Forced Ranting

var _gaq = _gaq || []; _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-25364287-1']); _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']); (function() { var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true; ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s); })();

[danandlars-deactivated20171013]

I was looking up private consulting and was worried that I wouldn’t have the certifications and then I remembered that I’m spending $50,000 on an MBA and my job title is “financial management analyst” so I think I’ll be okay lol

[minarchist]

I don’t know why consultants make so much damn money,

[danandlars-deactivated20171013]

Well, some make tons, some make reasonable amounts. I’d be in the “reasonable amount” category. While I’d average something like $150-200 an hour, I have to pay taxes on that and business expenses, so it’ll drop down to maybe as low as $75 an hour, depending on the job. Still fantastic money, but I’d be freelance, and freelance always has very high rates.

The other side of that is that a small business could pay a full time employee salary and benefits for this type of work and spend 75-100K a year, or they could pay a consultant 8K for the work to get done and he is incentivized to be efficient.

I wouldn’t charge hourly rates, I’d probably charge 2K for a job and hope to finish it within 12 to 15 hours.

[minarchist]

My statistics professor runs a consulting firm on the side. He mostly does research and data analysis for smaller companies that need some research done but not enough research to warrant hiring a full time analytics guy. He makes enough that he just does teaching as a hobby.

But from what I’ve read it seems like most business consulting firms like Mckinsey are serveley orverpaid. They charge for things that most investment banks will do for free. Why pay a consulting firm for an LBO analysis when you can just go to the M&A division of your bank and get that?

[forcedranting]

Consultants make higher hourly wages because none of their taxes are being withheld by the employer/client, they receive no benefits like sick time or health insurance, and because their income is far less guaranteed than FTEs (there is often downtime between clients, and delays in billing...consulting income is often “feast and famine”) 

[wrapscallion]

I have no idea who Scalia was. Isn’t that the thing that people call themselves when they are furries but with reptiles?

[badeliz]

You’re thinking of scalies. Scalia is a quantity that has magnitude but not direction.

[argumate]

You’re thinking of scalars. Scalia is an opera house in Milan.

[rosalindfranklins-deactivated20]

You’re thinking of La Scala. Scalia is is a form of thermal burn resulted from heated fluids such as boiling water or steam.

[comparativelysuperlative]

You’re thinking of scalding. Scalia are subjective internal experiences.

[shlevy]

You’re thinking of qualia. Scalia is the region of Northern Europe consisting mainly of Norway, Sweden, and Finland.

[argumate]

You’re thinking of Scandinavia. Scalia is a company that makes trucks.

[spankymerve]

You’re thinking of Scania. Scalia is a country in the midst of a brutal, protracted civil war.

[argumate]

You’re thinking of Somalia. Scalia is the female lead on the X-Files.

[regexkind]

You’re thinking of Scully. Scalia is a drug lord who calls his enemies cockroaches at the end of the film and uses a flamethrower

[deoxymoronic]

You’re thinking of scarface. Scalia are those thin little green and white onions that are related to chives.

[ghost-in-zsh]

You’re thinking of scallions. Scalia is the type of triangle where none of the sides are the same length.

[shitifindon]

You’re thinking of scalene. Scalia is a charmingly whimsical term for a rascal or mischief-maker.

[chroniclesofrettek]

You’re thinking of scoundrel. Scalia is an organelle found in eukaryotic cells.

[jenlog]

You’re thinking of cilia. Scalia is the name of an island in southern Italy.

[forcedranting]

You’re thinking of Sicily. Scalia are small parasites of humans’ genital regions.

[communismkills]

Let’s say there’s a guy flying across the country to hang out with you for a bit.

What do you get for them for when you meet them at the airport?

Flowers, chocolate, etc. is too girly.

[supernugget42]

Bottle of Whiskey/Whatever his alcohol of choice is.

[communismkills]

Fellow non-drinker.

[forcedranting]

An entire Virginia Ham, what else?

[methhomework]

MCCUSE ME BITCH

[forcedranting]

She almost got into a fight in there. Luckily, she was able to de-escalate the McRib situation with a surgical throatpunch

[bidoof]

Change.org - Petition To Hire 1,000,000 People To Put Their Fingers In The Shoot Hole Of Peoples’ Guns So They Can’t Shoot Them

[mycatisnamedfrank]

It’s still gonna shoot… And they’re gonna lose a finger

[bidoof]

No. The finger blocks the bullet. We can do this

[domozillla-deactivated20181216]

This is a gun we’re talking about. The projectile is fired using an explosion, not by compressed air of a toy gun or the elastic forces of a sling shot. People would be lucky if they only lost their finger.

