Quote from: jrodefeld on August 04, 2014, 10:10:36 PM
Okay, I get it.  Small government, founding fathers, Constitutionalist, and tea party.  I admit that I was thinking primarily of politics when assessing your values, but I concede that there is indeed a lot more to conservatism.  Believe me, I greatly sympathize with you and I can imagine what it is like to remember better days in this country, when the cost of living was far lower, and the government was relatively restrained.  Look at the cost of education now vs fifty years ago.  The cost of healthcare now vs fifty years ago.  Believe me I understand how the growth of the State, expansionary monetary policy leading to currency debasement, and an increasingly aggressive and interventionist Federal Government has destroyed the wealth and living standards we once enjoyed.

But still, I am curious who you supported in the last election cycle.  I ask because I noticed something interesting.  I represent the younger millennial who are increasingly libertarian and radical.  Most of us supported Ron Paul, if we chose to be involved in politics at all.  But the Tea Party people didn't seem to support him.  There is some thought that Ron Paul's movement essentially started what eventually became the Tea Party movement back in 2007, but it clearly changed by 2009 and 2010 away from libertarianism and towards social conservatism and GOP orthodoxy. 

The tea party crowds were simply far different than the sorts of people that were attracted to Ron Paul's campaign.  Ron Paul's rallies were far more diverse, much younger, and held more appeal to people of diverse ideological backgrounds. 

If you were one of the Tea Party people who rejected Ron Paul's movement, I am curious as to why.  Because Ron Paul does not claim to be an anarchist, though from his writings, and his close friendship with Murray Rothbard, it is clear he is sympathetic to that belief.  He called himself a Constitutionalist so I would assume he would have some appeal to you.  But, from your remarks, it would seem you would reject his foreign policy as "appeasement" or "isolationism".  But I am merely speculating.  I would like you to clarify.

Do you have a position on the more "controversial" libertarian positions?  For example, I believe we should immediately legalize all drugs and release all non violent drug offenders.  I support the legalization of prostitution and gambling.  I am fine with gay marriage. 

Are you okay with this stuff or are you more of a social conservative?

It's not that I don't agree with you on a number of very important issues.  As a younger, far more radical libertarian, I want no State and you want a Constitutional government.  Hey, I'm cool working to push back against the State with anyone.  Though unlike you, I could care less about the Republican Party.  I am not a conservative, I don't share those social values.  I travel in more liberal circles but I care about the substance of the issues.

And finally, what are your opinions of Rand Paul?  I am not a huge fan, I think he is compromising the libertarianism of his father to pander to the GOP leadership.  But he is clearly the best potential GOP candidate in my view, but that doesn't mean I will end up voting for him.  I am undecided.  But I would expect that he would be appealing to a Tea Party crowd.

OK, I loved Ron Paul, his devotion to the fiscal sanity of the state, wanting to investigate the Fed, etc.
What I don't like and trust was his "Bring the home" mentality of having a standing army on our shores, his ideas of isolationism, was in my mind ignorant of the world around us.
Granted RP is a smart man, I believe his diligence was clouded by emotion, and failed to recognize the consequences of what he proposed.
I carry a different view, a more enlightened view being ex-military.

But because of his resolve and ethics, I trust his son, and believe dad taught him well about the nature of politics.
I don't believe Rand is in cahoots with RINO, I believe he is applying the "Keep your friends close, keep you enemy closer", I know he's smart enough they won't attack him if they think he's on their side, so he chose a smart path politically, he backed McConnel over Cruz a competitor, something Cruz recognized as well.

No, I believe Rand is playing smart in playing both sides, a balancing act that could end badly, but a risk he's willing to take.
I haven't see where he's compromised his values one bit, or did I miss something?

But I have a question, the same one Taxed raised. Who or what gave you right to your plot of land, where is the deed recorded, and who holds authority over it, a govt?

Also where does your army differ from one run by a govt, and what makes it any different?

Welcome,
I am also a Libertarian; but not of the anarchist type. I find the idea appealing ideologically but just as naïve as communism.

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 12:22:48 PM
I believe that aggression cannot ever be justified.  And the State, as an institution, necessarily must use aggression.  Therefore, the State is illegitimate and immoral. 

I disagree with your original premise, after that your argument falls apart.
We have the right to secure our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (happiness = property, amongst other things) by force if need be.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"   
Declaration of independence

We give the government the authority to use force to secure our rights. In doing so we create a dangerous entity; which is why our government is supposed to have limited and enumerated powers to use that force.

