NationStates Jolt Archive

I just returned from a short visit to Mexico (went down to Baja to ride the Rosarito to Ensenada bike ride) and as I was coming home through Tijuana via the toll road a thought occurred to me as I zipped past the shacks and trash strewn lots and streets.

This is what the US would look like if Libertarians and Republicans ruled unchecked.

Now I’m not saying they want to reduce the US to such a state, but the consequences of the policies they push would lead to it. No social safety network, very little regulation on business, environmental or safety practices, minimal municipal services… it all leads to what we see in Mexico. The well off live in walled compounds with private security, the only decent roads are toll roads, and pollution is everywhere. Things we take for granted such as public trash cans, drinkable tap water and public schools don’t exist. There are few laws that regulate business and labor practices. 6 year olds hawk cheap goods on the street at 10 pm. Big corporations make millions while paying their workers bare subsistence wages and polluting the environment. High illiteracy and poverty rates create an environment that fosters graft and corruption.

Next time someone wants to toss the word ‘Liberal’ around like it’s an insult, think about what life would really be like without liberals to push for a clean environment, safe food and water, fair labor practices, decent infrastructure, and compassionate social services.

Why do you hate my freedoms?

Don't be silly. Those lazy maquiadora workers just aren't pursuing the opportunities of their economic freedum.... Government help to starving people laid off when their factory went south (or east) just creates a cycle of welfare dependency and is the first step towards tyranny and gulags. And privatisation is the best way to the tap water, give us all shinkanshen's to get to work and make our hair look good, whilst paying it's valued human resources more than they ever would under some silly government rules like the minimum wage.

:rolleyes:

This is what the US would look like if Libertarians and Republicans ruled unchecked.

Now I’m not saying they want to reduce the US to such a state, but the consequences of the policies they push would lead to it. No social safety network, very little regulation on business, environmental or safety practices, minimal municipal services… it all leads to what we see in Mexico.


This makes little sense.

The Republican Party does in fact advocate massive social welfare networks and elaborate government regulation of business. As does the Democratic Party. After all, without centralized regulation and control (from the White House to the smallest of corporations, and everything in between), it would be far more difficult to maintain centralized control of wealth. This crony/welfare capitalism works so well because it keeps the majority just satisfied enough to maintain the status quo of a political system otherwise dominated by the interests of dynastic wealth (consider, for instance, that if Hillary Clinton becomes President, the United States will have had exactly two families occupying the White House over a 25 year period: Bush (Sr.), (Bill) Clinton, Bush (Jr.), (Hillary) Clinton. Of, for, and by the People, right?)

If one wants genuine anti-state and anti-welfare political ideologies, one needs to start talking to more socialists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism). Rejecting the rule of a parasitic oligarchy means rejecting the tools of the parasitic oligarchy.

EDIT: And the developing world, including Mexico, is in the state it is because dynastic capital need not worry about keeping the developing world happy in order to win the next "election" back at home. Welcome to "Globalization."

actually what the op says makes excellent sense, dispite the denials voiced by the first responses to it, which are also rather tediusly predictable AND self deceptive.

its all well and good to say nobody owes anybody anything, but what kind of a world DO we want to live in.

i know i want to live in one where i'd be free to create and explore without having to indenture myself to anyone or anything in order to do so. such a world is neither mexico, nor today's u.s. nor was it ever soviet russia of course.

western europe from 1950 to 1990 probably came closest, along with a few other places here and their. while never having actually personally been there, i would hazard a guess, close, but no cigar there either.

but a damd cite closer then anything i know of in this world now.

some things about western europe and advanced asia, particularly japan, such as transportation infrastructure, and some things about places of extremely low population density, those with mountains and trees, which were somewhat more common, naturally enough, when human population as a whole were somewhat less.

=^^=
.../\...

Whenever someone throws the word "liberal" around like an insult, I laugh, and I repay them by throwing back at them the actual histories and records of the political agendas they prefer, rather than just toss around words that don't mean what they think they mean.

The OP is correct in describing the consistent and, imo, inevitable failures of the rightwing/neocon/libertarian agenda. It is a gaggle of systems that just plain do not work, but they keep chugging along because of the ego-stroking elitist fantasies they support. If you take a good look at history, you'll see these agendas don't even work for the corporate big-wigs who make all the money off them -- not in the long run, that is. Even for them, the rightwing/neocon/libertarian agenda is nothing more than a pyramid scheme. The only ones who benefit from it are the ones who get in and out early. The ones who really buy into the "free market" fantasy, who commit to it as a way of life, or who struggle over many years to rise high enough to get into the game eventually -- they are the ones who always end up penniless, often in jail, and sometimes with their heads in the guillotine. Every. Single. Time.

And by "every single time" I mean all the times humanity has played this vicious game over the entire run of written history. The notion that there's anything new or fresh about the rightwing way of thinking is just another of their self-deceptions. It's the oldest, stalest BS known to man. The newest part of it is the jargon we use for it nowadays, and even that is nearly 200 years old.

The cycle goes like this: The "free market" types rise to power and oppress the shit out of everyone and act like they're doing the world a big favor. Eventually, the anger of the underclasses reaches critical mass, and waves of violent revolution break out. Many years of war, bloodshed, social chaos, revenge, and the forcible implementation extremist philosophies (welcome to the gulag, bitches). Slowly the dust settles, and a new middle class arises using the money and resources freed up by the destruction of the older elitist system. This new social power group tends to espouse ideas of social equality, social welfare, and civic cooperation -- all things that aid and empower their rising social status, which is driven by cooperation more than selfishness. They tend to call themselves "liberal" or "progressive" and describe their philosophies as "enlightened self-interest." Over time, they succeed in evening out economic strata, improving public health and education, and clearing out exploitative systems. However, the longer society stays like this, the fewer people remember the "bad old days" when their ancestors were not the rulers, and the less pressure people feel not to trust elitist impulses and lures. And thus, with all this new money floating around, waiting to be played with, we start questioning whether we really need all that liberal/progressive regulation, if we wouldn't be better off with a "free market" -- and we're right back where we started, with people advocating either every-man-for-himself "libertarianism" or ruling-elite "conservatism." Rinse. Repeat.

The rightwing/neocon/libertarian agenda of today is the same as all the others before, and like them, it is nothing but a revolution engine. Look at the past 150 years in Central and South America, and then look at what's happening in those places now, if you don't believe me. To quote my new favorite catch-phrase, "There Will Be Blood," and if anyone thinks they are going to sail safely over it on their money rafts, they are fools. Today's exploiters have just one hope and that is that they will be dead before it finally all breaks apart.