[bidoof]

The finger blocks it

[dildomuncher3000]

The finger won’t block it - the shaft is only there for keeping the bullet straight, all the propulsion happens behind the bullet. The bullet would rip through the finger, not that many would actually fit without the victim being a child, and beyond.

[bidoof]

The bullet would go forward a little and then hit the finger and stop it’s not that hard to understand

[calyfornia]

why not you try that with a cannon? put your whole body there and fire it. would the big “bullet” hit you and stop? no. the finger will not be able to block the bullet and will eventually make you lose a finger. if this is really true, why not this happened to all of the police forces already? we could have saved a lot of lives. but it doesnt.

[jnvsnaxkles]

ssj14goku why don’t you demonstrate to us your theory since no one here is apparently understanding this simple science. But use a carrot instead of your finger, PLEASE! Get a small, thick carrot that looks about the same measurements as your finger and stick it into a gun and fire. Would work just the same as a real finger, right?

[bidoof]

The carrot blocks it

[argumate]

@copybook-headings:

The American military, the ultimate foreign aid apparatus, costs around $600B per year.

ah the military, a logistics service that exists to deliver small pieces of metal at high velocity to people who don’t want them.

[copybook-headings-deactivated20]

Cui bono? Near as I can tell, it isn’t the “America” referenced in the Trump video now absent (supposing, by ‘America’, he means most Americans). If not America, then whom? 

[argumate]

Presumably the Pax Americana that has reigned since 1945 has been of some benefit to Middle America, if only to prevent them falling under Soviet rule.

It gets trickier if we get into whether global trade helps or hurts Average Joe, or for that matter Average Zhou.

Can America take that $600B and spend it on infrastructure, let China take the Pacific and Russia take Europe and to hell with it? Ceding control of territory isn’t something that great powers tend to do willingly.

[forcedranting]

About half of the budget is spent on wages. Of the rest, much if it flows to defense contractors, who have cunningly spread out their production across as many Congressional districts as possible. Quite a bit of it ends up being transfer payments to rural economies in the form of wages. 

[minarchist]

Should I make a Linkedin profile? Is it a good way to get hired/find new positions?

[forcedranting]

depends on the field, and how many positions are filled by recruiters vs direct-hire. Linkedin is a recruiter’s playground, but fairly useless for hiring managers.

[rodrigoseaburre-deactivated2018]

[thelonghotsummer-deactivated201]

Honestly, this is the most helpful thing I’ve ever seen on tumblr.

…well maybe besides the coconut oil uses

[virtuheaux]

I want the zombie. Holy shit

[bando--grand-scamyon]

why would anybody wanna drink liquor and tomato juice

[forcedranting]

brunch, that’s why.

[ltc-kilgore-deactivated20181027]

!i think that we should disband the government as people will form into communities and states of their own”

what like governments?

[westernsocietyfucked100years-de]

yeah sure but you’d agree that the governments they’d hypothetically form would probably be more locally focused and wouldn’t be run top down by a cabal of pedophile sadists, right?

[ltc-kilgore-deactivated20181027]

and then with time these hypothetical governments will be run top down by a cabal of pedophile sadists

and nothing will have changed 

[westernsocietyfucked100years-de]

guess let’s all be nihlists then nothing matters haha am i right?

[analvelocity]

“BREAKING THE CYCLE PERPETUATES IT, SO DON’T BOTHER TRYING ANYTHING NEW” ?????????

[ltc-kilgore-deactivated20181027]

if youre seriously convinced that smaller “””local””” governments have less capacity to be shit than larger “””non-local””” governments then jeeze man i dont know what to say

[analvelocity]

Being shit and permenantly entrenching the shit, slowly forcing everyone to Stockholm Syndrome themselves into submission are two vastly different things, homie.

Smaller governments are much easier to replace if they suck. Machiavelli was right, you know.

[ltc-kilgore-deactivated20181027]

are you also trying to imply that smaller governments cant “””entrench shit””” thus “””forcing everyone to Stockholm Syndrome themselves”””

because a smaller government can do that

its not like they cant

[academiemelusine]

What, exactly, are you trying to prove, what, exactly, are you saying to prove it, and how, exactly, does what you are saying support what you are trying to prove?

