sicsempertyrannis: Marko: sicsempertyrannis: Marko: A threat to liberty in what sense? Pinochet = a CIA asset. Chavez = an anti-empire firebrand. No contest here. And yet Chavez is running his country into the ground, while Pinochet's Chile has today one of the strongest economies in South America. How could there be a contest between socialist ruin and a nominally free market regime is beyond me. That is only money. Freedom has no price. So empty anti-empire rhetoric equals more freedom? It's alright; when Chavez finishes turning Venezuela into a marxist basket case, people will start voting with their feet.
Marko: sicsempertyrannis: Marko: A threat to liberty in what sense? Pinochet = a CIA asset. Chavez = an anti-empire firebrand. No contest here. And yet Chavez is running his country into the ground, while Pinochet's Chile has today one of the strongest economies in South America. How could there be a contest between socialist ruin and a nominally free market regime is beyond me. That is only money. Freedom has no price.
sicsempertyrannis: Marko: A threat to liberty in what sense? Pinochet = a CIA asset. Chavez = an anti-empire firebrand. No contest here. And yet Chavez is running his country into the ground, while Pinochet's Chile has today one of the strongest economies in South America. How could there be a contest between socialist ruin and a nominally free market regime is beyond me.
Marko: A threat to liberty in what sense? Pinochet = a CIA asset. Chavez = an anti-empire firebrand. No contest here.
A threat to liberty in what sense? Pinochet = a CIA asset. Chavez = an anti-empire firebrand. No contest here.
And yet Chavez is running his country into the ground, while Pinochet's Chile has today one of the strongest economies in South America. How could there be a contest between socialist ruin and a nominally free market regime is beyond me.
That is only money. Freedom has no price.
So empty anti-empire rhetoric equals more freedom? It's alright; when Chavez finishes turning Venezuela into a marxist basket case, people will start voting with their feet.
It was not empty. Venezuela did indeed turn from a semi-colony of US into an independent country. Hugo Chavez is George Washington with screwed up economics.
Marko:Hugo Chavez is George Washington with screwed up economics.
Oh boy, forum traffic will now precipitously drop, as people's heads explode after reading that!!!
This is not the type of sentence I'd expect from you Marko, sorry I underestimated.
Hmm.Hard to say.It depends on the time and place.Right now for me it seems to be the social democrats.
I've been arguing with someone I know over Harriet Harman's Equality bill in the U.K. and arguing that while I disagree with the Pope 's argument that homosexuality is a sin I agree with his overall opposition to the bill.
It started off with him just generally insulting the pope.then I said I don't believe in the right not to be discriminated against and then it got a bit testy.Granted he was polite enough but behind it I found a layer of malice .I got hit with " how can you believe in equal rights yet let people discriminate".
They pulled out the card that homosexuals have been discriminated against for years so this is just making up for it.
I said equality laws end up like affirmative action and violate freedom of association.I was told by this person they don't because " they[the laws]don't require you to be best friend with them".They failed to understand that If an employer refuses to hire a gay person(maybe for completely innocent reasons like lack of experience) ,the gay person can scream discrimination and the next thing you know the employer is in court. It's like they got stuck on the idea of equality as an undeniable good and couldn't see past it.
I also got indirectly accused of being some sort of homophobe for opposing these laws.
I'm beginning to not be surprised by the insanity that comes from statist's mouths.It seems to be if you reject egalitarianism your just evil and there's not debating that.
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
Scott F:It seems to be if you reject egalitarianism your just evil and there's not debating that.
Scott F:how can you believe in equal rights yet let people discriminate".
Well, it seems that you don't reject egalitarianism, if what that guy said about equal rights was correct.
Jackson LaRose: Scott F:It seems to be if you reject egalitarianism your just evil and there's not debating that. Scott F:how can you believe in equal rights yet let people discriminate". Well, it seems that you don't reject egalitarianism, if what that guy said about equal rights was correct.
I think he meant general rights.So by equal rights I think he meant universal human rights since I mentioned freedom.
I do reject egalitarianism.
bloomj31:I don't hate freedom, I just don't value it as much as you do.
Is there any freedom you do value? In other words, do you advocate ending licensing laws, regulations, drug laws, prostitution laws, public education, foreign occupation, etc.?
I think if we asked most people what government programs or policies they would eliminate, I think most would not have much of an answer.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.