tagged w/ libertarian propaganda
-
by David Shirk on May 25, 2011 in Philosophy
I was surprised to see some of the comments that I did on my last article – Thoughts of a Middling American Part 1 (http://current.com/1m4umkc ). I wonder if many of the readers even know where the term Middling came from. Empire of Liberty has a good few chapters on it – good book. That having been said, here is part two, and the answer to some of the comments.
“seems to me that you have made a whole lot of assumptions in your post.”
You do not seem to have read the entire article as I will now address.
“You said that any law that seeks to limit human behavior will fail. Well, I think the law that limits murder is a pretty good law, and yes it fails”
Murder is hardly normal human behavior – you then say “Isn’t the law there so people who do commit murder can be prosecuted for same?” And yet one need not go very far to see the very same law throwing people into prison or giving them life in prison (having been convicted of murder) – when the evidence was largely lacking – in addition, many have even had their innocence proven after the sentence has already been carried out. However I still see your point and consider it no less valid despite my opposing view on the matter – however how many laws do we have on the books in regards to murder as oppose to tax laws etc? Or if you believe that taxes are fully justified, then how about laws regarding trade, business transactions, ethics, civil rights etc? such laws have in the past benefitted some people, yet on the same token, cost far more to have to cut back as a result. Bastiat explained it far better than I ever could, and if you believe yourself to be smarter then he is in the grand scheme of things, then I would like to see you refute his points. Start with his short work – The Law.
“Funny, I find that we are being ruled more by the minority (large corporations) than by the majority (the people).” – We are ruled by the minority true – but does not the ‘majority’ as society calls it, elect the minority into office to ‘lead’ them? If so, then I stand by my corollary – “Even within the majority lies a major upset in belief systems. So how can a people honestly believe that whatever the majority on the whole agrees on will be beneficial to all? It cannot, and the notion people have that what works for them will work for me is offensive at best.”
“I guess you think that if a person has an “ivy league” education that they are some how not fit to hold office. Perhaps you would rather they not be educated at all.” – Trite. However consider this – if our leaders are so intelligent, then how is that after 230 years, we have become that which we fought against in the initial revolution? The truth is that there are libraries, seminars, bookstores, and a wealth of information online as well as discussion boards. Or even places to discuss ideas online. Besides, whether one has a degree or not is irrelevant – I could give you several essays and seminars written by a guy who holds a PhD and a masters degree, but because he disagree with your Phd and masters guy, it does not matter. This is why I listen to both, read the source material, watch for reactions, and judge for myself.
I have seen more attacks on the post then I have anything rebutting them – most are directed at the source not the content. Sad really.
Funny how the guy who did 10 years of law enforcement (and thus knows of which he speaks) was voted down simply for agreeing with me – most likely by those who never served themselves. Once again – kinda sad…I served 10 years in the army and am proficient in small team tactics. I would bet my bottom dollar that if I started posting these tactics on this forum, that they too would be voted down and have one sided comments thrown at them by those who never had any training or military studies at all. It seems that is what makes for intelligent talk on this forum.
More people argue the number of views then the content. I would laugh, but it’s really not funny. The truth is that I find it sick that people would rather argue about software bugs and rankings then actually debate on a comment based forum on the content of the article…oh well.
“since we have not spoken with these individuals personally, or seen any of their test scores, or IQ scores (altho IQ tests are no longer as popular as they once were) aren’t we actually engaging in the author’s style of ‘assumption’?” No you are not. If you catch someone in the act of murdering someone else, would you believe them if they were to finish killing, and then tell you that they didn’t do it? I judge off of actions taken – not by what the guys say. The more open your eyes are, and the more facts you gather to add context and depth, the more you reason and the less you assume.
“ I rather think that as finite humans we will engage in ‘assuming’ because on some level we must assume before we can prove or disprove a hypothesis (or assumption).”” We all make assumptions sometimes. I am certainly no exception. However I would never petition for a law based off of an ignorant assumption either. In addition – I know what I know, and what works for me – and would never try to impose my way of doing things onto you. I understand that you also know what you know, and like me – are sometimes forced into a position where you must assume. However there is nothing more dangerous than setting a policy or long term action based on assumption.
