How is this welfare-warfare state separate? How does one not lead into the other? And isn’t the republican party dupping all the libertarians to get their votes up - GOP, etc… I mean this country is founded upon so-called liberty so it doesn’t readily leave the public conscious that easily. The left is peace and free speech. The right is be a patriot and defend america at all costs. Cannon fodder with Medicare as the treasure at the end of the tunnel for being such a good american. wooo-hooo!
It’s a matter of degree and not kind.
What peace and free speech are you talking about?
they go hand and hand. Welfare being the bread to sustain. War as the work to be done to enjoy the fruits. Notice Obama has recently stated the welfare system very well, ‘The U.S. is the only western nation that doesn’t have universal healthcare. With such a rich nation how can this continue to be.’ It’s seen as a measure of wealth, a success to the progress of a nation. I’m not arguing for it. I’m showing their mind-set that I’m sure you very well know.
The left usually are the peace-niks. Obama ran his whole campaign (and they all do on the left in recent times) on peace. Obama, ‘I’ll bring the troops home.’, etc… The left in america, the voters of the left, are usually anti-war and want peace. They have, in recent times, always been the antagonist to the republican/neocon right when it comes to this issue.
The politicans, of course, on each side never fulfills their stump speech. It’s all pomp and show.
All the sentiment that most voters have find their major ideals falling either into the republican or democrat party. If somebody doesn’t like war they go democrat. If somebody thinks a good patriot ‘defends’ it’s country with Imperial battles globally they go republican. The republicans are seen as supposed capitalists and the elites of the money-makers are usually white and democrats are fighting for the poor and homeless and feel like the white capitalistic elitists are shafting them all the time. So unions and activists spring mainly from the democrats as they perceive themselves as the down-trodden with no power and the republican money elitists hold all the control so they want to take it from them and think if they get into power they are representing the poor and race minorities. It’s all stereotypes with supposed positives and negatives on each side in the on-going political battle of the soul of america. It’s supposed to be the representation of how all americans feel. the republicans will not be able to escape the war-mongering perception that the democrats have of them and the democrats will not escape the anything goes tolerance of peace with everybody that the republicans deem to be a sophistic tolerance that is moral relativism. That’s why the left that really percieve themselves as peace-loving are waking up to the fact that obama is a sham that he really isn’t for peace and he dupped them all. the NAP goes well with the democratic-left. the free market goes well with the republican-right.
thus why the country is divided and fights straw mans upon itself in a continual illusionary political fight that sometimes teeters on actual physical aggression between these two extremes
I didn’t know the right side for you was Interventionism.
Mr. Levin is no friend of Individual Liberty.
First let me address this because it is so brazenly nonsensical. The enemy of my enemy is my friend? We are against communists are we not? Fascists are the enemy of communists are they not? Therefore we should befriend fascists?
Please, Reagan and both Bushes don’t compare to Al Gore and Obama.
Well in a sense they do, for military and police. They champion public servants just like progressives. It is merely a different set.
I think we’re talking about two sides of the same coin.
Both Democrats and Republicans use the state to support their own agenda.
Mark Levin, while he’s entertaining and at least rails against the weaker points of the Democrats agenda in an era where the mainstream media propagandizes it, ignores or omits the statist positions of his own party or conservative movement. He’s tied to the idea that you cannot believe in freedom if you do not believe in god. He speaks of moral obligations in the same breath as volunteerism. He defends the Constitution and democracy as sacred, yet ignores the failures of both to secure liberty. While I personally like the guy, there are many points where I have serious disagreement.
Mark Levine shows is true conservative colors here regarding the need for the Federal Reserve to save us and gov’t to control the money supply to prevent depressions caused by the “titans” who created a saved us from a depression prior to the fed in 1913. LOL. And that Libertarians don’t know what they’d do if the eliminated the Fed.
It’s unfortunate that such misinformation is broadcasted.
time: 47:30 min
I agree that Levine is no Libertarian and doesn’t understand economic history like those of us that have read Rothbard. And the more things I hear from him like this the more I have to raise my guard to question what’s coming out of his mouth.
You mean the neocon side no ?
Call it what you will.
It depends on who’s worse. If we’re talking about Nazzi fascists, and anarcho communists, then we should most certainly befriend the communists. In fact, I believe Rothbard sided with the extreme left, the communists.
Please, Woodrow Wilson and FDR don’t compare to the the Bushes and Reagan. And how is Obama not as bad as GW Bush? Explain that one to me.
The welfare state is not the warfare state; both are wrong, but the liberals want both. Reagan is Mises compared to the progressives.
The new left weren’t communists per say. They were anti-establishment and anti-war which Rothbard also was. I think you noticed the obvious fault with the phrase ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ and now are just trying to rationalize the irrationable.
And Teddy Roosevelt tops them all. The man openly declared the third world nothing better then backward savages who need to be taught how to be civil and personally got involved in that ‘civilizing.’ No one loved war more then Teddy Roosevelt [ though I feel there is debate between him and Churchill, see how I effortlessly got this topic back on track ] Concerning Obama at the very least the man is setting timetables, something Bush would never do. Whether he actually keeps these tables is another matter. Its the government so of course they are potentially lying to us. There is lesser hostility towards Iran, not nonexistent, but lesser. They are both horrible presidents but there is obviously a difference between them.
And neocons don’t? You don’t have to go far to hear the implied marshal values that average citizens should take up to make this a ‘better America’ from the likes of Sean Hannity and Mark Levin. We should be licking the boots of soldiers according to them because apparently their dying makes my rights exist as if natural rights needed a blood sacrifice in order to work.
Think about this statement you just made. Reagan, a man who invaded several nations for grandiose schemes of bipolar world power and time and time again used diplomatic saber rattling against the Soviet union, is somehow similar to a man who championed ‘peace, property and liberty’?
Or, I exploded your entire argument. Whichever works for you.
So we agree, the progressives and neocons are both in favor of international interventionism. As far as the timetables go, don’t be so naive.
Why do you insist on talking about absolutes? I’m speaking in relative terms.
Well your the one thinking we should befriend communists in order to stop another variate of socialism. Seems counter-intuitive to me.
I don’t think Obama a ‘progressive.’ And as far as me being ‘naive’ apparently you didn’t fully read my paragraph. You quoted it but somehow failed to read:
Reagan is in no way similar to Mises. Reagan’s theories were detached from his practices. He raises spending, increased government and bolstered subsidizes to the MIC. Above all he made it seem as if free market capitalism was part and parcel of crony capitalism. All this nonsense about the ‘Reagan revolution.’ To paraphrase Rothbard, libertarians should be happy to have survived through Reagan.
What does this even mean? He privatized industries, lowered taxes, removed overly constrictive regulations, fought the labor cartels, and raised interest rates in the face of stagflation. Was he a statist? Sure. But he’s Mises compared to Obama/FDR. My position stands.
No, I read your paragraph, but the fact that you even mention it is quite laughable.
Obama is the epitome of the progressive movement. The same movement that banned DDT and killed millions around the world, the same movement responsible for the new deal, Federal reserve, ect.
Did he part the Red Sea too? Which businesses did Reagan ‘privatize’? You are being, or have been, sucked into this naivety about the image of Reagan as some great limited government champion. He was no such thing.
Well we are discussing the differences between Obama and Bush. Whether Obama follows through on the timetables is another matter but timetables are certainly better then no timetables.
In what manner? I think Obama is a stooge. He doesn’t have a ‘movement.’ He is like political dark matter, floating in between the cracks and being whatever the opposite of his opponents are.
I called him a statist for god sakes. One example: he sold Conrail, one of America’s largest railroads, to a private firm.
Expansion of Federal reserve power and jurisdiction. Nationalization of banks, healthcare and private industry. An insane environmental agenda. Expanding the “war on terror.” Do I have to go on?
Let’s be honest, there are very few politicians or political pundits that this forum is going to like.
I like this one:
Well there you go. Unless Mark Levin starts talking like that guy, I don’t expect this forum to approve. So it goes.
The language here seems to be a bit fuzzy and I’m probably responsible. Reagan was not a good president (not that there ever was, or could be a good president), but, in purely relative terms, he was one of the best. This Japanese guy may be the exception to the rule. He would probably make a fine president!