politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Nightmare libertarian project turns country into the murder capital of the world
Source:
salon.com
URL Source: http://www.salon.com/2015/01/29/nig ... e_murder_capital_of_the_world/
Published: Jan 29, 2015
Author: MIKE LASUSA
Post Date: 2015-02-02 23:37:39 by Gatlin
Keywords: None
Views: 14695
Comments: 56
Even Ayn Rand would be taken aback Since the 2009 coup against President José Manuel Zelaya and subsequent election of Porfirio “Pepe Lobo” Sosa and his favored successor Juan Orlando Hernandez, Honduras has embarked on a devastating neoliberal economic program that has contributed to its status as one of the poorest and most unequal countries in the region. The privatization of Honduran society has been accompanied by a militarization of public security efforts in the country, both of which have been fueled by a network of U.S.-supported policies and programs. Despite the country’s crackdown on crime, violence in Honduras has skyrocketed in recent years. Honduras now has the world’s second-highest national murder rate and is home to two of the world’s five most violent cities. Unchecked gang activity has contributed to widespread corruption and impunity within police and government institutions. This weekend, a coalition of leftist opposition parties came together temporarily to defeat a proposed amendment to the Honduran constitution that would have given permanent status to the country’s militarized police force, known as the Policía Militar de Orden Público, or PMOP. This “elite” police unit, which serves under the direct command of the presidency, is intended to support President Hernandez’s heavy-handed crime reduction efforts. President Hernandez created the PMOP shortly after coming to office in 2014, with support from a legislature dominated by his conservative National Party. The Hernandez administration’s police militarization efforts also had the backing of the country’s business sector. According to one study, in 2013, only 27 percentof Hondurans expressed confidence in the civilian police while 73 percent thought the military should be involved in policing efforts. Nevertheless, both the military and the police have a long history of corruption and criminality as well as abuses committed against civilians in Honduras. The PMOP plan isn’t the only initiative with dubious implications for human rights put forth by Hernandez’s government. Honduras is also experimenting with Zonas de Empleo y Desarrollo Económico (special employment and economic development zones), also known as ZEDEs or “charter cities.” According to reporting by Danielle Marie Mackey for the New Republic last month, here is how the project works: “An investor, either international or local, builds infrastructure….The territory in which they invest becomes an autonomous zone from Honduras…The investing company must write the laws that govern the territory, establish the local government, hire a private police force, and even has the right to set the educational system and collect taxes.” An earlier article by Erika Piquero at Latin Correspondent described the law as “allowing the corporations and individuals funding the ZEDEs to dictate the entire structural organization of the zone, including laws, tax structure, healthcare system, education and security forces. This kind of flexibility is unprecedented even in similar models around the world.” George Rodríguez reported for the Tico Times that the plan was previously challenged and ruled unconstitutional in Honduras’ supreme court, but Hernandez “twisted arms, had the [dissenting] judges removed, and brought in obedient replacements.” Hernandez then re-tooled the bill and pushed it through the congress. As Mackey reported, “The ZEDE’s central government is stacked with libertarian foreigners,” including a former speechwriter for presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr., conservative political operative Grover Norquist, a senior member of the Cato Institute think tank, and Ronald Reagan’s son Michael, as well as “a Danish banker, a Peruvian economist, and an Austrian general secretary of the Friedrich Hayek Institute.” According to the official ZEDE website, the zones place a heavy emphasis on security, offering “a 21st century, business-efficient, non- politicized, transparent, stable, system of administration, plus a special police and institutional security to overcome regional issues and meet world standards.” A new bill introduced by Hernandez minutes after losing the vote this weekend would allow municipalities and ZEDEs to request that the PMOP or other branches of the Armed Forces provide them with security services. Honduras’ continuing militarization of security efforts appears to have the backing of the United States, which has provided more than $65 million in security aid to Honduras since 2008. President Hernandez has also met frequently with high-level U.S. officials for talks on security and migration issues. As the U.S. amassador’s Twitter account wrote on Friday, “U.S. cooperation with Honduras’ fight against narcotrafficking and crime is strong and continuing.” However, contrary to commonly held perceptions, most of the violence in Honduras is not caused by large, transnational drug trafficking organizations, but rather by smaller gangs fighting over territory (including street corners, neighborhoods and even prisons) in which to conduct extortion rackets, small-scale smuggling efforts and prostitution operations among other illegal activities. Privatization and paramilitarization are also concerns in Honduras, with one recent report estimating that there are three times as many private security guards as police in Honduras, up to a third of whom work for unregistered companies, some of whom reportedly employ off-duty police officers looking to supplement often-meager salaries. While international investors may be seeking to capitalize on Honduras’ voluntary surrender of its national sovereignty to make a “legal” profit, even more nefarious actors are already operating in a completely unregulated, free-market criminal underworld in Honduras—one that has helped turn the country into the world’s “murder capital” in recent years. Even Honduran schools have become scenes of rampant gang activity. In a recent chilling article for the Associated Press, journalist Alberto Arce wrote that gang members “rely on kids to do much of their illegal grunt work, knowing that even if they get caught, they won’t face long jail sentences…School administrators say that teachers generally are more afraid of the gangs than the remaining students are, because so many children admire gangsters.” Arce also writes that “a 14-year-old can earn $500 a month in prostitution — more than a police officer’s salary.” U.S.-backed policies in Honduras have fed a cycle of crime, violence, exploitation and abuse of vulnerable populations by state and non-state actors alike. According to the research organization Security Assistance Monitor, gang-driven “violence has been one of the primary drivers behind the surge in migration to the United States from Honduras,” but ironically, “ [t]he U.S. government practice of deporting thousands of Hondurans with criminal records, which began in the 1990s, has only fueled the growth of these gangs.” When these migrants, many of them women and children —along with those from El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico and elsewhere—flee to the United States, they are routinely apprehended and “fast-tracked” for deportation. In the case of Honduras, migrants are sometimes sent back to some of the most violent cities in the world. Many women and children fleeing violence in Central America also experience abuses and violations of their legal rights at the hands of U.S. authorities if they are detained after crossing the border. And the future doesn’t appear to hold a change of course. In all likelihood, the new U.S. congress will continue to support efforts to militarize its southern border, as well as Me xico’s southern border with Central America, and to “deter” migration through the use of mass detention and deportation. The U.S. government also seems likely to continue supporting the privatization and militarization of Honduran society. As Maya Kroth wrote in September for Foreign Policy, “[c]ritics worry that evidence to date — the government’s opaque approach, the ZEDEs’ undemocratic features, the cast of characters backing the scheme, and the vulnerabilities of people likely to be affected by development — indicate that charter cities would be little more than predatory, privatized utopias, with far-reaching, negative implications for Honduran sovereignty and the well-being of poor communities.” The U.S. has coupled its neoliberal economic prescriptions with its drug war security framework in other countries in the Americas, including at home, with disastrous results. While the vote against the PMOP this weekend was an important victory for human rights advocates, from the perspective of many, much work remains to be done. It appears that the precarious situation of Honduras’ most vulnerable citizens could get worse before it gets better.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-15) not displayed.
.
.
.
#16. To: Dead Culture Watch (#14)
Anarchy www.colli nsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/anarchy Which Libertarian Platform? They have become more ambiguous over the years.
"The biggest mistake that libertarians make is the way they view government and private sectors. Government is the root of all evil, and the private sector is the source of all good. Libertarians have never figured out that people are the same whether in the government or in the private sector." --Paul Craig Roberts
"Anarcho-capitalism (also known as “libertarian anarchy” Put some ice on it. "The biggest mistake that libertarians make is the way they view government and private sectors. Government is the root of all evil, and the private sector is the source of all good. Libertarians have never figured out that people are the same whether in the government or in the private sector." --Paul Craig Roberts
Even in the orange you brought, the ANARCHO-CAPITALIST system does have a government. So, your orange is still an orange. Deal with it. Your method of lying has been exposed, and now we wait till you do it again. Over under is 8 1/2 hours for those placing bets.
"Anarcho-capitalism (also known as “libertarian anarchy” Is STILL, not anarchy. The word libertarian is a qualifier which changes the meaning of the second word. It's not the same thing. My apologies if you are too stupid to understand that.
Anarchy Short term memory problems?
"The biggest mistake that libertarians make is the way they view government and private sectors. Government is the root of all evil, and the private sector is the source of all good. Libertarians have never figured out that people are the same whether in the government or in the private sector." --Paul Craig Roberts
It's a major variety. Poor you.
"The biggest mistake that libertarians make is the way they view government and private sectors. Government is the root of all evil, and the private sector is the source of all good. Libertarians have never figured out that people are the same whether in the government or in the private sector." --Paul Craig Roberts
Anyways, am out for the night, you multiple handle using liars can say whatever you want now, dont let truth or reality stand in your way.
A major variety? Hahahhahahahahahahaha!!!!!!! Still, not THE SAME THING, dumbass!
Hahahhahahahahahahaha!!!!!!! The major variety. You know almost nothing about the Libertarian Party, its philosophy, or its history. "The first well-known version of anarcho-capitalism was formulated by Austrian School economist and libertarian Murray Rothbard in the mid- twentieth century, synthesizing elements from the Austrian School of economics, classical liberalism, and nineteenth century American individualist anarchists Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker (rejecting their labor theory of value and the normative implications they derived from it). In Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism, there would first be the implementation of a mutually agreed-upon libertarian "legal code which would be generally accepted, and which the courts would pledge themselves to follow..." "Murray Rothbard, a student of Mises, is the man who attempted to meld Austrian economics with classical liberalism and individualist anarchism. He wrote his first paper advocating "private property anarchism" in 1949, and later came up with the alternative name "anarcho-capitalism." He was probably the first to use "libertarian" in its current (U.S.) pro-capitalist sense. He was a trained economist, but also knowledgeable in history and political philosophy. When young, he considered himself part of the Old Right, an anti-statist and anti-interventionist branch of the Republican party. In the late 1950s, he was briefly involved with Ayn Rand, but later had a falling out. When interventionist cold warriors of the National Review, such as William F. Buckley, Jr., gained influence in the Republican party in the 1950s, Rothbard quit that group and formed an alliance with left-wing antiwar groups, noting an antiwar tradition among a number of self-styled left-wingers and to a degree closer to the Old Right conservatives. He believed that the cold warriors were more indebted in theory to the left and imperialist progressives, especially in regards to Trotskyist theory. Later, Rothbard initially opposed the founding of the Libertarian Party but joined in 1973 and became one of its leading activists." http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism Continue wallowing in your deliberate ignorance.
"The biggest mistake that libertarians make is the way they view government and private sectors. Government is the root of all evil, and the private sector is the source of all good. Libertarians have never figured out that people are the same whether in the government or in the private sector." --Paul Craig Roberts
You can post whatever theories and definitions made by anyone you want, but the fact is the Libertarian Party platform does have a role for government, and does NOT call for it's abolition. This is possible because there ARE people who call themselves libertarians who similarly only call for a drastic reduction of government NOT it's abolition. If you have decided that anyone who calls themselves a libertarian is not allowed to define what that means to himself, then that certainly makes you an authoritarian. At least in my book. Feel free to post definitions of "authoritarian" that are similarly not widely accepted.
What is it?
"The biggest mistake that libertarians make is the way they view government and private sectors. Government is the root of all evil, and the private sector is the source of all good. Libertarians have never figured out that people are the same whether in the government or in the private sector." --Paul Craig Roberts
I agree that some libertarians believe in limited government and while they do not want to do away with it, they want to limit the powers of the government so that they do not take away our liberties and our rights defined in the Constitution. However, there are those calling themselves “libertarians” who are indeed anti-government across the board; they argue for what they call “anarcho- capitalism.” Sorry Libertarian Anarchists, Capitalism Requires Government . Gerard Casey presents a novel perspective on political philosophy, arguing against the conventional political philosophy pieties and defending a specific political position, which he identifies as 'libertarian anarchy'. Libertarian Anarchy: Against the State (Think Now) Paperback by Gerard Casey.
They're both the same in that they are delusional in surprisingly similar ways.
An earlier article by Erika Piquero at Latin Correspondent described the law as “allowing the corporations and individuals funding the ZEDEs to dictate the entire structural organization of the zone, including laws, tax structure, healthcare system, education and security forces. This kind of flexibility is unprecedented even in similar models around the world.” This has nothing to do with libertarian philosophy. Obviously you don't understand the first thing about it. This is some neoliberal/fascist regime with the usual repulsive Latin American elements like death squads. Wasn't Obama deeply involved in an international controversy involving this new El Presidente? Around the time he was meddling in the disastrous Arab Spring in Egypt, just before he unleashed the apocalyptic Arab Spring in Libya? I know he was deeply involved in one of these Central American countries at the time and was using our phony "intra-American" foreign relations bodies to do it. Another of Hitlery's failed projects.
That is exactly what he does. He has a long track record at LP. Quite often he'll post a half-dozen in a row, just to dominate the sidebar entirely. And Goldi was dumb enough to let him wreck her forum like this. Notice how he is serving one up here, then his Mini-Me (the perpetually horny and frustrated she-Palmdale) shows up to hound everyone. And have you checked Otter's IP address? It's obvious enough that he is a notorious retread that you've banned a half-dozen times already. Surely he doesn't have to start posting gay porn for you to get it. These Canaries always use the same tactics and hunt in a pack. And they do come here from TOS.
Minarchists. Admittedly, my eyes glaze over when someone announces they are minarchist and prepare to explain in 40,000 words or less exactly why they are a minarchist. But, absolutely, libertarians do go to some pains to distinguish themselves from any flavor of anarchist philosophy, particularly the old syndicalist-anarchists.
"All kinds of people today call themselves 'libertarians,' especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists." -Ayn Rand
"The biggest mistake that libertarians make is the way they view government and private sectors. Government is the root of all evil, and the private sector is the source of all good. Libertarians have never figured out that people are the same whether in the government or in the private sector." --Paul Craig Roberts
However, there are those calling themselves “libertarians” who are indeed anti-government across the board; they argue for what they call “anarcho- capitalism.” Sorry Libertarian Anarchists, Capitalism Requires Government . The Libertarian Party platform is constructed through a formal voting process conducted by members of the Libertarian Party. It's the same process with the Republicrat parties. So while individual views vary, the party platform gives the typical, average, consensus views of Libertarians in general. Sure you'll find anarchist sentiments in LP ranks. True anarchists, by definition, are not going to form any organized political party any time soon, so anarchist sympathizers will, given a choice, naturally gravitate to the LP party as the one most in line with their views, even though the party is certainly not anarchist. Ron Paul was a Republican, but I doubt you'd cite his views as an example of what Republicans believe.
Should be able to find all at www.lp.org/platform
That sounds familiar. Oh, right, anarcho-capitalism. "In Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism, there would first be the implementation of a mutually agreed-upon libertarian "legal code which would be generally accepted, and which the courts would pledge themselves to follow..." And here's some icing for your cake. "All kinds of people today call themselves 'libertarians,' especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists." -Ayn Rand
"The biggest mistake that libertarians make is the way they view government and private sectors. Government is the root of all evil, and the private sector is the source of all good. Libertarians have never figured out that people are the same whether in the government or in the private sector." --Paul Craig Roberts
You are as good at quoting things said or written by somewhat well-known people as some are at quoting bible verses. I suspect it's done with the same reverency as well. But unlike Christians, you have no reason to believe your "bible" verses are correct.
You are as good at quoting things said or written by somewhat well-known people as some are at quoting bible verses. I suspect it's done with the same reverency as well. But unlike Christians, you have no reason to believe your "bible" verses are correct. It's not done for any other reason than to paint small government types as being fringe. They use the biggest box possible, put anyone who desires smaller government into it, and mock them. They scream in fits of canary rage if you try and take their box from them.
Backwards. I hold Rothbard and Rand in low regard. Libertarians revere them.
"The biggest mistake that libertarians make is the way they view government and private sectors. Government is the root of all evil, and the private sector is the source of all good. Libertarians have never figured out that people are the same whether in the government or in the private sector." --Paul Craig Roberts
At less than 2%, Libertarians barely even qualify as fringe.
"The biggest mistake that libertarians make is the way they view government and private sectors. Government is the root of all evil, and the private sector is the source of all good. Libertarians have never figured out that people are the same whether in the government or in the private sector." --Paul Craig Roberts
These Canaries always use the same tactics and hunt in a pack. And they do come here from TOS. Doesnt sem like the canary experiment here at LF is working out to well for our feathered friends. The game is out in the open, and when you have mass dishonesty, head canary trying multiple handles, it seems as if the gig is up. If these guys wanna troll? Lol! I am definately up for that! My trolling of Yukon was what finally got him bounced from LP. Maybe next time I go to the store, I will buy a six pack of Sterno, and mark one Harrowup. Then, when another dies, I will put that name on another one. Then, when last canary has expired, has become an ex-canary, I will buy a bird cage, put the named cans of Sterno into it, place it in the back yard, and piss on it. I will leave it there forever, and when I wake up in the morning and have my coffee, I can look out the back window and smile.
To: Dead Culture Watch At less than 2%, Libertarians barely even qualify as fringe. And whats yer point? That effects my opposition to the growth of government power exactly how?
They are a failure in the marketplace of ideas.
"The biggest mistake that libertarians make is the way they view government and private sectors. Government is the root of all evil, and the private sector is the source of all good. Libertarians have never figured out that people are the same whether in the government or in the private sector." --Paul Craig Roberts
Key Concepts of Libertarianism By David Boaz January 1, 1999 The key concepts of libertarianism have developed over many centuries. The first inklings of them can be found in ancient China, Greece, and Israel; they began to be developed into something resembling modern libertarian philosophy in the work of such seventeenth- and eighteenth-century thinkers as John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine. Individualism. Libertarians see the individual as the basic unit of social analysis. Only individuals make choices and are responsible for their actions. Libertarian thought emphasizes the dignity of each individual, which entails both rights and responsibility. The progressive extension of dignity to more people — to women, to people of different religions and different races — is one of the great libertarian triumphs of the Western world. Individual Rights. Because individuals are moral agents, they have a right to be secure in their life, liberty, and property. These rights are not granted by government or by society; they are inherent in the nature of human beings. It is intuitively right that individuals enjoy the security of such rights; the burden of explanation should lie with those who would take rights away. Spontaneous Order. A great degree of order in society is necessary for individuals to survive and flourish. It’s easy to assume that order must be imposed by a central authority, the way we impose order on a stamp collection or a football team. The great insight of libertarian social analysis is that order in society arises spontaneously, out of the actions of thousands or millions of individuals who coordinate their actions with those of others in order to achieve their purposes. Over human history, we have gradually opted for more freedom and yet managed to develop a complex society with intricate organization. The most important institutions in human society — language, law, money, and markets — all developed spontaneously, without central direction. Civil society — the complex network of associations and connections among people — is another example of spontaneous order; the associations within civil society are formed for a purpose, but civil society itself is not an organization and does not have a purpose of its own. The Rule of Law. Libertarianism is not libertinism or hedonism. It is not a claim that “people can do anything they want to, and nobody else can say anything.” Rather, libertarianism proposes a society of liberty under law, in which individuals are free to pursue their own lives so long as they respect the equal rights of others. The rule of law means that individuals are governed by generally applicable and spontaneously developed legal rules, not by arbitrary commands; and that those rules should protect the freedom of individuals to pursue happiness in their own ways, not aim at any particular result or outcome. Limited Government. To protect rights, individuals form governments. But government is a dangerous institution. Libertarians have a great antipathy to concentrated power, for as Lord Acton said, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Thus they want to divide and limit power, and that means especially to limit government, generally through a written constitution enumerating and limiting the powers that the people delegate to government. Limited government is the basic political implication of libertarianism, and libertarians point to the historical fact that it was the dispersion of power in Europe — more than other parts of the world — that led to individual liberty and sustained economic growth. Free Markets. To survive and to flourish, individuals need to engage in economic activity. The right to property entails the right to exchange property by mutual agreement. Free markets are the economic system of free individuals, and they are necessary to create wealth. Libertarians believe that people will be both freer and more prosperous if government intervention in people’s economic choices is minimized. The Virtue of Production. Much of the impetus for libertarianism in the seventeenth century was a reaction against monarchs and aristocrats who lived off the productive labor of other people. Libertarians defended the right of people to keep the fruits of their labor. This effort developed into a respect for the dignity of work and production and especially for the growing middle class, who were looked down upon by aristocrats. Libertarians developed a pre- Marxist class analysis that divided society into two basic classes: those who produced wealth and those who took it by force from others. Thomas Paine, for instance, wrote, “There are two distinct classes of men in the nation, those who pay taxes, and those who receive and live upon the taxes.” Similarly, Jefferson wrote in 1824, “We have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.” Modern libertarians defend the right of productive people to keep what they earn, against a new class of politicians and bureaucrats who would seize their earnings to transfer them to nonproducers. Natural Harmony of Interests. Libertarians believe that there is a natural harmony of interests among peaceful, productive people in a just society. One person’s individual plans — which may involve getting a job, starting a business, buying a house, and so on — may conflict with the plans of others, so the market makes many of us change our plans. But we all prosper from the operation of the free market, and there are no necessary conflicts between farmers and merchants, manufacturers and importers. Only when government begins to hand out rewards on the basis of political pressure do we find ourselves involved in group conflict, pushed to organize and contend with other groups for a piece of political power. Peace. Libertarians have always battled the age-old scourge of war. They understood that war brought death and destruction on a grand scale, disrupted family and economic life, and put more power in the hands of the ruling class — which might explain why the rulers did not always share the popular sentiment for peace. Free men and women, of course, have often had to defend their own societies against foreign threats; but throughout history, war has usually been the common enemy of peaceful, productive people on all sides of the conflict. … It may be appropriate to acknowledge at this point the reader’s likely suspicion that libertarianism seems to be just the standard framework of modern thought — individualism, private property, capitalism, equality under the law. Indeed, after centuries of intellectual, political, and sometimes violent struggle, these core libertarian principles have become the basic structure of modern political thought and of modern government, at least in the West and increasingly in other parts of the world. However, three additional points need to be made: first, libertarianism is not just these broad liberal principles. Libertarianism applies these principles fully and consistently, far more so than most modern thinkers and certainly more so than any modern government. Second, while our society remains generally based on equal rights and capitalism, every day new exceptions to those principles are carved out in Washington and in Albany, Sacramento, and Austin (not to mention London, Bonn, Tokyo, and elsewhere). Each new government directive takes a little bit of our freedom, and we should think carefully before giving up any liberty. Third, liberal society is resilient; it can withstand many burdens and continue to flourish; but it is not infinitely resilient. Those who claim to believe in liberal principles but advocate more and more confiscation of the wealth created by productive people, more and more restrictions on voluntary interaction, more and more exceptions to property rights and the rule of law, more and more transfer of power from society to state, are unwittingly engaged in the ultimately deadly undermining of civilization. From Chapter 1, “The Coming Libertarian Age,” Libertarianism: A Primer, by David Boaz (New York: The Free Press, 1998). See also www.libertarianism.org. David Boaz is executive vice president of the Cato Institute and author of Libertarianism: A Primer, from which this is excerpted.
I dunno. Sounds kinda elaborate for a chat site. : )
The game is out in the open, and when you have mass dishonesty, head canary trying multiple handles, it seems as if the gig is up. If these guys wanna troll? Lol! I am definately up for that! My trolling of Yukon was what finally got him bounced from LP. Maybe next time I go to the store, I will buy a six pack of Sterno, and mark one Harrowup. Then, when another dies, I will put that name on another one. Then, when last canary has expired, has become an ex-canary, I will buy a bird cage, put the named cans of Sterno into it, place it in the back yard, and piss on it. I will leave it there forever, and when I wake up in the morning and have my coffee, I can look out the back window and smile. Hey Itzy, 96er -- where are you? Thought DCW's hysterical post would cheer you up.
The porker pig scum thug cops coming in here are hysterical about 1) the rise of Libertarianism as a political force and 2) the dismantling of their porker pig cop prison / jail empire. Sucks for the cops---the bad press they garner everyday means they will reap the whirlwind of the public's wrath. The porkers in turn in desperation try to characterize their declining influence / police state as a ''black criminal'' issue to further attempt to divide society and buttress their Orwellian / Kakquesque dwindling empire. To hell with the cops! And their politician protectors too!
To: Dead Culture Watch They are a failure in the marketplace of ideas. Umm, ok, why TF should I care? Do you view Libertarians, who you yourself concede, who have no power to effect change, as more of a threat than the progressives in the Republican and Democratic parties? Apparently you do, you spend 16 hours a day here making snarky comments about them. None directed at the government, and OBozo. Pretty telling in my mind, eh comrade?
"The biggest mistake that libertarians make is the way they view government and private sectors. Government is the root of all evil, and the private sector is the source of all good. Libertarians have never figured out that people are the same whether in the government or in the private sector." --Paul Craig Roberts
About facts rather than your feeeelings? Don't then. Why TF should I care?
"The biggest mistake that libertarians make is the way they view government and private sectors. Government is the root of all evil, and the private sector is the source of all good. Libertarians have never figured out that people are the same whether in the government or in the private sector." --Paul Craig Roberts
Apparently you DO care, you spend endless hours posting stories about libertarians. I ask why should i care, as they have no power, you ignore my pointed question and lose your grip. Seems like you lose yet again, you must like being a loser by now, it's the one thing you're good at.
About facts. You don't.
"The biggest mistake that libertarians make is the way they view government and private sectors. Government is the root of all evil, and the private sector is the source of all good. Libertarians have never figured out that people are the same whether in the government or in the private sector." --Paul Craig Roberts
About facts. You don't. Wow, you truly are one strange little weasel of a man. Do you worry about everything? Are you such a scared little eunuch of a man that you spend thousands of hours a year posting nonsense to someone about who you know nothing, the horrors and scariness of Libertarians? Why do you waste your life so? Do you think I care about what Libertarians may or may not think? Can you point to the spot on the doll where the Libertarian touched you? Why do you care so deeply about THEM? As Obongo creates law out of thin air, Jon Corzine steals millions and nothing happens, the Government arms violent Mexican drug cartels, nothing from you on these issues... Nah, what keeps you awake at night, strangely, is Libertarians, a group you yourself concede makes up 2% of the population, and you yourself concede cannot effect anything. Weird. You are very strange indeed. You were picked on regularly as a child werent you? Were you mommys favorite too? Something has truly warped you. Sadly, you could have been quite ordinary, instead, you've managed to become even less than that. Now, give me your one or two line reply, am sure its gonna be quite unclever and show you to be very limited in thought.
You're the CT, not me.
"The biggest mistake that libertarians make is the way they view government and private sectors. Government is the root of all evil, and the private sector is the source of all good. Libertarians have never figured out that people are the same whether in the government or in the private sector." --Paul Craig Roberts
Ahh, ONE line... Yer a regular Einstein, aint ya? Lol... So, belief in Obongos arming of Mexican drug cartels makes me a CT freak? Corzine getting away with stealing Millions? WHAT makes me a CT? And wow, less than 20 seconds after I posted last comment, you replied. Do you live here? What a twisted and strange little life you truly have...... Hey, did your little buddy Pukers get shown the door? HAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Feeeelings.
"The biggest mistake that libertarians make is the way they view government and private sectors. Government is the root of all evil, and the private sector is the source of all good. Libertarians have never figured out that people are the same whether in the government or in the private sector." --Paul Craig Roberts
...is not happening. The political philosophy hasn't captured America's youth. But it has made inroads within the Republican Party—inroads the GOP would be wise to resist. Has the libertarian moment finally arrived? Robert Draper asks that question in the Sunday New York Times Magazine. His answer: Yes! Young voters are leaning libertarian, he says, and a Rand Paul presidential candidacy could energize those voters for the GOP. Spoiler alert: Draper’s wrong, emphatically wrong. Young voters are not libertarian, nor even trending libertarian. Neither, for that matter, are older voters. The "libertarian moment" is not an event in American culture. It's a phase in internal Republican Party factionalism. Libertarianism is not pushing Republicans forward to a more electable future. It's pushing them sideways to the extremist margins. Every serious study of the political attitudes of voters under 30 has discovered them to be the most pro- government age group since the cohort that directly experienced the Great Depression. Young voters are more likely than their elders to believe that government should intervene in the economy to create jobs. They support government aid to education and healthcare more than any other age group. Their voting behavior tracks their values: Under-30s massively voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. It’s demography that explains the shift in ideology. Nonwhite voters favor government intervention in the economy much more than white voters do. That’s true at every age, both over-60 and under- 30. But there are many more nonwhites among under-30s than among over-60s, so their preferences exert more sway over the group as a whole. The claim that young voters are trending libertarian rests on three principal data points: But these points don’t add up to libertarianism. They don’t even present an opening to libertarianism. They reveal (modest) generational self-interest, social liberalism, and political demobilization. So what’s the basis for Draper’s story? Draper may not be a data guy, but he’s a good reporter, with lively instincts for a story. What he wrote was not true. But it felt true to him. Why? Libertarianism is not rising in the country, but since 2009 it has exercised increasing influence inside the Republican party. One measure of the libertarian rise is the waxing fortunes of the Paul dynasty—Ron, the longtime Texas congressman who retired last year, and Rand, his son, a first-term senator from Kentucky. In 1988, Ron Paul ran for president as the nominee of the Libertarian Party, gaining 0.5 percent of the vote. The elder Paul sought the Republican nomination in 2008 and collected only a couple of dozen delegates. In 2012, however, Ron Paul burst into prime time. More than 2 million Republicans cast ballots for him, earning him a fourth-place finish and nearly 200 delegates. Now Rand is preparing to run in 2016. He’s generally regarded as a highly plausible candidate, if an unlikely winner. Ron Paul’s 2012 campaign raised nearly $15 million. The Wall Street Journal estimates that Rand Paul has raised nearly $8 million in the 2014-2016 cycle, in direct contributions, PAC and SuperPac funds. (Of that, $5.1 million has already been spent or donated to other candidates.) Despite the self-flattering claims of libertarians, the Republicans' post-2009 libertarian turn is not a response to voter demand. In addition to this unprecedented financial support, libertarians have redirected the Republican Party in policy terms. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan ran in 2012 on the most radical fiscal plan since 1964: Ryan's bold proposal to end the Medicare guarantee for everyone under age 55 and to institute tough budget cuts in unemployment insurance, food stamps, and other income support programs. The party’s stance on gun control has become ever more unyielding. Ron Paul’s anti-Federal Reserve message was echoed in the last political cycle by almost every presidential candidate, with Texas Governor Rick Perry even lightly proposing to lynch chairman Ben Bernanke. Maybe most tellingly, the GOP has backed far, far away from the national-security policy of the Bush years. Denunciations of the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs have become standard-issue Republican rhetoric. The tally of likely votes just before President Obama withdrew his request for authority to strike Syria last September showed 170 definite or likely Republican “no” votes in the House of Representatives. Despite the self-flattering claims of libertarians, the Republicans' post-2009 libertarian turn is not a response to voter demand. The areas where the voting public has moved furthest and fastest in a libertarian direction—gay rights, for example—have been the areas where Republicans have moved slowest and most reluctantly. The areas where the voting public most resists libertarian ideas—such as social benefits—are precisely the areas where the GOP has swung furthest and fastest in a libertarian direction. Nor is it the strength and truth of libertarian ideas that explains their current vogue within the Republican Party. Libertarians have been most influential inside the GOP precisely where they have been—and continue to be— most blatantly wrong, such as when they predicted that the cheap money policies of the Federal Reserve would incite hyperinflation or that the United States teetered on the precipice of a debt crisis. Much of the libertarian appeal is probably as simple as the isolationist reaction that tends to overtake the United States after military conflicts. Libertarians always want to cut the defense budget, and after Iraq and Afghanistan, many orthodox Republicans felt in the mood to agree with them. Yet it’s also true that post-Iraq and post-Afghanistan, the Republicans remain the party of assertive nationalism—and the party more comfortable with the use of force. It’s telling that prior to running for president, Rand Paul has reinvented his own past views both on Israel and on drone attacks inside Afghanistan. Isolationism alone doesn't explain the rise of libertarianism inside the GOP. Libertarianism diverges from ordinary conservatism in many ways, but perhaps most fundamentally in this: Whereas ordinary conservatism emphasizes the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of government action, libertarianism presents government as alien and malign. When Rand Paul rose early in 2013 to deliver the longest talking filibuster since Strom Thurmond battled civil rights in 1957, he did so not to oppose some new bureaucracy or tax. No, Paul rose to denounce the supposedly looming danger of lethal drone attacks on ordinary law-abiding Americans. “I will speak today until the President responds and says no, we won't kill Americans in cafes; no, we won't kill you at home in your bed at night; no, we won't drop bombs on restaurants,” he said. Repeatedly, Paul insisted that he was not accusing President Obama of plotting the murder of American citizens. Equally repeatedly, however, he made clear that he considered the danger of presidential murder of people like himself real and imminent. “There's something called fusion centers, something that are supposed to coordinate between the federal government, the local government to find terrorists," Paul said at one point. "The one in Missouri a couple years ago came up with a list, and they sent this to every policeman in Missouri. The people on the list might be me. The people on the list from the fusion center in Missouri that you need to be worried about, that policemen should stop, are people that have bumper stickers that might be pro-life, who have bumper stickers that might be for more border security, people who support third-party candidates, people who might be in the Constitution Party.” Those conservatives who succumb to libertarianism do so in despair, not hope. Instead of competing to govern the state, many now feel that their only hope is defend themselves. The claim that the president might at any moment order death from the skies upon people whose only offense was to paste a pro-life bumper sticker on their car might once have seemed laughable to Republicans. Since 2009, it has become credible. That is the emotional basis of the “libertarian moment.” Like all political movements, libertarianism binds together many divergent strands. It synthesizes the classical liberalism of the 1860s with the human-potential movement of the 1960s. It joins elegant economic theory to the primitive insistence that only metal can be money. It mingles nostalgia for the vanished American frontier with fantasies drawn from science fiction. It offers three cheers both for thrift, sobriety, and bourgeois self-control and three more for sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll. It invokes the highest ideals of American constitutionalism—and is itself invoked by the most radical critics of the American state and nation, from neo-Confederates to 9/11 Truthers. For mainstream conservatives, concerned about the growth of government since 2008, libertarianism can sometimes sound like only a slightly more exuberant version of what they already believe. Until recently, however, the differences have mattered more than the similarities, just as American liberals have usually found that their differences with socialists mattered more than the similarities. Until recently, a mainstream conservative might yearn for lower taxes, lighter regulation, and privatization of government services. But mainstream conservatives also championed effective policing and strong national defense. Mainstream conservatives had made their peace with some forms of social insurance. They had absorbed the Keynesian idea that governments could and should act to counteract recessions and depressions. Yet since 2008, those differences have blurred. The libertarians interviewed by Robert Draper talk about their movement’s exciting, bold ideological vision. Yet the true secret to its post-2008 appeal is just the opposite. Those conservatives who succumb to libertarianism do so in despair, not hope. Instead of competing to govern the state, many now feel that their only hope is defend themselves—with arms if necessary—against an inherently and inevitably hostile and predatory state. Conservatives who still want to compete, win, and govern must trust that this despair will pass. The “libertarian moment” will last as long as, and no longer than, it takes conservatives to win a presidential election again. Unfortunately, the libertarian moment is itself the most immediate and the most difficult impediment to the political success that will be libertarianism’s cure.
You are aware that words have meanings and that anarchy means no government, right? You are also familiar with the Libertarian Platform, right?
Definitions
noun
1. general lawlessness and disorder, esp when thought to result from an absence or failure of government
#17. To: Dead Culture Watch (#15)
(Edited)
Notice above how he changes the terms of debate
#18. To: Palmdale (#16)
#19. To: Palmdale (#17)
(Edited)
#20. To: Dead Culture Watch (#18)
the ANARCHO-CAPITALIST system does have a government.
Definitions
noun
1. general lawlessness and disorder, esp when thought to result from an absence or failure of government
#21. To: Dead Culture Watch (#19)
It's not the same thing.
#22. To: All (#19)
#23. To: Palmdale (#21)
#24. To: Dead Culture Watch (#23)
A major variety?
#25. To: Palmdale (#12)
#26. To: Pinguinite (#25)
the Libertarian Party platform does have a role for government
#27. To: Pinguinite, Palmdale (#9)
(Edited)
#28. To: Palmdale (#12)
Yes I can see the difference now...
#29. To: Gatlin (#0)
According to reporting by Danielle Marie Mackey for the New Republic last month, here is how the project works: “An investor, either international or local, builds infrastructure….The territory in which they invest becomes an autonomous zone from Honduras…The investing company must write the laws that govern the territory, establish the local government, hire a private police force, and even has the right to set the educational system and collect taxes.”
#30. To: A K A Stone (#1)
What do you do sit around and google libertarians suck or something?
#31. To: Pinguinite (#9)
Libertarianism, by contrast, advocates a need for government but only a minimal one.
#32. To: Gatlin (#28)
#33. To: Gatlin (#27)
I agree that some libertarians believe in limited government and while they do not want to do away with it, they want to limit the powers of the government so that they do not take away our liberties and our rights defined in the Constitution.
#34. To: Palmdale (#26)
the Libertarian Party platform does have a role for government
What is it?
#35. To: Pinguinite (#34)
"The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected."
#36. To: Palmdale (#35)
#37. To: Pinguinite (#36)
#38. To: Pinguinite (#36)
#39. To: Dead Culture Watch (#37)
#40. To: TooConservative (#30)
And have you checked Otter's IP address? It's obvious enough that he is a notorious retread that you've banned a half-dozen times already. Surely he doesn't have to start posting gay porn for you to get it.
#41. To: Palmdale (#39)
#42. To: Dead Culture Watch (#41)
#43. To: Palmdale (#42)
#44. To: Dead Culture Watch (#40)
Then, when another dies, I will put that name on another one. Then, when last canary has expired, has become an ex-canary, I will buy a bird cage, put the named cans of Sterno into it, place it in the back yard, and piss on it.
#45. To: Dead Culture Watch, Itzlzha, rf396 (#40)
Doesnt sem like the canary experiment here at LF is working out to well for our feathered friends.
#46. To: Gatlin (#0)
#47. To: Palmdale (#42)
#48. To: TEA Party Reveler (#46)
the rise of Libertarianism as a political force
#49. To: Dead Culture Watch (#47)
Umm, ok, why TF should I care?
#50. To: Palmdale (#49)
#51. To: Dead Culture Watch (#50)
Apparently you DO care
#52. To: Palmdale (#51)
(Edited)
#53. To: Dead Culture Watch (#52)
Do you worry about everything?
#54. To: Palmdale (#53)
(Edited)
#55. To: Dead Culture Watch (#54)
#56. To: TEA Party Reveler (#46)
1) the rise of Libertarianism as a political force...
Why the 'Libertarian Moment' Isn't Really Happening
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]