“I had a college instructor who always gave essay tests, but he stated at the outset of his class that you didn’t need to parrot back what he said was the correct answer, you merely needed to argue ‘your’ answer successfully — that is how we learn.” – Sounds like you had a good professor.
Okay – that’s enough of that; time for something completely different.
In martial arts, you try to keep yourself on guard and not present your opponent with an opening. If you overextend yourself or get off balance, you create an expanded target area that your opponent will take advantage of. National defense is no different – the more you expand your area of occupation, the more you open yourself up to attack.
If you see an injustice being visited upon someone else, and want to do something about it – then feel free. Just be aware that you don’t know the offender, or their capabilities. Also be aware of your surrounding and other potential threats to you should you choose to interfere, lest you to become a victim. The same goes for our foreign policy on ‘getting the bad guy’. Unfortunately we never bothered to learn the nature of what we attack before doing so hence the many ‘foreign interventions’ we have made – some over 60 years old – that we are still tied up in today.
It is noble to help someone else when you can. It is stupid if you try to help them and impoverish yourself in the process, for then someone will have to help you as well – the cycle never ends.
Someone who works for something themselves is far less likely to take it for granted, and far more likely to use the proceeds in a meaningful manner.
Do not attribute to malice what is done in ignorance. Wars start this way.
I have read entirely too many books not of the main stream. This is frustrating because few people read the books I read. Oprah sells more books than Allistair Horne, Wood, or Rothbard. People love commentary off of current events – people hate studying the history behind them.
We live in a snapshot society where the only reality that seems to matter is what is currently being felt or experienced. I cannot think of to many things more damaging to a people then the adoption of this mindset. When age old wisdom is replaced with common knowledge, the people doom the....
http://peacefreedomprosperity.com/5233/thoughts-of-a-middling-american-part-2/by David Shirk on May 25, 2011 in Philosophy
I was surprised to see some of the... more
-
-
Cuba says it will allow people to buy and sell their homes for the first time since the communist revolution in 1959.
For the past 50 years, Cubans have only been allowed to pass on their homes to their children, or to swap them through a complicated and often corrupt system.
The move was decided during the first congress held by the ruling Communist Party in 14 years, aimed at breathing new life into the communist system.
No details were given on how the new property sales could work.
Cuban President Raul Castro warned that the concentration of property would not be allowed.
During the congress, President Castro also said top political positions should be limited to two five-year terms, and promised "systematic rejuvenation" of the government.
He said the party leadership was in need of renewal and should subject itself to severe self-criticism.
The proposal is unprecedented under Cuban communism.
In an editorial published in Cuban state media, former president and leader of the 1959 revolution Fidel Castro endorsed the change.
He wrote that a new generation was needed to correct the errors of the past to ensure the communist system survived once the current generation of leaders had gone.
Cuba's Communist Party approved the reforms on Monday.
State media reported that party members also voted for a new party leadership, but the results were not immediately disclosed.Cuba says it will allow people to buy and sell their homes for the first time since... more
-
-
H2O_4U
-
added this
-
1 year ago
- |
-
-
In a small community in the foothills of the Rockies lived a group fifteen feisty and fiercely independent elderly women, each occupying her own little rough cabin, each tending her own plot of ground, although the crops varied from cabin to cabin.In a small community in the foothills of the Rockies lived a group fifteen feisty and... more
-
-
Who does this judge think he is?!?
-
-
In response to the recent Republican "Pledge to America," Libertarian Party executive director Wes Benedict released the following statement:
Instead of a "Pledge to America," the Republicans should have written an "Apology to America." It should have gone something like this:
"We're sorry, America. Sorry we grew the federal government budget from $1.7 trillion to over $3 trillion. Sorry we added $5 trillion to the federal debt. Sorry we doubled the size of the Department of Education. Sorry we started two incredibly costly foreign wars. Sorry we supported the absurd and costly TARP bailouts. Sorry we created a huge and costly new Medicare entitlement. Sorry we did nothing to end the costly and destructive War on Drugs. Sorry we did nothing to reform the federal government's near-prohibition on immigration. But hey, at least we helped you by shifting a lot of your tax burden onto your children and grandchildren."
