Tom Woods: 'Remember When Conservatives Didn't Make You Pull Your Hair Out?'

Source:Player FM- Conservatives or anti-Conservatives?

Source:The New Democrat

"Remember when conservatives used to be antiwar, opposed centralized power, and actually wanted to eliminate government agencies rather than just take them over? Yes, such people once existed. Robert Nisbet, whom you'll never hear mentioned on right-wing radio, but who was one of the great thinkers of that tradition, was one of them. I resurrect him -- not literally, so don't get your hopes up -- in this episode.  Subscribe to the Tom Woods Show:"

Source:Tom Woods

"Remember when conservatives used to be antiwar, opposed centralized power, and actually wanted to eliminate government agencies rather than just take them over? Yes, such people once existed. Robert Nisbet, whom you'll never hear mentioned on right-wing radio, but who was one of the great thinkers of that tradition, was one of them. I resurrect him -- not literally, so don't get your hopes up -- in this episode.  Subscribe to the Tom Woods Show:"

This is a great conservation because when I think of Conservatives as a Liberal ( or Classical Liberal, if you prefer ) I don't think of people who try to pull my hair out. Maybe that's just me not seeing any Conservatives at my barber shop, ( ha, ha ) but I think of people as a Liberal that I actually have a lot of things in common with. People who are anti-Communist and anti-authoritarian all together, as well as anti-Socialist, but people who believe in not just the republic, but the federal republic and not people who want theocracy regardless of what religion a theocratic government would come from.

Conservatives, actually are people who believe in fiscal responsibility, regardless of what the current Republican Party is saying today. Ass well as a strong, but responsible and limited national defense. Not Neoconservatives who believe that it's the job of America to force democracy on the rest of the world that doesn't currently have it, or believe that deficits don't matter. That expansionist deficits and debt are worth having a strong national defense and that tax cuts pay for themselves. The Lindsay Graham's of the world and other Neoconservatives in Congress who actually believe in this.

When I think of Conservatives, I think of people who believe in limited government based on the U.S. Constitution. who believe in conserving our individual rights and that the best way to do that is to limit governmental power especially at the Federal level and decentralizing governmental power, which is one of the main reasons for having a federal republic unlike a unitarian government where most of the governmental power in the country is centralized in the national government especially with the executive.

The people that Tom Woods was talking about that he was calling Conservatives, aren't actually Conservatives at least when a Republican is President. The so-called Constitutional Conservatives from the Tea Party era from earlier this decade only applied to President Barack Obama. Once President Obama was out of office the Constitution no longer mattered that much to them ( if at all ) except as it related to executive power and believing that the President has the power to do basically anything, just as long as these anti-conservatives ( as I call them ) or Nationalists actually agree with what the President is doing. This is no longer about Constitutionalism or Republicanism when it comes to today's Republican Party, but about short-term partisanship and short-term political convenience.

The reason why we have a Libertarian Party and a Conservative-Libertarian movement today, is because we have a Republican Party that no longer believes in limited government and Constitutionalism. Who now believe that executive essentially has unlimited power just as long as the executive is doing what they want him to do and the executive is a Republican. I believe those are the people that Tom Woods is talking about when he talks about "Conservatives who don't make him want to pull your hair out."

But to me Conservatives are people who would never want me to make me pull my hair out, because they tend to have principles that I agree with. The beliefs in the U.S. Constitution, limited government, individual rights, strong but limited and responsible national defense., and fiscal responsibility. I obviously don't agree with Conservatives on everything as a Liberal, but we once had a strong Conservative-Libertarian movement, that was a great alternative to Liberals and Progressives in America. And I wish the Republican Party would at some point get back to that, especially when there's a Republican in the White House.

Mises Media: Tom E. Woods- 'On Socialists and Other Grotesque Ingrates'

Source:Mises Media- Right-wing talk show host Tom Woods, speaking at Mises about Socialists and socialism. 

Source:The New Democrat 

"The opening lecture of Mises University 2018. Includes an introduction by Joseph T. Salerno. Recorded at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, on July 15, 2018.

Mises University is the world's leading instructional program in the Austrian School of economics, and is the essential training ground for economists who are looking beyond the mainstream." 

