Quote from: gleichman;234106Ford 74-76: No significant actions that I remember, didn't spend enough time in office to make that much of an impact.

I think the fact that Reagan tried to take the nomination from Ford, the sitting President, in 1976 sums it up.  Ford was not a conservative.

Quote from: gleichman;234106So all the screaming and protesting about Reagan cutting government programs were a lie by the Democratics?

The reality is that most of those government programs really weren't cut at much, if at all, under Reagan.  They just stopped growing at the pace the Democrats wanted them to grow at (which becomes a "cut" in Democratese).  And the reason for that is pretty simple.  The Democrats controlled the House for his entire Presidency and that required him to make compromises on spending, which is part of the reason why there were huge deficits.  

Here you can find the material from the August 31, 1992 issue of National Review called The Real Reagan Record.  The "Decade of Neglect" link covers the increases in Social Spending during the Reagan years.

It should be noted that when actual conservative Republicans controlled the House during the Clinton years, the budget deficit disappeared and they helped get Clinton's welfare reforms passed.

Quote from: gleichman;234101It only exists in part due to government influence- min wages, affirmative action, etc.

Let's not forget all of the other ways in which government limits the free market:  trademarks, copyrights, patents, tariffs, regulations, money monopolies, and criminal collusion with wealthy elites.

I've never met a conservative who really wanted a free market.

Also, refusing to engage with someone because they are an anarchist is idiotic.  I'm prefectly capable of understanding your arguments.

The real question is: Can you set aside your ideology long enough to genuinely listen to my point of view and make an attempt to understand it?

If not, then there's hardly any reason for ANYONE to talk to you.

Quote from: Jackalope;234175Also, refusing to engage with someone because they are an anarchist is idiotic.

The rabbit gains nothing from engaging the wolf in debate. As someone who wishes the death of all governments, you've already set the terms and the goals. The only question is if you're just talking, or are an actual danger, and that certainly won't be settled here.

Much like talking to Walker about the importance of human life, or Engine about morality, there's nothing to engage when the sum total no matter how it is structured is completely denied.

So the only Anarchists I deal with are the ones my characters kill in rpgs

Quote from: gleichman;234038If I wiped away everything that except the Constitution and the various Admendments, I suppose there is the option for local governments to do things that you and I approve of, and would still pass Constitutional muster. I seriously think turning back the Civil Rights Act of 64 wouldn't be one of these, and worrying about it is little short of being paranoid.

I'm ok with what would be at risk, as a Strong center government is certain to wipe away things that I approve of, and certain to enact those things I don't approve of. And I have no option that is not criminal to avoid those things.

Any government - no matter how small - has to occasionally make decisions that a particular individual might not approve of. I don't like the way my local council handles recycling and waste collection, but there's not much I can do about it beyond write them pissy letters - I'm in a safe Green ward, so there's little chance of me electing someone who'll oppose it.

QuoteWith a weak center government, I can move from city to city or state to state to find something much closer to my needs. If none do, then I"m seriously out of cultural step- and likely need to change nations or become criminal.

Which would be lovely if you are in a position to be able to afford moving from town to town to town until you find somewhere that's tolerable for you.

A thing that strikes me, gleichman: throughout this discussion you consistently seem to have the idea that governments in general (and central governments in particular) are the only bodies capable of treading on the little man. But can't other bodies, like religious groups or corporations, end up being equally oppressive if they are given free reign? Say, if you had a cartel of companies who controlled a particular industry and used aggressive economic tactics to keep competitors out - wouldn't that be just as bad as the government nationalising the selfsame industry?

Do you accept that there is a place in government in making sure that non-governmental groups and organisations do not infringe the liberties of the citizenry?

Looking for opinion here: Is it "Conservative" or "Libertarian" to think the government needs to leave people alone and get the fuck out of their lives for most of the time?


Strong National Defense? ...Conservative or Libertarian idea?



- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;234186Looking for opinion here: Is it "Conservative" or "Libertarian" to think the government needs to leave people alone and get the fuck out of their lives for most of the time?


Strong National Defense? ...Conservative or Libertarian idea?

A simple overview from what I've read on the subject...

Libertarian tends more towards 'no government' than Conservative. For example their Defense policy is basically a complete withdraw from overseas- isolationism. That would of course reduce the military size and ability.

And while the Conservative is in favor of Federalism (i.e. leaving things more to local control), Libertarian is more in favor of little government at all.

Quote from: Koltar;234186Looking for opinion here: Is it "Conservative" or "Libertarian" to think the government needs to leave people alone and get the fuck out of their lives for most of the time?

Libertarians claim to want the government out of the people's lives, Conservatives typically make the claim, but with the undercurrent of 'business' or 'rich' in regards to which people.

QuoteStrong National Defense? ...Conservative or Libertarian idea?

A strong Constitutionalist, whose beliefs are almost parallel with Libertarians, would argue a strong national defence is about all the Federal Government ought to be doing.  Conservatives tend towards support of national defence issues as well, as that helps heavy industry in particular, but larger businesses in general.