Alternatively, they could remember that they are humans and have control over their own fates, and choose to change the way they do things... ah, nah, what am I thinking? Forget I said that.

In any event, I am proud to call myself "liberal" and "progressive," and because I'm an American who reads history, I'm proud to call myself a "revolutionary," too.

EDIT: By the way, I just started reading Naomi Klein's new book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. It addresses the question of whether the neocons "want" the world to look like one big Mexican/Haitian/African/Hooverville shanty town or not. Based on the skim-read I like to do before getting into the meat of big non-fiction books, it raises very interesting questions based on examination of history and recent events. People might want to check it out.

no, it would be worse.

there are public schools in mexico.

no, it would be worse.

there are public schools in mexico.

Of course. How else would they ensure that no one who can't already afford a private school is able to learn what they need to advance themselves?

Of course. How else would they ensure that no one who can't already afford a private school is able to learn what they need to advance themselves?

i dont know what they DO in public schools in mexico. i just know they exist.

This is what the US would look like if Libertarians and Republicans ruled unchecked.

The neocon fascist branch of the Republican Party, probably so. Not the Libertarians, Constitutionalists, or paleoconservative Republicans. Mexico has a very authoritarian government with socialistic policies that destroys all chance of real progress. Progress is not a result of governmental action, but of the free exchange of goods and ideas in a free market. Read "The Law" by Frédéric Bastiat here (http://www.lexrex.com/informed/otherdocuments/thelaw/thelaw.htm) to understand the failures of both Mexico and the US.

The neocon fascist branch of the Republican Party, probably so. Not the Libertarians, Constitutionalists, or paleoconservative Republicans. Mexico has a very authoritarian government with socialistic policies that destroys all chance of real progress. Progress is not a result of governmental action, but of the free exchange of goods and ideas in a free market. Read "The Law" by Frédéric Bastiat here (http://www.lexrex.com/informed/otherdocuments/thelaw/thelaw.htm) to understand the failures of both Mexico and the US.

I call bullshit on the bolded remark because it is over-broad and uses vague language. Considering that I have seen it repeated countless times by various stripes of rightwingers* since the 1980s, I am inclined to decide it is merely a policital agenda talking point, not actual opinion or knowledge.

For instance, I would like to see definitions in the context of the sentence for terms like "progress," "governmental action," and "free market."

Because those terms mean different things to different people. If you don't define them, then you're not really saying anything.

* And btw, in my personal opinion, that hairsplitting about all the different kinds of rightwingers is meaningless at best, and a "no true scotsman" fallacy at worst. They all quack and swim like ducks, as far as I can see. And what the hell is a "paleoconservative" -- a dinosaur that doesn't like new taxes?

And what the hell is a "paleoconservative" -- a dinosaur that doesn't like new taxes?

No, it's a dinosaur that opposes gay marriage.

No, it's a dinosaur that opposes gay marriage.

Ooohhh....

Good thing they're extinct then, eh?

Ooohhh....

Good thing they're extinct then, eh?

Well, they DID say that if gay dinosaurs married each other, a huge rock would fall out of the sky and...

:p

This is what the US would look like if Libertarians and Republicans ruled unchecked.


You know what?

Even if I were to grant your premise, so what?

After all, it's not like practical results are relevant.

Objective moral principle is the only thing that happens.

If such is the cost of freedom, so be it. It's the price that must be paid.

Well, they DID say that if gay dinosaurs married each other, a huge rock would fall out of the sky and...

:p

Bastard!! That very nearly made coffee shoot out my nose and onto my laptop, which would have shorted it out, causing it to burst into flame, setting fire to the papers on my wooden desk, which no doubt would have burned down my whole house, if you'd had your way. :D

Bastard!! That very nearly made coffee shoot out my nose and onto my laptop, which would have shorted it out, causing it to burst into flame, setting fire to the papers on my wooden desk, which no doubt would have burned down my whole house, if you'd had your way. :D

Teaches you not to drink while reading my posts. ;)

And what the hell is a "paleoconservative" -- a dinosaur that doesn't like new taxes?
Pat Buchanan is the best example of a paleoconservative.

Whenever someone throws the word "liberal" around like an insult, I laugh, and I repay them by throwing back at them the actual histories and records of the political agendas they prefer, rather than just toss around words that don't mean what they think they mean.

The OP is correct in describing the consistent and, imo, inevitable failures of the rightwing/neocon/libertarian agenda. It is a gaggle of systems that just plain do not work, but they keep chugging along because of the ego-stroking elitist fantasies they support. If you take a good look at history, you'll see these agendas don't even work for the corporate big-wigs who make all the money off them -- not in the long run, that is. Even for them, the rightwing/neocon/libertarian agenda is nothing more than a pyramid scheme. The only ones who benefit from it are the ones who get in and out early. The ones who really buy into the "free market" fantasy, who commit to it as a way of life, or who struggle over many years to rise high enough to get into the game eventually -- they are the ones who always end up penniless, often in jail, and sometimes with their heads in the guillotine. Every. Single. Time.

And by "every single time" I mean all the times humanity has played this vicious game over the entire run of written history. The notion that there's anything new or fresh about the rightwing way of thinking is just another of their self-deceptions. It's the oldest, stalest BS known to man. The newest part of it is the jargon we use for it nowadays, and even that is nearly 200 years old.

The cycle goes like this: The "free market" types rise to power and oppress the shit out of everyone and act like they're doing the world a big favor. Eventually, the anger of the underclasses reaches critical mass, and waves of violent revolution break out. Many years of war, bloodshed, social chaos, revenge, and the forcible implementation extremist philosophies (welcome to the gulag, bitches). Slowly the dust settles, and a new middle class arises using the money and resources freed up by the destruction of the older elitist system. This new social power group tends to espouse ideas of social equality, social welfare, and civic cooperation -- all things that aid and empower their rising social status, which is driven by cooperation more than selfishness. They tend to call themselves "liberal" or "progressive" and describe their philosophies as "enlightened self-interest." Over time, they succeed in evening out economic strata, improving public health and education, and clearing out exploitative systems. However, the longer society stays like this, the fewer people remember the "bad old days" when their ancestors were not the rulers, and the less pressure people feel not to trust elitist impulses and lures. And thus, with all this new money floating around, waiting to be played with, we start questioning whether we really need all that liberal/progressive regulation, if we wouldn't be better off with a "free market" -- and we're right back where we started, with people advocating either every-man-for-himself "libertarianism" or ruling-elite "conservatism." Rinse. Repeat.