From Mises Media

I think it's important when you're talking about Socialists to categorize them and put them in three factions, because there Socialists and there are Socialists. Just like there are lawyers and then there are lawyers and then there are politicians and then there are politicians. There not all the same people, but just happen to have the same title. So, what I going to do here is talk about those three socialist factions and then talk about what I don't like about any of them, but perhaps leave out the word grotesque or any other highly insulting word. Not that I'm a fan of political correctness because I'm not, but I'm not a fan of Christian-Conservatives, Nationalists, or Islamists, but I don't think they're disgusting either, just perhaps some of their beliefs.

When I think of Socialists, I think of Bernie Sanders, Hugo Chavez, and Fidel Castro. One is a small d Democratic Socialist. The other is a hybrid between a Democratic Socialist and Communist and the other is a Communist, a Marxist-Socialist.

The Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party, what would've been the Far-Left of the Democratic Party just 10 years ago and had been the Far-Left at least since George McGovern was a major factor in the Democratic Party in the 1970s, but because you have all of these Millennial's who can't afford to pay off their student loans and can't find jobs even if they have college degrees, have decided that socialism is "like totally awesome" for them and free speech is bigoted, freedom is dangerous and capitalism is racist, have all decided that their now Socialists and have moved out of their parents basements and into the Democratic Party. With what's left of the Democratic Leadership to babysit them. So, now you know what I don't like about Socialists.

And as a result what was the Far-Left in the Democratic Party pre-Barack Obama is now looking mainstream in the party similar to how Nationalists are now looking mainstream inside the Republican Party. Even though back in the day Nationalists were considered to be mental patients by Republicans. But Bernie Sanders today, represents for Democratic Socialists what former U.S. Representative Ron Paul represents for Libertarians, perhaps Gary Johnson represents for Classical Liberals and represents what's left of American liberalism.

So what's democratic socialism and what do Democratic Socialists believe?

Democratic socialism is a hybrid economic as well as governmental and political philosophy. That you should have a small d democratic state meaning country or any other jurisdiction, that individuals should have a good deal of personal autonomy short of hurting others with what they're doing. That the economy even by enlarge should be in private hands and that there should be private enterprise and even capitalism, but that you need a big central state to make sure that everyone in society's needs are met. That no one goes without the basics in life because there is no poverty and there's no wealth. Because big government is managing the finances of the country and decides what people need to live well in life. A long way of saying a welfare state that's financed though high taxation. A long with a large regulatory state to regulate the private economy.

So what do I not like about Democratic Socialists?

Similar to Communists, they tend to view people as stupid who need to be babysit ( sort of how Millennials actually are in life ) and that individualism is dangerous because some people will actually do very well in life and not need or even want the welfare state, while others will struggle just to survive in life. What Socialists like to call income inequality. Socialists tend to view non-Socialists as stupid because they don't have an Ivy League degree or a degree from some other great Northeastern or Pac-12 college, and see themselves as brilliant who aren't capable of making mistakes even when they're trying to run other people's lives for them. They're just simply over narcissistic and wrong about these things and should probably get rid of every mirror they own and perhaps they'll fall out of love with themselves and see the real world for a change.

So what's socialism and what do Socialists believe?

Socialism, is basically democratic socialism or if you prefer social democracy, combined with communism. And this here is about what I call hybrid Socialists, people who mix both democratic as well as communism in their political thinking. Venezuela, is essentially now a socialist state. Not purely a communist state and certainly not a social democracy, but they still have elections as sham as they are and even perhaps still have some free media even if it's tightly regulated and they still not just have an opposition party, but a liberal democratic opposition that if the Maduro Regime there were forced to have real elections, President Nicholas Maduro would probably be out-of-power right now. And yet you have Socialists in America who believe President Maduro is a good man and the Socialist Party there are good people.

So what do I not like about Socialists?

Similar to what I not like about Democratic Socialists which is Socialists believe individualism is dangerous and people are essentially come from idiot farms where brains were never given out or developed and need big government to manage their lives for them. Socialists, regardless of the faction have this Donald Trump narcissistic cult like persona that they have all the answers and thinking should not just discouraged, but perhaps outlawed. They remind me a lot of Reverend Jim Jones who created that death camp in Guyana known as Jonestown.

