Archive for category Libertarianism
Is Charles Koch so worried about Donald Trump taking over the earth without his permission, that he actually said these things, or hired somebody to say these things?
I would suggest that Bernie Sanders and Charles Koch schedule a little fireside chat on national television. I’m sure Sanders would agree. It would knock Trump clean out of the national discussion for a month.
Nobody ever listens to my ideas.
ALEC is changing their talking points about private school vouchers. Instead of promoting the lie that vouchers are supposed to help disadvantaged children, they now concede the truth that the plan is a bonus for well-off families — but poor families won’t able to afford private school tuition even with the extra money.
ALEC seems poised to ditch the civil rights “marketing plan,” (as the rightwing Heartland Institute aptly put it in a 1991 paper) and get back to basics: school vouchers are for privatizing public education.
Libertarian guru Milton Friedman put it more bluntly back in 2006: school vouchers are part of a right-wing plan for “abolishing the public school system.”
Posted by Firmage Ed in 9/11, Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan, Biological Weapons, Bush Administration, Bush Failures, CIA, Civil liberties Infringement, Conservative, Crimes, Democracy, Democrats, Dick Cheney, Drone Strikes, George W. Bush, Guantanamo, Hezbollah, Human Rights, Iran, Iraq, Israel, John McCain, Liberal, Libertarianism, Mahdi Army, Mormon LDS, National Politics, nazis, Neocons, NSA Surveillance, Nuclear Weapons, Oliver North, Pakistan, Proof Bush Lied, Rumsfeld, Syria, Syria, Terrorism, This Blog, War Crimes on June 5, 2014
I’m so sorry to write this missive as a lead article (for 15 minutes) but I don’t remember how to find the comments and respond to them. The lonely little side-bar response to my article I’ve not seen, except for half a sentence. It seemed to be saying that the old days are gone now, and so we need NATO and the JN. I agree. With NATO, it is the trip-wire provision that we go to war, automatically if any NATO nation is attacked, regardless of who the attacker is. This takes not only the United States Congress, but the president, as Commander in Chief, from the decision to go to war. I support both the UN and, if handled correctly, NATO. But President J. Reuben Clark and I oppose the automatic going to war. Just like the fools, the ancient general staffs of all sides in WW I. No one wanted that war. There was no Adolph Hitler in that war that destroyed the entire 20th century. Better to have shot the general staffs, who came to deserve exactly that. What President Clark called for, and I, are what the United States has always done, before NATO. That is, to have treaties of peace and friendship with our allies and then, should hostilities commence, such treaties would call for all parties to go to war, or not, as their constitutions provide. In this way, we don’t declare war against a nation, and surely all the people, have not yet been born. How, pray tell, do we justify going to war against, and for, people not, or no longer, live on earth. With a few caveats, ditto for the UN. No provision of law allows the UN to overreach Congress in the decision for war or peace. For anyone interested, read my book with the late Francis Wormuth, To Cain the Dog of War. It is by odds the best book ever written on the way we go to war. Every single war we’ve ever fought, including our wars against the Indian tribes, is there analyzed. Francis did not live to see this book in print. I worked two years after his death to finish it. And I updated it 4 or 5 times, alone. I still put my dear friend’s name first, because I am honored to be linked, now, forever. Something like Mormon marriage through time and eternity. ed firmage xoxo
Something is kind of peculiar about libertarians in their ideology. They are for one anti-government and I really cannot blame them. If you ever pick up a book on American History, it has a lot of skeletons and they aren’t really in the closet. We just deny them. Libertarians do not and I admire that. Their views on personal freedom is something I admire. When I ask a Libertarian as to what they believe, they believe that people should be able to do as they please so long as it doesn’t hurt people. That I couldn’t agree more on. There is a problem though. In order to prevent the abuse of other people’s rights, how would they do that without government control? They are anti-government but in reality, the government is the only thing that can prevent the jackals of society from harming you. They could try a mafia I guess, but is that not a governing body in of itself? I don’t know. I guess this is why I am here. To ask you guys.