Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

[Seth]

Hillary comes off cold on TV, but I've been in the same room with her...

And you without a vest....*sigh*

[pErvinalia]

A neocon is just a libertarian with the balls to do something about it.

Neocons are not libertarian. Libertarian foreign policy stances are incompatible with neoconservative foreign policy stances.

While neocons tend to be somewhat supportive of classical liberal economics, which tends to be consistent with libertarian positions on that point, the rest of neoconservatism is diametrically opposed to libertarianism. Even on economics, libertarians tend to be against budget deficits and tend to be very much supportive of the ideas of Hayek, whereas neoconservatives are not. Libertarians agree that the growth of government influence on society and public welfare is "the road to serfdom" as Hayek put it, but neoconservatives are not against the growth of government influence on society and public welfare.

My take on what Brian is saying is something I've been on about for a while. Most right libbos aren't actually libertarians at all. They are neoliberals (via my definition which I linked to in an essay on my blog earlier in the thread) and neocons (just look at Seth). If you are a right libertarian you have to go the whole hog and you wind up holding psychopathic views like Murray Rothbard does.

[pErvinalia]

Neocons grew out of the left-wing of politics. That's how come they advocate top-down regime change. The idea that you can alter things from the top downwards is plucked straight from Marxian doctrine.

that's a simplistic view. Authoritarianism isn't solely a left or right thing. It infects both sides. Arguably, it's more of a rightist concept as it gels nicely with the respect for hierarchies and disrespect for individual autonomy inherent in conservatism.

[pErvinalia]

She fits in now. The dems are largely a right-wing party.

You do understand that "neoconservativism" originated in the Democrat party do you not? It consists of former hard-left Democrats who became disillusioned with the foreign policy of the non-interventionist Democrats in the 60s. What "neocons" actually are are Marxists. They were "social democrats" until they realized that they couldn't prevail without control of and the use of force, particularly in international relations, so they abandoned the idealistic parts of Marxism and went pretty much down the path of Stalinism, tempered somewhat because they don't particularly like "communism" but they do dearly love the authoritarian central-planning Soviet state model.

Where's your evidence for this? When I think of Neocons I think of Reagon, Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc.

[pErvinalia]

Neocons have always been Republican as far as Merkin politics are concerned, that is, the far right.

You are absolutely wrong.

Neoconservatism (commonly shortened to neocon) is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s among Democrats who became disenchanted with the party's domestic and especially foreign policy.

Hmm, fair enough.

[pErvinalia]

Trump is interested in the economic success of Trump, as multiple ventures he launched and got out of to let them go down into bankruptcy prove eloquently... he'd send the US toward bankruptcy so fast even the bush the younger era and the early Obama era would look like times of plenty and dlourishing economy...

As for the mysterious deaths around the clintons, I send you to Galaxian, that's his domain of expertise...

[Brian Peacock]

While I think the Seth and his Doggie are referring to the travel of political outlooks, like the idealistic Hippies of the 1960-70s becoming the avaricious Yuppies of the 1980-90s, pointing this out says nothing about what neoconservatism is. It's roots in the progressive politics of an earlier era is a historical detail, not a defining feature.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, that sounds about right. In a sense Marxism is actually a conservative ideology, in that it has an elite element to it. And that definitely morphs into full on conservatism under Lenin and Stalin. That's why the Anarchists like Luxomburgh etc broke away from the Socialists as they could see the authoritarian aspect to it and knew it was the antithesis to democratic socialism. That's why the 4-axis political spectrum (left:right; authoritarian:libertarian) is most accurate and relevant. Yes, Marxism came out of the left, but it's not really accurate to call Stalin a leftist. He was probably more of a centrist highly authoritarian. Progressivism and authoritarianism aren't really logical bedfellows like conservatism and authoritarianism is. I doubt you'd find many actually progressives who rate high up on the Authoritarian scale. But you will find plenty of Fascists who rate high on the conservatism scale.

[pErvinalia]

And why the fuck are we discussing this in the "dis ratskep thread"??

[JimC]

While I think the Seth and his Doggie are referring to the travel of political outlooks, like the idealistic Hippies of the 1960-70s becoming the avaricious Yuppies of the 1980-90s, pointing this out says nothing about what neoconservatism is. It's roots in the progressive politics of an earlier era is a historical detail, not a defining feature.

Humph! Some idealistic hippies from the 70's became sensible, non-avaricious, cardigan-wearing, gin-swilling maths teachers!

[JimC]

And why the fuck are we discussing this in the "dis ratskep thread"??

You are asking why a Ratzian thread went in weird directions?

[pErvinalia]

[Hermit]

like her husband, she's a megalomaniac, congenital, pathological liar, a leftist Progressive power-seeker, a control freak, nascent tyrant and just about as evil and self centered a person as has ever existed on this planet, that's why, so she fits well with the rest of the Democrat party who have similar intentions for the rest of us.

Of all your rants this is the best emulation of Richard Dawkins's description of the god of the old testament yet.

The distinction being that the existence of Hillary Clinton can be conclusively proven and she's no God, although evidently she thinks she is.

Your distinction is irrelevant. In Dawkin's rant the issue of whether god exists does not even come up, nor does it need to. For proof of the validity of his description of the god of the old testament all you have to do is to, um, read the old testament.

Well, he can rant and rave about Sauron and the Ring of Power if he likes, but if neither Sauron nor the Ring of Power exist

Again: The distinction is irrelevant. What is relevant is that your rant I quoted is the best emulation of Richard Dawkins's rant about the god of the old testament yet.

[pErvinalia]

Seth's views gel nicely with the Old Testament. I'm pretty sure he was born back when it was written.

[Hermit]

Seth's views gel nicely with the Old Testament. I'm pretty sure he was born back when it was written.

That would make his longevity truly miraculous. Do you believe in miracles?