ADVERTISEMENT

Keep Your Powder Dry

Ponca Dan

MegaPoke is insane
Gold Member
Dec 7, 2003
24,945
24,441
113
There's an old axiom, Keep Your Powder Dry, which originated with soldiers as they prepared for combat. Today its meaning has changed somewhat to "Save your resources until they're needed."

This is advice the Left in this country seems to be ignoring, which I believe will eventually doom them, and will put our country in peril.

Their insistence on protesting every little thing the Trump administration does or proposes, every slip of the tongue, every quirk the orange headed monster displays is reminiscent of the little boy that cried wolf.

And it's a shame. I know this is only anecdotal but virtually every person I know that voted for Trump actually cast a vote against Hillary. None of them were true-believing Trumpsters.

But what is happening with the actions of the "resisters"has so outraged and infuriated them they now support all things Trump just to piss off the left.

It's almost as if this is happening by design. The public has either tuned out or has become so distracted by the little things they are blind to the big elephant in the room, Steve Bannon's "economic nationalism."

Leonard Piekoff wrote a book, The Ominous Parallels," published in 1982, in which he tried to get the American people to see the disastrous path we are being led down. Here's a quote from the book - it's very long, but bear with me, read it all:

"Contrary to the Marxists, the Nazis did not advocate public ownership of the means of production. They did demand that the government oversee and run the nation's economy. The issue of legal ownership, they explained, is secondary; what counts is the issue of *control*. Private citizens, therefore, may continue to hold titles to property - so long as the state reserved to itself the unqualified right to regulate the use of their property.

If "ownership" means the right to determine the use and disposal of material goods, then Nazism endowed the state with every real prerogative of ownership. What the individual retained was merely a formal deed, a contentless deed, which conferred no rights on its holder.....

During the Hitler years - in order to finance the party's programs, including the war expenditures - every social group in Germany was mercilessly exploited and drained. White collar salaries and the earnings of small businessmen were deliberately held down by government controls, freezes, taxes. Big business was bled by taxes and "special contributions" of every kind, and strangled by the bureaucracy. (amid the Niagra of thousands of special decrees and laws," writes Shirer, "even the most astute businessman was often lost, and special lawyers had to be employed to enable a firm to function. The graft involved in finding one's way to key officials ... became in the late thirties astronomical."). At the same time the income of farmers was held down, and there was a desperate flight to the cities - where the middle class, especially the small tradesmen, were soon in desperate straits, and where the workers were forced to labor at low wages for increasingly longer hours..."

Selfish individuals may be unhappy, the Nazis said, but what we have established in Germany is the ideal system, *socialism*....
"To be a socialist," says Goebbels, "is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole."

Steve Bannon's intention to implement his personal brand of economic nationalism may be milkquetoast to that which was practiced by the German and Italian fascists, but it is economic fascism nevertheless. As each economic nationalism proposal goes sour we will be told it is because the government had insufficient control. "If you'll just give up a little more freedom," they'll tell us, "we can make America great again."

I beseech you not to fall for it. Don't let the stupid shenanigans of the left divert your attention from the real threat.

Maybe next we can discuss Bannon's Fourth Wave theory in which he is determined to get us in a great conflict that will cost the lives of millions of people. As fodder for LBJ and Nixon in the Vietnam era I'll be damned if I sit still and watch him try to do the same to my grandchildren.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Been Jammin
The nazi stuff is is starting to make me picture someone beating a horse's bones into dust.

Think about this. If trump isn't hitler, if the Russia stuff is not bigger than the Iran cantra scandal where does that leave us? 40% of the country and 85% of the media will have to wake up look in the mirror and say "you were a hysterical idiot." That's scary.
 
The nazi stuff is is starting to make me picture someone beating a horse's bones into dust.

Think about this. If trump isn't hitler, if the Russia stuff is not bigger than the Iran cantra scandal where does that leave us? 40% of the country and 85% of the media will have to wake up look in the mirror and say "you were a hysterical idiot." That's scary.
Harry, please understand I am talking about the German ECONOMIC policy during the Hitler years. I am NOT talking about the physical brutality of the Nazis toward their own citizens (particularly the Jews and the gays). I would ask that you confine your comments to the topic at hand and not run off on an emotional tangent that has nothing to do with what I posted.
 
There's an old axiom, Keep Your Powder Dry, which originated with soldiers as they prepared for combat. Today its meaning has changed somewhat to "Save your resources until they're needed."

This is advice the Left in this country seems to be ignoring, which I believe will eventually doom them, and will put our country in peril.