Quote from: Warthur;234185But can't other bodies, like religious groups or corporations, end up being equally oppressive if they are given free reign? Say, if you had a cartel of companies who controlled a particular industry and used aggressive economic tactics to keep competitors out - wouldn't that be just as bad as the government nationalising the selfsame industry?

Did you not see the part I quoted from National Review on monopolies? Conservatives oppose them, and much of what is consider Free Trade is covered under your corporate objections.

The religious side of the question you put forth isn't an issue. Religions are made up of the people; and people vote for the local government they wish as limited by the Bill of Rights through the 14th amendment.

Hans Hoppe, a major proponent of libertarianism (or anarcho-capitalism) and one of the philosophical leaders of the libertarian movement, believes that democracy is a failure and that only a strong monarchy can successfully defend private property, which is (in his opinion) the sole measure of freedom.  Thus he wishes for libertarians to oppose democracy, put all socialist minded people and homosexuals to death, establish a monarchy, and abolish all government regulation.

In his idea of the perfect libertarian society, there would be no unions, no government regulation, no environmental protections, and most importantly no socialists or homosexuals, both of whom he claims are inimical to a free society.  It's important to note that in his works he claims the only defense against these villains is to kill them.

So in his ideal of a free society, anyone who expressed socialist thoughts, or anyone who was gay, would be put to death, and anyone who did not own land property of their own would be subjected to the whims of their landlord.  According to this philosophy, a landlord would have the right to demand you prostitute your daughter to him or move.  And if you couldn't afford to move, then you would be a criminal and your landlord would be within his rights to kill you as a message to others about the necessity of honoring one's contracts and paying one's rent.

I kind of get the socialist thing.  But I seriously don't understand the homosexual thing.

Also, libertarians are insane.

Hans Hoppes' book is called "Democracy: The God That Failed."

Quote from: StormBringer;234189Libertarians claim to want the government out of the people's lives, Conservatives typically make the claim, but with the undercurrent of 'business' or 'rich' in regards to which people.

I see that you've avoided my request to name Conservatives with such goals in favor of just repeating the age old bugbear of "everything they do is for the rich".

Is this truly all that you have to say, and the most you can bring forward to support it?

Quote from: gleichman;234227I see that you've avoided my request to name Conservatives with such goals in favor of just repeating the age old bugbear of "everything they do is for the rich".

Is this truly all that you have to say, and the most you can bring forward to support it?

President Bush:  Standard Oil
Vice President Cheney:  Haliburton
Innumerable Congresscritters:  Various

But, you brought up this notion that there are no conservatives in power, neatly putting yourself in the corner of having to prove a negative.

Okay....I see lot of mis-conceptions and screwy perceptions around here.

 A TRUE Libertarian is all in favor of Democracy , by-the-way.

What we think of as libertarians are really an off shoot group from the Objectivist of the early to mid-1960s. Thewy originally got their economic and political ideas from the writings of Ayn Rand.

Which also means they don't 'favor' the rich and Big Business - they just don't see them as the "Bad Guys" or as metaphoric punching bags the way other groups do.

Oh and Kermit the Frog has admitted to being a Flippertarian on national television.  (the way he said it, the word rhymed with libertarian)


- Ed C.

Quote from: gleichman;234227I see that you've avoided my request to name Conservatives with such goals in favor of just repeating the age old bugbear of "everything they do is for the rich".

Leo Strauss, generally considered the intellectual father of the modern conservative movement.  For example, the use of the word "excellence" given in the list of conservative beliefs is a direct reference to the work of Strauss.

Strauss was a firm proponent of the theory of the noble lie.  The noble lie is a falsehood supported by the ruling elite in order to maintain control over the less educated and more reactionary masses.

I'll quote some from Wikipedia:

QuoteShadia Drury, in Leo Strauss and the American Right (1999), argues that Strauss taught different things to different students and inculcated an elitist strain in American political leaders that is linked to imperialist militarism and Christian fundamentalism. Drury accuses Strauss of teaching that "perpetual deception of the citizens by those in power is critical because they need to be led, and they need strong rulers to tell them what's good for them." Nicholas Xenos similarly argues that Strauss "was not an anti-liberal in the sense in which we commonly mean 'anti-liberal' today, but an anti-democrat in a fundamental sense, a true reactionary. Strauss was somebody who wanted to go back to a previous, pre-liberal, pre-bourgeois era of blood and guts, of imperial domination, of authoritarian rule, of pure fascism."

Straussian philosophy underlies the entirety of the public face of Republican politics.  They encourage belief in noble lies ("This is a Christian nation.") which they use to manipulate the populace into voting for them, so that they may then use their political power to further their ultimate goals.  Their ultimate goals -- deregulation, union busting, etc. -- only serve those who already have power and wealth, by ensuring that they are more able to keep their wealth.

Quote from: Koltar;234236ATRUE Libertarian is all in favor of Democracy , by-the-way.

True Scotsman fallacy.  You lose.