Sorry to mess up your recitation of talking points, but they don’t apply to my post. I wrote “the groups that have historically been marginalized by society” which is a far different statement than a simple black/white distinction. So is institutional racism, for that matter.
Do I think that white libertarians favor aid for whites? Yes. I most certainly do. For one thing, that’s part of the definition of institutional racism - favoring policies that benefit those who are like you when you are part of the dominant societal group. It’s also part of the real world. As I’ve said before, when the chips are down everybody in every group wants the government to help them out. That is the reality that every politician understands and everyone in government understands. It will never change. Libertarianism appeals to people when they think it keeps the government from preventing them doing what they want. When they find out it would also prevent the government from helping them when they want you can see roadrunner cartoon-like speed lines as they race away.
No, railroad subsidies were not an example of socialist ideas. A government/party doesn’t need to be socialist to have an industrial policy, it’s a perfectly American tradition that does predate the idea of socialism, going back as it does to Alexander Hamilton, who was no socialist nor proto-socialist of any kind.
I think this would be a lot more likely if Gary Johnson did not so clearly idolize Paul, as evidenced in that one presidential debate where they asked all the candidates who they would pick as their running mate, and Johnson was absolutely gushing with praise towards Paul. Also, when the moderators asked him why voters should vote for him, he couldn’t come up with any good reason.
In spite of this, I will concede that Johnson seems considerably more liberal than Paul. He has more relaxed views on immigration than most Republicans, and I believe when it comes to social issues he is entirely liberal. He does not side with Paul in terms of abolishing the Fed, and I do not know of any racism scandals.
The biggest way that I suspect Johnson would be similar to Paul and turn away people is that he would probably want to abolish many federal cabinets/agencies, just like Paul does. Now, I’m really struggling to stick to facts here and not inject personal opinions all over the place. But I will say that I have talked to some people who think, for instance, that if you abolish the Department of Education that there will be absolutely no education system in the U.S. at all, and the nation will devolve into child idiots. I do not think Paul has done a very good job of explaining to the public how public services would continue to function in the absence of a federally regulated system, and in order for libertarianism to grow as an intellectually respectable movement, this would need to be publicly explained and understood.
It seems as though individuals, in your opinion, are of an extremely low character.
Libertarian policies don’t favor the dominant societal group. That is where you are mistaken. Libertarian policies create equal opportunity for minority groups. Authoritarian policies, OTOH, benefit whoever wields the power at a given moment.
For example, authoritarian policies of the Bush/Cheney administration benefitted the war-profiteers. These are the people who overwhelmingly supported Bush/Cheney.
While authoritarian policies of the Obama administration benefit big labor and assorted corporations (GE, green energy). These are people who overwhelmingly supported Obama.
In a libertarian U.S., neither Bush/Cheney nor Obama would be able to help these groups.
It isn’t very useful to label railroad subsidies socialist since that implies a strong division where there is none, but it represents an intrusion into the free market such that libertarians cannot claim that the railroad barons got rich through hard work alone. To point this out is actually an argument against libertarianism since it removes yet another group that you can point to and say “now this is an example of a libertarian success story!”
ETA: In other words, the great railroad infrastructure that happened across America did not happen due to the unrestrained free market.
If the gold standard is so wonderful and will give far more benefits to a country than fiat money, then why has no government anywhere on earth, even the dictatorships that can impose their wills freely, opted to go back onto a gold standard?
If libertarianism and the unfettered free market are so wonderful and give far more benefits to a country, then why has no country on earth ever adopted it?
The real world answers are that they aren’t wonderful; they are religious fantasies of utopia that no real world groups would ever adhere to. But I don’t remember how libertarians answer them.
What libertarian would point to government subsidized railroad barons as a libertarian success story? James J. Hill and the Great Northern Railroad is a libertarian success story.
[/QUOTE]
ETA: In other words, the great railroad infrastructure that happened across America did not happen due to the unrestrained free market.
[/QUOTE]
The above example illustrates how a privately funded railroad could have emerged. Instead, a lot of the railroads were inefficiently constructed.
Why would they abolish the central bank when it provides them with easy credit to run up spending? You do know we abolished the central bank a few times in our history, right?
I know it was always a regrettable decision, and worse than regrettable, being based always on false premises. A good (and very concise) source here is The Money Men, by H.W. Brands.
“They”? Really? Every government that has ever existed on the planet is in on the conspiracy?
Technically, never. The charters of the first and second Bank of the United States expired and were not renewed.
I find it hard to imagine that anyone acquainted with history would bring these calamities up as good examples. Hamilton’s economic planning, which included the bank, saved the country from financial ruin in its infancy. Madison would have loved to have it available when the War of 1812 broke out. Governments without a banking system don’t fare well with the demands of wartime spending. (Of course, no libertarians would ever engage in war. I assume that’s your position.)
The fall of the Second Bank led directly to the first major depression in U.S. history, in 1837, and crushed any changes of van Buren’s having a successful presidency.
Has any country abolished a central bank under modern economic conditions? Why do you think that is? Do you really believe it’s because “they” won’t allow it? Please define “they”. And if “they” won’t even allow a government to go off a central banking system because “they” want to run up spending, even though doing so would lead to untold improved wealth and prosperity for everyone, please explain exactly how libertarians will ever be able to create their utopia. I’d like to see the route you require to get from here to there.
Doesn’t matter, that brand already is as tainted as it’s ever gonna get. Libertarians are still something about which many non-libertarians have to make up their minds afresh whenever they hear of them.