Their insistence on protesting every little thing the Trump administration does or proposes, every slip of the tongue, every quirk the orange headed monster displays is reminiscent of the little boy that cried wolf.

And it's a shame. I know this is only anecdotal but virtually every person I know that voted for Trump actually cast a vote against Hillary. None of them were true-believing Trumpsters.

But what is happening with the actions of the "resisters"has so outraged and infuriated them they now support all things Trump just to piss off the left.

It's almost as if this is happening by design. The public has either tuned out or has become so distracted by the little things they are blind to the big elephant in the room, Steve Bannon's "economic nationalism."

Leonard Piekoff wrote a book, The Ominous Parallels," published in 1982, in which he tried to get the American people to see the disastrous path we are being led down. Here's a quote from the book - it's very long, but bear with me, read it all:

"Contrary to the Marxists, the Nazis did not advocate public ownership of the means of production. They did demand that the government oversee and run the nation's economy. The issue of legal ownership, they explained, is secondary; what counts is the issue of *control*. Private citizens, therefore, may continue to hold titles to property - so long as the state reserved to itself the unqualified right to regulate the use of their property.

If "ownership" means the right to determine the use and disposal of material goods, then Nazism endowed the state with every real prerogative of ownership. What the individual retained was merely a formal deed, a contentless deed, which conferred no rights on its holder.....

During the Hitler years - in order to finance the party's programs, including the war expenditures - every social group in Germany was mercilessly exploited and drained. White collar salaries and the earnings of small businessmen were deliberately held down by government controls, freezes, taxes. Big business was bled by taxes and "special contributions" of every kind, and strangled by the bureaucracy. (amid the Niagra of thousands of special decrees and laws," writes Shirer, "even the most astute businessman was often lost, and special lawyers had to be employed to enable a firm to function. The graft involved in finding one's way to key officials ... became in the late thirties astronomical."). At the same time the income of farmers was held down, and there was a desperate flight to the cities - where the middle class, especially the small tradesmen, were soon in desperate straits, and where the workers were forced to labor at low wages for increasingly longer hours..."

Selfish individuals may be unhappy, the Nazis said, but what we have established in Germany is the ideal system, *socialism*....
"To be a socialist," says Goebbels, "is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole."

Steve Brannon's intention to implement his personal brand of economic nationalism may be milkquetoast to that which was practiced by the German and Italian fascists, but it is economic fascism nevertheless. As each economic nationalism proposal goes sour we will be told it is because the government had insufficient control. "If you'll just give up a little more freedom," they'll tell us, "we can make America great again."

I beseech you not to fall for it. Don't let the stupid shenanigans of the left divert your attention from the real threat.

Maybe next we can discuss Brannon's Fourth Wave theory in which he is determined to get us in a great conflict that will cost the lives of millions of people. As fodder for LBJ and Nixon in the Vietnam era I'll be damned if I sit still and watch him try to do the same to my grandchildren.
What about the globalists of the world -- a group including the Bush's, Clinton's, Obama's, Soros, and many others -- who have had us tragically involved in the Mideast for over a decade now? Trump is a very reluctant interventionist at best, believing these entanglements have drastically drained the wealth of this country and its people and for what? Those same aforementioned globalists -- who despise Trump -- also seem to desire war with Russia. Those are the forces that seem to want to keep us perpetually dropping bombs everywhere around the world.
 
What about the globalists of the world -- a group including the Bush's, Clinton's, Obama's, Soros, and many others -- who have had us tragically involved in the Mideast for over a decade now? Trump is a very reluctant interventionist at best, believing these entanglements have drastically drained the wealth of this country and its people and for what? Those same aforementioned globalists -- who despise Trump -- also seem to desire war with Russia. Those are the forces that seem to want to keep us perpetually dropping bombs everywhere around the world.
You make a very good point about Trump's campaign rhetoric. I had high hopes he would be a non-interventionist militarily. He certainly sounded like he would ignore the Neocons who have yet to see a conflict anywhere in the world they didn't think required our involvement. I hoped and prayed he would lock them out of his administration. Then he started naming his national security team and it became apparent the Neocons were in. It was a bitter disappointment. He even flirted with naming John Bolton whose bloodlust is insatiable. Probably the only reason he didn't name him was Rand Paul's very public dissent. And even then Trump lamented leaving him off the team and insisted he would find someplace to put him. The Neocons must have been deliriously happy.

Bannon's flirtation with the Fourth Wave theory, coupled with the war hawks named to the national security team has me very worried.
 
