Just Who's Leading the Battle to Re-Legalize Drugs? Economists...

N

NewsBoy

News Delivery
In recent years economists have led the fight to legalize actually, to "re- legalize" drugs. The Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman has been the outspoken leader of the re-legalization forces. His open letter to "Drug Czar" William Bennett, published in the Wall Street Journal, is just his latest salvo against the prohibitionist....

More at link...
 
Gooooo Milton! I get so tired of wasteful posturing "War on Stupidy" (yea I spelled it that way on purpose)...

War on <insert platitude>!
 
Watermark said:
Economists have always been very liberal (socially AND economically, that is).
Click to expand...

Prove this statement or at least give some evidence for this. You are guilty here of the same sin that your friend Dixie continues to fall foul of and that is using hyperbole such as always, never, all, every, etc. Such statements are nearly always indefensible. So prove it!!!!
 
Prakosh said:
Prove this statement or at least give some evidence for this. You are guilty here of the same sin that your friend Dixie continues to fall foul of and that is using hyperbole such as always, never, all, every, etc. Such statements are nearly always indefensible. So prove it!!!!
Click to expand...
So you don't believe that Milton Friedman is an economist? Many examples are evident. He, of course, is speaking of the Classical Liberal, not the current lexicon of the Political world today.
 
Prakosh said:
Prove this statement or at least give some evidence for this. You are guilty here of the same sin that your friend Dixie continues to fall foul of and that is using hyperbole such as always, never, all, every, etc. Such statements are nearly always indefensible. So prove it!!!!
Click to expand...

Ever heard of xanax, kid?

By "always" I clearly meant that I simply have seen a recurring pattern of economists being liberal in social and neoliberal in econmic issues. For instance, the magazine "The Economist" happens to be very classical liberal tinted, and CATO has many economists on it's staff. I've also heard of many individual examples.
 
Watermark said:
Ever heard of xanax, kid?

By "always" I clearly meant that I simply have seen a recurring pattern of economists being liberal in social and neoliberal in econmic issues. For instance, the magazine "The Economist" happens to be very classical liberal tinted, and CATO has many economists on it's staff. I've also heard of many individual examples.
Click to expand...

You really need to define your terms if you are going to call the Cato Institute a liberal organization. The Chicago School of economists were and are very conservative. Karl Marx held a Ph. D. in economics. You should define your terms before making these kinds of sweeping statements, especially if you are going to be making some claim that Cato is a liberal organization. I would start with Classical liberal and show how that is different from today's liberal and neo-liberal, which are in some ways already opposites. In other words you may be in way over your head here.

And show how one could be classically liberal in economics and socially. Also give some of the individual examples.
 
We have had the Classical Liberal/Liberal discussion ad infinitum before. There is no need to rehash that one. One can simply look up the accepted definitions.
 
Damocles said:
We have had the Classical Liberal/Liberal discussion ad infinitum before. There is no need to rehash that one. One can simply look up the accepted definitions.
Click to expand...

As you may know I haven't been here ad infinitum, but I would offer that Paul Krugman is not of the same policial and social or economic leanings as Milton Friedman, nor is someone like Robert Reich. And as I said Karl Marx was an economist and he is certainly not the same as socially or economically as the others here. So back we come to the questions of defintions and how it is possible for all these different people to be the same no matter what you call those labels. It seems to me that this of this group it is hard to call Reich, Marx and Krugman classically liberal. So I'm asking for proof, that they are. And it seems to me that the beginning of that proof has to start with defining the term. And then proceeding to argue how each of them is classically liberal. Easy no?

It's called constructing an argument not just making a statement as if it is the "truth" and you need no further justification. I like to see arguments and evidence--things like that.
 
