Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It happens every time some troubled nation reforms after a dictator and the WTO and the World Bank comes in to settle the inevitable mountain of debt incurred by the outgoing prick. The debt is usually forgiven but the price is a fairly common set of economic and political concessions that do not include any but the bare minimum social programs and voucher education or barriers to trade and exploitation of labor and resources. It's great if you want cheap labor or to strip mine or clear cut entire regions of a third world shit hole, not so much for the poor saps that live there.
Usually a result of our intervention, not to mention the result of international governing bodies that shouldn't exist in the first place.
I didn't figure you would like them even though they are the missionaries of free market capitalism.
They totally reject the idea of "the commons", the concept that indigenous peoples or long time residents have some claim to the wealth beneath their feet in mineral wealth or forest resources and should not just be sold or exploited by the colonial bastard who's name is on the deed.
How do you stand on that? It seems to me a libertarian could come down on either side of that argument.
Don't you? It's the holy Milton Friedman model of opening a new market, The people are supposed to eventually be in better shape and the landlords actually are in the long run but in the short term the regular people are subjected to terrible economic hardships that make them leave their land and move to the cities making it so much easier to buy local cooperation and mineral rights for peanuts. Any barriers to international investment and trade just prolongs the pain.
We're not Friedmanites.
At least none of the REAL libertarians on here, anyway.
That's funny, his theories form the 20th century basis of so called Market Liberalism, typical you would disown them. He is where all your ideas on privatization, deregulation, lowering all artificial barriers to international trade, protectionism and labor organization came from. Want to tell me how you differ?
We're not Friedmanites.
At least none of the REAL libertarians on here, anyway.
That's funny, his theories form the 20th century basis of so called Market Liberalism, typical you would disown them. He is where all your ideas on privatization, deregulation, lowering all artificial barriers to international trade, protectionism and labor organization came from. Want to tell me how you differ?
Read von Mises.
That's funny, his theories form the 20th century basis of so called Market Liberalism, typical you would disown them. He is where all your ideas on privatization, deregulation, lowering all artificial barriers to international trade, protectionism and labor organization came from. Want to tell me how you differ?
Read von Mises.
I'd rather not it would be so much quicker if you just explain how you are not a Friedmanite as you claim.
That's funny, his theories form the 20th century basis of so called Market Liberalism, typical you would disown them. He is where all your ideas on privatization, deregulation, lowering all artificial barriers to international trade, protectionism and labor organization came from. Want to tell me how you differ?
Read von Mises.
I'd rather not it would be so much quicker if you just explain how you are not a Friedmanite as you claim.
Read von Mises.
I'd rather not it would be so much quicker if you just explain how you are not a Friedmanite as you claim.
Austrian economics is much different from Chicago economics. Like HUGELY different.
Friedman advocates Fed monetary policy as a tool, Austrians don't support the Fed period.
For starters.
Read von Mises.
I'd rather not it would be so much quicker if you just explain how you are not a Friedmanite as you claim.
Austrian economics is much different from Chicago economics. Like HUGELY different.
Friedman advocates Fed monetary policy as a tool, Austrians don't support the Fed period.
For starters.
I'd rather not it would be so much quicker if you just explain how you are not a Friedmanite as you claim.
Austrian economics is much different from Chicago economics. Like HUGELY different.
Friedman advocates Fed monetary policy as a tool, Austrians don't support the Fed period.
For starters.
It's typical squirming, I have written a small book's worth of libertarian criticism the last couple of days and you and others still squirm out from under any attempt to nail you down on any but the most general policy statements and have a ready escape hatch for everything that might reflect negatively on your ideals. You have the most obtuse kind of politics I have ever encountered. I've talked to every kind from self described communists to white nationalists to people so apolitical they might as well live in a cave but they will at least make a policy stand on something and accept it's possible failure.
Austrian economics is much different from Chicago economics. Like HUGELY different.
Friedman advocates Fed monetary policy as a tool, Austrians don't support the Fed period.
For starters.
It's typical squirming, I have written a small book's worth of libertarian criticism the last couple of days and you and others still squirm out from under any attempt to nail you down on any but the most general policy statements and have a ready escape hatch for everything that might reflect negatively on your ideals. You have the most obtuse kind of politics I have ever encountered. I've talked to every kind from self described communists to white nationalists to people so apolitical they might as well live in a cave but they will at least make a policy stand on something and accept it's possible failure.
Pure unadulterated horseshit. Plenty of turds right here in this thread just got done castigating libertarians for opposing the income tax, wanting to legalize drugs and opposing regulation. Then you claim they "can't be pinned down on anything."
The attacks on libertarians in this thread are totally incoherent.
Pure unadulterated horseshit. Plenty of turds right here in this thread just got done castigating libertarians for opposing the income tax, wanting to legalize drugs and opposing regulation. Then you claim they "can't be pinned down on anything."
The attacks on libertarians in this thread are totally incoherent.
I have you on ignore and rarely hit that button that says "view post". You should probably not put so much work into your vitriol.
You are not a libertarian, for who would agree on the penalties of violators? A democratic meeting of the whole population? You are sillier than democrats gone wild.
None of you guys offer a consistent philosophy that is different than what we have. You just say it is different.