Last edited:
Harry, please understand I am talking about the German ECONOMIC policy during the Hitler years. I am NOT talking about the physical brutality of the Nazis toward their own citizens (particularly the Jews and the gays). I would ask that you confine your comments to the topic at hand and not run off on an emotional tangent that has nothing to do with what I posted.

Excuse me sir my sincerest apologies.

Does the gentleman agree that within the confinements of your esteemed article that it discussed the property owner having only rights on paper and that the nazi regime held the right to operate the property for the good of the country and not per the property owners self interests?

Is the gentleman saying that Steve bannon is advocating or laying the groundwork for such a trump policy?
 
Lol

8839513659952662c5e1e932460430b1dddd7cfb7a28e0c5207a47ba779009ec.jpg
 
It seems odd that you start the thread with a great series of paragraphs that accurate describe the evolution of Trump voters from reluctant Never Hillary voters to Trump defenders specifically because the left can't keep their powder dry and is turning independents off to their message through hysteria and hyperbole....

...and then you close it with nazi analogies and fears of economic nationalism leading us down that path.

I'm confused.

Do you have any specific reason to fear Bannon's catchphrase 'economic nationalism' is going to be much more than renegotiating trade deals that currently have us at many disadvantages in terms of jobs and manufacturing?

Again, I'm definitely not an expert but the stock market seems to be reacting very positively to every economic announcement. And small business owners like me seem to be pretty optimistic across the board.

What exactly do you know that we don't?

As a self described libertarian, do you not find the ideas of removing 2 regulations for any new one added to be attractive for a free
Market?
 
You make a very good point about Trump's campaign rhetoric. I had high hopes he would be a non-interventionist militarily. He certainly sounded like he would ignore the Neocons who have yet to see a conflict anywhere in the world they didn't think required our involvement. I hoped and prayed he would lock them out of his administration. Then he started naming his national security team and it became apparent the Neocons were in. It was a bitter disappointment. He even flirted with naming John Bolton whose bloodlust is insatiable. Probably the only reason he didn't name him was Rand Paul's very public dissent. And even then Trump lamented leaving him off the team and insisted he would find someplace to put him. The Neocons must have been deliriously happy.

Brannon's flirtation with the Fourth Wave theory, coupled with the war hawks named to the national security team has me very worried.
Oh, I failed to address your concern about the "globalist." Yes, they are slimeballs, too, every one of them. I don't know much about their economic policies beyond their support for globalist economic fascism, a belief they should control the economies of the world. Brexit, Trump et al have knocked them back on their heels, thank God, but I don't think they have received a death blow. It's their sudden interest in making Americans afraid of the Russians again that is most concerning. On the one hand it is an obvious attempt to weaken Trump's credibility so they can defeat him next time around. While on the other hand it is equally obvious they are pawns of the "deep state" who believe the only way to control us is to have us looking to outside enemies.

Sorry, I just reread this and I'm afraid it sounds like the ravings of a madman!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Medic007
It seems odd that you start the thread with a great series of paragraphs that accurate describe the evolution of Trump voters from reluctant Never Hillary voters to Trump defenders specifically because the left can't keep their powder dry and is turning independents off to their message through hysteria and hyperbole....

...and then you close it with nazi analogies and fears of economic nationalism leading us down that path.

I'm confused.

Do you have any specific reason to fear Bannon's catchphrase 'economic nationalism' is going to be much more than renegotiating trade deals that currently have us at many disadvantages in terms of jobs and manufacturing?

Again, I'm definitely not an expert but the stock market seems to be reacting very positively to every economic announcement. And small business owners like me seem to be pretty optimistic across the board.

What exactly do you know that we don't?

As a self described libertarian, do you not find the ideas of removing 2 regulations for any new one added to be attractive for a free
Market?

Uuuuummmmmzzzzzzzz youse gonna get in trouble!!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: CBradSmith
Sticks and stone may break my bones but the two words "economic nationalism" will cause me to be the 1,245,769th person today to reference the trump regime being hitler.

Oopsies I might not following your rules. Thirty second self ban.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Medic007
You make a very good point about Trump's campaign rhetoric. I had high hopes he would be a non-interventionist militarily. He certainly sounded like he would ignore the Neocons who have yet to see a conflict anywhere in the world they didn't think required our involvement. I hoped and prayed he would lock them out of his administration. Then he started naming his national security team and it became apparent the Neocons were in. It was a bitter disappointment. He even flirted with naming John Bolton whose bloodlust is insatiable. Probably the only reason he didn't name him was Rand Paul's very public dissent. And even then Trump lamented leaving him off the team and insisted he would find someplace to put him. The Neocons must have been deliriously happy.

