Keynes' interpretation of Hayek is still relevant for today's economic policy makers

cdcaveman said:
we forget the Democide committed in the name of equality and justice....how quickly a Government becomes tyrannical.
More...
Venezuela is the text book case. for over 100 years it had a rock solid currency and the country was as rich as many countries in Western Europe. then the people got greedy for equality. they voted in a "mildly" socialist president . the economy started to slide. more regulation of the economy was instituted. the economy slid more. the people felt more had to be done. they voted in that Communist Chavez followed by the Communist Thief Maduro. today people are dying of starvation and babies are dying from malnutrition and lack of medicine.
NN9Gv3q.jpg
 
Sig said:
I agree, I want liberty as well. I want the liberty to build a coal power plant next door to your house and blow the exhaust directly into your yard. Don't like that, well you're against liberty my friend. I want the liberty to play my metal music at full volume directed into your yard, surely you're not against that. I want the liberty to dump my sewage in your living room. I want the liberty to build a house on your property, after all you're not using all of it. I want the liberty to punch you in the face whenever I feel like it. Still for liberty?
See the nativity of a black and white view of the world? Obviously your liberty ends when it imposes on mine, which is simple until their's a situation where we're both impacted. Then, welcome to the real world, something you appear to have little experience with.
More...
Liberty ends when the gubmint DOES allow a coal power plant to be built next door to somebody (they have) while not allowing me to build whatever I want on my property. And obviously individuals don't build coal power plants so stop being ridiculous and yet another who wants gubmint control over themselves.
 
zdreg said:
then the people got greedy for equality.
More...
Well, if you think about it... They succeeded in their goal! Now almost everybody is equally miserable there!:D

Except for the government officials that they elected to promote this equality, of course... They're still rich... (But why bother with such "detail"...):banghead:

:D
 
SunTrader said:
Liberty ends when the gubmint DOES allow a coal power plant to be built next door to somebody (they have) while not allowing me to build whatever I want on my property. And obviously individuals don't build coal power plants so stop being ridiculous and yet another who wants gubmint control over themselves.
More...
So you want the government to control companies but not people? So I can build my septic system so it empties to my neighbors yard, as long as it's me who's doing it and not a company? I can punch you in the face when I feel like it? I can sacrifice goats and let the carcasses rot in my yard next to your house because it's my religious freedom, right?
Again, the real world that the rest of us live in is nuanced and one persons "liberty" almost always impinges on another persons "liberty". And as I've pointed out to you in numerous post, you hypocritically take advantage of the prosperous and safe country made possible through the social contract. As Hobbes so correctly pointed out, we've seen your dystopian version of the world and in it life was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" That's why we developed this whole civilization thing. Again, if you were scratching out this bullshit on stone tablet's in Somalia I'd give you credit for actually living what you believe. But as you type it on the internet from your safe living room chair in one of the most prosperous nations on earth that you've contributed nothing to, you're simply the ultimate hypocrite.
 
NeoTrader said:
Well, if you think about it... They succeeded in their goal! Now almost everybody is equally miserable there!:D

Except for the government officials that they elected to promote this equality, of course... They're still rich... (But why bother with such "detail"...):banghead:

:D
More...
it is nothing to smile about. i said it months ago. they voted for equality. now they are equally poor. it is not my particular thought. many others came to the same conclusion.
 
Sig said:
I agree, I want liberty as well. I want the liberty to build a coal power plant next door to your house and blow the exhaust directly into your yard. Don't like that, well you're against liberty my friend. I want the liberty to play my metal music at full volume directed into your yard, surely you're not against that. I want the liberty to dump my sewage in your living room. I want the liberty to build a house on your property, after all you're not using all of it. I want the liberty to punch you in the face whenever I feel like it. Still for liberty?
See the nativity of a black and white view of the world? Obviously your liberty ends when it imposes on mine, which is simple until their's a situation where we're both impacted. Then, welcome to the real world, something you appear to have little experience with.
More...
non agression principle.. this comes from natural law... you can no agress on someones property... with or without a government.. liberty is only present when the NAP is being reconignzed
 
cdcaveman said:
non agression principle.. this comes from natural law... you can no agress on someones property... with or without a government.. liberty is only present when the NAP is being reconignzed
More...
In SunTrader's world he can do anything he wants on his property. In your world you can't "agress" on someone's property, not sure exactly the word you were looking for but assume it was something about impacting their property. But almost everything I do on my property impacts my neighbor's property. If I start raising chickens on a 2000 square foot lot adjacent yours, it will cause smell, make noise, and lower the value of all the property in the neighborhood. So you'd say ban raising chickens. SunTrader would say you have no right to tell me anything I can do on my property, you're against liberty! And the real answer in the real world is that we have a situation where one persons "liberty" to raise chickens tramples on their neighbors "liberty" not to smell chicken shit 24 hours a day. So you have a nuanced, balanced determination and probably come up with either a chicken raising ban or a limit to how many chickens per given lot size. That's how adults in the real world work, we realize that absolutes and extremism are idiotic and we take a careful, reasoned approach to determining the best outcome. It's a sad commentary that this approach to life needs to be explained!
 
cdcaveman said:
non agression principle.. this comes from natural law... you can no agress on someones property... with or without a government.. liberty is only present when the NAP is being reconignzed
More...
Let me "correct" you on that, man... Here in Brazil, the government actively supported the "MST"(Movimento dos Sem Terra), something like the "Movement of the Landless", which is basically a bunch of parasites who invade farms/private property, which are alledgedly "not being used".
So, natural law is actually less respected because of government here... All these people(as in many other examples) find justification and "officialization" of their actions through socialist governments. And this isn't even disguised, it is openly admited by almost all brazilian parties.
But I agree with every opinion you wrote in the thread so far.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top