systematic said:If one doesnt know the meaning of a word just look it up instead of clogging the forum with tosh ...
Or just use your brains, which discounts most here.
systematic said:If one doesnt know the meaning of a word just look it up instead of clogging the forum with tosh ...
mmm....shiney! said:systematic said:If one doesnt know the meaning of a word just look it up instead of clogging the forum with tosh ...
Or just use your brains, which discounts most here.
SilverPete said:Simply reading Shiney's posts is an interesting study in the psychology of "internet Libertarians". :lol:
mmm....shiney! said:SilverPete said:Simply reading Shiney's posts is an interesting study in the psychology of "internet Libertarians". :lol:
That would probably be justified.......if you actually had the first idea about what you are talking about. :lol: :lol:
I'm always amused when Statists attempt to criticise libertarianism by quoting someone who has about as much idea as a kindergarten pupil. It shows how lazy they are, couldn't be bothered going out and learning about the topic themselves, they just copy and paste erroneous tosh they found on a blog or facebook or something.
Here's a tip SP, if you really want to learn what libertarianism is, try here: https://academy.mises.org/ , I know, it'll mean you have to apply the grey matter a bit, but it will help you with your little problem you have.
All the best.
Vulgar libertarian apologists for capitalism use the term "free market" in an equivocal sense: they seem to have trouble remembering, from one moment to the next, whether they're defending actually existing capitalism or free market principles. So we get the standard boilerplate article arguing that the rich can't get rich at the expense of the poor, because "that's not how the free market works" implicitly assuming that this is a free market. When prodded, they'll grudgingly admit that the present system is not a free market, and that it includes a lot of state intervention on behalf of the rich. But as soon as they think they can get away with it, they go right back to defending the wealth of existing corporations on the basis of "free market principles."
This school of libertarianism has inscribed on its banner the reactionary watchword: "Them pore ole bosses need all the help they can get." For every imaginable policy issue, the good guys and bad guys can be predicted with ease, by simply inverting the slogan of Animal Farm: "Two legs good, four legs baaaad." In every case, the good guys, the sacrificial victims of the Progressive State, are the rich and powerful. The bad guys are the consumer and the worker, acting to enrich themselves from the public treasury. As one of the most egregious examples of this tendency, consider Ayn Rand's characterization of big business as an "oppressed minority," and of the Military-Industrial Complex as a "myth or worse."
The ideal "free market" society of such people, it seems, is simply actually existing capitalism, minus the regulatory and welfare state: a hyper-thyroidal version of nineteenth century robber baron capitalism, perhaps; or better yet, a society "reformed" by the likes of Pinochet, the Dionysius to whom Milton Friedman and the Chicago Boys played Aristotle.
JulieW said:Is there anywhere in time that a civilisation has been a libertarian society? I've seen USA pre 1913 quoted.