Personally, I have my doubts if China and Russia are really more, or much more, authoritarian than the EU or the US.  In the EU one can risk going to prison for holding the wrong views on certain subjects, in the US one risks one’s career that way.  Worshipping a God higher than the state (or higher than one’s own material needs) can lead to risking one’s career in many areas in the EU and the US as well.  The story of Bruce Ivins, as reported by Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com, also argue for strong authoritarianism in the US.  In the EU, probably most countries would do as Ireland did with the Lisbon treaty if they held referenda, but one can also be certain that it will go through, despite being against the will of the people.

But the main point of the article is correct.  The West nowadays is a disaster, and people are extremely pessimistic (I have lived in four countries, so I can say this), and even those who are optimistic probably do not mean it.  Eastern Europe is interesting since the signs of crisis are stronger there, the West has decades of prosperity behind it which, for the time being, can alleviate these impressions.

REgarding the comparison between autocratic and democratic capitalism, I am not sure that that is the essential element.  The current capitalist system places all emphasis on immediate profit.  No solidarity with the poor and the disadvantaged, reduce safety standards, close hospitals and schools, etc., if they are in the way of immediate profit.  This is practiced to the extent that the system eliminates the conditions of its own survival; to put it in simple terms, if people are not healthy, educated, and do not work in a safe environment, they will not be capable of producing, inventing, etc.  Chavez’s Venezuela may be autocratic (probably as much as the US/EU), but the concept of solidarty exists in the system.  Western Europe was also significantly better off in the 60s and 70s when this was the case.

I would say that while Democratic capitalism can and does partially become soft authoritarianism in practice, this is only a problem to me when the leadership and managerial class consists of degenerate individuals with degenerate ideologies.  This is the case now, as opposed to Jacksonian Democracy.  As long as the families, faith, honor, and culture of its people are respected and protected, neither a democratic nor an undemocratic regime is such a bad place to live.

However, I would agree with Alphysicist that Russia is no more authoritarian than the E.U.  And the E.U. is a much more malignant type of authoritarianism than what Putin has implemented.  Putin at least puts Russian national interests first and protects his country from sort of traitors, kleptocrats, smugglers and white slavers who ruled Russia under Yeltsin.  The E.U. throws people in jail for speaking up for their national and civilizational heritage, while maintaining a policy on the Muslim question that amounts to an even better example of anarcho-tyranny than that which exists here.  Our “leaders” do nothing on the border, but at least they don’t throw Americans in jail for talking about it.

The E.U. discriminates against Christians, while prosecuting anyone who questions whether a Muslim future is the right course for Europe.  The European elites refuse to protect their own citizens and punish those who demand answers.  They refuse to protect their women from Islamic savages, but prosecuting someone like Frau Winter for speaking the truth makes them feel like men.  That is the worst sort of system, certainly worse than Russia, and at least it can be said of the Chinese that they are good tribalists.  That’s something above what the E.U. elites are, but then so is a well-bred dog, to say nothing of a well-bred horse.

Pat Buchanan and the top 2 comments are exactly right.

I’m actually not quite as pessimistic about the West as most of my other international affairs drinking buddies (though I can understand why they drink over it), but at the same time, I have little doubt that the future belongs to China.  In part because

1. China has been intact as an empire-become-nation for over 2,200 years.  Not just an intact nation, but a power, a superpower.  When Rome was a power, then the Arabs, Spaniards, Portuguese, French, British, Americans, Russians-- China, always, has been there, sometimes overcoming a crisis but still going strong.  China had almost 35% of world GDP by the 18th-century Qing Empire, similar share of the population, no other empire has come even remotely close to that.  Too often, Americans and Westerners with our (sad to admit) cluelessness about history underestimate China, but you underestimate a 2-millennium old superpower at your own peril.  They’ve survived the toughest tests of time before, they’re good at this.  Which leads to

2. Long-term thinking.  China’s also very good at this, overall.  We’re stuck in a sound-bite, celebrity-worshiping culture, instant gratification, where politicians are punished for not delivering immediate, enormous economic growth (when this is impossible in a world of finite resources).  Beijing is a smog-choked mess, but China is already among the world’s biggest investors in electric cars, renewables and so forth.

Which also makes me wonder if our “democracy” as it’s evolved, impressive as its accomplishments over the last 2 centuries has been, will historically be just a flash in the pan.  The US and UK are bankrupting ourselves in stupid resource wars, going deep into debt while politics prevents taking strong measures, failing miserably to deal with environmental problems until the crisis starts up.

Maybe a democracy with an educated populace, thinking, might be able to deal with these things.  But the mess we have?  The Founding Fathers actually set up a very restricted republic because they didn’t trust what it would evolve into.  Maybe China realizes it wouldn’t happen, that some mixed system (that they’re evolving to, though definitely lack now), with hopefully the best parts of the American/European systems (checks and balances, independent judiciary, local elections, national referenda in case an official screws up royally) but leaving out the adversarial, ideologically-ruled, lobbyist-bought panderfest that passes for “democracy” these days.

I still think that at least a part of the West will hang on.  Maybe some parts of Central Europe with the scientific cultures, attracting smart immigrants even as their own populations shrink, focused on long-term stability and cohesion more than individual short-term profit, as other posters have pointed out-- maybe a few pockets, Denmark, Germany, Austria, the Swiss, Hungarians, Finns, they’ll survive.

But places like the USA, probably the UK too (Australia/Canada a toss-up)-- finished.  Too much failure to face real problems, too stuck in self-indulgence and sound-bite culture, too much demographic change and ethnic tension.  (China has its own issues but in fact, the one-child policy has never been much applied to rural China, and official population figures are low-balled-- they’re close to replacement level, and most of the sex ratio is actually just because the girls are “hidden” with relatives and friends when the bean-counters come.  Besides, plenty of North Korean, Vietnamese, Filipina women coming in to remedy any further imbalances.)

Anyway, China knows how to handle the long-term, and they’re assembling a remarkable high-tech society these days.  I wouldn’t for a moment underestimate them.

“The E.U. throws people in jail for speaking up for their national and civilizational heritage, while maintaining a policy on the Muslim question that amounts to an even better example of anarcho-tyranny than that which exists here.”

Yeah, definitely in Britain, which is among the worst off on this front-- increasingly in Canada and Australia.  USA doesn’t go quite this far, but it’s career-ending to break from orthodoxy, and with the spread of affirmative action and ethnic power blocs, not much better here.

I’ve worked in Central Europe and ti’s a little better there-- no affirmative action, a good deal more nationalism and ethnic solidarity, resistance to PC.  Maybe because the Germans, Hungarians and so forth spent centuries fighting Turks, didn’t dilute their identities with overseas empires, so they have fewer illusions and a greater sense of solidarity.  Even the French and Dutch these days are passing tough immigration laws.  But the British?  No hope for them, the PC there is stifling to the extent of suffocating its own people.

Also, Pat Buchanan’s article has many good points, but I wouldn’t go so far as his characterization of regime.  Yes, China’s government is authoritarian, but it’s also evolving, gradually.  I’ve been there and it’s not like the old dictatorships of the past-- it’s more that China wants to evolve gradually into a system with better checks and balances, but not to the extent of the USA or Britain, where they realize our systems are failing miserably and not compatible with long-term survival of our societies.  So they’re moving cautiously.

On Taiwan, China has a rapprochement, and never had much interest in attacking a country with 20 million ethnic Chinese to being with.

On minorities like Tibetans-- well, that’s complicated.  Remember, China’s One Child Policy doesn’t really apply to rural Han Chinese, and exceptions abound in many places.  But ethnic minorities are exempted from it entirely, wherever they reside, and the government does allow them freedom to celebrate their cultural festivities-- just so long as they don’t spark attacks on the regime.  If they were really trying to swamp out minorities, they wouldn’t impose restrictions on a subset of Han Chinese, yet remove them entirely for ethnic minorities.  (OTOH, the authorities are much more cautious at dealing with the Uighurs.  They’ve come to recognize-- unlike the West-- that large concentrations of Muslim populations are dangerous fifth columns in a country, and they’re dealing with them accordingly.)

China’s also evolving a strong technological society, so I’m actually confident that long-term, China will be fine, and evolve the kind of high-quality, Enlightenment society that the West (especially the UK, USA, Canada and Australia) is currently in the process of throwing away, all for short-term profit.

“Democratic” Capitalism, or “libertarianism” is not democratic. We have no choice in
our electoral system between the Republican Party’s Mexicanian-style oligarchical capitalism, and the
Democrat Party’s Let-Wall-Street-Rule-and-the-State-pays-for-collateral-damage. In both
parties, Wall Street rules, the middle class is squeezed, and the underclass is subsidized.

The only capitalism that works is state capitalism, “laissez faire” is a farce, a mere
rationale for oligarchy and elitism.

The truth about “free speech” when it is treated as a grand abstraction is that most people are not interested in it, or are even suspicious of it. Too often, free speech means freedom for pornographers, jihadists, communists, and generally people who threaten what most people consider core values. Such “freedoms” are not valued by most people and they don’t mourn its loss.

China is a threat, but not for the reasons cited. China is a threat not because of its strengths, but because of its weaknesses. The Chinese system is extremely unstable. There are really two China’s, one rich and one poor. Instead of using its wealth to develop its internal markets, the Chinese invested in propping up the American consumer and our corrupt gov’t. Further, they have worse demographic problems than we do. The danger in all this is that when a regime has problems it cannot confront, they look for outside enemies, both to unite people on the home front and to stabilize the economy through the spoils of war.

It is not their success that we ought to fear, but their failure.

the democratic countries are experiencing problems because they either don’t have constitutions or have ignored the ones they have.  If america followed it’s constitution we would have far less spending and therfore more propserity and less problems. 

but for practical purposes buchanan is correct.  contrast india and china.  both are experiencing booms but china is ahead of India and likely to continue that way.  why?  because indian politicains keep trying to get treats for the people who elect them and this doesn’t exist in china.

so we need system that is free but is also not so maleable to public whims and whines

The Bush tenure and the massive backing of Congress towards a Unitary Executive that is above the law with the ability to throw anyone they like into a black hole is already here. The government is a bipartisan un-Constitutional kleptocracy. The Republicans are only carrying out long standing ideological policy to destroy the government with a side a redirect tax dollars to their supporters as they purposely bankrupt the nation. But the Democrats are just fools and moronic idiots. Under Bush the people are getting exactly what they were promised by the Republican party and they seem to have a winning strategy in the drill now and all the magic non-existent off shore oil will get gas back to $1 a gallon again policy. McCain wins and the party might even take back one of the houses of Congress.

Blair and the Labour Party has the support of a minority of the electorate and instituted wars and laws that cut deeply into the freedoms and rights of all Brits and the people will decimate the party when elections happen. There is a viable opposition party on the Conservatives and no one I know can stomach any Blair-ite.

I don’t doubt what Pat writes about the satisfaction levels of the Chinese and Russians.  I do believe that poll respondents said what they did, but their actions seem to suggest otherwise.  This poll is a snapshot of sorts.

I was taught in university classes that covered Nazi Germany that had Hitler died in 1938, he would’ve undoubtedly gone down as the greatest leader the German people ever produced.  But as matters stand now, he’ll go down as the worst.  So, a few years can make a world of difference.

The same applies to China in particular.  As Pat noted, China’s economy is doing better now than it has in modern times.  But there are also dark clouds on this horizon.  Civil unrest is a fact of life in China, and reports of it can be found routinely for those who look carefully for such things.  And if China ever provokes the US to the point where we cut off trade ties, this regime’s popularity would vanish, and would probably be promptly overthrown.

The reason the Chinese are encouraging extreme racism and jingoism amongst their people is this underlying discontent that erupts occasionally into violence.  The regime is trying to focus this discontent elsewhere--on the Other.  But this tactic will only work as long as the economy remains strong.

The Olympics also have to be taken into account.  I’ve never given a thought to the Olympics, but I seem to be in a minority.  Many people tend to treat such events as opportunities to display chest-thumping patriotism.  This may very well be a case in point.

As far as Russians go, they have made many real improvements.  And their lack of democracy doesn’t concern me in the least.  American culture is intimately intertwined with democracy.  Russian culture is not.

I think it is natural to be happy during good economic times.  But what happens if, or when, oil prices collapse?  Is this really an ephemeral contentment purchased with oil dollars?

I do think the ultimate test of how happy a people is rests with their reproduction rate.  As Pat has noted in previous works, Russians have--or perhaps had--one of the lowest birth rates in the world.  But I haven’t heard word of such a turnaround.  Such is not the mark of a happy people.

As was pointed out above a national leader can easily gain temporary popularity by starting a war.  Margret Thatcher & Argentina ring a bell?  Bush & 9-11????

I’m a great skeptic (what else is new??) when it comes to public opinion polls (among other things).

A year or so ago I partook in one via telephone, just to find out what was involved.

To say I was shocked is putting it mildly because I did not think that polling organizations would be so blatant in forcing the outcome of their poll into their preconceived direction.  He who pays the piper…

How is this done? 

Each question has multiple choice type answers, with 3 to 6 choices from which no deviation or qualifier is permitted.  Not even “none of the above”.

Many of the questions put to me did not have a choice of answer I believed to be appropriate for my opinion, and I said so to the pollster.  Well, you ‘have’ to pick one of the prescribed answers.  “None of the above” is not an option.  With a little encouraging patter the pollster is then able to “guide” to the “appropriate” answer.

As to the popularity of autocratic leaders, this is easy to understand, at least to me. 

These leaders took over when their respective countries were economically destroyed for the man-in-the-street.  Yet the well-connected were making out like bandits.  (Due to access to international financing).

Under these circumstances a capable leader with the best interests of his people at heart, and the gift of being able to surround himself with capable people of similar interests that compliment their respective abilities, would find it not difficult to improve the economic lot of the citizens and also provide hope for the future.

It is the last two items that are lacking in today’s western world where the general feeling is that “things cannot go on like this”.

But there is no leadership on the horizon that captures the imagination along with the ability to change direction so as to provide hope.

All western politicians are bought and paid for by the “chosen few” so that voting for a “new” candidate is simply like stirring the contends of a cesspool, in which the biggest lumps always rise to the top.

With nary a chance for societal improvement.

An interesting observation:  During the 1930’s Germany had an unprecedented economic and intellectual boom (anybody remember the tens of thousands of patents of war booty confiscated by the USA and its allies?) with no gold in the national treasury; the USA had most of the world’s gold and was in the midst of a great economic depression… Go figure.

The Germans had a straight forward philosophy for the amount of currency to be put into circulation: for every Reichsmark issued by the central bank one Reichsmark worth of work had to be performed.  None of this fractional reserve banking with its built-in guaranteed inflation.

H.F. Wolff

As Twain asserted, “the rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated”.

If I was a former peasant in a moribund Security State that is growing economically I’d be happy too. Conversely, if I was a suspicious free citizen with stagnant income and a mountain of debt in a creeping Security State, I’d be a tad frustrated too.
Why don’t the pollsters ask if they think the sun rises in the east and sets in the west?

If the lapsed Republic saw it’s citizenry pull it’s head out of it’s arse and regain it’s former self-reliance and sense of invigorated humor, we might see what competition rather than Mutual Assured Destruction could achieve in this nation. While our government is a pox, the bigger pox is the bamboozled citizen who still thinks:
a. it has no real say in the direction of the country or;
b. that the media is telling anything resembling a worthwhile truth and
c. elections are the only way to instigate required changes against what is in effect, a counter-revolutionary regime. 

Medaille is right, we have more to fear with China and Russia’s failures than we do their successes, however different from our own.

“Democracy” is a marketing term- a lie. It’s always the socialists, oligarchs, and tyrants who speak the loudest of democracy while acting in most undemocratic of ways- a modus operandi that would make Leo Strauss and the neo-Republicans proud: exoteric lies to the public and then do the opposite. Who has done the most to restrict the freedoms of Americans? The man who speaks the most about freedom and democracy, America’s president.

One would have to be a One-World fool to be suprised that nations think highly of leaders who put their own nations first. Europeans are disenchanted with the insane tyranny coming out of Brussels and have no connection to that fiction called “Europe”. And Americans are understably exhausted of politics that put Israel above all and China as the most-favored nation- all to the death and detriment of Americans.

What Mr. Buchanan correctly hints at but needs to say is that America needs and deserves a leader who will put America first and everyone (including Israel, China, Iraq, Afghanistan) far behind. Is either McCain or Obama one such man? McCain certainly not. Obama maybe.

A leader is not one who can get his fellow club-members to bomb some sorry town in the desert but one who can stand up to the enemies of America who may well be the leader’s campaign financiers, and tell them that no action will be taken that harms America.

Given the high satisfaction polling numbers in China versus the US, how do we get the illegals, Mexicans, Central Americans, Middle Easterners, etc, to go to China instead of here?

D.S.: Sharp as a tack commentary!

Only problem is that one can walk/drive/hitch hike from all over the Americas to the US; Can’t travel that way to China.

Saaaay, aren’t the Russians interested in building a roadway between Asia and Alaska, consisting of bridges and tunnels?

Perhaps the USA could funnel its unlimited resources into building this new trade and emigration route thus killing(instead of using it to kill people)two birds with one stone.

Think of the possibilities!

Think of the children:-)).

H.F. Wolff

H.F. Wolf

Illegal Mexicans are showing up in Hawaii.  They sure as heck did not walk there.

Plus look at all the container ships coming from China every day loaded to the gills with manufactured goods.  When they go back they are usually not full.  Maybe the illegals can hitch a ride on a slow boat to China.

Dunnyveg sed: “As Pat noted, China’s economy is doing better now than it has in modern times.  But there are also dark clouds on this horizon.  Civil unrest is a fact of life in China, and reports of it can be found routinely for those who look carefully for such things.  And if China ever provokes the US to the point where we cut off trade ties, this regime’s popularity would vanish, and would probably be promptly overthrown...The reason the Chinese are encouraging extreme racism and jingoism amongst their people is this underlying discontent that erupts occasionally into violence.  The regime is trying to focus this discontent elsewhere--on the Other.”

The problem you China-Russia haters have is that you ignore the Pew Center polls...in
the US, where we have “democracy”, the polls say the overwhelming majority hate the
direction the country is going in. While in the supposedly “undemocratic” Russia and China,
the SAME polls say the overwhelming majority likes the direction their countries are going
in.

If idiots on the right think that forcing laissez faire capitalism (which is socialism for
the rich, and everyone else eats their garbage) down our throats is “democracy”, then they
must be out of their minds.

After 40 years of Republican/Conservative “limited government” and “deregulation, and we’ve
had one bailout after another. The same idiots that complained about Chrysler getting a
government bailout, are strangely muted when it comes to bailing out the Wall Street bankerss!
Of course, all this mess came from repealing Glass-Steagall, another “Conservative” reform.

We have more globalization and more economic interdependence, and what is the result---bigger
military budgets, more interventionism, and a quaqmire in the Mideast. If this is supposedly
to be a “conservative” advancement, I’ll take a return to the dark ol’ ages under Welfare State.

We’ve got “deregulation” of the utilities and telecommunications, and we got Enron-omics, and more looting and
stealing by the insiders---and I have yet to see lower utility bills, or lower phone bills.

What’s wrong with Conservativism? It’s the sickness called “free market fundamentalism”..
which so far only produces massive unrestrained immigration, dismantling of the US economic
infrastructure---replacing it with finance and real estate speculation---and of course
“diversity” and “multiculturalism"---which is about making the US economy SAFE for
Arab shieks and Chinese Commissars to invest their money in. Can’t have a “world economy” if
a bunch of yahoos are ranting and raving about Americanism, can we.

Oh, it’s all a farce. The biggest farce is the “conservative” movement.

Per China, though it has been more than a decade since I was working there, I distinctly experienced a strong nationalism. I also believe that they made a run at me for recruitment purposes. The evidence was that they were trying to set up a honey trap. Alas, even if successful, it would have been in vane because I was not in a position to grant “favors.”

