Why I am Libertarian.

Originally posted by The Mongler
I'm tired and can't really say more except for this: focusing on the individual will wind up with a society of pot-smoking hippies, crackheads, and homosexuals, while focusing on the state will wind up with a sustainable society.

Focusing on the state is what leads to lovely regimes like communist eastern Europe and Nazi germany.

OK, now as I said inmy last post, I have an opinion this.
I just forgot to do it yesterday.


I agree with alot of Libertarianism, especially the right to your body
and the right to property.
However, I think that when you have a society comprised of hundreds
of millions of individuals, you need a substantial government.

I also think that such a government should get rid of all taxes and
create an equality tax, with 30-50% of a persons ownings being taken
from there paycheck, and going into programs to make sure there's no
poverty and that everyone can have a good life and/or get back on their
feet.
It is a socilaist concept yes, but democratic socialism is'nt bad.


Anyways, to end Libertarianism is the best of three substantial parties
that currently exist in U.S. politics.

posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

I support libertarian ideas as opposed to those of the left or right. I like the best of both worlds that allows a society where people will succeed and fail on their own merits. [Edited by Don W]

That’s pretty much non-committal, Mr. S.

Where people's bodies and property belong to themselves, not the government who thinks they know what’s best for everyone else.

Uh oh, Mr. S. You’re slipping “property” into the ‘body” disclaimer. Methinks there is treachery afoot! Maybe it would be more direct and more honest to leave out the “body” and cut straight to the chase?

I support legalization and regulation of all illegal drugs. The war on drugs has been a dismal failure. I don't care if my neighbor wants to poison his body with drugs. If my neighbor is becoming a threat to others with his behavior, arrest him and throw him in the clink. End of story.

You are right the War on Drugs is a failure. I don’t know how the legalization of drugs would work. It is true before the Food and Drug Act of 1906 there were no laws on what was sold OTC. Heroin and coc aine were both available. Laudanum, a popular OTC, was coc aine dissolved in alcohol, guaranteed to relieve any known pain!

But Mr S, we know a lot more today than we did 100 years ago. We know of the permanent deleterious effects many drugs have on the people who take them. I agree that marijuana is not any more harmful than alcohol. But once we get above that level of drugs, we get into very large potential harm. Unless you are going to advocate ritual cannibalism we are going to be stuck with a lot of zombie like people. It will be “eat’em” or “feed’em.”

But don't waste my illegally collected tax dollars on a pointless "war" that’s an insult to common sense and human dignity. Prohibition did not work. Neither will the War on Drugs.

I’m sorry you feel that way about your taxes, Mr. S. If you read our Constitution you will see in Article II, that the Congress has a number of responsibilities assigned to it, especially in Section 8. Abraham Lincoln in the performance of his oath of office to preserve the Union, persuaded the Congress to enact a personal income tax to defer the huge costs of the Civil War. A flat tax was enacted, 3% on incomes over $5,000. The pay of a private was $13 a month. The tax was later held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

The 16th Amendment to the Constitution was passed in 1913. Just in time, fortuitously, to allow the US to raise an Army to fight in World War 1. We drafted over 3 million men, sent 1.25 million to France, and effectively, won the stalemated war. Without the revenues the new tax laws raised, it would have been impossible. It is fair to say without the 16th Amendment America would have been overrun by the Japanese and Germans in the 1940s.

I have the same view of prostitution and gambling. Prostitution is the worlds oldest profession. Making it illegal is a joke. As long as men want meaningless sex and specific pleasures and have the cash to pay for them, there will be women willing to oblige.

I’m not too much interested in the psychology of men who frequent prostitutes. If they do it long enough, often enough, they will acquire a STD that will render them impotent, if it does not kill them. But the women are a different story. They are people desperately in need of help, usually psychologically handicapped as well as socially and educationally disadvantaged. They need help. Our help. These people are in one of several groups we call “discards.” The homeless. The mentally ill. And etc.

Someone once said a society is measured by how it treats its helpless.

Besides, marriage is pretty much legally sanctioned prostitution.

Not really, Mr S. Although I support no-fault divorce, I still acknowledge (a good) marriage is the best environment to raise children in. And for the single parent - usually a young girl - we need to get help to them ASAP. They deserve and need our help. Let’s do right by the mother and child and we ideologues can pass judgment and argue the merits of the case at our leisure.

I also believe the government should not be able to claim eminent domain and seize peoples property so easily.

I don’t know why anyone would say the exercise of eminent domain is to
“ . . seize peoples property so easily.” it is an extended process. It includes obtaining independent appraisals. In most states and in most instances, the property owner is offered a lot more than the appraised value. Not infrequently 2.5X. The rights you refer to are called the 5th Amendment Due Process rights.

And certainly, private real estate developers should NEVER be able to force people to sell their houses so they can build condos or another mall.

You are putting blame in the wrong place. City councils or county commissions or state legislatures decide they want to re-vitalize or make over a neighborhood. To do this the developer must own it all. I agree there is something missing here, but OTOH, when the Con was written the US population was 3 million, today it is 300 million. Space is at a premium today. We cannot allow a person or two to block the aspirations of thousands.

I also think that the states should have more rights to govern as they see fit within a basic Constitutional framework. I believe power must be reduced by the federal government to create federal laws. What the hell do a bunch of idiots in Washington know about life in a far western state? The feds need to stick to external affairs such as foreign relations and the military.

Been there, done that. It’s called the Articles of Confederation. You can find them on the Avalon project via Google. They make great reading and are not as long as our current constitution. Get over that dream. It ain’t going to happen again. Not ever.

I am also very isolationist. I do not like our military being stationed all over the world. Screw these tin pot dictators and idiots in some countries who seem to be content killing each other. Our soldiers should be on American soil, where they are wanted, respected, appreciated, and needed. If war breaks out elsewhere, so what. Unless they are directly threatening or attacking us, I honestly don’t care.

There was a very popular group in the 1930s known as the America First group. Back then, an airplane was doing good to fly 500 mils non stop. The first B17s we had in 1941 could barely fly from Seattle to Hawaii. They were rated at 4,000 lbs bomb load and flew at 235 mph. We were “safe” or so we thought, behind the two oceans. But that was a figment of a poor imagination. Hitler and Tojo proved that. Do we have to repeat history? With atom bombs proliferating, the next time we might not be so fortunate. Uh uh. Let’s not try that again.

That’s just a few reasons why I support Libertarians. Not all libertarian polices I agree with, but in my opinion, they have the best overall plan for creating a saner, better America. Greatness isn’t measured in money or power, but how unusual and free a country is. I don’t want America to be a superpower. I want it to be my beloved country. [Edited by Don W]

I don’t like Bush43 but we cannot go back to 1940. The world will not let us. Even the North Koreans are playing with missiles. And it can get worse. I’m sorry, Mr S, but this is one world and we are in it. To stay, I hope.

For Libertarianism to be useful, it must have modern application. Not just theoretical interest.


[edit on 9/4/2006 by donwhite]

But once we get above that level of drugs, we get into very large potential harm. Unless you are going to advocate ritual cannibalism we are going to be stuck with a lot of zombie like people. It will be “eat’em” or “feed’em.” They need help. Our help. These people are in one of several groups we call “discards.”
...
The homeless. The mentally ill. And etc. Someone once said a society is measured by how it treats its helpless.
...
And for the single parent - usually a young girl - we need to get help to them ASAP. They deserve and need our help.

There is always potential harm, in both prescription, over the counter, and illegal drugs. People have been finding ways to abuse them, and they will probably always find ways to abuse them. The inherent irony in any argument is that even while trying to protect people from themselves, they still find ways to destroy their body. The main argument, however, is how would society care for those that did cause themselves to morph into mindless zombies. The easy answer would be charities, although there are many that do not trust the altruism of the community. Another irony is that those who do not trust the altruism of the community are usually the same individuals that would rather work for the 'common good.'

It is fair to say without the 16th Amendment America would have been overrun by the Japanese and Germans in the 1940s.

Interesting speculation, but another speculation would be that Japan and Germany would not have touched the United States if they thought it were not a threat. The U.S. was actively against the previous imperialistic policies of the Japanese in the Pacific, and was actively helping England against the Germans in terms of food, and even war materials. All of this from a supposedly isolationist, neutral nation. Germany did not declare war on the world from the start, nor did Japan.

Moreover, even if it were the case that the Japanese and Germans still held an aggressive stance against the United States, if the population of the United States did not willingly give up a portion of their income to defend her, then I think an important question to ask would be, "should the United States, in such a case, deserve to be defended?" You would have a large population of the country that could care less about their current government, or about the possible implementation of a foreign government.

Not really, Mr S. Although I support no-fault divorce, I still acknowledge (a good) marriage is the best environment to raise children in.

I believe marriage ought to be a religious ceremony. Only a religious ceremony.

In most states and in most instances, the property owner is offered a lot more than the appraised value. Not infrequently 2.5X. The rights you refer to are called the 5th Amendment Due Process rights.
...
City councils or county commissions or state legislatures decide they want to re-vitalize or make over a neighborhood. We cannot allow a person or two to block the aspirations of thousands.

Receiving more than the market value for a property is meaningless when measured against the ideal involved. Unfortunately, the ownership of property has already been rendered meaningless through various legal precedences. The issue here is the government coercing you through legal means to sell your property to the government itself or other developers at a price they set. This does not take in account the land may appreciate in 50 years to 20 times the current market value, or any sentimental value the land may have to you. In the end, how do you compensate someone for sentimental value? Of course, we can rattle off a socialist mantra, the common good is greater than the individual good (it's funny where you will find that phrase printed - check the nazi party platform).



[edit on 6-9-2006 by radardog]

posted by radardog

(1) Interesting speculation, but another would be that Japan and Germany would not have touched the United States if they thought it were not a threat. The US was actively against the previous imperialistic policies of the Japanese in the Pacific, and was actively helping England against the Germans in terms of food, and even war materials. All of this from a supposedly neutral nation. (2) Germany did not declare war on the world from the start, nor did Japan. [Edited by Don W]

1) Japan took the island of Formosa from China in 1897. Japan took the Kingdom of Korea in 1910. Japan took Manchuria from China in 1931. Japan invaded China in 1937, which included the Rape of Nanking, then the capital of China. Germany unilaterally ended the neutral zone of the Ruhr in 1936. By 1938, Germany began building two battleships larger than the Washington Conference allowed. The ‘anschluss’ of Austria early in 1938 was followed by the annexation of Sudatenland in late 1938. The Second World War began the following September, 1939. Germany had allied itself with Italy which invaded Ethiopia in 1935, in 1939, it invaded Albania. OK, end of History 101.