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."
Thomas Paine

Quote from: Solar on August 05, 2014, 06:32:38 AM
What I don't like and trust was his "Bring the home" mentality of having a standing army on our shores, his ideas of isolationism, was in my mind ignorant of the world around us.
Granted RP is a smart man, I believe his diligence was clouded by emotion, and failed to recognize the consequences of what he proposed.
I carry a different view, a more enlightened view being ex-military.

So what would be the consequences of what he proposed?
Would Islamist hate us more? (not possible, and who cares anyway)
Would Europe like us better?  (Who cares again)
Would Iran continue to pursue nuclear weapons? (they are anyway. We could not stop North Korea and we had 60K troops on their border, UN sanctions - bla,bla,bla)
Would Israel go to war? (Probably, but I don't have a problem with Israel wiping out a few million Islamists)
Would terrorists invade Somalia, Yemen ect.. (yes, but they are doing that now)
Would oil prices go up? (probably, all the more reason to develop our own oil and gas)

What exactly is so "ignorant" about minding your own business?
Should we act like the Romans and spread our military all over the world trying to suppress the barbarian hordes? That did not work out so well for the Romans - they ran out of money and people willing to fight. Rome burned.

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
James Madison 1865

Quote from: Novanglus on August 05, 2014, 02:04:14 PM
So what would be the consequences of what he proposed?
Would Islamist hate us more? (not possible, and who cares anyway)
Would Europe like us better?  (Who cares again)
Would Iran continue to pursue nuclear weapons? (they are anyway. We could not stop North Korea and we had 60K troops on their border, UN sanctions - bla,bla,bla)
Would Israel go to war? (Probably, but I don't have a problem with Israel wiping out a few million Islamists)
Would terrorists invade Somalia, Yemen ect.. (yes, but they are doing that now)
Would oil prices go up? (probably, all the more reason to develop our own oil and gas)

What exactly is so "ignorant" about minding your own business?
Should we act like the Romans and spread our military all over the world trying to suppress the barbarian hordes? That did not work out so well for the Romans - they ran out of money and people willing to fight. Rome burned.

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
James Madison 1865

Sure, what the Hell, lets just play isolationist, bring everyone home, ships included and when China and Russia blockade our trade with the rest of the world, we'll stomp our feet and , and...

You tell me, WTF will we do when?

Quote from: Solar on August 05, 2014, 02:14:27 PM
Sure, what the Hell, lets just play isolationist, bring everyone home, ships included and when China and Russia blockade our trade with the rest of the world, we'll stomp our feet and , and...

You tell me, WTF will we do when?

That's crazy talk. Do you really think that China and Russia would blockade the US if we did not have our troops minding everyone else's business all around the world? If they wanted to do that why would having our troops all over the world stop them? Why don't they do it now?

why don't they do it - for Russia it is because they have no hope of winning. For China it is because we are their number one trade partner, plus we would default on all the money we owe them. I'm sorry but the idea is just silly.

And if they did blockade the US, we would do what we have to; tell them to move or go to war - a war that is our business.

Quote from: Novanglus on August 05, 2014, 02:30:08 PM
That's crazy talk. Do you really think that China and Russia would blockade the US if we did not have our troops minding everyone else's business all around the world? If they wanted to do that why would having our troops all over the world stop them? Why don't they do it now?

They wouldn't dare cross us, because we are still the strongest nation on the planet.

Quotewhy don't they do it - for Russia it is because they have no hope of winning. For China it is because we are their number one trade partner, plus we would default on all the money we owe them. I'm sorry but the idea is just silly.

Yeah. right now we are, but that isn't written in stone now is it?

QuoteAnd if they did blockade the US, we would do what we have to; tell them to move or go to war - a war that is our business.

And who will come to our defense? We told the rest of the world FU when we left them high and dry bay pulling our forces home.*
Let me guess, you too are in yours 20s and have never been in the military, right?

Quote from: Solar on August 05, 2014, 03:32:35 PM
They wouldn't dare cross us, because we are still the strongest nation on the planet.
Yeah. right now we are, but that isn't written in stone now is it?And who will come to our defense? We told the rest of the world FU when we left them high and dry bay pulling our forces home.*
Let me guess, you too are in yours 20s and have never been in the military, right?

