Do any of you find it frightening that two Neo-Mercantilists are getting positive attention on Lewrockwell.com? What is going on? Protectionists are the most disgusting force on the planet, and yet are recieving endless praise for what!? For opposing war? Ha, only if that war is "not constitutional" or not a threat to "US Economic nationalism".
The Libertarians nominated a protectionist, what would Mises think?
<></>
http://www.myspace.com/telpeurion
JohnSchreimann: Yeah, on the Barr/Root website under issues: "Cut spending" -- replace income tax with more sales and consumption taxes. Americans should be allowed to choose foods and lightbulbs they buy. US was formed to ensure property protection and giving people liberties. More of that. Wow. I'm excited. There's even a link to send these important policy ideas to a friend to share!
Yeah, on the Barr/Root website under issues:
"Cut spending" -- replace income tax with more sales and consumption taxes.
Americans should be allowed to choose foods and lightbulbs they buy.
US was formed to ensure property protection and giving people liberties. More of that.
Wow. I'm excited. There's even a link to send these important policy ideas to a friend to share!
I lol'ed.
Brainpolice:A lot. A hell of a lot. Just look at the historical failure of classical liberalism - and the conservative corruption of libertarianism that already has taken place in more recent years. It seems nonsensical to try the exact same thing over and over again (I.E. engage in the politics of compromise and the game of smoke and mirrors) when it has quite obviously failed. There is a danger of literally becoming one's own enemy, of becoming precisely what one originally set out to oppose.
But your approach is flawed. There are people out there who want to be free, to attain more or absolute liberty, but they have never thought about it, never heard it expressed as being in their best interest.
And you reject them outright, because the minute they hear about it, they don't become SEK3 cultists like Nicky.
Nonsense and silliness. It's time to open the shades and step outside. The world is full of risks and danger, hiding, rejecting and being uncompromising may satisfy you intellectually, but it will not make you free.
I would make a great bureaucrat. Wanna see? Click here. It's fun.
Niccolò: shazam: Niccolò: That is, that Anarchist and libertarian are perfectly synonymous. While I am an anarchist, your definition would exclude the man this institute was named for, Ludwig von Mises, from libertarianism. I'm not entirely clear on Mises' politics. But if he desired government, then no, he was not a libertarian. He may have been a classical liberal - and that's nice! - but I respect Mises as an economist, not as a political theorist. Just like I respect Hayek, JR Hicks, Schumpeter, Lionel Robbins, Kirzner, Lachmann, and others as economists. That doesn't mean I'm going to ever agree with their politics.
shazam: Niccolò: That is, that Anarchist and libertarian are perfectly synonymous. While I am an anarchist, your definition would exclude the man this institute was named for, Ludwig von Mises, from libertarianism.
Niccolò: That is, that Anarchist and libertarian are perfectly synonymous.
That is, that Anarchist and libertarian are perfectly synonymous.
While I am an anarchist, your definition would exclude the man this institute was named for, Ludwig von Mises, from libertarianism.
I'm not entirely clear on Mises' politics. But if he desired government, then no, he was not a libertarian. He may have been a classical liberal - and that's nice! - but I respect Mises as an economist, not as a political theorist. Just like I respect Hayek, JR Hicks, Schumpeter, Lionel Robbins, Kirzner, Lachmann, and others as economists. That doesn't mean I'm going to ever agree with their politics.
I never said you had to agree with their politics. I just suggested that you be more inclusive regarding who you consider to be libertarian. After all, minarchists and anarchists both intend on going in the same direction, it is the destination where we differ.
liberty student: The world is full of risks and danger
The world is full of risks and danger
Not for those who simply repeat nonsense which is actually contrary to reality -- which is what most do on a day to day basis.
JohnSchreimann: liberty student: The world is full of risks and danger Not for those who simply repeat nonsense which is actually contrary to reality -- which is what most do on a day to day basis.
Those Who Repeat Nonsense Contrary To Reality: "Oh God, it feels like there's accountants cranking add-machines in my head." :inside person's head, 2 accountants at a desk crunching numbers with add machines: Paul: "Dic*, you ever wonder what's outside those walls?" Dic*: "Say now, that's dangerous thinking Paul, you best stick to your work." Paul: "Okay."
