uppy:
Joe, since both the Libertarian and anarchist positions advocate a non-interventionist foreign policy, you would of course be unlikely to find Americans of this persuasion, writing for an America-facing market, to be writing articles on what the US should do regarding the Darfur situation, etc. Part of Lew Rockwell's theme is not to be concerned with what is going on internationally per se, but about what the US is doing internationally. My apologies for thinking this was obvious.
Further I have most certainly made it clear why I label you a statist. You, like so many of the socialists you claim to revile, continually look to the state to solve a particular ill. For example, your views on the NSA warantless wiretaps (pro), arresting people for protesting at funerals (pro), spreading democracy around the globe (pro), and the like. As well intentioned as any of those things may be, you are advocating state intervention - backed by the threat and/or use of force - to achieve them. Your common ground with libertarians starts and ends with a love of the free market.
If my posting here seems aimed entirely at the US, there is a pretty logical reason for this: this site, and the vast majority of its posters, are American. I also post at a Canadian political forum, and I rarely talk about the US, unless it's in context. If you could find me an Iranian political forum - and for obvious reasons this is unlikely - and I found their posters rallying around their nutter leader, I would say many of the same things to them. (Don't lump me in the "Chavez is a hero" crowd, as I've never even implied such a thing.)
And FYI, libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism are largely American ideas. Certainly the majority of its authors are. So when you claim that I am strictly anti-American (as opposed to anti-imperialism, anti-statism, anti-social conservatism, all of which the US now is) how do you reconcile that with my admiration for her early years?
Something interesting to note: Phaedrus has posted articles campaigning against military intervention in both Iraq and Iran (I assume he feels the same way about Darfur, though I've not read him say as much). He, too, advocates a non-interventionist foreign policy. His beliefs stretch back much farther than mine, and he is far more qualified and eloquent on the subject. Why have you never, not once, labelled him a pacifist or asked him to clarify these positions, knowing fully that he would be able to provide far more educated answers than I?
Further I have most certainly made it clear why I label you a statist. You, like so many of the socialists you claim to revile, continually look to the state to solve a particular ill. For example, your views on the NSA warantless wiretaps (pro), arresting people for protesting at funerals (pro), spreading democracy around the globe (pro), and the like. As well intentioned as any of those things may be, you are advocating state intervention - backed by the threat and/or use of force - to achieve them. Your common ground with libertarians starts and ends with a love of the free market.
If my posting here seems aimed entirely at the US, there is a pretty logical reason for this: this site, and the vast majority of its posters, are American. I also post at a Canadian political forum, and I rarely talk about the US, unless it's in context. If you could find me an Iranian political forum - and for obvious reasons this is unlikely - and I found their posters rallying around their nutter leader, I would say many of the same things to them. (Don't lump me in the "Chavez is a hero" crowd, as I've never even implied such a thing.)
And FYI, libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism are largely American ideas. Certainly the majority of its authors are. So when you claim that I am strictly anti-American (as opposed to anti-imperialism, anti-statism, anti-social conservatism, all of which the US now is) how do you reconcile that with my admiration for her early years?
Something interesting to note: Phaedrus has posted articles campaigning against military intervention in both Iraq and Iran (I assume he feels the same way about Darfur, though I've not read him say as much). He, too, advocates a non-interventionist foreign policy. His beliefs stretch back much farther than mine, and he is far more qualified and eloquent on the subject. Why have you never, not once, labelled him a pacifist or asked him to clarify these positions, knowing fully that he would be able to provide far more educated answers than I?
America actually tried non-interventionism after WW2, they didn't want to be associated with the old colonial powerbase.
My old boy told me about stuff, like in Korea where the US left the Japanese in charge after the WW2 surrender, 'cos the USA wanted nowt to do with it. The Suez crisis, where interfering nations like France and Britain tried to flex their old colonial muscles and got slapped down and sent home by uncle Sam.
However the communists charged into the power void that was left in places like North Korea and China and the US policy shifted between 1945 and 1950 kinda thing.
I haven't looked at the period closely but that's what he told me, (in the immediate period after WW2).
My old boy told me about stuff, like in Korea where the US left the Japanese in charge after the WW2 surrender, 'cos the USA wanted nowt to do with it. The Suez crisis, where interfering nations like France and Britain tried to flex their old colonial muscles and got slapped down and sent home by uncle Sam.
However the communists charged into the power void that was left in places like North Korea and China and the US policy shifted between 1945 and 1950 kinda thing.
