reply to post by hawkiye
As usual, Alex gives his usual simplistic spiel of the "left and the right working together" to enslave Americans for the sake of some neo-eugenic
But this is so simplistic, and hysterical in it's assumptions of how far he thinks people are able to agree on a general course society should take.
However, he is pretty much spot on in saying that the right (republicans) need to adopt a Libertarian, constitutionalist position if it wants to stay
relevant in American politics. Whats pathetic is that instead of appreciating the mainstream trend this idea (which he champions) is taking, Alex
seems more resentful that he isn't the figurehead of it all. All he does is spread worry and concern that Glen Beck (who I don't like or trust
anymore than I do Alex Jones) has some nefarious agenda behind his support for libertarian values; whats the issue? If he's supporting the political
values you consider important, what does it matter? Why does he hypothesize some maleficent intent behind it? He's an opportunist. The people at Fox
News who employ him back a free market economy. That's it. They disagree with the philosophical agenda being pushed by the left
The right and the left cover the gamut of all possible political positions. Only a complete ignoramus could believe that both parties are conspiring
towards the same ends when they don't even agree on the same beginnings: philosophically, they start from someplace else, politically, they prefer
different systems. The right and the left differ in capitalism and socialism, free market economics and socialist economics, statism and anarchism,
libertarianism and central planning, traditionalism and progressivism, localism and universalism, conservatism and liberalism etc... To ignore all
these fundamental differences, grounded in human nature, to flat out say "there's an agenda against the American people" is hyper paranoic, and
seems to me to be a desperate effort to get people to pay attention to him and his radio and internet shows.
While I agree with his preference for Libertarian politics and free market capitalism, I disagree with his naive understanding of the role and
importance of foreign policy. Thus, while Libertarianism would be ideal, it has to be quantified in relation to the outside world; if the outside
world is "safe" and free of disturbance, then, of course, lets return to the Jeffersonian, John Stewart Mill type society Alex Jones envisions; but
the world isn't like that. Besides the growing influence of China on the world stage, and their itch to grab a greater role on the world stage and in
the international community (a position Ron Paul and Jones would expect America to abjure) the ascendance of Islamists in Morocco, Tunisia, Libya,
Egypt, Gaza and possibly many other places, makes the world a far more complicated space. To become insular, to become more "open" and loose may
prove self defeating in the long run.
Recognition of external threats are important when it comes to determining state policy. Full blown libertarianism would be to unipolar, to
unsettling, for America to survive the coming struggles. It would be downright reckless to ignore the probable difficulties ahead. The military,
defense spending, are all areas which, unfortunately, need to be tended to if America and it's treasured values are to be preserved.