberals refused to honor our treaties.

Grenada occurred because the Soviets and Cuba believed the US was a paper tiger. Panama occurred because the US let Noriega think he could dictate to the US anything he wanted.

Kuwait Occurred because an IDIOTIC Ambassador let Saddam believe the US would do nothing if he invaded Kuwait.

In regard to WW2, should we have sent troops into the rheinland in 1936 even though France and Britain refused? (this was Hitler's first violation of Versailles.)

We should have voiced our concerns with appeasement and tried to force Britain and France to take action. We should have done the same with the Austrian take over and the Sudetenland fiasco. Once War was declared we should have sided with Britain. We did not because of Isolationism.

 

[Oddball]

First off, I repeat: **** Wilson and his lies, racist policies, and his warmongering.

Secondly, what do you man I ' seem to advocate exactly the same meddlesome internationalist interventionist military policy he employed'?

don't like it that he was a fan of "Birth of a Nation"?

That's his own business. The racist policies he instituted in the hiring of federal employees, and the effective reversal of changed that had been made by those before him to provide opportunities to rise to positions more suitable to their skills (though equality was still a ways away) is another matter, however. He removed Blacks from positions that had been set aside fro persons of color and effectively purged his administration and all aspects if the Fed that he could of anyone of color. This was counterproductive to the cause of racial equality.

He also was an unapologetic international military interventionist, who had to lie and manipulate America into WWI.....Which merely set the table for WWII.....and so on....

Lest we forget the Federal Reserve, income tax, and 17th Amendment, which rendered the states impotent in the size and scope of federal budgets.

 

[Nik]

More often than not, way more than gubmint bureaucrats -who sponge off for themselves at least 2/3 of the monies expropriated for the sainted poooooor- end up contributing.

Really? Can I see the figures for this?

It's been a well known fact that gubmint aid eats up about 2/3 of the monies for welfare programs in bureaucracy and overhead, where private charities come in at about 10%-15%, for quite some time now.

Thats a well known fact? Really? Seems your well known fact, is a flat out lie.

Welfare Administrative Costs (OEI-05-91-01080; 2/95)

Page 31. Nothing even remotely close to 2/3. Most under 10%. Makes you look pretty stupid, eh?

 

[elvis]

WW1 occurred in part because the US prior to the war refused to be involved in European affairs.

WW2 happened because Europe refused to do anything about Hitler. The US again refused to be involved in European affairs.

Korea occurred because the Soviet Union armed, trained and supplied the North Koreans and then ordered them to invade to test the will of the West. The US was involved because we had treaty obligations and we fared poorly in the first months because we let our military dwindle to nothing.

Vietnam was another test between the Soviets and the West. And in the end on that one the Soviets got what they wanted. Why? Because the liberals refused to honor our treaties.

Grenada occurred because the Soviets and Cuba believed the US was a paper tiger. Panama occurred because the US let Noriega think he could dictate to the US anything he wanted.

Kuwait Occurred because an IDIOTIC Ambassador let Saddam believe the US would do nothing if he invaded Kuwait.

In regard to WW2, should we have sent troops into the rheinland in 1936 even though France and Britain refused? (this was Hitler's first violation of Versailles.)

We should have voiced our concerns with appeasement and tried to force Britain and France to take action. We should have done the same with the Austrian take over and the Sudetenland fiasco. Once War was declared we should have sided with Britain. We did not because of Isolationism.

Britain and France were beaten in three weeks (in France) I often wonder what would have happened if we had sent troops.

 

[Lightfiend]

Wrong again. Capitalism has always relied on markets of a mixed sort, since the government is an integral stabilizing and growth agent in the capitalist economy. For example, consider trade policy. Unrestricted market competition is not in the ultimate interests of the "weaker" participants, so traditionally, it's been typical for countries to use the state sector to extend protection over infant industries and thus facilitate their development and eventual ability to compete with others, thereby maximizing dynamic comparative advantage. The empirical literature supports this view. For instance, we could refer to Yu's A new perspective on the role of the government in economic development: Coordination under uncertainty. As noted by the abstract:

That's actually one of the reasons why capitalism retains anti-libertarian elements; not only does the institution of wage labor involve the creation of hierarchies every bit as authoritarian as those of the state, but the state itself continues to be a major player in the capitalist economy, whereas the minimization or abolition of the state is a necessary condition of a legitimately libertarian economy. The LP's refusal to acknowledge this is a critical reason why I shall not support them.

The only purpose government has to serve in a free market capitalist economy is to protect contract and property rights.Period. I don't want government to even have a central bank, I want the economy to run essentially identical to how our Constitution intended it to operate. Anything more than that is slowly steering away from free market. I don't mind forfeiting some rights (and wealth) for a small (perhaps even moderate) welfare state, but other than that I want the government out of as many business affairs as possible.

Politicians may not have any real idea about how to build a car, run a bank, educate a child, heal the sick or build a road, but they are quite adept at using carrots and sticks to manipulate and threaten those who do.

- Ron Paul​

 

[elvis]

In regard to WW2, should we have sent troops into the rheinland in 1936 even though France and Britain refused? (this was Hitler's first violation of Versailles.)

Not even close.

I believe that his assembling of a General staff was the first, which happened waaaay before occupying the Sudatenland.

rheinland is not the sudatenland. Rheinland is a state of Germany on the border with France. part of versailles said the Germans could not arm the Rheinland. Sudatenland was the German-speaking part of Czechosolvakia which Hitler took.

 

[Oddball]

Britain and France were beaten in three weeks (in France) I often wonder what would have happened if we had sent troops.

Probably little more than a higher death and injury total of American boys, since FDR was already in the process of provoking the Japanese.

 

[Oddball]

In regard to WW2, should we have sent troops into the rheinland in 1936 even though France and Britain refused? (this was Hitler's first violation of Versailles.)

Not even close.

I believe that his assembling of a General staff was the first, which happened waaaay before occupying the Sudatenland.

rheinland is not the sudatenland. Rheinland is a state of Germany on the border with France. part of versailles said the Germans could not arm the Rheinland. Sudatenland was the German-speaking part of Czechosolvakia which Hitler took.

That's right...Austria and Sudatenland came later...Good catch.

I stand corrected.