Monday, April 14, 2008

Why I'm Not A Libertarian

Libertarians talk a good game on national defense but hate all wars. Libs do not get that wars are a series of disasters leading to victory. They don't have the bottom to ride out the disasters and turn them around. They have turned into Copperhead Democrats.

They don't get the American Jacksonian tradition.

I'm a Jacksonian - which is why I could never be a Libertarian Party member with the party in its current form. Who is the Jacksonian in the race for president? Who said:

"We are Americans and we will never surrender, they will."

That man will be the next President of the USA.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

18 comments:

cxx_guy said...

Libertarians do not oppose all wars, nor do we oppose all violence in general Since war is just a particular instance of the general case of violence, our criterion is the same:

Is the action taken to defend your life or property against others, or is it an attempt to exercise "power and control" over the lives and property of others.

Right now, we have a excellent example of each possibility. We have the action in Afghanistan, which was undertaken to capture and/or incapacitate an organization which actually did damage to the United States. That is an action taken in self defense, and perfectly correct.

Then we have an action taken against a government which, though it was reprehensable in and of itself, was never capable of being a threat to the United States. Our war against Iraq was unjustifiable, as it was an attempt to exercies "power and control" over people who were no threat to us.

What is inexcusable is that we allowed this second action, which is pointless, to distract us from the first action, which is vital.

If you don't care about America, I can see how you wouldn't care that we've neglected our duty to destroy Bin Ladin in favor of a vendetta against Hussein for his impact on George the First's political career.

I do care about America. I will not forgive Bush for using a real incident as cover to avenge the "family honor".

M. Simon said...

American strategy since 1945 has been to go to war in trouble making regions and then station troops there to prevent repeats.

It has been working rather well.

As I have said repeatedly (not on this post) - Libertarians have zero clue about foreign policy. They have a set of beliefs they intend to stick to no mater what. It is not a political organization. It is a religion. No different from communism. I should know. Before I was a Libertarian I was a communist.

If fact the Libertarian line on the ideal American foreign policy is identical to the Communist line.

And why is America the world's policeman?

1. Because we can
2. Somebody will fill the power vacuum. Better us than China or Russia.

We have been nation building since 1945. So far it has worked out rather well in the places we stuck to the job.

Germany
Japan
South Korea
Taiwan

What do we offer the natives?

1. Security
2. Prosperity
3. Self government

M. Simon said...

Bin Laden is now the weak horse.

He is part of a distributed attack. He is one of a multitude. We are tracking them down and killing them as we find them including his henchmen.

It is not enough (except in Libertarian fantasies)to lop off the head of such an organization. The organization must be destroyed. If that happens bin Laden is irrelevant.

bgamall said...

We trade with Vietnam. They won, and we lost 50k men IN VAIN.

Simon, we would still be in Nam if you had your way. What a waste of limited resources.

The Vietnam War was a capitulation to the military industrial complex, and we should have listened to Ike instead.

bgamall said...

It is a violation of international law, Simon for the US to steal oil to prop up the dollar. We know greenspan wanted this oil, and he is partially responsible for the blood shed for this oil.

This America is fascist. And you being Jewish should be repulsed.

M. Simon said...

We won the VNam war. Then the Democrats sold out the South Vietnamese.

They begged for help when the North attacked and the Democrat Congress sold them out.

The same as they sold out the 60,000 American dead.

Just as they are trying to sell out the Iraqis. Just as they tried to sell out to the Slave states in 1864.

See a pattern?

M. Simon said...

How is it stealing if we pay to restore production and then pay market prices for the output?

I wish some one would steal from me that way.

bgamall said...

Simon, it is stealing because the original contracts were voided. The original oil companies were left out.

And, the terms for the Iraq people apparently are not very good.

And the killing that accompanied the appropriation of Iraq land was dreadful.

And the pattern with Vietnam is that Vietnam wouldn't fight as hard as us and neither will the Iraq people.

They know why we are there, and they hate us.

M. Simon said...

“Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.” Winston Churchill

You make deals with dictators you lose.

Most unfortunate

Why is that a good policy?

pour l'encourager les autres

Yes all the killing was dreadful. 90% Arab on Arab violence. They have mostly gotten it out of their system and are on the way to a more secure situation.

BTW the South Vietnamese didn't ask for American armed support. They just asked for material support.

As to whether Iraqis will fight for their country. We shall see.

You don't seem to have the bottom for this fight. Neither did the Copperheads in 1864. It is OK. We know your kind.

I'm a McCain guy:

We're Americans and we'll never surrender, they will.

The question will be decided in November. See you there.

bgamall said...

Bush said he wanted to be a dictator. Under the Leo Strauss theory of government, democracy is just a framework for autocratic and amoral decision making.

Bush and Cheney and Greenspan were the messengers of this terrible philosophy. You can see the guilt on Bush's face. You can see the reckless disregard for human life and human values on Cheney's face and you can see Greenspan trying to resurrect an image.

But Greenspan already said to much. First he said that people need to take adjustables way back in 2004. Second he said that we needed to secure Iraq oil.

The blood is on the hands of all three.

And the mainstream media is scoffed at by anyone who has a thread of intelligence.

M. Simon said...

bgamall,

For all your erudition you sure are ignorant. Democracy or Republican Government (as we prefer in the USA) in any country has never, ever, ever, been about self government. Boy are you a rube.

Its sole purpose is to act as a safety valve so that popular discontents get resolved and don't interfere with business. Revolutions are bad for business.

Your idealism (such as it is) is charming but foolish. The government/power structure will allow you to resolve issues if you can raise up enough backing. If you attack the power structure directly you will get crushed.

A man has got to know his limitations. It is healthier.

bgamall said...

Oh, so you agree with me but you are surrendering. Well Jessie Ventura is not surrendering:

http://www.send2press.com/newswire/2008-04-0403-004.shtml

Simon, you are just too comfortable. Who knows how many false flags there would have been without the internet.

Did you have any friends at the Sears tower on 9/11? Had the plan been to hit the Sears tower the admin would have allowed that as well. Silverstein had taken out a lease on that building nearly at the same time as the WTC!

M. Simon said...

bgmall,

Understanding how the system works and agreeing with you are two different things.

Fighting the system just doesn't interest me. Been there. Done that. It is a fools errand.

I'd rather be working on this:

WB-7 First Plasma

Look - you have to face this squarely - the system as it is works too well for too many people for you to gain any traction except among crazies.

The system is designed to make most every one soft. I'd say that was a feature not a bug. What can you promise most folks? That if you get your way the system will be softer? What if it doesn't work out that way? Who will you get who will take that risk?

Go back and read the beginning of the Declaration. What ever evils there are in the system are tolerable at least for the vast majority. Jefferson councils against revolution in such cases.

My focus is on defeating the large remnant of Marxists and working on new energy sources.

If you are serious in rallying people to your cause ending the Drug War has the most hope. IMO. YMMV.

In any case I still favor defeating the Islamic Nazis.

BTW I have looked at the 9/11 evidence and I just don't buy the explosives planted in the bldg theory. Please explain the first attack on the WTC.

I'm with Bucky Fuller - you will not bring down the powers. Best you can do is work on technology that will improve the lot of the poorest. So that is where my main effort goes.

Let me also note that the folks most likely to agree with you are in love with the Marxist Hopey Change guy. Not a good milieu for Libertarian thought. Not my kind of people.

M. Simon said...

So Silverstein likes to lease big bldgs. Did you ever suppose that maybe it is a skill and not a plot?

Next thing you will tell me is that Boeing is in on it because it builds airplanes.

Connection is not equal to cause and effect.

Maybe I'm behind it because I think we have it pretty good in America and find the system tolerable.

I'm sure if you look hard enough you can find a connection between me and what went on 9/11. Maybe I'm the secret mastermind behind it all living obscurely in my crummy apartment pulling all the strings. Maybe Power and Control is just a false flag operation to lure in the disaffected and neuter them.

You can't be to careful if you are in the revolution business.

M. Simon said...

And seriously.

You are going to do a revolution and can't even make a proper clickable html link?

I'd say your skills need up grading to Revolution 3.0.

And the link you give is to a page of stories instead of the exact story you want me to read.

You are pretty lousy as a propagandist for your cause.

And Jeeze. I never knew Jesse was a structural engineer or a qualified amateur even. I actually have experience in that area. I'm not convinced. And no doubt Alex Jones is a qualified expert himself. Certainly the flying saucer people taught him everything he knows.

M. Simon said...

OK so maybe Jesse is a qualified explosives expert re:demolitions.

Did he estimate how much explosive power would be required to turn all the cement in the bldg. into dust?

Who loaded all those explosives into the bldg? Why weren't they noticed? Who wired it?

And btw how does the amt. of explosives required compare to the gravitational energy stored in the bldg?

Has he run the numbers?

And frankly my dear sir - I don't give a damn.

bgamall said...

Revolution is not my thing, Simon. But the alternative press deserves a hearing simply because the five groups that control the censored mainstream press must be countered. This is a process of education Simon, so that people can make an informed decision on whether their tax dollars go toward fighting windmills in Iraq or toward infrastructure in the United States.

Silverstein waas the guy who said that WTC7 was pulled. Popular Mechanics tried to say that that was not a term used by demolition people, but I found pre 9/11 comments showing pulled means "bring down".

I repeat, did you have friends or loved ones in the Sears Tower who could have been vaporized because the American government refused to do its basic duty, protect the people?

And you can copy and paste the links into your browser.

bgamall said...

Simon one more thing on this issue. Fema said the jet fuel only burned for minutes. The lady that was photographed at the top of one of the towers could not have endured that if it was glowing hot up there.

Simon, it was the explosives allowed by Silverstein and Marvin Bush that caused the pulverization of that lady. Justice cries out, and you are an engineer and you know exactly what happened.