So what is communism and what do Communists believe?

There really isn't any real official definition of communism and what it means to be a Communist anymore. Cuba and China, are officially still communist states, but China especially now has a large private sector where people there not only own their own homes and other personal property, but manage and own their own businesses. Similar to Cuba, but Cuba is still in the early days with their experiment with private enterprise and capitalism. The official definition of a Communist is basically someone who believes in the state should own the means and production of society. Meaning the economy and capital. Meaning there is not private enterprise or private economy in society. But doesn't explain what Communists believe as far as their politics and how decisions should be made in society.

My definition of a Communist, is someone who believes that individualism, freedom in general should be outlawed and that it's the job of the central state to manage the welfare of the people. Decide where they should work, live, what they should believe, learn, etc. And exchange their basic needs in life will be met by the state. The Communist Republic of Korea ( or North Korea ) unless you want to include Syria, is really the only remaining pure communist state in the world. Not authoritarian, but the last of the communist states in the world.

So what do I not like about Communists?

Well, imagine doing a life sentence in a maximum security prison, because that's what life would be like living in a communist state. But if you to a typical maximum security prison in America, you might see inmates there that have more freedom there than the average person in North Korea. That is inmates who aren't in solitary confinement and by enlarge obey the rules of the institution and take advantage of what the prison has to offer. Things like education, work, visitations, etc. I mean, do I really have to explain what I wouldn't want to live in prison especially a maximum security prison? Because that's what life is like in a communist state.

You can't put Socialists in the same discussion as you would put Liberals, Conservative-Libertarians, or Nationalists, because again there are Socialists and then are other Socialists. I believe the best way to look at Socialists is two camps, one being democratic and the other communist. All Socialists have a lot in common similar to how Liberals and Conservative-Libertarians have a lot in common as far as individual rights and equal rights. The best way to look at Socialists is to look at each faction of socialism or just the socialist faction that you're interested in.

Tom Woods: Christopher Snowden- 'Killjoys: A Critique of The Nanny State'

Source:Tom Woods- This just in: Tom Woods, hates big government! LOL

Source:The New Democrat 

"Christopher Snowdon of London’s Institute of Economic Affairs makes the case against paternalistic meddling in individual decisions." 

From Tom Woods

There isn't really one form of a nanny state or one ideology that backs a nanny state. The nanny state comes from both the Left (and not Center-Left) and the Right. (And not Center-Right) People on the Far-Left who at the very least have communist leanings and see individualism and personal autonomy as dangerous and people who don't share their politics as stupid. And view people in general who at least don't share their cultural values and politics, as stupid. And people on the Far-Right who see certain forms of personal behavior as immoral and offensive to their religious and cultural values to the point that they believe those certain activities should be outlawed. And are also people who believe individualism and personal autonomy at least as it relates to personal behavior are dangerous.

I don't believe any intelligent American on the Left or Right is going to argue that there not only stupid people in America, but a lot of stupid people. People who make such bad decisions that it does affect the lives of others. Drunk driving, would be an example, obesity that drives up the health care costs of other Americans especially because of emergency care that people who eat and drink poorly and don't exercise, end up consuming a lot of emergency care because they can't afford to financially pay for the costs of their consequences from their own bad behavior. And therefor end up passing those expensive health care costs onto healthy Americans.

The question should always be what should be done about it. Do you really want to penalize and even make criminals out of people who only hurt themselves at least in the short-term. Or do you want to hold them personally and financially accountable for their own poor decision-making and not allow for them to pass their health care costs onto healthier intelligent Americans. And I'm not talking about denying people health care simply because they made bad decisions with their own diets. But instead having them pay for those costs either upfront through taxation, or through higher health insurance premiums.

The nanny state coming from the Christian-Right primarily in America, is not about stupid personal behavior at all. But really about certain activities that Christian-Conservatives find immoral and offensive to their religious and cultural values. Whether its gambling, pornography, adultery, adult language, adult music, adult movies, homosexuality, women working out of the home, etc. And unfortunately there are many more examples, but I've given you several. But activities that the Christian-Right would outlaw in America and would put people in jail for doing them if they were ever to come to power, simply because these activities offend their religious and cultural values.