The rightwing/neocon/libertarian agenda of today is the same as all the others before, and like them, it is nothing but a revolution engine. Look at the past 150 years in Central and South America, and then look at what's happening in those places now, if you don't believe me. To quote my new favorite catch-phrase, "There Will Be Blood," and if anyone thinks they are going to sail safely over it on their money rafts, they are fools. Today's exploiters have just one hope and that is that they will be dead before it finally all breaks apart.

Alternatively, they could remember that they are humans and have control over their own fates, and choose to change the way they do things... ah, nah, what am I thinking? Forget I said that.

In any event, I am proud to call myself "liberal" and "progressive," and because I'm an American who reads history, I'm proud to call myself a "revolutionary," too.

EDIT: By the way, I just started reading Naomi Klein's new book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. It addresses the question of whether the neocons "want" the world to look like one big Mexican/Haitian/African/Hooverville shanty town or not. Based on the skim-read I like to do before getting into the meat of big non-fiction books, it raises very interesting questions based on examination of history and recent events. People might want to check it out.

I stopped reading your post when you claimed that everyone who tries to get wealthy over the long term in a free market system either ends up broke, in jail, or executed. This is insanity. People who save and invest over the long term typically become wealthy and I have no idea why you think they end up executed or jailed. I am baffled.

This makes little sense.

This crony/welfare capitalism works so well because it keeps the majority just satisfied enough to maintain the status quo of a political system otherwise dominated by the interests of dynastic wealth "

So which dynastic family did bill gates hail from ????
seems anyone can become rich in this country still.

The neocon fascist branch of the Republican Party, probably so. Not the Libertarians, Constitutionalists, or paleoconservative Republicans. Mexico has a very authoritarian government with socialistic policies that destroys all chance of real progress. Progress is not a result of governmental action, but of the free exchange of goods and ideas in a free market. Read "The Law" by Frédéric Bastiat here to understand the failures of both Mexico and the US.
I agree with you.

The OP is correct in describing the consistent and, imo, inevitable failures of the rightwing/neocon/libertarian agenda.
This post lacks even the most tenuous grasp of history, politics, economics, or even basic common sense. The very first sentence tells you all you need to know about it by considering neocons and libertarians as being one and the same (I suppose because neither are communist - just like Buddhists and Muslims must be the same because neither are Christian).

It is a gaggle of systems that just plain do not work, but they keep chugging along because of the ego-stroking elitist fantasies they support.Systems of central control (be it run by neocons or neomarxists) are inefficient and suboptimal. The free exchange of individuals making free choices is superior to central planning with some bureaucrat making the decisions about your life. I know it is easier to let someone else make all the decisions, so you don’t have to stress your brain with all those horrible choices, but that is part of being an adult. Which is more elitist - that individuals can make their own decisions or that some socialist knows what is better for them?

If you take a good look at history, you'll see these agendas don't even work for the corporate big-wigs who make all the money off them -- not in the long run, that is. Even for them, the rightwing/neocon/libertarian agenda is nothing more than a pyramid scheme. The only ones who benefit from it are the ones who get in and out early. The ones who really buy into the "free market" fantasy, who commit to it as a way of life, or who struggle over many years to rise high enough to get into the game eventually -- they are the ones who always end up penniless, often in jail, and sometimes with their heads in the guillotine. Every. Single. Time.

And by "every single time" I mean all the times humanity has played this vicious game over the entire run of written history. The notion that there's anything new or fresh about the rightwing way of thinking is just another of their self-deceptions. It's the oldest, stalest BS known to man. The newest part of it is the jargon we use for it nowadays, and even that is nearly 200 years old.
Pick up a history book, any history book with some notion of academic accuracy (eg, not one written by 'cave men and dinosaurs cohabitated' nuts nor any 'Tiananmen square was a peaceful demonstration fully supported and encouraged by the government' propaganda garbage). Please.

The cycle goes like this: The "free market" types rise to power and oppress the shit out of everyone and act like they're doing the world a big favor.By simple definition, if there is a free market, there is not oppression. Oppression comes from the use of force, most commonly from governments claiming to be operating 'in the name of the people' (Cambodia, the USSR, China, North Korea, etc, etc.).

Eventually, the anger of the underclasses reaches critical mass, and waves of violent revolution break out. Many years of war, bloodshed, social chaos, revenge, and the forcible implementation extremist philosophies (welcome to the gulag, bitches).
Oh, sorry. I didn't realize you were going that direction. Yes, history is replete with examples of those claiming to be working 'in the interest of the people' being mass murderers and seizing power, driving prosperous peoples into destitution, and enforcing an oppressive tyranny.

If your point is that free trade doesn’t work because ideological tyrants seeking a power grab to oppress the population occasionally crop up, then you have a point. Unfortunately one of the problems with a free society is that those with murderous intentions are not killed off or thrown in isolated prisons with no communication with the outside world, but allowed to pursue their own life, in which case some get enough of a cult following to harm others.

Slowly the dust settles, and a new middle class arises using the money and resources freed up by the destruction of the older elitist system. This new social power group tends to espouse ideas of social equality, social welfare, and civic cooperation -- all things that aid and empower their rising social status, which is driven by cooperation more than selfishness. They tend to call themselves "liberal" or "progressive" and describe their philosophies as "enlightened self-interest." Over time, they succeed in evening out economic strata, improving public health and education, and clearing out exploitative systems. However, the longer society stays like this, the fewer people remember the "bad old days" when their ancestors were not the rulers, and the less pressure people feel not to trust elitist impulses and lures. And thus, with all this new money floating around, waiting to be played with, we start questioning whether we really need all that liberal/progressive regulation, if we wouldn't be better off with a "free market" -- and we're right back where we started, with people advocating either every-man-for-himself "libertarianism" or ruling-elite "conservatism." Rinse. Repeat.
Alas, after some have lived in a free and prosperous society long enough, they romanticize socialism and have fantasies about 'revolution'. Reality doesn't work the way you think it does. Evening out social strata - indeed, killing everyone with more stuff than you (or just stealing everything they have) does substantially reduce inequality, but it also punishes innovation and risk taking. With all the wealth a free society generates, some who have never experienced socialist tyranny begin to wonder why the world is not as perfect a place their fantasyland where everything is free and boundless. Alas, when living in a wealthy innovative society, some begin to take that wealth and innovation for granted and somehow think it just 'happens'.

After the bloodshed, people are eventually pushed to the limit and start demanding the idiotic policies of the repressive regimes be reduced, and that is what leads to a substantial improvement in living standards. After Mao's horrific policies leading to mass starvation and destitution, the people finally demanded a little control over their lives. It was this rejection of tyranny, and improvements in the freedom of the people, that has led to the massive increases in the standard of living of the people.

The rightwing/neocon/libertarian agenda of today is the same as all the others before, and like them, it is nothing but a revolution engine. Look at the past 150 years in Central and South America, and then look at what's happening in those places now, if you don't believe me. To quote my new favorite catch-phrase, "There Will Be Blood," and if anyone thinks they are going to sail safely over it on their money rafts, they are fools. Today's exploiters have just one hope and that is that they will be dead before it finally all breaks apart.I wonder if you realize that your own comments are basically pointing to the murderous tendency of jealous petty individuals who believe it is appropriate to kill and loot. You are basically saying you think poor people are bloodthirsty thugs who want to rape and pillage. Alternatively, you could be looking at it like these people are attempting to throw off an oppressive regime, in which case it is the ignorance of the crowds and the lies of a power hungry socialist which turns them away from the greater liberty they are seeking.

Alternatively, they could remember that they are humans and have control over their own fates, and choose to change the way they do things..A surprisingly libertarian statement you just made. Such a shame that socialists will use force to take that control away from them.

In any event, I am proud to call myself "liberal" and "progressive," and because I'm an American who reads history, I'm proud to call myself a "revolutionary," too.Obviously reading does not mean understanding. Let me guess - you have a poster of Che Guevara on your wall (hehe, capitalists making a killing off the kitch marketing of a communist) and have not a clue that he was a mass murderer who held North Korea as closest to an idea society and thought the problem with Stalin is that he did not murder enough people at a fast enough rate.

EDIT: By the way, I just started reading Naomi Klein's new book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. It addresses the question of whether the neocons "want" the world to look like one big Mexican/Haitian/African/Hooverville shanty town or not. Based on the skim-read I like to do before getting into the meat of big non-fiction books, it raises very interesting questions based on examination of history and recent events. People might want to check it out.
The Shock Doctrine is nothing more than propaganda long on emotional button pushing and drastically short on logic. She makes arguments like capitalists support unpopular positions, and torture is used in support of unpopular governments, so therefore capitalists are in favor and advocate torture. Yes, she actually pushes the position that Milton Friedman was an advocate of torture.

She is an anti-market equivalent of the conspiracy theorist who thinks Bush planned and orchestrated 9/11, going so far as to think Thatcher created the Falklands crisis purely to crush labor unions at home and impose free markets.

Haha - government will now force you to make your own decisions! What kind of marmalade do you want? The government is no longer going to let you eat only what you are given without choice! We free marketers are such diabolically evil conspiratorialists.

She will distort history, ignore some information and grossly exaggerate (free marketers advocate for limiting government involvement in the market, yet she thinks they are somehow then responsible for government trying to interfere in markets) to pursue her own ideological ends.

As far as non-socialists wanting the world to look like Haiti, that is ridiculous in the extreme. No capitalist wants a population in poverty - that is a feature uniquely communist (or I suppose some religious nutters too). Capitalists want a society as wealthy as possible because that means more disposable income and better standards of living for everyone. The idea that capitalists want a poor workforce so they can pay cheap wages is a simplistic lie told by socialists - capitalists want the best return on investment; wealthy happy healthy educated workers are far more productive than poor miserable sick ignorant workers than the disparity in wages would account for.

Naomi Klein is about as trustworthy a source as Michael Moore (and if you think he is the paragon of academic rigor rather than a self-interested propagandist, you are beyond hope).

You mention of Hooverville did reminded me of another book you actually should read The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes. It is a good look at the great depression and government action during that period (with actual academic legitimacy - I know, not always as fun as propaganda, but a little reality now and then is a good thing). That is a book worth reading - at the very least it helps people understand the reality behind Hoover and Roosevelt rather than the myths about them.

I just returned from a short visit to Mexico (went down to Baja to ride the Rosarito to Ensenada bike ride) and as I was coming home through Tijuana via the toll road a thought occurred to me as I zipped past the shacks and trash strewn lots and streets.

This is what the US would look like if Libertarians and Republicans ruled unchecked.

Now I’m not saying they want to reduce the US to such a state, but the consequences of the policies they push would lead to it. No social safety network, very little regulation on business, environmental or safety practices, minimal municipal services… it all leads to what we see in Mexico. The well off live in walled compounds with private security, the only decent roads are toll roads, and pollution is everywhere. Things we take for granted such as public trash cans, drinkable tap water and public schools don’t exist. There are few laws that regulate business and labor practices. 6 year olds hawk cheap goods on the street at 10 pm. Big corporations make millions while paying their workers bare subsistence wages and polluting the environment. High illiteracy and poverty rates create an environment that fosters graft and corruption.

Next time someone wants to toss the word ‘Liberal’ around like it’s an insult, think about what life would really be like without liberals to push for a clean environment, safe food and water, fair labor practices, decent infrastructure, and compassionate social services.

What's your source for this ridiculously unsubstantiated slander?

The neocon fascist branch of the Republican Party, probably so. Not the Libertarians, Constitutionalists, or paleoconservative Republicans. Mexico has a very authoritarian government with socialistic policies that destroys all chance of real progress. Progress is not a result of governmental action, but of the free exchange of goods and ideas in a free market. Read "The Law" by Frédéric Bastiat here (http://www.lexrex.com/informed/otherdocuments/thelaw/thelaw.htm) to understand the failures of both Mexico and the US.

Actually, Fascism, and American Republicanism are wildly different things, most notably due to the fact that any real trace of fascism actually died out quite a while ago, and any real return to it is extremely unlikely.

Pat Buchanan is the best example of a paleoconservative.

Which nonetheless fails to answer what a paleoconservative is.

6 year olds hawk lemonade on the street at 10 pm but the government is looking to stamp this out.
Fixed :p

what the hell is a "paleoconservative" -- a dinosaur that doesn't like new taxes?

No, it's a dinosaur that opposes gay marriage.

Pat Buchanan is the best example of a paleoconservative.

OK, so what Muravyets and Heikoku said, then.

Our Politicians would never allow themselves to become as Broke as Mexican Politicians, so i have faith in the fact that America will never be like Mexico...

Though there is a strong possibility that that same desire to maintain wealth will lead to an overly Hispanic Culture dominating...

OK, so what Muravyets and Heikoku said, then.

IPPON! :D

The Republican Party does in fact advocate massive social welfare networks and elaborate government regulation of business.

Hahah. Oh wait, that wasn't a joke. Crap.

So which dynastic family did bill gates hail from ????