I guess this says it all about your position. Let me say this though about your first point. Libertarianism isn't the absence of law, that's anarchy. Libertarians reject aggression so there would be no authorized use of violence. Aggressors would forfeit the right to exemption from violence from their victim. Aggressors would also be subject to the agreed upon penalties for their crimes.
Individuals prey on one another now and we are far from a libertarian ideal. There wouldn't be any less restriction on personal aggression in a libertarian society and the punishment could be more severe and much swifter.
The legislature of elected representatives of course. Libertarians are constitutionalists because the constitution in its purist form was the best protection against tyranny. You say I am not a libertarian because I don't fit your preconceived notions of what a libertarian is. Our views don't necessarily change we are all rooted in the same ideas. All I want for now is progress towards more liberty not radical change overnight.
The legislature of elected representatives of course. Libertarians are constitutionalists because the constitution in its purist form was the best protection against tyranny. You say I am not a libertarian because I don't fit your preconceived notions of what a libertarian is. Our views don't necessarily change we are all rooted in the same ideas. All I want for now is progress towards more liberty not radical change overnight.
There is no such thing as a constitutionalist, of course you may call yourself any made-up thing you wish.
Indeed, there is no living Constitution, there is no such thing as originalism or strict constructionism. There is only the Constitution and its case law, the Constitution exists only in the context of that case law.
And to the OP, thats likely why many dont embrace libertarianism, because of the movements rejection of Constitutional case law in its entirety. Not only do libertarians reject the Founding Documents jurisprudence, but they reject both the courts authority to subject laws, policies, and acts of government to judicial review and the courts interpretive authority with regard to determining what the Constitution means.
It is thus impossible to engage in any type of meaningful debate with libertarians on the subject, since they refuse to even speak the language of the law.
Since there's no authorization given to the SCOTUS in the constitution for "judicial review", we don't recognize your "case law".
But thanks for stopping by anyway
Pure unadulterated horseshit. Plenty of turds right here in this thread just got done castigating libertarians for opposing the income tax, wanting to legalize drugs and opposing regulation. Then you claim they "can't be pinned down on anything."
The attacks on libertarians in this thread are totally incoherent.
I have you on ignore and rarely hit that button that says "view post". You should probably not put so much work into your vitriol.
You're suffering from the delusion that I care whether you read my posts.
I'd rather not it would be so much quicker if you just explain how you are not a Friedmanite as you claim.
Austrian economics is much different from Chicago economics. Like HUGELY different.
Friedman advocates Fed monetary policy as a tool, Austrians don't support the Fed period.
For starters.
It's typical squirming, I have written a small book's worth of libertarian criticism the last couple of days and you and others still squirm out from under any attempt to nail you down on any but the most general policy statements and have a ready escape hatch for everything that might reflect negatively on your ideals. You have the most obtuse kind of politics I have ever encountered. I've talked to every kind from self described communists to white nationalists to people so apolitical they might as well live in a cave but they will at least make a policy stand on something and accept it's possible failure.
Part of the problem is that Libertarianism is too socially liberal to be combined with the conservative wing of the GOP - so the GOP has a hard time letting people explore the depth of Libertarianism. Even Ron Paul waffled on abortion, preferring to give big government the right to control the outcome of every pregnancy. He's no Libertarian. He's got no courage.
The more you learn about Conservatism and Libertarianism, the more you realize that they cannot be combined. This is why Ayn Rand and William Buckley could not join forces.
Of course, this didn't stop Reagan who spoke like Libertarian or a Conservative depending on the audience.
I predicted over a decade ago that the contradiction between Conservative and Libertarian would destroy the party. My friend was careful to point out that the GOP tends to find voters who are well-meaning but lacking the intellectual background to see the contradiction.
Answer me this though. How can there be a true free market when there's a central bank that dictates the very supply and demand of money itself?
In a true free market, interest rates would be determined by market forces, not a central bank setting a target and creating or extinguishing bank reserves to move those rates where they want them.
Yeah I wasn't really sure about that one either.The world Bank and the WTO are missionaries of free market capitalism?
Looks like you are unaware of what they do for international trade in the developing world, by the time they are done the people there barely have any say over who rapes the hell out their resources or exploits their workers and social reforms earns them sanctions, nice huh. You didn't think those people stay in line and socialism free because they love the west did you?
Austrian economics is much different from Chicago economics. Like HUGELY different.
Friedman advocates Fed monetary policy as a tool, Austrians don't support the Fed period.
For starters.
It's typical squirming, I have written a small book's worth of libertarian criticism the last couple of days and you and others still squirm out from under any attempt to nail you down on any but the most general policy statements and have a ready escape hatch for everything that might reflect negatively on your ideals. You have the most obtuse kind of politics I have ever encountered. I've talked to every kind from self described communists to white nationalists to people so apolitical they might as well live in a cave but they will at least make a policy stand on something and accept it's possible failure.
I think the moral of the story is really that I'm not giving you the answers you want. You asked me how I'm not a friedmanite and I told you. I'm sorry that's not good enough.
Answer me this though. How can there be a true free market when there's a central bank that dictates the very supply and demand of money itself?
In a true free market, interest rates would be determined by market forces, not a central bank setting a target and creating or extinguishing bank reserves to move those rates where they want them.
