Wikileaks founder and activist Julian Assange has turned to partisan politics, arguing that the movement behind Ron and Rand Paul's rise to prominence in the GOP is the 'only hope' for reform in American politics.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomwatson/2 … pe-in-u-s/
I'm inclined to agree with him, even if we are only talking about civil liberties, privacy and curtailing aggressive US foreign policy. The democrats have proven themselves, at best, cowardly and ineffective when it comes to reversing the trend towards imperialism and police-statism.
What do you think?
Taken all in all, I would prefer the libertarians over the right wing on the current conservative movement.
But would you take them over the Democrats? That's the big question.
No, probably not, I don't want too much toying with the social contract that is currently part of government.
What is this 'social contract' and when did you sign it? More importantly, what's so special about it that you'd take imperialism and police-statism over it changing?
As for my take on the contract, I was all for the New Deal as the only way the American economy could hope to continue beyond the recklessness of the previous era. What do you propose we go back to? There is not one example of a successful libertarian society on Earth, it is all just theoretical. And if you want to refer to the American economy prior to 1932, as a remote example, it is not a good one.
I do not trust the private sector with the ultimate scenario of a handful of people screwing everybody else. All this talk of statetism and police states are a gross exaggeration
But I am for toning down the military and our foregn policy expenditures abroad.
This article, responding to a critique of libertarianism, does a good job of summarising the libertarian position on pre-1930s America and FDR.
http://www.libertyclassroom.com/the-que … r-part-ii/
So my personal proposition would be to have an economic environment closer to the 19th century, but of course with our current technology and culture.
"I do not trust the private sector with the ultimate scenario of a handful of people screwing everybody else."
I don't know what this means.
"All this talk of statetism and police states are a gross exaggeration "
If you're just talking about 'statism', look away now, because the US has the largest government that has ever existed in the history of man-kind. There is not a single aspect of American life that is not fettered with, taxed or regulated. Libertarians see this as a bad thing.
And the recent NSA revelations must give you pause for thought when considering police-statism, as well as expansions in the patriot act and NDAA, "See something, say something" monitors straight out of Orwell, entire cities being put on military lock-down for one person. It may be hard to appreciate when you're not personally affected by it (of course, no government wants to let people know that they are living in a police state), but in the last 15 years or so of regulation, the US has met the requirements of a police state.
"But I am for toning down the military and our foregn policy expenditures abroad."
Then the Democrats must be offering something akin to the Holy Grail for you to support them over the Libertarians, seeing as the Dems are not interested in cutting military expenditure to any great degree.
Fabulous, Innersmith, the links were excellent and I received quite an education reading the articles that you cited and the comments that followed. I even read Mr. Dionne's piece. While, I tend to agree with Dionne more, the wealth of information provided is appreciated.
"So my personal proposition would be to have an economic environment closer to the 19th century, but of course with our current technology and culture."
I don't think that we could have a 19th century mindset in the face of current technology and culture. The lack of those things certainly contributed to making the 19th century what it was. A 19th century economic model may well not be possible with 21st century tools. It could only prosper based on what we did not know. You speak of a century dominated by slavery and exploitation of Native Americans resources on a vast scale, so how do the so called free-market advocates use the labor and resources of others to benifit themselves? What is it the liberatarian ideal? People should profit based only upon their own work and effort? Do we bring back debtors prisons, elderly and orphans abandoned to want and poverty? What about child labor, I mean the so called capitalist free market had no limits to what it would do to extract a profit, that is 19th century.Yet, that was never a level playing field, but according to libertarianism, that is not a factor. But, I am afraid that if one wants a successful and cohesive society for the greatest number, it has to be.
Yes, there are encrusted areas of power that will resist and the libertarian creed makes it clear that an overbearing private sector/corporate culture is just as oppressive as an overreaching government.
There are far too many people living from their entitlements, that would not dare put these at risk. People are enriching themselves through the militarism and foreign entanglements. They would not dislodge from all of this because of an ideal. If the movement is to be successful, it is as it was suggested, start with the young who have not been involved and can take the risk. But unless we are talking about a 'Soylent Green' or 'Logan Run' scenario, it is not going to happen soon. The power and the wealth belong to the older people and they are not giving it up. Libertarianism is science-fiction, much like the ideas of 'utopia'. That is the reason there is no example of it anywhere on the planet. Short of revolution, it can never happen. If we reduce the size and scope of government power and the reach of the corporate robber barons, it would be a dream.
After reading both articles, I remain of the opinion that a successful libertarianism in practice is contrary to the way people will behave.
I just don't see libertarianism working in the way that you say it would. People living on the virtue of their own industry, that has never happened, really, not even in the 19th century. The system is never perfect, it is just that the Dems, in my opinion, are the lessor of the two evils, if political parties can be described as such.
A most interesting study, I learned a great deal more than I expected...thanks
by Don W7 years ago
Would a free market have prevented this from happening?I'm guessing the libertarian argument would be that the failings of state regulation was a contributing factor. Those failings stemming from the fact that the...
by James Smith4 years ago
The modern left/right dichotomy is essentially a scam - an identification as either one is incoherent, and to say that cherry-picking from each 'side' is somehow 'moderate' is patently absurd. Every 'moderate' I've ever...
by Doug Robinson6 years ago
http://georgedonnelly.com/libertarian/t … sm-america
by Gary Anderson5 years ago
Hey Even, Mises said big business was not evil. To be fair, he did not live to see the TBTF banks, but I am waiting for his libertarian followers duped by this stuff to say the TBTF banks ARE evil. Say it Evan!Here is...
by Tony Lawrence6 years ago
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/2 … oesnt-WorkTruth. Why are so many of our young people so enthralled by this very dangerous idea?
by Credence24 years ago
So what about the future of the conservatives as currently represented by the GOP?I see three factions from among the conservatives right now, Can they coalesce around one standard bearer by 2016?1. The pragmatists,...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.