2012 Libertarian Party Platform

[Makalakumu]

On the other hand, if you consider the financial binge on debt and money printing that it takes to fund a war, having periods of economic growth followed by stagnation makes sense. The money printed now boosts the economy in the short term, but years down the line, everyone is poorer. This is one of the many reasons why war has generally made everyone poorer over time.

That stated, whilst you may be able to point to some priveledged financiers and transnational corporations that make money off of catastrophe, the overall destruction of wealth for the masses during the war in terms of loss of life, property damage, lost productivity and inflation makes a staggering case against any economic gains are miniscule in terms of the actual losses. If the wars never happened we'd all be much richer.

So, again, I say non-interventionism makes the most practical sense. We waste our lives, property, time, and currency on the alternative.

 

[elder999]

That stated, whilst you may be able to point to some priveledged financiers and transnational corporations that make money off of catastrophe, the overall destruction of wealth for the masses during the war in terms of loss of life, property damage, lost productivity and inflation makes a staggering case against any economic gains are miniscule in terms of the actual losses. If the wars never happened we'd all be much richer.

So, again, I say non-interventionism makes the most practical sense. We waste our lives, property, time, and currency on the alternative.

\

Except our corporate overlords, loooooong ago, said "F**k the masses," and they are the ones that run everything, the very engines of our economy-they care far less about lives, or time, and far more about property and currency- whether they make money off of catastrophe or mass prosperity makes no difference to them. Profit is profit, whether from war or peace, oil or solar, guns or butter. It's all the same, and what happens to you and your family, or anyone else's is not, and never has been part of that equation.

War is profitable, and so we'll have one. People will die, but that won't effect the bottom line. Who is in office, and which party controls the "government" of this country is completely irrelevant, as it nearly always has been......

 

[granfire]

Let's consider WWI: dismissing the effects of the 1918 influenza epidemic, the WWI post-war years sqw the rise of American military and economic superiority-in fact, prior to WWI, the U.S. was in a recession, and people like Theodore Roosevelt were actually shopping for a war as a boost to the economy.When war came-even before the U.S. entered, U.s. corporations were making huge proftis: DuPont for gunpowder, U.S. steel, Bethelehem Steel, and American Sugar, just to name a few, made hundreds of millions of circa 1920 dollars-the equivalent of billions today. England gained (or solidified) territory in Palestine, Arabia and German colonies in Africa. Setting the stage for WWII, Krupp made huge profits throughout the war, and did not suffer through the interwar 20's and 30's, continuing to do business with American companies and businessmen, like Prescott Bush.

In fact, periods of extended recession or depression have always been alleviated by war-with profit for all who aren't fighting in it, and some who are. WWI was followed by a period of abundance, then a recession/"Great Depression" which was only ended by another war.

I'd say look for a nice profitable war sometime next year, following the start of the recession in the first quarter.

Only one problem with this one (while I do agree with your analysis.)
We already had a war, it's not really over yet...and with the exception of Haliburton nobody really profited....we got cheated out of our years of prosperity in this one!
(I can't really complain either, since our paycheck comes from the defense sector...peace is sorry business)

 

[elder999]

Only one problem with this one (while I do agree with your analysis.)
We already had a war, it's not really over yet...and with the exception of Haliburton nobody really profited....we got cheated out of our years of prosperity in this one!
(I can't really complain either, since our paycheck comes from the defense sector...peace is sorry business)

While the young people who have fought and died in them might disagree, I'd hesitate to call our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq "wars," at least, certainly not in the context of this discussion-and no, not just Halliburton has profited from them. I'm a little ashamed to say that I couldn't help making some profit in those instances myself.

In any case, the real "war" has yet to come. It'll make Exxon, Halliburton and Raytheon HUGE, and rain misery on us all.

 

[Makalakumu]

\

Except our corporate overlords, loooooong ago, said "F**k the masses," and they are the ones that run everything, the very engines of our economy-they care far less about lives, or time, and far more about property and currency- whether they make money off of catastrophe or mass prosperity makes no difference to them. Profit is profit, whether from war or peace, oil or solar, guns or butter. It's all the same, and what happens to you and your family, or anyone else's is not, and never has been part of that equation.

War is profitable, and so we'll have one. People will die, but that won't effect the bottom line. Who is in office, and which party controls the "government" of this country is completely irrelevant, as it nearly always has been......

First thing that comes to mind is Nat Turner.

Second thing is that libertarian foriegn policy is the correct foreign policy for the world to have any semblence of peace and prosperity. Also, libertarian social policy is pretty much the correct way to free ourselves (our minds actually) from bondage.

People always say we need to take the money out of politics because that corrupts the system. That will never happen. There will alway be rich people. We need to take the POWER out of politics to take away the tools that control us. That is the goal of Libertarianism, IMO. Throw the ring into Mordor.

