Obama - Pleasing the world - Punishing America

No.

Obama is not running for Pope. Or UN Leader. He's running for the Presidency of the US. Not Governor of Planet Earth. World Justice is not my concern. If you don't like how America projects itself now, how exactly do you think it will enforce WORLD JUSTICE?

See Nate's post to you. He gets it.

No, America does not need a messiah. This isn't a country built on the notion of a supreme leader or King.

It wasn't just the Jewish lobby, but they certainly didn't help. As far as the Zionists, I don't mind Jewish Zionists, it's the Christian Zionists that creep me out.

There is a word for people like you too.

 

Nate, aside from what I think is RP's overly simplistic and reductionist view (the impossibility of returning to 1880 America), there are issues I have with RP's reputation, as it has been virally promulgated on the web, and what he actually says, in many instances. Probably my earliest flag on this forum was his support for the John Birch Society, which I consider flagrantly un-American in its aims and methods. Another example would be his skewed view over the issue of Church and State:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

Is the antithesis of not only libertarianism, as I see it, but of what this country was founded on (care to find the word "God" in the constitution, a document that RP, a "constitutionalist," declaims is "replete with references to God?"). I have previously posted much of what the Founders actually had to say on the subject - most notably, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin (please let me know if you need some sources). Nevertheless, I am sure one, maybe more, will again leap to my mentioning this - as they have already, on this forum - as the rant of "an atheist who hates Christians." That's fine, and based on past performance, I would expect it. But nothing could be further from the truth.

What I loathe is mythmaking respecting what this country actually stands for. In particular, an example to everyone of why this is a problem should be that within the last couple of decades, the rise of the religious right, and the egregious distortions to both Christ's message, and the conflation - the politicization - of that message with this country and its principles, has resulted in what I feel are dangerously ill-conceived policies, foreign and domestic - from pressures to abandon stem cell research to a wantonly reckless foreign policy. Yet RP's statements to this effect - painting secularists, and by extension, one would conclude, secular humanism, as some kind of nefarious, subterranean force - are very much in line with that same religious right.

This is but one issue where I see a disconnect between what RP states he is about, and what he appears to be about.

 

As you may know I'm also in opposition to the growing arrogance of modern Christianity, but my beliefs and political opinion are quite separate. You may have a point that the foundation of America wasn't based on Christianity, that's not really an issue I care about. But being the history buff you are, what about the seemingly Christian radicalism that is jotted down in the text books about the Salem witch hunt-type stories and kill or converting Natives? (again, don't know the subject) Not that I advocate, but surely that Judeo-Christian spirit didn't vanish in the course of a couple centuries.

I don't think returning to the Gold Standard is impossible either, nothing is. In any case, it's most definitely in America's best interest to get people off the dependency of government they have unless we want to try socialism. Which seems to be the case recently..

You may argue that socialism is legitimate in the U.S. Constitution and my response may be that I would be in favor of an outright secession.

We ought to learn something from the 1880's, why did we have mass immigration in those years? Were people shipping over to live the 'American Dream' were they knew they were held responsible for themselves and driven by incentives or was it to come to Socialist America were your economics opportunities are the exact same in every other country?

 

I do care about it, Nate. Particularly when I regularly hear "Principles" being preached on this forum by Guerilla, among others who support RP, the central principle of Church and State should be something all of us should care about. Particularly given a concrete example of the last couple of decades, and the rise of the religious right in America: People bleed, and people die over such an issue.

Re: "Christian radicalism....Salem," etc., precisely what the Founders wanted to avoid, and why they forbade religious tests to hold office.

Re: socialism. We have a different view of what socialism actually means. As an example, by what I presume is your intended meaning of "socialism," the following is a socialist viewpoint:

The president's obligation? How is he or she to help the homeless, the poor, the veterans living on the streets? A presidential appeal to kindness, charity, (your "lovey-dovey"), or in the absence of this, a hands off approach, and reliance on market-driven solutions (that don't do a damn thing)? If by taxes, to pay for frivolous nonsense like prosthetics for wounded vets, well, hell, what if I don't support the war, or don't want to pay for that vet - isn't it socialism to redistribute my wealth to another, by coercion?