Again, its not a question of whether there are stupid people in America and a lot of Americans who do things that are simply not in their personal interest. As well as activities that don't even come with much of a level of danger, but for whatever reasons aren't for everybody which is why not everybody does those things. The questions are who gets to make the decisions when it comes to their own personal lives and who has to deal with the consequences of their own personal decisions. And as a Liberal because I believe in liberty I come down on the side of the individual. As someone who believes in personal freedom and personal responsibility. Not someone who not only believes in big government, but government big enough to protect people from themselves.

Tom Woods: James Ostrowski- Progressivism: 'The Idea Destroying America'

Source: Tom Woods- Radio talk show Tom Woods.

Source:The New Democrat

What I’m going to do with this piece, is to layout what progressivism and Progressives are and what they aren’t. I’ll start with what they are not. They aren’t Socialists and Statists, democratic or otherwise. Bernie Sanders, Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich and many other Socialists, aren’t Lyndon Johnson, Harry Truman and Franklin Roosevelt. They are way to the left of FDR, LBJ and Harry Truman. Progressives, believe in the good of government and even expansionist government.

But Progressives also believe in the limits to what government can do for people. The Socialist, sees government as a director of society. “This is what everyone needs to do well in life. And the primary job of government is to make sure that everyone has what they need to do well in life.” The Progressive, wants everyone to do well in life, sure! But it’s not the job of government to do everything for everybody, or even try to. That people have to have a certain amount of freedom over their own lives. Or the economy will fail, because people will stop being productive.

Progressives, see government more as an insurance system that people can use to empower themselves and live as good as a life as possible. Especially people who need opportunity to do better in life. And that government should be there to do things that we as people can’t do for ourselves or do as well. Infrastructure, national security, law enforcement, foreign affairs, regulatory state, to protect the innocent from predators, but not to run the economy. Safety net, for people who are down to help them out, but to also help them get back up.

A lot of today’s so-called Progressives who either have adopted the label, or have had it put on them, really aren’t. Progressives, don’t believe most non-Caucasians in the criminal justice system are innocent. They are not anti-law enforcement, or even anti-military. Under FDR and Truman, Progressives built the national security state. America, became the military and diplomatic power in the world under FDR and Truman. Progressives, are also not conspiracy theory prone. And throw out ideas that 9/11 was an inside job, orchestrated by the Bush Administration. To use as an example.

If you really want to learn about progressivism, read up on FDR, Truman, LBJ and read and listen to their speeches. When it came both to economic, foreign and national security policy. Check out Senator Sherrod Brown, perhaps one of the few true of classical Progressives in Congress. Now that the Democratic Party has such a large social democratic wing in Congress, especially in the House. Listen to Senator Brown give a speech on the economy and the importance of the middle class. And things like infrastructure, the importance of manufacturing and small business in America. And you’ll have a pretty good idea of what progressivism really is and how its different from democratic socialism.
Source:Tom Woods

Tom Woods: 'Murray Rothbard: How Interventionists Wrecked The Old Right'

Source:Tom Woods- on the Old Right.

Source:The New Democrat

“Murray Rothbard’s posthumously released book The Betrayal of the American Right is the subject of episode 349 of the Tom Woods Show… 

From Tom Woods 

There's always been national security hawks in and outside of both the Democratic Party and Republican Party and people who not only see America's role as defending democracy and defending the developed world, but expanding liberal democracy and freedom around the world, to the point that they believe America should knock off dictators and replace those regimes with American friendly regimes. But those people haven't been in The White House before or have been running the Department of Defense, or have served as President and Vice President of the United States. 

Thanks to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, as well as 9/11, the Republican Party went from people who were strong on defense and against communism and Islamism, to a party that believed it's not good enough for America to just protect itself and their allies, but to make the world safe for liberal democracy outside of America and Europe. Which is how we got not just the War in Afghanistan in 2001-02, but the occupation of Afghanistan to try to build a democratic, responsible government there. And then the same thing with the War In Iraq in 2003.