History of Freedom

[Chris]

Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive though wasn't he; the point is that Republicans were progressives too, even though he beat people up...

The word "liberal" to FDR was more descriptive of his politics which is why he chose it.

As for what I read, what would like to know about? The American Revolution? David Mcculogh has a good book on it. An interesting title I have is The Secret History of the American Revolution; 1948 about Benedict Arnold: it's the story of the intelligence game during the war. Saul K Padover wrote Jefferson... I have over 500 volumes in my library, so where would you like to go? The Norman invasion of Sicily? Alexander the Great? Our Civil War andSenator John C Calhoun? Major Problems in American History perhaps; a college text book I had in school...

I have cited several examples of people having to go to war to overcome an oligarchy as we did and as did the French; as we did in our own streets in the 1930s. I have cited credible source material you to validate everything I've said. So if you still don't know what I mean then that's on you. The Koch Brother, Sheldon Adelson and host of others are seeking "economic liberty", you can read about that as well.

So you can read, or you can remain in the dark with respect to the world around you.

You were the one brought TR into this. You said "Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive...." I agreed. Now you bring up that at the time Reps were Progressives, and Dem free marketers (like Koch). It was a time, however, that the two parties switch roles. Not real sure what that has to do with the history of freedom in the video.

And while you disagreed earlier you now agee that "The word "liberal" to FDR was more descriptive of his politics which is why he chose it."


What would I like to know? I made that clear. What do you even mean by "The history of freedom btw has always rested in overcoming the likes of the Koch brothers"?

If you need to introduce things you've read, then don't just name drop, tell us what you read and how it pertains to what was said in the video.

Now you introduce oligarchy. Koch is libertarian, the opposite. Even you say "The Koch Brother, Sheldon Adelson and host of others are seeking "economic liberty"". Economic liberty is not oligarchy.

[Mini Me]

That tells me nothing. And she's wrong. The book's subtitle is "The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America." Radical right? That's not libertarian. Forgive me if I give the book a pass.

This is an excellent book! Its about how the Kochs have taken over libertarian thought and want their own judiciary forever to give them economic freedom, and stifle personal freedom for the masses of sheeple.Are you denying that there is a radical right? Most radical rightists do!

Don't be afraid of a book!You claim to have an open mind, don't you?

Google: James Buchannan and the George Mason law school

[Mini Me]

The fact is libertarians are not radical right wingers.

How do I know that? I'm libertarian.

Koch is libertarian.

And again, you add nothing to the discussion about the history of freedom, nothing to say about what Koch says in the video. How boorish and boring.

You just "think" you are libertarian.Like so many deluded folks.

Back in the late 70's I was sick of the two party farce that was going on, so I sought out the Libertarian Party, as Ed Clark was running for POTUS. Well I went to his meeting and it sounded good, lots of yak about Freedumb, and liberty and many US flags. Then I started looking at the Libertarian candidates running, and I was sickened! Many were tax cheats, "me firsters" and paranoids, and that guy Schiff who went to prison for tax evasion! All greedy, failed businessmen. So I bailed out in time. The Kochs hijacked the Libertarian Party long ago for their own nefarious aims.

[Chris]

You just "think" you are libertarian.Like so many deluded folks.

Back in the late 70's I was sick of the two party farce that was going on, so I sought out the Libertarian Party, as Ed Clark was running for POTUS. Well I went to his meeting and it sounded good, lots of yak about Freedumb, and liberty and many US flags. Then I started looking at the Libertarian candidates running, and I was sickened! Many were tax cheats, "me firsters" and paranoids, and that guy Schiff who went to prison for tax evasion! All greedy, failed businessmen. So I bailed out in time. The Kochs hijacked the Libertarian Party long ago for their own nefarious aims.

"You just "think" you are libertarian....I was sick of the two party farce that was going on, so I sought out the Libertarian Party..."

I am libertarian. I am not a Libertarian. Learn the difference, please.

For the rest, standard liberal pablum about libertarians not worth commenting on.

