Latest Pew Study finds Republican party shifting fast to religious radicalism

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Admiral Halsey

(Probably because they were to scared to take him on.)

Or maybe because the largest navy in the world at the time was our ally and because during his presidency the United Sates was still very much a secondary power.The idea that US might get involved had no effect on WWI starting in fact The US was playing both sides for a good while profiting from sales of goods and munitions to both sides.

Dedication to having a fully effective and cost effective military would be an ideal president(never going to happen).Favoring one branch typically means that under that president the loved branch gets more than it needs and the other branches become red headed step children.

Not say that he was a bad president by any means but I would not consider his favor for the Navy a good trait at any rate we are straying well away from the thread topic at this point.

[August]

Was England our ally during TR's presidency? I thought that didn't really become a reality until WW1.

[Admiral Halsey]

Originally Posted by August

Was England our ally during TR's presidency? I thought that didn't really become a reality until WW1.

I think we were more acquaintances.

[August]

Originally Posted by Admiral Halsey

I think we were more acquaintances.

I think the Boxer rebellion was the first time we had ever fought alongside GB in a conflict. Before that our only military involvement with them had been as adversaries.

[Admiral Halsey]

Originally Posted by August

I think the Boxer rebellion was the first time we had ever fought alongside GB in a conflict. Before that our only military involvement with them had been as adversaries.

Never knew we were invoked with the Boxer rebellion.

[August]

Originally Posted by Admiral Halsey

Never knew we were invoked with the Boxer rebellion.

Yep.

http://www.archives.gov/publications...bellion-1.html

There was even a movie made about it with Charlton Heston.

"55 Days at Peking"

Dunno how historically accurate it is though.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Admiral Halsey

I think we were more acquaintances.

The US and the UK where on very good terms at the time of Roosevelt's presidency.The UK from the end of the 19th century has been about the least likely enemy of the US.

The Great White fleet even made a stop at Gibraltar during its circumnavigation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Rapprochement

Originally Posted by August

I think the Boxer rebellion was the first time we had ever fought alongside GB in a conflict. Before that our only military involvement with them had been as adversaries.

That is true however the last time the US and the UK fought each other was during the War of 1812.Much had changed in the world to make both nations realize that we where better of as friends than enemies.There of course where a few disputes between the end of the War of 1812 and 1900.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by August

Yep.

http://www.archives.gov/publications...bellion-1.html

There was even a movie made about it with Charlton Heston.

"55 Days at Peking"

Dunno how historically accurate it is though.

Like you I'm not 100% certain but I believe the idea for the attack on the ammunition arsenal in the film was derived from the real life attack on the Boxer barricade.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

So what stops a couple cities or local regions from putting another city or local reason to the sword?

For instance what can the people of Potsdam do to stop a future belligerent Berlin from invading and sacking them?

This is the fatal flaw in your theory. It ignores human nature and human history.

Neither do I ignore it, nor is it a flaw that makes the theory wrong. It is a major obstacle to implementing it.

Not a flaw it is in that what I say, or better what I just repeat and what has been pointed out by far more gifted thinkers before me, nevertheless is correct. It is the free and unhindered access to markets for everybody that gives everybody the chance to benefit from growing prosperity. wealth is (and probably must be) distributed unequally, but that unequal distribution probably is the drive that keeps the competition on the market running, and even with unequal distribution, the general level of wealth is slowly rising - for everybody. It is trade that shrinks the desire of people to damage their trading interests by launching wars against each other. It is market regulations by governments and artificial price fixing that damages the freedom of people and the fairness thta lies in that the market mechanism, by Smith's literal invisible hand, has any seller finding his interested buyer, and prices and values of items in any individual transaction being fixed freely between those who are concerned - the selling and buying party. It is true that the greatest blossoming of culture in Europe was in the times of the Italian and German city states, representing constructive competition in the best meaning. It is true that wars get declared by religious insane tyrants and governments, never be the people living their lives in the countryside.

I have said several times, and for example Hoppe expressed according pessimism himself, too, that it is unlikely that this order will come true. Because the ruling elites that have designed these things to be like they are now (to serve their interests for power and control) will not allow it, and they have had decades and generations to establish a ruleset and to brainwash people that makes sure you can get rid of them only by force, with your force being greater than theirs. But many people do not even want to get rid of them and the doom they bring in form of socialist presents that are only meant to tie them closer to the claim of the state to rule over them. Politicians makes promises to get elected, the plebs demands more, both help to get the socialist runaway train running that way, the result is paper money, devaluing, growing economic regulation, all for a good purpose of course, for social justice and social equality and peace and paradise on earth. Well, thigns seem to have stopped running like paradise in recent years, won't you agree? Every economist who is sane and serious and knows his stuff a little bit must shudder in horror when politicians promise stuff "for free". There ain't no free rides. Everything costs. The bills will be presented, in any form, but they will, be payed for, right down to the last dollar and last cent. In the last years it dawned upon me of what paramount importance it is to have a basic understanding of what is called national economy, and that is not the nonsense they publish day by day in the newspapers and popular media. Evertyhing costs, who claims differently is a liar, and thus everything you deal with on a communal and national level and that you want to adress, has necessarily a correlating basis in national economics, because it deal with how people act and behave and as a result of their acting produce the general wealth which to major parts now get stolen and claimed by "the state". Only lacking understanding of this could make a blind public enthusiastically accepting policies that raise moire and more debts and push them all deeper and deeper into the debt trap. I am convinced that at school there should be courses in national economics. Not to make students better fitting for the employment market, but to liberate them from the state's constant propaganda and to emancipate them as independently< thinking individuals who are able to assess themselves if the many claims and lies told them by politicians can be really true, as these parasites try to hammer into their heads all the time. I would tend to see national economics a necessary part of a truly humanistic education.

But wishing and planning never have made the basic principles of trade and economic functioning to bend, or to be bypassed. You can throw the boomerang with even more power thna before, to get finally rid of it and have it dissappearing at even greater a distance - it returns nevertheless to you, and strikes back even more powerful.

You are right, the problem lies in that this order has no chance to live if it is just one little place surrounded by biting sharks. The trick lies in how to get sufficient places turning away from nations without being bitten to death immediately, last but not least by the state from which the secede. I know that. Hoppe knows that. Rothbard knew that. Hayek indicated that problem somewhere, too. But that is no flaw in the theory, but an obstacle to its implementation. The basic theory of capitalism (not monopolism, which is the adversary to capitalism that it already has it in its genes and must constantly fight against), nevertheless is the best we have in fighting against poverty, government tyranny, socialist erosion. And that si what I am talking about in principle: it is the basic theory of capitalism, not more, not less.

Note that in the Western world, it is almost nowhere implemented. Our economies are heavily regulated, are protected markets, are planned. Our education sectors (in Germany at least) are almost completely under government control, there is no competition between private schools worth to be mentioned. Our social and wellfare sectors are heavily administered by the government, which constantly boost it to lure people ever more under the umbrella of the government. Our health sector is heavily government-controlled. Migration policy is government controlled. Foreign policy and defence, traffic and infrastructure - all government controlled. Where there is no government control, the government legislation helped lobbies to implement their reign. Price fixings for medical drugs for example, a song you Americans know better than anyone else, and that us Germans know better than anyone els ein Europe - we are the most expensive drug market in Europe. Due to monopolism and its lobbies in politics. We are given migration that most do not want, because the government claims the right to label roads its own property so that it can rule who shall travel on these roads. If the government would not be tolerated to claim property rights, than the owners of land and property would negotiate amongst themselves the building of infrastructure, together with traders who wants to transport their goods, and producers, who want to transport their resources. In the end, market interests would decide what road gets build and what bridge does not get build,. and the costs for that will not be payed by general taxes, but will be added in shares to product prices, and maybe usage fees where land owners demand a fee for allowing their land being used. It would be the owners of property who also can decide whom they let use their property, or the infrastructure build on it, and whom not, like you can decide whom you let into your garden or flat, and whom not.

Neither me nor Hoppe nor any of these names ignores that. Hoppe does not hide that he sees, in his own word, "not the slightest reason for optimism". We will all drive into socialist hell oncer again. We will plan ourselves to death, because we seriously assume we can plan in advance what people will want, will do, will get motivated by, and we can also plan historical and natural events, and so why not planning an economy, and price fixings and all that. Nobody will own anything anymore, (currently we all get expropriated by a dozen of different methods, from taxes to cold repression, from political correctness to anonymous group pressure both taking our decision making and opinion forming under fire.

So you are right, it will nit happen. But it better should happen, there is no functional alternative that I would like. The alternatives are totalitarianism, and thats were we travel at currently, at high speed.

And you have another point, if you would mention the thread coming from local splitter groups starting terror wars, and big jihads started by religious nutheads, in the ME for example. The first could be dealt with by local regions hosting businesses like mercenary companies, and by other companies producing legislation and law enforcement. No need for centralised governments here, as always care must be taken to not allow monopolists, of course. Else the private defence contractor may end up as head of a new milizary dictatorshipü, who knows.