Just turned 39.
Retired from the active duty Army a few months ago after 20 years of service.
2 x tours in Iraq - 2 x tours in Afghanistan (I was one of the first troops in Afghanistan after 911, relatively speaking), served in Croatia and many other places.

Left them high and dry?
1. We should strive to be self sufficient enough not to need them. Something we can't do if we expend all our energy fighting their battles for them. They are like our unwanted welfare children.
2. Where the hell do they get the nerve to expect Americans to sacrifice their children's lives and money for another countries interests. Let Europe worry about Europe, Asia for Asia ect... when we have a compelling interest, then it's our issue.
3. Over 20 years doing multi-national ops and I have learned one thing for sure. If the US is not paying the price in blood and gold no one ells wants to fight; and when the going gets tuff - they cut and run anyway. Who needs that kind of friend. They need US, we don't need them - Maybe we should remind all those anti US protesters in Asia and EU by pulling back and letting their continent go to hell in a hand basket (just a thought).

Quote from: Novanglus on August 05, 2014, 04:29:39 PM
Just turned 39.
Retired from the active duty Army a few months ago after 20 years of service.
2 x tours in Iraq - 2 x tours in Afghanistan (I was one of the first troops in Afghanistan after 911, relatively speaking), served in Croatia and many other places.

Left them high and dry?
1. We should strive to be self sufficient enough not to need them. Something we can't do if we expend all our energy fighting their battles for them. They are like our unwanted welfare children.

Who said anything about fighting their wars?

Quote2. Where the hell do they get the nerve to expect Americans to sacrifice their children's lives and money for another countries interests. Let Europe worry about Europe, Asia for Asia ect... when we have a compelling interest, then it's our issue.

Again, this isn't about war, it's about protecting our interests abroad.

Quote3. Over 20 years doing multi-national ops and I have learned one thing for sure. If the US is not paying the price in blood and gold no one ells wants to fight; and when the going gets tuff - they cut and run anyway. Who needs that kind of friend. They need US, we don't need them - Maybe we should remind all those anti US protesters in Asia and EU by pulling back and letting their continent go to hell in a hand basket (just a thought).

Again, we're not looking for war, or at least shouldn't be, but shipping lanes are of vital interest to the US, to simply pull back and tell them to fen for themselves, is only putting our assets in peril.

Why do you think we are scattered around the globe in the first place? Because communism is still a threat, just like it was 70 years ago, nothing has changed.

Quote from: Novanglus on August 05, 2014, 04:29:39 PM
Just turned 39.
Retired from the active duty Army a few months ago after 20 years of service.
2 x tours in Iraq - 2 x tours in Afghanistan (I was one of the first troops in Afghanistan after 911, relatively speaking), served in Croatia and many other places.

Left them high and dry?
1. We should strive to be self sufficient enough not to need them. Something we can't do if we expend all our energy fighting their battles for them. They are like our unwanted welfare children.
2. Where the hell do they get the nerve to expect Americans to sacrifice their children's lives and money for another countries interests. Let Europe worry about Europe, Asia for Asia ect... when we have a compelling interest, then it's our issue.
3. Over 20 years doing multi-national ops and I have learned one thing for sure. If the US is not paying the price in blood and gold no one ells wants to fight; and when the going gets tuff - they cut and run anyway. Who needs that kind of friend. They need US, we don't need them - Maybe we should remind all those anti US protesters in Asia and EU by pulling back and letting their continent go to hell in a hand basket (just a thought).

Thank you for your service. Your perspective is welcomed.

Quote from: Novanglus on August 05, 2014, 02:04:14 PM
What exactly is so "ignorant" about minding your own business?
Should we act like the Romans and spread our military all over the world trying to suppress the barbarian hordes? That did not work out so well for the Romans - they ran out of money and people willing to fight. Rome burned.

They did not run out of money because of standing armies, they continually downsized their armies after the start of the 2nd century (the state diverted the funds to luxury trade instead), hired more auxiliaries instead of citizens which meant force equalization with the barbarians, went into a bunker mentality (building walls instead of sieges) and if you have read history you would know that the post Imperial system was built on the foundation of the Republican system, just like this modern liberal economy is feeding off the previous conservative economy, it is only a matter of time before welfare exceeds tax revenue and that is why they ran out of money.

