Libertarians...Quite Possibly the Stupidest People in the World....

Socrtease said:
And I am a libertarian by the way and am in no way one of the stupidest people in the world. I think though that the real problem is that big L Libertarians are MORE concerned with the free market than with freedom of the people including the freedom to CHOOSE a socialist collectivist government.

This enables many to look past the fact that people only had to be tortured and kidnapped and disappeared for about 25 years for the free market to take affect and the people to vote Pinochet's party out of power. Friedman should have said that his style of market reforms NEVER justify totalitarianism to implement them. He should have gone to Chile and denounced Pinochet or should have at least denounced him the same way he denounced government that engaged in Centralist Socialist totalitarian controls.
Click to expand...


I think though that the real problem is that big L Libertarians are MORE concerned with the free market than with freedom of the people including the freedom to CHOOSE a socialist collectivist government


Gee Soc, I had to withstand all manner of withering attack by anachrocapitalist posters, for making this same observation.

Lets see if you get attacked. :cool:
 
Last edited:
You are both wrong. Most big L libertarians would laugh at you or worse for calling Norquist a lib. Friedman, many would only accept with reservations. He is small l.

It is the small l's that might be overly concerned with economics only. Big L libertarians see no distinction.
 
Last edited:
RStringfield said:
You are both wrong. Most big L libertarians would laugh at you or worse for calling Norquist a lib. Friedman, most would only accept with reservations. He is small l.

It is the small l's that might be overly concerned with economics only. Big L libertarians see no distinction.
Click to expand...

Friedman was a Republican. He was only a little better than the religious conservatives.
 
BTW, there is no freedom or right to choose a collectivist government for your fellows.

A free market however would allow you to join whatever commune you like.
 
RStringfield said:
BTW, there is no freedom or right to choose a collectivist government for your fellows.

A free market however would allow you to join whatever commune you like.
Click to expand...

Beat me to it.

Freedom to choose a collectivist society for yourself is not the same as 51% of society deciding to force it on the other unwilling 49%.
 
Outspoken against the drug war, opposed to military adventurism, worked to end the draft, etc., how does that make him only a little better than religious conservatives.
 
Socrtease said:
Darla was the instigator. I actually had to go back and figure out why it had gone like this. It was absolutely on fire about noon my time. If I took anytime at all to answer it I had to read two pages worth of replies. Now the only thing I would like to ask but am sure won't happen is everyone forgive everyone when it got heated and dumb shit was said to you. It happens sometimes. If I offended anyone today I apologize. This thread made my day fly by on what would have been an otherwise slow moving day.
Click to expand...

I really didn't consider that statement to be inflammatory. I wasn't trying to throw the Capital L, small i, plural s, or whatevers! into a freaking meltdown...not that that's not fun. I mean, to me, the guy is a murderer. I went to see a documentary last night called "meeting resistence" and in it there was a scene in the aftermath of a bomb going off in Iraq and a small child was lying, blown apart in the street, and his arm and head twitched at one point, and I started to sob, and then became overwhelmed that my tax dollars had paid for that and I felt like a murderer, so what do you think the chances are that I'm going to believe a piece of shit like Friedman is anything other than just that? George bush didn't personally kill anyone either, none of the real mass murderers probably ever do, but they'll never be anything but evil, souless foul little murderers to me.

I am talking on this thread of murder and of evil so gross that 50 people would sit in a freaking classroom watching the most effective ways to torture a human being, and you wonder at how inhuman humanity can be and it's chillingly frightening, and Warren is talking about being "faced". We are not just on another page, we are not just reading a different book, that page in that book is written in a different language.

As far as holding anything against anyone in this thread, no way. SF came over from another thread, it had nothing to do with this. SF can't shut up he is the barber's wife, who no matter how far the barber dips her into the well until even her mouth is covered with water and says "are you going to shut the f up now"? she puts her hands over her head and talks with her fingers; that is SF. But as far as the people actually participating in this thread, no one offended me at all.
 
Darla said:
I really didn't consider that statement to be inflammatory. I wasn't trying to throw the Capital L, small i, plural s, or whatevers! into a freaking meltdown...not that that's not fun. I mean, to me, the guy is a murderer. I went to see a documentary last night called "meeting resistence" and in it there was a scene in the aftermath of a bomb going off in Iraq and a small child was lying, blown apart in the street, and his arm and head twitched at one point, and I started to sob, and then became overwhelmed that my tax dollars had paid for that and I felt like a murderer, so what do you think the chances are that I'm going to believe a piece of shit like Friedman is anything other than just that? George bush didn't personally kill anyone either, none of the real mass murderers probably ever do, but they'll never be anything but evil, souless foul little murderers to me.

I am talking on this thread of murder and of evil so gross that 50 people would sit in a freaking classroom watching the most effective ways to torture a human being, and you wonder at how inhuman humanity can be and it's chillingly frightening, and Warren is talking about being "faced". We are not just on another page, we are not just reading a different book, that page in that book is written in a different language.

As far as holding anything against anyone in this thread, no way. SF came over from another thread, it had nothing to do with this. SF can't shut up he is the barber's wife, who no matter how far the barber dips her into the well until even her mouth is covered with water and says "are you going to shut the f up now"? she puts her hands over her head and talks with her fingers; that is SF. But as far as the people actually participating in this thread, no one offended me at all.
Click to expand...

When did Friedman serve as President of Chile as Bush is of the US?

How was Friedman involved in this classroom torture lessons?

You cannot establish or support either of these. Hell, Friedman was not even a Chillean taxpayer.
 
I've probably have 5 differant Friedman videos where he explains how he IS NOT a conservative {he's a liberal in the true sense} and not a Republican.

Geez, I was reading through this and it's amazing how many Obvious google searched answers there were. People who barely had a clue who Friedman was let alone the Chile stuff but yet they had strong opinions because most of you dorks are here to argue rather than actually learn and debate. I can't believe how many made up their mind before they even understood the subject matter. Pretty pathetic!
 
I still say that when Friedman went to Chile he KNEW what the Pinochet goverment was doing. He went there and spoke in support of the government. Not the torture part but in support of Pinochet none the less and Pinochet could use that to legitimate his government in total. You know Hitler supported the right to own private property but I doubt that libertarians would praise Hitler even for that. Friedman should not have endorsed Pinochet even in a limited way. And by speaking affirmatively about the economic policies that Pinochet was implementing boosted Pinochet's legitimacy.
 
Socrtease said:
I still say that when Friedman went to Chile he KNEW what the Pinochet goverment was doing. He went there and spoke in support of the government. Not the torture part but in support of Pinochet none the less and Pinochet could use that to legitimate his government in total. You know Hitler supported the right to own private property but I doubt that libertarians would praise Hitler even for that. Friedman should not have endorsed Pinochet even in a limited way. And by speaking affirmatively about the economic policies that Pinochet was implementing boosted Pinochet's legitimacy.
Click to expand...


I still say that when Friedman went to Chile he KNEW what the Pinochet goverment was doing. He went there and spoke in support of the government. Not the torture part but in support of Pinochet none the less and Pinochet could use that to legitimate his government in total.

Agreed
 
...

I agree too. I once idolized Friedman, but that was the worst part about him. I was just reluctant to accept the fact that he had helped, whether purposely or accidentally, a dictator.
 
Socrtease said:
I still say that when Friedman went to Chile he KNEW what the Pinochet goverment was doing. He went there and spoke in support of the government. Not the torture part but in support of Pinochet none the less and Pinochet could use that to legitimate his government in total. You know Hitler supported the right to own private property but I doubt that libertarians would praise Hitler even for that. Friedman should not have endorsed Pinochet even in a limited way. And by speaking affirmatively about the economic policies that Pinochet was implementing boosted Pinochet's legitimacy.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. When did he speak in support of the government? When did he endorse Pinochet? He gave anti-totalitarian lectures at a private school.

Hitler did not support property rights.
 
RStringfield said:
Nonsense. When did he speak in support of the government? When did he endorse Pinochet? He gave anti-totalitarian lectures at a private school.

Hitler did not support property rights.
Click to expand...

Here's a colum I found regarding Hitler and private property rights:


The same applies, though to a lesser degree, to fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, which are often erroneously depicted as "capitalist" societies. True, both Mussolini and Hitler tolerated private property in the means of production but only as long as it served the state. In the early 1920s Hitler explained to a journalist his views on the subject:

I want everyone to keep the property he has acquired for himself according to the principle: the common good takes precedence over self-interest. But the state must retain control and each property owner should consider himself an agent of the state. . . . The Third Reich will always retain the right to control the owners of property.

And indeed, this right the Nazi state asserted when it came to power by controlling dividends, interest rates, and wages. In regard to agriculture, it reserved to itself the authority to expropriate any farm that did not produce foodstuffs to its satisfaction. So what we had here was property in a very limited sense, more like a trusteeship than ownership in the true meaning of the word.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/4525011.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top