-
Funny thing is, I see Mises using the passive voice a lot, and ironically that's how a lot of his quotes get taken out of context by people. The whole chapter on polylogism for example and on how Fascist governments were seen in the 20s.
-
In fact, I have reservations about the word 'market' itself to describe a free economy as it isn't conceptually clear imo. 'Market' to me refers to a place, a location, and thus is commonly seen as a system (as far as I understand the common definition of 'system' which I may be incorrect). Which leads to the viewpoint that
-
With most people there is this conception that the market and society are two mutually exclusive things, that society precludes the market, when the market is simply the economic behavior of society. One cannot exist without the other; there is no society without a market and no market without a society. Society will always have markets and be subject
-
All I know is, the serious use of terms like 'Islamofascist' and 'liberal democracy' are surefire triggers for my bullshit meter. And closet neocon arguments masquerading as 'libertarian' rhetoric is primo FOX news bullshit
-
Not really answering anybody's question here, but I wanted to comment on the 'education' section from the raikoth critiques of libertarianism FAQ (http://raikoth.net/libertarian.html#education): Compared to private schools, public schools actually do better once confounders like race, class, and income have been adjusted out of the analysis
-
[quote user="z1235"] Lozterrk, [quote]So it's an excuse to also attack the free market by saying people are too stupid to do well in the free market, it needs therefore to be regulated by experts.[/quote] Presumably, these attackers and expert regulators would have been pre-determined to do so? [/quote] "Yes, we're the lawmakers
-
Looks like the FOX crowd is really trying to ratchet up the effort to assimilate the word 'libertarian' into the aether of stupid. I'm just gonna call myself a liberal again.
-
If workers were wiser and had lower time preferences then workers would have formed syndicates and these would have dominated the market a long time ago. What do you mean by this? It sounds like you're saying that syndicalism would predominate if workers are wise, but since they aren't, corporations persist. Did you mean that if syndicalism
-
Tim, it's not that I do not share your intentions regarding social welfare and mutual aid. It's just that I don't think society should be legally forced to entrust the allocation and organization of this service to a centralized monopoly that aggressively crowds out, distorts and/or removes altogether all other potential alternatives created
-
I don't know. I just joined the voluntaryism boards. I'd prefer one board for all this instead of splintering it up. maybe I'm just a pawn of brand loyalty to the Autolykos Corp