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 04, 2014, 03:13:57 PM
What do you mean "weaken western society"?  Surely you are not so naive as you equate the State with society?  I repeat myself but I cannot find any moral or logical justification for the initiation of force.  I cannot find any valid ethic that grants certain humans in a society immunity from the ethical rules that govern the rest of us peons.  Any valid moral principle must be universalizable.  I cannot logically refute the argument in favor of self ownership without contradiction.

Therefore, I must oppose the State since it violates universal moral principles, it MUST initiate coercion to fit the description of a "state", and it necessarily violates the right of self ownership of the citizens who live within its jurisdiction.

And this is to say nothing of the many utilitarian objections to the State, which are quite extensively documented in the literature. 

If you feel you can refute any of these statements, you are welcome to make the attempt.

Are you intentionally confusing conservatism and socialism or are you just this radically blind?

You have the option of declaring yourself stateless and renouncing your citizenship thereby voluntarily giving up your obligations to the state, why haven't you?

Quote from: Novanglus on August 05, 2014, 01:29:21 PM
Welcome,
I am also a Libertarian; but not of the anarchist type. I find the idea appealing ideologically but just as naïve as communism.

I disagree with your original premise, after that your argument falls apart.
We have the right to secure our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (happiness = property, amongst other things) by force if need be.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"   
Declaration of independence

We give the government the authority to use force to secure our rights. In doing so we create a dangerous entity; which is why our government is supposed to have limited and enumerated powers to use that force.

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."
Thomas Paine

I appreciate your contribution.  Let me go over my statement more carefully.  First, aggression cannot be justified.  If we accept that people own their own bodies (i.e. have the right to exclusive control over their use) and if we accept that justly acquired property is an extension of self ownership (homesteading aka original appropriation), then aggression against the person or property of another cannot be justified.  Remember that aggression doesn't mean "violence" or "force".  Aggression means the initiation of violence against someone who, by definition, is not violating your rights.  If we agree that people have "rights", many libertarians subscribe to the concept of natural rights, then by definition it would be morally unjustifiable to violate those rights. 

Now does the State, as I claimed, necessarily commit aggression?  Even a limited Republic form of government commits aggression.  In the first place, a written Constitution which establishes the supposed legitimacy of a central State cannot ever be valid for people who did not consent to that agreement.  Those who personally ratified the Constitution in the late 18th century could be said to have consented to the authority of a central State but those born after, or those who did not personally consent to the ratification, cannot be coerced into accepting a legitimacy of a central authority.  A contract can only be valid for those who voluntarily signed it.  If you protest this point, can you point to any other legal contract that is enforceable against a person who never agreed to it nor signed it? 

Second, all governments collect taxes through compulsion and the threat of violence.  Even minor sales taxes, import duties and things of that nature involve the introduction of violence into peaceful economic transactions.  Who gave them the authority to steal the property of all people living in a territory?  You could make an argument that those who personally ratified the Constitution consented but even they did not consent to an income tax.  But no one living personally agreed to have their property forcefully stolen from them. 

Minimal government advocates such as yourself often claim that a limited government can be constructed such that it doesn't commit aggression and instead it merely protects our natural rights.  If such an institution were to be imagined, it would be one that was funded only through voluntary contributions, one that allowed any peaceful competition to its services and one that does not force anyone to submit to its authority against their will.  But such an institution would not be a "State" under any historic definition of the term.  It would instead be a voluntary market service.


You say that "we have the right to secure our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (happiness = property, amongst other things) by force if need be.We have the right to secure our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (happiness = property, amongst other things) by force if need be."  I think you are mistaking "aggression" with "force".  You have the right to defend your natural rights (self ownership, private property) through defensive violence.  But when you start to use vague terms like "happiness" as a right, you run into trouble.  This is what happened in the early 20th century when leftists started to "expand" the supposed rights that people were entitled to.  Negative rights were replaced by positive rights.  Progressives started to argue that people had the right to a house, to healthcare, to material comforts, etc.  Conceding that people have the right to "happiness" is moving down that road to Statism and authoritarianism.  I understand that the the phrase "the pursuit of happiness" meant that people have the right to be left alone, to act as they see fit and pursue their passions without coercion being used against them.  However, the wording is too vague and it has been used to justify expansion of State power.  This is another reason I oppose the Constitution.  It makes people forget about principles, about ethics, and about self ownership and instead they are conditioned that all our rights come from the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  If a court can convince people that the wording in some two hundred plus year old document should be interpreted in some way, people don't protest as they should.

I'm glad you concede that by supported the Constitution we are creating a "dangerous force".  But for minimal government libertarians and conservatives to be taken seriously, I think they need to explain the utter failure of the Constitution to limit the growth of State power.  Human nature being what it is, it seems to be a hopeless fantasy that people can and will elect principled Constitutionalists to Congress most of the time.  A few Ron Pauls here and there is not enough.  For a limited government to remain limited, you will have to be able to elect a majority of "original intent" people over the course of decades and even centuries. 

I think your side of this debate has to offer something much more concrete.  You need to rethink the mechanisms that are needed to keep a limited government limited over time.  Because what we have has not worked.  If you cannot come up with something better, then it's time to go all the way and embrace market anarchism and reject the use of aggression in all cases.

Quote from: Novanglus on August 05, 2014, 02:04:14 PM
So what would be the consequences of what he proposed?
Would Islamist hate us more? (not possible, and who cares anyway)
Would Europe like us better?  (Who cares again)
Would Iran continue to pursue nuclear weapons? (they are anyway. We could not stop North Korea and we had 60K troops on their border, UN sanctions - bla,bla,bla)
Would Israel go to war? (Probably, but I don't have a problem with Israel wiping out a few million Islamists)
Would terrorists invade Somalia, Yemen ect.. (yes, but they are doing that now)
Would oil prices go up? (probably, all the more reason to develop our own oil and gas)

What exactly is so "ignorant" about minding your own business?
Should we act like the Romans and spread our military all over the world trying to suppress the barbarian hordes? That did not work out so well for the Romans - they ran out of money and people willing to fight. Rome burned.

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
James Madison 1865

I agree with most everything you say here but I want to add a couple things that I think are important.  First, Israel is able to be so belligerent and aggressive because they have the unconditional backing of the United States government.  Recent Snowden documents have exposed that the US military and government have been intimately involved in virtually all of the Israeli attacks on the Palestinian people over the past several decades.  I would like a peaceful two State solution to this problem, but we are making matters much worse by supporting Israel in this way.  This exposes us to attacks by the enemies of Israel and it makes peace in the region less likely.  We should cut of all foreign aid to the region, including to Israel.  They should be completely on their own. 

Second, it is not true that Iran has been developing a nuclear weapon.  It may be true that some in Iran may like to have a nuclear weapon, but there has never been any evidence of any tangible effort to move in that direction.  A new book that exposes this myth is called "Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare" by Gareth Porter.

http://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1407529368&sr=8-1&keywords=gareth+porter&tag=donations09-20

Iran has only ever been using nuclear technology for peaceful purposes (energy production and medical research).  The rest of this story has been fabricated by the warmongers, by Netanyahu and the Neocons. 

I agree with everything else you wrote.  We should be minding our own business.  Why some conservatives conflate military aggression and empire with national security and defense is a mystery.  I understand why the profiteers and Israel first Republicans promote this stuff, but why do the rank and file conservatives tolerate this propaganda?

Quote from: Solar on August 05, 2014, 02:14:27 PM
Sure, what the Hell, lets just play isolationist, bring everyone home, ships included and when China and Russia blockade our trade with the rest of the world, we'll stomp our feet and , and...

You tell me, WTF will we do when?

China and Russia are not going to blockade our trade with the rest of the world.  They gain far too much from free trade.  Haven't you ever heard the expression "if goods cross borders, militaries don't"?  There is almost a paranoia among conservatives about perceived threats from the rest of the world that is not consistent with the facts. 

If Russia wants to waste a massive amount of money on military boondoggles and imperialist tendencies, let them do it.  It will only further weaken their economy.  Remember when the Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan in the 1980s?  Overextending their military contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.  There is a reason that Afghanistan is referred to as "the graveyard of empires".  We haven't learned much of a lesson from that have we?  We've had our own occupation of Afghanistan for 13 years now and in that time our national debt has more than tripled. 

We should adopt a non-interventionist foreign policy and invest our money into a free economy, growing businesses, accumulating savings and improving our standard of living.  Let these other nations squander their wealth on military hubris and folly.  And if any nation actually attacks us or threatens our national security, our level of prosperity will allow us to actually wage a protracted war and emerge victorious. 