The reasons for immigration during the great 19th century wave are legion; grossly, a push-pull dynamic.

The push was a hellatious population pressure, and rural fragmentation in Europe, coupled with policies and cycles that led to economic hardship - the potato famines (not just in Ireland) being but one.

The pull was a historically rooted time in American economic development - we were at the nascence of truly heavy, labor-intensive industry, so we opened our ports willingly. Compared to starvation and death, the promise of even meager wages looked bright.

What took place as a result of this Great Transatlantic Migration - both the prosperity of America, and the management of some of unbridled capitalism's worst excesses (child labor, unsafe and unhealthful working conditions, etc.) - is what built this nation, and what made it a great nation. We can no more return to a "state of nature," a religiously construed, unregulated market economy, than we can become a modern day command economy on the Soviet model. To believe either as a panacea is what I call simplistic, and reductionist, with real, and harmful, consequences.

 

I certainly agree with most of what you say about separation of church and state, the only thing I'm thinking is the "culture" of America. Sure if I could have my own country, it wouldn't be a Christian one, but it's not up to me to decide what events took place in history to give to it what it has now. But you have the advantage here at the historical facts so I'll let that go.

As far as the economics part, I just now thought of something. What about a system of government that you could opt to pay the increasingly high taxes for the general good of everyone else, and if you didn't want to pay for them, you aren't entitled to that service?

I think that's called anarcho-communism, not sure.

All in all, we could argue over whether the theory of libertarianism works better than "Keynesian Capitalism", but our minds won't change. I do have this question to pose however, which actually is somewhat proof of the flawed theory of excess intervention..

I keep in contact with a lot of the people doing or about to do the Free State Project in New Hampshire and a common complaint is the nanny-staters coming in from neighboring states, because they are fed up with the high taxes. So they're pouring in from New England because of high taxes, but yet they remain to vote liberal and raise taxes?

I'm beginning to think this modern liberalism idea is just a "feel-good" theory much like the "green" movement recently. It's something for the snobbish condescending middle-upper class to think about as they find ways to avoid taxes that THEY vote for.

 

OK. It isn't my primary thing, either, to be honest, but given RP's stand on the issue, it raises a flag to me regarding a presumption of libertarian principle.

Do you have some examples in mind? I know Guerilla has a problem with taxes , as "coercive" instruments of the state to pay for services one doesn't want - forced redistribution, hence, "socialism." How would it work in your model?

I agree with you, this is a huge topic that cannot even leave out an exhaustive discussion of rationality v. irrationality in decisionmaking processes. Another day.

Well, certainly, this is true in many instances. And precisely my point, really. Again, going to greed, and irrationality. Precisely why I can't agree that a completely market-based society, without regulation, works. The green movement, for instance, isn't new. Going back to at least 1962, emblematically, with Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, detailing the horrible environmental damage being wrought by industry in the way of pesticides and other pollutants. I wouldn't call the regulation of chemical effluent - such as DDT - into our environment as "feel good" hippy stuff, though it once was. Such things affect all of us. Without regulation, the world would simply be a far different - and I would say, far worse place. Though it isn't any great shakes now, in my opinion.

If you want an idea of what early, unregulated capitalism looks like, and don't want to refer to older history, you don't have to - take a look at the former Soviet Republics along the Baltic coast, and what happened with the advent of unregulated markets, immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Not pretty.

I see global warming brought up in this thread, dismissing the entire notion as unsupported by science. Another day, as well. But this isn't a "liberal" or "enviro-fascist" thing.

Let me quote something from Rich Lowry, heir to William F. Buckley as Editor of the conservative magazine, National Review, on the subject of the right in America, the War, conservatism, the environment, and dealing with reality:

-and, on the subject of global warming, appraising responses to an article on same by Jim Manzi:

(Both quotes from the current New Yorker).

