From a Libertarian point of view, what's worse: A big gov't UN loving leftist or a neo-conservative globalist?

Question

Dave Holman, maybe you ought to do a little of your own research. By no means was TR a Libertarian, but he thought all immigrants to America should ASSIMILATE and not be hyphenated-Americans? You do realize Teddy Roosevelt thought Mexicans on the frontier were untrustworthy? You do realize Teddy Roosevelt was not a Gloablist? You do realize Teddy Roosevelt was an anti-monopoly trust-buster, breaking up mega-corporations? You do realize Teddy Roosevelt was protectionist? You do realize Teddy Roosevelt was president prior to the Federal Reserve?

Answer 1

Both are pretty much the same thing and equally as bad.  Just look at Bush Sr. talk about his "New World Order" ideal where a "credible United Nations" helps "govern the conduct of nations"--not the "law of the jungle."  National sovereignty is the "law of the jungle" in his eyes!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc7i0wCFf...

Answer 2

From a Libertarian point of view they are both the enemy of the US .

Answer 3

Libertarians are closer to anarchists than they are to neo-conservatives.  Liberals tend to have some Libertarian leaning but tend to hang out near the middle.

Answer 4

I think we have both right now.. The UN has been a failure for years.

Answer 5

What we need is a hair-trigger isolationist. The rest of the world needs to sort out their own problems, pay their own way, and feed their own citizens without our involvement or our foreign aid. If they want to continue commerce, and trade internationally with us, fine, but they need to divest their corporate interests within the borders of America. If we stopped foreign aid, especially to nations that vote against us constantly in the U.N., there would not be a poor person, a bad road, or a hungry mouth in America.

Answer 6

Always the leftists.

Leftism is INCOMPATIBLE with human Liberty and always incompatible with Libertarianism.

At least the neo-con globalist would be right leaning and expouse capitalism and liberty.

There's no hope for leftism since it is de facto, liberty crushing.

Answer 7

biggest budgets/deficits and largest federal gov't expansion all came from the gop.

Answer 8

Both, who has done more damage to America's soul? The neo-conservative gloablists, who some how infiltrated the GOP. They have done what they wished for: Centralized, secretive government, expansion of "big brother" look out on the citizens (spying), setting/establishing bases overseas (MidEast), and wanting a global domination thru global/government organizations like UN, NATO, WTO, NAFTA, and other corrupt organizations.

What was their way into hacking the government's strings? Thru the media, lobbying in Congress, ADs, propaganda/fabricated websites, neo-con radio speakers, and so on, so forth.

Answer 9

Hmm, kinda like asking if I wanna get punched in the face or in the stomach - either one's gonna suck.

Answer 10

A UN loving leftist

Answer 11

Actually, the neo-con globalist, as he will be more ruthless and successful since he will be a plutocrat and authoritarian.  Both end up taking away freedoms, but the mindless mass in the middle is more likely to trade freedom for security (as they always are) to the percieved "real American, strong America" type.  

Answer 12

Neo-conservative globalist is by far the worst. Endless war, huge budget deficits (which eventually destroy the U.S. dollar), 1984 big brother surveillance policies, and possibly open borders creating a North American Union to rival the European Union.

When I think of the "UN loving leftist" type of government you're talking about I usually think of Nordic European countries. I've been to Sweden, they are pretty happy with their "UN loving leftist" government.

Answer 13

Greetings from the LibertarianLeaningNeoCon Wing of the Republican Party....(Okay, maybe I am not a whole "wing", but at least a flight feather)

Given your avatar, you might want to research a little more into Neo-conservativism.  

Teddy Roosevelt would be the archetypal Neo-con, God Bless His Soul.

You might even give up your Libertarianism.  Not that it's a bad thing.

Anyway, to answer the question, certainly you are closer to the NeoCon, politically, yea?

EDIT: Yeah, Bronco, I realize all that.  You have done your research on TR...not, apparently on Neo-Conservatism...The projection of American power to transform the world into a free, democratic place is the hallmark of Neo-Conservatism, as it was of Teddy's foreign policy.  He really is the archetype and hero of the Neo-conservative movement.  Remember, when he was doing all this, America, by and large was isolationist and protectionist.

To the extent Neo-Conservatives are "globalists" it is incidental, and advocated because, as we learned in the Soviet Union, trade leads to subversion of hostile regimes and democratization, lessening the need for "hot" wars.  Before you say it:  Yes, Russia and the Central Asian Republics haven't quite got there yet - but look at the "Warsaw Pact" - to a country they are now free democracies with definite pro-American leanings.

Answer 14

Answered your own question didn't you. Feel kind of dumb. You should

Answer 15

Why it takes so long to become legal in Canada......

Answer 16

Both are not good.

But a big government neo-conservative, UN hating globalist has proven to be possibly the worst thing to happen to The USA.

Answer 17

one word" Lieberman"