How about all those guys who got big bonuses for driving the US economy off a cliff? They weren't rewarded by a government bureacracy. They were lavishly overpaid by a private one. How is that reconciled with your free market philosophy?
It doesn't take much to get your goat, TB, or cook your goose, for that matter. It's no longer a question of arguing socialism vs capitalism, the issue now is whether your political views are even consistent with capitalism. That's what scares you about the essayists I've been quoting: not that they are attacking your ideology, but that they are showing those you defend have no respect for it.
You aren't defending a political or economic position, you're trying to obscure the fact you no longer have either. All you can do is wave the flag, quote the Founders, daydream about Heinlein and Rand, and mine Cato and Heritage for intimidating and irrelevant statistics.
Your philosophy is degenerate, in the Marxist sense, not the moralistic one. Not only does it adhere to questionable principles, it is no longer even capable of following its own principles.
Flame » in reply to In the context of the references we were discussing please.
You want references?
The whole thread (18 posts)
- More about corporate libertarianism.
- All of these bong fantasies, including Carson's "Mutualism," fail in execution on one simple point: Who decides?
- Re: All of these bong fantasies, including Carson's "Mutualism," fail in execution on one simple point: Who decides?
- Re: All of these bong fantasies, including Carson's "Mutualism," fail in execution on one simple point: Who decides?
- Re: All of these bong fantasies, including Carson's "Mutualism," fail in execution on one simple point: Who decides?
- I must have scored a hit. I see secondary explosions.
- Re: All of these bong fantasies, including Carson's "Mutualism," fail in execution on one simple point: Who decides?
- All of these bong fantasies, including Carson's "Mutualism," fail in execution on one simple point: Who decides?
