How much do Republicans hurt us?

Miscellaneous General
1

I was wondering lately about Republicans and their anti-socialist rhetoric. Lots of Republicans will always act against socialism but at the same time they’re providing the constitutional framework to allow international fascism. Now, the Democrats are at least open enough when they talk about intervening in the market economy.

But the Republicans always say they’re against socialism because they want the free market to work but in reality what the Republicans do is they create an artificial economy and they continuously over-aggregate demand with their easy lending policies, and, they provide businesses even more control over the functions of the government, which, while anarchists here might be fine with, those of us who take a minarchist position believe that the governments serve some useful purposes that they should do themselves (while the market can provide the services, the government is different outside of the market).

The point is not that Republicans are pro-privatizing government functions that is the problem. Rather, they wish for corporate control of the governmental functions, much like the Democrats do, except they’re much less honest about it. They keep harping on socialism… but they promote the same policies of fascism that Mussolini supports, while they claim to be supporting a free market.

And they use Misean rhetoric too, but, they’re doing the exact opposite of what they say they’re for. I was just wondering how much the Republicans hurt us. They make us look like fascists because they don’t only want the markets to be free, but, they want for a corporation does something wrong for it to have no accountability of any kind, and, rather than be for equal rights for everyone under the law- they think that businesses trumps individual rights, or, the constitution for that matter. All this time they’re using Misean rhetoric.

I just wanted to know what you all think of this. How much do they hurt us and our goals? I would say they hurt us significantly and unless we differentiate ourselves from them we’ll be discredited. Most people around the Rothbardian libertarian spectrum do a good job at distancing themselves from Republican thought, but, like… I just think that now so many people think that we’re all right-wing, and, we really should try to show people that we aren’t right-wing, because, otherwise we’ll just be associated with the Republicans and then we’ll easily be discredited by the mainstream media, both on the left and the right, and we’ll be accused of being an arm for the GOP when we’re really not.

2

They only hurt you if you let them.

The Crowd is going to be manipulated regardless of what you do. They are the late-adopters to any change in ideology, & will only do so until it is socially acceptable and/or economically feasible (or both), assuming that a majority of people eventually get the straight dope (information) past the propaganda.

Ignore them for the time being, focus on goals, & if you feel the need to convert / preach to anyone, do it one person, one argument at a time, one day at a time. If any prospective individual stands out from the crowd, take advantage, start some dialouge, see where it goes.

Sometimes, a failed argument that brings up new vocabulary does more than winning a morality contest with conservatives and/or liberals.

3

I dunno, I’m a Republican and I think that as far as a political party goes, if you want to incorporate any kind of free market policy at all into public policy, it’s going to come out of the Republican party. But obviously, no political party is perfect.

I mean how much of the Democratic platform do you agree with and how much of the Republican platform do you agree with?

4

They certainly favor a socialist military.

5

The only thing that will come out of the Republican party is crony capitalism based on supply side economics. They don’t believe in real laissez-fair economics, or, Hayekean liberalism, or, Misean liberalism. They just want more corporate power for the businesses that are already given government guarantees like the Democrats do. They just don’t say it out loud. As for your second point- I don’t agree with the Democrat platform or the Republican platform at all. I align myself more with the classical liberal philospohy and Hayekean liberalism. I don’t see anything but massive statism coming from the two major political parties.

Not only do they favor a socialist military but they also support private mercenaries like blackwater, and, would gladly allow them to go outside the constitution and not hold them to the same law-code that every other American citizen has to abide by. This is true for Democrats as well but Republicans are much more open about their pro-war stance. Tthey think that everything’s all well and good if you’re fighting a war and that we can’t be held accountable for anything. I guess you could say they don’t exactly follow the NAP.

6

This raises an important question: What is the difference between the military hiring individuals, a.k.a. soldiers/marines/sailors/etc., and hiring individuals that hired other individuals, a.k.a. mercenaries?