The more important thing is this. Nazi fascism was becoming the dominant political force in Europe and an equally dark totalitarian power was rising in Asia. Unless we wanted to face the world alone, we had to make a move, and the logical move was to support Great Britain. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, the”world cannot exist half slave and half free.”

2) Germany did declare war on the US on December 11, 1941. That made FDR’s job so much easier as there was already a ground rumble we should fight only the Japanese.

I believe marriage ought to be a religious ceremony. Only a religious ceremony.

Why would you say that? What does it matter to others (libertarians) who gets married or who does not or who marries those that do?

Receiving more than the market value for a property is meaningless when measured against the ideal involved. (1) Unfortunately, the ownership of property has already been rendered meaningless through various legal precedents. (2) The issue here is the government coercing you through legal means to sell your property to the government itself or other developers at a price they set.

1) I think you are way way overstating the case, Mr R/D. 70 million Americans are homeowners and 5 million own private businesses. That’s a lot of people who believe owning property has real meaning. That does not make you wrong, it just puts you in a small minority.

2) In every state I have lived in, if you reject the offer, the case goes to the jury to set the sales price. I don’t know how you could have a better system to do something that is admittedly compromises the ethereal rights of property. America was the first country to embody limits on state power to confiscate private property for public use. See 5th Amend.



[edit on 9/6/2006 by donwhite]

Hi Don: off topic, but I appreciate your thoughtful response.

... Unless we wanted to face the world alone, we had to make a move, and the logical move was to support Great Britain. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, the”world cannot exist have slave, and half free.”
2) Germany did declare war on the US on December 11, 1941. That made FDR’s job so much easier as there was already a ground rumble we should fight only the Japanese.

Yes, both Japan and Germany eventually declared war on the United States, it was not their original aim. Both declarations of war were spurred on by something; it was not 'out of the blue,' so to speak. It could be argued that international policies of the United States were the spark to ignite their war drives towards the United States. With the United States helping the UK, and its other policies in the pacific, I can see why other nations would want to - or need to - draw the U.S. into a global conflict.

As a side swipe toward Lincoln, I believe he is responsible for one of the worst changes in the United States. Slavery, or the ending thereof was not his original aim, but rather something used for political purposes later on. [on topic] The world certainly can live with different belief and government systems; it is okay for countries to be theocracies, dictatorships, monarchies, or democracies. In the end, I believe, all goverments are made by the people and can be changed by the people - it's their choice, and sometimes choices involve risk.

Why would you say that? What does it matter to others (libertarians) who gets married or who does not or who marries those that do?

It doesn't matter to me. Religious organizations should be free to decide what constitutes marriage in their respective faith.

1) I think you are way way overstating the case, Mr R/D. 70 million Americans are homeowners and 5 million own private businesses. That’s a lot of people who believe owning property has real meaning. That does not make you wrong, it just puts you in a small minority.

If, in the future, it becomes time when some of these property owners are forced to sell their property to an entity, perhaps that is when they will notice how fragile "ownership" of their property really is. I own property, and I appreciate it. It frightens me to know that it is so fragile, and can be taken away against my will. Ignorance of what their ownership really means by no means justifies the bliss they are currently feeling.

2) In every state I have lived in, if you reject the offer, the case goes to the jury to set the sales price. I don’t know how you could have a better system to do something that is admittedly compromises the ethereal rights of property. America was the first country to embody limits on state power to confiscate private property for public use. See 5th Amend.

I suggest that a better system would be not to have this situation in the first place. Require the government and developers to keep raising their ante for said property until the owner is willing to sell, or if unwilling, find a different route.

[edit on 6-9-2006 by radardog]

posted by radardog

Yes, both Japan and Germany eventually declared war on the US, it was not their original aim. Both declarations of war were spurred on by something; it was not 'out of the blue,' so to speak. [Edited by Don W]

You are exactly right on “not out of the blue.” Japan desperately needed raw materials. Rubber and oil were high on their list. I heard the US supplied 50% of Japan’s oil until June, 1941, when we embargoed further shipments in protest of Japans continued war on China. That was said to be the trip-wire for Pearl Harbor.

The US had moved into the Pacific area following the Spanish American war. The Philippines, Guam, Wake and Midway islands. The Brits had Hong Kong and Singapore. Portugal had Macao. I believe Brunei was a British protectorate. The Dutch controlled the rubber of Indonesia. Japan saw itself encircled by Euro-type colonialist and wanted out of the limits they imposed on it. Perhaps the Pacific War was mainly over trade and zones or spheres of influence.

OTOH, Germany was taken over by Hitler's Nazis and he had every intention of ruling the world. A megalomaniac. Unless we joined Hitler, we would have to fight him. And better was earlier than later.

As a side swipe toward Lincoln, I believe he is responsible for one of the worst changes in the United States. Slavery, or the ending thereof was not his original aim, but rather something used for political purposes later on.

I do not think Lincoln ever said that was not the case. It was in the mis-telling of history that caused that notion which dominated until the 1980s. By then, historians began to re-examine the Civil War. It is now well acetpeed to be the case. In my pantheon of gods, Lincoln is #2 behind Washington. Washington created the Union and Lincoln preserved it. I find it hard to call to mind anything Lincoln did wrong. There is an Illinois Supreme Court case, Lincoln v. Ill Ctl RR., where he sued them for his fee. 1854, I believe. He won. $5,000. A handsome fee.