Frodo was a Libertarian.

 

[Makalakumu]

While the young people who have fought and died in them might disagree, I'd hesitate to call our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq "wars," at least, certainly not in the context of this discussion-and no, not just Halliburton has profited from them. I'm a little ashamed to say that I couldn't help making some profit in those instances myself.

In any case, the real "war" has yet to come. It'll make Exxon, Halliburton and Raytheon HUGE, and rain misery on us all.

What if our Rulers had a "higher" calling? Something that transcended profit? What if they could rationalize thermonuclear war because of this calling?

 

[elder999]

What if our Rulers had a "higher" calling? Something that transcended profit? What if they could rationalize thermonuclear war because of this calling?

I'm tempted to ask about the prospects of pig farmers becoming brick merchants, if sows had square anuses.....:lfao:

I think your first mistake is thinking that our Rulers have faces, or that they rationalize anything-or that it's even possible for them to consider anything "higher" than profit. Corporations are faceless engines of profit-"persons" that endure far beyond the lifetime of a real person, with no greater motivation than self-sustenance through profit. Even the faces at their very top are only human cogs in the vast machine of corporate personhood: easily and inevitably replaceable, and their very will subsumed by the motivation of corporate superiority.

There is no profit in thermonuclear war, and so there will not be one.That is not to say that there is no profit from the misery and destruction that is war, as I've demonstrated-but no corporation is in the business of selling nuclear weapons to anyone but governments, yet, and the profit in those weapons relies upon their not being used-ever.

After all, once their clients have actually used nuclear weapons, the likelihood of making any profit from selling them another diminishes quite radically. On the other hand, the repeat clientele for conventional bombs is a ready made market.

 

[Sukerkin]

Quite so, Elder :nods:. I've tried several times to get across the point in these pages that the most useful thing that any government could do would be the rescinding of the laws that allow the legal fiction of corporate personhood. That one act would have a greater impact on the business and social worlds than almost anything else - mind you I do have to wonder if we would see an upsurge of 'un-managed' (not for profit) wars if the corporate hand on the 'trigger' was removed?

 

[Makalakumu]

I'm tempted to ask about the prospects of pig farmers becoming brick merchants, if sows had square anuses.....:lfao:

I think your first mistake is thinking that our Rulers have faces, or that they rationalize anything-or that it's even possible for them to consider anything "higher" than profit. Corporations are faceless engines of profit-"persons" that endure far beyond the lifetime of a real person, with no greater motivation than self-sustenance through profit. Even the faces at their very top are only human cogs in the vast machine of corporate personhood: easily and inevitably replaceable, and their very will subsumed by the motivation of corporate superiority.

There is no profit in thermonuclear war, and so there will not be one.That is not to say that there is no profit from the misery and destruction that is war, as I've demonstrated-but no corporation is in the business of selling nuclear weapons to anyone but governments, yet, and the profit in those weapons relies upon their not being used-ever.

After all, once their clients have actually used nuclear weapons, the likelihood of making any profit from selling them another diminishes quite radically. On the other hand, the repeat clientele for conventional bombs is a ready made market.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones

Reading between the lines here, this is an ideology that transcends corporations. This is an ideology that demands ultimate control over the human mind and human action. This is an ideology that would push the button and kiss profit good bye.

 

[Makalakumu]

Quite so, Elder :nods:. I've tried several times to get across the point in these pages that the most useful thing that any government could do would be the rescinding of the laws that allow the legal fiction of corporate personhood. That one act would have a greater impact on the business and social worlds than almost anything else - mind you I do have to wonder if we would see an upsurge of 'un-managed' (not for profit) wars if the corporate hand on the 'trigger' was removed?

Libertarians would take this idea a step further. The real problem is that governments protect corporations from liability through the LLC. If you take away that protection, now corporations are fully responsible for their actions and property. Now, if the corporation does something to lose money, the members can be personally liable in terms of property.

 

[elder999]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones

Reading between the lines here, this is an ideology that transcends corporations. This is an ideology that demands ultimate control over the human mind and human action. This is an ideology that would push the button and kiss profit good bye.

Thermonuclear war violates guideline #10, what some might call the msot important one, given its reiterated, Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature.

Now, John, please put the bong down. :lol:

 

[Makalakumu]

Thermonuclear war violates guideline #10, what some might call the msot important one, given its reiterated, Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature.

Now, John, please put the bong down. :lol:

Nature would recover. Pass.

In all seriousness, if I'm right, it doesn't matter. So, I hope you're right.

 

[elder999]

Nature would recover. Pass.

In all seriousness, if I'm right, it doesn't matter. So, I hope you're right.

And I, John, am sorry that I am right.......

 

[Makalakumu]

And I, John, am sorry that I am right.......