Bill Gates has never held political office, so far as I know. He does, however, direct financial support to all kinds of political causes. Several searches of the Federal Election Commission's database (http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/advindsea.shtml) for the name "Gates, William" with employers "Microsoft," "Bill & Melinda Gates," and "Gates Foundation," reveal who Bill supports:

Patrick Leahy
Arlen Specter
Tom Daschle
John McCain
George W. Bush
Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton
New Democrat Network (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.asp?strid=C00385401&cycle=2006)
Republican Majority Fund (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.asp?strID=C00296640&cycle=2008)
Every Republican is Crucial (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.asp?strId=C00384701)
Green Mountain (Patrick Leahy) (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.asp?strId=C00409110)
New Leadership for America (Tom Daschle) (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.asp?strid=C00080655&cycle=2006)
Americans for a Republican Majority (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.asp?strid=C00292946&cycle=2008)
White Mountain (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.asp?strID=C00370932&cycle=2008)
New Democrat Coalition (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.asp?strID=C00409730&cycle=2008)

One of the richest big-business Americans has supported Democrats ("Liberals") as much as he has Republicans. That's because Mr. Gates knows how Crony/Welfare Capitalism works: the interests of business are pursued by positive measures enacted by government, contrary to any of said businesses' "laissez-faire" nonsense.

Hahah. Oh wait, that wasn't a joke. Crap.

Welfare doesn't cease to be welfare simply because it is directed toward people who don't actually need it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate welfare) In fact, our extremely complex system of tax reductions and credits (combined with blatant tax avoidance via off shore havens and such) effectively amount to a massive, if not immediately visible, system of welfare subsidy orders of magnitude larger and more costly than anything spent on unemployment benefits and food stamps.

Sure, conservatives/Republicans like to talk about "by one's own bootstraps," but removing the benefit that active government interference brings to the corporate elite is "communism" and such.

Bill Gates has never held political office, so far as I know. He does, however, direct financial support to all kinds of political causes. Several searches of the Federal Election Commission's database (http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/advindsea.shtml) for the name "Gates, William" with employers "Microsoft," "Bill & Melinda Gates," and "Gates Foundation," reveal who Bill supports:

Patrick Leahy
Arlen Specter
Tom Daschle
John McCain
George W. Bush
Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton
New Democrat Network (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.asp?strid=C00385401&cycle=2006)
Republican Majority Fund (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.asp?strID=C00296640&cycle=2008)
Every Republican is Crucial (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.asp?strId=C00384701)
Green Mountain (Patrick Leahy) (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.asp?strId=C00409110)
New Leadership for America (Tom Daschle) (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.asp?strid=C00080655&cycle=2006)
Americans for a Republican Majority (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.asp?strid=C00292946&cycle=2008)
White Mountain (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.asp?strID=C00370932&cycle=2008)
New Democrat Coalition (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.asp?strID=C00409730&cycle=2008)

One of the richest big-business Americans has supported Democrats ("Liberals") as much as he has Republicans. That's because Mr. Gates knows how Crony/Welfare Capitalism works.


He was basically a normal everyday guy that became the richest man in the country and the world(depending on how you count it). He only ceased to be the richest man in the country because he gave so much of it away to charity.

and pointing out his political ties only disproves your point, anyone in the US can become rich. Also anyone in the US can get involved in politics to as much or as little of a degree as they so like.

In fact historically the US does not favor inherited wealth, it favors new wealth made by people who worked their way up.

You know what?

Even if I were to grant your premise, so what?

After all, it's not like practical results are relevant.

Objective moral principle is the only thing that happens.

If such is the cost of freedom, so be it. It's the price that must be paid.

You know, even if I were to give your ideas a slight bit of credit, so what? After all, if you're going to believe that some 'objective moral principle' is worth more than people's lives, fuck you. Fuck you and all your kind. I don't see how anyone can seriously, with a straight face, stand up and say "Yes, it's alright that you're trapped in poverty, the water qualifies as WMD, and the nation you live in is being raped by foreign corporations for it's natural resources, because it suits 'objective moral principles'."

If that's what you call moral, I'm proud to say that your system would consider me immoral. For some reason, I value people over property. So shoot me.

All I know about Mexico is "Don't drink the water!"

All I know about Mexico is "Don't drink the water!"

After Katrina, FEMA had the Mexican Military "purifying" our water...crazy...

After Katrina, FEMA had the Mexican Military "purifying" our water...crazy...

:eek: That is strange. I'd have thought they'd be the last people they'd ask... But then again the US government wasn't helping, so they had to seek alternatives... ZING! :D

:eek: That is strange. I'd have thought they'd be the last people they'd ask... But then again the US government wasn't helping, so they had to seek alternatives... ZING! :D

Its true, I think they just had em doing the Hard Labor parts of it...but the fact that they were part of it at all, was a Running Joke for months, lol...

and pointing out his political ties only disproves your point,


Pointing out that his ties have no apparent correlation to ideology suggests rather strongly that the rich guy has a vested interest in government, whatever that government may be. This questions very strongly the "laissez-faire" notions that only appear to be so popular among the wealthy.


...anyone in the US can become rich.


Of course anyone can learn to exploit government to their advantage. Happens every day. Even here in the land of "laissez-faire."

I suppose that market forces alone pressured the industry to lobby for the Pure Food and Drug Act.

:rolleyes:

I just returned from a short visit to Mexico (went down to Baja to ride the Rosarito to Ensenada bike ride) and as I was coming home through Tijuana via the toll road a thought occurred to me as I zipped past the shacks and trash strewn lots and streets.

This is what the US would look like if Libertarians and Republicans ruled unchecked.

Now I’m not saying they want to reduce the US to such a state, but the consequences of the policies they push would lead to it. No social safety network, very little regulation on business, environmental or safety practices, minimal municipal services… it all leads to what we see in Mexico. The well off live in walled compounds with private security, the only decent roads are toll roads, and pollution is everywhere. Things we take for granted such as public trash cans, drinkable tap water and public schools don’t exist. There are few laws that regulate business and labor practices. 6 year olds hawk cheap goods on the street at 10 pm. Big corporations make millions while paying their workers bare subsistence wages and polluting the environment. High illiteracy and poverty rates create an environment that fosters graft and corruption.

Next time someone wants to toss the word ‘Liberal’ around like it’s an insult, think about what life would really be like without liberals to push for a clean environment, safe food and water, fair labor practices, decent infrastructure, and compassionate social services.

While I appreciate the sentiment, and I tend to share the assumption that libertarianism is really either anarchism-that-dare-not-speak-its-name or historically-misinformed liberalism, Mexico is not a good example of libertarianism run amok, at least not in the way you've casted it. For starters, the government controls unions in most large industries and effectively mandates membership for any member who wishes to work within it. Further, the government completely controls and monopolizes several key industries (oil in particular), although they've loosened this control considerably since 1982. As such, while I do think you could make a very good case that libertarianism as a historical reality is really just plutocracy-by-other-means, Mexico as it exists right now is not in any way libertarian in its organization of labor.

