GGniner Wrote:the fundamental problem with big L, libertarianism, is that its amoral(no moral base).

Libertarianism is not an amoral philosophy. It is one of the few philosophies which actually respects the moral agency of every individual. Just believing that you are right & everyone else wrong does not a moral philosophy make.

Quote:It doesn't have any logical way of dealing with foreign affairs and it's lead many of them(not all) to flock to isolationism as a default.

Very few libertarians (either little l or big L) are isolationists. There is a difference between isolationism and not wanting to be the world's policeman. Besides the obvious costs, another libertarian concern is that goverment tends to grow in size & power during conflicts and never returns back to the original size once the conflict is over.

Quote:That basically assumes what secular-humanist beleive, "Man kind is naturally good".

This is not a tenent of libertarian philosophy (this is Anarchism). If libertarians believed that all men were basically good there would be no need for government. Since libertarians understand that men run the gamut from good to evil, a government (monopoly of force) is required to secure the rights of its inhabitants. Otherwise a civil society would be all but impossible.

jh Wrote:

GGniner Wrote:the fundamental problem with big L, libertarianism, is that its amoral(no moral base).

Libertarianism is not an amoral philosophy. It is one of the few philosophies which actually respects the moral agency of every individual. Just believing that you are right & everyone else wrong does not a moral philosophy make.

Quote:It doesn't have any logical way of dealing with foreign affairs and it's lead many of them(not all) to flock to isolationism as a default.

Very few libertarians (either little l or big L) are isolationists. There is a difference between isolationism and not wanting to be the world's policeman. Besides the obvious costs, another libertarian concern is that goverment tends to grow in size & power during conflicts and never returns back to the original size once the conflict is over.

Quote:That basically assumes what secular-humanist beleive, "Man kind is naturally good".

This is not a tenent of libertarian philosophy (this is Anarchism). If libertarians believed that all men were basically good there would be no need for government. Since libertarians understand that men run the gamut from good to evil, a government (monopoly of force) is required to secure the rights of its inhabitants. Otherwise a civil society would be all but impossible.

People like me, you, and FoShizzle are gonna have to stop posting or the Spin Room could become a forum dominated by actual principled discourse instead of political hackery.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:People like me, you, and FoShizzle are gonna have to stop posting or the Spin Room could become a forum dominated by actual principled discourse instead of political hackery.

You, and the other Libertarians, don't hold a monopoly on principles. Everyone that posts, people like Blah, Greg, Niner, myself, etc., are principled. Just because our principles are different from yours doesn't make us any less principled.

RebelKev Wrote:

NIU007 Wrote:What would they have done to keep him from getting powerful? Invade Germany? Stalin also misread Hitler in the 30s and didn't realize his mistake until it was too late, and he was not exactly the weak-kneed type given to knuckling under. Leaving them alone may not change their ways, but it depends entirely on who you're dealing with - it has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Right now we are appeasing North Korea, and so far it is working.

How about go to the League of Nations to enforce the f'n Treaty of Versailles, youngun? You're trying to make an excuse for a past mistake. This **** should have been addressed and today, just maybe, the LON wouldn't be considered such an utter failure......kinda like the damn UN is.

If we hadnt gone along with the French for such a harsh treaty...Germany would never have seen the hyperinflation and despair that set the stage for the rise of Hitler....Thus...No WWII
Throughout history we seem to think that we have to solve worlds problems...I dont think we should pull back inside our borders and never get involved...I just think we have pissed away untold trillions of dollars with our current foriegn policy...We protect the border of South Korea better than our own...Thats just stupid as hell.

Why is everything with the neo-cons an allegory about world war two?

Ever notice how every single thread around here gets turned into a world war two comparison?

There's a reason why that is always invoked as a frame for these discussions. But its getting to be a really tired and transparent rhetorical trick. Utterly predictable and complete bull.

Now call me Chamberlain.

When I took composition the teacher said that if we were ever stuck, use WWII and/or the holocaust as evidence to back up whatever point we were trying to make.

WWII is history. You don't think history should be a major increment in deciding policy? Learning from history can, many times, change the direction of the future. .....kinda messed up that so many ignore it. By the way, I'm still waiting on someone to explain to me what a f'n neo-con is.

Pro-Isreal conservative. Diplomacy through the barrel of a gun. Chickenhawks that have never seen a battlefield. Their blood our guts kind of people. Anti-Colin Powell. Wolfwolwitz, Pearle, Cheney.

So, supporting Israel makes one a "neo-con"? Supporting an ally? Supporting a country that wants to exist? Like I said, when I see two sides, I am always going to side with the group that doesn't have as one of it's tenets the complete annihilation of the other and it just so happens their enemy is the same as ours.

OUGwave Wrote:Why is everything with the neo-cons an allegory about world war two?

Ever notice how every single thread around here gets turned into a world war two comparison?

There's a reason why that is always invoked as a frame for these discussions. But its getting to be a really tired and transparent rhetorical trick. Utterly predictable and complete bull.

Now call me Chamberlain.

Partly my fault I guess. Somebody said appeasement basically caused millions to die in WWII (though I'm not sure what that had to do with this thread) and I mentioned that the war would have happened anyway. Should have just let it go. My bad.

History is obviously important to know, but everyone has their own interpretation of how appropriate it is to apply the lessons to a new situation. It isn't as straightforward as some people seem to think it is.

RebelKev Wrote:WWII is history. You don't think history should be a major increment in deciding policy? Learning from history can, many times, change the direction of the future. .....kinda messed up that so many ignore it. By the way, I'm still waiting on someone to explain to me what a f'n neo-con is.

There's lots of history out there to choose from.

WW2 tends to get referenced because it is seen as a time of moral clarity, where we were very clearly on the right side of History, and it is clearly seen as a just war.

Which is why in a time when things are seen as more ambiguous, and the way forward is less clear, those who support a reactionary foreign policy tend to wrap their arguments in the cloak of a more noble conflict.

RebelKev Wrote:WWII is history. You don't think history should be a major increment in deciding policy? Learning from history can, many times, change the direction of the future. .....kinda messed up that so many ignore it. By the way, I'm still waiting on someone to explain to me what a f'n neo-con is.

neocon...more inclined than most conservatives to support vigorous govt. involvement in the support of traditional morality and pro business policies. Neocons also have a tendency to support a strong foreign policy in relationship US direct involvement.

Fo Shizzle Wrote:neocon...more inclined than most conservatives to support vigorous govt. involvement in the support of traditional morality and pro business policies. Neocons also have a tendency to support a strong foreign policy in relationship US direct involvement.

I call bull**** on your definition. Am I pro-business? Hell yeah. It's what built America. As for foreign policy.....all for it if it's in the defense of this nation. IMO, bring us back from Okinawa, Korea, Germany, and everywhere else. LEAVE us in Afghanistan and Iraq for now. Our biggest threat is Islamic in nature. Morality? Well, I don't know where you're going with that but I don't give a rat's ass what people do behind their own closed doors.

When I think of neocons I just think of the Bush administration. Pro-big business at the expense of the environment, fewer social services, and no consideration of trying to balance the budget or limit government spending (certainly way less consideration than a regular conservative would have), and an interventionist, unilateralist foreign policy that doesn't consider anyone else's opinions (in this country or people from other countries) to be worth listening to since the neocons obviously know what's right. The US is supposed to be great because of its military power rather than because of its soft power. They preach fear in order to gain support for their activities. They use buzzwords and repeat phrases, like in political campaigns, over and over again, to hammer home their points. That is - propaganda is a major part of it.

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Kev:

I don't expect you to accept these links/definitions as definitive, but I'll post them anyways.

Sourcewatch

Weekly Standard

Cristian Science Monitor

Lew Rockwell

There's some common themes that run through the articles. But I'm not too big of a fan of labels as it is difficult to find multiple people that think the same way.

NIU007 Wrote:When I think of neocons I just think of the Bush administration. Pro-big business at the expense of the environment,

That's republicans in general, remember?

Quote:fewer social services,

Guess you missed No Child Left Behind, the Perscription Drug benefit in medicare and the amnesty for illeagal aliens Bush tried to push through. I'd also invite you to find one social program that got less funding than it did any previous year Bush has been in office.

Quote:and no consideration of trying to balance the budget or limit government spending (certainly way less consideration than a regular conservative would have),

There's another term for people like that, it's called liberal democrat. But I doubt that would prevent you from voting for one.

Quote:and an interventionist, unilateralist foreign policy that doesn't consider anyone else's opinions (in this country or people from other countries) to be worth listening to since the neocons obviously know what's right.

Unlike Clinton who took us to Bosnia without UN approval or Johnson that put us into Vietnam?

Quote:They preach fear in order to gain support for their activities. They use buzzwords and repeat phrases, like in political campaigns, over and over again, to hammer home their points. That is - propaganda is a major part of it.

What you just described is the basis for every campaign, republican or democrat since the inception of this country. It's in no way unique to a "neo-con".

neo-con is primarily a term to describe a particular foreign policy view. Take away the foreign policy view and they are little more than a liberal republican. It's someone who's a democrat on most everything except their motivation for projection of US military force abroad. While dems like Clinton believe projection of military force as "humanitarian" a "neo-con" believes it's a matter of national security.

As BR said, the label is unreliable at best seeing as not every person who would be described as "neo-con" share universal views.

RebelKev Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:neocon...more inclined than most conservatives to support vigorous govt. involvement in the support of traditional morality and pro business policies. Neocons also have a tendency to support a strong foreign policy in relationship US direct involvement.

I call bull**** on your definition. Am I pro-business? Hell yeah. It's what built America. As for foreign policy.....all for it if it's in the defense of this nation. IMO, bring us back from Okinawa, Korea, Germany, and everywhere else. LEAVE us in Afghanistan and Iraq for now. Our biggest threat is Islamic in nature. Morality? Well, I don't know where you're going with that but I don't give a rat's ass what people do behind their own closed doors.

Not my def...Wikipedia