pretty good essay from Lew IMHO

[crimresearch]

Nice try BillyD, but you are the one who ran away when asked to provide links to back up your BS assertions...

And as far as having a discussion about libertarian principles, you haven't demonstrated that you know anything about small 'l' libertarianism...you *have* demonstrated that you know how to make up a bogus position, and claim that it is what someone else believes...

I think you need to be looking in the mirror every time you say 'Troll'.

As far as Rockwell's article, it fell apart at the very beginning, when he said "Our times are much like the 1930s, when it was widely assumed that there are only two viable ideological positions: communism or fascism. Liberalism of the old school was considered to be a failure, and not even worth considering."....

Pure bullcrap...the man doesn't have a clue as to what he is talking about when it comes to history, or to liberalism...he is just regurgitating Hollywood scripts from bad movies...

In fact, the 1930s were a time when liberalism was making progress around the world in everything from Esperanto, to Gandhi, to Haile Selassie, to Erich Maria Remarque, to Söderblom...shall I go on?

And the rest of the article is framed in more agit-prop, which backs up everything I've already said about the LP and its would be 'revolutionaries' being exactly like the Republicans, or the Democrats, or anyone else seduced by power.

But do feel free to come back when you have some facts....

 

[crimresearch]

Whooops!!

Caught this one as it was slinking away...it had almost made it off of Page 1.

Now for some reason I have an overwhelming urge to go listen to the Beastie Boys...

 

[Tony]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Why do you do that?

Absolutely false.

No it's not.

Conservatism never thought the world based on their views would be perfect--or anything near perfect. It merely considered it the case that preserving tradition is worthwhile since experience of ages shows older systems that survived are usually better-NOT perfect. Read Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France", for instance.

Martin Luther King Jr. never considered the world where people "will be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" to be a perfect one. He never said (and probably never imagined) that such a world would be without injustice or perfect in any way. He merely wanted to correct THIS injustice--Racism--for the benefit of all.

For Martin Luther King, for this and other reasons, racists and even the KKK were wrong, but were never evil inherently. He famously refused to hate them. They were not evil monsters whose racism is the one thing that stops the world from achieving perfection.

You obviously misunderstood. I'm not saying every single person belonging to any particular movement had a vision of a perfect world based on their values, but elements, usually the more extreme/idealistic/fanatic elements, in everyone movement did.

Ohh and I'd say that "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of it's creed that all men are created equal" is fundamentally utopian. You seem to be equating murderous extremism with utopianism, I don't see it that way.

Compare this to both Stalin and Banawhatshisname, the Libertarian "presidential candidate". Both have a list of "enemies" (capitalists, the federal government, the IRS...) whose "removal" is of extreme importance as they stand in the way of the socialist (or libertarian) utopia. THAT sort of thinking leads to gulags--which Banawhatever was already planning for IRS workers.

Compare this to both Hitler and the typical conservative. Both have a list of "enemies" (liberals, jews, gays, blacks, atheists, people who like to think) whose "removal" is of extreme importance as they stand in the way of the Aryan (or conservative) utopia.

 

[crimresearch]

"...I'm not saying every single person belonging to any particular movement had a vision of a perfect world based on their values, but elements, usually the more extreme/idealistic/fanatic elements, in everyone movement did."

That would seem to be correct. (Some of those idealistic elements could include the ones who want to eliminate everybody who doesn't share their vision, BTW)

But setting aside for the moment extremism, of the political ideologies that want *less* change and more status quo, conservatism would seem a prime suspect..and could be seen as therefor somewhat less than idealistic.

 

[Tony]

But setting aside for the moment extremism, of the political ideologies that want *less* change and more status quo, conservatism would seem a prime suspect..and could be seen as therefor somewhat less than idealistic.

That depends, what was once radical and idealistic can become the status quo ie anti-slavery, minority rights ect.

True conservatism (if such a thing exists, "conservatives" are rarely conservative, they want to change all kinds of ****) is more like a non-ideology.

Perhaps what we really mean is "status quoism"?

 

[crimresearch]

Bah-dump-bump!