A far better case to make with respect to Mexico is the fact that since the crash of 1982, Mexico has been led by a sequence of leaders trained in Freidman-school economics (most have come out of Ivy-League economics departments), and they have been quite successful at reducing the size and scope of the economic control the government had over the Mexican economy. For all that, in the 1960's under heavy government control, Mexico was averaging around 9% economic growth per year, enough to be labeled the Mexican Miracle. Today, however, their heavy investment in neoliberalist economic structure has netted them a lower per capita real income than they had in 1982. Mexico is not by any means a libertarian country, but it is an outstanding practical refutation of the goofy libertarian assertions that free economic systems by definition equate to better living standards for the people within an economy.

and pointing out his political ties only disproves your point, anyone in the US can become rich.
If they invent a time machine and travel to 1970.

I just returned from a short visit to Mexico (went down to Baja to ride the Rosarito to Ensenada bike ride) and as I was coming home through Tijuana via the toll road a thought occurred to me as I zipped past the shacks and trash strewn lots and streets.

This is what the US would look like if Libertarians and Republicans ruled unchecked.

Now I’m not saying they want to reduce the US to such a state, but the consequences of the policies they push would lead to it. No social safety network, very little regulation on business, environmental or safety practices, minimal municipal services… it all leads to what we see in Mexico. The well off live in walled compounds with private security, the only decent roads are toll roads, and pollution is everywhere. Things we take for granted such as public trash cans, drinkable tap water and public schools don’t exist. There are few laws that regulate business and labor practices. 6 year olds hawk cheap goods on the street at 10 pm. Big corporations make millions while paying their workers bare subsistence wages and polluting the environment. High illiteracy and poverty rates create an environment that fosters graft and corruption.

Next time someone wants to toss the word ‘Liberal’ around like it’s an insult, think about what life would really be like without liberals to push for a clean environment, safe food and water, fair labor practices, decent infrastructure, and compassionate social services.

I think you're a little confused about Mexico. They didn't get that way through conservatism, and they have plenty of regulation. Also, Tijuana does not = Mexico, nor does Rosarito Beach or Ensenada. The rest of Mexico is nothing like that.

Which nonetheless fails to answer what a paleoconservative is.

Fucking insane.

No! No!!! This thread fits under the category of things that make me want to shove my head into a meat grinder. PS Look at Hong Kong =)

So shoot me.

No no no. Dont invite a bunch of pissed off/offended American conservatives to shoot you. They just might.



;)

No no no. Dont invite a bunch of pissed off/offended American conservatives to shoot you. They just might.



;)
Might? They are at their gun closet picking out the penis-extending firearm to do it with right now

Liberals also push for religous freedom (except christianity, of course), teaching first graders about sex, and they would rather kill unborn babies than islamic terrorist. They also believe that some guy who is too lazy to get a job should get a chunk out of a hord-working citizens check. (FYI, i'm not against helping people, but they need to help themselves, not just mooch of the hard working tax payers)

I disagree with you

Continuing my point of Hong Kong, look at it. An oppressive political system, and yet its economy is booming! 50 years ago it was a rock. Now, with just about no government regulations, Hong Kong has one of the most powerful economies in the world. Ah, ye liberals of little faith..... Always making illogical metaphors and comparisons and rejecting all rational thought.

Liberals also push for religous freedom (except christianity, of course), teaching first graders about sex, and they would rather kill unborn babies than islamic terrorist. They also believe that some guy who is too lazy to get a job should get a chunk out of a hord-working citizens check. (FYI, i'm not against helping people, but they need to help themselves, not just mooch of the hard working tax payers)

I disagree with you



Wow, what an utterly idiotic post. Ill go bit by bit.

1. Liberals push for religious freedom with no religion getting special treatment. Its not our fault Christians get angry when they lose their special status.

2. No one wants to teach sex to first graders. Liberals want teenagers to be taught about contraception, because theyre gonna have sex anyway, and abstinance only is proven not to work, depsite conservatives prefering to cover their ears and yell "LA LA LA!!!" when confronted with this fact.

3. Fetus =/= Baby.

4. People who are poor and unemployed are not usually lazy.

Im going to risk getting reported, because someone needs to tell you this. You dont know jack shit about anything. GTFO.

America has no hope. Liberals can´t save it. Only AP and his Commie nukes can turn its destiny around. True story.
*nod*

Wow, what an utterly idiotic post. Ill go bit by bit.

1. Liberals push for religious freedom with no religion getting special treatment. Its not our fault Christians get angry when they lose their special status.

2. No one wants to teach sex about first graders. Liberals want teenagers to be taught about contraception, because theyre gonna have sex anyway, and abstinance only is proven not to work, depsite conservatives prefering to cover their ears and yell "LA LA LA!!!" when confronted with this fact.

3. Fetus =/= Baby.

4. People who are poor and unemployed are not usually lazy.

Im going to risk getting reported, because someone needs to tell you this. You dont know jack shit about anything. GTFO.


QFT

Oh, what's this? Another insane overreaction by the liberals. :headbang: Examine your advanced state of Hippocracy and then, perhaps, I shall return to this thread. Nolite dic, sed semper gemete ubi vos estis peterunt.

Just cause you know high school latin or used a translator, doesn't make you elite.

Just cause you know high school latin or used a translator, doesn't make you elite.

Et tu Brute

Et tu Brute

I just thought that it was funny that the poster can't spell hypocracy, but switched into latin like "Wow! Look at me, I is smarter that liberals!"

Nolite dic, sed semper gemete ubi vos estis peterunt.

Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

Donec eris felix, moltos numerabilis amicos.

Summum jus, summa injuria.

Nigro notanda lapillo.

See, I read Asterix too, now quit stalling and start arguing decently.

Whenever someone throws the word "liberal" around like an insult, I laugh, and I repay them by throwing back at them the actual histories and records of the political agendas they prefer, rather than just toss around words that don't mean what they think they mean.

The OP is correct in describing the consistent and, imo, inevitable failures of the rightwing/neocon/libertarian agenda. It is a gaggle of systems that just plain do not work, but they keep chugging along because of the ego-stroking elitist fantasies they support. If you take a good look at history, you'll see these agendas don't even work for the corporate big-wigs who make all the money off them -- not in the long run, that is. Even for them, the rightwing/neocon/libertarian agenda is nothing more than a pyramid scheme. The only ones who benefit from it are the ones who get in and out early. The ones who really buy into the "free market" fantasy, who commit to it as a way of life, or who struggle over many years to rise high enough to get into the game eventually -- they are the ones who always end up penniless, often in jail, and sometimes with their heads in the guillotine. Every. Single. Time.