The problem with religious jihadists who by the nature of their religious megalomania refuse to consider such social and economic models and only want to cause a big mess for other around them, is a bigger problem, and I could only speculate in what manner this threat could militarily met. In the end, their might be solutions, probably, but that theme is several steps ahead of the real problems one has to face first. Lets build a house first before guessing in what colour the kitchen will be painted.

You have been stationed in germany, I think I recall. Have you ever went to the GDR? Watched how it looked like? Grey. Triste. Poor. Rotten. Depressing colours. When I remember these sights, and remember the language and phrasing of their television news and propaganda program, then I immediately know that I am right in wanting to fight against all that socialist stuff. I do not want to live in such a miserable place. Heck, there even where no bright colours produced, even the colours they came up with looked depressing, toned down, faded, sick. "Trabbiland" was a land with notoriously washe dout colours. The only colours that shone bright, was the Red during the SED's flag parades and the blue in the FDJ's shirts.

For an end: what has caused the present problems we see in finances and economies, is not capitalism or a free market, but the cause is that government and lobbies were allowed by the people to dispose the free market and its inherent functional mechanism, as far as banking and the financial business sector is concerned . The market did not fail by itself. It was pushed to fail by government. Decades earlier, the commodity currency also did not collapse by itself, it was pushed and was wanted to fail, or better: it was intentionally replaced with central banks and paper fiat money. Again,m the driving force behind this were politicians with greater ambitions than the economies of their countries could support.

[Skybird]

Wowh, that achievement deserves to be mentioned, that only rarely a threads go hijacked so systematically and pulled by several parties at several different directions simultaneously.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Admiral Halsey

Still did more good then bad.(Also if there ever was a perfect war president it would have been him.)

Yah, he was my kind of guy. Imagine if he was aged to be president in 1939! He would have been... Churchill.

Is the Republican party moving to religious radicalism? IMO, I doubt it, but some portion of the party base may be. I get the sense that the Republican party is going to lose more ground as the country changes from traditional America to a new European style America. Republicans can try to change to stay in touch, but that will mean essentially becoming Democrats.

[August]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

That is true however the last time the US and the UK fought each other was during the War of 1812.Much had changed in the world to make both nations realize that we where better of as friends than enemies.There of course where a few disputes between the end of the War of 1812 and 1900.

Yeah from what I read at the beginning of WW1 there were some pro-German elements in this country who tried to make a case that Britain was a historical enemy and Germany was not and if we should support anyone it should be the latter. It didn't really get much traction outside of German speaking parts of Pennsylvania and the Midwest.

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Like you I'm not 100% certain but I believe the idea for the attack on the ammunition arsenal in the film was derived from the real life attack on the Boxer barricade.

Interesting. Of all the scenes in the movie I thought that one was the one most likely to be Hollywood fantasy.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Neither do I ignore it, nor is it a flaw that makes the theory wrong. It is a major obstacle to implementing it.

Calling it a major obstacle is like saying that gravity is a major obstacle to unassisted human flight. Unrealistic and unworkable are better terms to describe the theory.

Coincidentally I was just reading an article this morning about some folks here in the US that share many of your views. They're a little more militant about it than you but you share much the same utopian views:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/05...m-mischief-to/

[Skybird]

That comparison is an offence, and if you seriously compare libertarianism or me with these people and their doings, than you have not understood one bit about libertarianism (to differ it from today's understanding of the term liberalism, which in American English today stands for left ideology or socialism in plain English).

I would recommend you to read Murray Rothbard: The ethics of freedom, to teach you a bit about how real libertarians would judge those idiots you compared me to. Especially the chapters dealing with questions of justice in libertarian understanding should find your attention. The book can be downloaded for free and legally at the von Mises institute's American website.

Beyond that, you just ignore that history shows exmaples for both Europe and Asia where trading local communities and city states have functioned and led to cultural blossoming in places where it caused fruitful and constructive competition for best talents. Even in ancient Greece it sometimes - sometimes - worked, usually before power hungry state leaders or abusive democratic state order took over control.

But you want your canon of democratic beliefs and republican powers, like a club fan has a banner of his team hanging on the wall. Once even were willing to donate your life and health to fight in the name of these things, by a finger's snipping of the pendant of the Führers (plural). Well, I wish people would be more choosy regarding for what they put their lives at risk. But well, not my business, not back then, not in Iraq, not in Afghanistan. BTW, free market participants were not who wanted these wars - it were polticians, governments, and business monopolists with strong lobbies in politics (that en passant by their mere existence already bypass the electorate's votes, just to mention that - so much for "democracy" and "in the name of the people"...).

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

That comparison is an offence

Well get fake outraged all you want but your idea that you owe nothing to your country is also an offense, and it's just that selfish belief you share with these so called sovereign citizens (or as they might call themselves "individuals seeking truth").