Let's just say that without any opposition the Democrats would control the activity of the entire economy, except small parts which are irrelevant. I don't know what you call that, but socialism is not the worst thing it can be called -- Mises wrote about all forms of government control of the economy being socialistic in nature, because the final results are the same -- the technical differences don't matter.
Libertarianism is the best alternative going :)Comment Posted By Mike Farmer On 14.05.2009 @ 19:25
"How long before Judge Posner gets thrown under the bus by the Limbaugh wing?Because that wing says the partys fine and does not need tweaking. Amazing."
I know I should just give up, and I don't have a dog in the fight between wings of the Republican Party, but out of intellectual honesty I have to ask -- are the moderates not part of the Republican Party? Are the moderates not trying to throw Limbaugh under the bus? Are the moderates perfect and in no need of tweaking? Why is it when moderates talk about the problems of the Republican Party they talk as if the "new" conservatives the only ones in the party?Comment Posted By Mike Farmer On 12.05.2009 @ 20:22
I'm pretty sure I understand that moderate Republicans are against Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity and Beck, but I'm still not sure what they are for. I understand that moderate Republicans are appalled by the lack of intellectual substance from THAT wing of the party, but I'm not sure what intellectual substance THEY are offering. It would be much more interesting to read what moderate Republicans have to offer which counters the move to the left by a Democrat controlled congress and administration. Whether it was the new conservatives or the moderates which caused the loss in the last election, the fact is that Republicans lost, and beating up on one another will not produce much to counter the Democrats. Generalizing a lack of intellect and making broad accusations that new conservatives are influenced by emotion and religion are not very enlightening unless something of substance is offered as an alternative. I would think that if moderate Republicans have a good plan based on intellectually superior policies, all those independents who are drifting from both parties might be ready to listen.Comment Posted By Mike Farmer On 12.05.2009 @ 19:40
Most liberals and conservatives who are partisan are both pro-science and anti-science depending on if the scientific findings support their partisan positions -- the real problem is that both parties are basically anti-rational in the sense they both lack the ability or inclination to be objective.Comment Posted By mike farmer On 11.05.2009 @ 12:39
This might be a turning point in geekdom which takes what is quaintly known as "reality" to a higher level.Comment Posted By Mike Farmer On 9.05.2009 @ 10:00
"But popular with whom, really?"
With millions of people who listen to them and buy their books, and also with politicians who go on their shows to be heard by millions. I mean, like it or not, they have a huge audience.Comment Posted By Mike Farmer On 5.05.2009 @ 19:09
"How can any conservative organization grow and thrive in the general population by turning to Rush, Coulter, and Glenn Beck to articulate the movement?"
But the point is, I think, that Rush, Coulter and Beck DO articulate the movement. You might prefer another movement, but they are articulating the conservative movement -- that's why they are so popular.Comment Posted By Mike Farmer On 5.05.2009 @ 17:56
"I know that there are alot of people that really like her, but the precentage that hate her far, far outweigh her support."
I'm a libertarian, so I don't have a dog in the Palin controversy (that whole emotional debate is mostly partisan), but I think most people like her and that she will be a formidable candidate for conservatives and independents.Comment Posted By Mike Farmer On 5.05.2009 @ 17:50
I'm no longer sure if I understand the differences.
Is a "moderate" someone who doesn't buy the ultra-conservative line totally, or do Republican moderates have a basic political philosoophy that is different from conservatives? What is it mainly that conservatives want to conserve?
Is the real problem that certain sophisticated Republicans from the northeast are embarrassed by the southern, bible-belt conservatives?
When a "conservative" gets in office, they usually go along with the statist agenda for the most part -- at least on the large statist goals that keep government powerful and interventionist. Sometimes this all seems to be a distinction without a difference.Comment Posted By Mike Farmer On 4.05.2009 @ 20:25
So if we both uphold the principle of limited government, and I interpret it as government limited to police, military and courts, and you interpret it as...as...what? This is where I have a problem with what you propose. If the interpretations are so far apart as to be almost conflicting principles, rather than a difference in interpretation, then there's a problemComment Posted By Mike Farmer On 29.04.2009 @ 14:11