Another great essay! All that needs to be said.

“by cutting Russia out of the oil of the Caspian”

Question for Buchanan:  Do sovereign nations have a right to trade with whom they please?
The “oil of the Caspian” to which Buchanan refers evideently is not oil found on Russian
soil.  It is oil coming from the other former Soviet republics.  If those republics choose
to pipe that oil by some other route than through Russia, then according to international
law they have that right.  And it is in the interest of European nations not to be
beholden to Russia.  It would be a tragic end of the Cold War if Western European nations
would be more beholden to Moscow afterward on account of fuel pipelines than beforehand. 
So, is the official paleoconservative position now that Russia has a right to Kazakh,
Uzbek, Azerbaijani, etc., oil?

Saakashvili may have been an idiot for falling for Putin’s trap, but it was Putin who created this. Putin planned this since April. http://www.thenational.ae/article/20080816/FOREIGN/689163001/-1/ART
Russian war-making, not peacekeeping, forces in Russian-occupied Ossetia and Abkhazia grew since the spring. Russia began a series of “anti-terrorist wargames” in July, placing an invasion force near Georgia’s border. And given the Kremlin’s history of lies, propvocations, and firing on Georgia in the past, I believ the Goergia Foreign ministry, when they doccument Russian and “South Ossetian” attacks on Georgians in Russian-occupied Ossetia and Goergia proper.
http://georgiamfa.blogspot.com/2008/08/timeline-by-12th-of-august-0700.html

“As of 1991, the oil of Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan belonged to Moscow. Can we not understand why Putin would smolder as avaricious Yankees built pipelines to siphon the oil and gas of the Caspian Basin through breakaway Georgia to the West? “
So? In 1943, the oilfields of Romania and Galicia were basically owned by Hitler. Would that make it alright for there to be an irredentist and revanchist Germany reconquering these?

But, we are hardly blameless. We never helped clean Russia of communism as we helped denazify Germany. Such a program, tied to economic aid, and a series of Nuremberg-like trials would have prevented KGB agents like Putin from starting a new cold war.

RonL.With all due respect: It seems that the same idiot Israeli generals that planned the invasion of Lebanon planned Georgia,s insane invasion of South Ossetia.

Original Jack,
Actually no. Sadly, Israel failed to stand with Georgia. Israel refused to upgrade Goergian Mig-21’s and to sell Georgia Spyder antiaircraft missile systems.
But your kind always likes to ferret out the Jews/Israel to attack the real or supposed allies.

As for the invasion, it was a counterattack. However, like Israel, Georgia faced the communist press machine, and the ignorant useful idiots of the media.
The also suffered so called isolationists, who act like enemy propagandists, in always supporting America’s allies, even if it means getting in bed with the KGB, Trotskyites, etc.

If my position makes me temprorarily aligned with neoconservatives on this issues (and actually, I think that Saakashvilli was a criminally stupid warmonger for falling for Putins obvious trap), at least I’m on the side of the United States.

I have not been coopted by the foreign attachment of ideology to oppose the US and love those attacking our allies.

RonL. give me Putin and Russia as an ally any day over Israel. From what I read in the Israeli press Israel is up to it’s eyeballs in stiring up trouble in the Caucus region.

I think that as Samuel Huntington argues in Clash of Civilizations, the Baltic Republics are culturally part of Western civilisation and are a legitimate Western interest.  They don’t have oil, they don’t have territorial ambitions against Russia, and they’re not aggressive.  Russia can afford to let them be part of the West.

Ukraine and Georgia are obviously different.  Neither can or should be a full part of the West.

“Jimmy Carter’s response to Brezhnev’s invasion of Afghanistan was to boycott the Moscow Olympics.”

Brzezinski brags that he baited the Bear into the overt invasion of Afghanistan by adroit use of US assets in the region, all done to lure the Sov Union into its own “Viet Nam.”

Tobias, exellent post.

RonL, is it sensible US foreign policy to ally with countries on the Russian doorstep with the potential to ddraw US mil into confrontation with Russia?  Why not leave the people in the area to sort themselves out?

Question:What countries or country will we not offer our protection under the NATO umbrella? C’mon, Georgia?! Let us consider the well-being of Atlanta rather than Tblisi. I’m sure our own state of Georgia has it’s considerable share of problems we can concentrate on before we go running off to faraway places.

If one lives long enough, one sees everything--including folk who call themselves
“conservatives” fawning over the KGB.

Liberals used to be
anti-anticommunist. Now Conservatives are anti-anti-Russian aggression.

Putin is a a KGB officer, guilt of torture and murder.  Have you already forgotten the Gulag?
The Georgian may not be great, but compared to Putin, he’s Saint Francis of Assisi.

Tobias sed: “If those republics choose to pipe that oil by some other route than through Russia, then according to international law they have that right.”

Oh what a ridiculous statement. It’s as if you are parroting the “new world order” line verbatium.

Look, “Georgia” is not a ‘sovereign’ nation, it’s a group of independent peoples, many of which have stronger ies to Russia then they do to the West. This is pure IMPERIALISM in the Marxist understanding of the term, to support an artificial entity with military power, just to perserve the profits of the oil cartel. Which of coure, we epend on to prop up the US dollar, and keep the US economy going, based on the US dollar as reserve currency of the “new World Order”.

Does the US have the “right” to threat war on Russia to perserve the idiotic “libertarian” ideas of a “New World Order” based on Wall Street economics? The economics of Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan are proven to be what the commies said all along, the economics of IMPERIALISM.

The problem with IMPERIALISM is that it falls apart of it’s own contradictions. As Adam Smith showed us long ago, the “free market” is really a farce, a rationale for mercantilism, that bankrupts England and starved her peole for the profits of the mercantilists. Imperialism is impossible because the costs of the military to preserve imperial eeconomics is alwsys more then the tax revenue it generates, and consequently, the working class starves and is squeezzed to pay for the profits of the mercantilists.

Europe & the USA had better be advised to get along with Russia, who has the oil, since they do not. The
“independent” republics that have the oil, are not independent or democratic. They exist as dependents of the Imperial “new world order”. Nor are they democracies, ruled by pimps and tyrants.

Tobias’ tubthumping for war is disqusting...if he wants war, then send his son to fight it. But I doubt he will, which is why he parrots this nonsense. Neo cons like Bush and Cheney are whores and hypocrites, and anyone who defneds their ideas is the same.

Mark sed: “Putin is condemned in the media for one reason and one reason only he is an enemy of the Zionist gangsters.”

It is true that the neo-cons (whose ideas are based on the Zionist imperative) want war with Russia.

But Putin and Russia are being defined as “enemies” of “democracy"---or the New World Order---because they refuse to open their economy to the looters and finance capitalists who would loot it. Russia, like Brazil and other
economies found that the “free market” was really all about subordinating the interests of their own people to the interests of Wall Street and a cliche of international finance capitalists---the majority it turns out are Jews!

“Zionism” in this sense is really not about Jews, it’s merely a false front for the “New World Order” whch defines “democracy” as putting the profits of speculators over the interests of everyone else. In the name of “freedom”...Zionism has been sold to the Jewish people, who are as much dupes and fools, as anyone else who buys into this <snicker> “libertarian” idea of a “free market”..."free" for the speculators and finance capitalists, and everyone else pays the cost of the military interventionism.

Liberals used to be
anti-anticommunist. Now Conservatives are anti-anti-Russian aggression.

Russia is no longer communist.

Putin is a a KGB officer, guilt of torture and murder.  Have you already forgotten the Gulag?

