Libertarianism is a spectrum of doctrines which trace their roots back to the Enlightenment and the teachings of Adam Smith. It's a confusing political movement to define since the Liberty of ordinary humans and the Liberty of property owners are so often in conflict:
Whose liberty does "libertarianism" favor? In the 20th century I often called myself a "libertarian" but no longer. Today most ordinary citizens who call themselves "libertarian" are simply citizens who don't like to pay taxes but do like to smoke weed. Their leaders focus on the rights of property owners; I suppose many of them are sincere and don't realize that their policies are inhumane and lie on the road to fascism.
While "GOP" is a well-known nickname for the Republican Party, many of us do a double-take when we see "LP." Just as a simple cross or fish symbol is supposed to remind us of the power of Christianity and specifically of the Messiah Jesus of Nazareth, "LP" is thought by its own cult members to remind us of the particular brand of "Libertarianism" espoused by their own Messiah, Gary Earl Johnson.
Gary Johnson is a cross between a pro-rich right-winger and a nut-cake. He supports the "FairTax", an oxymoronic program that rational thinkers would call an Unfair Tax. Since the effect of FairTax would be to make the rich richer and the poor poorer, Johnson might be treated as a "fellow traveler" of right-wing fascism, whether he personally detests Donald Trump or not.
I realize that this nut-cake got 3.3% of the vote in the 2016 Presidential Election!! But very few of those voters actually thought he might win; they clicked his box to show their apathy. I did Wikipedia the man to show respect for Mr. Harvestdancer, but I didn't study his positions in detail. An early sentence seemed to summarize his specialness:
Wikipedia said:
During his tenure as governor, Johnson adhered to an anti-tax policy, setting state and national records for the number of times he used his veto power: more than the other 49 contemporary governors put together.
It is Johnson's opposition to military interventions which especially appeals to some of his supporters
and this policy often does have merit.
But there are several bad actors in the world: North Korea, Russia, Islamic terrorists like ISIS, and so on. If good people and good nations fail to combat naked aggression, the world will belong to the evil-doers. Now let's look at specifics:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jason's reply reminds us why taking single sentences out of context can lead to an inane cycle of meaningless "He said she said" where both sides forget what the discussion was about!
He picked a cherry that absolves from the Vietnam War.
First, the LP can't issue position papers if the LP doesn't exist. Second, Vietnam was a disaster.
Just as Abe Lincoln inspired with his "Four-score and seven years ago," so "52 years ago" has special significance to Jason.
The Vietnam War, good or bad, is irrelevant to the discussion. The confusion was about Jason's insistence on "52 years" -- which he removed from the excerpt. I apologize but I overlooked his obsession with "LP." Strong opposition to intervention in foreign wars has naturally been a major theme in American politics since before the 20th century but he has a peculiar reverence for the "LP." It's almost as if this cult worship transcends the actual issues.
Because proto-Libertarians supported Hitler over the USSR and did not want to intervene in that War.
Nice straw man. I've consistently stated that if Wilson had not intervened in WWI the disaster of WWII could have been avoided.
Interesting. I
believe you've stated that, Jason but I don't recall it. I can't read every post at IIDB. I do know that more than one million men were killed or wounded at the Battle of the Somme and that was BEFORE "Wilson intervened." Do we have an
Alternate History thread where I can learn why putting an end to World War I was a bad idea?
That's "more than one million" with an M and an M.
I am not a historian, and don't know whether to praise or condemn Wilson.
But the first Google hit shows
Wilson's 14 Points focused on a lasting peace after the end of World War I, while the Treaty of Versailles was a more punitive document.
The LP wants to say out of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, which is the opposite of taking a side. The LP recommends the US leaving NATO, not dissolveing NATO.
Without Western support Ukraine would be crushed.
As for NATO, recall that its operational document is the Treaty of
Washington. A NATO without the U.S. would be like a breeding stallion without semen.
Jason apparently would have been happy to allow Al-Qaeda to operate freely in Afghanistan.
You mean the same Afghanistan that was destroyed by foreign intervention until the Taliban was able to rally the people to throw out foreign occupiers?
I've consistently stated that the Cheney Administration bungled Afghanistan reprehensibly.
But what was your and Gary Johnson's proposal? To allow al-Qaeda to continue to operate freely?