Brannon's flirtation with the Fourth Wave theory, coupled with the war hawks named to the national security team has me very worried.

I see no evidence to support the neocons being anything like "happy" regarding Trump.

McCain, Graham? Krystol? Openly hostile.

McConnel and Ryan are sneaky unreliable turds constantly re-(mis)-defining Trump.

Kristy and Gingrich seem frozen out.

Rand Paul seems very involved and is being very supportive of most of Trump's agenda.

I don't see much beyond anecdotal appointments that support your concern - and as an executive who made "you're fired" a branded catchphrase, I just don't see him as a guy who will suffer neocons following any agenda but his.

I may be wrong. But I just do not see this yet.

Also - it's really puzzling to me to see fellow libertarians who fear Bannon so much. Is glovalism not a more likely clear and present danger to our nation's liberties than a possibly sort of authoritarian guy who was freely elected and is restrained by the Constitution and our checks and balances on executive power?

He's already had one sketchy EO shot down and is thus being forced to redraft it.

Is this not mostly encouraging? I think it is, but admit I'm exactly what you described - a reluctant Trump / Never Hillary voter who has been incredibly turned off by the left not keeping their powder dry. I'm probably pretty biased at this point but trying to keep an open mind.
 
It seems odd that you start the thread with a great series of paragraphs that accurate describe the evolution of Trump voters from reluctant Never Hillary voters to Trump defenders specifically because the left can't keep their powder dry and is turning independents off to their message through hysteria and hyperbole....

...and then you close it with nazi analogies and fears of economic nationalism leading us down that path.

I'm confused.

Do you have any specific reason to fear Bannon's catchphrase 'economic nationalism' is going to be much more than renegotiating trade deals that currently have us at many disadvantages in terms of jobs and manufacturing?

Again, I'm definitely not an expert but the stock market seems to be reacting very positively to every economic announcement. And small business owners like me seem to be pretty optimistic across the board.

What exactly do you know that we don't?

As a self described libertarian, do you not find the ideas of removing 2 regulations for any new one added to be attractive for a free
Market?
Hell, Mega, I'm just a working man that swings a hammer for a living. I don't know the first thing about the stock market.

My point was the Left in this country has so distracted us from the potentially important policies of the Trump administration we have lost focus on what could very well bring us down.

Trump continually talks about how he'll bring back factory jobs when anyone with a brain knows that ship sailed decades ago, and it ain't coming back! Factory jobs reached their peak in 1943 - 1943! - and have been declining ever since. Robotics and technology assure that is a job track that is over.

Go over to a libertarian website called cafehayek by an economics professor named Donald Boudreaux. His explanations of the stupidity of the Trump economic agenda will by far more beneficial to you than anything I could say.
 
Last edited:
Hell, Mega, I'm just a working man that swings a hammer for a living. I don't know the first thing about the stock market.

My point was the Left in this country has so distracted us from the potentially important policies of the Trump administration we have lost focus on what could very well bring us down.

Trump continually talks about how he'll bring back factory jobs when anyone with a brain knows that ship sailed decades ago, and it ain't coming back! Factory jobs reached their peak in 1943 - 1943! - and have been declining ever since. Robotics and technology assure that is a job track that is over.

Go over to a libertarian website called cafehayek by an economics professor named Donald Boudreaux. His explanations of the stupidity of the Trump economic agenda will. E far more beneficial to you than anything I could say.
Or better yet go to reasontv.com and watch their short video exposing how one can be both a citizen of America and a citizen of the world at the same time without harming anyone.
 
Last edited:
In a scenario of absolute free "trade" including the shifting of production....

What does the arbitrage in the differences in world-wide income suggest to you will happen to US working class wages?
 
Further, are you so married to a particular "economic theory" that you cannot critique the real world application....or speak to the hundreds or thousands of other data points that impact the graphs?
 
There's an old axiom, Keep Your Powder Dry, which originated with soldiers as they prepared for combat. Today its meaning has changed somewhat to "Save your resources until they're needed."

This is advice the Left in this country seems to be ignoring, which I believe will eventually doom them, and will put our country in peril.

Their insistence on protesting every little thing the Trump administration does or proposes, every slip of the tongue, every quirk the orange headed monster displays is reminiscent of the little boy that cried wolf.

And it's a shame. I know this is only anecdotal but virtually every person I know that voted for Trump actually cast a vote against Hillary. None of them were true-believing Trumpsters.

