On foreign policy, the Democratic and Republican establishments share pretty much the same imperialist goals (Wall Street insists on that).  But the Democrats generally think the Republicans clumsy approach is prone to produce big messes.

#92221 by Paolo on 8/04 at 6:03 pm

“Building a bridge” between Libertarians and Liberals would be like building a bridge between Venus and Mars.  Domestic policy is what the Democratic party is all about, which is why they’ve had such a difficult time formulating cohesive foreign policy.  You’re asking them to, essentially, stop being Democrats.  As Bush I used to say, “not gon doit!”

“When I speak of capitalism, I refer to a system in which no corporation or individual gets special favors from the government in return for political support, because the government would lack the power to dispense such favors.”

That’s an atypical definition of capitalism.  Capitalism is a system where the average person (who has nothing else to sell) sells his labor power to those who own productive property.

How could government be deprived of the ability to dispense favors?  Would there be no patent or copyright protection?  What would be done about monopolies?  The right to form a limited-liability corporation is itself a favor bestowed by government.

Hi P.T.:

“Libertarians make the same argument.  Furthermore, they deny that the way things are has anything to do with a capitalist ruling class seeking profits and power on a global scale.”

Of course, the danger exists that if a Libertarian like Ron Paul became president, he too would be “seduced by the dark side.” Nonetheless, since the whole philosophy of libertarianism is about reducing the scope of government, I think they would not so easily give in to the temptation.

Regarding the “capitalist ruling class,” I think you have oversimplified. There is not so much a “capitalist” ruling class as there is a “mercantilist” ruling class. We need to define our terms here. When I speak of capitalism, I refer to a system in which no corporation or individual gets special favors from the government in return for political support, because the government would lack the power to dispense such favors.

Mercantilism, a form of fascism, is a system in which the government DOES dispense favors to selected businesses, in exchange for political support. In this system, there is no practical limitation on the power of the government to dispense favors, grant exclusive franchises (see Halliburton, Blackwater, etc.), and squeeze out upstart competition.

Our current system in America is growing more and more fascist/mercantilist.

When the Left criticizes “capitalists” for having too much political power, it is actually criticizing the “government-business partnership” that is an aspect of fascism.

To be intellectually precise, libertarians are all for capitalism, defined as a system in which individuals and companies are free to make as much money as they please by offering more and better products and services, but cannot get special powers or favors from the government. Libertarians are firmly against any system of economic fascism, in which the government “partners” with favored, selected corporations.

It is important to distinguish between the two.

Israel said the kid deserved it bacause he resided on land Zionists wanted for a new settlement.

WHAT!

12 posts already and none of you dumbasses has stated the obvious - IT’S ISRAEL’S FAULT.  THOSE DAMN, ZIONIST, JEWS, THEY DID THIS AND THEY MUST PAY BY DISOLVING THEIR COUNTRY, HANDING IT OVER TO THE ARABS, AND QUIETLY WALKING INTO THE MEDITERANIAN SEA AND DROWNING THEMSELVES!

“But then, the left seems to think that, if just THEIR FOLKS were in charge of the government, that the state will turn into a paragon of justice and decency.”

Libertarians make the same argument.  Furthermore, they deny that the way things are has anything to do with a capitalist ruling class seeking profits and power on a global scale.

As a libertarian (but registered Democrat), I have to agree with almost every post here. Clearly, the USA is as much a “rogue terrorist” nation as any other. Actually, much more so.

What I really want to impress on the left is the fact that they are so right about anti-imperialism in foreign policy, but so wrong about domestic policy.

The left seems to understand that warfare is the State doing what it does best: murdering thousands and destroying property.

But then, the left seems to think that, if just THEIR FOLKS were in charge of the government, that the state will turn into a paragon of justice and decency.

Folks, you can’t wield the “Ring of Power” and do good deeds with it. By its nature, power corrupts. If we are to have a prosperous and peaceful future, we need to forswear the Ring.

I say this in an effort to build a bridge of understanding between libertarians and leftists, if such a thing is possible (I feel it is, particularly on anti-war issues).

I am interested to see how many reasoned, even-handed responses I get to this posting....

Considering the use of smaller bombs.

Something about that statement is perversely funny. Possibly smaller bombs are not as economical. No doubt, the family sized bombs are a better deal. So the military-industrial complex will probably be very happy with a smaller bombs idea.

Great news! We now have the new smaller sized bombs in stock and they’re available in a festive carrying pack. Your whole mercenary family will love these new “smaller sized” more convenient bombs. They may cost a little more, but they’re worth it.

Please dispose of bomb packaging and all letter responsibly. And enjoy.

And we freak out over a bridge collapsing.

The only REAL terrorists on this planet live as untouchables in luxurious style in places such as, but not limited to, the White House.

While the bin Ladens and other Taliban-types in this world are no tree-hugging peaceniks, and are likely every bit as ruthless a bunch of hypocritical sociopaths as those who populate the administrations in the “west,” there are far fewer of them.

The aggression and destruction and murder carried out in the name of peace and safety by the USA and allies is about as insanely CRIMINAL as I can imagine.

Somehow, someone has got to figure a way to TAKE THE PROFIT OUT OF WAR. And guess what? When the thugs in charge can’t make a buck selling armaments or reconstruction services they’ll disappear like cockroaches in sunlight.

The lives of the poor suckers at the bottom of the pecking order are completely dispensable. For every hovelful of Iraquis or Afghans leveled, or allied “grunt” who takes a bullet in the brain (from either side), there a million more waiting to take their place. These folk are just grist for the mills of the wealthy.

Lovely world, isn’t it. No wonder the fantasies sold by the world’s religions are in such high demand. As the guy said, “religion is the opiate of the masses.” And if you had to exist under the conditions of those at the “bottom of the pecking order” YOU TOO WOULD SEEK OUT WHATEVER “DRUG” WOULD TAKE YOU TO FANTASYLAND.

Most times I feel much, MUCH worse for the Iraqi civilians than I do for our own soldiers.  I know that our soldiers had a choice, but I can’t say that for the Iraqi civilians.  As much as I think and labor in my mind over the ones that are killed, my conscience is with those who live through it all.  THESE ARE PEOPLE GODDAMN IT.

It’s a fair thing to protect yourself, but we really have to stop the world from sacrificing its’ poor for the rich.  NOW

Wonder if we should just add this to the 70000 plus Iraqi civilians who have been killed since we showed up to rescue them?

And then they have the guts to say Ron Paul is full of crap when he says the reason we are hated around the world is due to strikes such as this one.

ctbrandon
http://www.actforyourself.org

Don’t ask who’re terrorists !

THAT’S WHY THEY HATE US !  It’s like pursuing a terrorist inside the U.S. by dropping a bomb on a neighborhood because he might be hiding there.  Our rulers can’t figure that out though.