Libertarians

[fj1200]

You're playing games here. What's the same about Libertarians and Trade Unions isn't concerned with strength of actions, but an interlocking of individuals' beliefs, what Unions and Libertarians alike say they want to represent.

Trade Unions are all about 'strength in numbers'. Whilst Libertarians might not be nearly as willing to openly admit the soundness of that principle, the British Libertarians aren't as shy about doing so. They play the 'political party' game, which is ultimately ALL about that, along with Governmental power ... and the wielding of it through a unified effort. And that is the same power-in-numbers game as forms the bedrock of Union power.

Analyse what drives Trade Unionists. Analyse what drives Libertarians. See if you can insert so much as a cigarette paper between any differences at all.

I'm playing games yet you maintain that two completely disparate organizations are in essence the same. Your logic is ridiculous and unsupported by almost anyone. If it were you would be able to find supporting links to help your case. You cannot.

Thatcherite', 'The Ultimate Thatcherite'.

Anything to add to all the links you can't find to your vacuous argument or do you want to prattle on about Mags?

Such perceptions came from people who wanted to explain away her departure from the old bog-standard, comparatively non-evolved, version of British Conservatism that had existed before her. And they are only PERCEPTIONS, borne of opinions. There is a better way to view what Lady Thatcher was all about ... namely, FACTUALLY, based on evidence of what she SAID and DID.

So you choose to ignore the obvious connections and fail to provide any support for yours.

Small Government is superior, you say. I note you've been a little shy about saying that big Government ACTIONS are inferior. How come ?

Well, it's obvious. There are times when nothing else will do. Margaret Thatcher couldn't have stemmed Trade Union wrecking actions by small Government methodology. Then again, GW Bush couldn't have come up with any appropriate and effective response to 9/11 unless he'd used the full weight of Government powers to do it.

If you argue otherwise .. and since you say that small Government is superior .. I challenge you to come up with small Government solutions to each of these two problems I've touched upon.

I say you can't do so. And, why ? BECAUSE THERE ARE TIMES WHEN ONLY A BIG GOVERNMENT SOLUTION WILL DO, AND IS THE ONLY ANSWER POSSIBLE.

Recognising the nature of a problem, then fixing it realistically, IS the mark of a Conservative, FJ. What you're not grasping - this because you're so bogged down with your Left-wing thinking - is that Conservatives, UNLIKE LEFTIES, are not so totally enslaved to dogma that they refuse to deal with the real world in a real way.

Only a Leftie stays stuck in a self-crafted dreamworld, unable and unwilling to step out of it for a second and face reality.

Wow, and you maintain that you don't adhere to some sort of dogma. All we get is dogma from you and leftie prattle.

I've already explained how Mags used government to deregulate UK labor markets. Deregulation is a small government solution based on conservative ideals. I've also never disputed that national defense is a necessary function of government so I reject your strawman.

Having said that though there can be (at least) two ways to fight a war. When FDR was deciding how to prosecute WWII he was being encouraged to take a command and control approach by his advisors, wife, etc. but he also spoke with the GM CEO? who suggested that he let rely on the private sector in providing the means by which he could do his job as CiC. Thankfully he completely rejected his previous ways of governing for the conservative approach of relying on the free markets to supply the war materials.

Your leftie prattle proves you to be a dogmatic fool who can't step out of his imagination.

Your apology doesn't mean anything, when you follow it up with another attack. Don't waste my time.

I don't care, you're a fool who can't see what people have been telling him.

But I've seen posts where people seem to think that Libertarianism is not left wing. Which could mean that they're right wing at heart, but have been duped.

UK Libertarianism is a little more transparent. British Libertarians play the 'power in numbers' game (as the formation of their own Political party amply proves in itself), and do so without being worried about any ideological fallout.

Logic that is stupid beyond belief. And that first part made no sense. You've offered no proof that Libertarians are left other than your imagination.

... BUT ... I thought that, according to you, small Government was superior ? So, tell me .. why would any Conservative Government, or leader, ever opt for something seen as an 'inferior' approach ?

Answer .. because, at the times and under the circumstances which apply, IT ACTUALLY ISN'T. That's because dealing with problems realistically IS a superior approach. Now .. either prove that small Government solutions to problems is ALWAYS possible, and ALWAYS works better, OR, accept that your slavish adherence (apparently so, anyway) to the superiority of small Government leads to an imperfect and on occasion an unworkable approach to real decision-making.

It is NOT inconsistent with Conservatism to come up with the best solutions to issues and scenarios. However, a Leftie would love to box Conservatives into limitations which make their politics observably undesirable ... eh, FJ ?

You bring stupid to a whole new level. No, it (the big government solution) actually is inferior. As mentioned previously because Reagan wanted a huge tax cut but had to sign EITC doesn't mean EITC was a good solution at the time. It was merely a cost to getting the tax cut.

Trivia question for you; Who proposed the tax legislation that Reagan signed?