[ltc-kilgore-deactivated20181027]

im trying to say that anarchy is pointless because if you get rod of a governmental or state structure people will then make their own governmental or state structure and at that point you’re back to square one

[academiemelusine]

Then the anarchists must pay the price of liberty, which is constant vigilance, and whenever people try to create a new government or state structure to rule you, then you kill them. It gets easier the more you do it too, because these new governments won’t have 200 years of ontological inertia. And yes, violence is always justified, in the same way that I have the right to shoot anybody who breaks into my house, and you wouldn’t say that the possibility of multiple defensive killings is worse than the guarantee of home invasion, so I should give up my guns.

[libertarian--princess-deactivat]

Why do a lot of libertarians think U.S. involvement in World War II (specifically the European front) was unjustified? Hitler was going to attack America, that’s 100% historical fact.

[insufferablepapist-deactivated2]

As a libertarian, I say it was. France was invaded, Britain was being bombed, and they just invaded Russia. IT was justified to fight the Nazis as a sovereign state. Whether or not everything the US did was Geneva i debatable, i.e. Dresden, but nonetheless; the US justified to fight Germany, even my NAP standards.

[libertarian--princess-deactivat]

I mean, they were planning attacks on US cities, New York specifically, even before the war. They came pretty damn close too.

[insufferablepapist-deactivated2]

Exactly. So whoever is calling themselves libertarian and against action in WWII is being an isolationist, wholly. It’s a rehash of WWI if the US tried to stay out of it.

[deadbilly]

In general, it seems many tumblr libertarians put isolationism at the top of their priorities. I remember that was why so many people here supported Ron Paul in 2012.

[insufferablepapist-deactivated2]

It’s absurd, i’ve seen anarchists support isolationism, but most support the Non-Aggression Principle.

If our allies are attacked or ourselves are attacked, we fight that enemy, simple as that. To isolate ourselves from the global sphere is against any form of libertarianism, or at the least right libertarianism, it is mean to support free trade and interaction among nation-states. Not withdraw from it entirely like North Korea. 

[eltigrechico]

https://mises.org/library/war-peace-and-state

[forcedranting]

What kind of ahistorical bullshit is going on in this thread? The US was deeply involved in the war(s) against Germany long before any American troops set foot on the Continent, and even prior to Pearl Harbor. Have you all forgotten about Lend/Lease? The US was literally arming Germany’s enemies at US taxpayer expense.  US policy regarding Japan was equally provocative – whatever your stance on Manchuria and Japanese expansionism, it cannot be denied that the US’s efforts to impose trade embargoes was a large contributing factor in the Japanese decision to attack.  To pretend that the Axis powers were acting in a vacuum, rather than in direct response to US actions, completely ignores everything that led up to the war. If you’re looking just at the war and wondering if the NAP applies, you’re way too late. Notice that there were neutral countries much closer to Germany that escaped attack,Switzerland and Sweden. Being attacked by Germany was not inevitable. The US, unlike those countries, was never actually neutral. 

[libertarian--princess-deactivat]

We did the Lend-Lease Act to support our allies. That’s kind of the thing about having allies, you support each other. Anyway, maybe you’re forgetting the Neutrality Acts throughout the 1930s right up to the attack on Pearl Harbor (yeah, I guess we’re to blame for that too, going by your demented logic, aren’t we?)

Japan’s expansionism directly affected the United States, specifically Hawaii, Guam and the Philippines. To say our sanctions were unjustified would be to say we should just give up Hawaii if China ever sends a task force to invade it.

Hitler wanted to attack Switzerland but found it militarily unfeasible and Sweden sold iron ore to Germany and so were useful to them. Those are the only reasons they weren’t attacked.

[forcedranting]

From your own link: “November 4 the Neutrality Act of 1939 was passed,[11] allowing for arms trade with belligerent nations (Great Britain and France) on a cash-and-carry basis, thus in effect ending the arms embargo. Furthermore, the Neutrality Acts of 1935 and 1937 were repealed” Uh huh. As soon as the war started (with the invasion of Poland), the Neutrality Acts were amended to give Roosevelt direct control over the arms export business, followed by the Lend/Lease Acts. 