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/world-verge-war

Here is a summary of where the world stands:

• Unable to reach a compromise over the weekend, South Africa is now in an all out labor strike, with the police again firing rubber bullets at miners with lethal escalation guaranteed
• Back from vacation, the once again penniless citizens of Spain, Greece, and Portugal have resumed protesting austerity
• US embassies attacked, in many cases with numerous casualties, in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, Sudan, Lebanon, India, Balgadesh, Indonesia, and others.
• Japan "appropriating" China-contested islands provoking a firestorm of retaliation including demands for "war with Japan"
• The Japanese ambassador to China dying mysteriously
• Netanyahu telling Meet the Press Iran will have a nuke in six-seven months and must be stopped beforehand
• Warships from more than 25 countries, including the United States, Britain, France, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, launching a military exercise in the Straits of Hormuz
• A third US aircraft - the CVN-74 Stennis - carrier is en route to Iran with an ETA of about 10 days
• And finally, a potential catalyst to light this whole mess on fire, Iran's Revolutionary Guard announcing that its troops are now on the ground in Syria.

From Reuters:




Members of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) are providing non-military assistance in Syria and Iran may get involved militarily if its closest ally comes under attack, commander-in-chief Mohammad Ali Jafari said on Sunday.

IMO, we're about to learn that the Libertarians were right about foreign policy (again). The coming war was preventable. It was avoidable. With major powers vowing to back up opposite sides, who knows where this is going to go.

 

[elder999]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/world-verge-war



IMO, we're about to learn that the Libertarians were right about foreign policy (again).

We're about to learn how naive the Libertarian foreign policy is-libertarian values can only, and should only be applied to the citizenry, not to international relations, except for in matters of trade, and perhaps not even then. (If the most prominent voice and face of the Libertarian party had his way, there'd be no foreign trade, because he's opposed to trade agreements. "Free trade with all," but free trade with all might well mean no trade with any)

The coming war was preventable.

The coming war is inevitable.

It was avoidable.

It was planned loooong ago.

With major powers vowing to back up opposite sides, who knows where this is going to go.

THe same place that it's gone before-without too much in a thermonuclear way. I'd be more concerned with germ or chemical warfare, anyway-theater weapons really only threaten major cities, and we'll likely wind up siding with Russia against China, anyway-anything the smaller players and potential players can bring to bear in that regard: Pakistan, India, Iran, North Korea, Israel-will likely be deployed in their own backyard, of slightly more than Hiroshima yield, and one or two shots at most.

Or, an NGO controlled weapon brought into another country (US?) as cargo.

In any case, Iran will likely get the conventional "Powell doctrine" treatment, from Israel and/or us, and we'll likely have troops from Iraq go into Iran at some point. What of it? We've had U.S. troops making incursions into Iran for at least 6 years, that I know of.

Near as I can tell, John, all that you've posted is yesterday's news-the world's been at war for more than 25 years, in one way or another......

 

[granfire]

More like over 30....

 

[elder999]

More like over 30....

It's called being conservative-more like over 50, if you get right down to it.....the world's at war, and has been all of my life.

 

[Makalakumu]

It's called being conservative-more like over 50, if you get right down to it.....the world's at war, and has been all of my life.

IMO, being at war one's entire life meets the criteria of a failed foreign policy. When you consider the costs around the world and the costs at home, the Imperial foreign policy of the United States has been a total failure for the bulk of the citizens of this country. From an economic point of view, we have inflated away our standard of living and stolen huge sums of money from future generations for it. Libertarian foreign policy would have been the cheapest and most practical thing we could have done 100 years ago before the big mistake of WWI. Now, it's probably too late. About the only thing Libertarians can do now is say "I told you so" as the wheels come off.

It would have been interesting if Ron Paul had been elected. I think closing our foreign military bases and disentangling our foreign engagements would have put the coming war on hold, but then again, maybe the world is really beyond the point where you can diffuse a fight. I don't know and I guess this "what if" fair tale land isn't really that important.

What is important is that we are really honest about how terrible our foreign policy is and how it created all of the problems we are currently going through. Maybe future generations will finally learn.

Also, where did you get this idea that Trade Agreements promote trade? "Trade Agreements" are thousands of pages of rules that restrict trade. If we have a few more "free trade" agreements, we might not have any trade at all.

And who are the planners anyway?

Lastly, if the "planners" decide to "turn the lights on", I'll be the first to know in my current location. Yikes!

 

[elder999]

IMO, being at war one's entire life meets the criteria of a failed foreign policy.

I wasn't saying that the U.S. was at war for my entire life-though that case could be made-I was talking about the world.

When you consider the costs around the world and the costs at home, the Imperial foreign policy of the United States has been a total failure for the bulk of the citizens of this country.

Not the ones that count, that is to say, those who presently make more than $250,000/yr.-minimum, actually-probably more in line with property and investments, rather than income.......

From an economic point of view, we have inflated away our standard of living and stolen huge sums of money from future generations for it. Libertarian foreign policy would have been the cheapest and most practical thing we could have done 100 years ago before the big mistake of WWI.

Libertarian foreign policy would have meant the end of Jewry, the unimpeded rise of the Third Reich, the Greater Asian Co-prosperity Sphere, no Israel, Great Britain a satellite state of Germany, and our country an isolated economic ruin.

Now, it's probably too late.

It's too late for a lot of things.

It would have been interesting if Ron Paul had been elected.

So he could sponsor the repeal of the Civil RIghts Act? Repeal all the social policies and advances of the last 50 years? Undo the Fed and find nothing to replace it? I don't think so.

I think closing our foreign military bases and disentangling our foreign engagements would have put the coming war on hold, but then again, maybe the world is really beyond the point where you can diffuse a fight. I don't know and I guess this "what if" fair tale land isn't really that important.

Our foreign bases are economically unsupportable, and time is proving that out-many of them will come to be undone, by lack of necessity.

What is important is that we are really honest about how terrible our foreign policy is and how it created all of the problems we are currently going through. Maybe future generations will finally learn.

Not going to happen. We can do no wrong. We believe all the lies, and so, the majority of us say as much: we can do no wrong.

Also, where did you get this idea that Trade Agreements promote trade? "Trade Agreements" are thousands of pages of rules that restrict trade. If we have a few more "free trade" agreements, we might not have any trade at all.

It's not my idea-it's just an idea. You don't have "trade," without agreements. It's really that simple.

And who are the planners anyway?

Above your pay grade, or mine. It doesn't matter-it shouldn't have any impact at all on what you do, or choose to do about it. All the noise about "Libertarian values," foreign policy, trade agreements, what's best for the world, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum :barf:, doesn't make a lick of difference: the world will move on as it will, and you are just a small cog in the great big machine. You can opt out of the machine, if you recognize your role in it, or you can just keep turning....................

............that "turning," BTW, includes all your noisy dissent.

 

[Makalakumu]

I wasn't saying that the U.S. was at war for my entire life-though that case could be made-I was talking about the world.

The US has been at war since my grandfathers fought in WWII. We've had a war finance scheme since 1913.

Not the ones that count, that is to say, those who presently make more than $250,000/yr.-minimum, actually-probably more in line with property and investments, rather than income.......

I think maybe you need to put a few more zeros after your number....like 4 or 5.

Libertarian foreign policy would have meant the end of Jewry, the unimpeded rise of the Third Reich, the Greater Asian Co-prosperity Sphere, no Israel, Great Britain a satellite state of Germany, and our country an isolated economic ruin.

Libertarian foriegn policy wouldn't have created and funded Hitler, Stalin, or Mao. The Jews would still be safe and so would the Brits.

It's too late for a lot of things.

It's too late for a lot of young men and women who are going to pay the ultimate price for continuing and worthless mistakes. And it's too late for the unborn who will have to pay for this mess.

So he could sponsor the repeal of the Civil RIghts Act? Repeal all the social policies and advances of the last 50 years? Undo the Fed and find nothing to replace it? I don't think so.

The Fed is the heart of war finance and debt spending. Get rid of it replace it with nothing. Now, the financiers have to deal directly with democracy in order to finance wars and other BS.

There would have been no need for the Civil Rights act if government hadn't institutionalized racism in the first place...but realistically you do have a point here. A broken clock is correct twice a day....and once in a blue moon the government can stumble into something good.

Our foreign bases are economically unsupportable, and time is proving that out-many of them will come to be undone, by lack of necessity.

Most of the bases are getting repositioned around China and Russia. The Eurasia and Eastasia have always been the enemies of Oceania.

Not going to happen. We can do no wrong. We believe all the lies, and so, the majority of us say as much: we can do no wrong.

Can't say I disagree.

I

t's not my idea-it's just an idea. You don't have "trade," without agreements. It's really that simple.

That's a terrible argument. There is a huge difference between NAFTA and GATT and two private multinational parties going into business with each other. Libertarians believe that the government need not get involved.

Above your pay grade, or mine. It doesn't matter-it shouldn't have any impact at all on what you do, or choose to do about it. All the noise about "Libertarian values," foreign policy, trade agreements, what's best for the world, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum :barf:, doesn't make a lick of difference: the world will move on as it will, and you are just a small cog in the great big machine. You can opt out of the machine, if you recognize your role in it, or you can just keep turning....................

............that "turning," BTW, includes all your noisy dissent.

View attachment 17313

Wow, someone is out of Hopium...

War has a huge inpact on my life and my families standard of living. It could kill me and my children and will most assuredly make all of us poorer. Ultimately, Libertarians oppose the initiation of force to solve social problems. All the government does is initiate force, therefore politics to a Libertarian is actually a form of Self Defense.