Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't you agree that given the choice, most American libertarians would take a Christian conservative over a socialist? It's not that they like Christian conservatives, it's just if forced to choose they'd take a socially oppressive candidate over someone who wanted to redistribute wealth.
That is, libertarians are still right wingers and conservatives, just a different branch of them than the Christian conservatives who want to ban drugs and gay marriage.
Christian conservatives are pretty much liberals compared to Ron Paul and his ilk. Even most Republicans wouldn't go as far as abolishing Social Security for seniors and forcing them to rely on charity, but that's a pretty standard viewpoint of libertarians.
I don't accept your premise of 2 choices since there are always more than 2 in the general election.
Given a choice many conservatives didn't vote for Romnery in the last election. Just to be clear conservative means less government especially at the Federal level and believing in states rights.
We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.
I think a peaceful revolution is possible, at least for now. Spreading ideas leads to cultural change, so as long as we're still allowed to talk about ideas without fear of punishment I'd say that's the way to go.
It is pretty telling about the motivation of government, though. They don't care as much about helping the citizens as they care about keeping order, making their own jobs easier, and maintaining their own power and control.
A lot of them aren't even doing it with bad intentions, that's just the nature of government. Their entire job is to control people and manage their lives. As Jefferson said, the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and for government to gain ground...and people are still surprised when they advocate more regulation and policy and the result is more police, more military, more taxes, etc...less choice in their own lives.
Yes, we have slid further and further on the scale towards Tyranny. I point out the technological changes that have taken place since the last "real" revolution in the Western world. Historically, except for Ghandi, and the liberation of Brazil from Portugal, I can't think of any revolution that was "peaceful". Most are violent.
So what, you think our troops should mow down innocent Mexicans who are just coming to America to work hard and make a better life for themselves and their family? If you lived in Mexico in poverty you'd probably want to get the hell out of there too.
I would be willing to bet most "illegal" Mexicans share many of your conservative values and are a lot more similar to you than you'd think.
I would suggest that Mexicans coming to America obey our laws and apply for citizenship status the way it has been done for years if they wanted to be good citizens and good role models for their children.-otherwise what exactly are they teaching their children?
I would also submit that mexico's official unemployment rate is now lower than that of the US, which is probably why Obama is trying to bribe them here with talk of back refunds and no checking status.
I might not argue that many mexicans have conservative values socially, which is to be admired, but breaking laws surely can't be among them.
I would submit that our military wouldn't have any need to"mow down" people if they just turn around and go back home. It would serve as a deterrent to illegal activities primarily, and might even slow down the illegal drug trade, which would certainly benefit US citizens.
I realize the source is russia today, but facts are still facts, even when they are propaganda coming from a country with its own financial trouble.
It is pretty darn clear from those numbers that we don't need any more workers currently, nor any illegal immigration at all, with 93 MILLION PEOPLE 16 or older not working in the US. It shouldn't be this hard to get a job in the best country in the world (IMHO)
Just imagine the direction this country might have taken with Ron Paul at the helm. I like to do it when I want to cheer myself up. We do need a 3rd party-I submit start with Dr. Ben Carson and Ron for VP
Oh wow, talk about a face palm thread. Likening Libertarian-ism or even Ron Paul to Marxism-Leninism shows not only a complete lack of understanding of the Libertarian Party, but Marxism-Leninism. Trying to point out the differences would max out the character limit.
And OP, Marxism-Leninism does not = Communism. Communism was based on Marxism-Leninism.
Marxism-Leninism was Stalin's version of the dictatorship of the proletariat-- basically the very very beginning of a socialist state, post-revolution. A lot of communists HATE Marxism-Leninism because not only does it delay the transition to actual Communism or even socialism, it also has the potential to result in state capitalism.
Communism is a society that is stateless and classless. The concept developed long before the Russian revolution, long before Stalin and Lenin, before Marx and before capitalism-- Marx saw the early, highly egalitarian hunter-gatherer tribes as communists.
There is a difference, but the OP isn't so far off the mark.
The only real difference is that Marxism-Leninism promises equality (but doesn't deliver for the majority) while American Libertarianism promises freedom (but doesn't deliver for the majority).
Last edited by Spatula City; 03-09-2015 at 02:45 PM..
Marxism-Leninism was Stalin's version of the dictatorship of the proletariat-- basically the very very beginning of a socialist state, post-revolution. A lot of communists HATE Marxism-Leninism because not only does it delay the transition to actual Communism or even socialism, it also has the potential to result in state capitalism.
Communism is a society that is stateless and classless. The concept developed long before the Russian revolution, long before Stalin and Lenin, before Marx and before capitalism-- Marx saw the early, highly egalitarian hunter-gatherer tribes as communists.
There is a difference, but the OP isn't so far off the mark.
The only real difference is that Marxism-Leninism promises equality (but doesn't deliver for the majority) while American Libertarianism promises freedom (but doesn't deliver for the majority).
Yes It was. Key word "based", not the same. The definition of Communism,
Communism: The Marxist-Leninist doctrine advocating revolution to overthrow the capitalist system and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat that will eventually evolve into a perfectly egalitarian and communal society.
Websters:
a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably.
The dominant forms of Communism, such as Leninism, Trotskyism and Luxemburgism, are based on Marxism, but non-Marxist versions of Communism (such as Christian Communism and Anarchist Communism) also exist.
A rigged , or "franchised monopoly" only occurs with the power of the government to enforce it. The natural monopoly in the free market is a myth, it's never happened. I defy you to name the monopoly that has ever occurred without government protection/assistance/patronage.
Under the libertarian economic system, government does not rig the game, collude with single entities to protect them from competition, or rig the game to bar competition. What you're doing is common to these ideological discussions where libertarianism in particular is torn apart. You conjure some diabolical scenario that is actually contrary to libertarianism and with that scenario attempt to show why libertarianism itself is totally unfeasible.
Right past self-ownership and the non-aggression axiom is the "smallest, least intrusive government necessary to protect, defend and secure the NATURAL INDIVIDUAL rights of the citizen" theory. Nowhere in any of these three central tenets does "rigging the game for basic necessities" occur, become authorized, or make any sense whatsoever.
Or is this an attempt to make libertarian = anarchy? Which once again, would be a straw man, just with different straw.
Um, wasn't standard oil the classic case of a monopoly? But even if you could point to some governmental aspect of involvment for all monopolies or oligopolies, 1. What makes you think that a libertarian government would be immune to also involving itself somehow in either the creation or destruction of a monopoly and more importantly 2. Just because the monopolies you can point to have had governmental involvement, you can't say no governmental involvement would end monopoly formation cause its rather hard to prove a negative like that. I would argue we have no data to prove that absence of government involvement leads to no monopolies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
