Libertarianism

[MrJonno]

When libertarians get to define what 'freedom' it is the strong oppressing the weak.

If someone else wants to claim to be a libertarian we can then have a go at them. Until then Seth is the nearest we have

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, free-marketeering, like I thought Friedman was an advocate for, would naturally lead to accumulation of capital, and therefore accumulation of power. How do libertarians propose to avoid that situation?

He addresses that. Listen to the video. The first point is that in comparison to non-free market countries, the standard of living for most people is far better in free market countries. The countries with the greatest disparity in capital (a tiny tiny few at the top, and everyone else way at the bottom, were the countries without private property or free markets). Where are the conditions worse? In the countries where the government runs most everything. As Friedman points out in the video - Where did things get most polluted in the world? Russia. Why? Because everything was run by the State. Why? Because of the basic principle that people do not take care of someone else's property as well as he takes care of his or her own.

Oh, and by the way, Rothbard and Paul aren't critics of libertarianism. They are liberatarians themselves. They may or may not meet your criteria you just set above, but I don't have any reason to accept your criteria over self-avowed libertarians.

The things you say they say, however, are not the things they say. That's why you don't quote them or cite them.

[Coito ergo sum]

When libertarians get to define what 'freedom' it is the strong oppressing the weak.

If someone else wants to claim to be a libertarian we can then have a go at them. Until then Seth is the nearest we have

He isn't advocating libertarianism when he advocates being "pro Life" (which he does - he is against the liberty of a woman to have an abortion), and he is in favor of the right of conquest (which is anti-libertarian because it is the advocacy of force and military aggression). Just because Seth says it doesn't make it libertarian.

[MrJonno]

When libertarians get to define what 'freedom' it is the strong oppressing the weak.

If someone else wants to claim to be a libertarian we can then have a go at them. Until then Seth is the nearest we have

He isn't advocating libertarianism when he advocates being "pro Life" (which he does - he is against the liberty of a woman to have an abortion), and he is in favor of the right of conquest (which is anti-libertarian because it is the advocacy of force and military aggression). Just because Seth says it doesn't make it libertarian.

So we have to have ago at Sethism (Tolerism despite jis trademark is already taken, its generally considered to be the Left being so tolerant that they are tolerant of things that will destroy them , there is some truth to that) which only exists in his head, can't really win an argument on that

[Beatsong]

Remember too that Seth didn't actually say he was in favour of the right of conquest. On the contrary he's clearly not in favour of it. Except when he is.

[pErvinalia]

Oh, and by the way, Rothbard and Paul aren't critics of libertarianism. They are liberatarians themselves. They may or may not meet your criteria you just set above, but I don't have any reason to accept your criteria over self-avowed libertarians.

The things you say they say, however, are not the things they say. That's why you don't quote them or cite them.

How the fuck would you know? I've quoted and cited them for years. I'm sick of it. Libertarianism is a joke. I've got far more intellectually stimulating things to waste my brain cells on.

[Coito ergo sum]

Friedman addresses here questions that come up all the time --

[MrJonno]

Well could a libertarian step forward then and try and persuade us , I guess most are in favour of freedom to some extent but as far as I can tell libertarians worship it above all other things

[Coito ergo sum]

Oh, and by the way, Rothbard and Paul aren't critics of libertarianism. They are liberatarians themselves. They may or may not meet your criteria you just set above, but I don't have any reason to accept your criteria over self-avowed libertarians.

The things you say they say, however, are not the things they say. That's why you don't quote them or cite them.

How the fuck would you know? I've quoted and cited them for years. I'm sick of it. Libertarianism is a joke. I've got far more intellectually stimulating things to waste my brain cells on.

I know you haven't cited them here. If you knew what they said, you'd pull the quotes real quick.

But, this kind of hostile reaction from you indicates a lack of understanding on your part. You'd rather scoff than discuss. So, if you don't like wasting your time on libertarianism, why are you posting in a thread dedicated to discussing libertarianism. If I encounter something I don't want to waste my time on, I go somewhere else.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well could a libertarian step forward then and try and persuade us , I guess most are in favour of freedom to some extent but as far as I can tell libertarians worship it above all other things

Milton Friedman is explaining it in the videos I posted.