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 08, 2014, 01:28:09 PM
I agree with most everything you say here but I want to add a couple things that I think are important.  First, Israel is able to be so belligerent and aggressive because they have the unconditional backing of the United States government.  Recent Snowden documents have exposed that the US military and government have been intimately involved in virtually all of the Israeli attacks on the Palestinian people over the past several decades.  I would like a peaceful two State solution to this problem, but we are making matters much worse by supporting Israel in this way.  This exposes us to attacks by the enemies of Israel and it makes peace in the region less likely.  We should cut of all foreign aid to the region, including to Israel.  They should be completely on their own. 

Second, it is not true that Iran has been developing a nuclear weapon.  It may be true that some in Iran may like to have a nuclear weapon, but there has never been any evidence of any tangible effort to move in that direction.  A new book that exposes this myth is called "Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare" by Gareth Porter.

http://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1407529368&sr=8-1&keywords=gareth+porter&tag=donations09-20

Iran has only ever been using nuclear technology for peaceful purposes (energy production and medical research).  The rest of this story has been fabricated by the warmongers, by Netanyahu and the Neocons. 

I agree with everything else you wrote.  We should be minding our own business.  Why some conservatives conflate military aggression and empire with national security and defense is a mystery.  I understand why the profiteers and Israel first Republicans promote this stuff, but why do the rank and file conservatives tolerate this propaganda?

Please share your shampoo brand. It has to be good to get all of the sand out ofyour hairt with your head stuck so far down. Denial is a wonderful liberal trait to rationalize their wishful beliefs.

Quote from: Solar on August 05, 2014, 05:18:41 PM
Who said anything about fighting their wars?Again, this isn't about war, it's about protecting our interests abroad.
Again, we're not looking for war, or at least shouldn't be, but shipping lanes are of vital interest to the US, to simply pull back and tell them to fen for themselves, is only putting our assets in peril.

Why do you think we are scattered around the globe in the first place? Because communism is still a threat, just like it was 70 years ago, nothing has changed.

Communism is NOT still a threat.  Are you kidding me?  The fact that we know that communism is a completely failed system should show us that they are not a threat to us.  That is not to say that some country might not become communist or adopt communist ideas, but that is a problem that those populations will have to deal with.

Murray Rothbard did great work on this subject.  Bill Buckley and other conservatives at the time absolutely hated Rothbard because he didn't go along with their fear mongering cold war hysteria.  Communism was never a serious threat to take over the planet.  There is an interesting paradox that Rothbard described where the most anti market and totalitarian nations tend to be some of the least imperialistic and aggressive internationally while they are so despotic and oppressive internally.  While some of the most free market oriented nations tend to be the most imperialistic and militarily aggressive outside their borders. 

Why don't you tell me which communist nations are such a big threat that we need to maintain a military presence around the globe with more than 900 bases in 150 countries?  Are you staying up at night worried about an invasion from Cuba?  Even China, which remains nominally Communist and oppressive, has made significant moves towards capitalism in recent years. 

There are several reasons why communist nations are not a military threat.  In the first place, Marx taught that Capitalism would fail of its own accord.  He saw capitalism as an inevitable and necessary evolutionary stage which will eventually be replaced by a "workers paradise".  There is nothing in Marxist ideology that supports military overthrow of capitalist nations or of maintaining a world empire.

Granted, some communist states may not be orthodox and principled in their application of Marxist ideology.  However, another reason why a military threat from communism is unlikely is that such a nation will be unable to economically support any sort of protracted military battle against a more prosperous Capitalist nation.  Leaders of Communist nations are not stupid, they don't want to commit suicide by waging war against nations with prosperous free market economies.  They spread communism through ideology and education.  You don't have to look farther than some of America's universities to see professors who espouse a neo-Marxist belief system.  This ideological spread of Marxist ideas can indeed be dangerous, but we don't need an army to resist such indoctrination.  We just need to point out the flaws in the Marxist system and thus inoculate people from the allure of economic fallacies.

Conservatives like Bill Buckley successfully convinced an entire generations of conservatives to "temporarily" abandon their attachment to old Right ideas of shrinking government back to pre-New Deal size to support military expansion and an arms race against the great existential threat of Communism.  For some thirty years, conservatives dropped the ball on any sort of opposition to the growth of the State and instead, they supported the expansion of the Military Industrial Complex.  It became such an integral part of the US economy by the time the Soviet system collapsed that there was no possibility of scaling back the empire.