1 - 10 Next
The problem isn't that the author ignores GLOBALISM (sic) or a central bank. The problem with this author's article is the same for *every* libertarian article: it ignores history and culture. The only history it looks at with any depth is economic history, as if economics can be separated from culture. Libertarianism has always, and increasingly has even more, relied on the purely theoretical - the abstract, the structural. It strongly tends to ignore the more subtle, and yet far more reaching, trends and threads within a society that can affect everything - including economics. Unfortunately, just like Marxism, libertarianism tends to tr to boil everything down to economics. Even "social issues" are analyzed through the lens of economics. In the end, such a worldview, just like Marxism, does not reflect or understand reality. Anything it proposes - if kept in such an artificial vacuum - will fail. Just like Marxism. Libertarians, like Marxists, tend to worship man (to one degree or another). It's just that where Marxists worship man in the collective, libertarians tend to worship man in the individual. Either way, reality states that such a worldview ends up in only one of two places: tyranny or chaos. Both give us death. A decent start to understanding how such egocentric elevation of the human intellect can damage political thought, I'd suggest "The Great Debate" about the debates between Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine. There's FAR too much Paine in libertarianism (and progressivism) - and that's because there is a fundamental disconnect with the very concept of the interaction between culture and politics. Politics is a function of humanity, and economics is a function of politics, not the other way around. As such, thinking that our problems can be solved through pure economic means - even economic problems - is a massive mistake (just as massive as thinking a secular governmental structure can solve our problems with new laws).
It's not just that. The culture the illegals are coming from is vastly different than those the Italians, Irish and Jews came from. Hispanics are VASTLY more "big government" than those other three immigrant examples. That is why the ol' "they're natural conservatives" canard is just that - a canard based on a false assumption regarding the Latinism (colloquially, Catholicism) of Hispanics. First, they tend to be very much "Catholic" in name only. Second, there has been an explosion over the last decade or so in quasi-Pentecostal "churches" in Hispanic communities - "true believers" are leaving in probably pretty shocking numbers (which would explain why the Latins are pushing so hard for amnesty, as well: to try to curry favor with a population that is leaving in droves). The fact is, Hispanics are NOT natural conservatives, because they, like Europeans, have been raised on Marxist, or some derivation of Marxist, historical and economic theory.
Fascinating conspiracy theory with little to no solid evidence. Not only that, but Bush was in office just under 7 months in 9/11 occurred and, in fact, openly declared, months before 9/11, that he wanted to switch the policy about al Qaeda from "containment" to rolling them back. Big difference. It may be just me, but the tone of your posts seems to suggest that you see black helicopters and nefarious "jack-booted thugs" outside your house a lot, don't you?
The idea this only started in 1947 is ludicrous, and ignores nearly 1300 years of history. Just because the US didn't exist then doesn't mean the roots of the conflict can't go any further back than 1787. Your understanding of both history and Islam is thoroughly misguided.
In all fairness, though the author does go back to 1453 and the most lamentable fall of the glorious city of Constantinople, it goes earlier, and deeper, than that. Much of what happened in the Balkans is directly attributable to the wars between Christians and Muslims (or Hagarenes/Saracens/Ishmaelites, if Robert Spencer's latest book can be believed, which the evidence I've seen so far seems to support, at least to a certain degree). It isn't *merely* about seaports and geographical advantages. It is far, far larger than those causes - though those causes most certainly played a part!
Had an argument with a friend about this kind of nonsensical isolationism some time ago. This is the kind of person who would do nothing until the chemical/nuclear attack actually happened on our soil. THEN we'd have the "moral" authority to attack someone. Never you mind whether or not we know it's coming, or that someone openly declares they want to attack us and openly declares they are developing nuclear/biological/chemical weapons. Sheesh . . .
They weren't Serbian "nationalists." They were anarchists. Practically speaking, it may not make much difference to us looking back on it now, but, at the time, the anarchists were willing to do things simple "nationalists" would never thought of doing. The anarchists were true "revolutionaries."
Great article.
investigated and found wanting in evidence. Things like how "lesbian" and "gay" are defined are stupid because it is little more than vernacular gymnastics for the sake of the political goal of discounting evidence (not proof, but evidence, mind you, if we keep a strictly worldly and humanistic view on this) that goes against the stated and open political agenda of activists. Sorta like saying pedophiles *cannot* be homosexual, as . . . well, that argument never made any sense except in the political realm.
For David and the others who won't respond to this, and for general knowledge and consumption: yes, there have been some complaints about the UT-Austin study. Unfortunately, UT-Austin, not even REMOTELY a "conservative" institution, thoroughly examined the methodology of the study and found NOTHING wanting in its methodology or construction. The biggest complaints are, basically, one of interpretation and personal bias. These are legitimate concerns to be discussed, but the out of hand dismissal of the study based on half-baked theories/allegations with nothing more to support them other than the reflexive charges of "homophobe!" are worthless protestations. Please, try to bring up something more than those arguments that UT-A, itself,
1 - 10 Next