He joined the KGB in 76, long after gulags and the worst of the suppression had ended.

The Georgian may not be great, but compared to Putin, he’s Saint Francis of Assisi.

Why?

3 good points Amin, sloppy thinking has always been a necessary prerequisite for warmongering

Libertarianism is free markets, non-aggression, and private property.  To the extent that Friedman and Greespan (once) supported these ideas were they both ‘libertarian’.  US centgov is king of crony capitalism, or aggressive state capitalism.  For matters to be otherwise then taxes would have to be voluntary, just for starters.

Great article.

All that is missing is the point that NATO needs to be disbanded as it serves no purpose other than the world neo-con congress wants to turn it into an Israeli foreign legion.

Also, note that America does not assert its influence in it own sphere. We’ve let nearly all of Central and South America turn communist. If Putin were half as evil as the neo-con liars paint him to be he’d be all over this, setting up “missile defense shields” in Nicaragua and Venezuela aimed at the US.

As Paul Craig Roberts points out, these poor former soviet nations escaped the Soviet Empire only to be grabbed by the crumbling American empire. And America’s only interest in these countries is to take their children and send them to Iraq to die and to use them to bait Russia.

How have we let our own country become so evil?

Joe Populist wrote:  “Tobias’ tubthumping for war is disqusting”

I *NEVER* said that I supported war in order to defend Georgia.  Show me where I did.  Never.
Do not slander me by ascribing to me positions I do not hold.

Humor: S.T. taxes are ‘voluntary’ since they’re illegal otherwise. However since the conspiracy
of the government is at the behest of the banks which own the govt. they both use the social security number to
confiscate right out of your bank account what you didn’t ‘volunteer’ to pay. If you’ve ever
read the IRS guidelines or rule book they have to tell you (it’s the law) these taxes are
‘voluntary.’ It’s difficult not to write satire. As for Joe Populist he is correct there is
no such animal as ‘free’ trade among nations. However there once was a thriving free market
in the u.s. prior to state-capitalism and prior to capitalistic monopolies. Like governments, monopolies are automatic conspiracies since the advantage is to the observer. The decent, once
free-trading american within his own country was/is destroyed and sucked-dry (as if by
vampires who are ‘invisible’. SPOOKY, possums.) But once that sphere of the normal hardworking
american is dry (the goose that lays the golden egg for government and wall street to exploit), as joe populist points out the fraud of the current debt-system has to implode unless ‘the new world order’
gets its next infusion of capital because china & india continue to boom (which they won’t
since walmart buys most of china’s goods and china’s so-called economic ‘miracle’ is also
its own house of cards). Or unless the ‘new world order’ successfully steals their next hundred years worth of natural resources which is what they are trying to do to russia. Anyone who doesn’t understand these basics may be mentally challenged like say tobias and sometimes yourself S.T? Or maybe in those cases ya’ll are only sentimental? Usually in those cases ya’ll on the same page err sentimentally or say culturally or is it
genetically? It’s you guys’s system you’all should know it pretty well. No? The ‘answer’ is in
how it now in Reality gets changed/adjusted. The answer is NOT more wars, for ya’all.

Mark wrote:  “Russia is a White Christian nation they are our brothers. “

Last I checked, Georgia was a white, Christian nation.  Last I checked, they had five crosses on their
flag, whereas the Russian flag has none.  The Russians, Georgians, and Ossetians are all, for the most
part, Christian.  So the “let’s defend our white Christian brothers against so-and-so” line doesn’t
work.

Click to flag this comment as abusive
Humor: S.T. taxes are ‘voluntary’ since they’re illegal otherwise. However since the conspiracy
of the government is at the behest of the banks which own the govt. they both use the social security number to
confiscate right out of your bank account what you didn’t ‘volunteer’ to pay. If you’ve ever
read the IRS guidelines or rule book they have to tell you (it’s the law) these taxes are
‘voluntary.’ It’s difficult not to write satire. As for Joe Populist he is correct there is
no such animal as ‘free’ trade among nations. However there once was a thriving free market
in the u.s. prior to state-capitalism and prior to capitalistic monopolies. Like governments, monopolies are automatic conspiracies since the advantage is to the observer. The decent, once
free-trading american within his own country was/is destroyed and sucked-dry (as if by
vampires who are ‘invisible’. SPOOKY, possums.) But once that sphere of the normal hardworking
american is dry (the goose that lays the golden egg for government and wall street to exploit), as joe populist points out [the fraud of] the current debt-system has to implode unless ‘the new world order’
gets its next infusion of capital because china & india continue to boom (which they won’t
since walmart buys most of china’s goods and china’s so-called economic ‘miracle’ is also
its own house of cards). Or unless the ‘new world order’ successfully steals their next hundred years worth of natural resources which is what they are trying to do to russia. Anyone who doesn’t understand these basics may be mentally challenged like say tobias and sometimes yourself S.T? Or maybe in those cases ya’ll are only sentimental? Usually in those cases ya’ll on the same page err sentimentally or say culturally or is it
genetically? It’s you guys’s system you’all should know it pretty well. No? The ‘answer’ is in
how it now in Reality gets changed/adjusted. The answer is NOT more wars, for ya’all. But Tobias
is yet picking the fly poo-poo out of the pepper. Excellent dodge. Is it another one of the
arbitrary laws sent from above?! Just asking?!

Mr. Buchanan nails it again!

At the National Interest site; Doug Brandow has written an interesting assessment of Europe’s current impotence in this crisis.

http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=19594

Perhaps (I hope and pray)in 2009 the EU and the USA will reassess the need for European rearmanent and the need to step up to the challenge of their own defense.

The US, and especially the EU have more in common with Russia than we do with the oil-rich theocracies of the Middle East. 

In fact the US, EU, Russia AND China have more in common from the standpoint of nationhood, art, music and culture than any of us have with the “perfidious princes” and “martial mullahs” of the Middle East.

There isn’t any logical reason why the US, Europe, Russia and China shouldn’t combine our assets to protect ours from our common threat; that is, Muslim extremists.

Simon says, “Libertarianism is free markets, non-aggression, and private property… US centgov is king of crony capitalism, or aggressive state capitalism.”

Thank you, sir; the first accurate and intelligent contrast of “libertarianism” (Austrian school) thought from the prevailing managed trade/manipulated monetary system.  Critics of the free market have no idea what they’re criticizing.

Simon sez: “Libertarianism is free markets, non-aggression, and private property.  To the extent that Friedman and Greespan (once) supported these ideas were they both ‘libertarian’.  US centgov is king of crony capitalism, or aggressive state capitalism.”

Oh so “libertarianism” is about free markets, non-aggression, and private property. And I suppose COMMUNISM was all about brotherly love and administering to the least of these. 

Crony capitalism IS libertarianism, libertarianism of YOUR variety is a heresy, not mainstream at all. Which is why everyone in the Repubican Party laughs at Ron Paul and his rants about returning to the gold standard.

Look, there is no such thing as a free market, it is a utopian fantasy, it doesn’t exist. The “mixed economy” is the balance between freedom and virtue, and laissez faire is and always has been a rationale for oligarchy and plutocrats. Real laissez faire is no more about “freedom” then communism was about equality.

The reality of our “war for democracy” is about forcing the system of international finance capitalism--and all of the horror and dislocation and inequality that it stands for, on Russia and the Muslim lands--at the point of a gun. All of British Imperialism was defended as “free markets” and “democracy”. As long as Britain controlled the “free markets” and British capitalists and mercantilists prospered as a result. And while working folk paid the bill with their economic security and their lives of their young men.

