Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Barney Frank: Feds Should Decriminalize Marijuana
Fast forward to about the 6 minute mark.
If we're left with choosing between the authoritarian socialism of today's GOP or the socialism-with-individual-liberty of Barney Frank, I'll take the latter in a heartbeat. We could do worse to have more like him in Congress.
Also, Bill Maher needs to read the newspaper.
More Frank eloquence on the subject of individual freedom here...
vault_dog4|3.22.08 @ 10:52AM|#
Terrific!
I can just hear the social conservatives now - "Well, if a openly
gay democrat who had an escort service run out of his house thinks
weed should be decriminalized, it works for me...."
Next up, Osama bin Laden is against the Department of
Education.
|3.22.08 @ 11:04AM|#
IIRC, Barney Frank sponsored a decriminalization bill back in the late 70s or 80s.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|3.22.08 @ 11:05AM|#
joe: He said something about that in the Maher clip. I believe he said it was as a state legislator, though, rather than in the US Congress.
The Wine Commonsewer|3.22.08 @ 11:06AM|#
socialism-with-individual-liberty of Barney Frank
How does that work? The government takes all your money and then
doles out free weed to the poor?
|3.22.08 @ 11:11AM|#
Barney Frank has always been one of my favorite liberals. He even calls out his own party on the protectionist horse shit they've been bantering about for the past 8 years. Quoted Hayek(!) on the floor of the house in opposition to sugar tariffs and corn subsidies.
|3.22.08 @ 11:27AM|#
How does that work? The government takes all your money and then
doles out free weed to the poor?
Doesn't sound to bad to me.
some guy|3.22.08 @ 11:33AM|#
socialism-with-individual-liberty
When did words stop having meaning at H&R?
Is it the election? It's the election, isn't it.
|3.22.08 @ 11:41AM|#
Speaking of Hayek, isn't the whole point of The Road to Serfdom that individual liberty can't survive socialism? I only read the comic book version, so maybe I missed some important points...
|3.22.08 @ 11:44AM|#
Warty, no one is saying Frank is a libertarian. Hes just a
liberal who is actually good on what liberals are supposed to be
good on.
He still completely sucks on economics (exception: trade).
Anyone else who watched Maher last night get really, really sick of
the protectionist/income re-distribution circle-jerk that wouldn't
let O'Rourke get a word in edge-wise?
I also love how all three liberals assumed that of course, people
who are for free markets would want a government bail-out of large
corporations. Idiots.
|3.22.08 @ 11:50AM|#
There's a comic book version of The Road to Serfdom?
Oh, I get it you're being sarcastic, thanks for crushing my dreams
Warty.
some guy|3.22.08 @ 11:58AM|#
There's a comic book version of pretty much everything, even the Constitution. It's Nancy Pelosi's favorite. She likes the pretty pictures.
|3.22.08 @ 11:58AM|#
Does the fact that no nation has ever become totalitarian in the
manner Hayek describes - by gradually enlarging its welfare state -
but rather through revolutions and radical reorderings - indicate
anything about how seriously we should take his ideas?
Let's look at the history of totalitarianism:
USSR
Fascist Italy
Nazi Germany
Franco's Spain
Red China
Eastern Europe
Vietnam
Burma
Cambodia
Laos
Cuba
Not a single one of those places was a liberal democracy that
adopted a social welfare role and gradually became
totalitarian.
Liberal democracies that adopted a social welfare state? Sweden.
Canada. Great Britain. Ireland. The United States. West Germany.
France. Not even the ones that adopted central economic planning as
opposed to just a welfare state - Britain under Labour in the
50s-70s comes to mind - fell into totalitarianism.
It's a plausible and internally logical theory Hayek articulated,
but it fails the reality test. That's not how totalitarianism comes
about, and that's not what happens to liberal democracies that
create an economic safety net.
|3.22.08 @ 12:01PM|#
If we're left with choosing between the authoritarian
socialism of today's GOP or the socialism-with-individual-liberty
of Barney Frank, I'll take the latter in a heartbeat.
I've been hearing liberals talking like that since the '70's. All I
know about that is that not only is marijuana not legal yet, but
now they're after your cigarettes, beer and trans fats as well. We
won't even talk about your guns and your money.
Caveat Emptor
|3.22.08 @ 12:03PM|#
Joe-
Hayek wasn't talking about social safety nets so much as central
economic planning. Central economic planning DOES lead to
totalitarianism.
|3.22.08 @ 12:04PM|#
I cringe everytime Bill Maher calls himself a libertarian. I know he's for decriminalizing drugs & prostitution, but he has his head up his ass about everything else.
|3.22.08 @ 12:05PM|#
BTW, for all the conservatives out there, the first step on
Hayek's road to serfdom was war.
Hmmm....
|3.22.08 @ 12:14PM|#
BTW, for all the conservatives out there, the first step on
Hayek's road to serfdom was war.
Tell that to Lyndon Johnson, who not only gave us Vietnam, but also
the Great Society.
The Vietnam war has been over for decades, but Medicare is still
with us.
Moral of the story: Wars eventually end, but government programs
are forever. Something you may want to think about before deciding
the anti-war liberal is preferable to the pro-war conservative. Not
that we have any reason to believe either one of them is telling us
the truth about their intentions.
|3.22.08 @ 12:19PM|#
War makes people accept government regimentation, control, and
compliance to authority like nothing else can. This ends up seeping
into other things, like economics. Its impossible to have an Empire
abroad and keep a Republic at home.
As for the war ending, I think they've found a way around that
since the neocon advisers McCain has love to go on and on about the
"long twilight struggle" that could last 100 years.
some guy|3.22.08 @ 12:21PM|#
You're not allowed to use "neocon" any more, Cesar. I believe they've come up with a new word, but it slips my mind...
|3.22.08 @ 12:24PM|#
You're not allowed to use "neocon" any more, Cesar. I believe they've come up with a new word, but it slips my mind...
Yeah, fucking Naomi Klein. I guess I could say "Teddy Roosevelt
Republican".
|3.22.08 @ 12:27PM|#
I don't think there is such a thing as a anti-war liberal. They just choose different types of wars to fight then conseratives do. i.e. Bosnia, Somalia, Dufar.
|3.22.08 @ 12:30PM|#
Travis-
All too true and I hate the U.N./NATO backed "humanitarian"
missions as well but they aren't as bad as wars like Iraq. We
didn't have any Americans die in Kosovo.
VM|3.22.08 @ 12:37PM|#
travis - GHWB went into Somalia to give clinton problems, prob'ly, but it was a herbert walker war... but the "humanitarian" use of troops is really for teh sukz
|3.22.08 @ 12:42PM|#
GWHB went into Somalia to save half a million human beings from
starving to death during a famine, by stopping militia attacks on
the food convoys that were trying to bring them aid.
And it worked.
People forget that. A population the size of Boston didn't die of
malnutrition because of the Somalia mission.
|3.22.08 @ 12:43PM|#
Barney Frank is a Massachusetts socialist and deserves disdain
for that. He is also intelligent and honest. He deserves credit for
that. And he is absolutely right here.
For those unsure of their masculinity, I hear he might be queer.
Hate him for it.
VM|3.22.08 @ 12:46PM|#
but... but... but... j sub. I dislike Dick Armey for a ton of things, and his derision of Rep Frank made the list.
|3.22.08 @ 1:00PM|#
Cesar,
You're right about liberal wars being smaller scale, but we still
have troops stationed in Kosovo a decade after the conflict and if
an american soldier dies now or in the future it will be because of
the war Clinton started back in the 90's.
VM,
You're right papa Bush started the conflict in Somalia.
|3.22.08 @ 1:03PM|#
Travis--
Or if a Serbian terrorist detonates a bomb in NYC for revenge
because of what we did to Belgrade, that will be because of Clinton
too.
|3.22.08 @ 1:05PM|#
People forget that. A population the size of Boston didn't die
of malnutrition because of the Somalia mission.
It also weakened the warlords the U.N. now backs against the
Islamists in that country.
Bill Clinton|3.22.08 @ 1:06PM|#
*takes one of Travis's french fries*
yuh see, it's the warlords
nom nom nom
and we need to get the food, say, your big mac, nom nom nom, from
the warlords.
nom nom nom
|3.22.08 @ 1:13PM|#
GWHB went into Somalia to save half a million human beings
from starving to death during a famine, by stopping militia attacks
on the food convoys that were trying to bring them aid.
And it worked.
I supported humanitarian intervention in Somalia. I'll
never make that mistake again. If they starve, they
starve. I'll mourn.
Brandybuck|3.22.08 @ 1:18PM|#
Authoritarian-socialism or socialism-with-individual-liberty. The former is like getting raped in the ass, the latter like getting raped in the ass but with the courtesy of a reach-around. I don't prefer the latter, I prefer none of the above!
|3.22.08 @ 1:20PM|#
Are you kidding me? Barney Frank endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. He is a leftist asshole. Whenever he talks about individual rights, he's talking about the ones the government gives you the privilege of having.
javier|3.22.08 @ 1:29PM|#
socialism-with-individual-liberty
well considering this isn't possible. as we all know controlling
the factors of production is controlling human life itself.
start to question libertarian philosophical and intellectual
foundation
javier|3.22.08 @ 1:33PM|#
joe,
Not a single one of those places was a liberal democracy that
adopted a social welfare role and gradually became
totalitarian.
how the fuck was nazi germany not a liberal democracy that
gradually became a totalitarian state??
Kolohe|3.22.08 @ 1:37PM|#
...no nation has ever become totalitarian in the manner
Hayek describes - by gradually enlarging its welfare state - but
rather through revolutions and radical reorderings...
Let's look at the history of totalitarianism.
I also, have only read Warty's comic book version. But that comic
book version seems to pretty much describe the path of Bismark's
republic to WW1 to Weimar republic to Nazi Germany.
Is it an inevitable path - no probably not. Largely because if you
have a sufficiently robust political, cultural and economic
systems, you can absorb more prior to those systems experiencing
undue strain. But many of the problems of Weimar Germany were the
undeliverable promises of the welfare state started under Bismark -
hence a downward economic spiral and political unrest.
Also, and this is a stretch I know, if you combine the premises of
'the road to serfdom' with '1984' and 'it can't happen here' -
well, it still has the potential to happen pretty much anywhere.
Ironically, I think Venezuela becomes the next case study of this
as the oil prices in a year or two revert to the mean and their
recently built welfare state (with huge corruption) starts to
experience overwhelming strain
|3.22.08 @ 1:41PM|#
@javier
start to question libertarian philosophical and intellectual
foundation
Not a bad
idea.
Calling a political philosophy "libertarian" doesn't necessarily
mean it will ensure liberty any more than calling one "progressive"
will make it ensure progress...
javier|3.22.08 @ 1:47PM|#
really sick of the protectionist/income re-distribution
circle-jerk that wouldn't let O'Rourke get a word in
edge-wise?
I thought PJ was a joke at defending capitalism and explaining the
problems of today. Peter schiff is one of the best out
there.
javier|3.22.08 @ 1:49PM|#
@ pig mannix
i meant libertarian philosophical and intellectual foundation of
REASON.
anybody that thinks socialism with individual freedom is possible
is a joke.
|3.22.08 @ 1:53PM|#
I'm totally getting this comic book version of The Road to Serfdom. SuperHayek to the rescue.
Elemenope|3.22.08 @ 2:12PM|#
anybody that thinks socialism with individual freedom is
possible is a joke.
Yeah, Javier. The Swedish are really oppressed. I hear the UN is
gonna send a mission into Scandinavia soon to rescue all those poor
sods suffering under the yoke of socialist policies.
SuperMike|3.22.08 @ 2:15PM|#
Barney Frank: Feds Should Decriminalize Marijuana
Me: You're a fucking legislator; introduce a fucking bill!
Did anyone hear Lewis Black's rant about the worthless hippie
generation? They never managed to do anything, not even to get weed
legalized. (in some cases, thank goodness!)
javier|3.22.08 @ 2:22PM|#
how is sweden socialist?? there gov't consists of about 47% of
their GDP. If you include local state and federal. that's about the
same as the US.
even though they have a heavy welfare system it is still mainly a
market economy. if they are socialist, then so are we.
|3.22.08 @ 2:24PM|#
Sweden doesn't have central economic planning, folks. Neither do any of the other countries listed.
Elemenope|3.22.08 @ 2:29PM|#
Me: You're a fucking legislator; introduce a fucking
bill!
Um, SuperMike? That's what's he's doing. You didn't actually watch
the videos, did you?
javier, cesar --
People are awfully fucking selective around here depending on the
overall topic just what is and is not considered to be Socialism.
Just saying.
|3.22.08 @ 2:30PM|#
Its a mixed economy. We have a mixed economy. So does most of the world except a few exceptions like Hong Kong/Singapore (damn near pure capitalist) and North Korea (completely totally 100% controlled).
javier|3.22.08 @ 2:31PM|#
my original quote from some guy (i forgot who) was "controlling
the factors of production is controlling human life itself."
Sweden while heavily taxed, most businesses and factors of
production are still owned by private entities.
javier|3.22.08 @ 2:35PM|#
Elemenope,
i completely agree. Socialism is different to different people it
seems. some think heavy taxation and redistribution is socialism. I
think of it more as central economic planning.
|3.22.08 @ 2:36PM|#
European Social Democrats are kind of "smart" socialists who realize that funding their pet programs means keeping a functioning market economy so they'll have wealth to re-distribute.
|3.22.08 @ 3:28PM|#
if an american soldier dies now or in the
future
if a Serbian terrorist detonates a bomb in NYC
I don't think you two understand exactly how much the need to write
"if" throughout this exchange undermines your point.
Man, I wish we could be speculting about what would IF an American
soldier died.
|3.22.08 @ 3:31PM|#
javier,
how the fuck was nazi germany not a liberal democracy that
gradually became a totalitarian state??
There was nothing gradual about it. A revolutionary movement seized
power during an emergy and violently tore down the republic it had
long denounced, replacing it with a highly-regimented militarist
totalitarianism. The liberal democracy didn't develop into Nazi
Germany; it was overthrown by Nazi Germany. That's not Hayek's
road.
|3.22.08 @ 3:34PM|#
Cesar | March 22, 2008, 2:24pm | #
Sweden doesn't have central economic planning, folks. Neither do
any of the other countries listed.
1. Suddenly, a welfare state isn't socialism or
centralization.
2. Suddenly, the adoption of a modern welfare state doesn't lead to
central planning.
|3.22.08 @ 3:35PM|#
Joe, Hayek said WAR will lead to central planning. Then, some socialists will think "well, it worked in war lets try it in peace" and so on.
|3.22.08 @ 3:36PM|#
If you knew anything about Hayek, joe, you would know he actually endorsed a limited safety net.
javier|3.22.08 @ 3:48PM|#
joe,
but the nazi's were voted in which is quite different than
overthrowing.
and yes chapter 9 of road to serfdom called "economics and
security", hayek lists all the things government SHOULD do to
ensure economic security. acts of god, education and health
coverage for MAJOR medical.
In a sense a lot of people are much more libertarian than
hayek.
|3.22.08 @ 4:04PM|#
In other
news, the drug war claims more victims.
Apparently the Bush administration found some mountain dwelling
indigenous people who don't hate America, and decided they had to
do something about that. This is pure unalloyed genius! I humbly
bow to their nuanced world view, their expertixe in inter-cultural
relations.
Elemenope|3.22.08 @ 4:12PM|#
Apparently the Bush administration found some mountain
dwelling indigenous people who don't hate America, and decided they
had to do something about that. This is pure unalloyed genius! I
humbly bow to their nuanced world view, their expertise in
inter-cultural relations.
LOL. And they got the UN to do their dirty work for them,
too.
That's the part of the drug war that people I talk to on a regular
basis still fail to grasp: the amazing network of international
agreements and treaties that lock pretty much every major country
into fighting the same old way, with little room for local
variations or experimentations with other policies.
TallDave|3.22.08 @ 4:12PM|#
There was nothing gradual about it. A revolutionary movement
seized power during an emergy and violently tore down the republic
it had long denounced, replacing it with a highly-regimented
militarist totalitarianism.
No, Adolph Hitler was elected because the planners needed someone
who could get things done. Hayek is pretty clear on that.
What happened next was simply the inevitable result of giving gov't
too much power.
If we're left with choosing between the authoritarian socialism
of today's GOP or the socialism-with-individual-liberty of Barney
Frank
True, I'm still not ruling out a vote for Obama, if he does the
right thing for Iraqis and takes the sensible position on drugs.
I'm from IL so it wouldn't be the first time supporting him.
OTOH, when this starts
happening people might change their minds.
|3.22.08 @ 4:15PM|#
Even YOU couldn't vote for Alan Keyes Dave? No wonder it was
such a landslide.
You're right about drugs, if Democrats put decriminalization in
their platform they'd get a lot of closet pot smokers to come out
for them.
|3.22.08 @ 4:21PM|#
I guess the drug war has so many bureaucratic trappings, few can see the forest for the trees. Go figure.
TallDave|3.22.08 @ 4:23PM|#
Road To Serfdom, p 71:
"The cry for an economic dictator is a characteristic stage in the
movement toward planning...In Germany, even before Hitler came to
power, the movement had already progressed much further. It is
important to remember that for some time before 1933 germany had
reached a stage in which it had, in effect, to be governed
dictatorially....Hitler did not have to destroy democracy, he
merely took advantage of the decay of democracy and at the critical
moment obtained the support of many to whom, though they detested
Hitler, he yet seemed the only man strong enough to get things
done."
The Wine Commonsewer|3.22.08 @ 4:25PM|#
When the New Left morphed into the Eco-Fascist movement, the
legalization issue sort of went up in smoke (heh).
The Democrats are no more going to consider legalization of pot
than they are likely to end the war in Iraq, which Pelosi promised
to do something like 450 days ago. Hello..... [taps foot
insistently]
TallDave|3.22.08 @ 4:26PM|#
Cesar,
Are you kidding? Keyes wasn't even from IL.
It's sort of funny how the work turns. A Dem judge unsealed Ryan's
divorce papers, handing the election to Obama. Now the Dems end up
with a candidate who may be unelectable, because the guy was never
vetted in a tough campaign.
The Wine Commonsewer|3.22.08 @ 4:31PM|#
Thanks, Tall One, America had gotten used to central control,
from depression era top down solutions to war time planning and
rationing. That was the concern at GM and by Hayek. Interesting
that GM was less of the centrist corporate state monolith than we
imagined.
Shameless self promotion:
HAYEK V HAYEK plus the Hayek scorecard.
TallDave|3.22.08 @ 4:34PM|#
Actually Joe, much the same is true in the Russian Revolution
too. They may not have been a liberal democracy, but the planners
were opposed by liberals and moderates who wanted one.
The leaders of the Petrograd Soviet believed that they
represented particular classes of the population, not the whole
nation. They also believed Russia was not ready for socialism. So
they saw their role as limited to pressuring hesitant "bourgeoisie"
to rule and to introduce extensive democratic reforms in Russia
(the replacement of the monarchy by a republic, guaranteed civil
rights, a democratic police and army, abolition of religious and
ethnic discrimination, preparation of elections to a constituent
assembly, and so on).[9]
The Russian Civil War, which broke out in 1918 shortly after
the revolution, brought death and suffering to millions of people
regardless of their political orientation. The war was fought
mainly between the Red Army ("Reds"), consisting of radical
communists and revolutionaries, and the "Whites"-the monarchists,
conservatives, liberals and moderate socialists who opposed the
drastic restructuring championed by the Bolsheviks.
|3.22.08 @ 4:45PM|#
Tell that to Lyndon Johnson, who not only gave us Vietnam,
but also the Great Society.
The Vietnam war has been over for decades, but Medicare is still
with us.
Moral of the story: Wars eventually end, but government programs
are forever. Something you may want to think about before deciding
the anti-war liberal is preferable to the pro-war conservative. Not
that we have any reason to believe either one of them is telling us
the truth about their intentions.
I must've missed the part where Medicare bombed people in other
countries or got U.S. soldiers killed on a daily basis.
|3.22.08 @ 4:55PM|#
I love me some Barney Frank, yes I do!
Barney Franks rock and shock the nation/
like the emancipation proclamation!
|3.22.08 @ 5:09PM|#
There's a fairly well established argument that major wars are in fact a principal driver of increased - and increasingly centralised - government authority. And of course all of the new techniques and organisations developed in the pressure of conflict don't magically go away when it's over, but are simply re-purposed for domestic use. The career path of Herbert Hoover is painfully instructive in this regard.
Geotpf|3.22.08 @ 5:18PM|#
Travis | March 22, 2008, 12:27pm | #
I don't think there is such a thing as a anti-war liberal. They
just choose different types of wars to fight then conseratives do.
i.e. Bosnia, Somalia, Dufar.
I'm an anti-war liberal. 9/11 has convinced me of this. The US
government should not get involved in conflicts halfway across the
world where the "good guys" are hard to tell from the "bad guys",
unless our country, or countries that we have mutual defense
treaties with, are directly attacked. I might make an exception to
stop an imminent or ongoing genocide, although in those cases an
international organization, perferably the UN, but NATO in a pinch,
should be the organization undertaking the mission, and even then
I'm quite wary.
This is to say, the danger of blowback from capricious wars is
extremely great. I personally believe 9/11 was directly caused by
the first Iraq war. Here's the timeline:
1. Bin Laden et al, with our help, suceed in kicking the Soviets
out of Afghanistan.
