When have I ever said that I was for any of those things? I always remind you and others like you who are fast to demand government action on any topic that itches you today, that giving the government those powers always comes with a tradeoff. You can't give the government powers and expect it not to abuse them. You, on the other hand, think that there is this magic "fix" to the government that will only allow it to do "good things", while never EVER doing "bad things". It has never worked that way, and it never will.

You want me to return this thread on topic? Sure. The same guy who you salivate over in this thread established the "Eisenhower doctrine" - the doctrine that said that if any country was threatened by the Soviet Union, the U.S. will provide it with economic and military aid. The policy that got the U.S. into Vietnam.

I said "ignore or defend." You've certainly defended the pre-emptive war in Iraq. And you've ignored these other issues. And I only point that out because you get bent of shape when discussing ANY government policy that so much as looks at the free market sideways. And when I bring up these other issues in a discussion about fascist tendencies and your assertion that we're all whining for complaining because things are just soooo great, you chose instead to, surpise!, VEER OFF TOPIC.



So allowing the government to build roads, for example, means that I must ipso facto accept that the government is going to abuse and torture innocent people? That's reductionist nonsense.

And it severely muddies your previous points. Are we so wonderfully free or not? Our government is bigger than it has ever been. And yet you're the one arguing how awesome everything is, that we shouldn't "whine" about authoritarianism because we can travel where we want, etc etc.



I'm sure that if I were trying to argue that Eisenhower was perfect, this would come as a swift and devastating blow to my case.

Second, there are variety of factors that led to the war in Vietnam, starting with Truman. And JFK, under whom the war really got going, had his own set of doctrines, policies, and issues that led to the escalation under him and then Johnson.

Historically, anti-intellectualism is an important foundation for fascist power. Independent political thought is always the first to fall victim to the label of "subversion". Look at America after 9/11. A mob marching in lockstep, where dissenting was un-American and argument was anti-Freedom, when the freedom to disagree is the most American of all freedoms.

We should be morbidly thankful the Cheney administration did not wreak more havoc than they did. "Fairly free", sure, but I'm not as free as I was on September 10, 2001.

I find wryly amusing your pretense for supporting limited government, juxtaposed with your emphatic, if circuitous, defense of fascist thinking. You've got to be the least convincing libertarian I've ever met. I care for government intervention in two areas: human capital investment, and environmental policy -- you seem to define that as being a "whiny" statist. What exactly are you for and against the government doing?

I will say this on Sept, 10th 2001, most of the world respected and admired the US and though it was invincible.

And they did as well on September 11th. The French said "We Are All Americans". A candlelight vigil of twenty-thousand people was held in Iran outside the old American embassy. The whole world was behind us in sympathy, until we told them to fuck themselves.

It was a great chance that was lost.

Anti-intellectualism is not the same thing as jingoism (although they are related). I've yet to see any evidence by you that because the government is run by people who don't value intellectualism as much as you do, you can claim that the scientific progress has slowed down (which doesn't mean I agree with it either).



You've never met me, and repeating Beeblebrox's talking points doesn't qualify as sound debate. Yes, I support limited government (far more limited than it is now). That does not mean that you will see me freaking out and setting myself on fire any time there is a piece of legislation that I don't agree with. I'm not THAT kind of a libertarian. I can evaluate things as a whole without getting bent completely out of shape if I am required to take off my shoes at the airport .


I am against the government telling me how to run my life, whether it be directly through prescriptive legislation (telling me not to smoke at a bar, for instance) or indirectly, through taxation (taxing me more because I choose not to be married, for instance).

Well in the US you hardly ever see an intellectual become a leader.

Its more of the war hero, billy bob joe types that can throw a football right.