And by "every single time" I mean all the times humanity has played this vicious game over the entire run of written history. The notion that there's anything new or fresh about the rightwing way of thinking is just another of their self-deceptions. It's the oldest, stalest BS known to man. The newest part of it is the jargon we use for it nowadays, and even that is nearly 200 years old.

The cycle goes like this: The "free market" types rise to power and oppress the shit out of everyone and act like they're doing the world a big favor. Eventually, the anger of the underclasses reaches critical mass, and waves of violent revolution break out. Many years of war, bloodshed, social chaos, revenge, and the forcible implementation extremist philosophies (welcome to the gulag, bitches). Slowly the dust settles, and a new middle class arises using the money and resources freed up by the destruction of the older elitist system. This new social power group tends to espouse ideas of social equality, social welfare, and civic cooperation -- all things that aid and empower their rising social status, which is driven by cooperation more than selfishness. They tend to call themselves "liberal" or "progressive" and describe their philosophies as "enlightened self-interest." Over time, they succeed in evening out economic strata, improving public health and education, and clearing out exploitative systems. However, the longer society stays like this, the fewer people remember the "bad old days" when their ancestors were not the rulers, and the less pressure people feel not to trust elitist impulses and lures. And thus, with all this new money floating around, waiting to be played with, we start questioning whether we really need all that liberal/progressive regulation, if we wouldn't be better off with a "free market" -- and we're right back where we started, with people advocating either every-man-for-himself "libertarianism" or ruling-elite "conservatism." Rinse. Repeat.

The rightwing/neocon/libertarian agenda of today is the same as all the others before, and like them, it is nothing but a revolution engine. Look at the past 150 years in Central and South America, and then look at what's happening in those places now, if you don't believe me. To quote my new favorite catch-phrase, "There Will Be Blood," and if anyone thinks they are going to sail safely over it on their money rafts, they are fools. Today's exploiters have just one hope and that is that they will be dead before it finally all breaks apart.

Alternatively, they could remember that they are humans and have control over their own fates, and choose to change the way they do things... ah, nah, what am I thinking? Forget I said that.

In any event, I am proud to call myself "liberal" and "progressive," and because I'm an American who reads history, I'm proud to call myself a "revolutionary," too.

EDIT: By the way, I just started reading Naomi Klein's new book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. It addresses the question of whether the neocons "want" the world to look like one big Mexican/Haitian/African/Hooverville shanty town or not. Based on the skim-read I like to do before getting into the meat of big non-fiction books, it raises very interesting questions based on examination of history and recent events. People might want to check it out.

Can you give some examples of historic societies that display what you're talking about?

I just thought that it was funny that the poster can't spell hypocracy, but switched into latin like "Wow! Look at me, I is smarter that liberals!"

Hypocrisy*

i dont know what they DO in public schools in mexico. i just know they exist.

Learn how to whack pinatas with a stick of course. :D

Oh, what's this? Another insane overreaction by the liberals. :headbang: Examine your advanced state of Hippocracy and then, perhaps, I shall return to this thread. Nolite dic, sed semper gemete ubi vos estis peterunt.

Hippocracy: Government for the hippos, by the hippos, and of the hippos.

Pat Buchanan is the best example of a paleoconservative.
The question stands because every time I look at Pat Buchanan, I think, "What the hell is it?"

This post lacks even the most tenuous grasp of history, politics, economics, or even basic common sense. The very first sentence tells you all you need to know about it by considering neocons and libertarians as being one and the same (I suppose because neither are communist - just like Buddhists and Muslims must be the same because neither are Christian).
The very first paragraph of your response tells us a lot about your biases, too. You "suppose" a number of things that I never said, and do so in a condescendingly insulting manner. Nice going.

Systems of central control (be it run by neocons or neomarxists) are inefficient and suboptimal. The free exchange of individuals making free choices is superior to central planning with some bureaucrat making the decisions about your life. I know it is easier to let someone else make all the decisions, so you don’t have to stress your brain with all those horrible choices, but that is part of being an adult. Which is more elitist - that individuals can make their own decisions or that some socialist knows what is better for them?
Kindly point out where I said anything positive -- or anything at all -- about:

- "neomarxists"
- bureaucrats making decisions for people
- someone else making all the decisions
- socialists

While I wait for you to prove that the above is anything but your own private strawman, I'll enjoy reading more of your personal insults against me.

Pick up a history book, any history book with some notion of academic accuracy (eg, not one written by 'cave men and dinosaurs cohabitated' nuts nor any 'Tiananmen square was a peaceful demonstration fully supported and encouraged by the government' propaganda garbage). Please.
Kindly point out where I said anything about:

- cavemen
- dinosaurs, aside from that joke about "paleoconservatives"
- Tiananmen Square

Did you empty your entire inventory of strawmen and personal attacks for this post?

By simple definition, if there is a free market, there is not oppression. Oppression comes from the use of force, most commonly from governments claiming to be operating 'in the name of the people' (Cambodia, the USSR, China, North Korea, etc, etc.).
To the roster of strawmen and personal attacks, we can now add the non sequitur.

1) What proof have you that free market = no oppression?

2) What does the existence of totalitarian regimes have to do with whether free market policies work or not?

Oh, sorry. I didn't realize you were going that direction.
Generally, it pays to read the whole post before starting in with one's strawmen, personal attacks and non sequiturs.

Yes, history is replete with examples of those claiming to be working 'in the interest of the people' being mass murderers and seizing power, driving prosperous peoples into destitution, and enforcing an oppressive tyranny.
Mm-hm.

If your point is that free trade doesn’t work because ideological tyrants seeking a power grab to oppress the population occasionally crop up, then you have a point.
That does happen, but it was not the entirety of my point.

Unfortunately one of the problems with a free society is that those with murderous intentions are not killed off or thrown in isolated prisons with no communication with the outside world, but allowed to pursue their own life, in which case some get enough of a cult following to harm others.
If you say so.

Alas, after some have lived in a free and prosperous society long enough, they romanticize socialism and have fantasies about 'revolution'. Reality doesn't work the way you think it does. Evening out social strata - indeed, killing everyone with more stuff than you (or just stealing everything they have) does substantially reduce inequality, but it also punishes innovation and risk taking. With all the wealth a free society generates, some who have never experienced socialist tyranny begin to wonder why the world is not as perfect a place their fantasyland where everything is free and boundless. Alas, when living in a wealthy innovative society, some begin to take that wealth and innovation for granted and somehow think it just 'happens'.

