The Neocon Revival-get your barf bags ready.......

[Christian Liberty]

I think I would like to go back to about 1912, the year before the Federal Reserve was created.

Are you OK with the rest of what was done during the Progressive Era, or the stuff that was done before that?

Lincoln's Presidency was seriously a problem. There are so many holes in his legacy. Even if you think he was a mediocre President, rather than being an across the board terrible one, you should wish he'd never been born, because now the totalitarians can defend all his bad policies with cries of "Well, Lincoln did it, so we can too" and nobody complains.

 

[fr33]

It's a reality. If Rand doesn't triumph, conservatism will likely be an FDR worshipping exercise.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Genuine conservatism (As in, any version that actually wants to go back to the 19th or at least early 20th century, as opposed to modern neoconservatism which wants to "Go back" to Reagan or GWB) is a lot closer to even anarcho-libertarianism than the left is.

You've probably gotten this from a blog, yes? Conservatism was originally a British movement (Toryism) before spreading its menace around the world. Wiki's page is actually quite good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism#United_States It's similar to textbooks I've seen on the subject.

 

[Pericles]

I'd like to go back to 1804:

"At home, fellow citizens, you best know whether we have done well
or ill. The suppression of unnecessary offices, of useless
establishments and expenses, enabled us to discontinue our internal
taxes. These covering our land with officers, and opening our doors to
their intrusions, had already begun that process of domiciliary vexation
which, once entered, is scarcely to be restrained from reaching
successively every article of produce and property..."

"The remaining revenue on the consumption of foreign articles, is
paid cheerfully by those who can afford to add foreign luxuries to
domestic comforts, being collected on our seaboards and frontiers only,
and incorporated with the transactions of our mercantile citizens, it
may be the pleasure and pride of an American to ask, what farmer, what
mechanic, what laborer, ever sees a tax-gatherer of the United States?"

Thomas Jefferson

 

[Christian Liberty]

It's a reality. If Rand doesn't triumph, conservatism will likely be an FDR worshipping exercise.

It already is, for the most part. At least what passes as such in the GOP...

 

[Christian Liberty]

@heavenlyboy34- I can't comment on ancient definitions. I can only tell you that the kind of ideology that people like Rand Paul support is way closer to ours than people like Kucinich.

 

[Brett85]

Are you OK with the rest of what was done during the Progressive Era, or the stuff that was done before that?

Lincoln's Presidency was seriously a problem. There are so many holes in his legacy. Even if you think he was a mediocre President, rather than being an across the board terrible one, you should wish he'd never been born, because now the totalitarians can defend all his bad policies with cries of "Well, Lincoln did it, so we can too" and nobody complains.

1) I think this forum is the only place where I would ever be questioned or criticized for not going far enough by saying that the size of the federal government should be reduced to what it was 100 years ago.

2) I would probably have to research more about the "Progressive Era." I'm sure there were some things that were passed then that weren't good. I'm just saying that going back to the size of the federal government in 1912 would definitely be good enough for me, since we wouldn't have Medicare, Social Security, the Federal Reserve, etc.

3) From what I've read, Lincoln had a bad record in terms of civil liberties, but none of the bad things that he did were really permanent. For example, the income tax that Lincoln created during the Civil War was repealed after the war was over.

 

[Lafayette]

For those that don't have the time to read the above article, let me sum it up...

By DAVID BROOKS
Published: August 1, 2013

Neoconservationism, we're just like the democrats but you know, with Jesus!

 

[Christian Liberty]

1) I think this forum is the only place where I would ever be questioned or criticized for not going far enough by saying that the size of the federal government should be reduced to what it was 100 years ago.

To be clear, I ask my questions with the utmost respect

But yeah, you won't get any of these types of questions IRL

2) I would probably have to research more about the "Progressive Era." I'm sure there were some things that were passed then that weren't good. I'm just saying that going back to the size of the federal government in 1912 would definitely be good enough for me, since we wouldn't have Medicare, Social Security, the Federal Reserve, etc.

Well, the first thing that came to mind was the FDA, but then I checked your sig and you're opposed to that.

How do you feel about Theodore's trust busting legislation? Seeing as that was before 1912 as well.

Not directly related seeing as its a state level issue, but are you in favor of repealing regulations against price-gouging?

3) From what I've read, Lincoln had a bad record in terms of civil liberties, but none of the bad things that he did were really permanent. For example, the income tax that Lincoln created during the Civil War was repealed after the war was over.

