The Trump Presidency

[iceaura]

Indeed, he treats them like vassals are treated. Which is what they deserve, given that they behave like vassals themselves.
Instead, with statesmen which are not vassals, he behaves more appropriately.

He submits. The alternative would be fight, and Putin has beaten him already somehow.

As noted - for you, btw, several times - one of the characteristic features of fascist governance (Putin, Republican) is its reliance on strict hierarchy of submission. There are no alliances, only submissions and dominations.

That's how you identified countries such as France and Germany (and Canada, and Australia, and England, and Denmark, and so forth) as US vassal States, in the first place. There was only one possible monarch State, so in any alliance the others had to be the vassals. That's how you posted.

You call that a "libertarian" point of view.

So the Republican ascendancy in the US does not represent a threat to you - more of the same US as far as you can see, only weaker and chaotic. You can't see the rise of fascism, because you can't see its absence in the first place.

And many Americans share that particular blind spot, partly due to its well-funded and diligently pursued inculcation by US fascist propaganda over the past few decades, simultaneously preying on the ignorant and ensuring their ignorance.

As long as we're on the topic: Your favored US "intellectual" has a new book - Jonah Goldberg has been earning his keep in the media wing of US Republicanism, by diligently typing at great length many pages of elaboration and historical revision supporting his central thesis of government is liberal bad/bad is liberal government. In the middle of the hundreds of pages, if you need an example of Goldbergian analysis, you can find the claim that the New Deal was "reactionary".

So Trump is not so bad, see. Only a bit vulgar, otherwise just part of a normal backlash against big government oppression. And he's buddies with Putin, a strong and powerful and masculine opponent of unipolarity or whatever it's called these days.

 

[pjdude1219]

I don't claim he did. But I see the funny thing that he is criticized for behaving here in a more civilized, diplomatic way than usual.

yes yes you did like 10 fucking posts ago. literally

Fine. Not? You think if two politicians meet each other, their job is to criticize the other?
So, the funny thing is that Trump is, essentially, criticized for behaving in a civilized, educated, diplomatic way. Imagine, Trump!!!!11!1

see right here. so in addition to be batshit crazy and delusional as all hell your a bold faced liar.

 

[pjdude1219]

You call that a "libertarian" point of view.

this suprises you. libertarianism has always shown an appreciation to autocratic governments over democratic ones. hell the principle archetects of liberatarian economic thought von mises and von hayek wanted to restore the austrain hungarian empire under the hapsburg dynasty.

 

[iceaura]

libertarianism has always shown an appreciation to autocratic governments over democratic ones.

Not the left ones.
Only the self-proclaimed ones that start out by swallowing corporate propaganda feeds.

 

[Quantum Quack]

 

[pjdude1219]

Not the left ones.
Only the self-proclaimed ones that start out by swallowing corporate propaganda feeds.

oh to still be that naive and innocent. all libertarians are inherently anti democracy. libertarianism is at its core a pro power idealogy . left libertarians still believe in the austrian and chicago school of economics both of which are anti democracy. left libertarianism is just an attempt to redeem libertarianism. it cant its an inherently fucked up idealogy

 

[Quantum Quack]

re: news conference.
It's sort of weird when you consider that Putin would never stand there and rant about how his own intell services have failed to deliver 30,000 emails, how he is NOT in control ... strange indeed!

 

[sculptor]

OK
Putin's
"The ball is in your court."
was a very entertaining moment

 

[Schmelzer]

yes yes you did like 10 fucking posts ago.

Learn that there is a difference between 'doing something' and 'being, essentially, criticized for doing something'.

As noted - for you, btw, several times - one of the characteristic features of fascist governance (Putin, Republican) is its reliance on strict hierarchy of submission. There are no alliances, only submissions and dominations.
That's how you identified countries such as France and Germany (and Canada, and Australia, and England, and Denmark, and so forth) as US vassal States, in the first place. There was only one possible monarch State, so in any alliance the others had to be the vassals. That's how you posted.
You call that a "libertarian" point of view.

I see, indeed, a hierarchy, which is, for propaganda reasons, presented as an alliance, where you seem to see something like an alliance. This is a difference between our interpretation of the political reality of the West. One can argue about it, given that one can find some examples where, say, Germany has not behaved like a vassal, like long ago under Schroeder it has not participated in the Iraq war, or that Merkel refuses to stop North Stream II. These are, unfortunately, rare exceptions, so that I think that naming Germany a US vassal is a quite accurate description.