Along with the traditional emphasis on sons as protectors and providers for the parents, their mostly one-child policy has inevitably resulted in an abundance of young men without prospect for marriage and family. This, combined with the mass emigration to the cities from rural areas has created tens of millions of young men in a rootless, unstable economic and cultural environment. It is a powder keg just waiting to be lit. A recession would do it, and the rulers attempts at containment would probably be a “patriotic” war.

They’re just happy because McDonalds, Oreal, and other “Western” goodies are flooding their countries so their children can become consumerist zombies like in the West.  All of this is self-inflicted by “Western” financial institutions and corporations.

China and the Soviet Union were economic and political basketcases a generation ago and now they are posing threats.  It is just the same old game where the capitalist gives other races and cultures the rope to hang the West with.  They didn’t learn with Japan and the Soviet Union, so they just keep at it.

These corporations function by making and selling things, so when the West has bought all they need (the market has become saturated), they have to “expand” abroad so they can make even more stuff, and make money in the process.  I’m hazy on the specifics because I am a peasant and have other interests and a personal life, but it seems that the financial institutions are looking for any reason to turn on the tap and inject money into the economy - most likely making raw materials (and labor) abroad denominated in their currency (dollar, pound, yen, euro, etc.).  Inflation and the growth of the economy in terms of dollar levels seems to point to this.  Then you have people like David Rockefeller jetting around the world to lend money with usury and look for better (cheaper) sweatshops to kill their workers off and make more money.  With leaders like these internationalist capitalists who needs enemies.

China will probably stay sufficiently “racist” (but will never be called so because they aren’t white), but Russia can go berserk with cosmopolitanism like the West - all of their rich live in London and Western Europe and are a really sorry, rootless lot (or so says Taki).  Give them time to degenerate further.  If the West can get its own house in order (and I doubt it), we have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to fear.

Joe P, another interesting post.  The US State takes over 50% GNP (local, state, fed), has tens of thousands of pages of fed and state regs with hundreds of agencies to back up State diktat, and we are suffering a surfeit of ‘free markets’? The US warfare/welfare state certainly is free-market.  Free-market paragons Maoist China and Nehru/Ganhdi India are moving to ‘state capitalism’under their current pols to expand their economies (don’t forget resource-,and land-rich Hong Kong, either). US econ freer than it was 20 years ago because of such free market laws as Sabanes-Oxley.  For your honesty in admitting that you want state capitalism (Wilson and Roosevelt war socialism by another name), do try http://www.strike-the-root.com for an alternative view.  Extra tip:  I was paying Verizon over $50/month, sometime much more, with per minute charges land line.  Under new Verizon program (that old free-market again), I now pay $20/month (excluding tax and fees for the State)and I get unlimited US calling. .  Guess the market has nothing to do with my savings, as well as reduced cell phone rates and computer cost - must be the Nanny State ordering the corporations to charge less.  ST

My impression is that Russian nationalist authoritarianism largely embodies the will of most Russian people, while EU totalitarianism embodies the will only of a fairly small transnationalist elite.  In this sense Russia is more ‘democratic’ than the EU.

Prices for commodities will continue go up as China produces and consumes more.  Already food prices have increased 100% since 2 years ago, and the price of oil is over 400% what it was 6 years ago. 

A lot of the price gain can be attributed to speculation but there is a real trend that is fueling the speculation.  Natural resources are simply running out.  Such common metals as zinc are expected to run out by 2037:

http://www.idtechex.com/research/articles/augsberg_university_calculate_when_our_materials_run_out_soon_00000591.asp

Simon pontificates on the “free” market: “I was paying Verizon over $50/month, sometime much more, with per minute charges land line.  Under new Verizon program (that old free-market again), I now pay $20/month (excluding tax and fees for the State)and I get unlimited US calling.”

Uh, Simon. Get a grip on reality. Like the commie mindset that you are, if anything isn’t PURE
free market (socialism), then it is by defination...oh my....EVIL.

First of all, the advances in telecommunications technology are ALL rip-offs of government infrastructure investments. Ditto with internet, drugs, aeronautics, computers...yes, my dear. STATE CAPITALISM. I see nothing wrong with commercializing public investment, by the way. But you “utopians on the right”
of course, my rights must claim that is “pure free market”, when in fact, it is not. Go figure.

Secondly, nobody is paying less for electricity or telephone service or anything else---adjusted for inflation---then they were in the bad old days under ‘socialism” <snicker>. Especially, utilities. I certainly don’t pay $20 a month to Verizon for MY land line services, and nobody else does either. Generally, everyone ends up paying about $50 to $75 dollars a month for their cable/phone/internet, no matter what the real capital costs are to the service providers. Generally, it wouldn’t be any different if we had a <gasp> “state monopoly” over these services. No, I do’t mean “privatization” which is what the cable industry is right now.

Third, ALL Of the “deregulation” in the past 20 years has resulted in one disaster after another one. Not to mention the government bailouts get bigger and bigger, from the ESL “privatization” to the dot-CON and real estate bubbles. Let’s of course, not mention the expanded WARFARE STATE that has resulted from the “free market” in goods and services.

Look at 40 years of “libertarian” ideology. What do we have to show for it? A squeezed middle class, with stagnant wages with increased costs of health care, college education and housing. A classic Marxist IMPERIALIST economy based on forcing “globalization” down the throats of the rest of the world at the point of a gun. A permanent occupation of the Mideast to protect this farce, which of course, is costing the US economy MORE to maintain it then
the increased tax revenues to pay for it.

No Simon, just ‘cause you SEZ something, doesn’t mean you have a grip on reality. Like the commies that you mirror image in your ideological purity, you are dangerous threat to real freedom. YOu are the enemy at the gate, and of course, you can’t understand why. I’d just drop all the Von Mises/Rothbard/Hayek nonsense, and just immerse yourself in Christian mysticism, spending your time debating with your fellow monks how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, which would be a lot more productive then your current political activism.

Joseph, on the one hand you accuse proponents of free markets of being obsessed with materialism, and on the other hand you accuse libertarians of being holier than thou:

Uh, Simon. Get a grip on reality. Like the commie mindset that you are, if anything isn’t PURE
free market (socialism), then it is by defination...oh my....EVIL. p.

So which is it, is libertarianism too focused on the material or the spiritual?  Your line of attack is not consistent and only reveals your own blind prejudice.

Third, ALL Of the “deregulation” in the past 20 years has resulted in one disaster after another one.

Like the deregulation of the airlines, which resulted in massive price decrease in air travel in 80’s?  Like the deregulation in the oil industry, which resulted in oil prices coming down in the 80’s? 

How bout talking about all the great socialist regulations of the last two decades that have been such great successes? 