But what is happening with the actions of the "resisters"has so outraged and infuriated them they now support all things Trump just to piss off the left.

It's almost as if this is happening by design. The public has either tuned out or has become so distracted by the little things they are blind to the big elephant in the room, Steve Bannon's "economic nationalism."

Leonard Piekoff wrote a book, The Ominous Parallels," published in 1982, in which he tried to get the American people to see the disastrous path we are being led down. Here's a quote from the book - it's very long, but bear with me, read it all:

"Contrary to the Marxists, the Nazis did not advocate public ownership of the means of production. They did demand that the government oversee and run the nation's economy. The issue of legal ownership, they explained, is secondary; what counts is the issue of *control*. Private citizens, therefore, may continue to hold titles to property - so long as the state reserved to itself the unqualified right to regulate the use of their property.

If "ownership" means the right to determine the use and disposal of material goods, then Nazism endowed the state with every real prerogative of ownership. What the individual retained was merely a formal deed, a contentless deed, which conferred no rights on its holder.....

During the Hitler years - in order to finance the party's programs, including the war expenditures - every social group in Germany was mercilessly exploited and drained. White collar salaries and the earnings of small businessmen were deliberately held down by government controls, freezes, taxes. Big business was bled by taxes and "special contributions" of every kind, and strangled by the bureaucracy. (amid the Niagra of thousands of special decrees and laws," writes Shirer, "even the most astute businessman was often lost, and special lawyers had to be employed to enable a firm to function. The graft involved in finding one's way to key officials ... became in the late thirties astronomical."). At the same time the income of farmers was held down, and there was a desperate flight to the cities - where the middle class, especially the small tradesmen, were soon in desperate straits, and where the workers were forced to labor at low wages for increasingly longer hours..."

Selfish individuals may be unhappy, the Nazis said, but what we have established in Germany is the ideal system, *socialism*....
"To be a socialist," says Goebbels, "is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole."

Steve Brannon's intention to implement his personal brand of economic nationalism may be milkquetoast to that which was practiced by the German and Italian fascists, but it is economic fascism nevertheless. As each economic nationalism proposal goes sour we will be told it is because the government had insufficient control. "If you'll just give up a little more freedom," they'll tell us, "we can make America great again."

I beseech you not to fall for it. Don't let the stupid shenanigans of the left divert your attention from the real threat.

Maybe next we can discuss Brannon's Fourth Wave theory in which he is determined to get us in a great conflict that will cost the lives of millions of people. As fodder for LBJ and Nixon in the Vietnam era I'll be damned if I sit still and watch him try to do the same to my grandchildren.
Also, Nixon inherited the Vietnam mess and eventually got us out of it.
 
Also, Nixon inherited the Vietnam mess and eventually got us out of it.
First he sabotaged the Paris Peace talks between LBJ and N Vietnam so he could campaign as the "peace candidate," which proved successful, then he watched as over 21,000 American soldiers got slaughtered under his watch before he ended the war. But, yes, he ended the war.
 
Further, are you so married to a particular "economic theory" that you cannot critique the real world application....or speak to the hundreds or thousands of other data points that impact the graphs?
Yes, I'm committed to the idea of a free society where individuals get to practice their free will and live their lives as each one of them prefers. The only economic theory I am aware of that fits that paradigm is the theory of the free market first espoused by Adam Smith. So I have little tolerance with those that seek compromise with tyrannical economic theories. Mixed economy, etc.

Back in the 30's (or was it the 40's?) there was a huge debate between the followers of Mises and Hayek vs the followers of J.M. Keynes. One side argued that politicians should not interfere with the workings of a free market, that it will only gum up the works. Keynes proposed that politicians had a duty to "improve" the workings of the market with their well intentioned and scientific (read graphs) solutions. One side denied power to the politicians, while the other side waved the starting flag amidst great fanfare. Guess which side the politicians chose.
 
Excuse me sir my sincerest apologies.

Does the gentleman agree that within the confinements of your esteemed article that it discussed the property owner having only rights on paper and that the nazi regime held the right to operate the property for the good of the country and not per the property owners self interests?

Is the gentleman saying that Steve bannon is advocating or laying the groundwork for such a trump policy?
Yes, that is absolutely what the gentleman is saying. How else can you describe the threats against American corporations that want to move some of their operations to foreign locations. As the quote aptly points out it's not about ownership on paper, it's about control, and the person in this instance (Trump) is the person that controls the property. Economic nationalism will give the government de facto ownership, just like it was with the fascists in Germany and Italy. It is a road the German and Italian people willingly followed and it led to the eventual massacre of millions of people. But not before impoverishing their own citizens. Will we follow that path? I hope not.
 