Prakosh said:
As you may know I haven't been here ad infinitum, but I would offer that Paul Krugman is not of the same policial and social or economic leanings as Milton Friedman, nor is someone like Robert Reich. And as I said Karl Marx was an economist and he is certainly not the same as socially or economically as the others here. So back we come to the questions of defintions and how it is possible for all these different people to be the same no matter what you call those labels. It seems to me that this of this group it is hard to call Reich, Marx and Krugman classically liberal. So I'm asking for proof, that they are. And it seems to me that the beginning of that proof has to start with defining the term. And then proceeding to argue how each of them is classically liberal. Easy no?

It's called constructing an argument not just making a statement as if it is the "truth" and you need no further justification. I like to see arguments and evidence--things like that.
Click to expand...

WHO FUCKING CARES! WHY THE HELL ARE YOU MAKING SUCH A BIG DEAL OUT OF THIS!

I JUST NOTICE A FUCKING LOT OF FUCKING CLASSICAL LIBERAL ORGANIZATIONS, AND THERE'S NO WAY YOU COULD CALL FUCKING CATO "CONSERVATIVE", AS IF THEY WERE A BUNCH OF BUSH CRONIES.
 
Watermark said:
WHO FUCKING CARES! WHY THE HELL ARE YOU MAKING SUCH A BIG DEAL OUT OF THIS!

I JUST NOTICE A FUCKING LOT OF FUCKING CLASSICAL LIBERAL ORGANIZATIONS, AND THERE'S NO WAY YOU COULD CALL FUCKING CATO "CONSERVATIVE", AS IF THEY WERE A BUNCH OF BUSH CRONIES.
Click to expand...

well, when you were 12, the Cato institute most proudly backed President Bush and they were most definately conservative CRONIES supporting the president thru to the point of where you were about 15.................you are either trying to rewrite history, or you just don't remember the backing of the President by Cato because YOU WERE TOO YOUNG at the time imo.

fyi


learn some social skills cuttie pie, it doesn't seem to come automatically with your genius llevel of intelligence....so some "practice" is in order. ;)


care
 
Watermark said:
WHO FUCKING CARES! WHY THE HELL ARE YOU MAKING SUCH A BIG DEAL OUT OF THIS!

I JUST NOTICE A FUCKING LOT OF FUCKING CLASSICAL LIBERAL ORGANIZATIONS, AND THERE'S NO WAY YOU COULD CALL FUCKING CATO "CONSERVATIVE", AS IF THEY WERE A BUNCH OF BUSH CRONIES.
Click to expand...

Calm down and stop yelling.

You were merely asked to back up this blanket statement:

"Economists have always been very liberal (socially AND economically, that is)."

I've never seen evidence of your assertion. Most economists work in think tanks, financial institutions, and universities. There are far more conservative think tanks than liberal ones, and those who work in finance and banking can hardly be described as being "always very liberal".

Likewise, on the antecdotal level, most economics departments at universities I've attended are populated by a wide range of theory. Many university economists are conservative or mainstream. Not FDR New Deal economists.

So, I think it was entirely reasonable for you to be asked to back up your statement.
 
They are socially liberal, and economically liberal. The definition of "economic liberal" has albeit faded because the US's two-party system generalizes so much of what America is, but economic liberalism is still defined as belief in the free market. Social liberalism has always been defined as belief in freedom of expression and body, and many economists I've seen support much more liberal measures in this area than the modern "liberals".

What you are is a social liberal, one who believes the government can provide everything for citizens and has a right to muddle with their lives if it believes it's good for 'em.
 
Care4all said:
well, when you were 12, the Cato institute most proudly backed President Bush and they were most definately conservative CRONIES supporting the president thru to the point of where you were about 15.................you are either trying to rewrite history, or you just don't remember the backing of the President by Cato because YOU WERE TOO YOUNG at the time imo.

fyi


learn some social skills cuttie pie, it doesn't seem to come automatically with your genius llevel of intelligence....so some "practice" is in order. ;)


care
Click to expand...

A LOT of organization backed George Bush before they figured out who he was.

He was being an idiot, and making a big deal out of nothing. It was getting annoying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top