2. Iraq invades Kuwait and makes threating moves towards Saudi
Arabia (maybe-there's some argument here but the Saudis felt
threatened).
3. Bin Laden, looking for another fight, goes to the House of Saud
and offers his services to protect the Kingdom.
4. The Saudis tell him to go play in traffic and get a real army,
America's, to do the job.
5. Bin Laden gets his panties in a wad, stews for a decade,
9/11.
The root cause of 9/11 was due to anger by the losing bidder for a
military contract lashing out against the winner. That's it. Sure,
there's religious trappings and bullshit there, some of which were
partially due to us winning the contract (US female personnel
serving in the Royal Kingdom of Islam not covering their head and
driving cars! OMGWTFBBQ!) But what this shows is how blowback can
be random and capricious and completely unpredictable. Bush Sr.
could have never specifically predicted that 9/11 would occur due
to his invasion of Iraq. Nobody could. But you can predict that
attacks against foreign nations have a high risk of blowback, just
not the specific type of blowback or when or where. You must factor
that in when going on a "military adventure", and I don't think
most people do.
Geotpf|3.22.08 @ 5:28PM|#
The Wine Commonsewer | March 22, 2008, 4:25pm | #
The Democrats are no more going to consider legalization of pot
than they are likely to end the war in Iraq, which Pelosi promised
to do something like 450 days ago. Hello..... [taps foot
insistently]
Exactly how, in the real world, can a Democratic Congress which
does not have a two thirds supermajority (or even a filibuster
proof 60 seats in the Senate) end the war in Iraq?
Basically, the only way they could do so would be to defund the
entire defense department (since the majority of funding for the
war is in standard DoD funding bills, and Bush will veto any DoD
funding bill without Iraq monies). So, the armynavyairforcemarines
no longer gets any funding. Yeah, that will happen.
Plus, even if they actually performed such a crazy act, the war in
Iraq wouldn't end. Under laws governing partial government
shutdowns (which such would be), emergency and national security
spending continues under the previous year's budget. Such as
funding for troops overseas in combat. Rememver the Gingrich
government shut down? The national parks closed, but the FBI still
went to work. Same fucking thing.
Once a war has started, it is impossible, as a practical
matter, for a Congress that does not have a veto-proof majority to
stop it if the President wants to continue it.
The only way to stop the war in Iraq is to elect a Democratic
President this November. Period.
Crackhead|3.22.08 @ 5:29PM|#
if Democrats put decriminalization in their platform they'd
get a lot of closet pot smokers to come out for them.
Why would they do that when they already get all those votes (and
half the drug-warrior votes) by merely pretending occasionally that
maybe someday possibly they'd vote for some such similar thing,
maybe, if it weren't an election year?
Please.
Potheads are straight-up suckers, and so reiably so that there's a
decades-standing electoral strategy built around their suckerdom.
It won't change. It works.
|3.22.08 @ 5:30PM|#
javier,
but the nazi's were voted in which is quite different than
overthrowing.
Kinda sorta. The Nazis won a plurality of seats in Parliament and
Hitler was appointed Chancellor, but from that position they
launched what amounts to a coup against the republic, and replaced
it. It wasn't a case of the existing state growing into a
totalitarian one, but a fully formed totalitarian state being
imposed on the ruins of the liberal state.
But you've got a good point - just as there is Marx and there are
Marxists, there is Hayek and there are Hayekians.
No, Adolph Hitler was elected... Fail. Adolph Hitler was
appointed to one office, and then seized others. He was never
elected to anything.
|3.22.08 @ 5:33PM|#
TallDave, you should get your history from a more reliable
source than Hayek, because that paragraph is nonsense - the
twisting of the facts to support a pre-existing conclusion.
Comem to think of it, no wonder you like him so much.
TallDave|3.22.08 @ 6:31PM|#
No, Adolph Hitler was elected... Fail. Adolph Hitler was
appointed to one office, and then seized others. He was never
elected to anything.
Never elected to anything you say?
Hmmm, who to believe, joe or Hayek? Let's see what wikipedia
says:
The executive committee of the DAP eventually backed down and
Hitler's demands were put to a vote of party members. Hitler
received 543 votes for and only one against.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolph_hitler
He may not have been elected Chancellor, but he was certainly
elected head of his party.
And then his party won pluralities:
Having failed in overthrowing the Republic by a coup, Hitler
pursued the "strategy of legality": this meant formally adhering to
the rules of the Weimar Republic until he had legally gained power
and then transforming liberal democracy into a Nazi dictatorship.
Some party members, especially in the paramilitary SA, opposed this
strategy; Röhm ridiculed Hitler as "Adolphe Legalité".
Campaigning continued, with the Nazis making use of
paramilitary violence, anti-Communist hysteria, and the
government's resources for propaganda. On election day, 6 March,
the NSDAP increased its result to 43.9% of the vote, remaining the
largest party, but its victory was marred by its failure to secure
an absolute majority, necessitating maintaining a coalition with
the DNVP.[37]
On 21 March the new Reichstag was constituted with an opening
ceremony held at Potsdam's garrison church. This "Day of Potsdam"
was staged to demonstrate reconciliation and union between the
revolutionary Nazi movement and "Old Prussia" with its elites and
virtues. Hitler appeared in a tail coat and humbly greeted the aged
President Hindenburg. Because of the Nazis' failure to obtain a
majority on their own, Hitler's government confronted the newly
elected Reichstag with the Enabling Act that would have vested the
cabinet with legislative powers for a period of four years. Though
such a bill was not unprecedented, this act was different since it
allowed for deviations from the constitution. Since the bill
required a two-thirds majority in order to pass, the government
needed the support of other parties. The position of the Centre
Party, the third largest party in the Reichstag, turned out to be
decisive: under the leadership of Ludwig Kaas, the party decided to
vote for the Enabling Act. It did so in return for the government's
oral guarantees regarding the Church's liberty, the concordats
signed by German states and the continued existence of the Centre
Party
And we all know where that led.
With this combination of legislative and executive power,
Hitler's government further suppressed the remaining political
opposition.
|3.22.08 @ 6:32PM|#
Of course. It's all "on the one hand, on the other hand." You
don't have to worry about whether those hisotrical claims are
actually "accurate" and "objectively true," just who's making and
denouncing them.
I took Critical Studies in the 90s, too. You must have pwned that
class, eoj.
|3.22.08 @ 6:34PM|#
He may not have been elected Chancellor, but he was
certainly elected head of his party.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!
Yes, TallDave, he carried leadership votes within the Nazi Party.
Don't worry, that's a fine way to cover your ass after claiming he
was elected to office.
TallDave|3.22.08 @ 6:38PM|#
I said:
No, Adolph Hitler was elected because the planners needed
someone who could get things done. Hayek is pretty clear on
that.
He was also the most likely nominee for the Chancellorship, as his
party won the most votes. He certainly did not seize power in a
coup as you suggested:
A revolutionary movement seized power during an emergy and
violently tore down the republic it had long denounced,
In fact, Hitler was given his powers by an elected parliament,
exactly as Hayek describes.
|3.22.08 @ 6:41PM|#
No, Adolph Hitler was elected because the planners needed
someone who could get things done. Hayek is pretty clear on
that.
And you were wrong. Hitler was not elected to office, and his
leadership of the party was not based on "the planners need(ing)
someone who could get things done."
Read a book that is about history if you want to learn history,
TallDave. Not a political book that incorporates history to back up
its thesis.
TallDave|3.22.08 @ 6:43PM|#
Probably beating a dead horse here, but:
President Paul von Hindenburg died on 2 August 1934. Rather
than holding new presidential elections, Hitler's cabinet passed a
law proclaiming the presidency dormant and transferred the role and
powers of the head of state to Hitler as Führer und Reichskanzler
(leader and chancellor).[39] Thereby Hitler also became supreme
commander of the military, whose officers then swore an oath not to
the state or the constitution but to Hitler personally.[39] In a
mid-August plebiscite, these acts found the approval of 84.6%[40]
of the electorate. Combining the highest offices in state, military
and party in his hand, Hitler had attained supreme rule that could
no longer be legally challenged.
This is why our Founders so wisely set up separation of powers, and
why our beautiful Republic has endured so long.
Kolohe|3.22.08 @ 6:44PM|#
The US government should not get involved in conflicts ..,
unless ... countries that we have mutual defense treaties with, are
directly attacked.
[and then stuff on how we shouldn't of stuck our nose in Gulf war
1]
We had, for all practical purposes, a 'mutual defense treaty' with
Kuwait. (see also the Tanker War of the 80's)
We also had even more so a de facto if not de jure agreement to
protect Saudi Arabia from aggresion - and in Sept '90 it was
logical to assume to even the most casual observer that Sa dam's
next step would be Saudi Arabia.
And the coalition to restore Kuwaiti sovereignty was a
multinational coalition unseen since early 50's Korea
So, even though I buy your causal link between GW1 and 9/11 -
though not through the mechanism you describe - your own parameters
define GW 1 as a 'just war'
|3.22.08 @ 6:45PM|#
He certainly did not seize power in a coup as you
suggested
Mezza-mezza. It was certainly not an ordinary political situation,
and he used extra-legal means to seize power well beyond that of
the office he was appointed to.
William Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" would be a
good resource. It's more of a straight history.
TallDave|3.22.08 @ 6:52PM|#
joe,
Sorry, he won election within his party, his party won the
parliamentary seats, and he won approval of a plebiscite with 84%.
To say he "seized power" as opposed to achieving it democratically
and was "never elected to anything" is simply wrong.
In the future, you might at least check Wikipedia first so you
don't embarass yourself. It only take a minute.
|3.22.08 @ 7:07PM|#
sure, d00d, I'll be sure to keep that in mind. rolls eyes.
There's also the fact that the Nazis convulsed the country in
violence surrounding the 1932 elections, killing opposing party
leaders and routing their events far beyond what we'd consider a
legitimate election today.
And if you read a bit more, you might not make such silly
assertions as claiming that the plebescite was the only means
Hitler used to expand his power.
Elemenope|3.22.08 @ 7:19PM|#
This is why our Founders so wisely set up separation of
powers, and why our beautiful Republic has endured so
long.
Really? Personally, I have always attributed our survival to luck
and duct tape. But I suppose one could go with "wisdom of the
Founders" if one wanted to.
|3.22.08 @ 7:19PM|#
Sorry, he won election within his party, Well, no, he
was the party leader for a decade before that, and the party
election consisted of his hand-picked supporters affirming his
control
his party won the parliamentary seats, His party won 34%
of parliamentary seats.
and he won approval of a plebiscite with 84%. After he had
been appointed Chancellor, squashed other parties, and seized
control of the political system.
These are facts you can learn in actual history books, if you're
interested in putting in more than "a minute" to gain an
understanding of historical events you wish to use to back up your
political musings.
TallDave|3.22.08 @ 7:20PM|#
sure, d00d, I'll be sure to keep that in mind.
Thanks, it'll save me a lot of explaining things to you.
silly assertions as claiming that the plebescite was the only
means Hitler used to expand his power
Of course, I never said that, just as I never claimed he was
directly elected Chancellor (which, of course, would have been
impossible, as it was an appointed position). But hey, if you can't
argue against what I actually said you can at least beat the hell
of some strawmen, right?
|3.22.08 @ 7:27PM|#
I am arguing against what you said. You claimed Hitler came to
power through the normal operation of democracy, and proceeded to
spin the facts to try to make that point. I pointed out other facts
that refute it.
Go whine to your momma if you don't like the fact that I'm daring
to refute you.
TallDave|3.22.08 @ 7:29PM|#
His party won 34% of parliamentary seats.
Which was enough, in the parliamentary system he operated in, for
him to be appointed Chancellor.
The Centre Party then voted him more powers, as noted above. He did
not "seize" them.
It's nice you know the names of some history books, but you can't
seem to cite any support for your arguments.
TallDave|3.22.08 @ 7:31PM|#
Go whine to your momma
Great, I'm debating a 12-year-old.
Well, your argument seems to be with the good people at Wikipedia.
Why don't you head over there and edit out all the democratic means
by which Hitler seized power? Be sure to cite your sources.
Godspeed.
|3.22.08 @ 7:31PM|#
1% was enough for him to be appointed Chancellor, TallDave. The
President could pick anyone he wanted to be Chancellor.
You, yes YOU, can gain an informed understanding of the political
system of the Weimar Republican if you would just READ A BOOK.
|3.22.08 @ 7:33PM|#
Yeah, I'll make sure I run right over to freaking Wikipedia to
correct the mistakes from William Shirer made.
I'll get right on that.
|3.22.08 @ 7:36PM|#
Something to keep in mind is that a key element in the
consolidation of power was Hitler's accomodation with key
conservative institutions such as the army and the big industrial
concerns. That is to say, institutions that value a strong, stable
government that has lots of money to hand out (the kind of
government Weimar had frequently been unable to provide.) Part of
that accomodation was the subsequent purge of certain radical
elements of the NSDAP - including Rohm.
I suspect Hayek had something to say about this dynamic, which is
hardly uncommon in the establishment of fascist regimes.
|3.22.08 @ 7:44PM|#
Anyway, TallDave, I'm not sure what all of your crowing is
about, since we haven't actually disputed any points of fact, but
of interpretation and significance of those facts.
Nobody is disputing the out come of the 32 elections, or that there
was a plebiscite shortly thereafter that the Nazis won big. The
question isn't whether there were legitimate claims of democratic
legitimacy to Hitler's rise to power; there were. The point is that
the Nazi's rule represented a violent break from the liberalism of
the Weimar Republic, not an extension of it. It is true that this
was achieved without a formal dissolution of the government, as it
was in the USSR, but that isn't really the point.
thoreau|3.22.08 @ 8:47PM|#
joe, I think you are right to observe that Hayek was largely
wrong in his predictions of how events will progress. He was right,
however, in identifying the role of information in determining the
unworkability (or limiting the workability, however you prefer it)
of many government programs.
I think he correctly identified the weaknesses but made largely
inaccurate predictions on the consequences of those weaknesses. So,
insightful but not the be all and end all of economic theory.
thoreau|3.22.08 @ 8:53PM|#
BTW, at the risk of sounding like I'm giving a reading assignment before you embarrass yourself any further, I urge all of you to Google for "Hayek." One word. You won't be disappointed.