Yes, I'm committed to the idea of a free society where individuals get to practice their free will and live their lives as each one of them prefers. The only economic theory I am aware of that fits that paradigm is the theory of the free market first espoused by Adam Smith. So I have little tolerance with those that seek compromise with tyrannical economic theories. Mixed economy, etc.

Back in the 30's (or was it the 40's?) there was a huge debate between the followers of Mises and Hayek vs the followers of J.M. Keynes. One side argued that politicians should not interfere with the workings of a free market, that it will only gum up the works. Keynes proposed that politicians had a duty to "improve" the workings of the market with their well intentioned and scientific (read graphs) solutions. One side denied power to the politicians, while the other side waved the starting flag amidst great fanfare. Guess which side the politicians chose.

You haven't addressed what the arbitrage in wages across countries is going to do to US wages and/or jobs.
 
Yes, I'm committed to the idea of a free society where individuals get to practice their free will and live their lives as each one of them prefers. The only economic theory I am aware of that fits that paradigm is the theory of the free market first espoused by Adam Smith. So I have little tolerance with those that seek compromise with tyrannical economic theories. Mixed economy, etc.

Back in the 30's (or was it the 40's?) there was a huge debate between the followers of Mises and Hayek vs the followers of J.M. Keynes. One side argued that politicians should not interfere with the workings of a free market, that it will only gum up the works. Keynes proposed that politicians had a duty to "improve" the workings of the market with their well intentioned and scientific (read graphs) solutions. One side denied power to the politicians, while the other side waved the starting flag amidst great fanfare. Guess which side the politicians chose.

Personal liberties aren't at issue here. Don't dress this matter of wages and jobs up in a false facade.
 
You haven't addressed what the arbitrage in wages across countries is going to do to US wages and/or jobs.
I haven't addressed it because I have no idea what will be the impact beyond the individual will enjoy peace and freedom he will not enjoy otherwise.
 
I haven't addressed it because I have no idea what will be the impact beyond the individual will enjoy peace and freedom he will not enjoy otherwise.

Frankly, that's not an acceptable (persuasive) response.
 
Sorry, but if I don't know the answer I don't know the answer. Do you want me to make something up?

I want to hear the solution to the wage/job problem if you're pushing a "solution" this hard.
 
Sorry, but if I don't know the answer I don't know the answer. Do you want me to make something up?
I don't know how the topic got twisted. I guess that's the nature of the beast. I assume from your comments you are all in on Bannon's and Trump's notion of economic nationalism. I'll make you a friendly wager. I say if Bannon and Trump get their way (as they almost certainly will) by the time of the end of Trump's reign the American economy will be worse off than it is today and the American people will have less freedom. You bet I'm wrong. The loser has to meet the winner at his choice of drinking establishments and pay for a round. Are we on?
 
Last edited:
I want to hear the solution to the wage/job problem if you're pushing a "solution" this hard.
Explain the wage/job problem of which you speak.

Hypothetical: let's say my way of thinking prevails (fat chance, I know). Miraculously we go to a completely free market. Virtually no taxes, no regulations, no interference by the government of any kind beyond protecting individual rights. No rent control, no excise taxes, no welfare for big industries, the full Monty. Do you think wages vs prices would be better or worse. Would the individual's standard of living be higher or lower? Would Americans be better off or worse? Happier with the conditions of their lives or miserable? What do you think?
 
Virtually no taxes, no regulations, no interference by the government of any kind beyond protecting individual rights. No rent control, no excise taxes, no welfare for big industries, the full Monty.
What does the qualifier "virtually" mean in this case?
 
So eliminate any government regulations that were enacted after 1913? Serious question as I ponder what your free market looks like.
Income taxes, sales taxes, tariffs, import duties, property taxes, all of it eliminated. No Depts of Education, Commerce, etc. No EPA, no CDC, none of them. A completely free society. If you think of anything I've missed no need to ask me about it - eliminate its expense to the citizenry from the equation.
 
Income taxes, sales taxes, tariffs, import duties, property taxes, all of it eliminated. No Depts of Education, Commerce, etc. No EPA, no CDC, none of them. A completely free society. If you think of anything I've missed no need to ask me about it - eliminate its expense to the citizenry from the equation.
No FDA, no CMS, and no CDC wouldn't be very good for public health. Do those agencies not protect individual liberty by protecting individuals? Big pharma, big tobacco, big booze, and big healthcare aren't exactly looking out for the individual unless forced to.
 
