Libertarian Purity Test

[HelenaHandbag]

Oh, because all libertarians do want a limited representative government? You sure about that? And after making such a statement you would like to pass judgement on my understanding of the ideology? You're hilarious.

Yes, I'm sure about that, on both counts.

I haven't encountered the libertarian -and brother do I know a lot of them- that didn't believe that government power should be strictly limited to certain areas. Most notably that it should only be doing collectively that which it would not be immoral or unlawful to do as an individual.

You are discounting an entire population of libertarians whom do not believe our government should exist, whereas I was accounting for them. From soup to nuts, you could argue that no government is still limited government, but then you would just be nitpicking at what little ground you could find to stand on. With that being said, many anarchist libertarians would compromise for limited government over our current government, but that doesn't imply it's their preference.

Supposing you'd like an example of the type of libertarians I am referencing, you could do a YouTube search on Adam Kokesh and his following.

No, I'm not discounting anything. Those who do not believe the government should exist at all are anarchists, not libertarians.

Any other misconceptions I can help you clear up?

 

[uhkilleez]

No, nonintervention does not mean doing nothing at all times. However, you have now found a libertarian who very much doubts any need to intervene in either world war, and I'm not the only one.

Why exactly do you feel that way? It should be pretty clear what the intentions of Hitler and his ilk of fascist states were, and had they been successful in Europe without our intervention it would be much less likely we could have withstood a war on our home front. In the second world war you could say in hindsight that Hitler would have never made it through his attacks on the soviets during the winter, but you couldn't have known his lacking skills in strategy and tactics at the time. You would also have to deal with the aggression of the Japanese, who consequently were our main enemies throughout the war, we fought the Japanese far more than Germany.

It's highly unlikely that the conditions which brought Hitler to power would have existed, had Wilson kept his big fat progressive interventionist nose out of it.

As for Japan, American meddling in Asia ultimately led to Mao seizing power in China, precipitating the 50+ million lives (on the low side) snuffed out by his totalitarian communist state.

So much for that making the world safe for democracy.

We have only been pro-democracy when it meant we stood to gain something from it, in all other aspects we are pro-authoritarian government, dictators are easier to get things from cheaply.

Also, it isn't so unlikely that Hitler would have rose to power without the intervention of America in the details of sanctions against Germany. It was the removal of their industry, the splitting of their borders, and namely the losses of the Rhineland and Sudetenland which plagued Germany's economy leading into the second world war and paved the way for Hitler's rise. All of these things would have been equally imposed upon them by the triple entente, regardless of our participation.

 

[uhkilleez]

Yes, I'm sure about that, on both counts.

I haven't encountered the libertarian -and brother do I know a lot of them- that didn't believe that government power should be strictly limited to certain areas. Most notably that it should only be doing collectively that which it would not be immoral or unlawful to do as an individual.

You are discounting an entire population of libertarians whom do not believe our government should exist, whereas I was accounting for them. From soup to nuts, you could argue that no government is still limited government, but then you would just be nitpicking at what little ground you could find to stand on. With that being said, many anarchist libertarians would compromise for limited government over our current government, but that doesn't imply it's their preference.

Supposing you'd like an example of the type of libertarians I am referencing, you could do a YouTube search on Adam Kokesh and his following.

No, I'm not discounting anything. Those who do not believe the government should exist at all are anarchists, not libertarians.

Any other misconceptions I can help you clear up?

So you believe there are no anarchist libertarians? You just keep getting funnier and funnier.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

How did America gain from setting up the conditions where a madman like Hitler could seize power, and by enabling two brutal communist dictators that made his murder spree look like a church picnic?

This ought to be good.

 

[uhkilleez]

How did America gain from setting up the conditions where a madman like Hitler could seize power, and by enabling two brutal communist dictators that made his murder spree look like a church picnic?

This ought to be good.

We didn't gain by who seized power, obviously, we gained by not being dominated by the full industrial power of Europe under one government. You are obviously trying to twist the point to fit your argument, while ignoring my intention altogether. Shouldn't be a surprise coming from one as arrogant and pretentious as yourself.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

How did America gain from setting up the conditions where a madman like Hitler could seize power, and by enabling two brutal communist dictators that made his murder spree look like a church picnic?

This ought to be good.

We didn't gain by who seized power, obviously, we gained by not being dominated by the full industrial power of Europe under one government. You are obviously trying to twist the point to fit your argument, while ignoring my intention altogether. Shouldn't be a surprise coming from one as arrogant and pretentious as yourself.

None of which would likely have happened in absence of the Treaty of Versailles, which very likely wouldn't have happened in the absence of American intervention.

Far more probable is that the principals would have fought to a stalemate and a more equitable peace would have been negotiated, than one that punished Germany to the extent that caused the economic conditions that were fertile ground for NSDAP.

Nor is it probable that the Balkans would have been forced together, to live under one dictatorial regime for generations.

Your intent is as irrelevant as Wilson's. The results speak for themselves.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, nonintervention does not mean doing nothing at all times. However, you have now found a libertarian who very much doubts any need to intervene in either world war, and I'm not the only one.

Why exactly do you feel that way? It should be pretty clear what the intentions of Hitler and his ilk of fascist states were, and had they been successful in Europe without our intervention it would be much less likely we could have withstood a war on our home front. In the second world war you could say in hindsight that Hitler would have never made it through his attacks on the soviets during the winter, but you couldn't have known his lacking skills in strategy and tactics at the time. You would also have to deal with the aggression of the Japanese, who consequently were our main enemies throughout the war, we fought the Japanese far more than Germany.

A lot of the complications like these in the second world war come from the outcome of the first, for instance that Japan's involvement in WWII sprang from their discontent with the international powers which emerged from the first, and their aggression toward the U.S. was mainly result of our discontinuation of sales of aviation fuel to their military, as we were their main provider. It was after Japan invaded China and Indochina that we quit selling to them, and it was after we quit selling that they attacked Pearl Harbor and the Philippines.

When it comes to the first world war, there weren't any imminent threats to us at the time, but the fact that the triple entente was having such trouble overcoming the powers of Germany and Austria-Hungary(then the Ottoman Empire) should have been troubling enough to a vigilant citizen, for it doesn't take a master psychologist to see the clear mindset of the German and Austria-Hungarian peoples of the time, world conquest. With the entirety of natural and industrial resources confined to a single dominate an aggressive power, our young and fragile industrial infrastructure wouldn't have stood up to their overwhelming force. We wouldn't have survived had we waited until they had already won.

World War I had nothing to do with the U.S., and there's no reason to believe that "world conquest" was the aim of the Germans anymore than it was of the British. Had the U.S. not gotten involved unnecessarily in WWI then it's entirely possible, though one can obviously never say for sure, that Hitler would never have come to power. Without the U.S. the Allies would likely have been forced to settle for a more equitable peace that did not disenfranchise Germany which allowed for Hitler to come to power in the first place.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes, I'm sure about that, on both counts.

I haven't encountered the libertarian -and brother do I know a lot of them- that didn't believe that government power should be strictly limited to certain areas. Most notably that it should only be doing collectively that which it would not be immoral or unlawful to do as an individual.

You are discounting an entire population of libertarians whom do not believe our government should exist, whereas I was accounting for them. From soup to nuts, you could argue that no government is still limited government, but then you would just be nitpicking at what little ground you could find to stand on. With that being said, many anarchist libertarians would compromise for limited government over our current government, but that doesn't imply it's their preference.

Supposing you'd like an example of the type of libertarians I am referencing, you could do a YouTube search on Adam Kokesh and his following.

No, I'm not discounting anything. Those who do not believe the government should exist at all are anarchists, not libertarians.

Any other misconceptions I can help you clear up?

There are anarchist libertarians, actually.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

You are discounting an entire population of libertarians whom do not believe our government should exist, whereas I was accounting for them. From soup to nuts, you could argue that no government is still limited government, but then you would just be nitpicking at what little ground you could find to stand on. With that being said, many anarchist libertarians would compromise for limited government over our current government, but that doesn't imply it's their preference.

Supposing you'd like an example of the type of libertarians I am referencing, you could do a YouTube search on Adam Kokesh and his following.

No, I'm not discounting anything. Those who do not believe the government should exist at all are anarchists, not libertarians.

Any other misconceptions I can help you clear up?

There are anarchist libertarians, actually.

Every anarchist I've met eschews political affiliation.

Tough I don't doubt you, I've not encountered an anarchist libertarian at any gathering. But I'll take your word on it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, I'm not discounting anything. Those who do not believe the government should exist at all are anarchists, not libertarians.

Any other misconceptions I can help you clear up?

There are anarchist libertarians, actually.

Every anarchist I've met eschews political affiliation.