How about the community reinvestment act that encouraged banks to lend in low income areas in order to increase home ownership?  The sub-prime crisis is largely the result of this ideologically motivated piece of legislation.

How about the tax credits given to “synfuel” producers in another government intervention to try to
shape the economy? 

This labyrinth of tax regulations results in clever coal plant operators with friends in Congress saving $9 billion a year thanks to some creative manipulations of the IRS rules:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1167738,00.html

Look at 40 years of “libertarian” ideology. What do we have to show for it? A squeezed middle class, with stagnant wages with increased costs of health care, college education and housing.

What libertarian ideology?  Social Security. Ever-expanding medicare. Federal housing projects. FEMA. Federal control over education. There’s nothing libertarian about the prevailing ideology in the halls of power right now.

China’s “one child policy” will be prevent her from becoming a great power. Soon, the country will be experiencing the same demographic disaster faced by all rich nations, but before it is rich. There will be a huge number of old folks and not enough young people to support them, a situation made worse by sex-selective abortion. Ideas (and policies) have consequences.

^ There is a good Goldman Sachs study that basically debunks this:

http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ideas/brics/book/BRICs-Chapter3.pdf

Democratic capitalism? What does this brainwave means? The capitalism never was and will never be democratic. It is correct to say that the capitalistic system helps its self, uses the democratic principles to hide its real nature; the shifting of the social wealth from the many to the few with a democratic appearance, witch is of course an illusion. The so-called free market is free only in the mind of some people. Does the market fix the interest rates of the money? Or the government does that? Are the stock markets free or manipulated? Are the preferences of the consumers stable or manipulated by the advertising industry? Is the competition free and real? So, what does democratic capitalism means?

Amin, the Goldman-Sachs study assumed that once a country is “developed,” its aging problems just magically go away. The truth is exactly the opposite. Developed countries have a harder time handling aging populations in the face of a shrinking workforce.

Demographic problems trump all others. No economy can expand in the face of a declining workforce. However, there is a real silver lining in this. After the Black Death in England, wages rose through the roof, effectively ending serfdom. The high wages prevailed even after the population recovered, and remained in force until the 16th century. Indeed, wages did not recover their 16th century peak until the 19th century. Effectively, the power relations between the upper and lower classes were reversed, one of the few times in history this has happened.

It may happen again. Or, the powers that be may react with a Fascist resurgence to maintain existing power relationships. We shall see.

No, the future does not belong to China; if only we can secure the existence of our people: the White race, genetically intact.

It is this kind of blunt statement that makes the squeamish squirm, but there is nothing for it.  This is our great and noble task.

People may say, “Well, if Whites don’t care to breed at a replacement level of fertility or choose to take a non-White partner then that is their business.  They are individuals.  The individual is sovereign.  Who are we to stop them.”

Verily I say unto them, no, your life are not your own.  It belongs to your White ancestors and your White children to come. 

Let us put this proposition to the test.  What if the price of disloyalty to blood was banishment.  No more first-world standard of living; no more clean, safe, orderly, progressive society for traitors to our blood.  How many do we honestly think would be willing to pay this heavy price.  My guess is not many.

This IS a just response, why?  Because those who engage in said activities that our destroying our people count on the rest of us to pick up the tab.  They count on being able to continue to live amongst us and reap the plentiful bounty of doing so all the while they stab us in the back.

No!

That is not justice, that is not reciprocity.  What I recommend is.  That is, if we are serious about saving our people.

“First of all, the advances in telecommunications technology are ALL rip-offs of government infrastructure investments. Ditto with internet, drugs, aeronautics, computers...yes, my dear. STATE CAPITALISM. I see nothing wrong with commercializing public investment, by the way. But you “utopians on the right”
of course, my rights must claim that is “pure free market”, when in fact, it is not. Go figure.”
So Ford, Edison, Louis Chevrolet, Nick Tesla, M Curie, Bell, Morse, Firestone, Westinghouse, the Wright Brothers, and the rest took money stolen from taxpayers at gunpoint for ‘government infrastructure investments’?  Guess they don’t count because they created their works before the rise of the Leviathan you so love, JP.  Nice to be able to call State theft ‘investment’ - very Clintonian. The State created the telephone monopoly - perhaps the Internet may have been born sooner without State interference.

Libertarians are not sincere about defending liberty. The champions of liberty have refused to discuss John Lott’s study which proved that government has grown at an exponential rate since women were given the right to vote. None of the libertarians have the courage to attack the liberal pieties of the age. they will moan about the loss of liberty but they will never admit that the expansion of democracy will inevitably result in diminishment of liberty.

Stan, Rothbard wrote at least once that ‘social democracy’ was the greatest threat to Western civilization, not communism.  I adhere to Mencken’s comment that elections are ‘nothing but advance auctions in stolen goods.’ Check the sizeable catalog of articles against voting at http://www.lewrockwell.com by the likes of Hoppe, Woods, Hein, and others.  ST

The belief that China, a nation of over a billion people, can even have a ‘democratic’ political system would have been regarded as absurd by (say) Aristotle and the classical political philosophers. They saw democracy as having a natural size limit not much larger than a single city state.

Modern democratic theorists believe the classicalists’ skepticism was misplaced and that ‘representative democracy’, mass media and mass education can make the size limit obsolete.

Our leaders and leading pundits, both conservative and liberal, seem accept the modern view rather than the older classical skepticism of “mega-democracy”.

Consider the case of the USA, a ‘representative democracy’ has a long history. There majority opinions on issues as diverse as ‘even handedness’ in mid-east policy, immigration restrictions and tariff protection are routinely ignored by the major parties, yet alone government. One has to wonder if ‘representative democracy’ is even a species of democracy.

Presumably the classical critics of democracy are in Olympus having the last laugh, and if so, the campaign to promote democracy in China is the ultimate absurdity.

Simple Simon sezzzz: “So Ford, Edison, Louis Chevrolet, Nick Tesla, M Curie, Bell, Morse, Firestone, Westinghouse, the Wright Brothers, and the rest took money stolen from taxpayers at gunpoint for ‘government infrastructure investments’?”

Uh, all of these scientific advancements took place in nations that practiced economic nationalism, Mr. Know-it-All.
Westinghouse, Bell, Morse’s telegraph, Firestone all owe their market share and growth to the war contracts they got in WWI...Even Edison and Bell had contracts with local governments that sustained them, and made their fortunes.

While their might have been scientific advancement in the late 19th and early 20th Century, the
acceleration of technology in the late 20th Century was due to the rise of the state, and most specifically in WAR.
Again, all of the elements of the so-called “new economy"---which is another libertarian/free mouseketeer btw---all are due to the commercialization of state financed research.

Simon, your arguments are simple-minded, old stuff really, which proves you’ve only limited yourself to the
sacred texts of the “Austrian” school, or 19th Century economics. Which of course, is why you can’t explain the
growth of today’s economy.

Look, if you “libertarians” want to take credit for the modern economy for your “free market” capitalism, you have to also own up to the other part of YOUR ideology, which is the undermining of America’s economic sovereignty, the
ESL, Dot-Con bubble, and the modern bailouts of investment banking houses caused by the real estate bubble. Not to
mention the entire conversion of the American economy from economic independence into a classic MARXIST imperialist
state, with a huge military stationed all around the world to force the American vision of the “free market” down the throats of everyone else in the world.

Shees, another way you free market zeolots resemble classic commies---they like YOU, hate the “mixed economy”. To you and the commies you so despise, it’s ALL or NOTHING, pure socialism or pure capitalism, and that will solve all teh problems.

You are dangerous as the commies, and dangerous to real freedom and virtue as the commies.

“Uh, all of these scientific advancements took place in nations that practiced economic nationalism, Mr. Know-it-All.
Westinghouse, Bell, Morse’s telegraph, Firestone all owe their market share and growth to the war contracts they got in WWI...Even Edison and Bell had contracts with local governments that sustained them, and made their fortunes”

The ideas and invention came from individuals who for the most part funded themselves or had private backers.  That the State has crowded out via theft private investment in research doesn’t change this. Your historical interpretation is wrong.

“While their might have been scientific advancement in the late 19th and early 20th Century, the
acceleration of technology in the late 20th Century was due to the rise of the state, and most specifically in WAR.”

Might have been advancement, JP?  Try a great deal.  Logic fallacy to believe that only war socialism could have led to tech advancement - what might have occurred had individuals been free to keep their money, property, and lives rather than sacrifice them to State ambitions?

“Which of course, is why you can’t explain the
growth of today’s economy.”

JP, the economy is rotten or not - which is it? Where does the Constitution empower the State to enact state capitalism?

“Look, if you “libertarians” want to take credit for the modern economy for your “free market” capitalism, you have to also own up to the other part of YOUR ideology, which is the undermining of America’s economic sovereignty, the
ESL, Dot-Con bubble, and the modern bailouts of investment banking houses caused by the real estate bubble. Not to
mention the entire conversion of the American economy from economic independence into a classic MARXIST imperialist
state, with a huge military stationed all around the world to force the American vision of the “free market” down the throats of everyone else in the world.”

Inversion of reality.  It is state capitalism that leads to the above maladies, not the free market.  I post http://www.mises.org and http://www.lewrockwell.com to support my arguments to the interested - please post links to your ‘roast-beef national socialism’ - brown on the outside, red on the inside. Why are China and India loosening their economic strictures and expanding their economies, while the US heads in opposite directions?

JP, I have come to enjoy your red-baiting, smears, condescension, evasions and insults, since such mature tactics serve to highlight the relative strengths of our positions. Do keep up the good work, and remember to not take yourself too seriously. ST

Does the Future Belong to China? Yes...Free independent thinking West societies...Once upon a time, Freedom and Necessity were identical;
but now what is understood by Freedom is in fact indiscipline.
- DR. OSWALD SPANGLER

Simon sez: Inversion of reality.  It is state capitalism that leads to the above maladies, not the free market...Why are China and India loosening their economic strictures and expanding their economies, while the US heads in opposite directions?”

Uh, Simon, your simple analysis shows more ignorance then intelligence. China and India practice economic nationalism, not free marketeering. As anyone who reads Pat Buchanan or Paul Criag Roberts would know. America was practicing non-interventionism all during the period of our economic and political isolationism. It is in the last 40 years that the rise of classic British style IMPERIALISM has grown as the “libertarian” ideas that you espouse have taken hold.

It is a plain simple fact of life---are you really so stubborn that you need to ignore the FACTS!

The dismantling of federal regulation’s from the New Deal Era that began with Ronald Reagen has reached it’s apogee with this administration. The collapse of the banking,investment and mortgage sectors despite flaccid regulation is proof of the failure of the “Reagan legacy” and Milton Freedman’s bizarre economic theories. The check written on the Republican’s narrative of regulation of financial markets as evil has been returned do to insufficient funds.

Right now---because of the ideas of the likes of Ayn Rand cultist Alan Greenspan, the US economy is in the crap-house. If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mae require government bailouts, the federal debt will double, with extremely troubling results on YOU and yours. Berenke is stuck--if he raises interest rates, the economy will collapse, nor can he lower interest rates---the classic free market solution championed by Milton Friedman---for the same reason..

Now your entire response is to deny the fact that “free market” reforms have resulted in the present difficulties. Your feeble refutation is that these free market “reforms” were not “pure” enough for you. Where have I heard this argument before? Oh yes, from my acquaintences on the Marxist LEFT, who tried to explain away the terror and horror of Stalinist Communism by claiming that the Soviet Union “wasn’t really communism”....

I’d suggest you stop interpreting reality from the perspective of idelogical purity---you sound EXACTLY like the utopian leftists, whose mindset YOU obviously have adopted as your own. BTW, it’s the same problem the neo-cons have as well....

Simplist Simon sez: “The ideas and invention came from individuals who for the most part funded themselves or had private backers.  That the State has crowded out via theft private investment in research doesn’t change this. Your historical interpretation is wrong.”

These heros or your free market that YOU cite grew up during the period of economic NATIONALISM. Which is what we
are arguing about. Of course, that was then and this is now. And the FACT is that the modern technological advancements that constitute the so-called “new” economy of telecommunications, internet, and medical advancements ALL were developed from research funded or subsidized by the nation-state.

What is funny is how you “libertarians” fall apart when you are not arguing with socialists. I’m not a socialist, I support the commercialization of government funded R&D;..it gave us all of the technical advancements that you claim were the result of the “free” market....the difference between you and me is that I’m a REALIST, a conservative---which at it’s heart is the rejection of ideology of any type---and you are an ideological zeolot, whose passion to defend your position sounds more like the midevil debate between the Francisans and the Pope on the poverty of Christ. Or the commies of my acquaintence, who also confront the results of their ideas with argument for MORE of the same!

This is not a libertarian site, btw. This is site that espouses the ideas of Pat Buchanan and paleo-conservativism--economic sovereignty, the breakup of the conglomerates, the institution of tarifs to prevent dumping. If anything YOU don’t belong here, not me. YOu’d be a lot happier going to the CATO and arguing how many angels on the heads of pins with your fellow free market zeolots. Here the facts don’t fit your pronouncements!

Simon sez: “Inversion of reality...Why are China and India loosening their economic strictures and expanding their economies, while the US heads in opposite directions?”

The ultimate INVERSION of REALITY is a “libertarian” defending COMMUNIST China as as success story of your free market ideas. You are a laugh riot. I’m enjoying making fun of you.

JP, no one is defending the Peking gov, least of all me.  Once more you evade the question and red-bait - I supporse you also accuse the Indian gov of being communist since the Indian Comm Party is part of it.

“This is not a libertarian site, btw. This is site that espouses the ideas of Pat Buchanan and paleo-conservativism--economic sovereignty, the breakup of the conglomerates, the institution of tarifs to prevent dumping. If anything YOU don’t belong here, not me. YOu’d be a lot happier going to the CATO and arguing how many angels on the heads of pins with your fellow free market zeolots. Here the facts don’t fit your pronouncements!”

Once again you presume to speak for what this site represents and to read out of it someone who has fundamental disagreements with your national socialist economics.  You evade answering such simple questions as where does the Constitution authorize the assumption of the political/economic powers that your ‘state capitalism’ demands. You cannot confront the ‘economic crowding’ issue regarding r&d;, so you repeat your same tired and failed nostrums, the same that have wreaked the US economy.  You fear the exposure of your fraudulent ideas but accuse me of Communist tactics and tendencies.  Last time I checked ‘conservatism’ did not mean economic fascism coupled with bloody-minded rejection of open debate and historical reality.  ST

JP, your insistence that Greenspan is a ‘libertarian’ because he once embraced Randian ideas has as much validity as accusing PJB of being a free marketeer because he once believed in free trade.  Once he was seduced by State power, Greenspan became the opposite of libertarian.  An acquaintance with the writings of such as Rothbard, Mises, Rockwell, and other libertarians reveals their decades-long struggle against statism and the horrrors such as the FED, Fannie Mae, and the entire bankster/corporatist/bureaucratic State behemouth.  That you deny and distort the clear record found at sites such as http://www.lewrockwell.com and openly support the expansion of the very State that has given the world the US imperial monstrosity, is your problem, not mine. Remember, when you have no argument, red-bait.  ST

“....the difference between you and me is that I’m a REALIST, a conservative---which at it’s heart is the rejection of ideology of any type”

How superior and honest of you to admit that you lack ideas.  But wait, isn’t ‘state capitalim’ an ideology?  One of the many differences between us, JP, is that I try to proof-read my writings before submission and try not to engage in self-contradiction.  ST

Greenspan may once have been a sympathizer with certain aspects of libertarian philosophy when he was a nebbish flitting about Ayn Rand but then he got a taste of Big Government and launched into his career of Oracular Somnambulator.......lining his pockets with the fiat money they print like fortune cookie parables down in the Basement of that Fortress of Idiocy known as the FED.

The problem with these “mixed economies” of the populists is that they do not mix....they inexorably consolidate power in the government and if there is one who should never be trusted with money, it is government. The Pinnacle of The Mixed Economy is the current Junta of Corporations and American Government , a partnership that has distinguished itself by a near perfect record of suicidal stupidity, a criminal lack of thrift and a remarkable ability to tell the most spectacular lies in the history of mankind, short of Stalin at his most businesslike.

Dirk sed: “The Pinnacle of The Mixed Economy is the current Junta of Corporations and American Government....”

Actually, the “libertarian” reform that created the monster conglomerates like GE or Tyco is the “deregulation” and
relaxation of the anti-monopoly laws.

To take this a step further, the current problems with the banking industry are due to repealing the depression era
protections in the Glass-Steagall Act, which separated the commercial from the investment banking industry. It was this “deregulation” that precipitated the conversion of mortgages insured by the government into speculative investment. Shees the very thing that distinguishs America from third world or eastern European countries was the widespread home and land ownership. YOu don’t see this in Mexico or Russia for instance. And now, thanks to the “libertarians”, espousing laissez faire, that the whole system is strained to the point where it is being bailed out by the state.
Again, we have the libertarians denying that their own philosophy created the problem they complain about.

Like Simple Simon, Kirk, you need to take ownership of that which YOUR ideas have created!

“It was this “deregulation” that precipitated the conversion of mortgages insured by the government into speculative investment”
“Like Simple Simon, Kirk, you need to take ownership of that which YOUR ideas have created”

What is ‘libertarian’ about ‘mortgages insured by the government’(moral hazard, anyone?  ST

Simple Simon sez: “How superior and honest of you to admit that you lack ideas.  But wait, isn’t ‘state capitalim’ an ideology?”

Oh great retort from the “libertarian” that uses COMMUNIST China and India with it’s culture of inherited, class to as the example of the triumph of laissez faire capitalism. <snicker>

Simon, ideologies are not ideas, dogma is not an idea. It would be like the hypocrites in the REpublican Party or Fox News to claim they are the only one with “ideas”. State Capitalism is the practical application of economic principles, the compromise between socialism and laissez faire, with all of the advantages of each, and none of the disadvantages of either. The mixed economy is the compromise between virtue and freedom.

Remember, conservativism is the rejection of ideology. I’d take a closer look at Pat Buchanan’s platform, espoused by Ravi Bactra in his book, “The Myth of Free Trade”. Free trade always leads to the concentration of wealth, and the pooring of the population, and as a result no one has any money, and those with money, have no reason to invest it, as nobody has any money to buy anything. The solution is the break up of the banking and industrial conglomerates, regulation of speculative investments, the imposition of value added tariffs on imported goods made with slave labor, and the repeal of all “free trade” agreements. 

Of course, the great “libertarian”, Milton Friedman, won the Noble Prize for the simple-ton solution of creating credit out of thin air instead of the fiscal solutions of the Keynesians. Of course, common sense tells us that when you create credit out of thin air, that it lowers the value of money in the system, but “libertarians” were never ones to recognize common sense. 

Simon, the only argument you have for the failure of your “ideas” <snicker> is a more pure form of absolute laissez faire. Which will never happen in your lifetime, or your children’s lifetime. Admit that your ideas are utopian fantasy, and maybe, just maybe, you might be taken seriously.

Simple Simon sez: “What is ‘libertarian’ about ‘mortgages insured by the government’(moral hazard, anyone?”

I must say that only an idiot would want to repeal the FDIC or Fannie Mae. The problem was NOT government insured savings and checking deposits, and government insured mortagages. It was the deregulation that YOU championed in the repeal of Glass Steagall and other so-called “reforms” that is causing the present financial system danger.

I guess you’ll have to agree with Neo-Cons like Phil Gramm that the current threat to the financial system is just imaginary.

“Oh great retort from the “libertarian” that uses COMMUNIST China and India with it’s culture of inherited, class to as the example of the triumph of laissez faire capitalism. <snicker>”
The point that eludes you is that both of these economies are improving as they loosen their economic strangleholds, not that their political institutions are to be emulated.  What is there about this concept that you cannot understand?

“State Capitalism is the practical application of economic principles, the compromise between socialism and laissez faire, with all of the advantages of each, and none of the disadvantages of either. The mixed economy is the compromise between virtue and freedom”
We have ‘state capitalism’ now, enforced by DC and its lesser thugs, so your desire is reality, yet you blame libertarianism for the failures of your ideology.  I again ask where in the Constitution does it empower the State to enact ‘state capitalism’? So sorry, but ‘ideology’ is by definition composed of ideas, whether you like it or not. ST

“The mixed economy is the compromise between virtue and freedom”
Magical thinking.  The State is a third party predator that takes from the productive with the threat of violence, ever expands its cut of the action, and gives results opposite of its stated goals.  Try the various wars - on poverty, terrorism, racism, some drugs, inflation, unemployment, ad nauseum. What quality does the State have that gives it the moral right and practical power to make economic decisions for hundreds of millions of people when the State has never been able to put its own house in order?  Virtue and the State are like garlic and vampires.  ST

“I must say that only an idiot would want to repeal the FDIC or Fannie Mae. The problem was NOT government insured savings and checking deposits, and government insured mortagages”

Only an idiot would keep doing the same thing but expect different results.  FDIC and FM are both State created entities designed to place moral hazard on the taxpayer while bribing the banksters and plutocrats to support the State.  Poor man’s debt, rich man’s profit.  Both institutions are destroying themselves.

“I guess you’ll have to agree with Neo-Cons like Phil Gramm that the current threat to the financial system is just imaginary”

You guess wrong.  Economic problems are fundamental ones brought on by State actions.  Nice try at guilt-by-association. ST

A comment on the above:
“ideology” was a term coined by Karl Marx.  What it meant was the false/nihilistic system of stated truths (propaganda) that “capitalist pigs” used to maintain their hegemony.  It lost all its charm when Lenin himself started talking about a “Communist Ideology.” (what, didn’t he get it?) Ever since, the word “ideology” can be reliably translated to “my prejudices.” It doesn’t sound so romantic or appealing when put that way, does it?

Agreed, RA, but then Marx also coined the term “capitalism”. Brevity should not substitute for precision, but needs must when the devil drives (at least at times).  ST

Simplistic Simon sez: “The State is a third party predator that takes from the productive with the threat of violence, ever expands its cut of the action, and gives results opposite of its stated goals.”

Oh bluster and blow...pure Ayn Rand idiocy. We have heard it all before. But all we have as result of her ideas are Alan Greenspan and his policies.

Can’t you come up with a single unique idea that you’ve haven’t read somewhere else. Posting a link to Von Mises or Rockwell is of course, exactly what a communist would do..post page 394-500 on Das Capital as “proof” of your
simple lack of ability to think for yourself.

Some facts would be nice as well. All you have to prove that a “pure” capitalist system exists is FAITH, of the
worst sort. Those of us who are in the REAL world have only the problems that globalization, the military occupation of the mideast, deregulation of the financial system, and the rest of the “libertarian” agenda.

Simplistic Simon Sez: “I again ask where in the Constitution does it empower the State to enact ‘state capitalism’?”

Oh now we have the defender of Commie China and Culturally CAste India quoting the constitution to justify the failure of his “free” market ideas. How unique. NOT!

Doesn’t the constitution allow tariffs and regulation of foreign trade. Economic nationalism and state capitalism is the policy that the US followed for most of the 19th CEntury.

All the benefits of your “free market” are actually the benefits that came about as a result of specific government policies to encourage economic independence from England and Europe. Economic nationalism that is. And entirely, constitutional.

“Oh now we have the defender of Commie China and Culturally CAste India quoting the constitution to justify the failure of his “free” market ideas. How unique. NOT!”

When you cannot answer a question, lie and smear. How original. Now you equate tariffs with your brand of economic fascism and still cannot justify under the Constitution the centgov’s assumption of financial and regulatory power.  A constitutional gov would be vastly preferable to the one that occupies DC now, what with limited gov, strict private property recognition, and a neutral foreign policy (a return to pre-1913 gov meddling would be a relief). Please continue your measured, civil, and insightful comments, JP - they highlight the validity of your ‘unique’ positions.  ST

“Economic nationalism and state capitalism is the policy that the US followed for most of the 19th CEntury.”

State theft, financial and regulatory burdens were far less onerous in the period noted above.  Colonists threw off England’s yoke in part due to a tax rate less than 5%.  Because the centgov does something and gets away with it does not make it constitutional ( Roosevelt’s gold confiscation and the centgov’s long violation of rights recognized by the Second Amendment are examples of centgov criminality).

You type Glass-Steagal repeal as if it were a talisman.  So what if the criminal mastermind has his minions divide the swag differently - it is still theft.  ST

“Oh bluster and blow...pure Ayn Rand idiocy. We have heard it all before. But all we have as result of her ideas are Alan Greenspan and his policies.”

Please explain the royal ‘we’, JP.  Unless you have a mouse in your pocket, who are these others for whom you claim to speak?

“Can’t you come up with a single unique idea that you’ve haven’t read somewhere else. Posting a link to Von Mises or Rockwell is of course, exactly what a communist would do..post page 394-500 on Das Capital as “proof” of your
simple lack of ability to think for yourself”

Since your comments consist of nothing but false assertion, smear, invective, and other claptrap, I invite the readship to go to the sites that I use, and make up their own minds as to whose ideas possess validity.  If my statements are incorrect, you should applaud me directing people to the sites that would prove my mistakes.  Besides, the writers at http://www.mises.org and http://www.lewrockwell.com are far better at the craft than am I.

For an anonymous keyboard punk hiding in cyberspace who uses faulty Marxist analysis to explain the UScentgov’s imperial collaboration with its corporatist co-criminals here and abroad, you certainly do employ the ‘commie’ red-bait smear to stifle expression.  Perhaps you should try ‘anti-semite’ or ‘racist’ - you seem to have descended to that level.  ST

“your simple lack of ability to think for yourself”

This from someone who lacks the emotional and intellectual maturity to make his own economic decisions and wants to strip millions of other people of their God-given right to economic freedom.  ST

JP, several times you have written that I should not post here because my philosophy is unsuited to this site.  Tell me, oh king-of-the-double-standard, what were you doing over at http://www.toryanarchist.com back in ‘06 and ‘07, collecting for the Girl Scouts?  Were you not treated politely and even complimented for your insights? Are you still posting there? You have failed to notice that not only do several of the paid writers here have libertarian leanings, but that libertarianism goes back in America to at least the time of the Pilgrims, especially after they discarded their original socialist model.  Taki was frequently posted at LRC, as have several other contributors from this site.

You derisorily accused me of being a “Christian mystic,” who should practice “Christian mysticism”.  So you add anti-Christian bigotry to your panoply of accomplishments, and at a pro-Christian site.  Tell me, who is the one who should seek greener pastures?  ST