I see no evidence to support the neocons being anything like "happy" regarding Trump.

McCain, Graham? Krystol? Openly hostile.

McConnel and Ryan are sneaky unreliable turds constantly re-(mis)-defining Trump.

Kristy and Gingrich seem frozen out.

Rand Paul seems very involved and is being very supportive of most of Trump's agenda.

I don't see much beyond anecdotal appointments that support your concern - and as an executive who made "you're fired" a branded catchphrase, I just don't see him as a guy who will suffer neocons following any agenda but his.

I may be wrong. But I just do not see this yet.

Also - it's really puzzling to me to see fellow libertarians who fear Bannon so much. Is glovalism not a more likely clear and present danger to our nation's liberties than a possibly sort of authoritarian guy who was freely elected and is restrained by the Constitution and our checks and balances on executive power?

He's already had one sketchy EO shot down and is thus being forced to redraft it.

Is this not mostly encouraging? I think it is, but admit I'm exactly what you described - a reluctant Trump / Never Hillary voter who has been incredibly turned off by the left not keeping their powder dry. I'm probably pretty biased at this point but trying to keep an open mind.


Sorry to take so long getting back to you, Mega. Your comment/questions are legitimate and deserve an answer.

I will grant you the Neocons had grave concerns about Trump. He was/is a loose cannon they feared they could not control. They were against Brexit, he was for it. They hoped for a two pronged enemy in ISIS and Russia. He seemed to want detente with Russia. He appeared to be a huge chink in the gears. Maybe you could call their concern hatred, but I think it was fear more than anything. They were afraid they would be left out in the cold away from the engine of power.

McCain, Graham and Krystal were openly hostile. Then Trump started putting together his national security team, which consisted of generals that basically agreed with the Neocons. McCain and Graham practically danced with delight when they got named. These were people whose ears they could bend. Bolton would have been icing on the cake, but Rand Paul pretty much single handedly put a stop to that. But Bolton will be given a seat at the table. And despite whatever his title will be he will have influence.

McConnel is a squish that will be flattened any time he steps out of line. He knows that and he knows Trump has a lot of support in his state of Kentucky. He will fall in line when he is told. Ryan may balk a little, but he does not want to be primaried in the next election, so his acquiescence will be harder to come by than the squish, but Trump and Bannon are expert at bullying. He'll come around.

Christy and Gingrich have not been frozen out. Christy would be a political liability at this time; he just needs to give it a little time to let the heat die down. Gingrich is more valuable being a pundit on Fox News and other media. I'm sure he will enjoy many private meetings in the White House.

I am puzzled by your puzzlement re a global economy. China fiddled with their currency which impoverishes their own people and enriches us with lower priced goods. Look at the tire industry. American tire manufacturers claim to be hurting because China is dumping cheap tires in our country. Get it? Tire manufacturers want the government to step in and make you and me pay for tires at prices the American manufacturers want to charge. So millions of us have to pay out the nose for tires so the local manufacturers will be happy. The free flow of goods and services is a boon to our economy. Trump and Bannon are blithering idiots!

Your comments regarding constitutional restraints on the President are painfully laughable after our experience with the floppy-eared socialist that preceded him. Presidents, judges, legislators - all of them view the constitution as a hindrance, nothing to be taken too seriously.

Yes, his sketchy EO was shot down temporarily, but why the hell do Presidents have EO authority in the first place? Like Obama, Trump will issue EO's when it suits him, just like a third world tyrant.

The only "support" I've seen Rand Paul give this administration is on TV when he asked reporters to show him the legislation Trump has proposed to restrict the rights of minorities and gays. You must know more than me about any other support.

The only saving grace for me in Trump's victory is the humiliating defeat of Hillary Clinton, surely one of the most corrupt and evil politicians in our nation's history. Isn't it sad that has to be the reason I'm glad (sort of) that Trump won?
 
Last edited:
No FDA, no CMS, and no CDC wouldn't be very good for public health. Do those agencies not protect individual liberty by protecting individuals? Big pharma, big tobacco, big booze, and big healthcare aren't exactly looking out for the individual unless forced to.


When you begin to research buying a
new car do you go by what federal agencies tell you, or do you place greater reliance on places like Consumer Reports?