In other words, I don't think the solution to what ails all of us lies in putting our heads in the sand, nor does it lie in reliance on simplistic notions. The work comes from looking at the world, and seeing what works best. I believe a strictly, theoretical laissez-faire system, without regulation or taxes of any kind, is utterly absurd, at best, and downright destructive, at worst, and history, at least as I have seen it, has borne this out.

 

Ahhhh but you're forgetting something, about the smoggy history of industry, in Libertarian theory, property rights apply. That means you have the right to sue if your property is being polluted in any way.

And Global Warming is as factual as Global Cooling. What Al Gore doesn't realize is avg. global temperatures haven't went up since 1998. There's so much evidence to support that it's actually going in the different direction it's quite seriously not even funny. Science is void of ignorance, so if we want to look to the world for our solutions we should look without ignorance. It's quite clear the smothering that is going on in opposition to the current agenda, so I'm sure it looks quite unifying in the scientific world. It isn't.

Also, as someone who has great respect for Nature and Mother Earth, I also realize that it is despicable to instill guilt in Americans for simply living without any solid evidence. I would like to see pollution be reduced and of course alternative energy sources, but I know a fake when I see a fake and this whole movement is just a big lie. If you want to clean up the Earth, tell Congress to stop spraying aluminum and other metals in the sky to keep it shiny.

But see people don't want to "clean up the Earth", this is all driving out of FEAR that sea levels are going to rise and destroy whole nations. As someone who knows their history NorthPoint, you should know that there are hidden agendas behind fear-mongering.

But like you said, that's another day.

 

Including, most importantly, the right to self ownership. Which is the basis of the NAP (Non-Aggression Principle).

Of course, most socialists would like us to believe that you can have "Freedom, with conditions". Like a free burger, if you buy fries and a drink.

If there are conditions on your freedom, then you are not truly free. That's where socialists fail. Their system cannot work without harnessing the capitalist instincts of the most productive, and yet they would need to have a voluntary system to be moral. Well, the most driven, successful and productive, generally don't like a system where the fruits of their labor are confiscated, their creativity is retarded and morality is dictated to them (see Atlas Shrugged).

I've found that socialists want no part of any sort of scientific or economic empirical argument. Eventually you will get sucked into arguing the subjective, with plenty of strawmen being tossed your way.

The real issue is, how come Obama's ideas can't withstand scientific and economic inquiry? Why are there no meat and potato facts?

If he's this environmental vanguard, then shouldn't the basis of his environmentalism be subject to questioning and review? I mean, if you and I have deduced that there is no global warming, then isn't he quite the fool for going around and promoting it?

The socialists thrive on creating fear and situations of dread.

That's how they gain power collectively and individually.

The Hegelian Dialectic of

Problem => reaction => solution.

If they can't manufacture a problem, then they can't grow the system, write a billion more laws, hire 1000's more police and diminish many more rights in order to grow the state and their own roles within it.

The good news is, eventually socialists starve out the very people they feed off, and the system collapses like it did in the USSR and the Warsaw Pact countries.

 

Yep, I know - so please tell me what part of the air I own over which to sue; what part of the ocean; and so forth. This is the flaw in reliance on a theory of property rights. This works, for some things, and not for others. The stuff that affects us all, in common, is not a property rights issue, and must be dealt with by other means.

Well, Nate, I am reading different science, then, and experiencing different changes personally. I am seeing entire agricultures being driven northward, and out of existence in southern climes. These are realities, they exist, and are not subject to rhetoric and persuasive ability. The argument usually comes down to whether man is causing the warming, not whether the warming exists.

There are hidden agendas behind everything. For instance, it is my opinion that much of the "there isn't global warming camp" is due to a concerted effort on the part of industry to avoid the costs inherent to controlling effluent. Nothing new there - again, look at the history of the U.S., at the birth of industrialization, the Asian Tigers, the Baltic states. It is there.

Guerilla's usual, painting broad platitudes that do not apply (always attempting to name myself a commie, for instance, because I routinely differ from his views, and show why and how), meanwhile, failing to answer the inconsistency:

As to "sucking you into subjective....blah, blah, blah, " Nate, such platitudes cannot answer the reality that exists. I've enjoyed our exchanges, and I would respectfully urge you to look into data, contemporary and historical, more closely, and avoid the tactics enjoyed by Guerilla. We both profit by such a good faith dialogue.