I haven't looked at the period closely but that's what he told me, (in the immediate period after WW2).
It makes sense in the context of the period though.
It took Pearl Harbour before the USA got seriously involved with those European fukwits who were all killing each other YET AGAIN.
Plus America had just dragged itself out of a serious depression, so plenty of problems at home to sort.
So once the job was done by 1945 there would be a lot of Americans who would want to revert to 1940 style isolationism.
It took Pearl Harbour before the USA got seriously involved with those European fukwits who were all killing each other YET AGAIN.
Plus America had just dragged itself out of a serious depression, so plenty of problems at home to sort.
So once the job was done by 1945 there would be a lot of Americans who would want to revert to 1940 style isolationism.
xpanda said:
And there's the crux of the problem - coming from a middle class background and studying revised texts under the tutelage of Marxist professors lacks a certain degree of leavening.
Ideology can much like religion in that you have to believe in an ideology to support it. In their purest forms, ideologies can be well meaning.
But lets take a look at the more pragmatic side of those ideologies; In order to gain the necessary majorities, coalitions with other, like minded groups are needed and alliances with special interests are required. So the ideology makes the necessary "adjustments" to its philosophy and its stated goals for the sake of power. - and by making making those alliances and forming those coalitions, the ideology has lost itself to the common needs of the larger group.
So I'll say it again - in the United States, there are three groups - Liberals, Centrists and Conservatives. Right or left, we've forsaken the purity of our ideologies to gain power, and the centritsts force national candidates from the purity of the coalition toward the other side.
We all have beliefs about our own parties and also about the other party - the left thinks nothing of calling the right Nazis or exocentrics - becayse they see it as true - the right believes that the left has shucked all expectations of personal responsibilty. These beliefs go hand in hand.
Ain't pragmatism a bitch!
Panda knows what pragmatism is, bblight. She voted Liberal in the last election, which of course crystallizes our point. Obviously, when philosphy gave way to pragmatism, one of Canada's many socialist parties became the more palatable choice, in lieu of voting for the true Conservative candidate who prides himself as a student of Friedmanomics.
bblight said:
Heh?
I'm not in school. I buy books, which I then read. And these are books written by the orginal authors, not somebody else's interpretation of said authors. (I concede that some of these writers are way too intellectual for my own skill set ... I find myself often having to read the same paragraph a couple of times to figure out what they're even saying, then read it again to figure out if I agree or not. Anyway ...)
Since my ideology is tending now to lead toward anarchism, there is no need to make alliances, form coalitions, nor anything of the sort. It's really a sit back and wait approach and, in the meantime, do everything in my power to undermine and be invisible to my gov't. It has bupkus to do with being elected, since the goal of the anarchist would be, upon election, to fire oneself.
Well, there are plenty of other ideologies than those currently represented in Congress. I mean, Hitler, Stalin, Bonaparte, Payne, etc .. all are of different stripes than what you see in office now, in the US. So when I said that there are more than your limited three groups, I wasn't referring to what is in office, but what schools of thought exist today.
You need to become a little more imaginative ..
Joe Contrarian said:
I know this kills you, that I voted Liberal. But I'm not sure how many times a person needs to state - before you hear it - that the vote was not for but against, living in a swing riding and all. (Garth Turner won anyway, and, to be honest, I rather like him. I've met and chatted with him several times as a teenager. He is of the paleoconservative bent, which I find far less bothersome than the neocon/lib variety your Mr. Harper belongs to.)
Because you have me confused with a lifelong Lib supporter, I'll add that I voted for Mulroney (my first election), Campbell, Harris (twice) and Eves as well. If Harris or McKay had been the Conservative leader, I could have considered them federally, too, the last go-around. You just don't want to believe that I have serious issues with Harper, and far less with the party.
If it makes you feel better, I plan not to vote again.
For the fourth time, this is exactly what I said: pragmatism meant the Liberal candidate became more palatable choice, measured against the evil Taliban candidate in your riding.
So, you didn't want the Conservatives to win because....???????????
Bottom line: when push came to shove, you voted for the party who were gun-ho on more socialism: new socialized daycare and increased spending on health care and public housing, more gun registry boondoggles, soft-on-crime policies, corruption, Kyoto (global socialism), greater provincial “equalization”….basically, more of the same broken, wasteful, inefficient, wealth destroying shyte we are still forced to endure…versus the guy who believes in the free-market economic policies you purportedly have been studying these last two years: Mr. Stephen “All-taxes-are-bad” Harper.