If it becomes time when some of these property owners are forced to sell their property, perhaps that is when they will notice how fragile "ownership" of their property really is. I own property, and I appreciate it. It frightens me to know that it is so fragile, and can be taken away against my will.

Well, you might get hit by a meteorite. Does that worry you, too? If you are in the”owner” class, I’m guessing you have made your accommodations.

I suggest that a better system would be not to have this situation in the first place. Require the government and developers to keep raising their ante for said property until the owner is willing to sell, or if unwilling, find a different route. [Edited by Don W]

That is totally unrealistic. It reminds of Churchill when he said, regarding German demands England surrender, “it goes from the ridiculous to the sublime.”

Originally posted by donwhite
OTOH, Germany was taken over by Hitler's Nazis and he had every intention of ruling the world. A megalomaniac. Unless we joined Hitler, we would have to fight him. And better was earlier than later.

I disagree with that entirely. I do not believe Hitler or the Nazis had the intention of ruling the world. Although that is possible, I think it is more realistic to think they wanted to unite all German speaking people under the same flag, while trying to categorize themselves into some 'perfect race.' Naturally, war came about to those who resisted Germany's demand to annex German speaking regions of other nations. Russia, on the other hand, was a reaction of Hitler's fear that communism would spread, much like the US' fear later that century. Germany just went into a hot war with the U.S.S.R. instead of a cold war. I am not an apologist for Germany, but rather I think modern thought and history has seen them through skewed glasses (glasses of the victor, I suppose).

In my pantheon of gods, Lincoln is #2 behind Washington. Washington created the Union and Lincoln preserved it. I find it hard to call to mind anything Lincoln did wrong. There is an Illinois Supreme Court case, Lincoln v. Ill Ctl RR., where he sued them for his fee. 1854, I believe. He won. $5,000. A handsome fee.

Lincoln preserved something - I just do not think he preserved the country in such a way that the founding fathers had meant it to look. This is my speculation, but I do not think states would have initially voted to be in a union if they knew there would be no possible way to get out - ever. The democratic processes of the southern states decided that they wanted out of the union. The federal government destroyed the will of the people through armed force, an invasion.

That is totally unrealistic. It reminds of Churchill when he said, regarding German demands England surrender, “it goes from the ridiculous to the sublime.”

If a meteorite hits my property, at least I still own the crater. If the government takes my property, I do not own anything. I still have a choice of what I can do with the property, the inherent characteristic of ownership. It is entirely realistic from the view point of the property owner; perhaps not that of the developer or government. Someone will need to yield; someone needs the right-of-way. I would place that with the individual.

posted by radardog
I disagree with that [must fight Hitler] entirely. I do not believe Hitler or the Nazis had the intention of ruling the world. Although that is possible, I think it is more realistic to think they wanted to unite all German speaking people under the same flag, while trying to categorize themselves into some 'perfect race.' [Edited by Don W]

History Channel recently featured a story about Albert Speer* and his grand design for the capital of the world. His design - approved by Hitler - which featured a ring of embassies around the central domed capitol building. The German speakers were already united, after 1938. They did not make up that big a share of Europe’s population. I was thinking it was the old but discredited theory of lebensraum which propelled Hitler across Poland and into the USSR.

*Albert Speer came to Hitler as an architect. He pleased Hitler so much he was made the Minister of Munitions from 1942 to 1945. On his release from Spandau prison, Speer wrote “Inside the 3rd Reich” which became a best seller and made Speer a millionaire. (I bought one; it was a good read.)

Germany just went into a hot war with the U.S.S.R. instead of a cold war. I am not an apologist for Germany, but rather I think modern thought and history has seen them through skewed glasses (glasses of the victor, I suppose).

That is interesting. From this distance in time - June, 1941, it is not easy for me to see that as being a fair description of the events. Molotov and von Ribbentrop had made a deal. The non-aggression pact pledged Germany and the USSR not to attack the other. A bargain made in hell. The result was the division of Poland a month later. The treaty held until June of 1941. Nazi fascism was riding high in the West. The east of Europe was not as advanced, industrially speaking, as Germany. The Republic of Czechoslovakia excepted. I do not feel Hitler feared the spread of Soviet inspired communism anywhere in the territory he controlled. The Gestapo and SS took care of dissenters.

Lincoln preserved something - I just do not think he preserved the country in such a way that the Founding Fathers had meant it to look. I do not think states would have initially voted to be in a union if they knew there would be no possible way to get out - ever. The democratic processes of the southern states decided that they wanted out of the union. The federal government destroyed the will of the people through armed force, an invasion.

Now we’re back on topic. You are explaining why you are a libertarian. I’m sure you know my arguments by heart so I’ll not repeat but one here. It is you statement you do not believe the states would have “signed up” if they knew going in they could not walk away on their own terms.

I’ve read a lot of articles and a few books on the founding of America. I cannot recall any writer saying that was an issue in 1787-1789. The states had already joined the “Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states.“ Link below. Note the word, “perpetual” used in identifying the document. The current Constitution supplants the earlier Articles. The Articles were written in 1776 after the Declaration, but were not made official until 1785. Even then the structure had failed miserably. It was just 2 years later the convention was called to review or reform the Articles. You know the rest. Even if I agreed that it was either implied or silently understood, I could as logically argue that privilege would apply only to the original 13 states. The others came in as Congress approved their admission. They would need Congress's approval to leave.
www.yale.edu...