Niccolò: ChaseCola: Barr gave us the sunset clauses in the Patriot act, and said it was a mistake to vote for it and has worked ro repeal it ever since. He also said he would repeal the not so libertarian part of DOMA. He has also lobbied fot the Marijuania Policy Project and said he would end the War on Drugs. Please, a little proof would be nice, Pinnochio.
ChaseCola: Barr gave us the sunset clauses in the Patriot act, and said it was a mistake to vote for it and has worked ro repeal it ever since. He also said he would repeal the not so libertarian part of DOMA. He has also lobbied fot the Marijuania Policy Project and said he would end the War on Drugs.
Barr gave us the sunset clauses in the Patriot act, and said it was a mistake to vote for it and has worked ro repeal it ever since. He also said he would repeal the not so libertarian part of DOMA. He has also lobbied fot the Marijuania Policy Project and said he would end the War on Drugs.
Please, a little proof would be nice, Pinnochio.
Repeal Patriot Act: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBMirWOR3JY&feature=related
End Federal War on Drugs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVSk4ZftD1Q
Marijuania Policy project: http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/479/bob_barr_joins_mpp
Repeal Doma: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz-VZgVTJdQ
"The plans differ; the planners are all alike"
-Bastiat
liberty student: Brainpolice:A lot. A hell of a lot. Just look at the historical failure of classical liberalism - and the conservative corruption of libertarianism that already has taken place in more recent years. It seems nonsensical to try the exact same thing over and over again (I.E. engage in the politics of compromise and the game of smoke and mirrors) when it has quite obviously failed. There is a danger of literally becoming one's own enemy, of becoming precisely what one originally set out to oppose. But your approach is flawed. There are people out there who want to be free, to attain more or absolute liberty, but they have never thought about it, never heard it expressed as being in their best interest. And you reject them outright, because the minute they hear about it, they don't become SEK3 cultists like Nicky. Nonsense and silliness. It's time to open the shades and step outside. The world is full of risks and danger, hiding, rejecting and being uncompromising may satisfy you intellectually, but it will not make you free.
Again, you're mischaracterizing the position.
Niccolò: ChaseCola: In this video Barr says it should be up to the states http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVSk4ZftD1Q Barr is against the Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Agriculture, Department of Health and Human Services ect.. Nader is for expanding all of those departments except the Department of Homeland sercurity. What am I missing here? What?!? Where did Barr say that? His position was clearly in reference to "soft" drugs like marijuana - specifically medicinal. And appealing to "federalism" is a clear cut and run when trying to play down your drug warrior credo. You've got to do better than that. At best, it was ambiguous. He didn't say he was against the federal government's war on drugs, he said "it may be better handled on a state level." No, he even stated "no, I would not vote to legalize heroin and crack."Just because Pinnochio wished upon a star, doesn't mean that your cognitive bias will prove true. Barr isn't against any of these things; Barr may be critical of them, but for different reasons. Nader is also against the drug war. Is Bob Barr?In any case, I'm not going to get into the discussion of why Nader is more libertarian than Bob Barr. I think the comparative record is clear enough - though marginal.
ChaseCola: In this video Barr says it should be up to the states http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVSk4ZftD1Q Barr is against the Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Agriculture, Department of Health and Human Services ect.. Nader is for expanding all of those departments except the Department of Homeland sercurity. What am I missing here?
In this video Barr says it should be up to the states http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVSk4ZftD1Q
Barr is against the Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Agriculture, Department of Health and Human Services ect.. Nader is for expanding all of those departments except the Department of Homeland sercurity. What am I missing here?
What?!? Where did Barr say that? His position was clearly in reference to "soft" drugs like marijuana - specifically medicinal. And appealing to "federalism" is a clear cut and run when trying to play down your drug warrior credo. You've got to do better than that. At best, it was ambiguous. He didn't say he was against the federal government's war on drugs, he said "it may be better handled on a state level." No, he even stated "no, I would not vote to legalize heroin and crack."Just because Pinnochio wished upon a star, doesn't mean that your cognitive bias will prove true.
Barr isn't against any of these things; Barr may be critical of them, but for different reasons. Nader is also against the drug war. Is Bob Barr?In any case, I'm not going to get into the discussion of why Nader is more libertarian than Bob Barr. I think the comparative record is clear enough - though marginal.
The question was if he had it his way and it was left up to the states how would he vote. That is what what is being referenced by federalism, leaving it up to the states, which would mean ending the federal war on drugs.
ChaseCola: The question was if he had it his way and it was left up to the states how would he vote. That is what what is being referenced by federalism, leaving it up to the states, which would mean ending the federal war on drugs.
No. That particular point was not specicified.
Colmes: You don't believe the federal government should be involved in the war on drugs? Have you reversed your position on that? BB: This should be an issue based on the *stutter* continued failure of our drug laws to really stem the tide or change the style of behavior that would probably be much better handled on the state level...
BB: This should be an issue based on the *stutter* continued failure of our drug laws to really stem the tide or change the style of behavior that would probably be much better handled on the state level...
Ok... And why couldn't he just say, "Yes, I have,"? Oh... That's right, because he's not a libertarian!
By the way, no libertarian would want to just "limit" them to the state, especially not one that wants to do it to increase the efficiency at which black fathers are stolen from their families!
SH: Let me see if I'm clear here, if a state wants to legalize heroin and crack are you ok with that?BB: What I'm saying Sean (another diversion) and you keep coming back to heroin and crack... SH: Yes, it's an epidemic. BB: What I would think would be in accord with your views of federalism. You don't believe that the people should be able to vote on these things in the state level?SH: But I didn't ask that. I asked what would your vote be. Woul you vote to legalize heroin and crack?BB: No, I would not vote to legalize heroin and crack, Sean; we talked about this before and you keep coming back to it. SH: Ok, so you're against legalizing drugs if you had to vote for it? BB: Sean, I've answered it on the radio recently and I've answered it here. But Sean, do we not agree, do you not see merit in returning powers to the people of the state...?
SH: Yes, it's an epidemic.
BB: What I would think would be in accord with your views of federalism. You don't believe that the people should be able to vote on these things in the state level?SH: But I didn't ask that. I asked what would your vote be. Woul you vote to legalize heroin and crack?BB: No, I would not vote to legalize heroin and crack, Sean; we talked about this before and you keep coming back to it.
SH: Ok, so you're against legalizing drugs if you had to vote for it?
BB: Sean, I've answered it on the radio recently and I've answered it here. But Sean, do we not agree, do you not see merit in returning powers to the people of the state...?
Again, where does he commit to being against the war on black families drugs.
Do we really need MORE regulators?
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Niccolò: ChaseCola: The question was if he had it his way and it was left up to the states how would he vote. That is what what is being referenced by federalism, leaving it up to the states, which would mean ending the federal war on drugs. No. That particular point was not specicified. Colmes: You don't believe the federal government should be involved in the war on drugs? Have you reversed your position on that? BB: This should be an issue based on the *stutter* continued failure of our drug laws to really stem the tide or change the style of behavior that would probably be much better handled on the state level... Ok... And why couldn't he just say, "Yes, I have,"? Oh... That's right, because he's not a libertarian! By the way, no libertarian would want to just "limit" them to the state, especially not one that wants to do it to increase the efficiency at which black fathers are stolen from their families! SH: Let me see if I'm clear here, if a state wants to legalize heroin and crack are you ok with that?BB: What I'm saying Sean (another diversion) and you keep coming back to heroin and crack... SH: Yes, it's an epidemic. BB: What I would think would be in accord with your views of federalism. You don't believe that the people should be able to vote on these things in the state level?SH: But I didn't ask that. I asked what would your vote be. Woul you vote to legalize heroin and crack?BB: No, I would not vote to legalize heroin and crack, Sean; we talked about this before and you keep coming back to it. SH: Ok, so you're against legalizing drugs if you had to vote for it? BB: Sean, I've answered it on the radio recently and I've answered it here. But Sean, do we not agree, do you not see merit in returning powers to the people of the state...? Again, where does he commit to being against the war on black families drugs.
He is pandering to conservatives that is why he is being so unclear. "probably be much better handled on the state level" I believe that means he wants to end it on the federal level. That is the only logical conclusion.
ChaseCola: He is pandering to conservatives that is why he is being so unclear. "probably be much better handled on the state level" I believe that means he wants to end it on the federal level. That is the only logical conclusion.
Except your logical conclusion is just a logical fallacy... Wishful thinking.