After the bloodshed, people are eventually pushed to the limit and start demanding the idiotic policies of the repressive regimes be reduced, and that is what leads to a substantial improvement in living standards. After Mao's horrific policies leading to mass starvation and destitution, the people finally demanded a little control over their lives. It was this rejection of tyranny, and improvements in the freedom of the people, that has led to the massive increases in the standard of living of the people.
Oh, for crying out loud. :rolleyes: Are you under the impression that the US Civil Rights movement, or the US labor movement, or the movement for women's suffrage involved "killing everyone with more stuff than you (or just stealing everything they have)"? Did someone tell you once that the EPA, SEC, HUD, FDA, and the rest of the alphabet soup of federal regulatory agencies and social programs conduct their business with guillotines, or that FDR liked to "dissapear" millionaires into gulags while seizing and collectivizing all their property? If so, you were misinformed. THAT is the kind of "liberal, progressive" methods of "evening out the social strata" I was talking about.

Also, were you operating under the mistaken impression that the American Revolution was a bolshevik uprising? Because I'm a revolutionary in the same way Ben Franklin was.

You know, I find it really amusing the way you criticize me for lumping neocons and libertarians in the same group, and then you go on and on and on, talking as if "liberal" and "progressive" mean the same thing as Maoist and Stalinist.

I wonder if you realize that your own comments are basically pointing to the murderous tendency of jealous petty individuals who believe it is appropriate to kill and loot. You are basically saying you think poor people are bloodthirsty thugs who want to rape and pillage. Alternatively, you could be looking at it like these people are attempting to throw off an oppressive regime, in which case it is the ignorance of the crowds and the lies of a power hungry socialist which turns them away from the greater liberty they are seeking.
And I wonder if you actually saw the words I typed on the screen, or if your vision was blurred by the force of your own biases erupting to the surface of your mind. I wonder this because (A) nothing you are saying has anything to do with what I said, and (B) the above paragraph doesn't make much sense on its own, either.

A surprisingly libertarian statement you just made.
But it's not at all surprising that (A) the only statement you could actually see and pay attention to is the one that sounds like what's already in your own head, and (B) that it didn't occur to you that you might be wrong in your interpretation of what my position really is.

Such a shame that socialists will use force to take that control away from them.
HAHAHAHAHA!!! Good thing I wasn't drinking coffee when I read that one.

Obviously reading does not mean understanding.
You have demonstrated that clearly enough.

Let me guess - you have a poster of Che Guevara on your wall
You guess wrong.

(hehe, capitalists making a killing off the kitch marketing of a communist) and have not a clue that he was a mass murderer
Wrong again.

who held North Korea as closest to an idea society and thought the problem with Stalin is that he did not murder enough people at a fast enough rate.
And wrong again. Now that you've failed AGAIN in your guessing games, I'll tell you the answer: I don't give a shit about Che Guevara because I am not a communist, though I am considering buying a Chairman Meow poster to decorate the wall above my cat's litter box. He has delusions of grandeur, but then, he IS a cat.

OBEY THE KITTY! http://www.cafepress.com/dogs_of_war.200365173

The Shock Doctrine is nothing more than propaganda long on emotional button pushing and drastically short on logic. <blah, blah, blah, etc, etc, and so forth>
I knew I'd get that reaction as soon as I posted her name, because Naomi Klein writes for The Nation, and I knew that would set somebody off foaming and stamping. Like I said, I've only just started the book. I will judge whether it has any validity based on its factual content and how well it jibes with other historical sources. I read books like this because I don't have time to sort blind through primary documents, so I like to have other people do the initial abstracts for me. I use them like Cliff's Notes to their own bibliographies. I don't need to care about Klein's interpretations of the facts because I'm capable of interpreting them myself. I will either agree or disagree with her analysis. I sometimes forget that some other people are not capable of reading a book dispassionately and forming their own opinions about the author's argument based on the presented facts.

Can you give some examples of historic societies that display what you're talking about?
Just off the top of my head, thinking about the period from the 1850s through today:

Argentina
Mexico
Nicaragua
Honduras
El Salvador
Chile
Iraq
Russia

And an older example, from the 1790s:
France

For starters.

No no no. Dont invite a bunch of pissed off/offended American conservatives to shoot you. They just might.



;)

Well, there's a reason I'm one ocean away from America. Anyone who has the firepower and cares enough to hit me from that range, I'm doomed anyway.

i'd really like to know, what the hell kind of "freedom" so called conservatives pretend to be protecting, or that they can by destroying.

or for that matter, in what way repressive policies are supposedly "socialist"

=^^=
.../\...

You know what?

Even if I were to grant your premise, so what?

After all, it's not like practical results are relevant.

Objective moral principle is the only thing that happens.

If such is the cost of freedom, so be it. It's the price that must be paid.

DIAF

The OP is correct in describing the consistent and, imo, inevitable failures of the rightwing/neocon/libertarian agenda.

I stopped here, I find it hilarious that you even try to equate neocons with libertarians, I mean at the very least you can appreciate that neocons support foreign interventionism whilst libertarians support the complete opposite.

DIAF

I preferred my response to that (unsurprisingly).

You know what?

Even if I were to grant your premise, so what?

After all, it's not like practical results are relevant.

Objective moral principle is the only thing that happens.

If such is the cost of freedom, so be it. It's the price that must be paid.

You, sir, owe me a new keyboard.

So if a coroporation makes a loss on principle, then that's all that should matter to the shareholders? Bullshit!

Hypocrisy*

See, I know I'm garbage in my main language :eek:, no need to obfuscate it with dead languages too.

Doesn't Mexico have a bunch of state-owned corporations? How the hell is that libertarian, exactly?

2. No one wants to teach sex to first graders.

I snipped the rest of your post because I agree with it 100%

My comment on this portion is that, I actually have no problem with children of this age learning about sex.

I stopped here, I find it hilarious that you even try to equate neocons with libertarians, I mean at the very least you can appreciate that neocons support foreign interventionism whilst libertarians support the complete opposite.
Yes, a few people seem to find that so funny, it makes their brains stop working for a while, rendering them incapable of realizing that things can be similar without being identical.

Libertarians say a lot of things about themselves. Most of what I personally hear them saying is how they are nothing like any other group someone else might compare them to. Frankly, I don't really care what they say libertarianism stands for, because actions speak louder than words. In terms of the economic and social policies they espouse, American libertarians belong squarely on the right wing of the American political spectrum, right next to the neocons and conservatives, whether they like it or not.

I realize that a lot of libertarians are going to get annoyed by me saying that -- and some might get hostile about it -- but I don't care. I call 'em like I see 'em, and that's how I see that one.