Which by the way was another great achievement of the 1787 document. Heretofore in the world, newly acquired territory would be assigned to the existing states. Our constitution provides that new sates could enter the union on equal terms to the founding members.

I’m not convinced anyone in 1787-89 contemplated the unilateral withdrawal of a state. Why have a united states in the first place if it was to remain open to states to come and go in and out of the union at their pleasure. It seems to contradict the principle of union to me.

If a meteorite hits my property . . Someone will need to yield; someone needs the right-of-way. I would place that with the individual.

We’re unchanged on that point.


PS. Conservatives (still) strive for the "Holy Grail" of political philosophy, a doctrine that would prove, once and for all, the inherent limits of liberalism and the fundamental truths that resonate through the doctrines that drive conservative thought. Even though "the wisest conservatives know that the Grail remains beyond their grasps. Yet, like Arthurian knights of old, they never give up hope that it is there."
www.plastic.com...;sid=05/08/30/09022742;mode=nested;nobar=2


[edit on 9/7/2006 by donwhite]

History Channel recently featured a story about Albert Speer* and his grand design for the capital of the world. His design - approved by Hitler - which featured a ring of embassies around the central domed capitol building. The German speakers were already united, after 1938.

Isn't it interesting that the "capital of the world" would need a ring of embassies? I do not think Hitler planned to take over the world; he was just fighting those that declared war on Germany. When Hitler claimed a part of Poland as a German region and invaded, that is the start of other european forces coming into the war. On Sept 3, 1939 France and the UK declared war on Germany, and naturally Germany declared war right back at them. Ironically, on Sept 5, 1939 the U.S. proclaimed its neutrality (yet still helped Germany's enemies).

Hitler always talked about lebensraum in his speeches, but I think lebensraum was to be created by evacuating those not deemed worthy of German speaking lands (jewish individuals, as a large group). In fact, prior to 1939, Hitler asked other western nations to take his Jewish population so that he did not have to deal with them (I wonder how many lives would have been saved if the United States and others would have agreed to take them). The military aspect was not for lebensraum, per se, but rather to reunite a German speaking population (initially). A great example of military and land-grab-restraint is that Germany never invaded Sweden, which could have easily been done.

Molotov and von Ribbentrop had made a deal. The non-aggression pact pledged German and the USSR not to attack the other. A bargain made in hell. The result was the division of Poland a month later. ... The Republic of Czechoslovakia excepted. I do not feel Hitler feared the spread of Soviet inspired communism in the territory he controlled.

Hitler was paranoid with Marxism/Communism/USSR. He made numerous speeches about its threat, even even blamed one of the infamous events in Germany on them (although, there is much speculation if communists actually had a part in it). In any case, there was a strong resentment towards the USSR, and only made the original deal in order to reunite his own people. One his goal was accomplished, why would Hitler, or the NAZI party want to keep ties with a government they considered evil?

I’m not convinced anyone in 1787-89 contemplated the unilateral withdrawal of a state. Why have a united states in the first place if it was to remain open to states to come and go in and out of the union at their pleasure. It seems to contradict the principle of union to me.

A union only makes sense if all of the parties agree to a common goal, objective, or idea. When a member of a union feels, or is abused then it would be a wise decision to leave the union. Moreover, it would not be ideal to join a union that you could never get out of because of that reason. The founding fathers believed that government change should be and is by the people, and that people ought to form a more perfect union if they feel they are being abused (re: declaration of independence, constitution). What more is the confederacy of the united states, other than the attempt of a population to form what they believed as a formation of a more perfect union? It fits in the philosophy of the founding fathers perfectly.

posted by radardog

Isn't it interesting that the "capital of the world" would need a ring of embassies? I do not think Hitler planned to take over the world; he was just fighting those that declared war on Germany. When Hitler claimed a part of Poland as a German region and invaded, that is the start of the war. On Sept 3, 1939 France and the UK declared war on Germany, and naturally Germany declared war right back at them. Ironically, on Sept 5, 1939 the U.S. proclaimed its neutrality (yet still helped Germany's enemies). [Edited by Don W]

A re-run of World War 1. Interlocking treaties. Trip-wires. Trigger points. Taking on obligations they hoped would deter war, yet despite having failed immensely in War 1, and was about to drag them inevitably into War 2. The US was more so than then now, a product of 18th century England. American we are but descended from Englishmen! I don’t reverence any living person. I hold the most respect for America’s presidents, and I hold the Queen of England as #2. It was “natural” we’d come to the defense of our ancestors, our cousins. Not on ethnicity alone, but because England stood for the right, and Germany (under Hitler) stood for the wrong. That was obvious to informed people in 1939. The US neutrality proclamation was also a sop to the America First movement. As for the ring of embassies, it reminds me of the dream of Joseph that got him into trouble with his brothers. The 11 shocks of wheat fell over in a circle, towards the one standing shock, which the brothers thought Joseph was saying they would worship him.

The military aspect was not for lebensraum, per se, but rather to reunite a German speaking population (initially). A great example of military and land-grab-restraint is that Germany never invaded Sweden, which could have easily been done.

