Are we seeing the death of the Democrat Party as we know it?

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Thought of you Frisco while reading this about the rise of the Libertarian Right in the GOP:

Bring it on, Ayn Rand geeks

I have to run the wife's car to the mechanic.

I'll read that later...

 

[unregistered]

 

[rosco rathbone]

With age comes escalation. One of my uncles, God rest his soul, was accosted on the sidewalk one day by a couple of punks; the seventy year old beat one of them to within an inch of his life with a Blackthorn walking stick, the other seeing the carnage hauled ass. One of the investigating cops asked him if he wanted any part time work.

I'm looking forwards to the days when I can just blast a young street punk and the cops will pat me on the back.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Saint Peter]

If the circumstances are right it could happen. Though times are changing, in my town no man has to take a beating from street thugs. Fortunately my neighborhood is still civilized and has no subsidized housing.

Except for the servant's quarters.

 

[unregistered]

 

[koalabear]

Except for the servant's quarters.

Many neighborhoods have rules preventing servants from living on the property. That's why the Government subsidies public transportation.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I have to run the wife's car to the mechanic.

I'll read that later...

Ignores the fact that their are at least two wings of the Libertarian Party and that even the "Ayn Rand" worshippers don't really rely on her economically, but harken to Mill, Ricardo, von Humboldt, von Mises, Hayek, etc., as the basic underpinnings for their positions, most all of which is echoed in Rand who is valuable mainly as someone who lived under total "Progressive" rule.

There is no good news for Progressives as Mises pointed out in 1929 when he talks about how (remember the 1880's) no country in the world had a people so perfect for Socialism as the Germans (A Critique of Interventionalism) but because Marxism (which they followed economically while at once rejecting a lot of its rhetoric) was not based on economic science, but on emotional rhetoric and ivory tower dreams (my terminology) it could not solve its several underlying economic flaws with etatist (today's Statist label) control and would end up in a collapse and an outbreak of violence.

This all goes towards my stand during the last election, that it was time to stop voting for the lesser of two evils and actually give America a true Progressive government with no Republicans to get in the way as the only cure for their constant caterwauling against Capitalism, Liberty, and Property and a lesson on the Progressive Economics of "Social Justice."

In short, the article sounds like just a lot of self-delusional day-dreaming and the hope of external salvation as they gleefully use the Titanic to ram the iceberg and take it out of their path...

Don't worry, The People's Coast Guard will SAVE us!

 

[rosco rathbone]

Ignores the fact that their are at least two wings of the Libertarian Party and that even the "Ayn Rand" worshippers don't really rely on her economically, but harken to Mill, Ricardo, von Humboldt, von Mises, Hayek, etc., as the basic underpinnings for their positions, most all of which is echoed in Rand who is valuable mainly as someone who lived under total "Progressive" rule.

There is no good news for Progressives as Mises pointed out in 1929 when he talks about how (remember the 1880's) no country in the world had a people so perfect for Socialism as the Germans (A Critique of Interventionalism) but because Marxism (which they followed economically while at once rejecting a lot of its rhetoric) was not based on economic science, but on emotional rhetoric and ivory tower dreams (my terminology) it could not solve its several underlying economic flaws with etatist (today's Statist label) control and would end up in a collapse and an outbreak of violence.

This all goes towards my stand during the last election, that it was time to stop voting for the lesser of two evils and actually give America a true Progressive government with no Republicans to get in the way as the only cure for their constant caterwauling against Capitalism, Liberty, and Property and a lesson on the Progressive Economics of "Social Justice."

In short, the article sounds like just a lot of self-delusional day-dreaming and the hope of external salvation as they gleefully use the Titanic to ram the iceberg and take it out of their path...

Don't worry, The People's Coast Guard will SAVE us!

Do you think final victory is possible for either ideology?

I would say that capitalism has won the big battle. Even we liberals believe in more or less free markets these days, with some reservations. However I think the libertarian utopia will probably always remain a pipe dream, since it will never be too hard to convince a large segment of the population to vote for redistribution.

 

[rosco rathbone]

"The Democrats are on a kamikaze mission"-Senator Graham

The question is not, are we or aren't we on a kamikaze mission.

The question is, are we going to take the GOP aircraft carrier to the bottom with us?

 

[miles]

The question is not, are we or aren't we on a kamikaze mission.

The question is, are we going to take the GOP aircraft carrier to the bottom with us?

...and all the sailors on board?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Do you think final victory is possible for either ideology?

I would say that capitalism has won the big battle. Even we liberals believe in more or less free markets these days, with some reservations. However I think the libertarian utopia will probably always remain a pipe dream, since it will never be too hard to convince a large segment of the population to vote for redistribution.

No. It cannot be. Even Machiavelli observed that. Even as we struggle to over-throw the tyrant and seek Liberty in Republic, that Liberty works to enable the social crusader bent on a never-ending quest to do good and thusly Republic always yields to the Tyranny of the Elites, the fertile ground for the rise of the tyrant (FA Hayek is especially good in serfdom in outlining the process with logic; Rand puts it into words a sixth-grader can understand).

Do not assume that (*shudder* I really hate the misuse of that word) "we" Liberals believe in free markets. Obama, and the team he has assembled assuredly do not, they do believe in etatist/statist controls as much as the 1880's German Socialist or the 1917 Russian Bolshevik which influenced Rand. We see the Elites now with masks dropped, they do not understand a "free" mark and are terrified of any beast off a leash, be it four-legged, two, or in multitude.

As Mises (Hayek, Rand) point out, there IS no "middle-way." You have Capitalism or Socialism and any mix with socialism tends to absolute socialism by degrees (Rand's famous, don't tell me it's all grey, there IS a black, there IS a white, and grey never tends to white!). We see the trend now. Obama has repeatedly said that he can't get to control in one step, but he can use Cloward-Piven to get there; not one of his dreams has been spoken without the warning of "pain." He just assumes that after the pain, this time, socialism WILL actually become stable economic theory. It's fantasy, there is no science behind Socialism, only good intentions.
__________________
"[T]he principle of equality is most acclaimed by those who expect to gain more than they lose from an equal distribution of goods. Here is a fertile field for the demagogue. Whoever stirs up the resentment of the poor against the rich can count on securing a big audience."
Ludwig Heinrich Edler von Mises

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

The question is not, are we or aren't we on a kamikaze mission.

The question is, are we going to take the GOP aircraft carrier to the bottom with us?

No, you're going to repeat Midway...

 

[miles]

ku klux klown kraft ?
jeezis RobSucksCock...that's a new low for you I believe

While normal people reach for the sky, Throbbie is sliming his way across the bottom of the ocean.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

While normal people reach for the sky, Throbbie is sliming his way across the bottom of the ocean.

Mariana Trench...

 

[rosco rathbone]

No. It cannot be. Even Machiavelli observed that. Even as we struggle to over-throw the tyrant and seek Liberty in Republic, that Liberty works to enable the social crusader bent on a never-ending quest to do good and thusly Republic always yields to the Tyranny of the Elites, the fertile ground for the rise of the tyrant (FA Hayek is especially good in serfdom in outlining the process with logic; Rand puts it into words a sixth-grader can understand).

Do not assume that (*shudder* I really hate the misuse of that word) "we" Liberals believe in free markets. Obama, and the team he has assembled assuredly do not, they do believe in etatist/statist controls as much as the 1880's German Socialist or the 1917 Russian Bolshevik which influenced Rand. We see the Elites now with masks dropped, they do not understand a "free" mark and are terrified of any beast off a leash, be it four-legged, two, or in multitude.

As Mises (Hayek, Rand) point out, there IS no "middle-way." You have Capitalism or Socialism and any mix with socialism tends to absolute socialism by degrees (Rand's famous, don't tell me it's all grey, there IS a black, there IS a white, and grey never tends to white!). We see the trend now. Obama has repeatedly said that he can't get to control in one step, but he can use Cloward-Piven to get there; not one of his dreams has been spoken without the warning of "pain." He just assumes that after the pain, this time, socialism WILL actually become stable economic theory. It's fantasy, there is no science behind Socialism, only good intentions.
__________________
"[T]he principle of equality is most acclaimed by those who expect to gain more than they lose from an equal distribution of goods. Here is a fertile field for the demagogue. Whoever stirs up the resentment of the poor against the rich can count on securing a big audience."
Ludwig Heinrich Edler von Mises

I disagree with Rand. I think it IS all grey, because neither ideology ever achieves final victory. All you have is the eternal tug of war. In any one time or place, one side is dominant or in eclipse.

I haven't read Mises, but I did read Road to Serfdom and it seemed to me like he was mainly describing 1930s European socialism. I was expecting a much more hardcore angle. Hayek seemed pretty mild.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I disagree with Rand. I think it IS all grey, because neither ideology ever achieves final victory. All you have is the eternal tug of war. In any one time or place, one side is dominant or in eclipse.

I haven't read Mises, but I did read Road to Serfdom and it seemed to me like he was mainly describing 1930s European socialism. I was expecting a much more hardcore angle. Hayek seemed pretty mild.

You misunderstand what Rand is saying. If you accept grey (she's not denying the grey) as a Liberal (Life, Liberty, Property Rights and Objective law) and allow "some" Socialism in the polity of the day, then eventually you get totalitarianism for the subjectivist cannot ever find a stop loop positive test (a little programming lingo).

Socialism does not have a born-on date anymore than it has an expiration date. It's subjective "economic" principles never change, never rice to the level of a science, and never lead to anything but economic collapse when, like Mercantilism (and Rome), you run out of things to loot...

Read von Humboldt before Mises. The Limits of State Action
__________________
"The more communal enterprise extends, the more attention is drawn to the bad business results of nationalized and municipalized undertakings. It is impossible to miss the cause of the difficulty: a child could see where something was lacking. So that it canned be said that this problem has not been tackled. But the way in which it has been tackled has been deplorably inadequate. Its organic connection with the essential nature of socialist enterprise has been regarded as merely a question of better selection of persons. It has not been realized that even exceptionally gifted men of high character cannot solve the problems created by socialist control of industry."
Ludwig Heinrich Edler von Mises

 

[cebalrai]

You misunderstand what Rand is saying. If you accept grey (she's not denying the grey) as a Liberal (Life, Liberty, Property Rights and Objective law) and allow "some" Socialism in the polity of the day, then eventually you get totalitarianism for the subjectivist cannot ever find a stop loop positive test (a little programming lingo).

Socialism does not have a born-on date anymore than it has an expiration date. It's subjective "economic" principles never change, never rice to the level of a science, and never lead to anything but economic collapse when, like Mercantilism (and Rome), you run out of things to loot...

Read von Humboldt before Mises. The Limits of State Action
__________________
"The more communal enterprise extends, the more attention is drawn to the bad business results of nationalized and municipalized undertakings. It is impossible to miss the cause of the difficulty: a child could see where something was lacking. So that it canned be said that this problem has not been tackled. But the way in which it has been tackled has been deplorably inadequate. Its organic connection with the essential nature of socialist enterprise has been regarded as merely a question of better selection of persons. It has not been realized that even exceptionally gifted men of high character cannot solve the problems created by socialist control of industry."
Ludwig Heinrich Edler von Mises

Yet we have republicans today advocating to break up insurance company monopolies and actually go in and literally force them to cover people. And not drop them once they're enrolled.

Seems like we have loads of gray today.

 

[rosco rathbone]

I usually think that if we re-set regulations, taxes and the role of government to the Gilded Age standard, we'd just end up fighting the labor wars all over again and end up back where we are now but that might not be true, since labor's success depended on millions of recent immigrants and the Depression.

 

[MeeMie]

You've heard patriots' arguments for why the ObamaCare power grab must be fought tooth and nail.

Now let Democrats explain:

"There's going to be a tendency on the part of our people to be in denial about all this, but if you lose Massachusetts and that's not a wake-up call, there's no hope of waking up."
— Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN)


"Bluntly put, this is the political reality: First, the battle for public opinion has been lost. Comprehensive health care has been lost. If it fails, as appears possible, Democrats will face the brunt of the electorate's reaction. If it passes, however, Democrats will face a far greater calamitous reaction at the polls. Wishing, praying or pretending will not change these outcomes."
— Patrick H. Caddell & Douglas E. Schoen


"The problem is this: we are spending almost a trillion dollars and folks are telling me I should vote yes and we will fix it later. You wouldn't buy a car for a trillion dollars and say yeah, it doesn't run but we will fix it later."
— Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA)


"There's a lot of discomfort with the reconciliation process, the self-implementing rule, where you wouldn't have a formal vote on maybe the most important policy of the past 40 years. I have a big issue with the way they're doing the process. I think it's wrong and my constituents don't like it."
— Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA)


"I was one of the authors of the legislation that created the budget reconciliation process in 1974, and I am certain that putting health care reform and climate change legislation on a freight train through Congress is an outrage that must be resisted."
— Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV)


"I don't believe reconciliation was ever intended for (health care reform). It doesn't work well for writing major, substantive legislation."
— Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND)


"Anyone who would stand before you and say 'well, if you pass health care reform next year's health care premiums are going down,' I don't think is telling the truth. I think it is likely they would go up."
— Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL)


"While deeming, like reconciliation, has been used in the past, the context in which they would be used in this case together leads me to conclude that it would poison an already terribly partisan atmosphere and leave the Congress even less able to find bipartisan solutions to fiscal problems that are on the verge of becoming overwhelming."
— Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD)


"This bill represents a giveaway to the insurance industry. $70 billion dollars a year, and no guarantees of any control over premiums, forcing people to buy private insurance, five consecutive years of double-digit premium increases."
— Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)





Yet after a ride on Air Force One, Kooksinitch suddenly supports the bill.

There is no question that even Democrats know what they're doing is wrong.

Too bad that won't stop most of them from doing it anyway.

 

[More_Malarky]

Democratic Party-Communist Party I can't tell the difference anymore