Sure, those agencies have a role in society. But why do they have to be government run agencies? Surely you haven't fallen for the canard that federal agencies are objective and free from interference? There's no federal agency telling us what vacuum cleaners we should buy. Or shoe laces. What makes you think people in a free society, people that have to rely on their own judgement, people that are self reliant would be so ignorant that nobody would think to start a consumer protection firm whose advice people could follow or not, depending on the reputation of the firm. Everybody knows full well that the agencies you have named are controlled lock, stock and barrel by the industries they are supposed to monitor. It's classic Baptists and the bootleggers. Those agencies have our protection in mind about as much as I root for OU in football, which is to say not at all.

None of those industries are necessarily looking out for the individual, as you say, unless in a free market their reputations become besmirched and there's no government for them to run to for protection.

Do you like it when Uncle Sam bails out companies that are "too big to fail?" Bails them out by taxing you? I don't.
 
If you aren't familiar with the history of the pharmaceutical industry, you'll likely not understand why the government stepped in. Hint, it isn't because there weren't consumer advocates around. The FDA isn't perfect, but healthcare prior to its creation wasn't headed in a good direction.

Buying a shitty vacuum cleaner or shitty shoe laces isn't going to potentially be fatal or permanently disabling. Surely you have a better free market comparison for public health.
 
If you aren't familiar with the history of the pharmaceutical industry, you'll likely not understand why the government stepped in. Hint, it isn't because there weren't consumer advocates around. The FDA isn't perfect, but healthcare prior to its creation wasn't headed in a good direction.

Buying a shitty vacuum cleaner or shitty shoe laces isn't going to potentially be fatal or permanently disabling. Surely you have a better free market comparison for public health.

No, that's the best I've got. Tell me why we don't need government protection from shitty vacuum cleaners that spew their unhealthy dust particles in the air via their exhausts. Why it's criminal that industry gets away with poisoning our indoor air without one single protection from our loving overlords in the federal government!

And shoe laces! Have you never had shoe laces that came untied while you were walking? You could trip! What if you tripped while you were walking down the stairs? You could be seriously injured! We need protection, I say, right here in River City!

But to be serious I do not know the history of the pharmaceutical industry pre-federal government intervention. Why don't you enlighten me with an edited version. Then we can compare that to how the pharmaceutical industry acts now. You know, with the hostile CDC, etc. breathing down their necks.
 
Last edited:
But to be serious I do not know the history of the pharmaceutical industry pre-federal government intervention. Why don't you enlighten me with an edited version. Then we can compare that to how the pharmaceutical industry acts now. You know, with the hostile CDC, etc. breathing down their necks.
Not sure what you mean by edited version, so I'll assume you meant abbreviated.

Prior to 1906 there was little regulation in regards to food and drugs. That gave us such wonderful medicines like heroin to treat morphine addiction and diphtheria antitoxin from the horse named Jim. Turns out heroin doesn't exactly treat morphine addiction and Jim's diphtheria antitoxin might not have killed people if it had been tested after Jim contracted tetanus. Those types of incidents brought us the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 which addressed adulteration and labeling of food and drug products (we put ground animal bones in candy bars because the kids love it!). This Act also brought us the formal creation of the FDA.

Enter the 1930's, despite the advances in prevention of adulterated and mislabeled stuff, many folks died because of what was being used, not how it was labeled. Women were lethally poisoned by a properly labeled drug called Radithor used for the ever popular but quackish treatment by radiation hormesis. Some ladies were blinded and one died using Lash Lure as a way to have permanent mascara (that's what it was marketed for). Turns out Lash Lure contained a chemical that was incompatible with human use. And the kicker was Elixir Sulfanilamide taken by folks for infections. At least 105 people (71 adults and 34 children, including 6 people in Tulsa) died after ingesting it because the pharmaceutical company used previously untested diethylene glycol as the solvent instead of alcohol because of the naturally sweet taste. Under the 1906 law, the company did nothing wrong as the label accurately described the contents as 72% diethylene glycol, 10% sulfanilamide, and a few flavorings and coloring. Public outrage demanded the government step in to protect consumers from further harm, which caused the passage of the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that gave the FDA much more oversight including food, drug, and cosmetic safety.

Abbreviated. Much more fascinating reading out there if you have an interest. To this day the FDA is a protectionist agency. In fact, plenty of folks in the medical community don't feel it does enough to protect folks from pharmaceutical and medical device companies. There is an expansive list of lawsuits because of underreported adverse events and device failures from the companies that manufacture and submit their evidence to the FDA for approval. The fact that these companies can afford to pay the settlements should tell you all you need to know about what would happen without government oversight. Physicians don't want to cause harm to their patients with dangerous drugs and terrible devices, and it's clear the pharmaceutical and medical device industry is OK with cutting corners to increase the bottom line.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT