I can assure you I have read plenty of libertarian literature. Nowhere in my previous statement did I say anything about libertarians "liking" government. I mentioned the basic difference that libertarians work with a government body and like to keep it limited, while anarchists, by just looking at the very word, do not. I simply illustrated that basic difference. Now, the "Libertarian Party" as it is is a different issue...it isn't always the best representative of libertarian philosophy, as neo-cons with money tend to come in and **** it all up. I read the literature of libertarians with a record to back it up.
Rand Paul is a good bit different from his dad in some political areas, and I'm not really a supporter of his as such. But to say that he's racist...shows a lot of ignorance. Watch the full clip. See what he's talking about. He's simply bringing up the fact that that there's a business intervention issue. He condemned racism in that same interview. Stop watching clips, start watching full interviews. These are the sort of statements I'd expect from Limbaugh, Hannity, Olbermann and the like.
is this the best you can do? you are wrong on pretty much everything you say. i dont know why i bother but here you go... once again, you dont know what you are talking about.
Actually, Otto is quite accurate in that portrayal; most libertarians don't like the comparison because traditional European anarchism tends to be socialist. Unfortunately for libertarians, unbridled capitalism starts with same foundation - a massive reduction in state authority. Even more unfortunate for libertarians, instead of giving this authority to the people, their ideology basically necessitates selling it to the highest bidder; it's not surprising that this selfish ideology came to fruition in the USA where business holds a curious place of power. And btw, the statement "anarchists do not want a government" is just...well, way to to simplified a statement to really even take seriously.
seems to me like this is what we have now thanks to republicans and democrats. big business owns our politicians. lobbyists write the legislation and give it to their puppets to pass (often w/out even reading). obama has goldman sachs executives and tax cheats running the economy. republicans under bush gave out no-bid contracts to their former companies whose own negligence resulted in the deaths of u.s. troops (faulty wiring in showers, poop in drinking water). both parties are responsible for tax payers bailing out corporations who went belly-up due to their own malfeasance and greed - there is nothing libertarian or free market about any of this. its crony capitalism...another word for it is fascism. kind of like people on here making very oversimplified statements about libertarianism - they are hard to take seriously as well.
one more for glych from that bastion on conservatism, the huffington post... proving you wrong is just too easy and fun! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/will-palin-and-the-neocon_b_456824.html Ron Paul vs. Sarah Palin for the Soul of the Tea Parties Posted: February 10, 2010 12:18 PM There's trouble brewing between the Ron Paul libertarians who staged the the first modern tea party in 2007 by dumping tea into Boston Harbor, and the neocon war hawks led by Sarah Palin who are furiously trying to hijack their message. After I appeared on MSNBC talking about Sarah Palin's appearance at the Nashville tea party convention, several libertarians told me they were unhappy with the exchange. I said that Sarah Palin's hawkish message on Iran was oddly out of place in a group whose roots belong to the Ron Paul libertarians, particularly as the anti-interventionist Rand Paul is looking strong in the Kentucky Senate Senate race -- and Palin just endorsed him. The woman who appeared with me representing the tea partiers disagreed with that premise, and claimed she was very much an interventionist. My libertarian friends couldn't imagine what she was doing on TV representing the tea parties in the first place, and thought it was a sad day when the opposition stated their position more fairly than their supposed allies. But it underscores a rift between the anti-tax, pro-civil rights libertarians who started the tea parties and the corporatist neocon grifters of the GOP who are now trying to swoop in and capitalize on all of the hype. And in the irony of ironies, tea party-identified candidates are now trying to oust Ron Paul from his Texas House seat. Paul appeared on Rachel Maddow last night to speak about it. Rachel asked him about his relationship to the tea parties, and he said: I think the message gets a little bit diluted when a lot of people come in and the Republican party wants to make sure that maybe there's a Neocon type of influence. Ron Paul was reluctant to reject Sarah Palin's endorsement of his son, and mostly tried to change the subject. But this morning Doug Bandow, a Senior Fellow at the Campaign for Liberty, has a piece denouncing the Daniel Pipes foolishness (echoed by Sarah Palin last weekend) which says Obama would help himself politically by bombing the bejesus out of Iran: There are no good solutions in Iran. The world will be a better place if Iran becomes democratic and abandons any nuclear weapons program. But initiating war likely would inhibit reform in Iraq while making the world a more dangerous place. The disastrous experience of Iraq should teach us many lessons, the most important of which is that war always should be a last resort. That standard is no where close to being met in Iran. One of FDL's reporters was at the Nashville tea party convention, and said there was a promo booth set up by ConAgra. ConAgra. Agricultural subsidies are one of the biggest forms of corporate welfare around, and there's a big corporate push underway to convince the tea party activists that they're not. They are. Red State has endorsed Stephen Fincher for John Tanner's seat, despite the fact that he's taken over $300,000 in campaign contributions from families who have received over $80 million in farm subsidies. The mid-south tea party did an impressive investigation into the donations and called Fincher out for it. In the report, they rely heavily on the work of the