[libertarian--princess-deactivat]

Isn’t it a beautiful thing, sticking your neck out for your friends? That’s what the United States did for Britain and France. Allies support each other; that’s how this whole “international relations” thing works, ya see?

[forcedranting]

That’s a legitimate position to take; my issue was with your claim that “Hitler was going to attack the US”. The fact is that the US had already taken sides against Germany, and was not ‘isolationist’ or ‘neutral’ during the run-up to the war in any practical sense. 

[libertarian--princess-deactivat]

Except we WERE neutral. Maybe you don’t understand the definition of neutrality, but we were not engaged in active hostilities with anyone prior to December 7, 1941. Favoring one side over another is NOT the same as being a belligerent in the fight.

And Hitler WAS going to attack us at the first possible opportunity, whether or not we got involved. The guy wanted world domination; his unpublished second book explicitly called for attacking America once Britain and the Soviets were down for the count.

[forcedranting]

No, you don’t understand the definition of neutrality, since you apparently think it involves trade embargoes and arming one side of a conflict and not the other. Neutrality is a lot more than merely the absence of “active hostilities”, as you put it. 

[libertarian--princess-deactivat]

… no, it’s not. If you are not actively, ACTUALLY involved in the fighting, you are by definition neutral.

[forcedranting]

So, the US was actually neutral in the Cold War? That little thing in Afghanistan with the mujaheddin in the 80′s was just the US being neutral? Guys, Russia is totally neutral in Ukraine. They’re not ACTIVELY, ACTUALLY involved in the fighting, so they’re neutral. 

[libertarian--princess-deactivat]

The Cold War had no fighting at all apart from proxy wars; it was not an open war. It was a bitter rivalry, sure, but there was no direct war. Proxy wars are very different than a direct, open state of war; comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges.

Russia is actively fighting in Ukraine, so no, they are not neutral by any definition of the word.

[forcedranting]

So you agree that there is more to neutrality than the absence of active combat. I’m glad we were able to resolve that. 

[libertarian--princess-deactivat]

Why do a lot of libertarians think U.S. involvement in World War II (specifically the European front) was unjustified? Hitler was going to attack America, that’s 100% historical fact.

[insufferablepapist-deactivated2]

As a libertarian, I say it was. France was invaded, Britain was being bombed, and they just invaded Russia. IT was justified to fight the Nazis as a sovereign state. Whether or not everything the US did was Geneva i debatable, i.e. Dresden, but nonetheless; the US justified to fight Germany, even my NAP standards.

[libertarian--princess-deactivat]

I mean, they were planning attacks on US cities, New York specifically, even before the war. They came pretty damn close too.

[insufferablepapist-deactivated2]

Exactly. So whoever is calling themselves libertarian and against action in WWII is being an isolationist, wholly. It’s a rehash of WWI if the US tried to stay out of it.

[deadbilly]

In general, it seems many tumblr libertarians put isolationism at the top of their priorities. I remember that was why so many people here supported Ron Paul in 2012.

[insufferablepapist-deactivated2]

It’s absurd, i’ve seen anarchists support isolationism, but most support the Non-Aggression Principle.

If our allies are attacked or ourselves are attacked, we fight that enemy, simple as that. To isolate ourselves from the global sphere is against any form of libertarianism, or at the least right libertarianism, it is mean to support free trade and interaction among nation-states. Not withdraw from it entirely like North Korea. 

[eltigrechico]

https://mises.org/library/war-peace-and-state

[forcedranting]

What kind of ahistorical bullshit is going on in this thread? The US was deeply involved in the war(s) against Germany long before any American troops set foot on the Continent, and even prior to Pearl Harbor. Have you all forgotten about Lend/Lease? The US was literally arming Germany’s enemies at US taxpayer expense.  US policy regarding Japan was equally provocative – whatever your stance on Manchuria and Japanese expansionism, it cannot be denied that the US’s efforts to impose trade embargoes was a large contributing factor in the Japanese decision to attack.  To pretend that the Axis powers were acting in a vacuum, rather than in direct response to US actions, completely ignores everything that led up to the war. If you’re looking just at the war and wondering if the NAP applies, you’re way too late. Notice that there were neutral countries much closer to Germany that escaped attack,Switzerland and Sweden. Being attacked by Germany was not inevitable. The US, unlike those countries, was never actually neutral. 

