/liberty/ - Liberty

The United States hasn't stood for liberty in generations.

>>68058

So you don't see the fight against communism, Islamism and other evils as being a fight for liberty?

>>68062

>They're just fighting against ideas that's a threat to their modern daily life as a Statist.

So why did they go after Saddam Hussein rather than Tom Woods?

>>68064

Because Tom Woods is barely know, unless you're a libertarian. Also, I don't see Tom causing violence.

>>68065

He's fairly well listened to. And at least he's actually in America.

Your theory fails, because we would see governments going after people in their own countries that annoy them, rather than dictators in irrelevant 3rd world shitholes

>>68068

Pretty sure Tom isn't a primary suspect in the "War on Terror"

>>68059

American was never truly fighting Communism, only using it as a convenient bogeyman. Islamism has most often been its own cause. Nobody's going to praise you for creating your own problems to solve.

Islamism and Communism have been used to limit Liberty and nothing else.

>>68076

>American was never truly fighting Communism, only using it as a convenient bogeyman

That's a hot take. So you have conspiracy theories about the real reason the US was in every one of those countries?

>Islamism has most often been its own cause. Nobody's going to praise you for creating your own problems to solve.

You're implying there wasn't already a problem when they stepped in to fix it.

>>68076

If it wasn't for America, many countries would have fallen to communism.

I'm not a neo-con (Ron Paul isolationist actually) but even I can see how America has prevented communism from literally taking over the world. The USSR was the last real threat to America. Everything after that is just bullying 3rd world nations because muh oil and petrodollar. I wish we would stop destabilizing countries, arming terrorists and staging fake revolutions. The U.S. is now acting like the USSR did, whereas Russia today has more in common with traditional American values than millenial Americans do.

Commie/Nazi tribal identity politics is going to be the death of this country.

>>68057

>>68057

>libertarian

>having children

kek

>>68078

>real threat to America

In what way? It was both militarily and economically crippled?

>>68101

The USSR was the cancerous center of Communism. Communism has been the greatest thread to the USA since its conception. All undermining that is currently occurring in the USA has some relation to the USSR's Communism.

>>68078

>I'm a conservative but I believe Michael Moore though

>>68104

Who? I believe in facts and logic. The U.S. has been doing more harm than good. It's been largely a force of evil in the world.

The Russian/Iranian/Iraqi/Syrian alliance is what keeps the U.S. in check from totally ruining the ME.

>>68102

Frankfurt School. That's where the idea of cultural Marxism came from. If they can't force communism on us, they will do so by subversion and slowly destroying the foundations of western civilization.

>>68102

Communism would have collapsed if wall street hadn't funded the Bolsheviks. Or if we'd let the Nazis kill them some more during world war two. Or if we hadn't given them the plates for allied marks, set a fixed exchange rate, and let them plunder our treasury after world war two.

>>68111

West Germany also gave the East Germans generous loans they never paid back, or ever could, and the West Germans knew it. Commies being welfare queens until the end. They even gave the East Germans hard currency to buy toothbrushes from Russian factories, because the Russians wouldn't give it to them for free, as there was already a toothbrush shortage.

This documentary is in 7 parts but it's really fascinating

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLil3IqFWcPRyOEhMrP2ji3jREsPvT60ou

>>68111

I don't know what you mean about plundering the Treasury, but the Afghanistan war certainly hastened the USSR's collapse

>>68116

They printed up marks, cashed them in at a fixed exchange rate, and took money out of america's pockets so they could stumble around drunkenly for a few more decades before collapsing.

>>68122

Forgot the embed.

>mfw neocons try to justify their acts by saying that communism was an actual threat.

>>68102

You don't fight ideology with weapons. You can see it hasn't worked at all.

>>68136

The destruction of the USSR certainly reduced the number of communists since they controlled education and propaganda.

But it's not obvious what the effect was on the US specifically

>>68078

nazis are the direct reaction to communist forcres. You think if things get bad enough here and they take control and wipe out commies they're going to install a libertarian paradise afterwards?

>>68193

Nazis are commies themselves, just without the internationalism and less interested in economics. They're not at all distinct from other communist movements. Don't believe me? Well, then compare Cuba, North Korea, Red Cambodia, the USSR, Nazi Germany, and also the (supposedly?) fascist regimes under Pinochet, Franco and Mussolini by their economic freedom, xenophobia/isolationism, (fake) traditionalism and nationalism, and militarism. Feel free to add countries that you think exemplify marxism, nationalsocialism or fascism.

What you'll see if you do it right is that as far as economic freedom goes, the Nazis are freer than the USSR, Red China and North Korea, about as unfree as the "moderate" marxist regimes and Mussolini, and the other fascists don't even belong on that list. They're far more xenophobic than the fascists and the USSR, but just as xenophobic than the North Koreans and the Khmer Rouge. Nationalism will look about the same, with the fascists and the USSR closer towards the nazis. And on militarism, all will be huddled together.

What, then, distinguishes the nazis from the socialist regimes? They inhabit the same spot as the Khmer Rouge and the North Koreans except that they're economically freer, albeit still a long stretch even from the interventionism we're so used to nowadays. Not even the racialism of the nazis is unique; the Khmer Rouge believed that they were inherently superior to the Vietnamese and the North Koreans think the Americans are subhumans.

>>68210

And also, because that's kinda relevant, the nazis weren't protectors of the culture, just as little as the DPRK-regime and the Khmer Rouge were. They tried to create a centralistic state with a unitarian identity over a region and culture that never had such a thing in the past, they fucked with the royality, nobility and clergy whenever they interfered, spread egalitarianism wherever they went… I have no clue where the idea comes from that they were culturally conservative at all.

>>68077

>that's a hot take. So you have conspiracy theories about the real reason the US was in every one of those countries?

There was rampant McCarthyism that justified limiting the rights of Americans, such as The House Committee on Un-American Activities, which prosecuted anyone suspected of being communists. The US was in every one of those countries to secure their own power or interests, whether that be instigating coups like they did in Iran, or supporting terrorists like the Taliban.

>You're implying there wasn't already a problem when they stepped in to fix it.

And made it way worse. The US strategy of bombing innocent people and prompting up dictators has only produced more terrorists and misery both for the natives and those abroad.

>>68211

is antisemitism egalitarism?

>>68214

> The US was in every one of those countries to secure their own power or interests

But you say they had other interests than preventing the spread of communism and the USSR, in ever single case.

It's just a coincidence that they happened to be BTFO'ing socialists every time.

>And made it way worse. The US strategy of bombing innocent people and prompting up dictators has only produced more terrorists and misery both for the natives and those abroad.

So dictators are bad after all? Or are they only bad when the US props them up, but if the US removes them then they were actually very good?

I see no reason why things would always turn out that way.

>>68076

and what profits do statesmen have from limiting liberty?

>>68715

>They only allied with them because they were against the USSR.

And why were they against the USSR?

>You can't be a moral human being if you claim the right to rule over everyone else. To rule is to command others to your will and punish them violently if they disobey. It doesn't matter if you rule through force, hereditary right, or by having 51% of the population vote for you.

Most people care more about how oppressive the government is.

>>68726

>totalitarians willing to fund violent revolution kept the elites from looting the economy at third world levels

lol

>>68102

i would be ok if the usa became communistic providing that it was voluntary