Seems to me like et was alluding to a hypothetical economic system that might strike a balance between a maximum of individual liberty and a sufficient minimum of security; that's the only way to use the terms "Libertarian" and "socialism" in the same sentence. That may be vague and even seem to embody a contradiction, but no more so than any modern society that practices regulated free-market capitalism. His remark seems to echo my sentiment when I've often said that I'd welcome free-market capitalism in America, as an improvement over our present oligarchy. We're both being a little sarcastic with you, Tom, for your defense of the oligarchy under cover of the ideals of FMC.
I'm not surprised that you didn't get et's remarks. I've noticed, time after time, when I try to bring up economic alternative, you slam into a blind spot in which you can only consider economic systems of the past, and set up a straw man by always responding with some variation of "I suppose you think Communism's any better?"...even though I usually never even bring it up. As a defense of FMC that's a lame nonstarter, and it's definitely a conversation-killer.
Yet, once upon a time we used to actually discuss economics. I once devoted half a summer slogging through "The Wealth of Nations" just to be able to discuss it here. We've lost a lot in the partisanship of the last few years.
Off Topic » in reply to re: Farmer
"more of both"
The whole thread (42 posts)
- On property rights, continued from Geek Speak.
- re: On property rights, continued from Geek Speak.
- re: On property rights
- Farmer
- The Libertarian nonsense belongs with UFOs and Crop Circles.