I think the former Eastern bloc nations and especially the former Soviet republics should be treated like Finland.

During the Cold War, Finland was a free democracy that was neither a member of NATO or the Warsaw Pact.  She had cordial relations with both sides and was not perceived as a threat.

Post Cold War, Finland is still a free democracy and is still not a member of NATO.  She is not threatened by Russia because as a neutral nation she poses no threat to them.

I used Finland as an example because they border Russia.  But Austria and Switzerland are also examples of free democracies that are not in NATO and are not threatened.  All three seem to be doing pretty well outside of NATO.

Rubley’s dog sed: “The contrast of “libertarianism” (Austrian school) thought from the prevailing managed trade/manipulated monetary system.”

Well actually modern “libertarianism” is based on Milton Friedman’s monetarism. Monetarism--the idea that you can combat the business cycle by inventing credit out of thin air via the Fed. Monetarism was the “liberarian” response to Keynes’ recommendation that the business cycle should be avoided by judicious use of fiscal policy.

19th Century economics didn’t work, the gold standard created deflations, recessions, and Von Mises’ solution was “private” money, banks issuing private notes (Von Mises solution to the problem of money supply not keeping up with growth of the economy) which was a disaster all through the 19th Century, as they were not regulated. 

As we have seen via the S&L;disaster, the Dot-con bubble, and now the real estate/direvitives crisis, when finance capitalism is not CONTROLLED, it is always destructive. Capitalists seek short term profit, and not long term growth. Which is why you must TAX capital gains and large incomes. If rich people have huge disposable incomes, they gamble with it, they don’t invest it.

If you impose confiscatory taxation on the weaLTHY, their long term interests are long term growth. The other fallacy of the 19th Century economics is that wealth creates investment, which is another problem if the population has no money. There is no reason to invest in anything if nobody has any money to spend. Thus the problems wie see in Latin America...and the late 19th and early 20th Century.

Nor was anyone willing to listen to Rothbard’s theory that the reason the Great Depression was prolonged was because the government tried to help people and prop up wages and employment. Rothbard’s brilliant insight was to let unemployment fall to it’s “natural” level, let firms fail until the bust was exhausted, and then sweetness and prosperity would emerge from the ruins. I’m wondering what level of unemployment that Rothbard meant, if beginning state intervention at the 25% unemployment level was a mistake. Would 30% be the magic number? 50% the “naatural “ bottom at which the “free market” would bounce back.

It’s just a lot of nonsense, this “19th Century” economics that you call “true libertarianism"…

i’ve given up on America - longggg ago.... it’s government - on just ‘bout EVERY level - counters the will of the people - immigration, war-mongering, corporate whores, pandering to the lowest common denominator - America is dead - died in 1965....

i’m proud of Mr. Putin - send the rats scurrying, Vlad - God Bless You!

Derrick Smith sed: “I used Finland as an example because they border Russia.  But Austria and Switzerland are also examples of free democracies that are not in NATO and are not threatened.  All three seem to be doing pretty well outside of NATO.”

Good point, Mr. Smith. NATO is about extending and serving the interests of finance capitalism, Russia is the enemy of “freedom” and “democracy” because it refuses to allow it’s economy to be part of the “New World Order” of global finance capitalism. Georgia is important because of the oil pipeline, that seeks to circumvent Russia and
punish her for refusing to prostitute herself to the greed of international finance capitalism.

The oil “democracies” that used to be part of the Soviet Union are all tyrannical oligarchies, run by greddy plutocrats, just like the US allies in the Mideast like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt.

The fact that the “libertarians” continue to deny the reality of “free trade” is ridiculous. The more “free trade” we have, the more interventionism. In the USA, the more interdependence we have on globalization, the more incomes fall for the middle and working classes. I hate Marxism, but undeniably, “libertarianism” has only proven that Marx was right....Marxism and Libertarianism are the mirror image of each other.

if any neocon sheeple dispute my above declaration.... who did mcshamnesty clain to seek out for advise - JOHN LEWIS!.... you have to be kidding me - JOHN LEWIS?!?!?!?.... and NOT A WORD from the “conservative” house organs! - DISGUSTING!.... White America - you have NO REPRESENTATION!.... YOU HAVE BEEN SOLD OUT!

“Oh so “libertarianism” is about free markets, non-aggression, and private property. And I suppose COMMUNISM was all about brotherly love and administering to the least of these.”

Communism uses the state’s fist to achieve its ends - it does not use free exchange and co-operation.

“Crony capitalism IS libertarianism, libertarianism of YOUR variety is a heresy, not mainstream at all. Which is why everyone in the Repubican Party laughs at Ron Paul and his rants about returning to the gold standard

Libertarianism is a minimal state - it is not crony capitalism.  As for being ‘mainstream’ or not, or what the Greedy Omnivorious Plunderers think of Ron Paul being determinative of libertarianism, is immaterial.  Similar to asking a cockroach to write odes to the wonders of boric acid dustings.

“Look, there is no such thing as a free market, it is a utopian fantasy, it doesn’t exist. The “mixed economy” is the balance between freedom and virtue, and laissez faire is and always has been a rationale for oligarchy and plutocrats. Real laissez faire is no more about “freedom” then communism was about equality”

The point is to bring free markets into existence and limit the state’s encroachment upon them and thus upon individual rights.  It is oligarchs who hate the free market because it forces them to compete without Big Brother in the background acting as a protection/extortion racket everywhere.

Your last paragraph is spot on.  Do not feed the imperial beast and it will die. 

RD, thank you for your kind words.  The critics of libertarianism all claim to understand libertarianism better than the likes of Rothbard, von Mises, and Hoppe.

“The fact that the “libertarians” continue to deny the reality of “free trade” is ridiculous. The more “free trade” we have, the more interventionism. In the USA, the more interdependence we have on globalization, the more incomes fall for the middle and working classes. I hate Marxism, but undeniably, “libertarianism” has only proven that Marx was right....Marxism and Libertarianism are the mirror image of each other.”

The weight of State oppression is what is driving the economy down, not free trade.  The State does not support free trade, it supports ‘managed’ trade to benefit its fellow parasites. A constitutional State would have minimal impact upon the economy and would not be able to support an Empire, nor would state cronies be able to use the State to force themselves upon unwilling cits, here and abroad.

Joe Populist help me out here, I’m trying to understand you. There will always be an ‘outcry’
for govt. intervention in a domestic market that is unregulated because monopolies crop-up?
There’s no such thing as free trade among nations, but domestically say at the level of the
state, city, town laws could be passed as to how large a company can or can’t be and also can
cap personal wealth. Because as soon as there is the ‘outcry’ domestically and politicians
want to get elected, they will promise to regulate. And as soon as they do so that is when they
are bought-and-paid-for by the very monopolies they are supposed to regulate and the
monopoly only increases in size by covertly/overtly owning the govt. as well. A constitution
ought to address these issues as to how much wealth a person or a company can possess or is
that also not doable? Just even hypothetically what’s your solution, if any? When John D.
Rockefeller conspired with the railroads to give his company and no other much lower
transportation rates he effectively and illegally eliminated most of his competition and became
the giant monopoly/bank/government etc. that entity is today. If it is stipulated that no
company or individual or government entity can possess more than xyz so as to temper or
eliminate excessive greed in the domestic market place what’s wrong with free trade then? If
I have two coats and you have two shirts we trade freely and each have one coat and one shirt.
Alright once money comes into the picture of course and no one can merely print it since it
is backed by gold and other precious metals like silver which the constitution itself
stipulates presently what then would be impossible about free trade locally? It would and doees
go on anyway whether you ‘believe’ it exists or not. No? I don’t fault your critiques of other
systems and largely agree - but do you really believe there is no such thing and free trade
locally? But that is not in the realm of belief that is fact. Taxes on businesses and on
individuals is another matter and everyone instinctively attempts to avoid them. Even though
they may impinge upon they do not abrogate free trade. ? I’m no expert - what am I not seeing,
I’m interested to learn. Thanks.