There's truth to that, but modern neocons cite him as a justification for their policies.

 

[Christian Liberty]

For those that don't have the time to read the above article, let me sum it up...

There's nothing "Christian" about the warmongering neoconservative movement. Murray Rothbard, atheist though he was, didn't associate with the rabid anti-theists or the libertines. Ron Paul supporters should never be mistaken for them.

Remember that Ron Paul is a Baptist. Just saying.

 

[fr33]

There's nothing "Christian" about the warmongering neoconservative movement. Murray Rothbard, atheist though he was, didn't associate with the rabid anti-theists or the libertines. Ron Paul supporters should never be mistaken for them.

Remember that Ron Paul is a Baptist. Just saying.

No matter what you say the people he was quoting will use Jesus like he did and he was accurate in his quote.

Lindsey Graham for example, loves everything democrat except for displaying the 10 commandments on govt property and abortion. He is a neocon.

 

[Christian Liberty]

The implication that Christianity is somehow bad or responsible for the crap of reprobate like Graham is annoying.

 

[Sola_Fide]

More Fail than I can handle...let me just drop this off here:



“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.

It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.

The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” - C.S. Lewis

Great quote.

 

[Lafayette]

There's nothing "Christian" about the warmongering neoconservative movement. Murray Rothbard, atheist though he was, didn't associate with the rabid anti-theists or the libertines. Ron Paul supporters should never be mistaken for them.

Remember that Ron Paul is a Baptist. Just saying.

Oh im not saying these people believe in Christ or even have morals for that matter, but that doesn't mean they they don't use the Christian faith to further their agenda.

 

[Marky]

It’s interesting how Brooks just glosses over the Iraq war in his article. Also no mention of Iran or the notion of perpetual war and the surveillance state.

 

[Lafayette]

The implication that Christianity is somehow bad or responsible for the crap of reprobate like Graham is annoying.

No one is attacking your faith, clam down.

 

[Anti Federalist]

It’s interesting how Brooks just glosses over the Iraq war in his article. Also no mention of Iran or the notion of perpetual war and the surveillance state.

The surveillance state, from the neo-con's perspective, was always for us:

“It is generally considered obvious that government should not, indeed cannot, legislate morality. But, in fact, it does so, frequently; it should do so more often,” Will wrote.

It, the surveillance state, is the ultimate wet dream of both left and right wing statists.

It is, in fact, the culmination of 10,000 years of human history and the dreams of authoritarians through the ages:

To control and monitor every single person, over every square inch of Earth, 24/7/365.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

@heavenlyboy34- I can't comment on ancient definitions. I can only tell you that the kind of ideology that people like Rand Paul support is way closer to ours than people like Kucinich.

Then you're far more classically liberal than conservative. Not sure why you dismiss the "ancient definitions", though . Conservatives of today still tend to model their worldview on their olden day predecessors.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I want to go back to Pennsylvania 1681. I guess that makes me extreme, radical, anarchist, libertarian. F-Yeah Quaker Anarchism .

Penn was especially aggrieved that his agents in Pennsylvania failed to press his levies upon the people with sufficient zeal. Presumably, the free tax-less air of Pennsylvania had contaminated them. As Penn complained in the fall of 1686: "The great fault is, that those who are there lose their authority one way or another in the spirits of the people and then they can do little with their outward powers."

^ Shit sounds good to me.

http://mises.org/daily/1865

Because the Council met very infrequently, and because no officials had any power to act in the interim, during these intervals Pennsylvania had almost no government at all—and seemed not to suffer from the experience. During the period from late 1684 to late 1688, there were no meetings of the Council from the end of October 1684 to the end of March 1685; none from November 1686 to March 1687; and virtually none from May 1687 to late 1688. The councillors, for one thing, had little to do. And being private citizens rather than bureaucrats, and being unpaid as councillors, they had their own struggling businesses to attend to. There was no inclination under these conditions to dabble in political affairs. The laws had called for a small payment to the councillors, but, typically, it was found to be almost impossible to extract these funds from the populace.

Yeah that too. Can we go back to that? Quakers ftw.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I want to go back to Pennsylvania 1681. I guess that makes me extreme, radical, anarchist, libertarian. F-Yeah Quaker Anarchism .



^ Shit sounds good to me.

http://mises.org/daily/1865



Yeah that too. Can we go back to that? Quakers ftw.

Amazing how much freedom they had and how jealous they were for their liberties....