Tough I don't doubt you, I've not encountered an anarchist libertarian at any gathering. But I'll take your word on it.

Several of us on this board, I believe. Adam Kokesh is another example, as was Murray Rothbard, Mr. Libertarian.

 

[uhkilleez]

None of which would likely have happened in absence of the Treaty of Versailles, which very likely wouldn't have happened in the absence of American intervention.

In case you didn't notice, I was never defending the Treaty of Versailles nor the League of Nations which resulted. I don't agree with Wilson's 14 points, and I'd like to see an end to the United Nations.

Far more probable is that the principals would have fought to a stalemate and a more equitable peace would have been negotiated, than one that punished Germany to the extent that caused the economic conditions that were fertile ground for NSDAP.

You are ultimately foolish if you honestly believe that the triple entente would not have adopted equally painful punishments. There is no negotiation or compromise between the victors and the defeated.

Nor is it probable that the Balkans would have been forced together, to live under one dictatorial regime for generations.

Your intent is as irrelevant as Wilson's. The results speak for themselves.

Oh please, the area of the Balkans has always been victim of communist governments and it has nothing at all to do with our intervention, and so far as them being forced together is concerned, you will find that the entente did not need our influence to be capable of such atrocities. It wasn't just American influence that led to such poor decisions, the Entente and Central Powers alike had ALWAYS been that way. Let us not forget, it was Germany and the Soviet Union in 1994 who fighting for control over these countries. The first world war sparked in these countries because of the turbulent political scene here, these countries have been invaded and controlled by oppressive governments for centuries.

 

[uhkilleez]

World War I had nothing to do with the U.S., and there's no reason to believe that "world conquest" was the aim of the Germans anymore than it was of the British. Had the U.S. not gotten involved unnecessarily in WWI then it's entirely possible, though one can obviously never say for sure, that Hitler would never have come to power. Without the U.S. the Allies would likely have been forced to settle for a more equitable peace that did not disenfranchise Germany which allowed for Hitler to come to power in the first place.

I highly doubt that either the entente, nor the powers would have been willing to settle for an equitable peace in the wake of this war. War is always about the acquisition of land and power, and I don't have enough faith in humanity to say without one side achieving undisputed victory over the other that any form of peace would have resulted. Ultimately that begs the question, when will enough be enough? Wars are not fought between people, they are fought between governments; It's just we the people who do all the fighting. The U.S. has undoubtedly confused the difference between minor intervention and becoming the world police, as we have been at a near constant state of war ever since the second world war. It's like we flipped the "on" switch and forgot how to turn it off.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

In case you didn't notice, I was never defending the Treaty of Versailles nor the League of Nations which resulted. I don't agree with Wilson's 14 points, and I'd like to see an end to the United Nations.

You think you can separate Wilson's intervening and high-minded political meddling from the rest of the consequences of the war? Really?

You are ultimately foolish if you honestly believe that the triple entente would not have adopted equally painful punishments. There is no negotiation or compromise between the victors and the defeated.

There are no victors or defeated in a stalemate, which is what the Great War was grinding toward before America intervened.

Oh please, the area of the Balkans has always been victim of communist governments and it has nothing at all to do with our intervention, and so far as them being forced together is concerned, you will find that the entente did not need our influence to be capable of such atrocities. It wasn't just American influence that led to such poor decisions, the Entente and Central Powers alike had ALWAYS been that way. Let us not forget, it was Germany and the Soviet Union in 1994 who fighting for control over these countries. The first world war sparked in these countries because of the turbulent political scene here, these countries have been invaded and controlled by oppressive governments for centuries.

In case you forgot, the Balkans was (were?) the flashpoint of the war.

In any case, forcing the Balkan republics into the mishmash that was Yugoslavia was entirely a waste of time, effort and uncounted human lives when the whole mess unraveled in the 1990s. Moreover, still none of America's business.

 

[Locke11_21]

.

I scored 133. Where I missed on perfection is my belief in strong immigration laws, a powerful military, and while I am for legalization of marijuana, I am against the legalization of other drugs...we have too many dumb people in this nation to legalize anything beyond marijuana.

13

LIbertarians are Right Wing Hippies, who only have a voice because of sugar daddies like the Koch Brothers.

You can call libertarians whatever you want, but at least none of us are so profoundly insecure and dishonest that we have to lie about being a Republican like you do, and you are also a proven racist. Any attacks on Libertarians from you who should be take about as seriously as your lying about being a Republican. It must really suck to be you.