7

Rothbard had a good analysis of Reagan:

The abject failure of Reaganomics, including its consequence in economic stagnation, chronic depression, and periodically accelerating inflation, provides both a danger and an opportunity. An opportunity if libertarians can convince the public of the Reagan betrayal and that libertarians are the only ones who can sincerely lead an anti-Big Government movement. A danger if the public becomes convinced that free-market and libertarian ideas have already been tried and failed.

Roderick Long also makes some good points:

My tack is to insist — first, last, and always — on the claim that both Democrats and Republicans offer merely slightly different versions of oppressive state/corporate partnership, which the Democrats cloak in the false garb of anti-corporatism while the Republicans cloak it in the false garb of anti-statism.

Also see this helpful visual representation.

8

Idiotic. The least you could do is allow that the Republican Party does not really represent conservatives anymore.

9

The Republicans do more harm to liberty than the Democrats. At least everybody knows that the Dems aren’t for liberty. A lot of people still think that Reps=liberty, which gives the Left the ability to use rhetoric that a failure caused by the Reps= failure of liberty. Some actually think G.W Bush was a small government free-marketeer.

10

It comes closer to representing conservatives like myself than the Democratic Party does. I mean I’m really more of a classical liberal, but I know full well that most of my ideas are considered extreme nowadays. So I just vote for the party that most closely approximates my ideas and has a chance of winning (why I don’t vote libertarian.) That’s the Republican Party right now.

11

at least if you are registered as a republican, you can vote for Ron Paul (or a RP candidate) in a closed republican primary.

12

Republican Party has ideas?

13

O god.

14

So your going to rationalize a party that rapes small c conservative, libertarian & anti-federalist rhetoric in order to achieve their goals of socially conservative, theocratic derivative neo-conservative policy, different shade of liberalist-statism that ultimately does not reflect remotely anything libertarian beyond a kleptocratic acknowledgment towards their fellow political peers?

Stupid.

15

Not until they get the Tea Parties to assimilate into their collective. For now, they are just hoping every old white guy is excited enough to see Palin to haul their oxygen tanks to the polls.

16

The thing is the honchos of the Republican Party hate and utterly despise even their own base, never mind the maverick Tea Partires. This is particularly true of the neocons, but also of the Lindsay Graham “RINO” types.

17

Haven’t rationalized anything. I know full well what a lot of them stand for. But really, what are my other options? Vote libertarian or don’t vote at all. I mean I’m not an idealist, I take what I can get. The Republicans are the best medium for expressing as many of my classical liberal ideas as possible. But sure, I get frustrated with them. By the way, not all of them are what you’re describing. Obviously I’m not. You’re making a composition type error imo.

18

You are voting for people who hate you and think your’re probably dating your first cousin.

19

Wow.

20

The Republicans do so much damage to liberty precisely because they have more libertarian rhetoric, yet in practice are not the least bit like us. It gives us a bad name. You can argue for a free market and hear “you sound just like the Republicans.”

I refer again to my over simplified thumbnail sketch of history. Party A argued for free markets, hard money, and free trade. Party B argued for corporate welfare, subsidies, and protectionism. Party B carried the day for a while, and party A compromised itself and what it stood for, although in a seemingly reasonable way - they said that if B is going to rob the population on behalf of the rich, they would make use of the machinery of government, where they could, to transfer the money back. This was a bad idea, if well intentioned. (I’m glossing over the strange occurence where a president elected by A adopted in full the B beliefs once in office, and some of these came to be associated also with A.) Party B responded with arguments that sound quite free market - stop taking away the “hard earned money” from the rich, stop the class warfare, we believe in laissez-faire, and so on, none of which were true, but all of which sounded plausible.

Neither held libertarian beliefs - that B’s goals were evil, but using the state as an attempted “corrective” would only make things worse. Ironically, though, libertarians found themselves drawing ever closer to B…