The Neocons are Now Ideologically Bankrupt

[redcliffsw]

As soon as the entire world learned that the "weapons of mass destruction" excuse for the invasion of Iraq was a lie and murderous scam, the neocons immediately changed their tune and said the "justification" for the war of conquest and occupation was bringing democracy to that part of the world.  And, who better to do it than Americans, the world's role models of democracy.

Well.  The entire world has now learned a new lesson about the putrid, cynically corrupt, criminal nature of American "democracy" with its vote rigging, orchestrated acts of violence, censorship, and the creation of a de facto state-run media with its never-ending avalanche of lies in support of the regime, little different from the "media" of the Soviet Union.  No one in the world wants to import this!  Which of course is why the U.S. government is not "the world's policeman" but the world's bully that invades, conquers, and instigates revolutions, all in the name of "American exceptionalism" and "bringing democracy" to other part of the world.

The world now knows that this is all pure B.S.  What new bundle of lies will the neocons invent now to "justify" their program of perpetual war?
-Thomas DiLorenzo

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/official-neocons-now-ideologically-bankrupt/

[Diane Amberg]

So? What does he suggest be done about it?

[Wake-up!]

"So? What does he suggest be done about it?"

Not sure if 'he' refers to Rockwell or DiLorenzo, as both were cited above. Not that it matters much, their philosophies are similar.

In short, both would recommend following the principles Dr. Ron Paul has spoken about all of his political life.

1) Bring home ALL the troops, no troops stationed on foreign soil. 2) Build a competent, technologically advanced military to protect the borders of these States and the Territories, with all military stationed on sovereign American soil. 3) End ALL foreign aid; withdraw from NATO and the UN. End all entangling alliances. 4) End so-called free-trade and fair-trade agreements. They are neither free, nor fair. 5) Control immigration at the border. 6) End the Federal Reserve; abolish the IRS. 7) Phase out and privatize Medicare and Social Security. Eliminate federal administration of BLM, USFS, Corps of Engineer, Wildlife Service, and Park Service lands. 9) Eliminate the Dept. of Education. 10) Drastically downsize the collective in DC, making elected positions part-time jobs at the average American wage.

Not a bad ten-point plan. I'm sure Redcliff will add (many) more to this list, legitimately so.

Now, if you ask how to implement those ten points as a society, I refer you to the writings of Dr. Paul, Sr., and to the Mises Institute. As an individual, you simply withdraw your consent to be governed, do not serve in the military, do not sign up with Selective Service, do not pay taxes, support truly free local markets, local farmers, local crafts people, and local family-owned businesses. Work toward self-sufficiency, teach it to others. Never swear an oath, support a fully voluntary society. Support the Non-Aggression Principle. A pretty sane and simple life.

[redcliffsw]

Amen!  You're right on track!

Why would anyone ever support the neocons' "New World Order"?  Yet Republicans and modern Democrats support that policy.  Just in the past two (2) years we've seen the likeness of the Republicans and Obama and Hillary.   They think they can improve socialism and make it better.   

Hillary is a Republican all the way except in brand name.  Socialism is the commonality of the Republicans and the modern - reconstructed Democrats and it's not likely that any of 'em will ever take a stand against socialism.


 

[Diane Amberg]

I'm sure The Donald would be happy to buy up all the national park lands and build hotels and casinos on them.The very wealthy can then kill all the elk, bison, swans, cranes etc., mount a few and put 'em in "a pay to go in to see them"  musuem. Ya better be reading some of Hitler's early speeches to the German people...might sound very familiar. I feel for you if you do get what ya want. It would be ripe for a dictator to slowly, but surely take over....and convince folks that it's what they wanted. I'm no Hillary fan, but Trump is dangerous to this country as we know it now.
So you don't have any ideas about protecting Americans already on foreign soil? They are just sacrificial goats? So what happened in Benghazi was OK?
Get the real details on Benghazi and you'll see what I mean. People who are told to leave but don't,(Chris Stevenson) risk the lives of the people who are there to protect them...who were there willingly, not drafted, or even still in our military. They were strictly there as mercenaries. What happened was a terrible shame, but much of the  reporting was political and twisted to try to affect Hillary's presidential chances early on. (Have we all forgotten it was war and people die in wars?) The business about the anti Muslim tape was a good example. Nobody knew who or what to believe. Benghazi  was was a small consulate, not an embassy, and a secret spook shop at that. It had a low profile on purpose as to not attract attention.
Have you heard anything  about the truth from the Dept. of Defense? Nope. From the other military Depts.? Nope...Joint Chiefs? Nada... Lots of military secrets slinking around....still are. It was decided to let Hillary swing as the scapegoat because she would and did recover from it. Remember Susan Rice? She had a lot to say about it also.
Several of those 10 points are very good. Some would be hard to implement overnight.They represent a LOT of jobs. Personally, I'm not happy about the US playing cat and mouse with China, North Korea or Russia. Trumps "I Love war " comments don't make me feel very secure.

[Wake-up!]

Whistling swan grilled with a few endangered orchids? Might be yummy, but not realistic.

I doubt that Sir Donald's pockets are deep enough to be involved if such a transition of land ownership would happen. And I think libertarians, overall, are deep enough thinkers to get beyond the money-at-any-cost label. I would imagine organizations like the Sierra Club and National Wildlife Federation would be the ones bidding on many of the Parks, and some of the Wilderness Areas. That would be my advocacy (and I hope I'm in the majority in that). With DC's role limited, many of the States would also seek control of those lands. And I'm sure the larger timber companies and some mineral companies would also be in the acquisition business. No doubt there would be winners and losers, and happy people as well as unhappy. Just like today in some ways, except the land would on the tax rolls (assuming some States still maintained property taxes), and making money to at least pay taxes would come to bear. The lands would probably become accessible to more people in the effort to pay taxes. I see the accessibility as a cultural benefit, not a detriment.

Germany was in a sad state following WW1, her people punished severely with restrictions for their role on that war. When Hitler promised to restore Germany to her earlier world stature, Germans listened. Of course Hilter was also financially supported by many American industrialists whose businesses would gain by another war (some things never change, do they?), including George Bush Sr.'s father. WW2 might have been avoided if the treaties following WW1 had been productive ones rather than punitive ones. Decentralizing America by moving to Libertarian principles is far different than the politics of Germany in the 1920's. I doubt tyranny would gain a foothold, and definitely not at the federal level. That is exactly what a libertarian government would be eliminating, the tyranny we now have. What would happen to the fifty States? Lots of things, they are diverse culturally, economically, politically, and resource-wise. Some East Coast states might want to continue with a heavy socialistic hand, and an oligarch may come to power in a few states. Libertarians would probably view that as a transitional step. And there would be many, many transitional steps. You are correct, very little would happen over night.

When I wrote, "drastically downsize the collective in DC",  I meant that to include all the federal government Departments, including the State Department, embassies, and all the spook organizations. They would NOT have an overseas presence in a Libertarian government. So a Bengazi would not occur. As for Americans traveling and/or working overseas, they would know going over that they would not have a net beneath them. So, yes, the risk would be theirs; so would the reward. But, I do not think the Libs are brutal people. So a Libertarian government would no doubt extend a diplomatic hand if bad things befell Americans overseas. Then again, the diplomatic hand might also come from a private third party, a group of philanthropists, of sorts. This is a bit of out-of-the box thinking because we are so used to a single option in government, you know, Uncle Sam will take care of us, that the possible options that arise are hard to imagine (for me, anyway).

No one in government today (okay, very, very few) wants the truth known. It is much easier to raise billions politicking lies and misrepresentations, juxtaposing political party platforms. I do not know a Department of the federal government that speaks the truth. They have lied for so long, I do not trust any of them. My image of Libertarianism wants to believe that would change.

But change would come slowly, as you opined. In my opinion the evolving Libertarian society would have three key goals; 1) the Non-agression Principle, 2) Voluntaryism, and 3) eventual elimination of the State. People would not coerce others, or do harm to others as some Libertarinas say. People would be free to engage in those areas of the society they liked or found rewarding, and they would be free to avoid those areas they found unacceptable to themselves. Yes, baking the cake would not be a mandate, it would be voluntary. And yes, there could be all-white eateries. But there could also be all-black, all-Greek, all-Italian, all-Mexican, etc. eateries. Yes, looking back to the 1950's and earlier, it sounds segregationist, it sounds so white. But given today's more tolerant attitudes and culturally divers society, looking forward it seems like a movement to increase diversity even more.

And eventually, the State would be eliminated in a pure Libertarian society. There would be no political boundaries. DC would not be a seat of governance, neither would Topeka. The primary governance would be self governance. I have no doubt small communities, or territories, might develop some sort of local governance, to the degree that everyone in the area could agree upon some laws. But even in those areas, what we typically view as government's jobs would fall into the hands of the private sector, where individuals and families would be able to arrange contractural services for things they feel necessary, like fire protection, schools, police, etc. Again, the scenario would be so different, so juxtaposed to what we are used to as a society, it is hard to imagine the diversity and livelihood that would become available, the market places that would open, the jobs that would be created, the self-employment potential, the human growth potential.

I favor self governance because it allows the fullest expression of Free Will. And for me, realizing Free Will is the fastest journey Home.


And, why oh why, does the number eight followed by a single parenthesis produce one of those silly, yellow smily faces?

[redcliffsw]

I'm pretty much in agreement with you except when the non-profits own property.

You've mentioned the Sierra Club and National Wildlife Federation.  Don't forget the Nature Conservancy and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.  There's probably other organizations too.  When any of these "non-profits" take title to land, they'll create a conservation easement to tie-up that land forever.  Or they can acquire a conservation easement from a landowner. And the Federals are in cahoots with these organizations in the acquistion of lands and conservation easements.   

Seeks like the Elk County wind farm project had some kind of provisions to acquire conservation easements to make up for using the land to build their wind farm.  How nice of them to do that - to tie up more American land.

[Wake-up!]

Remember, the eventual goal of Libertarianism is no State. As the transition from the tyranny we now have proceeds, rules, regulations, entitlements, and incentives from big brother would disappear. Yes, there are many more 'green' groups out there, and their incentives to remain non-profit and to engage in locking up land would also disappear. They would still need to generate income to maintain whatever acreage they owned (and try to continue to overpay their boards of director). I think the logical approach by many groups would be to generate revenue from the land they acquire. And, lo and behold, that might even mean multiple use rather than exclusivity. The options would, at least, be greater, and that, in my mind, would benefit the land and the people. It's also important to remember, in discussions about the Libertarian effort, that we would find more options and greater dynamism to situations and life in general, than the predominant singularity we deal with from DC today.

[redcliffsw]

That goal of the Libertarians is OK but the Founders established this country and it was started right.   Lincoln and the Republicans changed course - they changed America and Obama continues that policy along with the Republican majority in Congress to this day.

As for locking-up land as you say, the government and/or these non-profits will work to deal with their buddies - the corporations - to hand over the lands, water rights or minerals to the corporations.   They don't want American folks to own them. 

And you're right about about generating revenue from the Non-Profits' lands, the Non-Profits are trying to figure a way to do that without losing their tax breaks. 

The Federals should not own any property except military forts and Post Offices.

The scheming goes on . . . . .