 

[JWBooth]

There are anarchist libertarians, actually.

Every anarchist I've met eschews political affiliation.

Tough I don't doubt you, I've not encountered an anarchist libertarian at any gathering. But I'll take your word on it.

Several of us on this board, I believe. Adam Kokesh is another example, as was Murray Rothbard, Mr. Libertarian.

Rothbard, the last great American thinker.

 

[uhkilleez]

You think you can separate Wilson's intervening and high-minded political meddling from the rest of the consequences of the war? Really?

In terms of European affairs, yes, because we should not have intervened politically, though the outcome would have been quite similar either way. We did not even have close to majority say in the drafting of the Treaty of Versailles itself, and Wilson's main objective was his vision for the League of Nations. When it came down to sanctions and territorial disputes, those were majorly decided by the triple entente, which should show you that even without the political intervention of Wilson and the U.S. at the time, sanctions against Germany and Austria-Hungary would have been quite similar, and in all probability territorial disputes would likely have been exactly the same.

There are no victors or defeated in a stalemate, which is what the Great War was grinding toward before America intervened.

I doubt the first world war would have ended in a stalemate, it would not have taken much for either side to build momentum given the poorly thought out military tactics being used at the time. The first world war was fought at a revolutionary time in industrial weapons-making, and for the first time wars were being fought with deadly machine guns whilst military tactics were lagging behind. As such, you still had people going "over the top" only to get about twenty rounds at the top. Eventually one of two things would happen.

1.) The death toll would reach a point that one side would give in, or there would be nobody left to fight.
2.) One side would develop new strategy or machinery to deal with the trench warfare and gain an upper hand and earn and undisputed victory.

In case you forgot, the Balkans was (were?) the flashpoint of the war.

In any case, forcing the Balkan republics into the mishmash that was Yugoslavia was entirely a waste of time, effort and uncounted human lives when the whole mess unraveled in the 1990s. Moreover, still none of America's business.

The first world war sparked in these countries because of the turbulent political scene here, these countries have been invaded and controlled by oppressive governments for centuries.

I didn't forget.

In the case of the Balkans, uncounted human lives have been lost there over centuries, they have been constantly under attack by or control from an oppressive government. Still yet, I would have to agree, none of America's business.

Where it became our business in both wars was to the point that should the central powers/axis have won and undisputed victory over all of Europe, it would have been either the U.S. or China next on their list, neither country having a suitable industrial base to successfully oppose them. Fighting in those wars was good, meddling in their affairs once the wars were over was not.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

World War I had nothing to do with the U.S., and there's no reason to believe that "world conquest" was the aim of the Germans anymore than it was of the British. Had the U.S. not gotten involved unnecessarily in WWI then it's entirely possible, though one can obviously never say for sure, that Hitler would never have come to power. Without the U.S. the Allies would likely have been forced to settle for a more equitable peace that did not disenfranchise Germany which allowed for Hitler to come to power in the first place.

I highly doubt that either the entente, nor the powers would have been willing to settle for an equitable peace in the wake of this war. War is always about the acquisition of land and power, and I don't have enough faith in humanity to say without one side achieving undisputed victory over the other that any form of peace would have resulted. Ultimately that begs the question, when will enough be enough? Wars are not fought between people, they are fought between governments; It's just we the people who do all the fighting. The U.S. has undoubtedly confused the difference between minor intervention and becoming the world police, as we have been at a near constant state of war ever since the second world war. It's like we flipped the "on" switch and forgot how to turn it off.

All wars come to an end one way or another. They'd settle for an equitable peace or they'd settle for equitable destruction. Either way, I'd say that there's a good chance that Hitler never comes to power and WWII is completely avoided.

As for wars ending without undisputed victory, there are plenty of examples of that. The Revolutionary War is one such example, as is the War of 1812. And how long did Britain and France go back and forth before they realized that being allies made more sense than being enemies?

 

[Politico]

I love stupidly stacked tests like these lol.

Failed it, did you?

lol.

LOL is right. You can't fail a test that asks slanted questions.

 

[RKMBrown]

Failed it, did you?

lol.

LOL is right. You can't fail a test that asks slanted questions.

Yes you can. What you have to ask yourself is why do you care?

 

[Politico]

Because I could do it better. And I was answering a question albeit a dumb smartassed one. It's called common courtesy.