Look at the speech “A Time for Choosing” if you havent. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvg7lRsCVJ8 He makes almost all the same arguments as libertarians today do - economic superiority of free markets, against left-right paradigm, against nation building, exposure of the gun in the room. That speech shows passionate belief and consistency. Also he was by far the most charismatic person with similar ideas, most capable of convincing the public of libertarian supremacy. And yet - what was the result? Fail, spending grew even if taxes stayed the same. The point is, if a person with such capability couldnt successfully execute political action, there cannot possibly exist reason to use political action, at all. What else is there? The only action that could work, despite all its flaws, is counter economics
RR was not a libertarian(The small “l” kind). The very fundation of is the Non Aggression Axiom, and that RR clearly did not paractice in any manner or policy. He was a huge advocate of theft through taxes and inflation and then took that money to threaten the Soviets hoping that their own stupidity would drive them into a spending hyper Cold War where the vast previously untapped resources of the USA to incur debts could be used as a strategic weapon. And the twisted sick part is that he was successful in many ways and certainly at taking credit. Of course the debts his administration incurred have only been increased under later admistrations in his own party.
The results have been tragic. The entire Republican Part charged off with this spend first pay later philosophy and got directly from RR this insane “America First” and worse philosophies where the USA could just cause mayhem all over the globe as the big bully in the school yard.
The price of all of this is being paid right this minute by the millions of unemployed people and by future generations who will be saddled with debts piled on high.
Long time no see, xarthaz. What brought you back all of a sudden?
What do you mean by “counter economics”?
Talk is cheap.
Bogart, you misunderstood my point. Which was an appeal to emotion - look at the Ronald in the speech i pointed at. He was practically Mr Liberty himself, expressed pretty much all the ideas and issues libertarians do, and more importantly, had the appeal to masses that guys like Ron Paul could never come close to (with all due respect), could easily have been the best founding father had he lived back then. And THIS guy could transform into what actually took place during his political career. That kind of course of events - where the best of the best still crumble to the forces of politics , just takes away any kind of hope for political action to ever be successful.
Autolykos: the whole agorism thing.
Caley: it wasnt just talk. Look at the consistency of his, the structural unity of the speech. You could practically let Ron Paul read the text and no one would know it wasnt written by him. That is not the typical career politician talk. Compare it to Bushes, Clintons, Obama, whoever really, with all their “appeal to everyone” kind of pragmatic style.
He was a huge advocate of theft through taxes and inflation and then took that money to threaten the Soviets hoping that their own stupidity would drive them into a spending hyper Cold War where the vast previously untapped resources of the USA to incur debts could be used as a strategic weapon. And the twisted sick part is that he was successful in many ways and certainly at taking credit. Of course the debts his administration incurred have only been increased under later admistrations in his own party.
The results have been tragic. The entire Republican Part charged off with this spend first pay later philosophy and got directly from RR this insane “America First” and worse philosophies where the USA could just cause mayhem all over the globe as the big bully in the school yard.
The price of all of this is being paid right this minute by the millions of unemployed people and by future generations who will be saddled with debts piled on high.
I have not seen a Democrat indict Ronald Reagan so well.
I see RR as the epitome of doublespeak. He spoke so eloquently about freedom, and government is evil. Yet he did nothing but restrict freedom and grow government.
At this point in time, the Democrats are near complicit in the massive theft by government to fund the Military-Security-Spy state so do not expect them to bad mouth RR. Besides, both Bushes and the rest of the Republican bunch are less dead targets, less interested in espousing freedom and free market principals, and have even worse records at expanding government generally and the military industrial complex in particular.
I would like some of what you’ve been smoking. He spoke as if he was one, but did not follow through in his actions. He loved government.
He talked the talk, but didn’t walk the walk.
President’s are like figureheads - all the real decision-making goes on behind the scenes. Reagan’s “pro-liberty” image probably made it a bit more difficult for the establishment to further their agenda, but they succeeded all the same. It’s interesting that just 69 days into his presidency, he was nearly assassinated. That would have promoted George Bush Sr. to the presidency, who was an establishment politician through and through. It makes me think someone wanted Reagan and his pesky “liberty and small government” speeches to give way more quickly to Bush’s New World Order rhetoric.
A strawman for the freemarket.
Reagan didn’t have control of congress. You can’t do much without congress.
Reagan didn’t have control of congress. You can’t do much without congress.
He had a Republican Senate for most of his time in office.
But not the house.
Who was that guy who created the Office of National Drug Control Policy? Oh yeah, it was Ronald Reagan. That sounds libertarian.
It’s the same conservative excuse every time. Of course, it never seems to stop them from initiating statist acts of their own conjuration without any prompting from the opposition.
Reagan wasn’t running the US. Alexander Haig and such close White House figures were the ones really doing the things.
As Caley McKibbin mentions, such lack of support may have checked his ambitions, but he could have praticed his veto more if hw was such a free market guy
Anyway, who cares if Regan outsocialized communism at least he had freemarket sounds bites!
But not the house.
He also had very little trouble getting his proposals passed. That’s a perk of being a very popular president, I guess.
What I would like to know is when do we get more than soundbites.