PDA

View Full Version : Washington Monthly On Paul's Speech




angelatc
11-14-2012, 11:22 PM
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_11/nothing_new_under_the_son041204.php

Democrat strategist not unhappy at Paul's retirement. Shocker!

But this comment baffles me, and I hope that one or more of you history buffs can sort it out for me:



Doug on November 14, 2012 7:06 PM:"...can you name a libertarian nation that has been a disaster for its people?" Dan @ 6:28 PM[1. The UK between 1740 and 1860.
2. France between 1820 and 1848.
3. The US between 1870 and 1904.
Shall I continue?
While it may be true that, the during the periods I named, those "countries" gained in power and influence, that power and influence was gained at a cost of deprivation and loss of civil rights for individual citizens. Those losses were the direct result of following "libertarian/lassaiz faire" doctrines.

Except for their not requiring any Ga;tian figure, these people are nothing more, or less, than Randites. When "libertarians" quit being a cult and rejoin the political mainstream by joining and influencing major political parties, THEN I may start listening to them.

I've read enough history about what we we've gone through to get to where we are now, I don't need any repeats...

KCIndy
11-14-2012, 11:26 PM
But this comment baffles me, and I hope that one or more of you history buffs can sort it out for me


He's either someone deliberately trying to misguide people and muddy the waters, or else he's a nitwit who has no understanding of the basic concept of libertarianism.

Or both. :)

Carehn
11-14-2012, 11:35 PM
His definition of civil rights must be different then mine,,,, or those places where not Libertarian. Maybe he doesn't know what a libertarian is That or civil rights, but In my book I think civil rights are very important in a libertarian society.

Therefore if they had no civil rights it was not a libertarian country.

Damn this double speak, I have had my fill of it.

Origanalist
11-14-2012, 11:42 PM
His definition of civil rights must be different then mine,,,, or those places where not Libertarian. Maybe he doesn't know what a libertarian is That or civil rights, but In my book I think civil rights are very important in a libertarian society.

Therefore if they had no civil rights it was not a libertarian country.

Damn this double speak, I have had my fill of it.

It all get's so confusing, when you listen to lunatics.

KCIndy
11-14-2012, 11:49 PM
To elaborate just a bit:

I'm not sure why the poster picked the dates he did, but the first two (The UK between 1740 and 1860 and France between 1820 and 1848) were monarchies. England also had Parliamentary rule. France was simply a mess under Louis XVII, who had more or less assumed power after Napoleon screwed the pooch at Waterloo.

In the U.S. the years of 1870-1904 (weird year to pick, that last one) were marked by westward expansion. Maybe the poster considered the "lawless" frontier of the so-called "Wild West" to be representative of a libertarian society? If that's the case, he needs to go back and hit some *real* history books. With a few notable exceptions, most of the "lawless" old west was actually pretty peaceful and (bad "B" westerns aside) governed pretty well by those who lived there. On a national level, the U.S. had veered WAY off the course originally intended for it by the libertarian-minded Founding Fathers. After the Civil War and the subsequent Reconstruction period, the U.S. was less libertarian than at any other time to date.

And if the claim the poster is trying to make is that a libertarian society becomes LESS so over time (ie libertarianism is followed by a harsher, more tyrannical government) I can't see how that is the fault of the libertarian society... with the possible exception that the freedom loving people of the libertarian society didn't fight hard enough against those who wish to impose statism and harsh authoritarian control.