[MrJonno]

Well could a libertarian step forward then and try and persuade us , I guess most are in favour of freedom to some extent but as far as I can tell libertarians worship it above all other things

Milton Friedman is explaining it in the videos I posted.

Sort of working at the moment I'm afraid

[pErvinalia]

Oh, and by the way, Rothbard and Paul aren't critics of libertarianism. They are liberatarians themselves. They may or may not meet your criteria you just set above, but I don't have any reason to accept your criteria over self-avowed libertarians.

The things you say they say, however, are not the things they say. That's why you don't quote them or cite them.

How the fuck would you know? I've quoted and cited them for years. I'm sick of it. Libertarianism is a joke. I've got far more intellectually stimulating things to waste my brain cells on.

I know you haven't cited them here. If you knew what they said, you'd pull the quotes real quick.

But, this kind of hostile reaction from you indicates a lack of understanding on your part. You'd rather scoff than discuss. So, if you don't like wasting your time on libertarianism, why are you posting in a thread dedicated to discussing libertarianism. If I encounter something I don't want to waste my time on, I go somewhere else.

Because I like to ridicule it. That's about all it's worth. And I'm guessing you've never read any Rothbard. Get to it then. Then you'll know the true sickness that is libertarianism.

[Coito ergo sum]

Oh, and by the way, Rothbard and Paul aren't critics of libertarianism. They are liberatarians themselves. They may or may not meet your criteria you just set above, but I don't have any reason to accept your criteria over self-avowed libertarians.

The things you say they say, however, are not the things they say. That's why you don't quote them or cite them.

How the fuck would you know? I've quoted and cited them for years. I'm sick of it. Libertarianism is a joke. I've got far more intellectually stimulating things to waste my brain cells on.

I know you haven't cited them here. If you knew what they said, you'd pull the quotes real quick.

But, this kind of hostile reaction from you indicates a lack of understanding on your part. You'd rather scoff than discuss. So, if you don't like wasting your time on libertarianism, why are you posting in a thread dedicated to discussing libertarianism. If I encounter something I don't want to waste my time on, I go somewhere else.

Because I like to ridicule it. That's about all it's worth. And I'm guessing you've never read any Rothbard. Get to it then. Then you'll know the true sickness that is libertarianism.

You guess wrong. Make your own case, though. If you care to just come to threads and piss on them, without backing up your assertions, then that is obviously easy to do. But, saying "go read so and so" without providing what you're referring to, is pointless and stupid. Rothbard has a nearly 50 year bibliography with many books.

[MrJonno]

The first word that comes to mind when it comes to Milton Friedman isnt economics , its Pinochet. Didnt Friedman said he could get away with things in Chile he could never dream of in a democracy?

[Coito ergo sum]

The first word that comes to mind when it comes to Milton Friedman isnt economics , its Pinochet. Didnt Friedman said he could get away with things in Chile he could never dream of in a democracy?

No.

He did say -- "Chile is not a politically free system, and I do not condone the system. But the people there are freer than the people in Communist societies because government plays a smaller role. ... The conditions of the people in the past few years has been getting better and not worse. They would be still better to get rid of the junta and to be able to have a free democratic system."

Friedman defended his activity in Chile on the grounds that, in his opinion, the adoption of free market policies not only improved the economic situation of Chile but also contributed to the amelioration of Pinochet's rule and to the eventual transition to a democratic government during 1990. That idea is included in Capitalism and Freedom, in which he declared that economic freedom is not only desirable in itself but is also a necessary condition for political freedom. He stressed that the lectures he gave in Chile were the same lectures he later gave in China and other socialist states.[67] During the 2000 PBS documentary The Commanding Heights (based on the book), Friedman continued to argue that criticism over his role in Chile missed his main contention that freer markets resulted in freer people, and that Chile's unfree economy had caused the military government. Friedman suggested that the economic liberalization he advocated caused the end of military rule and a free Chile.[68]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman