-
I'm not saying Ron Paul is a pinko, I'm saying that this is a specific example of how pinkos and ]whatever color libertarians are] can cooperate to achieve a mutually desirable goal. There's no "mutually desirable goal" here. Ron Paul wants to reduce the tax burden, period. Bernie Saunders wants to incentivize worker co-ops. The
-
As to your question, the socialists I've talked to have diverging notions as to what socialism means to them, but I don't think I've ever heard one advocating state ownership of factories, believe it or not. Socialists may be opposed to any currently-existing state owning factories, but there's no way to abolish private property except
-
A socialist safety net is incompatible with "a more robust and freer economy" for which groups exactly? For everyone. A free economy is one in which transactions and exchanges are voluntary. A "safety net" necessitates involuntary transactions such as taxes and pulls away labor resources from the private sector. If people want to
-
Austrian economics purposely doesn't explain how to be a successful entrepreneur, though. Business is a whole field of study separate from economics, and I'm not even sure that entrepreneurship is something that can be taught (Israel Kirzner talks about this). I mean, if you have a will and a desire to write a guide to entrepreneurship or what
-
"Voluntaryism" is a nice term for slowly easing someone into critical thinking without bringing in preconceived notions, but I wholeheartedly disagree that we should abandon terms like "capitalism" or "free market." The problem isn't that the words have bad connotations in and of themselves, but that the meaning behind
-
Both groups would seem to be getting what they want under such a scenario; lower taxes, a more robust and freer economy, and a stronger social(ist) safety net at the same time. Error: cannot compute. "A more robust and freer economy" is mutually exclusive with "a stronger social(ist) safety net," and that cuts right to the core of
-
Eliminating trust in government is a no go, its one thing that is impossible to do. We all made it here, didn't we? There's always a compelling argument for liberty - it just has to be individualized for each person. Education like that takes time, and sometimes people are afraid to step outside the bounds of what they've been taught since
-
No need of sinister plots. Pick up a newspaper and you will see trust in governments is at an all time high and growing. I believe there was a recent poll that suggested otherwise, at least in the US; I'll take your word on Europe. The immediate future still looks somewhat bleak, but it's good to see the American libertarian tradition resurging
-
Is this always true? Surely you've heard stories of young kids being persuaded into doing things they otherwise wouldn't. But it still includes the option of rejecting whatever the offer may be. Rejecting either coercion or persuasion may have negative consequences, it's true - but whereas the negative consequence of resisting coercion is
-
From NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126141922 This gave Zak an idea. Like some comic-book villain concocting a plan to take over the world by dumping happy pills in the water supply, he wondered if it might be possible to use this molecule -- oxytocin -- to change the way people felt about the government. Regardless of the