[libertarian--princess-deactivat]

We did the Lend-Lease Act to support our allies. That’s kind of the thing about having allies, you support each other. Anyway, maybe you’re forgetting the Neutrality Acts throughout the 1930s right up to the attack on Pearl Harbor (yeah, I guess we’re to blame for that too, going by your demented logic, aren’t we?)

Japan’s expansionism directly affected the United States, specifically Hawaii, Guam and the Philippines. To say our sanctions were unjustified would be to say we should just give up Hawaii if China ever sends a task force to invade it.

Hitler wanted to attack Switzerland but found it militarily unfeasible and Sweden sold iron ore to Germany and so were useful to them. Those are the only reasons they weren’t attacked.

[forcedranting]

From your own link: “November 4 the Neutrality Act of 1939 was passed,[11] allowing for arms trade with belligerent nations (Great Britain and France) on a cash-and-carry basis, thus in effect ending the arms embargo. Furthermore, the Neutrality Acts of 1935 and 1937 were repealed” Uh huh. As soon as the war started (with the invasion of Poland), the Neutrality Acts were amended to give Roosevelt direct control over the arms export business, followed by the Lend/Lease Acts. 

[libertarian--princess-deactivat]

Isn’t it a beautiful thing, sticking your neck out for your friends? That’s what the United States did for Britain and France. Allies support each other; that’s how this whole “international relations” thing works, ya see?

[forcedranting]

That’s a legitimate position to take; my issue was with your claim that “Hitler was going to attack the US”. The fact is that the US had already taken sides against Germany, and was not ‘isolationist’ or ‘neutral’ during the run-up to the war in any practical sense. 

[libertarian--princess-deactivat]

Except we WERE neutral. Maybe you don’t understand the definition of neutrality, but we were not engaged in active hostilities with anyone prior to December 7, 1941. Favoring one side over another is NOT the same as being a belligerent in the fight.

And Hitler WAS going to attack us at the first possible opportunity, whether or not we got involved. The guy wanted world domination; his unpublished second book explicitly called for attacking America once Britain and the Soviets were down for the count.

[forcedranting]

No, you don’t understand the definition of neutrality, since you apparently think it involves trade embargoes and arming one side of a conflict and not the other. Neutrality is a lot more than merely the absence of “active hostilities”, as you put it. 

[libertarian--princess-deactivat]

… no, it’s not. If you are not actively, ACTUALLY involved in the fighting, you are by definition neutral.

[forcedranting]

So, the US was actually neutral in the Cold War? That little thing in Afghanistan with the mujaheddin in the 80′s was just the US being neutral? Guys, Russia is totally neutral in Ukraine. They’re not ACTIVELY, ACTUALLY involved in the fighting, so they’re neutral. 

[atheismwethinkmore]

[libertarian--princess-deactivat]

Why do a lot of libertarians think U.S. involvement in World War II (specifically the European front) was unjustified? Hitler was going to attack America, that’s 100% historical fact.

[insufferablepapist-deactivated2]

As a libertarian, I say it was. France was invaded, Britain was being bombed, and they just invaded Russia. IT was justified to fight the Nazis as a sovereign state. Whether or not everything the US did was Geneva i debatable, i.e. Dresden, but nonetheless; the US justified to fight Germany, even my NAP standards.

[libertarian--princess-deactivat]

I mean, they were planning attacks on US cities, New York specifically, even before the war. They came pretty damn close too.

[insufferablepapist-deactivated2]

Exactly. So whoever is calling themselves libertarian and against action in WWII is being an isolationist, wholly. It’s a rehash of WWI if the US tried to stay out of it.

[deadbilly]

In general, it seems many tumblr libertarians put isolationism at the top of their priorities. I remember that was why so many people here supported Ron Paul in 2012.

[insufferablepapist-deactivated2]

It’s absurd, i’ve seen anarchists support isolationism, but most support the Non-Aggression Principle.

If our allies are attacked or ourselves are attacked, we fight that enemy, simple as that. To isolate ourselves from the global sphere is against any form of libertarianism, or at the least right libertarianism, it is mean to support free trade and interaction among nation-states. Not withdraw from it entirely like North Korea. 