Au contraire on Nazi restraint. Hitler did not invade Switzerland. In both cases, it was that both countries were more useful as “free” than as “captives.” Plus, you can be sure that the Orelikon guns made in Switzerland did not go to the USA or the USSR. Or the Bofors AA 40 mm guns made in Sweden. Guess where those guns went? We probably paid Sweden and Switzerland a license fee foe each of their guns we made here. As I expect Germany did, too.

Hitler was paranoid with Marxism/Communism/USSR. He made numerous speeches about its threat, even blamed one of the infamous events in Germany on them . . “

Hitler made even more inflammatory speeches against the Jews but I don’t think that equates to him being paranoid towards the Jews, which in this usage seems to be a deluxe term for “fear.”

In any case, there was a strong resentment towards the USSR, and only made the original deal in order to reunite his own people. Once his goal was accomplished, why would Hitler, or the NAZI party want to keep ties with a government they considered evil?

I never like the word “evil” when talking politics. It’s like terrorist, or patriot. It often means more to the speaker than to the listener. Or not the same meaning. I know “evil” is part of our religious heritage, but I always deal with it cautiously. Germany kept the ties with Russia as long as it served their national interest. Like 100% of the rest of the world’s countries.

A union only makes sense if all of the parties agree to a common goal, objective, or idea. When a member of a union feels, or is abused then it would be a wise decision to leave the union. Moreover, it would not be ideal to join a union that you could never get out of because of that reason.

I was just reading the Preamble to the current Constitution. It’s also at the Avalon project website. But here are the opening words, “We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” I know this is esoteric, but just what is a “prefect union?” Perfect being the operative word. The words of the Founding Fathers.

The founding fathers believed that government change should be and is by the people . . “

That’s from what Lincoln said in the Gettysburg Address. I challenge you to find anywhere in the Constitution where the FFs talked about “change” other than in Article V for amending the Con. When there is something you don’t like about the system, it is best to amend the constitution. And not to act arbitrarily and unilaterally.

“ . . if they feel they are being abused, re: declaration of independence, constitution. What more is the confederacy of the United States, other than the attempt of a population to form what they believed was a formation of a more perfect union? It fits in the philosophy of the founding fathers perfectly.

Are you a Jesuit, Mr R/D? You’re twisting the argument and reaching your own unsupported conclusion which is the re-affirmation of your original premise. That is known as Jesuitical argument. It’s not evil, it’s just not good logic.


[edit on 9/7/2006 by donwhite]

Not on ethnicity alone, but because England stood for the right, and Germany (under Hitler) stood for the wrong. That was obvious to informed people in 1939. ... I never like the word “evil” when talking politics. It’s like terrorist, or patriot. It often means more to the speaker than to the listener. Or not the same meaning. I know “evil” is part of our religious heritage, but I always deal with it cautiously.

I'm not sure I understand your criticism of the word "evil" in political debates while using other relative terms such as "right" and "wrong." Even so, to a victorious axis power, Hitler would have stood for right, and England would have stood for wrong. Below you will see some of Hitler's rhetoric against Russia; it looks like it to me that he believed Russia was evil.

Hitler made even more inflammatory speeches against the Jews but I don’t think that equates to him being paranoid towards the Jews, which in this usage seems to be a deluxe term for “fear.”

I believe Hitler was quite serious about the issue of Communism; take an excerpt of his speech "Fuhrer's closing speech" from Nuremberg.

This deadly enmity of ours [Soviet Communism] is not based on an obstinate refusal to recognise any ideas that may be contrary to ours. But this enmity is based on a natural feeling of revulsion towards a diabolical doctrine that threatens the world at large and us.

The first phase in the fight of National Socialism against Communism did not take place in Russia. Soviet Communism already tried to poison Germany between the years 1918 and 1920, and its methods of penetration into this country was much the same as its present-day military efforts in moving the Bolshevik military machine closer and closer to our frontiers.

We have stamped out Bolshevism which Moscow's bloodfiends such as Lewin, Axelroth, Neumann, Bela-Kuhn, etc. tried to introduce into Germany. And it is because we see day by day these efforts of Soviet rulers to meddle in our domestic affairs have not yet ceased, that we are forced to regard Bolshevism beyond our frontiers as our deadly enemy.

We have fought Bolshevism in Germany as a Weltanschaung that is, as a form of philosophy that endeavoured to poison and destroy our people. And Bolshevism will continue to be fought if it attempts to introduce its sordid Spanish methods into Germany.

It is not the aim of Bolshevism to free nations from their ailments. Its object is to exterminate all that is healthy and replace the same by depravity and degenerate elements ...

-Hitler (emphasis added)

The same attitude, especially the lines,"Its object is to exterminate all that is healthy and replace the same by depravity and degenerate elements" and " But this enmity is based on a natural feeling of revulsion towards a diabolical doctrine that threatens the world at large and us." can easily be found in US rhetoric during the cold war.

I know this is esoteric, but just what is a “prefect union?” Perfect being the operative word. The words of the Founding Fathers.

I don't know if I can answer that in absolute terms. It seems we may have a disagreement on perfection.

The founding fathers believed that government change should be and is by the people . . “

That’s from what Lincoln said in the Gettysburg Address. I challenge you to find anywhere in the Constitution where the FFs talked about “change” other than in Article V for amending the Con. When there is something you don’t like about the system, it is best to amend the constitution. And not to act arbitrarily and unilaterally.

The philosophy behind the motivation and creation of the united states can not be found in the constitution, but rather can be easily seen in the the unanimous declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

" That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Are you a Jesuit, Mr R/D? You’re twisting the argument and reaching your own unsupported conclusion which is the re-affirmation of your original premise. That is known as Jesuitical argument. It’s not evil, it’s just not good logic.

My premise is the philosophy behind the FF's actions. It can be seen clearly above; the confederate states of america seems only to be a fulfillment of that philosophy. I bolded several points in the paragraph that I believe make my case.

posted by radardog

I'm not sure I understand your criticism of the word "evil" in political debates while using other relative terms such as "right" and "wrong.
[Edited by Don W]

I think “evil” is a religious value or concept. I’m a humanist. I prefer “immoral.” But I agreed I knew what you meant. It is just that to use “evil” as if I could grant that Hitler meant what you and I meant which is unlikely to me. Surely you know what “right” in that context means, as well as “wrong” in the same context? English due process versus Nazi secret arrests and torture. English protections of liberty versus Nazi confinement in concentration camps. That is not a hard distinction to make.

This deadly enmity of [Soviet Communism] is not based on an obstinate refusal to recognize any ideas that may be contrary to ours. This enmity is based on a natural feeling of revulsion towards a diabolical doctrine that threatens the world at large and us. We have stamped out Bolshevism . . we regard Bolshevism beyond our frontiers as our deadly enemy. We have fought Bolshevism in Germany as a philosophy that endeavored to poison and destroy our people. Bolshevism will continue to be fought . . the aim of Bolshevism is to exterminate all that is healthy and replace the same by depravity and degenerate elements . . “ -Hitler
[Edited by Don W]

Hyperbole. Aimed at encouraging the populace, preaching to the choir. Pure propaganda. All those words and not one new fact we did not already know.

The philosophy behind the motivation and creation of the United States can be found in the unanimous declaration of the thirteen united States of America,"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The simple reply is that the Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document. It too, was a piece of propaganda. Magnificent. You confirm that it did not apply to women or black folks. It contradicted itself. But it still laid out great ideals. A product inspired by Burke and Descartes, the Age of the Enlightenment. But it is our propaganda this time, so we revere it. But, it is just that, as in Thomas Paine’s very excellent works first to convince then to encourage the Revolution. Hyperbole. Rhetoric.



[edit on 9/7/2006 by donwhite]

Don,


When studying history and philosophy objectively, you should take in all sources - not just authors or history books the preach a version commonly taught. As we both know, simply because a large amount of people say one thing does not mean it is true. You can dismiss the documents I brought up out-right, but they both point to a deeper meaning of history that not many people bring up. The American revolution was a revolution because of an ideal, specifically the political philosophy of Locke and others. The declaration of independence was a paraphrase of the motivation and reasoning our founding fathers wanted to part in the first place. The beginning of the document gives the basic premise of their beliefs, and the latter half goes into specifics that support their action given the premise. The declaration of independence was not legally binding in terms of setting up a new country, but it was a document to let the entire world know why they were setting up the new country, which (to me) is vastly more important than how they would be setting it up (especially since their first version didn't last very long). If you don't agree with their philosophy, that is fine. However, it is out there and widely known.

Secondly, yes that was a speech. All speeches are rhetorical. However, speeches are a tool historians can use to judge intent and motivation. For example, Bush gave speeches of why we should go to war with Iraq (WMDs, Iraqi freedom). While many people disagree that this was his real aim, all we have to go on is Bush's word. Ten years for now, we will write in the history books that Americans went to war with Iraqis for a second time fearful of Saddam having, or developing WMDs (as there is nothing officially out there to support the contrary). I only cited one official speech from Hitler, but there are others - many others; including mentions of the "evils" of Russia in his own book. All propaganda, I suppose, a very convenient excuse. However, if you want learning sites or books that would also support my opinion:

history learning site Mentions that Hitler hated Russia.

From a University: "The Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union came as a surprise to nearly everyone, though it should not have, given the long Nazi antipathy toward Marxism."

" "The aggressive intentions of Russia have been proved by the Bolshevistic claim to world rulership and to world supremacy and Russia's tendency and attitude toward Finland: Russia's policy in the Balkans and the age-old policy of Russia in the Dardanelles (Hitler had reference here to the last visit of Molotov)." -Sworn-in statement by a German insider.

Regarding the Founding Fathers:

"Perhaps the part of Locke's writing which most influenced the founding fathers of the United States Constitution was the idea that the power to govern was obtained from the permission of the people.

He thought that the purpose of government was to protect the natural rights of its citizens. He said that natural rights were life, liberty and property, and that all people automatically earned these simply by being born. When a government did not protect those rights, the citizen had the right and maybe even the obligation of overthrowing the government."

www.let.rug.nl...

"This document [Declaration of Independence] is a brilliant assertion of fundamental human rights and also serves as America's most succinct statement of its philosophy of government."

www.americanpresident.org...

Now we can trade sources back and forth - in a mindless, superficial attempt that any undergraduate can do to piece together a one page essay for their instructor. Or, we can discuss the philosophies and motivations of these great people and see what would follow from them.

posted by radardog

When studying history and philosophy objectively, you should take in all sources . . simply because a large amount of people say one thing does not mean it is true. You can dismiss the documents I brought up out-right, but they both point to a deeper meaning of history that not many people bring up. [Edited by Don W]

I’m sorry you thought I was dismissing the documents outright. I did not mean to do that. I read “Rush to Judgment” when it was first published. I worked in a lawyer’s office 17 years. You get a lot of practice in recognizing the art of fuzziness. Or spin. How to say one thing and mean another. Or how to take a minnow and make it into a whale. Mark Lane was an expert in the embellishment of trivial details. He propounded his own issues, then slaughtered them.

I’m not asking you to answer, but have you read the WC Report? I don’t mean books about it, but the Report itself. About 300 pages as I recall. In my defense giving short shrift, let me say after enough input, you begin to discriminate what you read. In 2004 there were 195,000 titles published in the US. After sustaining a major vision set-back in 2002, I can only read large print books. I usually read 3-4 books a year and peruse maybe 10. Only 168 hours in a week, etc. The easiest way to intelligently discriminate amongst books is to review a books bibliography. The list of its sources. But see this on books titles,
www.thebookstandard.com...

The American revolution was a revolution because of an ideal, specifically the political philosophy of Locke and others. The declaration of independence was a paraphrase of the motivation and reasoning our founding fathers wanted to part in the first place . . If you don't agree with their philosophy, that is fine. However, it is out there and widely known.

Agreed in part, but I say this is incomplete. Every one of the 13 colonies had representative government. I recently learned in the case of 1750s Virginia, the local law prevailed over the same law in England. This issue arose in the case of an illegitimate child who was indentured to service until age 21, the law in England. But at 18, he sued for his freedom and the Virginia court granted it, as it was age 18 in Virginia. (cf. The Dred Scott case.) The Crown did not object. I use that as an example the colonists were already free. Or at least free-er than those in England.

The dispute on the tea tax that triggered the war was farcical. Parliament wanted the colonists to pay the expense of the French and Indian War, 1757-1763, and the cost of quartering a force of 10,000 Redcoats here. Parliament reduced the tea tax on complaints of the colonists to a rate lower than in England. We had trial by jury. We knew what “due process” meant. We had all of the historical “Rights of Englishmen.” The freest people on earth. I have said all that to say this: There must have been other reasons or causes. Other not so public goals and objectives. Why do I say that? See the following.

The penalty for treason in 18th century England was to be hung, drawn and quartered. First, you are hung by the neck but not to break you neck, rather to strangle you good. Before you die, you are taken down, and laid out face down on the ground. 4 Clydesdale horses are attached by strong ropes, one to each limb. Your external genitals are cut off - a sharp knife I hope - and stuffed into your mouth. Your abdomen is sliced across and your intestines drop onto the ground. These are cut loose and taken to a nearby roaring fire-pit where they are burned. Then the 4 horses are whipped smartly at once to pull 3 of your 4 limbs from your body. (Spectators bet on which will remain.) Finally, the axeman comes to chop off your head. Your remains are buried in a a crossroads to assure you are not resurrected at the Second Coming. Buried in a crossroads to make certain your friends do not remove your bones to be buried in sanctified ground. The King not kilt your body, he kilt your soul! You are cast into eternal oblivion.

It is not over yet. Your head is displayed on a pike, usually outside the Tower of London. Each of your 4 limbs is sent to various places around the realm and placed on a pike outside the city gate for display and to remind everyone the penalty for treason. Your children are bastardized and sold into indentured service until age 21. Your property is confiscated. Your descendants to the 3rd generation are denied civil rights or inheritance.

So you want me to think those who signed the Declaration were just mad? Disgruntled colonialists? Or pursuing a debate club ideal? Or making an anti-tax statement? That’s what I call a stretch. The last sentence of the Declaration is: “And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.” They knew what they were risking. It was all or nothing.

Regarding the Founding Fathers:
“Perhaps the part of Locke's writing which most influenced the founding fathers was the idea that the power to govern was obtained from the permission of the people.”

Protestants rejected the Rule by Divine Right theory found in Catholic countries like Spain and France. The first English King Charles lost his head over this claim, as had Mary, Queen of Scots, lost her’s on order of the first Queen Elizabeth in the prior century. This was an important issue then, because to disobey the King was to disobey God. A proposition which we treat ever so lightly today. People often misunderstand me when I say I do not believe in God, but I am still a Protestant. I protest the pope.

Another source of power is hereditary. That is, the power of the monarch descends to his or her lawful descendants. This is why there are 3 Ladies in Waiting in the King’s chambers when he and the new Queen indulge in the sex act. To make sure the outcome is legitimate. Or should it be called “work product?” Further, in England, Parliament was the place where it was decided who was the “lawful” descendant entitled to the throne. This is also one of the cornerstone of today’s civil liberties. The source of a ruler's power is not a trivial matter. As Locke and Jefferson said, the source of power in America is supposed to be the people. Say hello Bush43.

We can trade sources back and forth - in a superficial attempt that any undergraduate can piece together for their instructor. Or, we can discuss the philosophies and motivations of these great people and see what would follow from them.

I’ll try.


[edit on 9/8/2006 by donwhite]

Don,

I hope you had a good weekend. I have enjoyed our discussion so far, but it looks like we ran away with the thread. Good topics, but a little off the main point of the thread. If you would like, we could continue this through u2u's. Perhaps it will allow others to post.