All this has nothing to do with libertarian or fascists ideology: I see the hierarchy already in Obama time, and I see it all the time, independent of Rep or Dem in power. There can be alliances also between fascist states - like between Nazi Germany and Spain. Franco did not participate in WW II, so, what can be presented as evidence that Germany is not a vassal can be presented for fascist Spain too.

In the middle of the hundreds of pages, if you need an example of Goldbergian analysis, you can find the claim that the New Deal was "reactionary".

Once Goldberg is such an evil guy, doing only bad things, naming the New Deal "reactionary" seems to be bad. Sounds like the New Deal is something good, not? That would be funny - our left libertarian liking the greatest increase in US state power - the New Deal.

all libertarians are inherently anti democracy. libertarianism is at its core a pro power idealogy .

Of course, a democratic state is also a state. Libertarians are either anarchists, thus, against the state, even if democratic. Or they are minarchists, that means, they accept only a minimal state, which enforces only the non-aggression principle and property rights. Once these basic laws are, according to the minarchists, given quite objectively, there would be no point in having a democratic structure allowed to change the law. Thus, they would not care about democracy too.

But this does not make them somehow anti-democracy. Every organization can have a statute which allows deciding some questions using democratic voting. This is a free decision of the members of the organization how to manage the organization. So, according to libertarians, a democratic state is worse than autocratic firms, but an autocratic state is as well worse than democratic firms (cooperatives). Because states - democratic as well as autocratic - use violence against those who don't follow their prescriptins, while firm - democratic as well as autocratic - do not use such aggression, they make volitional contracts, as with customers, as with their members or workers.

The sentence about libertarianism being a power ideology is nonsense. The central principle of libertarian theory is the non-aggression principle, which restricts the use of power.

 

[sculptor]

Trump:

As president, I cannot make decisions on foreign policy in a futile effort to appease partisan critics or the media or Democrats who want to do nothing but resist and obstruct. Constructive dialogue between the United States and Russia forwards the opportunity to open new pathways toward peace and stability in our world. I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace than to risk peace in pursuit of politics. As president, I will always put what is best for America and what is best for the American people.

During today’s meeting, I addressed directly with President Putin the issue of Russian interference in our elections. I felt this was a message best delivered in person. Spent a great deal of time talking about it.

It often seems that rabid anti-Trumpism is much like a fad. The Washington and media elites are normally unkind to outsiders----It was much the same for Jimmy Carter.
When I was a child, there was a phrase: @ "I've already made up my mind so don't confuse me with the facts"

 

[spidergoat]

Trump:


It often seems that rabid anti-Trumpism is much like a fad. The Washington and media elites are normally unkind to outsiders----It was much the same for Jimmy Carter.
When I was a child, there was a phrase: @ "I've already made up my mind so don't confuse me with the facts"

Anti-Trumpism is all the rage in the media, and some of it is over hyped, but most of it is based on Trump's lying, racism, sexism, abuse of children for political ends, and general corruption. In other words, very real concerns.

 

[pjdude1219]

Learn that there is a difference between 'doing something' and 'being, essentially, criticized for doing something'.

still lying

Of course, a democratic state is also a state. Libertarians are either anarchists, thus, against the state, even if democratic. Or they are minarchists, that means, they accept only a minimal state, which enforces only the non-aggression principle and property rights. Once these basic laws are, according to the minarchists, given quite objectively, there would be no point in having a democratic structure allowed to change the law. Thus, they would not care about democracy too.

the nonaggression principile is bs. libertarians favor aggression just as much as everyone else they just refuse to call it such. libertarians favor the protection of economic power above everything

But this does not make them somehow anti-democracy.

no the fact that they our openly hostile to democracy makes them anti democratic. main line libertarian thinkers have repeatedly said an autocratic government would be better so they could force libertarianism on people.

Every organization can have a statute which allows deciding some questions using democratic voting. This is a free decision of the members of the organization how to manage the organization. So, according to libertarians, a democratic state is worse than autocratic firms, but an autocratic state is as well worse than democratic firms (cooperatives). Because states - democratic as well as autocratic - use violence against those who don't follow their prescriptins, while firm - democratic as well as autocratic - do not use such aggression, they make volitional contracts, as with customers, as with their members or workers.

ah yes the standard libertarian bullshit answer. one person as a company is moral many people as a sate is bad. that same person as a state is bad and those same people as a company are good. companies use violence and aggression all the time too. pretending other wise doesn't make it true.