 

Nate, if you're interested in better understanding property rights, so we can avoid socialist fallacies like "the commons", drop me a PM and I will point you to some solid resources on the matter.

The reality of a commons, is that someone administers the property in the name of the "society", removes all incentive to manage the property properly because the profit motive is removed.

Again, under the hegelian dialectic, it's actually an incentive for the administrator to mismanage the property, so he can gain more power, more resources etc and further justify his role.

Problem => Reaction => Solution.

It's simple common sense, that no one will care for your stuff, or you, as well as you do. And that is why private ownership works.

 

Your're reading too much into European immigration to the US in the 1880's. The US was offering free land for farming. Didn't you ever see Little House on the Pairie? Little Joe leaves the Cartwright Ranch and homesteads with his family.

 

Yes, common sense, in short supply. "My stuff" to include that column of air above my head, extending to the stratosphere, that I, and only I, may use, and pay for. The ocean current supporting untold species that affect, and are affected by, other cross-travelling species, and human behaviors - "my stuff." "Someone else's stuff."

Nonsense. Religious, unthinking conclusions, in my opinion. As to Guerilla's misreading of the "Tragedy of the Commons," or leaping to textbook theories that don't square with reality, nothing new there either, in my experience. To his "commons fallacy" (or, as it is also known more formally in logic circles, a "prisoner's dilemma") his conclusions drawn from it just don't hold water (respecting fisheries, pun intended).

See, for example, http://picopeer.net/dox/ostrom.pdf (warning: PDF).

Now - if you'll wade through this well-researched, empirically derived study, you will find in essence what I am talking about - that no reductionist theory can be applied to the complex problems such as we are discussing. No centralized, command planning works; neither does the notion of "private property rights" in extremis. Basically, the study's thrust is that some combination of central authorities laying down broad enforcement, but reliance on local and regional authorities, and local, private resource users (such as the Maine "harbor gangs" of the Maine lobster fisheries), has tended to work rather well.

But ultimately, and more to my point, the study shows quite well that no general theory works in addressing something as inherently complex as common resources. Not that this study will actually reach someone like Guerilla's eyes, because in my experience he seizes on theories, and ignores everything else should it not square with the theory he has previously and religiously embraced. As the article concludes:

But the study is worth the read. I am hopeful, if you're serious, Nate, that you will take a look. The problems we are discussing do not fit into the abstract prescription of a few paragraphs, endlessly preached on DP.

Back to this thread proper, the question continues to remain unanswered:

 

Free land was an incentive, but I don't think that was the only incentive.

Btw, the opportunity to homestead is a plank of a free market economy.

 

That's the largest personal space I've ever heard of. LOL.

 

But it's mine, I'm payin' for it, and you can't have it.

 

This is a great article by Manuel Lora over at Mises.

If You Love Nature, Desocialize It
http://mises.org/story/2539

Excerpt

Of course one or two quotes, from one or two articles are not sufficient to discuss or understand libertarian economic ideas.

Of course, you cant challenge any of the Obamaniacs ideas, because there is no thinking behind them. Just a cult of personality.

 

Or, one can actually deal with, you know, investigations into the real world, such as discussed in good faith in posts above.

Or, hell no. A cut and paste, bad faith, and a nonsense smear ("no thinking"; "obamamaniacs"), all rolled up into one. Much easier, Classic Guerilla method! Bravo! At least one post with consistency in place.

From what I can tell, this thread was created after the OP's feelings got really hurt after getting spanked roundly on the polygamy thread, based on his support for the "right" of "consenting" children to do porn, or marriages between teens and middle-aged men. Now that an honorable point is made in rebuttal, as always, more of the same crap. Open eyes, folks, are the only way we learn from each other.

 

Hot Air storage. We're quite literally dealing with an "air head".

 

Wow, man - just nailing your substantive points home. I concede!

Need a hanky?

 

That reminds me of the helium storage tanks. Does the US government still have all that helium?