progressive environmental organization EWG. Despite our disagreements on immigration, unions and host of other issues, I have respect for libertarians like Bruce Fein and Ron Paul who took a lot of arrows in the back from fellow Republicans during the Bush years for opposing FISA, domestic spying, warrentless wiretapping, the wars and the bank bailout. It was a principled thing to do and it wasn't easy. As a result, Ron Paul was denied the ability to speak at the Republican convention in St. Paul, and held his own convention across town. Glenn Greenwald and I attended. While we disagree with the libertarians about more things than we probably agree on, it's usually centered on an honest disagreement about the appropriate role of government. The GOP establishment, on the other hand, struck a bargain for power with corporate America that is totally at odds with everything the libertarians stand for. The independent libertarians in the tea party movement probably have more points of honest intersection with progressives on the war, civil liberties, accountability and transparency than with the GOP and the "For Sale" sign they've affixed to the taxpayer trough. Alan Grayson and Ron Paul worked closely together to pass the bill to Audit the Fed in the House, and both opposed the reconfirmation of Ben Bernanke. It was nothing the establishment GOP had any interest in, who lined up right behind Bernanke. Ron Paul has been tireless in taking his message to college campuses, and he has tremendous support among younger people who identify themselves as fiscal conservatives but are uncomfortable with fundies and their gay-bashing. But as the libertarian message is gaining traction, it is being hijacked by the Neocons -- and Sarah "bridge to nowhere" Palin leads the parade. Ron Paul supporters were outraged by Palin's speech and the whopping fee she charged for her appearance at the Nashville convention. It's completely incoherent that there are now tea party-identified candidates trying to oust Ron Paul himself from his seat. I hope the libertarians lay down markers and come down on the side of ending the war and ConAgra's corporate welfare, and showing Palin -- and her many bombs -- to the door.
Great point. A certain amount of the libertarian ideal is already endemic to our current government - which is hardly surprising since both systems function on capitalism. From my point of view, strict libertarianism only makes this situation worse.
First, fixed because I'm weird. Second, wrong as can possibly be. If you think I'm wrong, maybe you should argue with the dictionary, and the Greek/Latin languages themselves. Here's anarchist: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchist "a person who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy" Here's anarchy: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy "Origin of ANARCHY...Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler" No simplification. Just definition, buddy. Exactly what he said. Seems like I'm not the one oversimplifying.
While you may have read some libertarian literature, you obviously have not read any anarchist literature. Congrats on your ability to use the dictionary, by the way.
If by some you mean quite a bit, then sure. Don't forget about me going 9th-grade-English-teacher and using the Grecko-Roman roots. :grin:
I think I'll go 9th-grade-social-studies-teacher and advocate that you go to the encyclopedia and research the difference between what is commonly referred to as philosophical anarchism, anarcho-communism, and anarcho-syndicalism. Then come back here and give a two page report on how the greco*-roman root is insufficient to define the ideology as a whole. *note your misspelling - my opportunity to go 9th-grade-English-teacher!
I'm fairly certain you havent considering your conception of anarchism is a simple dictionary definition. There's a lot more depth to anarchist literature than simply "lets get rid of the state."
so you blame "the libertarian ideal" for things republicans and democrats are actually doing? i would argue that we have not had libertarian ideals in our current government. there is nothing libertarian about bail-outs, stimulus packages, no-bid contracts and the like. it is the republican-democrat-republican-democrat-republican-democrat carousel which is making the situation worse and as long as a majority of this country continues to buy into the two party 'system' nothing will change.
but at its most basic and simplified definition 'anarchy' is the absence of government. i dont see what is so controversial w/ the statement "anarchists do not want a government" - if you want to say that there are different viewpoints w/in anarchy that is cool, but in a general sense it does mean "elimination of government". go up to anyone on the street and ask them what the definition of anarchy is and they will tell you "elimination or absence of government". and the people saying you cant make generalizations and oversimplifications about anarchy are doing just that w/ libertarianism. imo, saying libertarians want "unbridled capitalism" is pretty simplistic (and inaccurate). btw, it is under republicans and democrats that unbridled (crony) capitalism has been running rampant.
No, it's a natural fallout of capitalism, which libertarianism seeks to empower further. I'm not so sure about the former, but the latter statement is certainly true. Concur.
Ron Paul suggests auditing Fort Knox - suggests that there may be no gold left. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...ron-paul-plans-bill-to-audit-us-gold-reserves Even though I agree with him that it should be audited, this is most definitely a fringe issue.
Yes, the dude is still out there on the fringe, dancing a jig and wishing his son could keep his mouth shut.
True on some issues RP might seem fringe but if you actually take the time and just listen to when he speaks you will realize he does make a lot of sense. If you just ignore your party affilillation and listen to Ron Paul you will realize he is one of the rare politicians who doesnt BS you with lies and double speak. A lot of times his message seems like common sense. You may not agree with everything he says but you can count on him speaking the truth.
