Can Tea Party reconcile libertarianism and social conservatism?

[tremendoustie]

How about the argument that the space program resulted in tons of spin off technologies that were ultimately undertaken by the private sector? Resulting in magnitudes more GDP than the space program investment? i.e. that government defrayed initial R & D costs that would have proved prohibitive for many tech risk takers?

I can say by firsthand experience that NASA wastes far, far more money than the value it produces.

If such an investment into fundamental R&D were valuable, it could be undertaken by investors, voluntarily -- and accomplished far more efficiently.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

How about the argument that the space program resulted in tons of spin off technologies that were ultimately undertaken by the private sector? Resulting in magnitudes more GDP than the space program investment? i.e. that government defrayed initial R & D costs that would have proved prohibitive for many tech risk takers?

This was inflationist propaganda. The most "innovative" product of the "Space Race" was Tang (and failed Math and science programs in public schools). The classic novel "Oman Ra" summarizes" the idiocy that people were going through quite well.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Number19, would you say the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the Eastern Communist Bloc, was incremental? Why is it sudden change is looked upon unfavorably? Did it work out unfavorably for those countries? If we are to believe that Government intervention in society is detrimental why would you prolong it? This makes no sense to me whatsoever. All great change is sudden. 1776 was a sudden proclamation of free-men.

I seek to free the slaves (and myself!), not prolong their torment. Taxation is slavery. We have eschewed full on chattel slavery, it's time to eschew partial, labor-slavery.

 

[ClayTrainor]

Number19, would you say the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the Eastern Communist Bloc, was incremental? Why is it sudden change is looked upon unfavorably? Did it work out unfavorably for those countries? If we are to believe that Government intervention in society is detrimental why would you prolong it? This makes no sense to me whatsoever. All great change is sudden. 1776 was a sudden proclamation of free-men.

I seek to free the slaves (and myself!), not prolong their torment. Taxation is slavery. We have eschewed full on chattel slavery, it's time to eschew partial, labor-slavery.

You just reminded me of a great Barry Goldwater quote.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." - BG

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

You just reminded me of a great Barry Goldwater quote.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." - BG

It's a great quote, but it actually originates from Cicero (And Hess included that for BG).

 

[Number19]

Number19, would you say the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the Eastern Communist Bloc, was incremental? Why is it sudden change is looked upon unfavorably? Did it work out unfavorably for those countries? If we are to believe that Government intervention in society is detrimental why would you prolong it? This makes no sense to me whatsoever. All great change is sudden. 1776 was a sudden proclamation of free-men.

I seek to free the slaves (and myself!), not prolong their torment. Taxation is slavery. We have eschewed full on chattel slavery, it's time to eschew partial, labor-slavery.

Your comprehension of my mind is not quite accurate - I do not look unfavorably on sudden change. But 40 plus years of adult life, 30 as a libertarian activist, persuade me that it is unlikely to occur in the near to short term. It you can pull it off - good.

In 1979 I thought we were set up for an economic and social collapse. Reagan happened. As bad as things look right now, I'm not certain that collapse is inevitable and short of an all out and prolonged depression, a sudden and drastic change in the political paradigm will not occur. Major changes only occur during times of extreme and prolonged social distress. If we are lucky, times will be bad enough to allow some significant incremental changes. But even here, I'm distrustful that the Ron Paul movement is strong enough to pull the Republican Party far enough toward the top of the diamond. The liberal backlash is going to be rough.

The thing is, just a few minor successes will have significant positive economic impact; and as soon as the social pressure is relieved, the pressure for further reform will slacken. "It's the economy, stupid" - a very accurate statement. A significant majority of the people have no real understanding of "freedom" and "liberty" and are unable to comprehend just how much more prosperous and well off they, and society, can be if we would only move back in this direction.

So believe, live, educate anarchy. And then in your final years, objectively examine how far the philosophy has advanced during your days.

 

[andrewh817]

But the idea was rather successful for quite a good while and did seem to have a relatively significant and unique libertarian identity. I wonder if the experiment would be improved with a few more specifics in the Constitution? Regarding central banks, fiat money, war declaration, and a very rigid definition of regulating interstate commerce?

You're ignoring the problem. A piece of paper does not restrain ANYONE! Even if it could restrain the government, what good would specific clauses regarding central banks, fiat money, war declaration, etc do if the people were still educated in government schools where they don't learn about the horrible effects of such things?

In history the biggest empires always started out with the smallest governments because the government can gradually increase its power generation to generation and still benefit in the beginning from relatively low taxes (compared to now) until the government gets too big for people to tolerate or want to live under and eventually the return on investment for keeping the taxpayers in line goes negative.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

You're ignoring the problem. A piece of paper does not restrain ANYONE! Even if it could restrain the government, what good would specific clauses regarding central banks, fiat money, war declaration, etc do if the people were still educated in government schools where they don't learn about the horrible effects of such things?

In history the biggest empires always started out with the smallest governments because the government can gradually increase its power generation to generation and still benefit in the beginning from relatively low taxes (compared to now) until the government gets too big for people to tolerate or want to live under and eventually the return on investment for keeping the taxpayers in line goes negative.

+999999999

 

[andrewh817]

I don't think so.

Anarchist may or may not have a "burden of proof", but they do have the burden of convincing 6.7 billion people to go along with their philosophy.

That's very ironic. If the state has rationally convinced people to go along with its philosophy why is there an IRS?

 

[CCTelander]

That's very ironic. If the state has rationally convinced people to go along with its philosophy why is there an IRS?

Indeed.

Why do they need to use force at all, for anything? That is, IF they've rationally convinced people that their way is the best way.

 

[Number19]

That's very ironic. If the state has rationally convinced people to go along with its philosophy why is there an IRS?

The State, in its growth and expansion, did not use rational persuasion. Rothbard and Hoppe both do an excellent job on the origins and anatomy of the State.

Libertarianism, minarchism, and anarchism all must rely on persuasion. The use of force is philosophically prohibited.