Hmmmm….
And you did this, because….??????? Harper wanted an honest vote on gay-marriage in the parliament, for once? :lolBIG:
Obviously, your irrational liberalism is still lingering, causing you to believe Conservatives are Fascist Nazis, which in pragmatic terms means you’re still not quite ready to elevate yourself out of your cozy, freedom-robbing, social safety net, trashcan.
No, Joe.
My views on Harper have to do with his prior participation in the Reform Party and their 'family values' rhetoric (remember, I am a 35-year old single non-parenting female, with two nieces ... I have a vested and personal interest in not electing a gov't that would make 'family values' an official political position - I attended a Reform Party rally in Lethbridge, AB in 1992 ... these mofos scared the shit out of me), his letter to the WSJ apologising to Americans for Canada's non-participation in the Iraq war, his views on the war in Afghanistan and our role there, and my belief that he'll have us in support of a war with Iran if the Americans go that route.
Remember, first and always, I care more about not participating in wars of aggression than I do about national daycare programmes. Second to that, I believe in civil liberties, 'if it feels good, do it' as you say. Further, the Conservative Party, like any Canadian party, is still socialist itself. A true response to the Liberal daycare plan (which I opposed) would have been nothing. Instead, we get Daycare Lite. Is that a true Conservative position, or is just A Little Less Socialist Than The Liberals? In light of that, I see little difference on the Big Gov't front to have warranted putting aside my concerns about Harper following the Americans into each and every battle.
I will be glad if they get rid of the gun registry, but I will also be glad if he scraps his stupid, non-conservative daycare plan. I'll also be happy if he denounces the Canada Health Act .. oops! Forgot about that one!
My views on Harper have to do with his prior participation in the Reform Party and their 'family values' rhetoric (remember, I am a 35-year old single non-parenting female, with two nieces ... I have a vested and personal interest in not electing a gov't that would make 'family values' an official political position - I attended a Reform Party rally in Lethbridge, AB in 1992 ... these mofos scared the shit out of me), his letter to the WSJ apologising to Americans for Canada's non-participation in the Iraq war, his views on the war in Afghanistan and our role there, and my belief that he'll have us in support of a war with Iran if the Americans go that route.
Remember, first and always, I care more about not participating in wars of aggression than I do about national daycare programmes. Second to that, I believe in civil liberties, 'if it feels good, do it' as you say. Further, the Conservative Party, like any Canadian party, is still socialist itself. A true response to the Liberal daycare plan (which I opposed) would have been nothing. Instead, we get Daycare Lite. Is that a true Conservative position, or is just A Little Less Socialist Than The Liberals? In light of that, I see little difference on the Big Gov't front to have warranted putting aside my concerns about Harper following the Americans into each and every battle.
I will be glad if they get rid of the gun registry, but I will also be glad if he scraps his stupid, non-conservative daycare plan. I'll also be happy if he denounces the Canada Health Act .. oops! Forgot about that one!
X - Joe's right. By your own admission you voted liberal in the last election yet you say you'll undermine the government at every opportunity. Do you mean the liberal government, or the new conservative government?
As angry as I am at Bush right now, if I had to do it all over again, I'd vote for Bush again, because he's still the more palatable of the available candidates.
Believe it or not, I'm a right side centrist - yet I constantly find myself aligned with the extreme right because I find the positions of the left to be either repellent or in need of balance.
I believe that pot should be legalized; that abortion should be legal but limited;public schools should teach the ABCs and not family values. I believe that criminals should have fast trials and severe punshments - rehab should be tertiary IMO. I believe that the closer to me the government is, the more power it should have over me, while the further away from me, the less power - IE local = most power; federal = least power - that's for taxation, civil and criminal proceedings and other individual commerce. I believe that the will of the majority is paramount while the rights of the minority should be protected; the minority should not hold sway over the majority - that's Oligarchy. I believe that religion is the conscience of society and should remain separate from the government while being a part of society. Lastly, I believe in a free press that reports the news - right now, whether you agree or not, there are a very large number of people (including me) who belive the MSM is politically biased.
I vote for conservatives because they represent my thinking, or they provide balance to the extreme left.
As I said before, ain't pragmatism a bitch.
As angry as I am at Bush right now, if I had to do it all over again, I'd vote for Bush again, because he's still the more palatable of the available candidates.