The Wine Commonsewer|3.22.08 @ 10:01PM|#
Exactly how, in the real world, can a Democratic Congress
which does not have a two thirds supermajority (or even a
filibuster proof 60 seats in the Senate) end the war in
Iraq?
I dunno, Pelosi told me she would end the war if she was elected.
Apparently she lied? Is full of crap? She didn't say anything about
exceptions.
Hell, I'd settle for medical mj.
|3.22.08 @ 10:24PM|#
I urge all of you to Google for "Hayek." One word. You won't
be disappointed.
Thanks thoreau, that Selma is something else.
|3.22.08 @ 10:30PM|#
anybody that thinks socialism with individual freedom is
possible is a joke.
"Socialism" and "individual freedom" are both continuums, not
absolutes. The US is less socialist than (say) France, but it can
still get better. The US has more individual freedom than (say)
Saudi Arabia, but it can still get better.
|3.22.08 @ 10:38PM|#
Watch Hillary ducking sniper fire in Bosnia!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOsGo_HWP-c
P.S. Sorry to go off topic but these Reason guys tend to leave for
the weekend. As if there would be weekends without organized labor
LOL
|3.22.08 @ 10:55PM|#
Barney Frank is great. He was my congressman for about ten years
before I moved.
When I wrote to him, I'd get letters back about why I was wrong
rather than stupid ass kissing typical of most politicians. I have
a strong sense he actually read them and respinded personally at
times.
I very rarely agreed with his economic policies, but the man is
smarter and more honest than 99% of the people in Government. On
individual liberty he is great.
We could do far worse than having another 434 congress critters as
smart and honest as Barney.
Fred
|3.22.08 @ 11:25PM|#
It's still early in history. The great welfare states could still swing totalitarian in another 50 to 100 years. Britain already seems about 1/3rd of the way down that road. The U.S. about 1/4th. Give it time.
|3.22.08 @ 11:32PM|#
joe, now I get why you sometimes atract such vitriol from your opponents. Even when I sometimes disagreed with you, I thought you made some good or at least interesting points. Here, you just seem like a snotty little 12 year old. I lost of lot of respect for you in this thread.
Pablo Escobar|3.23.08 @ 6:59AM|#
Here are the
facts on the Hitler situation.
Basically, the Nazi Party didn't win an outright majority - but
they WERE elected as a minority opposition party. Then Hitler
gained the post of Chancellor through shady backroom deals. But he
was elected to parliament in the first place (although his party
didn't get a majority).
Being elected doesn't mean your party has to get a majority.
|3.23.08 @ 7:00AM|#
Here's the link:
http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com/2005/04/what-hitler-was-not-elected.html
(ignore the title, the author has an agenda -- namely proving that
no democracies ever wage war. Hence he has an interest in
pretending Hitler was not elected).
|3.23.08 @ 7:12AM|#
yes YOU, can gain an informed understanding of the political system of the Weimar Republican if you would just READ A BOOK
Ha ha, OK Levar Burton. No, seriously, we love you, joe.
|3.23.08 @ 7:23AM|#
Watch Hillary ducking sniper fire in Bosnia!
I've had friends in the Army get shot at and get shot. While Hillary's untruthfulness isn't damning, it certainly doesn't raise my opinion of her, either. LOL
some guy|3.23.08 @ 7:28AM|#
By the way, Happy Easter, all. Nothing says "holiday" like a bunch of Christians celebrating the murder of a Jew by eating ham.
|3.23.08 @ 8:31AM|#
Eventually the drinking game will have to cover invoking
Godwin's law itself.
Happy Easter, Libertarian Nation!
VM|3.23.08 @ 8:41AM|#
P.S. Sorry to go off topic but these Reason guys tend to leave for the weekend. As if there would be weekends without organized labor LOL
ooh. a zinger. how clever!
snorts. ambles off
Nephilium|3.23.08 @ 9:57AM|#
Art-P.O.G.:
I was reading the READ A BOOK line more like Handy and the Human
Ton from the Tick.
"READ A BOOK! You're making us look like idiots here!"
Nephilium
|3.23.08 @ 10:21AM|#
I was reading the READ A BOOK line more like Handy and the Human Ton from the Tick
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=su9daHxMX_c
Heh. I've just had "Reading Rainbow" on the brain a lot lately. But
this clip is funny.
Sara Jane Olsen -- Back to Pri|3.23.08 @ 10:24AM|#
I am laughing my ass off!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080323/ap_on_re_us/sla_olson_14
Geotpf|3.23.08 @ 11:36AM|#
The Wine Commonsewer | March 22, 2008, 10:01pm | #
Exactly how, in the real world, can a Democratic Congress which
does not have a two thirds supermajority (or even a filibuster
proof 60 seats in the Senate) end the war in Iraq?
I dunno, Pelosi told me she would end the war if she was elected.
Apparently she lied? Is full of crap? She didn't say anything about
exceptions.
She did? Find a quote of her saying so, please. She never actually
said that, because she knew she couldn't deliver.
former joe fan|3.23.08 @ 12:39PM|#
Unlike joe, Edward (unless you are joe's id), has actually never
said an interesting thing on Reason in his life - and this roof
brain spittle, witless comment further supports that.
"Go fuck yourself"(said while picking nits out of belly button
hair, lips movin' real slow).
|3.23.08 @ 1:17PM|#
His party won 34% of parliamentary seats.
joe, you clearly don't understand parliamentry democracy or as it
is also known "responsible government".
With 34% of the seats all one needs is the support of another 16%
plus one member to control the government. The party leader who can
do that is who the
President/Queen/King/Governor-General/Governor/Lieutenant-Governor/whatever
will pick for Chancellor/Prime Minister/Premier/whatever. Hitler
got that and held it for most of the time from '33 on. This is what
passes for democracy* under that system.
Whether he did it by intimidation or worse doesn't matter. This is
the fatal flaw of that system.
Of course, what we get here is what passes for democracy under
our system, which is why I'm not a huge fan of
"democracy".
M. Simon|3.23.08 @ 2:02PM|#
Cesar | March 22, 2008, 12:05pm
BTW, for all the conservatives out there, the first step on Hayek's
road to serfdom was war.
Hmmm....
Yep. The war of 1775 to 83 has led us to serfdom. Then there was
1812 to '14. 1898. 1917 to '19. Then '41 to '45. And '48 to '88.
And of course 2001 to 2008.
Boy do I feel like a serf. Short rations, living under a bridge. We
are so screwed. The Iraqis have one dictator less and we have one
more.
So what to do now that I feel like a serf? Serf the internet of
course.
|3.23.08 @ 2:07PM|#
former joe fan | March 22, 2008, 11:32pm | #
joe, now I get why you sometimes atract such vitriol from your opponents. Even when I sometimes disagreed with you, I thought you made some good or at least interesting points. Here, you just seem like a snotty little 12 year old. I lost of lot of respect for you in this thread.
Been there, done that. You must be fairly new here.
joe is very intelligent and a good debater. However, he uses many
debating tricks like red herrings, suggesting but not saying
things, attributing opinions to others, wilfully misinterpreting
others, and sneers that get people riled up. He is also
hypersensitive to the slightest perceived insult and immediately
retaliates at a shrill maximum.
If you choose to debate joe, keep your arguments strictly to the
point and avoid any kind of humorous snark. joe cannot take a
joke.
Otherwise, do as the rest of us do and try to ignore him when you
can't agree.
Edward, OTOH, is always a total asshole.
M. Simon|3.23.08 @ 2:13PM|#
Exactly how, in the real world, can a Democratic Congress
which does not have a two thirds supermajority (or even a
filibuster proof 60 seats in the Senate) end the war in
Iraq?
McCain has the answer. "We win, they lose."
It worked against the Soviets.
Let me paraphrase Lincoln:
The world can no longer go on, half slave and half free.
It causes too many problems.
M. Simon|3.23.08 @ 2:19PM|#
BTW if you don't like McCain's answer there is always surrender
and mass conversion to Islam. Just give them what they want. Then
they will leave us alone.
Oh yeah. We ought not feel too squeamish about rounding up and
handing over the Jews. For some reason our enemies really hate
Jews. The Jews are only a few % of our population and who would
miss them anyway?
|3.23.08 @ 2:22PM|#
BTW if you don't like McCain's answer there is always surrender and mass conversion to Islam.
What bizzaro universe are you living in? You honestly think the
choice is between bombing Mecca and converting to Islam?
Charles Johnson, is that you?
M. Simon|3.23.08 @ 2:23PM|#
We might have to throw in Andalusia too. Is that too big a price
to pay? I mean Andalusians don't even speak American. Besides they
are just a bunch of effete Euros. Who would miss them?
I can't wait to find out the new Caliph's name.
|3.23.08 @ 2:23PM|#
I also missed the part of the Cold War where we invaded the Soviet Union and toppled its government, after refusing to even talk with them.
|3.23.08 @ 2:23PM|#
Aresen, may I copy your 2:07pm comments for E-mail distribution to all H&R newcomers? I'll give proper attribution, of course.
M. Simon|3.23.08 @ 2:27PM|#
Cesar,
We know their demands. What is wrong with giving them what they
want if it will end the war?
I say we start by throwing the Iraqis under the bus. It is the
least we can do. Self government is such an outmoded concept.
Especially since we know Arabs can't handle it.
Sharia is for every one. I've heard them say so.
And no more offensive cartoons.
|3.23.08 @ 2:27PM|#
So uh, given "radical Islam" isn't a country and theres no
Terrorland, what is "Winning"? The elimination of Islam as a
religion?
Yeah, good luck with that d00d.
|3.23.08 @ 2:29PM|#
One things thats weird about neoconservatives:
On one hand, they tell us what barbarians Arabs/Muslims are.
On the other hand, they say that they could form flowering
Jeffersonian democracies tomorrow.
How consistent. Which is it?
|3.23.08 @ 2:34PM|#
Liberating people by military means is so 1776.
Oh yeah, the founders really supported huge standing armies, an
imperial Presidency, and foreign wars in distant continents.
Except, they didn't.
|3.23.08 @ 2:35PM|#
J sub D | March 23, 2008, 2:23pm | #
Aresen, may I copy your 2:07pm comments for E-mail distribution to all H&R newcomers? I'll give proper attribution, of course.
Might as well. I think I'm in for "shrill maximum retaliation" any
second now.
BTW, we've got an Easter thread going right now at you-know-where.
Actually civilized conversation.
M. Simon|3.23.08 @ 2:37PM|#
Caesar,
We really made a mess of Europe since we conquered it in '45. We
need to quit doing stuff like that. It really pisses off all those
Presidents for Life.
I guarantee you once every one in the world adopts the correct
version Islam the wars will be over. Sunni or Shia? It is such a
hard choice.
So uh, given "radical Islam" isn't a country and theres no
Terrorland, what is "Winning"? The elimination of Islam as a
religion?
I think you have pointed out exactly what needs to be done. Since
they are hidden and we are in the open we have to convert at
once.
However, if you have a better idea I'm all ears.
We must stop the war at all costs. Besides they have been at war
for 1400 years. How can you defeat experience like that?
M. Simon|3.23.08 @ 2:42PM|#
I for one will welcome our new masters and the new masters of
the world.
Surrender has always been a viable way to end wars. What is wrong
with that idea? Seems like a good deal to me. Every body face Mecca
and pray 5 times a day and the killing will stop.
Plus we will make G-d happy. Isn't that worth something?
|3.23.08 @ 2:43PM|#
Cesar,
Actually America did invade Russia back in the early 1920's in
support of the white army they just don't teach that in our public
school system.
M. Simon|3.23.08 @ 2:47PM|#
Wait. I know what we can do to start. Just to test the waters. Give them Barney Frank. I'm told they hate homosexuals.
|3.23.08 @ 2:54PM|#
1. Iraq is just like Germany and Japan
After all, Iraq is a homogeneous nation with a common language,
religion, and ethnicity. Its not like its just a line on the map
drawn by a bunch of British Imperialists in 1920 to group three oil
wells together. I mean, that would be ridiculous!
Furthermore, everyone knows that when Truman visited Tokyo in the
late 40s he had to do it unannounced, in the middle of the night,
with the lights in his airplane off.
2. Tell them its what the Founders would want.
After all, any moron knows Jefferson and Madison were known best
for their love of huge standing armies, imperial adventures, a
unitary executive, and torture.
3. Talking to your enemies is for pussies
Make sure to demonstrate to them that talking to the enemies of
this nation has always failed. We didn't win the Cold War by
sitting down with the Soviet leaders, goddamnit! We told them they
were evil and then rolled right into East Berlin ending with a
triumphant March of our men through Red Square!
4. Saddam Hussein was a bad, bad, BAD EVIL man.
Tell them again and again what a bad man Saddam Hussein was.
Everyone knows that opposing the war means you were "objectively
pro-Saddam" anyway!
5. Quote Mark Steyn.
Sure, they guy can't even get his demographic math right, but
damnit hes the most brilliant commentator of our time!
6. The Surge is Working (tm)
Sure, tactical military success hasn't lead to any progress on the
political front and means jack shit if the strategic decision was
wrong to begin with. But the Surge is Working!(tm)
7. Call them an anti-Semite
Everyone knows theres no debate within Israel on their foreign
policy, anyway. Nope, all Israelis/Jews are the same--unabashed
supporters of Bush, Cheney, and McCain. Tell them those statistics
that show American Jews voting for the Democrats 90% of the time
are just a liberal media fabrication.
8. Invoke 9/11.
9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11.
There you have it! You can't lose now. Go and show those America
haters what its all about!
|3.23.08 @ 2:54PM|#
Actually America did invade Russia back in the early 1920's in support of the white army they just don't teach that in our public school system.
Yeah, and how'd that work for us? Exactly.
|3.23.08 @ 2:56PM|#
Actually America did invade Russia back in the early 1920's in support of the white army
Holy crap, you're right. Directly after WWI there were 'polyglot' troops, including US and UK forces supporting the White Army. Thanks, guess you do learn something new every day. I had to dig deep to find reference to that one.
|3.23.08 @ 2:58PM|#
I recall Reagan getting in trouble for that, too, since he told the Russians in the '80s no American soldier had ever "fired a shot in anger" at a Russian.
Diggs|3.23.08 @ 3:02PM|#
100% control of health care, 0% control of drugs. Hmmm. So the
bureaucrat behind the desk that stamps my application on whether I
deserve a heart transplant or not is high most of the day?
What could be the problem?
|3.23.08 @ 3:09PM|#
M. Simon,
Islam is only practiced by 1/6th of the earth's population and the
majority of muslims don't follow Al Qaeda or fanatical Shia Islam.
You're telling me that the other 5/6th of the worlds population are
going to be conquered by Islamic terrorists.
This the same old paranoid domino theory bullshit (just exchange
commies for muslims). If don't nuke now were fucked in the
future.
|3.23.08 @ 3:11PM|#
No travis! All Muslims are the same, scary mass of people! No difference at all between non-practicing, moderate, or radical. No difference between Sunni and Shia. No local, national traditions at all. Its all the same! /end sarcasm
|3.23.08 @ 3:19PM|#
Cesar,
I didn't work out well for America at all. All it did was give the
Ruskies propaganda to teach in their school system about how
imperialistic Americans are.
Unfornately for us those commie bastards were right.
|3.23.08 @ 3:24PM|#
Unfornately for us those commie bastards were right.
Yup, the pot can be telling the truth about the kettle.
|3.23.08 @ 4:11PM|#
If we're left with choosing between the authoritarian
socialism of today's GOP or the socialism-with-individual-liberty
of Barney Frank, I'll take the latter in a heartbeat.
Now that is a load of Bullshit.
Ron Paul is just as fringe as Barney Frank and the main stream Dems
are even worse authoritarians as then main stream GOP.
|3.23.08 @ 4:20PM|#
Does the fact that no nation has ever become totalitarian in
the manner Hayek describes - by gradually enlarging its welfare
state - but rather through revolutions and radical reorderings -
indicate anything about how seriously we should take his
ideas?
Hayek described Nazi Germany to a T and he came pretty damn close
to describing FDR's administration.
I guess if your name is Joe you can have lapses of unreality and
ignore the Nazi party winning an election and Japanese Americans
being put into concentration camps.
Stephen Wolf|3.23.08 @ 7:01PM|#
Gosh Darn America!
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/stephenwolf/gGBnRB
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
|3.24.08 @ 1:28AM|#
Thats the most agreeable speech I've heard from a member of
Congress in a long time.
Regarding the "Socialism-with-Individual-Liberty" thing, it seems
to me that Balko was sacrificing clarity for succintness. Barney
Frank probably supports more government involvement/spending in
things like healthcare; and perhaps higher taxes on upper incomes.
But it is unlikely that he wants a Soviet-style command economy or
anything close to it. And as indicated, he seems to support less
government restriction of acts by consenting adults which harm
nobody except possibly voluntary participants. So maybe
"Somewhat-bigger-government, but less prohibitions/restrictions of
personal individual pursuits".
|3.24.08 @ 10:05AM|#
Exactly how, in the real world, can a Democratic Congress
which does not have a two thirds supermajority (or even a
filibuster proof 60 seats in the Senate) end the war in
Iraq?
There is no Constitutional requirement for a supermajority of any
kind. There is only a Senate rule on when a vote can be called. As
the majority, the Dems can amend, revoke, or suspend that
rule.
They haven't, for the same reason the Repubs didn't when they had
the majority. They have each made the political calculation that,
when they are (inevitably) in the minority again, they would rather
have the filibuster rule than whatever legislation they would
suspend it for today.
|3.24.08 @ 10:06AM|#
Unfortunately, BG, as has already been demonstrated numerous
times, the more the government pays for, the more it feels entitled
to control. The more healthcare is socialized, the more behaviors
which may be bad for your health are prohibited by the state.
Socialism of any kind is inherently inconsistent with individual
freedom of every kind.
|3.24.08 @ 10:31AM|#
"Aresen, may I copy your 2:07pm comments for E-mail distribution
to all H&R newcomers? I'll give proper attribution, of
course."
I think H&R should offer a field guide to commenters:
-joe: A small, nocturnal, liberal democrat, friendly when not
provoked or disagreed with. Disagree at your peril
-Jamie Kelly: Homo rat terrier libertitus. Sheds coat, brain in
winter. See cautionary comments concerning joe above.
-Neu Mejican: Laconic academic. Has the power of speech but
communicates soley through the posting of links. Harmless
drudge.
-thoreau: Possibly going extinct. Rarely seen these days until 30th
comment in on any thread. Agrees with Mike P.
-Warren: Warning, warning, danger, danger, libertarian females!
Geotpf|3.24.08 @ 3:07PM|#
R C Dean | March 24, 2008, 10:05am | #
There is no Constitutional requirement for a supermajority of any
kind. There is only a Senate rule on when a vote can be called. As
the majority, the Dems can amend, revoke, or suspend that
rule.
Current Senate rules state it takes a two thirds majority to amend
Senate rules. That, of course, is 67 votes, which is seven more
than required to stop a filibuster.
Plus, the supermajority I was referring to was the number of votes
required to overturn a veto, which most certainly is in the
constitution (for the Senate, the same 67 votes as to change Senate
rules).
Paul|3.24.08 @ 4:03PM|#
Not a single one of those places was a liberal democracy
that adopted a social welfare role and gradually became
totalitarian.
No, joe, they adopted a social welfare role and instantly became
totalitarian.
See: Communist revolutions.
Yes, that goes back to your remark about revolutaionary social
change, but it was a revolutionary social change to a massive
welfare state.
And heck, I can be on board with eschewing the welfare part.
Welfare was only one part of it. It was collectivism,
which encomapasses welfare statism, that's at the core.
Our fear here, joe, is when politicians want to subvert small
liberties and freedoms for egalitarianism, that our big liberties
and freedoms will come next. And really, it's not that much of a
fear, it's a reality.
See any Supreme Court ruling where it's been stated that we "no
longer have an expectation of privacy" here or there.
|3.24.08 @ 8:05PM|#
Unfortunately, BG, as has already been demonstrated numerous
times, the more the government pays for, the more it feels entitled
to control. The more healthcare is socialized, the more behaviors
which may be bad for your health are prohibited by the
state.
Thats true to some extent, but things are also more complicated
than that.
There are people and groups that advocate prohibiting
non-infringing, personal acts for reasons that have nothing to do
with the government paying for anything. And there are also
countries and jurisdictions in which people have a high degree of
personal freedom despite government spending being a higher
percentage of the GDP than here.
Also, not all acts of government spending/involvement are created
equal. We should consider things like: "Does this act of government
address some kind of collective action problem, or provide some
similiar public benefit?" and "What is the type/magnitude of the
imposition on particular individuals?" and so forth. I think Frank
mentioned transportation in the gambling clip. One could make a
pretty good argument that having the government build things like
railroads, highways, and other transportation infastructure
overcomes negotiation problems and other obstacles; and produces
substantial public benefit. And it doesn't provide much of a
rationale to regulate private behavior.
To be clear, I don't support implementing a Western-Europe style
healthcare system. But I could probably go for some type of system
of healthcare vouchers. Aside from that, the government could
concern itself with: 1) Informing people about what healthcare
options are out there, and 2) Assisting in paying for conditions
that are either purely genetic or require treatment to be given in
less time than it takes to argue with your health insurer.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245