[Chris]

This is an excellent book! Its about how the Kochs have taken over libertarian thought and want their own judiciary forever to give them economic freedom, and stifle personal freedom for the masses of sheeple.Are you denying that there is a radical right? Most radical rightists do!

Don't be afraid of a book!You claim to have an open mind, don't you?

Google: James Buchannan and the George Mason law school

Great, another name dropper who can't explain what they've read.

The Koch's have contributed to the Cato Institute and I believe George Mason U. How the heck is that "taken over libertarian thought and want their own judiciary forever"?

And omg they advocate "economic freedom"! Oh, no, Mr. Bill!!

Economic freedom => personal and political freedom.

I deny that libertarians are the radical right boogie man you and others histroinically cry about.

[Mini Me]

Ok, you are libertarian(small case)and not a Party member, I got that!

Now tell us what they stand for, in your own words.I was talking about the L party and the Kochs.Now we need to differentiate between what the l is and what the party stands for.

I thought you had said years ago you were an anarchist, is that right?
Does this mean you don't beleive in liberal democracy?

[Chris]

Ok, you are libertarian(small case)and not a Party member, I got that!

Now tell us what they stand for, in your own words.I was talking about the L party and the Kochs.Now we need to differentiate between what the l is and what the party stands for.

I thought you had said years ago you were an anarchist, is that right?
Does this mean you don't beleive in liberal democracy?

In general, libertarians advocate economic, personal and political (social) liberty. For me, economic liberty comes first and, as Milton Friedman in Capitalism and Freedom argues, economic liberty will drive personal and political liberty. We see that in China where the people have been granted economic liberty and now demand more personal and political liberty.

Yes, I'm a libertarian anarchist, an anarcho-capitalist, or free-market anarchist.

Democracy is the worst form of government. Monarchy better, anarchy better than that.

Brief statements that could take pages to explain.

Koch, like most libertarian-minded people, is a minarchist, i.e., for small, limited government.

[jet57]

You were the one brought TR into this. You said "Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive...." I agreed. Now you bring up that at the time Reps were Progressives, and Dem free marketers (like Koch). It was a time, however, that the two parties switch roles. Not real sure what that has to do with the history of freedom in the video.

And while you disagreed earlier you now agee that "The word "liberal" to FDR was more descriptive of his politics which is why he chose it."


What would I like to know? I made that clear. What do you even mean by "The history of freedom btw has always rested in overcoming the likes of the Koch brothers"?

If you need to introduce things you've read, then don't just name drop, tell us what you read and how it pertains to what was said in the video.

Now you introduce oligarchy. Koch is libertarian, the opposite. Even you say "The Koch Brother, Sheldon Adelson and host of others are seeking "economic liberty"". Economic liberty is not oligarchy.

Nope; sorry, you're misrepresenting everything I've said. I've given you plenty of credible material and have laid out my argument succinctly. I also suggested that you look up "economic liberty" and John Calhoun; you've done neither, so I would suggest that you look up "oligarchy". I've compared and contrasted in the case of Roosevelts and explained FDR to you as well. You're in denial and are not interested in counter arguments that prove your thinking to be flawed. You're not able to prove that anything I've said is incorrect, so you've taken the easy route of just stringing me along and wasting my time.

[Common Sense]

The argument that completely unregulated or free economies are superior or most beneficial, is usually an argument being made by a billionaire or multi millionaire.

That model would indeed work for many...but for many more it wouldn't.

[Chris]

Nope; sorry, you're misrepresenting everything I've said. I've given you plenty of credible material and have laid out my argument succinctly. I also suggested that you look up "economic liberty" and John Calhoun; you've done neither, so I would suggest that you look up "oligarchy". I've compared and contrasted in the case of Roosevelts and explained FDR to you as well. You're in denial and are not interested in counter arguments that prove your thinking to be flawed. You're not able to prove that anything I've said is incorrect, so you've taken the easy route of just stringing me along and wasting my time.

You've said very little beyong go read this or that book, go look up this or that. The one claim you've made, The history of freedom btw has always rested in overcoming the likes of the Koch brothers," you refuse to explain what you even mean.