Believe it or not, I'm a right side centrist - yet I constantly find myself aligned with the extreme right because I find the positions of the left to be either repellent or in need of balance.
I believe that pot should be legalized; that abortion should be legal but limited;public schools should teach the ABCs and not family values. I believe that criminals should have fast trials and severe punshments - rehab should be tertiary IMO. I believe that the closer to me the government is, the more power it should have over me, while the further away from me, the less power - IE local = most power; federal = least power - that's for taxation, civil and criminal proceedings and other individual commerce. I believe that the will of the majority is paramount while the rights of the minority should be protected; the minority should not hold sway over the majority - that's Oligarchy. I believe that religion is the conscience of society and should remain separate from the government while being a part of society. Lastly, I believe in a free press that reports the news - right now, whether you agree or not, there are a very large number of people (including me) who belive the MSM is politically biased.
I vote for conservatives because they represent my thinking, or they provide balance to the extreme left.
As I said before, ain't pragmatism a bitch.
No kidding. Libertarianism is all about personal responsibility instead of big nanny government.
bdizzle said:What?!?! Are you for real Joe? You are saying Libertarianism neglects individual responsibility? That is pure BS right there.
X is correct, you clearly have no dinstiction of different political stances. You really should read the links she posted.
BDiz...
bblight said:
I do that a lot myself. I will vote for candidates that have a chnace in order to create a political stalemate. This way I can wait the 50-100 years until my political party gains enough strength to win, and not bullshit laws ill be passed. I know my pathetic one vote has absolutely no efect on the outcomes but it is better than sitting back and bitching and complaining.
My sole goal in life now (politically) is to create a political filibuster for the next 100 years until my party is in power. These two major parties absolutely suck!
BDiz..
xpanda said:
X - 35 and single - that makes you a spinster doesn't it (A spinster (or old maid) is a woman who has never been married, though it is usually applied only to women who are regarded as beyond the normal age for marriage.) LOL -- Only joking - nowadsays it makes you smart.
X - Do you have any idea how many of us Bush supporters voted for Bush for the same reason! A vote against the other guy/side rather than a vote for the side you cast your vote for.
Just take a look at this forum; how many in here voted for Kerry because they hate Bush? How many vote Republican because they hate the Democrats and vice versa?
That's called pragmatism my dear.
And then you mke the stupidest statement of them all "If it makes you feel better, I plan not to vote again"
To be honest, the more disenfranchised lefties we have, the happier I am - whether it's in Canada or in the US - but consider how many Canadians gave up their lives in WWII so you could cast that vote - you're spitting on their graves.
nimue77 said:
I was going to do that actually and wrote a few party members last year however, I will be out of Country for a while. So the only way I can support them is voting, money, spreading the word (I sound like a bible thumper), and volunteering my skills/time from abroad.
BDiz..
bblight said:
Government in general. For example, my own company is no longer incorporated in Canada, and, because of where it is incorporated, I will pay no corporate income taxes. My little part to choke off the source of gov't monopoly.
In my (new) worldview, you and everyone else would be able to believe in whatever you like, and to live by any rules you deem suitable for yourself. The only restrictions on your freedoms would be that you do nothing to limit my own ... or, better, put, don't fuck with me and I won't fuck with you. In my (new) worldview, being 'conservative' or 'liberal' would be of interest only insofar as how you chose to live your own life; they would no longer have meaning in a political context. There would be, literally, no politics.
I am actually in the middle of writing an article about finding anarchism/libertarianism from the left. If the socialist or liberal can come to differentiate between capitalism and state capitalism, and can have some faith that the individual morality that drives our votes for the most palatable gov't would also drive our consumption, there is no reason to believe that abandoning gov't altogether, and letting the free market pick up the slack, would be altogether scary. It took me a long time to digest that myself and I'm having some success convincing people close to me of the same. (I've convinced my sister to send her daughters to private, not public, school, for example.)
(Similarly, true conservatives ticked about gov't excesses by so-called conservatives, would find libertarianism from the right; that is, if they can be persuaded that militaries and state police can be replaced by the free market.)
At any rate, conservative or liberal gov't, imo, are the same shit, different monikers. Each has a monopoly on violence, each believes in federal control of the money supply, and each believes in relentless propaganda. Manipulate manipulate manipulate. These are the three primary forces of gov't that quell individual liberty and have brought about the deaths of tens of millions of people over the past century alone, via war or state-induced poverty. I can find no good reason why human beings should agree to tolerate this.