The sentence about libertarianism being a power ideology is nonsense.

no its a fact. libertarianism is all about protecting economic power. it is about reducing freedom.

The central principle of libertarian theory is the non-aggression principle, which restricts the use of power.

no the central princpile of libertarianism is the protection of economic power. the nonaggression princpile is a lie. which is why libertarians think its ok for corporations to coerce their workers.

 

[Schmelzer]

It is interesting to compare all this with the Russian reaction.

They wonder why the Western politicians and media go totally nuts about this. Nobody understands what could be the problem with this. Nothing important has happened. They have talked with each other, fine. Better than not talking. No big results, simply a press conference.

Some have observed that the really interesting things have not been discussed in the Western media at all. So, the proposal to care together about the oil price - a sort of invitation to participate in OPEC+ (OPEC with Russia). This makes sense, and one can understand that Europe would go banana about this, but it is not discussed. And the other point is, of course, the information about the money stolen from Russia which ended as a contribution to the Clinton Foundation. Ok, here nobody wonders why the pro-Clinton media remain silent.

the nonaggression principile is bs. libertarians favor aggression just as much as everyone else they just refuse to call it such. libertarians favor the protection of economic power above everything

Libertarians consider the protection of property to be important. So, aggression against property is also considered to be an aggression. So, if you name simply owning something "aggression", then libertarians favor aggression. But such Orwellian newspeak libertarians leave to statists.

main line libertarian thinkers have repeatedly said an autocratic government would be better so they could force libertarianism on people.

A lie.

ah yes the standard libertarian bullshit answer. one person as a company is moral many people as a sate is bad. that same person as a state is bad and those same people as a company are good. companies use violence and aggression all the time too. pretending other wise doesn't make it true.

Of course, the number of people in a firm, or a state, is irrelevant. The relevant question is if they violate the non-aggression principle.

If real companies violate the non-aggression principle, they are not moral. This is not the question. What makes the difference is that a firm which violates the non-aggression principle has no moral justification for this, and usually hides this, either because it is also illegal, or because they know that this has no moral justification. A state violates the non-aggression principle openly, does not even try to hide this, and to violate it is the policy of the state.

which is why libertarians think its ok for corporations to coerce their workers.

Nonsense. According to libertarians, the contract between the corporation and the worker has to be a volitionally signed contract. And as the corporation, as the worker has to fulfill the contract. If the worker signs the contract, that means, he does not this that it is coercion.

The Orwellian idea of naming a volitional contract "coercion" libertarians leave to statists.

 

[iceaura]

all libertarians are inherently anti democracy.

Not the left ones. Not the traditional right ones.
Only the ones who are so badly addled they don't know why "liberal fascism" is an oxymoron.
You are giving the wingnuts too much credit. They don't know what they are talking about, and can't label anything accurately - not even themselves.

Ok, here nobody wonders why the pro-Clinton media remain silent.

All the major US media blathered on about that for months. It was one of those silly Republican propaganda feeds to sucker the rubes - there was an FBI investigation, an IRS investigation, the whole shebang. Where is this "pro-Clinton" media that was silent? Australia?

Libertarians consider the protection of property to be important. So, aggression against property is also considered to be an aggression.

That's after they (actual libertarians) have paid attention to the definition and delimitation of property - a function of government, necessarily and by definition, and a common means of depriving people of liberty.
The kind of deep thinker who regards government as inherently opposed to liberty never gets that far with their "libertarian" deep thinking.
But they go bounding off after anything that promises to reduce government interference with anything.
And so it begins.
The US fought a Civil War against that kind of "libertarian". They owned slaves.

The Orwellian idea of naming a volitional contract "coercion" libertarians leave to statists.

More oxymoronic bs, from people who think if they get rid of the State coercion will disappear.
Volitional contracts that are in fact extortion and abuse are very common.
Contracts without any coercion don't exist at all.

They wonder why the Western politicians and media go totally nuts about this. Nobody understands what could be the problem with this. Nothing important has happened.

So Russians don't know what's going on here? Russians are as bubble-brained as Republican Americans?
Not surprising - they have a lot of catching up to do, in the "how to govern a country" department.

If real companies violate the non-aggression principle, they are not moral.

You finally figure that out? Cool. Now ask them if they care.

And when you have figured out the answer, you will know why the Republican Party is what it is.

Meanwhile, while Trump is jumping Russian sharks in Finland we have the Russians who helped his campaign jumping Republican sharks in the US: The guy the Russian NRA corruptor was shacking up with for his connections - Paul Erickson - was John Wayne Bobbit's lawyer and agent for his post-surgery media tour.

Oh, and he represented Mobutu Sese Seko in that man's attempts to get a US visa and his money as well as his medical care needs into well-protected US retirement.

Because principles: https://www.argusleader.com/story/n...ria-butina-republican-party-russia/797089002/

Erickson defines his life by his faith in God. He is a devout Lutheran who bases his whole mission in life on a line from the Bible: Ephesians, chapter 2, verse 8.
It reads: "For by grace ye are saved by faith."

 

[pjdude1219]

Libertarians consider the protection of property to be important. So, aggression against property is also considered to be an aggression. So, if you name simply owning something "aggression", then libertarians favor aggression. But such Orwellian newspeak libertarians leave to statists.

libertarianism relies on such orwellian doublespeak. they claim nonaggression is aggression and aggression is nonaggression.

A lie.

no its a fact. von mises and von hayek wanted to restore the austrian hungarian monarchy. von mises spoke favorablely of facism. the chicago schools founders are famous for their love of pinochet. that you dont want to admit doesnt make it false.

Of course, the number of people in a firm, or a state, is irrelevant.

you missed the point

The relevant question is if they violate the non-aggression principle.

fuck the nonaggression principle. it is a lie. libertarians if anything or more in favor of aggression than other idealogies.

If real companies violate the non-aggression principle, they are not moral. This is not the question. What makes the difference is that a firm which violates the non-aggression principle has no moral justification for this, and usually hides this, either because it is also illegal, or because they know that this has no moral justification.

all companies violate the NAP. they all weild coercive force over their employees.

A state violates the non-aggression principle openly, does not even try to hide this, and to violate it is the policy of the state.

only because libertarians label everything the state does as aggression. its circular logic.

Nonsense. According to libertarians, the contract between the corporation and the worker has to be a volitionally signed contract. And as the corporation, as the worker has to fulfill the contract. If the worker signs the contract, that means, he does not this that it is coercion.

you do realize most american don't sign a contract to work. also leonine contracts are considered invalid. why do libertarians ignore the coercive effect of economic power. nobody works because they want to they work because they have to. that right their is a coercive effect.

The Orwellian idea of naming a volitional contract "coercion" libertarians leave to statists.

no the orwellian idea is libertarians stating a coerced state of affairs to be done voluntarily. there are 2 types of libertarians the stupid or the dishonest i wonder which you are.

 

[pjdude1219]

Not the left ones. Not the traditional right ones.
Only the ones who are so badly addled they don't know why "liberal fascism" is an oxymoron.
You are giving the wingnuts too much credit. They don't know what they are talking about, and can't label anything accurately - not even themselves.

no your being hopeless naive considering a dangerous ideology benign simply because you like it. its not a matter of labelling its a matter of their actions.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Trump keeps saying that the USA has been ripped off by China. Is this true?

 

[iceaura]

no your being hopeless naive considering a dangerous ideology benign simply because you like it

Left libertarian is my ideology, and generally that of a plurality of Americans in practice. Clearly its relationship with corporate capitalism and the State is different than right libertarianism (you can spot the word "left" in there, for your first clue).
And rightwing authoritarians (vesting coercive and oppressive power in capitalist corporations) are not libertarian at all.

 

[iceaura]

Trump keeps saying that the USA has been ripped off by China. Is this true?

Yes.

 

[pjdude1219]

Left libertarian is my ideology,

well that explains alot of your screwier ideas.

and generally that of a plurality of Americans in practice.

not at all. thats standard libertarian propaganda. trying to claim more people are libertarian than actually are.

Clearly its relationship with corporate capitalism and the State is different than right libertarianism (you can spot the word "left" in there, for your first clue).
And rightwing authoritarians (vesting coercive and oppressive power in capitalist corporations) are not libertarian at all.

ahh yes the no true scotsman fallacy. you convinced me. actualy in technically terms the left libertarianism is more accurately anarchosocialism which is not your ideology and is not something most people support.

so long as you believe in the supremecy of economic power which is an unstated premise of the libertarian ethos its a dangerous fantasy no matter how you sugar coat or spin it.

also if you go by what americans actually support the plurality is democratic socialists which are the opposites of libertarians.