[eltigrechico]

https://mises.org/library/war-peace-and-state

[forcedranting]

What kind of ahistorical bullshit is going on in this thread? The US was deeply involved in the war(s) against Germany long before any American troops set foot on the Continent, and even prior to Pearl Harbor. Have you all forgotten about Lend/Lease? The US was literally arming Germany’s enemies at US taxpayer expense.  US policy regarding Japan was equally provocative – whatever your stance on Manchuria and Japanese expansionism, it cannot be denied that the US’s efforts to impose trade embargoes was a large contributing factor in the Japanese decision to attack.  To pretend that the Axis powers were acting in a vacuum, rather than in direct response to US actions, completely ignores everything that led up to the war. If you’re looking just at the war and wondering if the NAP applies, you’re way too late. Notice that there were neutral countries much closer to Germany that escaped attack,Switzerland and Sweden. Being attacked by Germany was not inevitable. The US, unlike those countries, was never actually neutral. 

[libertarian--princess-deactivat]

We did the Lend-Lease Act to support our allies. That’s kind of the thing about having allies, you support each other. Anyway, maybe you’re forgetting the Neutrality Acts throughout the 1930s right up to the attack on Pearl Harbor (yeah, I guess we’re to blame for that too, going by your demented logic, aren’t we?)

Japan’s expansionism directly affected the United States, specifically Hawaii, Guam and the Philippines. To say our sanctions were unjustified would be to say we should just give up Hawaii if China ever sends a task force to invade it.

Hitler wanted to attack Switzerland but found it militarily unfeasible and Sweden sold iron ore to Germany and so were useful to them. Those are the only reasons they weren’t attacked.

[forcedranting]

From your own link: “November 4 the Neutrality Act of 1939 was passed,[11] allowing for arms trade with belligerent nations (Great Britain and France) on a cash-and-carry basis, thus in effect ending the arms embargo. Furthermore, the Neutrality Acts of 1935 and 1937 were repealed” Uh huh. As soon as the war started (with the invasion of Poland), the Neutrality Acts were amended to give Roosevelt direct control over the arms export business, followed by the Lend/Lease Acts. 

[libertarian--princess-deactivat]

Isn’t it a beautiful thing, sticking your neck out for your friends? That’s what the United States did for Britain and France. Allies support each other; that’s how this whole “international relations” thing works, ya see?

[forcedranting]

That’s a legitimate position to take; my issue was with your claim that “Hitler was going to attack the US”. The fact is that the US had already taken sides against Germany, and was not ‘isolationist’ or ‘neutral’ during the run-up to the war in any practical sense. 

[libertarian--princess-deactivat]

Except we WERE neutral. Maybe you don’t understand the definition of neutrality, but we were not engaged in active hostilities with anyone prior to December 7, 1941. Favoring one side over another is NOT the same as being a belligerent in the fight.

And Hitler WAS going to attack us at the first possible opportunity, whether or not we got involved. The guy wanted world domination; his unpublished second book explicitly called for attacking America once Britain and the Soviets were down for the count.

[forcedranting]

No, you don’t understand the definition of neutrality, since you apparently think it involves trade embargoes and arming one side of a conflict and not the other. Neutrality is a lot more than merely the absence of “active hostilities”, as you put it. 

[libertarian--princess-deactivat]

Why do a lot of libertarians think U.S. involvement in World War II (specifically the European front) was unjustified? Hitler was going to attack America, that’s 100% historical fact.

[insufferablepapist-deactivated2]

As a libertarian, I say it was. France was invaded, Britain was being bombed, and they just invaded Russia. IT was justified to fight the Nazis as a sovereign state. Whether or not everything the US did was Geneva i debatable, i.e. Dresden, but nonetheless; the US justified to fight Germany, even my NAP standards.

[libertarian--princess-deactivat]

I mean, they were planning attacks on US cities, New York specifically, even before the war. They came pretty damn close too.

[insufferablepapist-deactivated2]

Exactly. So whoever is calling themselves libertarian and against action in WWII is being an isolationist, wholly. It’s a rehash of WWI if the US tried to stay out of it.

[deadbilly]

In general, it seems many tumblr libertarians put isolationism at the top of their priorities. I remember that was why so many people here supported Ron Paul in 2012.

[insufferablepapist-deactivated2]

It’s absurd, i’ve seen anarchists support isolationism, but most support the Non-Aggression Principle.

If our allies are attacked or ourselves are attacked, we fight that enemy, simple as that. To isolate ourselves from the global sphere is against any form of libertarianism, or at the least right libertarianism, it is mean to support free trade and interaction among nation-states. Not withdraw from it entirely like North Korea. 

[eltigrechico]

https://mises.org/library/war-peace-and-state

[forcedranting]

What kind of ahistorical bullshit is going on in this thread? The US was deeply involved in the war(s) against Germany long before any American troops set foot on the Continent, and even prior to Pearl Harbor. Have you all forgotten about Lend/Lease? The US was literally arming Germany’s enemies at US taxpayer expense.  US policy regarding Japan was equally provocative – whatever your stance on Manchuria and Japanese expansionism, it cannot be denied that the US’s efforts to impose trade embargoes was a large contributing factor in the Japanese decision to attack.  To pretend that the Axis powers were acting in a vacuum, rather than in direct response to US actions, completely ignores everything that led up to the war. If you’re looking just at the war and wondering if the NAP applies, you’re way too late. Notice that there were neutral countries much closer to Germany that escaped attack,Switzerland and Sweden. Being attacked by Germany was not inevitable. The US, unlike those countries, was never actually neutral. 

[libertarian--princess-deactivat]

We did the Lend-Lease Act to support our allies. That’s kind of the thing about having allies, you support each other. Anyway, maybe you’re forgetting the Neutrality Acts throughout the 1930s right up to the attack on Pearl Harbor (yeah, I guess we’re to blame for that too, going by your demented logic, aren’t we?)

Japan’s expansionism directly affected the United States, specifically Hawaii, Guam and the Philippines. To say our sanctions were unjustified would be to say we should just give up Hawaii if China ever sends a task force to invade it.

Hitler wanted to attack Switzerland but found it militarily unfeasible and Sweden sold iron ore to Germany and so were useful to them. Those are the only reasons they weren’t attacked.

[forcedranting]

From your own link: “November 4 the Neutrality Act of 1939 was passed,[11] allowing for arms trade with belligerent nations (Great Britain and France) on a cash-and-carry basis, thus in effect ending the arms embargo. Furthermore, the Neutrality Acts of 1935 and 1937 were repealed” Uh huh. As soon as the war started (with the invasion of Poland), the Neutrality Acts were amended to give Roosevelt direct control over the arms export business, followed by the Lend/Lease Acts. 

[libertarian--princess-deactivat]

Isn’t it a beautiful thing, sticking your neck out for your friends? That’s what the United States did for Britain and France. Allies support each other; that’s how this whole “international relations” thing works, ya see?

[forcedranting]

That’s a legitimate position to take; my issue was with your claim that “Hitler was going to attack the US”. The fact is that the US had already taken sides against Germany, and was not ‘isolationist’ or ‘neutral’ during the run-up to the war in any practical sense. 

[libertarian--princess-deactivat]

Why do a lot of libertarians think U.S. involvement in World War II (specifically the European front) was unjustified? Hitler was going to attack America, that’s 100% historical fact.

[insufferablepapist-deactivated2]

As a libertarian, I say it was. France was invaded, Britain was being bombed, and they just invaded Russia. IT was justified to fight the Nazis as a sovereign state. Whether or not everything the US did was Geneva i debatable, i.e. Dresden, but nonetheless; the US justified to fight Germany, even my NAP standards.

[libertarian--princess-deactivat]

I mean, they were planning attacks on US cities, New York specifically, even before the war. They came pretty damn close too.

[insufferablepapist-deactivated2]

Exactly. So whoever is calling themselves libertarian and against action in WWII is being an isolationist, wholly. It’s a rehash of WWI if the US tried to stay out of it.

[deadbilly]

In general, it seems many tumblr libertarians put isolationism at the top of their priorities. I remember that was why so many people here supported Ron Paul in 2012.

[insufferablepapist-deactivated2]

It’s absurd, i’ve seen anarchists support isolationism, but most support the Non-Aggression Principle.

If our allies are attacked or ourselves are attacked, we fight that enemy, simple as that. To isolate ourselves from the global sphere is against any form of libertarianism, or at the least right libertarianism, it is mean to support free trade and interaction among nation-states. Not withdraw from it entirely like North Korea. 

