Slashdot Mirror

You can find some more fascinating videos on the Net about this and of course other topics to read. YouTube/Google has videos of Michael Badnarik discussing the subject, and www.cato.org probably has some basic primers on classical liberalism, libertarianism, and self-determination.

Yea, Michael Badnarik got my vote in 2004. If I lived in the district he's running to represent in Texas he'd get my vote again. Ron Paul would also get my vote. Actually if you go through his, Badnarik's website, he has some good stuff on the subject as well. One I like is about a speech Davy Crocket gave in the House of Representatives when they were debating a bill, "Not Yours to Give". Other good sources on classical liberalism are Thomas Paine, his Common Sense being pretty intro. Alexis de Tocqueville is another pretty good source on classical liberalism as is Adam Smith.

Pure capitalism the way it is turning in the western world, is hurting the futher development of civilization, and will take us back to the jungle eventually, if nothing is being done.

Sorry but we don't have pure capitalism as envisioned by Adam Smith, or Thomas Paine especially as in Adam's book "The Wealth of Nations".

Ah, Tompaine.com. Love that site, it makes so much com.mon sense. Another good Paine website is Thomas Paine Network.

Oh, and congratulations to the parent poster for being an actual conservative, rather than the current leading brand of NeoCon. You're a rarity these days. I never thought I'd see the day when Reagan looked like a better alternative to the current primate occupying the Oval.

If you mean by conservative and Reagan as a smaller and limited government then there's two problems. First it wasn't conservatives who stood for small and limited government, in the 1700s it was liberals (classical liberals for some) that wanted this. Three big examples of this Liberalism are Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith or Adam Smith (Institute) , and Thomas Paine (Network) , or TomPaine.common Sense .

Secondly Reagan didn't reduce the overall size of government, under him government bloomed. I don't recall most of it but "Liberty" magazine had an article in one issue with the numbers in dollars on how big some parts of government got and it wasn't just the military that did. The parts I recall are the "War on Drugs" and education but there were others as well.

Conservativism at one point in time stood for smaller government, it wasn't until the 80s during the Reagan administration did the definition change. (the Neoconservatism era)

Actually it was liberals who stood for a small and limited government, as did the two Thomases, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine(or TomPaine.common sense). To get a good idea of what liberals stood for read Thomas Paine's "Common Sense", "Rights Of Man" or other books of his.

Are you a Randian? How about an Objectivist? I started to read one of her books, is it "Atlas Shrugged" with the architect? But I didn't finish it, I may later. My sister used to be a Randian, read and loved almost all of her books, but them she found out about Objectivism and that turn her off as she's Christian. As for myself the books I read and loved were Adam Sith's "On Wealth of Nations" and Thomas Paine's or TomPaine.com, "Common Sense" and others in a collection of his. A new one I loved is "Natural Capitalism.

The man whose ideas are really leading the neo-cons is Leo Strauss. His idea was that people should always be ruled by a secret elite.

Though I've seen the name having come across it in my readings of politics and economics, I don't know what Leo Strauss' economics/politics is about. As for me, I like, prefer, the two Thomases economic system. Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson.