Reagan was a fiscal conservative? Nope.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard60.html
Jus sayin!
Rothbard ownz.
“The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended.” -Frédéric Bastiat
Reagan was as fiscally conservative as Obama is anti-war.
"Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces."-Étienne de La Boétie
The Reagan Fraud — and After
Like most Republican politicians since the early 1930s, Ronald Reagan always portrayed himself throughout his political career as a champion of limited government, individual rights, and free enterprise — the classical-liberal values, which, of course, he absurdly described as "conservative." But, like almost all Republican politicians since the early 1930s, he seemed to forget all about these values once he got into office and assumed the reins of power. Consider, as a case in point, Reagan's eight years (1966–1974) as governor of California. As Murray Rothbard noted in 1980,Despite his bravado about having stopped the growth of state government, the actual story is that the California budget grew by 122 percent during his eight years as governor, not much of an improvement on the growth rate of 130 percent during the preceding two terms of free-spending liberal Pat Brown. The state bureaucracy increased during Reagan's administration from 158,000 to 192,000, a rise of nearly 22 percent — hardly squaring with Reagan's boast of having "stopped the bureaucracy cold."
"Democracy, too, is a religion. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses." - H.L. Mencken
Μολὼν λάβε
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt
Poor Reagan. Let him rest in pease.
If there is one thing that remains unabated betwixt classical liberalism and libertarianism is our unerring revisionism for truth. How about we tell people the truth instead of the lies and propaganda?Originally Posted by Meatwasp
The fact remains, Reagan was as limited Government as that great maestro of liberty Harry Truman.
Last edited by Austrian Econ Disciple; 02-06-2011 at 07:18 PM.
School of Salamanca - School of Austrian Economics - Liberty, Private Property, Free-Markets, Voluntaryist, Agorist. le monde va de lui même
"No man hath power over my rights and liberties, and I over no mans [sic]."
What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.
www.mises.org
www.antiwar.com
An Arrow Against all Tyrants - Richard Overton vis. 1646 (Required reading!)
More from the racists rothbard and lew rockwell. Lewy of such poor charactor he lets someone else take the blame for his racist writings. What a slime he is. The more I hear about Lew the more I get the same feeling I get when I step on a banna slug barefooted.
Last edited by klamath; 02-06-2011 at 08:23 PM.
War; everything in the world wrong, evil and immoral combined into one and multiplied by millions.
Please provide something akin to proof that Lew was the one that authored those newsletters.
"Democracy, too, is a religion. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses." - H.L. Mencken
Μολὼν λάβε
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt
Do a little google searching.
Please provide something akin to proof that Lew was the one that authored those newsletters.
War; everything in the world wrong, evil and immoral combined into one and multiplied by millions.
Again, I've seen no proof. I've seen accusations. Not proof.
"Democracy, too, is a religion. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses." - H.L. Mencken
Μολὼν λάβε
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt
How was Rothbard a racist?
Lol, klamath is just trollin me thinks.
However, the Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled Lew Rockwell as a racist, not sure about Rothbard.
"Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces."-Étienne de La Boétie
Meh. Lew very well could be a racist...and Rothbard would still be right about Reagan. The two don't have to cancel each other out.
Yeah I've never see anyone claim Rothbard was a racist.
War; everything in the world wrong, evil and immoral combined into one and multiplied by millions.
And then again he might not be right.Meh. Lew very well could be a racist...and Rothbard would still be right about Reagan
War; everything in the world wrong, evil and immoral combined into one and multiplied by millions.
I found an interesting link.
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/11486/262247.aspx
It's brought up and then broken apart.
Basically it's people doing a whole lot of $#@!ing creative inferring and taking words out of context. It's just like those left wings on MSNBC who say that anyone against Obama is a racist.
In one part, they label Rothbard a anti-semite, except there is the problem that Rothbard with ethnically jewish(same with Ayn Rand, who is constantly tried to be labeled an anti-semite for incredibly creative means of inference)
Last edited by Vessol; 02-06-2011 at 09:25 PM.
"Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces."-Étienne de La Boétie
way to link a (t)reason article
That source was probably Dondero. But it still doesn't make up for the fact that Ronald Reagan was one of the worst presidents in U.S. history, no matter if the Rothbard/Rockwell are racist or not.But a source close to the Paul presidential campaign told reason that Rockwell authored much of the content of the Political Report and Survival Report. "If Rockwell had any honor he'd come out and I say, ‘I wrote this stuff,'" said the source, who asked not to be named because Paul remains friendly with Rockwell and is reluctant to assign responsibility for the letters. "He should have done it 10 years ago."
Dondero wasn't with the Paul campaign when this was written but nice try.
War; everything in the world wrong, evil and immoral combined into one and multiplied by millions.
I hate to say it, but Reason is a beltway libertarian hub. They are the capital L libertarians, party Libertarians.
They hate the Mises Institute, Ron Paul, Rothbard, and the little l libertarian movement in general because it does not fit within their party.
Honestly I think it's pretty $#@!ing retarded, the more I read into the split the more I shake my head that people who have such common ideas are at each others throats.
"Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces."-Étienne de La Boétie
Fail. Lew took the "blame" for the newsletters all along. Taken in context, the newsletters in question were not racist. They were about a prominent issue at the time-the LA riots. This whole issue was just an attempt to smear both Lew and RP (and by extension Rothbard). It's unfortunate you've taken the bait.
This, for example, is the primary excerpt used to smear Rothbard:
SO: WHY TALK ABOUT RACE AT ALL? If, then, the Race Question is really a problem for statists and not for paleos, why should we talk about the race matter at all? Why should it be a political concern for us; why not leave the issue entirely to the scientists?
Two reasons we have already mentioned; to celebrate the victory of freedom of inquiry and of truth for its own sake; and a bullet through the heart of the egalitarian-socialist project. But there is a third reason as well: as a powerful defense of the results of the free market. If and when we as populists and libertarians abolish the welfare state in all of its aspects, and property rights and the free market shall be triumphant once more, many individuals and groups will predictably not like the end result. In that case, those ethnic and other groups who might be concentrated in lower-income or less prestigious occupations, guided by their socialistic mentors, will predictably raise the cry that free-market capitalism is evil and "discriminatory" and that therefore collectivism is needed to redress the balance. In that case, the intelligence argument will become useful to defend the market economy and the free society from ignorant or self-serving attacks. In short; racialist science is properly not an act of aggression or a cover for oppression of one group over another, but, on the contrary, an operation in defense of private property against assaults by aggressors. (From Rothbard's review of 'Herrnstein and Murray's 'The Bell Curve'')
If you REALLY think Lew and Murray are racists, it's clear that you've let others do your thinking for you. I pity thee.
Even if they're the most hardcore racist on the face of the planet, it doesn't necessarily make their arguments any less valid---if the world's worst serial killer stated "the sun warms the planet with its solar rays", it doesn't necessarily mean its false, purely because of his reputation; we still have to attack his argument, and not the person presenting it, elsewise we're engaging in ad hominem which is...pretty much what Klamath, here, has done.
I would like to point out, however, that the Mises Institute is not libertarian, per se; economics is value free, that is to say, it doesn't tell people which decision are the right ones, merely what the cause of such policies is; that said, considering that most people desire good end results, well, it leads a lot of Austrians to libertarianism. I hate to nitpick and split hairs, but this is just one of the many fallacies used against the Mises Institute on the internet (can't trust them, they just fit theory to their libertarian beliefs!) in their attempt to discredit them.
He is right though. He clearly shows how Reagan's budgets and policies grew government in California and in the Federal Government in the 80's.
Government got bigger, not smaller, under Reagan. Just the facts man!
Also, I don't take much stock in who the SPLC says is a racist. That term is thrown around just to silence people or invalidate their ideas. Rand was supposed to be a vicious racist, right? No, the media was just scared that a libertarian might actually get elected.
No, but Gary North was who apparently opined about stoning gays. I haven't seen jack or $#@! from Rockwell that indicates he's a racist.
"Democracy, too, is a religion. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses." - H.L. Mencken
Μολὼν λάβε
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt
Nice article by Rothbard. He leaves out something which I explained on this forum in detail. He states:
The burgeoning neocons were able to confuse and addle the Democratic Party by breaking with the Carter Administration, at the same time militantly and successfully pressuring it from within. The neocons formed two noisy front groups, the Coalition for a Democratic Majority and the Committee on the Present Danger. By means of these two interlocking groups and their unusual access to influential media, the neocons were able to pressure the Carter Administration into breaking the détente with Russia over the Afghanistan imbroglio and influencing Carter to get rid of the dove Cyrus Vance as Secretary of State and to put foreign policy power into the hands of the Polish émigré hawk and Rockefeller Trilateralist, Zbigniew Brzezinski. In the meantime, the neocons pushed the hysterically hawkish CIA "B" Team report, wailing about alleged Soviet nuclear superiority, which in turn paved the way for the vast gift of spending handed to the military-industrial complex by the incoming Regan Administration. The Afghanistan and "B" Team hysterias, added to the humiliation by the Ayatollah, managed not only to kill off the bedeviled Carter Administration, but also to put the boots to non-intervention and to prepare the nation for a scrapping of the "post-Vietnam syndrome" and a return to the warmongering of the pre-Vietnam Era.
"..and on Earth anguish of nations, not knowing the way out...while men become faint out of fear and expectation of the things coming upon the inhabited Earth." -- Jesus of Nazareth
Ronald Reagan was still the best president we had in ages. He wasn't perfect because he had to fight a democratic congress..
Some of you guys would tear into God if he ran for president.
Also he raised taxes in Calif. because the liberals were wanting government garbage collectors. It destroyed the private collection of trash collection. I remember he said "If they want government let them pay taxes.
When taxes went up the idiots screamed like stuck pigs.
Rothbard proves this idea of "a democrat congress thwarting all of Reagan's plans" wrong in the article.
You know I don't give a F-- what the great Rothbard says. There I said it and am glad.
How dare you!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us