[eltigrechico]

https://mises.org/library/war-peace-and-state

[forcedranting]

What kind of ahistorical bullshit is going on in this thread? The US was deeply involved in the war(s) against Germany long before any American troops set foot on the Continent, and even prior to Pearl Harbor. Have you all forgotten about Lend/Lease? The US was literally arming Germany’s enemies at US taxpayer expense.  US policy regarding Japan was equally provocative – whatever your stance on Manchuria and Japanese expansionism, it cannot be denied that the US’s efforts to impose trade embargoes was a large contributing factor in the Japanese decision to attack.  To pretend that the Axis powers were acting in a vacuum, rather than in direct response to US actions, completely ignores everything that led up to the war. If you’re looking just at the war and wondering if the NAP applies, you’re way too late. Notice that there were neutral countries much closer to Germany that escaped attack,Switzerland and Sweden. Being attacked by Germany was not inevitable. The US, unlike those countries, was never actually neutral. 

[libertarian--princess-deactivat]

We did the Lend-Lease Act to support our allies. That’s kind of the thing about having allies, you support each other. Anyway, maybe you’re forgetting the Neutrality Acts throughout the 1930s right up to the attack on Pearl Harbor (yeah, I guess we’re to blame for that too, going by your demented logic, aren’t we?)

Japan’s expansionism directly affected the United States, specifically Hawaii, Guam and the Philippines. To say our sanctions were unjustified would be to say we should just give up Hawaii if China ever sends a task force to invade it.

Hitler wanted to attack Switzerland but found it militarily unfeasible and Sweden sold iron ore to Germany and so were useful to them. Those are the only reasons they weren’t attacked.

[forcedranting]

From your own link: "November 4 the Neutrality Act of 1939 was passed,[11] allowing for arms trade with belligerent nations (Great Britain and France) on a cash-and-carry basis, thus in effect ending the arms embargo. Furthermore, the Neutrality Acts of 1935 and 1937 were repealed” Uh huh. As soon as the war started (with the invasion of Poland), the Neutrality Acts were amended to give Roosevelt direct control over the arms export business, followed by the Lend/Lease Acts. 

[libertarian--princess-deactivat]

Why do a lot of libertarians think U.S. involvement in World War II (specifically the European front) was unjustified? Hitler was going to attack America, that’s 100% historical fact.

[insufferablepapist-deactivated2]

As a libertarian, I say it was. France was invaded, Britain was being bombed, and they just invaded Russia. IT was justified to fight the Nazis as a sovereign state. Whether or not everything the US did was Geneva i debatable, i.e. Dresden, but nonetheless; the US justified to fight Germany, even my NAP standards.

[libertarian--princess-deactivat]

I mean, they were planning attacks on US cities, New York specifically, even before the war. They came pretty damn close too.

[insufferablepapist-deactivated2]

Exactly. So whoever is calling themselves libertarian and against action in WWII is being an isolationist, wholly. It’s a rehash of WWI if the US tried to stay out of it.

[deadbilly]

In general, it seems many tumblr libertarians put isolationism at the top of their priorities. I remember that was why so many people here supported Ron Paul in 2012.

[insufferablepapist-deactivated2]

It’s absurd, i’ve seen anarchists support isolationism, but most support the Non-Aggression Principle.

If our allies are attacked or ourselves are attacked, we fight that enemy, simple as that. To isolate ourselves from the global sphere is against any form of libertarianism, or at the least right libertarianism, it is mean to support free trade and interaction among nation-states. Not withdraw from it entirely like North Korea. 

[eltigrechico]

https://mises.org/library/war-peace-and-state

[forcedranting]

What kind of ahistorical bullshit is going on in this thread? The US was deeply involved in the war(s) against Germany long before any American troops set foot on the Continent, and even prior to Pearl Harbor. Have you all forgotten about Lend/Lease? The US was literally arming Germany’s enemies at US taxpayer expense.  US policy regarding Japan was equally provocative -- whatever your stance on Manchuria and Japanese expansionism, it cannot be denied that the US’s efforts to impose trade embargoes was a large contributing factor in the Japanese decision to attack.  To pretend that the Axis powers were acting in a vacuum, rather than in direct response to US actions, completely ignores everything that led up to the war. If you’re looking just at the war and wondering if the NAP applies, you’re way too late. Notice that there were neutral countries much closer to Germany that escaped attack,Switzerland and Sweden. Being attacked by Germany was not inevitable. The US, unlike those countries, was never actually neutral. 

[bolt-carrier-assembly]

AK Magazine boobytrap device The explosive would detonate after the last round was stripped from the magazine.

[cerebralzero]

That’s a dirty trick…damn

[metal-queer-solid]

Makes me wonder about all those people we send weapons to…

[forcedranting]

You mean like this?