“If the Russia-Georgia war proves nothing else, it is the insanity of giving erratic hotheads in volatile nations the power to drag the United States into war.”

Is Washington a nation now?

I like much of what Buchanan has to say, and I’m in general agreement about the Georgian situation, but his first two sentences here are just CLASSIC Pat Buchanan rhetorical overreach.  If Georgia were in NATO, Russia simply would not have invaded the place over South Ossetia.  If he thinks they would have, then his opinion of the Russians’ good political sense is much lower than he pretends it to be.

(Just to be clear, because I know in these parts I just have to be, but my above statement is not an endorsement of the idea that we ought to have brought Georgia into NATO.)

“This is nothing, just wait for Kosovo,” they told Bill Clinton when he visited Bosnia. Well, South Ossetia is nothing. Just wait for Nagorno-Karabakh.

As Azerbaijan seeks closer integration with the secularised, consumerised, de-historicised, borderless, culturally debased, morally bankrupt excuse for the West favoured by the people now running this and several other countries, it will remain engaged in the Islamist persecution of a section of the Armenians, the first people, as such, ever to convert to Christianity.

In Nagorno-Karabakh, the Armenians will, sooner rather than later, declare independence with full Russian backing, specifically in order to escape, as part of Christendom, from yet another in the long list of Islamist regimes or movements either backed (1980s Afghanistan, 1990s Bosnia, and today’s Turkey, Kosovo, Pakistan, Kashmir and Chechnya) or called into being (Iraq, and putatively Syria) by the pseudo-West.

What will happen then? Which side will the Bushes, McCains, Camerons and indeed Saakashvilis of the world be on? And why?

This is nothing. Just wait for Nagorno-Karabakh.

, http://davidaslindsay.blogspot.com

Mr Buchanan is definitely not an “American imperialist”, he is an admirer of “Mother Russia” i.e. Russian Empire which he believes or pretends to believe not to be the USSR and its leader, an officer of KGB with his KGB-backed apparatus of power “not to be Stalin”.

Well, in April, 2005 this “not-Stalin” described the collapse of the Soviet Union as “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4480745.stm

Like Comrade Putin of Cheka (KGB/FSB), Mr Buchanan regrets that NATO “have moved the U.S. red line for war from the Elbe almost to within artillery range of the old Leningrad.”

Like President Roosevelt and Comrade Stalin, so are Mr Buchanan and Putin thinking that “Mother Russia” is entitled to own and to rule over Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belorus, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaidjan, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Usbekistan, Türkmenistan, in fact, rule all over Eastern Europe to the “U.S. red line on the Elbe”.

Not Roosevelt nor Stalin asked Russia’s neighboring nations, what they think about “Mother Russia” and Russians’ everlasting violence towards them. Nor does Mr Buchanan ask it now. Putin of Cheka, of course, knows the answer without asking. And so he welcomes useful idiots and fellow travelers in the West.

Many thanks to Matt, the Estonian writer!  Sage makes good remarks, as well.  And I am glad that RonL.
writes here, even if I do not agree with everything he says.

Matt in Estonia: “Like President Roosevelt and Comrade Stalin, so are Mr Buchanan and Putin thinking that “Mother Russia” is entitled to own and to rule over Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belorus, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaidjan, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Usbekistan, Türkmenistan, in fact, rule all over Eastern Europe to the “U.S. red line on the Elbe”.”

Oh, so it’s okay for the USA to control and rule these lands instead, through the institutions of destructive
finance capitalism? As if Azerbaidjan, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Usbekistan and Turkmenistan are “democracies”...it’s a laugh and a joke to think the people ruled over by the petty tyrannies of these dependents of the USA are better off then they would be under “Mother Russia”.

As if the people of Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, or Egypt are better off under the tyrants that run them then they wold be under radical Islam? Maybe a few support <snicker> “democracy”, but the broad majority would side with the Islamists.

Get rid of your Russian-phobia, you’re embarrassing yourself.

“Well actually modern “libertarianism” is based on Milton Friedman’s monetarism. Monetarism--the idea that you can combat the business cycle by inventing credit out of thin air via the Fed. Monetarism was the “liberarian” response to Keynes’ recommendation that the business cycle should be avoided by judicious use of fiscal policy.”

Monetarism is not libertarianism.  It is theft by state sanctioned counterfeiting via the FED/bankster/state alliance.  US has been in the grip of Keynesianism since FDR.

“19th Century economics didn’t work, the gold standard created deflations, recessions, and Von Mises’ solution was “private” money, banks issuing private notes (Von Mises solution to the problem of money supply not keeping up with growth of the economy) which was a disaster all through the 19th Century, as they were not regulated. 

US economy and the financial condition of the average US worker grew tremendously from 1798 through 1898.  that English mercantilism interfered with the Brit economy is not surprising since mercantilism and state cap go hand in hand.

As we have seen via the S&L;disaster, the Dot-con bubble, and now the real estate/direvitives crisis, when finance capitalism is not CONTROLLED, it is always destructive. Capitalists seek short term profit, and not long term growth. Which is why you must TAX capital gains and large incomes. If rich people have huge disposable incomes, they gamble with it, they don’t invest it.

First, the wealthy, unless they obtained their money illegally, own the money, not the State.  It is the right of the money’s owners to do with it what they wish, both ill and good, as long as the owners do not steal or damage another.  How does the State somehow elevate itself to a position to judge how a person should spend or not spend his assets?  Thus the greedy, arrogant, envious State assumes g*dlike powers to decide matters it has no moral or practical ability to do wisely.  It’s as if the State could decide the size of my commode, the loading style of my clothes washer, or the type of light bulb I must use. 

If you impose confiscatory taxation on the weaLTHY, their long term interests are long term growth. The other fallacy of the 19th Century economics is that wealth creates investment, which is another problem if the population has no money. There is no reason to invest in anything if nobody has any money to spend. Thus the problems wie see in Latin America...and the late 19th and early 20th Century.

Again the State has mystical powers of discernment and has first claim on my money, no matter how much I have..  If the wealthy don’t invest, I hope I don’t have to count on the poor to do it, because even with state theft the poor do not make up a sizeable investment class.  People have less money to spend when the State takes it for its own ends while using the subjects as cannon fodder to be fleeced via taxation and regulation.

Nor was anyone willing to listen to Rothbard’s theory that the reason the Great Depression was prolonged was because the government tried to help people and prop up wages and employment. Rothbard’s brilliant insight was to let unemployment fall to it’s “natural” level, let firms fail until the bust was exhausted, and then sweetness and prosperity would emerge from the ruins. I’m wondering what level of unemployment that Rothbard meant, if beginning state intervention at the 25% unemployment level was a mistake. Would 30% be the magic number? 50% the “naatural “ bottom at which the “free market” would bounce back.”

The popularity of an idea does not establish its merit.  To embrace Rothbard’s concepts is to see the State for what it is.  Following Rothbardian principles would not have the US centgov in 140 countries with over 800 bases because the State would be too limited in scope for such imperialism. 

The Constitution does not permit the imposition of confiscatory taxes on any minority, nor does it grant the centgov the power to impose state capitalism or any other ideology on US cits.  The State has assumed the power through self-aggrandizement, and so the State must be cut down to size (as small as possible).

Jeff w. asked “....do you really believe there is no such thing and free trade locally? But that is not in the realm of belief that is fact. Taxes on businesses and on individuals is another matter and everyone instinctively attempts to avoid them. Even though they may impinge upon they do not abrogate free trade. ? I’m no expert - what am I not seeing, I’m interested to learn...”

Well, for instance, the zoning laws...no one disputes the fact that real estate developers control local economies. Generally, I believe that a shared sense of culture, ethos and community is necessary for any sort of trade to exist. When this is broken---as it has in the US, the greed motive takes over. It would be nice if the folks who deal in the marketplace would self-regulate, based on these shared values. These shared values are really more iimportant then the “virtue of selfishness” the Ayn Randians/Lazy Faires/Free Traitors always harping about.

Which is why diversity, multi-culturalism, materialism/consumerism, “Sex-in-the-city” style human intimacy,
as well as antipathy toward religion are the ideology of the “free market”. Selfishness is not enough to assure a fair and virtuous society.

The pertinent question here is the one Buchanan asked last week on “The McLaughlin Group:” Why should 300,000,000 Americans defend 500,000,000 Europeans from 140,000,000 Russians?  If Europeans do regard Putin’s Russia as a threat, it is up to them to defend themselves:  they certainly have the population and material resources necessary for the job.

“Which is why diversity, multi-culturalism, materialism/consumerism, “Sex-in-the-city” style human intimacy,
as well as antipathy toward religion are the ideology of the “free market”. Selfishness is not enough to assure a fair and virtuous society”

The State has proven itself to be religion’s greatest opponent since it desires itself to be seen as g*d and seeks g*dlike powers over its subjects.  The free market can no more force diversity and multi-cult on me than it can tell me what type of road bicycle to like.  Selfish individuals pose little or no problem to freedom - it is the rapacious State that takes, enslaves, and murders on a national and international scale.

TP, excellent observation regarding relative responsibilities (kudos to PJB also).

This and that from Simon Sez:

SIMON SEZ: “Monetarism is not libertarianism.”

Yes it is. Yeech, how long can you deny Milton Friednman and Ayn Rand? Again, the “true believer” believes in the fantasy not the reality of modern “free market” econmics.

SIMON SEZ: “...the financial condition of the average US worker grew tremendously from 1798 through 1898.”

Simon, you’re either an idiot or a ignoramous. During this time, most “workers” were either skilled tradesmen or farmers. Their prosperity was due to the availability of cheap land, not the “free market”. In fact, since the Federal government collaborated with the railroad barons to develop the nation through land grants around each railroad line. IF the capitalists financed the railroad, the government gave them the monopoly to develop the land around their lines. It was “state capitalism”, in it’s purest form, silly.

Of course, another point you forget which makes your commentary idiocy is that during that time the natiional economy was protected by TARIFFS! Yes, dear, what you attribute to “free markets” were not in fact, “free “ at all but protected by ....yup..."state capitalism”!!!

Another thing, is you completely ignore the disasterous affect that the gold standard had on farmers and labors in the 19th century, the deflations caused huge problems for debt-holders. Just as inflation undermines the value of debt, deflation undermines the value of productive labor. If you work for a living, then the gold standard was a disaster. If you were a land baron or banker or a finance capitalist living off the hard work of other, then the gold standard was great, because it made you wealthier without lifting a finger.

SIMON SEZ: “First, the wealthy, unless they obtained their money illegally, own the money, not the State. It is the right of the money’s owners to do with it what they wish, both ill and good, as long as the owners do not steal or damage another.”

As I mentioned before, we have the example of the railroad barons got their wealth from the government giving them land. This is such simplistic drival, it’s hard to be respectful of anyone who repeats all this Ayn Rand nonsense.
It would be hard to prove to anyone that the wealth of the railroad barons...or John Rockefeller’s use of his market power to destroy competition was “legal” wealth.

Look Simon, unless you come up with something new, you’d best be advised to shut your mouth. Repeating word for world all this CATO/American Entreprise/Ayn Rand crap is not making you look very good.

Joe Populist: “Oh, so it’s okay for the USA to control and rule these lands instead, through the institutions of destructive
finance capitalism?” Meaning Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania etc ruled by the USA “through the institutions of destructive finance capitalism”.

It seems that you - like Mr Buchanan - are sure that there are two real rulers in the world: the USA and Mother Russia. If a country is not ruled by Russians then it is ruled by Americans. As an Estonian I may assure you that my country is ruled by democratically elected government and my country is free to choose her allies.

In 1940, after Stalin-Hitler Pact, when Estonia was occupied and annexed by Russia, there were no allies for my country. In 1941 there was the first mass deportation of my people to Siberia. After Roosevelt –Stalin-Churchill Pact mass deportations of Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians etc continued.

I was born in 1957 in Estonia, occupied by Russia and colonized by Russians. Therefore I know what Russian KGB is. I know what “the institutions of creative Russian communism” really are. I can compare. Can You?

“Get rid of your Russian-phobia, you’re embarrassing yourself,” says Joe Populist. Who are you to say, what my people must “get rid of”? Joe Stalin? Mother Russia Herself?

“If Georgia were in NATO, Russia simply would not have invaded the place over South Ossetia.”

This is an interesting rebuttal, but not necessarily true.  If this were true than any NATO nation could do whatever they wished to Russia and Russia would never respond lest she get blown away in nuclear holocaust.  But that is not how things work.  If something were to happen on Russia’s borders that she felt strongly about, she would press the issue and force the US and NATO to blink or risk nuclear war over an issue that might not be important to the US.

During the Cuban missile crisis, the USA communicated via its actions to the USSR that missiles in Cuba were unacceptable and that we would go to war to remove them.  The issue was so important that the US would have risked nuclear war to remove them.  Once the USSR realized this, they folded.  They knew they could have nuked the US and they also knew they would have lost half their population too for an issue that was not a show stopper for them.

Likewise even if Georgia were in NATO there is no guarantee that they would not have crossed a line that forced Russia into a similar stance with NATO and the US.  I have no idea if South Ossetia would have been such an issue or not.  Honestly I had never heard of S. Ossetia and Abkhazia prior to reading Pat’s warnings in February.

What Pat is trying to bring attention to is the fact that the more war obligations one has, the more the chances one has of being dragged into a war over an issue of no significance to American interests.

Matt (Estonia) wrote: “in April, 2005 this “not-Stalin” described the collapse of the Soviet Union as “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century”

I’ve read that speech. Frankly, and with much reluctance, I have to agree with Putin. The world was a safer and better place before the Soviet Union collapsed.

When we had a bipolar world, each side stayed within its own sphere of influence. The prospect of WWIII kept military adventurism to a minimum. It would have been unthinkable for the U.S. to invade Serbia or Iraq.

Today, it is thinkable. Today, the U.S. is contemplating military intervention all around the globe, for reasons that would have seemed obscure only two decades earlier.

The Cold War also preserved part of Europe from the demographic crisis that was already under way in Western Europe by the 1970s. Eastern Europe was like a piece of the planet Krypton that had miraculously been saved and kept under glass.

All of that ended with the end of the Cold War. The collapse of the Eastern bloc saw the collapse of its birth rates – now among the lowest in the world — and the beginning of Third World immigration, which is now becoming noticeable in the Czech Republic and Eastern Germany. A process of population replacement has begun, just as it had earlier begun in Western Europe.

This is the future that faces all of us, yes even you in Estonia. And yet here we are arguing about Putin’s KGB connections! Please, we’re living in a very different world now and the issues we face are a whole lot different.

“Yeech, how long can you deny Milton Friednman and Ayn Rand? Again, the “true believer” believes in the fantasy not the reality of modern “free market” econmics”

Neither one was a libertarian, but they both espoused some libertarian principles, just as Ron Paul does (he seems more a Constitutionalist).  I agree with all three when they embrace libertarian ideas, and disagree with them when they propose statist solutions.  Even Black Dick Cheney gave rhetorical support to the Second Amendment.

“During this time, most “workers” were either skilled tradesmen or farmers. Their prosperity was due to the availability of cheap land, not the “free market”. In fact, since the Federal government collaborated with the railroad barons to develop the nation through land grants around each railroad line. IF the capitalists financed the railroad, the government gave them the monopoly to develop the land around their lines. It was “state capitalism”, in it’s purest form, silly.”

Land, resources, increasing productivity, and division of labor with relative low levels of tax and regulation were the factors fueling an enormous increase in personal wealth.  Robber barons granted stolen land by US centgov is not libertarianism - it was state theft for ultimately economic basket cases.  Lincoln’s War also consumed lives as well as wealth.

“Another thing, is you completely ignore the disasterous affect that the gold standard had on farmers and labors in the 19th century, the deflations caused huge problems for debt-holders. Just as inflation undermines the value of debt, deflation undermines the value of productive labor. If you work for a living, then the gold standard was a disaster. If you were a land baron or banker or a finance capitalist living off the hard work of other, then the gold standard was great, because it made you wealthier without lifting a finger”

The price of commodities remain stable or come down in a free market as productivity improves.  Prices of cutting edge tech, such as bicycles in the 19th cent and computers in the 21st, also decrease.  Purchasing power increaes and all benefit as long as taxes and regs remain low. The last sentence in the above paragraph decribes the State to perfection.

SIMON SEZ: “First, the wealthy, unless they obtained their money illegally, own the money, not the State. It is the right of the money’s owners to do with it what they wish, both ill and good, as long as the owners do not steal or damage another.”

“As I mentioned before, we have the example of the railroad barons got their wealth from the government giving them land. This is such simplistic drival, it’s hard to be respectful of anyone who repeats all this Ayn Rand nonsense.
It would be hard to prove to anyone that the wealth of the railroad barons...or John Rockefeller’s use of his market power to destroy competition was “legal” wealth”

The right of one to one’s property is not debateable in a free society. The paragraph above doesn’t refute this but merely hand waves away an answer.  State-empowered robber barons are not examples of honest free-marketeers, no matter how hard one wishes it. There is no Constitutional basis for the taxation and regulation with which the Empire saddles the US.

“Look Simon, unless you come up with something new, you’d best be advised to shut your mouth. Repeating word for world all this CATO/American Entreprise/Ayn Rand crap is not making you look very good.”

When one has no argument, bluster and smear.  Please feel free to shut my mouth for me, but you had better try something other than your Marxist appeals to man’s basest emotions such as wrath, greed, pride, sloth, and envy

Simon Tregarth, Joe Populist:  please find some other place wherein to debate libertarianism and trade.
What I said above stands:  sovereign nations have the right to determine their own trade policies.  If
the former Soviet republics don’t want to ship their oil through Russian territory, that is their
prerogative, even if Russia disagrees.

Tobias, thank you for the advice, but I must pass as long as the economic tommyrot flows.  For everyone of us who posts there is a silent audience of hundreds or thousands that need to get the truth and have their State indoctrination challenged.  I prefer the enonomic threads for such comments, but since economic freedom is blamed for every malady included toe fungus, the codswallop must be addressed. Do agree with your second paragraph, though.  ST

Simple Simon sez: “Please feel free to shut my mouth for me, but you had better try something other than your Marxist appeals to man’s basest emotions such as wrath, greed, pride, sloth, and envy...”

Okay, more Ayn Rand stuff, and illusions to a perfect “free market” that doesn’t exist, never existed,
and is in fact a fantasy. NOT the real world of the “New World Order” of imposing globalization, and finance capitalism on the world at the point of a gun. NOt the real world of Ayn Rand, Alan Greenspan, Milton Friedman, the CATO, the American Entreprise Institute, Neuter Gingrich, Dick Armey and the rest of the “libertarians”.

Look Simon, your brand of “libertarianism” is a heresy, perhaps the comparision might be the mid-evil Catholic Church, the Pope versus the Dolcianites...<snicker> Give it up, your facts are wrong, your history is wrong, your economics are bizarre, best left in the gilded age where they belong.

Tobias sed: “What I said above stands:  sovereign nations have the right to determine their own trade policies.  If
the former Soviet republics don’t want to ship their oil through Russian territory, that is their
prerogative, even if Russia disagrees.”

Tobias, find somewhere else to vent your Russia-phobia. And discussion of “libertarianism” IS relevant because this is all about international finance capitalism (IMF/WorldBank/FED) controlling the oil supply and declaring war on Russia because that nation refuses to allow it’s wealth to be looted. This is a classic imperialism of the Marxist Leninist variety, which is always the result of unrestrained capitalism.

The “sovereign nations” argument falls apart when you look at the US government, and NATO---and Israel---funding and arming tyrants that run these so-called “sovereign nations”...the US-NATO-Israel has no right to be funding politicans and political movements in the ex-Soviet republics any more then COMMIE China has in funding the CATO and the AEI. But that’s what you are defending.

Your arguments are ridiculous. Georgia invaded S. Oddessia, and Russia kicked them out. End of story. But to you and yours, and the corporate media, Russia is “invading” Georgia, just like Serbia was “invading” Kosovo...next you’ll be telling us of the Russian “atrocities”...the bull-toss is piling up, and it looks like there are lots of fools willing to believe it.

“Look Simon, your brand of “libertarianism” is a heresy, perhaps the comparision might be the mid-evil Catholic Church, the Pope versus the Dolcianites...<snicker> Give it up, your facts are wrong, your history is wrong, your economics are bizarre, best left in the gilded age where they belong”

Why do you not post at http://www.toryanarchist.com anymore?

What is “phobic” about not liking it when Russia invades another country for trying to assert
its sovereignty on its territory?

Tobias- Agreed both Georgia and Russia are White Christian nations and the United States should not go to war with either of them.

Russia and Georgia need to work out their problems between themselves. The biggest way Georgia can contribute to the peace process is to get rid of the Zionist stooge they have as a president. Now if only America could remove it’s Zionist stooges we would really be getting somewhere.

Quote: Joe Populist: “The reality of our “war for democracy” is about forcing the system of international finance capitalism--and all of the horror and dislocation and inequality that it stands for, on Russia and the Muslim lands--at the point of a gun.”

Well said Joe and I couldn’t have said it better.

Quote: Simon Tregarth: “Communism uses the state’s fist to achieve its ends - it does not use free exchange and co-operation.”

Apparently you’ve never heard of Peter Kropotkin or know anything about non/pre-marxist communism and modern Market Socialist like David Schweickart who are extremely critically of central planning and state power. Anarcho communists and Anarcho-syndicalist are more anti-statist than yourself and all right wing libertarians. The problem is that ideology doesn’t translate into real politic and maintain civilization. The only non-delusional libertarians or anarchists are anarcho-primativists who hate civilization and want it to end.

Quote: Simon Tregarth: “Libertarianism is a minimal state - it is not crony capitalism.”

Define minimal in terms of real politic and ask yourself who does it benefit? Answer: not the lower 99% income earners. The real politic only allows reduction of state where monopolistic private ownership takes its place but that is no different from the state itself except that the public is denied representation.  The reality is that power of the state must be used to deny the freedom of some to insure freedom for any and there has never been time where this was not true in civilization.

Libertarianism maintains that the only requirement of freedom is the ownership of property and respect for the rights of that ownership but if all land is titled to private owners aka an oligarchy then how is libertarianism not statism if hierarchy is allowed and if hierarchy is not allow who shall enforce such a rule without being an archon himself? Anarchism is self contradiction which why it doesn’t exist in reality.

Quote: Simon Tregarth: “The point is to bring free markets into existence and limit the state’s encroachment upon them and thus upon individual rights.”

You can’t bring “free markets” (markets without force, fraud, or institutional interference) into existence based on individual “rights” because markets are social institutions where the idea of “force and fraud” are determined by culture institutions themselves which according to libertarians would be anti-free market. That is why mainstream libertarians (Reason Magazine) are always attacking traditional American culture by promoting sexual libertinism,"multiculturalism," open borders, etc… etc… etc… The “free market” is non-sense where there are no uniform modes of culture i.e dynamic human civilization.

Quote: Simon Tregarth: It is oligarchs who hate the free market because it forces them to compete without Big Brother in the background acting as a protection/extortion racket everywhere.

Really? Have you read Jeremy Bentham yet? The oligarchs hate the nation state and the even the monarchy because it stops them from raping the people because nation-state represented by a king (being the ultimate nationalist) or a republic have an interest the well being of nation where oligarchs do not and thus seek remove the social institutions which protect the people or nation. Do our Oligarchs attack the “market” or the sovereign nation state? Do they promote globalism or love of country?

Quote: Simon Tregarth: “The State does not support free trade, it supports ‘managed’ trade to benefit its fellow parasites.”

No State supports free trade which why we can’t have free trade with any other State because that would become a institutional interference with the market thus markets must be protected.

The Constitution calls for Tariffs and Government control of credit. Our problem is that thanks to economic liberalism or libertarianism of the last century we handed sovereign control of our money to private City of London banks (aka the Fed which is not the government) and they used that power to take over American industry and ship it around the world in a race to the bottom. Now we are headed for the bottom because wage-price equalization is the goal of free trade. Thank God we have some managed traded left because if we didn’t then we already be at Mexico level wages.

We need government control of money like the Constitution says not private “free market” banker control. Remember folks libertarians call for banker control of money but the Constitution which was the most anti-libertarian document ever written says in artical 1 section 8 “The Congress shall the power to Coin Money, regulate the Value thereof” but we outsource this power in 1913 to the market. 

Quote: “The critics of libertarianism all claim to understand libertarianism better than the likes of Rothbard, von Mises, and Hoppe.”

Now we claim your understanding of history and the nature of man is wrong. We have every single world religion and most of scientists and academics rejecting major claims of libertarianism. All you libertarians really have is lots of money from the Mont Perin Society aka wealthy European Aristocrats and their pet economists like Hayek and his American hating buddies.
Libertarianism/Liberalism isn’t hard to understand and I think Rothbard would agree. What’s so hard to understand? Property as Absolute Right? Individual Sovereignty?, Non-aggression? Comparative Advantage?  I’ve studied libertarianism for 17 years and was a social conservative/ economic libertarian (aka Neocon) till I studied the trade/immigration issue. I still read libertarians all the time except for Glenn Reynolds who is a clown and hack. 

Quote: jeff w: “There will always be an ‘outcry’
for govt. intervention in a domestic market that is unregulated because monopolies crop-up?”

No, I’m pretty sure Joe like myself understands the American system of Economics (aka the greatest system in the world when we follow it) and it doesn’t have do with monopolies but what Henry C. Carey called creating a “harmony of interests.”

The American System doesn’t bust monopolies just because they are monopolies but because if a company or industry is creating social conflict between workers and owners, damage to the environment etc...etc the government steps in and regulate or reshapes the industry with policies aimed to restoring harmony between interests the different parties so that they can work together toward the general welfare i.e. increasing the productive capacity toward the care of humanity.

Quote: jeff w : “There’s no such thing as free trade among nations, but domestically say at the level of the state, city, town laws could be passed as to how large a company can or can’t be and also can cap personal wealth. Because as soon as there is the ‘outcry’ domestically and politicians
want to get elected, they will promise to regulate. And as soon as they do so that is when they
are bought-and-paid-for by the very monopolies they are supposed to regulate and the
monopoly only increases in size by covertly/overtly owning the govt. as well. A constitution
ought to address these issues as to how much wealth a person or a company can possess or is
that also not doable?”

At this point Joe is should answer for himself but I’ll attempt to answer anyway remember this one of hardest issues in real politic because it a practical importance thus not simple. I think the simplest way to deal with this issue is to break the two party system. Power being concentrated in 2 parties make influence pedaling easier and I think we should look at over “democratic countries” to see how they deal with problems like these.

Passing laws to ease ballot access and allow political ads on “the public’s airways” will help greatly. However, as the internet begins to replace more of mainstream media I believe we have less of need for ad access. The main issue of getting on the ballots.

Corruption and politics really go to the heart of the human condition and the only way change come down to our view of man. If we have a libertarian view that man is only able to act in terms of self interest then we can never demand that our politicians do more than look out for themselves but if we restore the idea of public service where promoting the general welfare of the nation is at the heart of politicial life then it will be possible to create in the minds of our politicians a philosophy of governance not beholden to any particular personal influence but a moral vision of improving the nation informed by needs of local constituents.

We need to create a culture where moral leadership possible and to do this we need change of modernist view of man. We can’t do this in culture that teaches us that man is a mere animal and has no purpose beyond fulfilling is base desires. Instead we must restore the basics of Western Civilization the ideas of Imago Dei and the Immortality of the Soul. We are as man creators and we live on and will be judged in our work so our work has moral content and must be considered in those terms. The work of political leader is making moral policies and thus must be beyond corruption because is a betrayal of moral purpose and dignity of his work. If this what drives the culture then the political will not be allowed stray to far. But it begins with changing our Philosophical Anthropology from liberalism to one that is required for civilization proceed.

Essentially American has forgotten what is means to a civilization in a frenzy of greed, lust and laissez faire capitalism. 

Quote: jeff w.:  “If it is stipulated that no company or individual or government entity can possess more than xyz so as to temper or eliminate excessive greed in the domestic market place what’s wrong with free trade then?”

K, you seems you fail to understand some basic economics. The American system isn’t about placing limits on wealth but rather the opposite.  Its about making sure that folks can’t use their wealth to prevent others from aquiring their own wealth or causing conflict or damage to the rest of society because the concentration of wealth taking wealth away from everyone else. Its called fairness something that we used to value in this country.

Quote: jeff w: “I have two coats and you have two shirts we trade freely and each have one coat and one shirt. Alright once money comes into the picture of course and no one can merely print it since it is backed by gold and other precious metals like silver which the constitution itself
stipulates presently what then would be impossible about free trade locally? It would and doees
go on anyway whether you ‘believe’ it exists or not. No? I don’t fault your critiques of other
systems and largely agree - but do you really believe there is no such thing and free trade
locally?”

1. The constitution says nothing about Gold and Silver being require anything other than State debt. Money can be any “coin” or Federal Bill of Credit but State (not Federal) Debt must be pain in Gold and Silver.

2. You can’t “free trade” locally by definition. Local “trade” is called exchange not trade.

3. The American system is about tax free exchange but taxing imports so that you don’t tax your domestic producers and allow subsized or slave labor produced good and unfair advantage over domestic free market produced goods because would be an institutional interference with our domestic market.

4. The American system encourages local worker solidairy and community values by encourage locally produced goods. If everything you consumer if made by foreigner then you don’t care about how they are treated but if you buy locally produced good and have a relationship with the workers then you care about them and that helps when they negotiate for faior wages. They know they community support.

5. Free Trade says that every individual especially a foreigners have the “right” to bring whatever goods he want into a market even if it forces the local producers to compete with slavery, subsidy or destroys the social fabric by introducing foreign practice and the community has no rights to object to the externalities of cost that result from the disruption. It is foreign imperialism by definition.

6. “Free Trade” says the institutional design of the economy must conform to that ever the exporting foreign power wants it to be and that local residents have no right to object. Understanding this, it is easy to understand why the British Empire promoted such a philosophy. If a local village objected to the influx of slave produced goods then the Free Traders have the “right” to attack them for violating the “right to free trade” and replace the village leadership to pawn of British Empire. That is the story of Free Trade. The story development is basically telling the Empire to F off aka “Do as the British do not as they say.” American was founded on idea economic sovereignty and the rejection of British system of imposed “free trade” on the colonies.

Septeus7, you are a genius. Thank you for your reasoned and thoughtful essay, it was brilliant.

You put the “libertarian” argument to shame with your reasoned response. Thanks for pointing out that the
regulation of trade and money is IN the constitution. Thank you for pointing out that libertarianism defends the right of the rich to use their wealth and economic power to prevent everyone else from gaining wealth
or keeping it. Thank you for reminding us that libertarians defend slave labor (China for instance) as “free trade”. Thanks for reminding us that the world is on the edge of war because of the libertarian ideal of economic interdependence creates economic uncertainy, which leads to constant war.

YOU ought to be writing a column for Taki mag. Real conservatives do not believe in the libertarian nonsense.  The Taki Mag need a consistent defender of the American system on it’s board.

“Like the “revolution” itself the KGB was not created by a Russian but by a Jew, early period 2/3rds were Jewish as well as the Gulags and there operators. “

Not relevant.

It is amazing what verbal contortions and fact-distortions writers like RonL and Tobias go through to paint assertiveness by Russia as inherently evil. We still find American troops in all the countries that the US occupied at the end of WWII, and they are not there because the Germans or Japanese invited them. The Russians on the other hand voluntarily pulled out of all the countries they dominated through their Warsaw Pact organization, even beyond the borders that Russian ethnicity would designate as Russian territory. Doesn’t remind this anybody of the situation Germany found itself in after the treaty of Versailles, emasculated and with large numbers of their countrymen stranded in foreign countries and subjected to minority status? I am not surprised that the Russians are clamoring for a strong man, a “Fuehrer” who will bring those Russian areas “heim ins Reich”, if necessary by force.  Is it really in our interest to push Russia in that direction?
And if we demand of Russia to leave Georgia, should we not demand of Israel to pull out of the West Bank and Gaza?

Napoleon’s own account was: “Of the fifty battles I have fought, the most terrible was that before Moscow. The French showed themselves to be worthy victors, and the Russians can rightly call themselves invincible.

Thank you Joe Populist for you always well thought out arguments against that fantasy world of the free trader. However, I would have to rank it second to Septeus7’s post. I have to bookmark this page so that when I respond to the inane free trade support I always see in “conservative” web sites, I can point them to some real intelligent thought. I can normally do a pretty good job of pointing out their simple minded inconsistencies, but these posts go beyond mine.

“What is “phobic” about not liking it when Russia invades another country for trying to assert
its sovereignty on its territory?”

Tobias
You are either naive or deliberately deceptive. There is almost certainly a lot more to events in Georgia than we have been told. First law of modern international politics: wherever USA and Israel have a strong interest, there is head-spinning evil afoot.
Recent reports suggest that two airfields in Georgia that were extensively bombed by the Russians, were being prepared by the Israelis (with the written consent of Bush) to be the hub for bomber attacks on military and nuclear power facilities in Iran. Such a sneak attack could well have started a major war. If this is true, then sensible people can only praise the Russians.

Ian, excellent post.  Where did you find your info about US-Israeli involvement in the two airfield, and your superb 9/11 skeptical analysis?  ST

Simon

Thank you for the compliment. My comments on the possible use of Georgian airfields by Israel for a sneak attack on Iran came from this article: http://rense.com/general83/isrpl.htm
Obviously, I can’t vouch for the accuracy of the claims made in this article, but they certainly seem plausible and would appear to be reinforced by the hysterical nonsense emanating from Washington.

My recent comments on 911 were self-composed, however, you could probably find similar at many web sites. If you are interested in getting to grips with some of the basic facts relevant to 911, I would strongly recommend Jim Hoffman’s web site: http://911research.wtc7.net/
Jim uses the scientific approach to evaluating evidence. Beware, there is a lot of (probably deliberately created) mis- and disinformation about 911 on the web.

Ian, I thank you for the info and the links.  This rense site looks interesting, possibly a bit outre, but interesting.  Is the US centgov funnelling money to the Israeli centgov via the Georgian situation?  Have the Russian forces captured any Israeli or US ‘advisors’ (hopefully, unharmed)in Georgia? I have always felt that a foetor doth issue from the land of the Danes regarding 9/11, so your comments at this site about the attack are appreciated.  WTC7 is especially suspect, but then US vet and former Schwartzkopf bodyguard Tim McVeigh was able to use an omnidirectional blast from an inefficient fuel oil/fertilizer bomb to create sufficient shear forces to cut through several supporting columns of the Murrah building. I have never discovered an explanation as to how he did it.  ST

Simon

I can’t provide in depth answers to all your questions. I just repeat what I have read in news articles.

Re. funding to Georgia: The way it seems to work is that the ever-generous US taxpayer gives Georgia large amounts of money and the Israelis then come in and kindly offer to relieve the Georgians of the money in return for armaments.

Early on, there were reports that the Russians had captured at least one American advisor, however, I haven’t subsequently heard any confirmation of such reports.

I have no idea what “foetor doth” is.

As you perceptively note, the OKC bombing would, at face value, suggest that relatively weak explosions can destroy steel-framed buildings. Almost certainly, the explanation is that McVeigh’s truck bomb was a relatively harmless smokescreen. There is strong evidence that there was another far more powerful explosion than that produced by McVeigh’s truck bomb which did most of the damage. Indeed, at least 2 very powerful, unexploded bombs were found in the Murrah building after the explosions. See evidence here:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/ok.html
As you hint, McVeigh had a very interesting background. Some of this background and some of the links between the Murrah building bombing and 911 are presented in this fascinating piece of research:
http://911blogger.com/node/15075

Ian, some extraordinary links regarding State involvement in more criminal activities.  Some additional points to consider: 1. In several of the attacks, crime scene surveillance tapes are still under lock and key (OKC, Pentagon). 2. Most of the car bombings in Iraq are not investigated, yet a Brit mil team was reportedly arrested in Iraq. dressed in mufti and carrying bomb materials. 3. State quickly destroys site of crime (Waco, Ruby Ridge, Murrah, WTC)with little or no forensic investigation. 4. The FBI has far more evidence of conspiratorial behavior regarding the bombings than it does tying Ivins to the anthrax murders.
There are more official, grey, and rogue ‘black operations’ going on both here and abroad that have little or no accountability, but anyone who mentions this horror is deemed a kook’.  Please keep posting about this matter as well as other issues.  ST