sry i was half asleep when i wrote the first post.Libertarianism is an extreme philosophically-abstract form of government; it is the opposite of the extreme form of communist government
i highly recommend you remove the word extreme b/c of it's negative connotations. Ron Paul is actually in the mainstream of libertarianism. More 'radical' schools would be anarcho-capitalism and mutualism. if you visit the site i recommended in the 'Newt' thread you can understand more of what Ron Paul is about. The site it the mecca so to speak for Austrian Economics. also visit cato.org to get a good over view of what some of his policies may look like.
I also recommend you not use the word abstract, politics is itself abstract. it also make RP sound wierd.
Libertarianism, in a nutshell, is based on the 'Non-Agression Principle' and Free Markets.
i dont like the unblended/blended, it's a colloquial. people know what communism is.
also the founders werent libertarians per se, they were classical liberals.
you mean maoism? i'd use this, its more common.china's blended-communization of government.
i likeIt seems every time someone in the mainstream media opens their mouths about Dr. Paul they unleash a dragon that confuses poor thinkers into following along like children attached to their mothers by ribbons, that same beast angering strong thinkers into seeing the incredible, profuse, and subtle bias.
hitherto? substitute it for something else. like 'i have witnessed thus far'...?The best argument I have hitherto witnessed was the fact that Dr. Paul openly said in the last four years that he would not have supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the very act that abolished Jim Crow Laws and gave blacks greater freedom in this country.
over all, i like some of your metaphors, very vivid. Brush up on your research. Your arguments were kind of weak and left me hanging. you made a proposition with no argument. again, search cato.org and mises.org for the economics of civil rights.
Reply With Quote