There are so many lies, distortions, hypocrisies, and idiocy in this document that it's hard to know where to start.
It is deeply insulting to see the Republicans refer to "America's founding values" on their cover. The Republican Party has no understanding whatsoever of America's founding values. They have proven and re-proven that for decades.
The document talks a lot about "tax cuts." Unfortunately, the Republican "tax cut" proposals would really do nothing to cut taxes. All their proposals achieve is to defer taxes, pushing the burden onto our children and grandchildren. The only real way to cut taxes is to cut government spending, and the Republican document does almost nothing in that regard.
The Republicans say they want to "roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels." In other words, to re-create the situation near the end of the Bush administration, after Republicans had massively increased federal spending on almost everything.
Republicans must love it when Democrats expand government, because it gives them the opportunity to propose small "cuts," while still ending up with huge government.
One shocking aspect of the document is that it actually includes subtle Republican proposals to increase government spending.
The Republicans offer no plan whatsoever to reduce military spending, America's foreign wars and nation building, or our military defense of rich foriegn nations. On the contrary, the Republicans apparently want to increase military spending, promising to "provide the resources, authority, and support our deployed military requires, fully fund missile defense, and enforce sanctions against Iran."
The Republicans also appear to want to increase government spending on border control. They say "We will ensure that the Border Patrol has the tools and authorities to establish operational control at the border," a costly proposition.
Furthermore, as expected, the document complains about "massive Medicare cuts," implying that Republicans want to make sure Medicare is kept gigantic.
The bulk of federal spending is in three places: Social Security, Medicare, and the military. The Republicans propose absolutely nothing to reduce spending on these three things, or even to slow down their growth.
There must be a typo in the document where it says "Undeterred by dismal results, Washington Democrats continue to double-down on their job-killing policies." That probably should read "Washington Democrats continue to double-down on *Republican* job-killing policies."
The best way to restore American prosperity would be to implement the straightforward 28 planks of the Libertarian Party platform, or even just follow the Constitution. I mean the actual Constitution, not the Republican re-write that allows for every federal government program imaginable.
I suppose the one positive aspect of the document is that it finally dispels any illusion that Republicans want to shrink government in any meaningful way.
Apparently the Republicans are hoping they can "fool some of the people all of the time." The Libertarian Party is ready to point out Republican lies and hypocrisy to American voters, and we hope that Americans who actually want small and constitutional government, not just hypocrisy and worthless rhetoric, will vote Libertarian this November.
The Libertarian Party has 21 candidates for U.S. Senate and 170 candidates for U.S. House in the upcoming November 2010 elections.
For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP Executive Director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.
The LP is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets and civil liberties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website.
http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarians-say-republicans-owe-apology-not-pledge-to-americaIn response to the recent Republican "Pledge to America," Libertarian Party... more
-
-
-
If you’re feeling skeptical after hearing President Obama’s latest speech on the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, you’re not alone.
It’s hard to know what to make of a President and an administration that brings over 90,000 troops home while ordering 50,000 soldiers along with 75,000 military contractors to remain.
Over 150,000 personnel are still stationed in Iraq and the US is supposed to be completely out of the country by 2011. That’s next year. Bringing home thousands by the end of this August is a good step, but we really need to step on it. Obama’s speech strikes me as an exercise in Orwellian double-think: the US is simultaneously withdrawing and expanding its military presence in Iraq. So which is it? And, importantly, how does the peace movement communicate with people who think the war is effectively over at the end of August?
Jeremy Scahill has written recently in The Nation that “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is presiding over what is shaping up to be a radical expansion of a private, US-funded paramilitary force that will operate in Iraq for the foreseeable future…”.
Unfortunately, the State Department is dragging its heels as much as the Pentagon and has requested funds from Congress to hire 6,000 – 7,000 more “security contractors” and train them like soldiers. While working under the auspices of the State Department, these new personnel would have the status of “diplomats.” But who ever heard of a diplomat trained like a soldier and armed with a gun?
MORE AT LINK: http://bit.ly/obamasiraqhypeIf you’re feeling skeptical after hearing President Obama’s latest speech... more
-
