Political Theory

Re: Bigger threat to liberty: Neo-Mercantilists, or Social Democrats?

Spideynw — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 23:13:23 GMT

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.

Re: Bigger threat to liberty: Neo-Mercantilists, or Social Democrats?

AnonLLF — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 22:42:59 GMT

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.

Re: Bigger threat to liberty: Neo-Mercantilists, or Social Democrats?

Jackson LaRose — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 20:54:05 GMT

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.

Re: Bigger threat to liberty: Neo-Mercantilists, or Social Democrats?

AnonLLF — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 20:33:58 GMT

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.

Re: Bigger threat to liberty: Neo-Mercantilists, or Social Democrats?

Jackson LaRose — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 19:20:28 GMT

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.

Re: Bigger threat to liberty: Neo-Mercantilists, or Social Democrats?

Marko — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 19:14:40 GMT

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.

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.

Re: Bigger threat to liberty: Neo-Mercantilists, or Social Democrats?

Jackson LaRose — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 19:11:41 GMT

Some good points from both sides of the field

The "Miracle of Chile", but at what cost?

Re: Bigger threat to liberty: Neo-Mercantilists, or Social Democrats?

sicsempertyrannis — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 19:02:31 GMT

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.

Re: Bigger threat to liberty: Neo-Mercantilists, or Social Democrats?

Marko — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 18:57:07 GMT

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.

Re: Bigger threat to liberty: Neo-Mercantilists, or Social Democrats?

sicsempertyrannis — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 18:54:18 GMT

Jackson LaRose:

Acted like all three, too.

I take it you are in the Allende > Pinochet crowd.

Re: Bigger threat to liberty: Neo-Mercantilists, or Social Democrats?

sicsempertyrannis — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 18:52:39 GMT

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.

Re: Bigger threat to liberty: Neo-Mercantilists, or Social Democrats?

Marko — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 18:40:11 GMT

Jackson LaRose:

OK, well how about social democrats vs. Chicago school "conservatives".

Chavez vs. Pinochet?

A threat to liberty in what sense? Pinochet = a CIA asset. Chavez = an anti-empire firebrand. No contest here.

Re: Bigger threat to liberty: Neo-Mercantilists, or Social Democrats?

Jackson LaRose — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 15:52:50 GMT

Byzantine:
The mercantilist regime at least recognizes the limits of its power to confiscate resources.

I would argue that neither recognize limits of power, they just distribute privilege to different sets of cronies.

Re: Bigger threat to liberty: Neo-Mercantilists, or Social Democrats?

onebornfree — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 15:48:34 GMT

Jackson LaRose:

which do you consider the biggest threat to your personal liberty

I would say that the biggest threat to personal liberty for most of us are our own thoughts, and the limitations imposed by those thoughts/assumptions and subsequent actions.

The second biggest personal liberty threat [for most of us, I imagine] is probably the government.

regards, onebornfree.