• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Floating Libertarians?

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Most of the commentators I've read are pointing fingers at government loans. More easy money just drives up costs.

BANG!

You nailed it. I'm not saying don't take advantage of perks. Just realize, however, the market reacts very rapidly to such perks, that the end price paid by the consumer will remain much the same while the business pockets the profits.

The government reasons these "perks" drive people to change habits, such as insulating their attic. A few buy off on this dangling worm. Most aren't that stupid.

I recently outlined a means of leveling the playing field without providing vast numbers of perk-suckers the opportunity to siphon off what our legislators intend for the people.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
Buckley was not a Neo; but his writing, especially "Up From Liberalism," gave a new shift to the Moynahan, Lieberman types who fit the classic definition: liberals who moved to the center because of discomfort with what had happened to liberalism in the '60s, and then kept moving to the Right. The "Young Americans for Freedom" group was an example of kids who were involved in the migration and the anti-sds reaction. I was one in college. Paleoconservatives, call them classic conservatives, if you will, included the klan, American nazi party, etc. The Neos had too many who while moving to the center and then right weren't moving fast enough. Neos aren't racists, war mongers, Gay bashers, etc. But, they remained enamored of too much 'around' the Constitution and not enough--although claiming to be strict constructionists, 'in' it. Hence, to many like myself, we made the logical migration to embrace the basic principle of conservatism in America: Constitutional rights. Thus, 'Constitutionalist.' Still holding to the principles of what is right and decent, but becoming aggressive defenders of what 'are' our rights and which must be protected.

In short, Neo stopped being relevant to those of us who were enthused about it as youngsters as something new and different from the old timers' conservatism, and needed to be replaced with something more centered in our most important beliefs as we became educated and matured. There are still Neos, of course, but they stopped evolving long ago. Their issues have become Israel, Iraq, Iran, monetarism, etc. I think there are more important things to be concerned about. Basic things like the BoR. They don't.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
[SNIP]There are still Neos, of course, but they stopped evolving long ago. Their issues have become Israel, Iraq, Iran, monetarism, etc. I think there are more important things to be concerned about. Basic things like the BoR. They don't.

This part of your last paragraph is what I envision when I think of a Neocon. So we agree then? I'm a bit confused because of your first reply to my post above.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
So, 'Positivism' isn't the issue, rather, the human, or group of individuals constructing the Positivist model, and applying it through a Government structure is the issue...wait, that would mean that the issue is a human issue, not a Government, nor a Positivist issue. Whew, I knew I could get us out of this one.:dude:

Positivism is an issue because of the very reason you mentioned and those humans who insist on using it should never be elected into public office. And must be fought at every turn. Natural rights, should naturally overrule any rule of positivism.

Everything is a "human issue" but a free liberated people won't let other humans force their ideologies down their throat.
 
Top