What the hell is "economic freedom"?

[k-onmmunist]

The complete separation of State and Economy, much as with State and Church.

[k-onmmunist]

The libertarian version?

The freedom to overwork employees, the freedom use children as part of your workforce, the freedom cut corners on production, the freedom to overlook health code violations, the freedom to engage in predatory pricing, the freedom to discriminate in hiring practices, the freedom to not pay your employees any additional benefits, and the freedom to bust and intimidate workers from organizing.

No, that sounds like the Keynesian perspective of libertarianism. Sorry, you failed.

[k-onmmunist]

The complete separation of State and Economy, much as with State and Church.

So economic anarchy?

Essentially, yes.

[k-onmmunist]

An intellectual fallacy used to justify economic anarchy.

And what's wrong with economic anarchy?

Anarchy is the right for anyone to do whatever he wants. People pursue nothing but their self-interest, thus ruining the collective interest.

Good. I hate collectivism, I hate community and I hate the tyranny that stems from both.

[k-onmmunist]

An intellectual fallacy used to justify economic anarchy.

And what's wrong with economic anarchy?

Anarchy is the right for anyone to do whatever he wants. People pursue nothing but their self-interest, thus ruining the collective interest.

Good. I hate collectivism, I hate community and I hate the tyranny that stems from both.

The collective good serves the individual good of everybody, when it's not highjacked by ideologues/theocrats.

I'm sorry, but it doesn't. Authoritarianism and totalitarianism have stemmed from collectivism, whether it be religion, nationalism, conservatism or big government. The way to stop any further dictatorship is to dismantle the state and live as an individual.

[k-onmmunist]

An intellectual fallacy used to justify economic anarchy.

And what's wrong with economic anarchy?

Anarchy is the right for anyone to do whatever he wants. People pursue nothing but their self-interest, thus ruining the collective interest.

Good. I hate collectivism, I hate community and I hate the tyranny that stems from both.

The collective good serves the individual good of everybody, when it's not highjacked by ideologues/theocrats.

I'm sorry, but it doesn't. Authoritarianism and totalitarianism have stemmed from collectivism, whether it be religion, nationalism, conservatism or big government. The way to stop any further dictatorship is to dismantle the state and live as an individual.

Extreme authoritarism and extreme anarchy are both excessively dangerous. Your problem is that you see things on only one side. The extreme opposite of the Evil isn't necessary the Good.

The former is yes. The latter is the natural state of mankind, for chaos is normal. It is 'order' that is the bizarre oddity that we have injected into our society. The fact is, the state is a major threat to individual sovereignty, which must ALWAYS come above anything else. 600 people sitting in a hall in London should not be able to make decisions that affect EVERYONE.

[k-onmmunist]

An intellectual fallacy used to justify economic anarchy.

And what's wrong with economic anarchy?

Anarchy is the right for anyone to do whatever he wants. People pursue nothing but their self-interest, thus ruining the collective interest.

Good. I hate collectivism, I hate community and I hate the tyranny that stems from both.

Then leave. As soon as you're old enough, get out. Go somewhere where there is no community. You can be by yourself, your own monad.

End your obsession with me, please. It's getting tiring.

[k-onmmunist]

Depends on the speaker/writer, of course. Conceptions of freedom differ. Personally I quite like some of the older Socialist rhetoric about economic freedom (have a look at some of Keir Hardie's election literature... a lot of it is online IIRC. If not, I might post some here at some point. It's quite interesting and not what most people would expect in some regards) and think that it would do the various SI parties some good to remember it - not that that's likely with our inevitably clever-yet-stupid leaders.

Hardie was actually alot more right wing than most people today think he was, IIRC.

[k-onmmunist]

Depends on the speaker/writer, of course. Conceptions of freedom differ. Personally I quite like some of the older Socialist rhetoric about economic freedom (have a look at some of Keir Hardie's election literature... a lot of it is online IIRC. If not, I might post some here at some point. It's quite interesting and not what most people would expect in some regards) and think that it would do the various SI parties some good to remember it - not that that's likely with our inevitably clever-yet-stupid leaders.

Hardie was actually alot more right wing than most people today think he was, IIRC.

Not exactly - with the exception of his strong Christian faith he was essentially an orthodox Marxist as the term was then understood (that is to say - a Vulgar Marxist to use the technical term) and he had the usual ILP attitude to Capitalism (that it was evil, satanic and so on). But he was very socially/culturally conservative by todays standards, even more so than mainstream Liberal Party figures from the same time.

The historical Labour hero who was a lot more right-wing than most people think was Nye Bevan. Much of In Place of Fear reads like a revisionist tract, to say nothing of his foreign policy views towards the end of his career/life.

Well, Bevan was very pro-nuclear, which isn't a traditional Labour stance really. That said, they never really attempted to take that one on until 1983, and we all know the results of that.

[k-onmmunist]

An intellectual fallacy used to justify economic anarchy.

And what's wrong with economic anarchy?

Anarchy is the right for anyone to do whatever he wants. People pursue nothing but their self-interest, thus ruining the collective interest.

Good. I hate collectivism, I hate community and I hate the tyranny that stems from both.

The collective good serves the individual good of everybody, when it's not highjacked by ideologues/theocrats.

I'm sorry, but it doesn't. Authoritarianism and totalitarianism have stemmed from collectivism, whether it be religion, nationalism, conservatism or big government. The way to stop any further dictatorship is to dismantle the state and live as an individual.

Extreme authoritarism and extreme anarchy are both excessively dangerous. Your problem is that you see things on only one side. The extreme opposite of the Evil isn't necessary the Good.

The former is yes. The latter is the natural state of mankind, for chaos is normal. It is 'order' that is the bizarre oddity that we have injected into our society. The fact is, the state is a major threat to individual sovereignty, which must ALWAYS come above anything else. 600 people sitting in a hall in London should not be able to make decisions that affect EVERYONE.

Anarchy is barbarity : individuals harm each other and exacerbation of individual interests makes the ruine of the entire society.

No, individuals compete. This is creative destruction. The best rise to the top, and the worst work for them. That is society and that is the way things are in a real society.

[k-onmmunist]

An intellectual fallacy used to justify economic anarchy.

And what's wrong with economic anarchy?

Anarchy is the right for anyone to do whatever he wants. People pursue nothing but their self-interest, thus ruining the collective interest.

Good. I hate collectivism, I hate community and I hate the tyranny that stems from both.

The collective good serves the individual good of everybody, when it's not highjacked by ideologues/theocrats.

I'm sorry, but it doesn't. Authoritarianism and totalitarianism have stemmed from collectivism, whether it be religion, nationalism, conservatism or big government. The way to stop any further dictatorship is to dismantle the state and live as an individual.

Extreme authoritarism and extreme anarchy are both excessively dangerous. Your problem is that you see things on only one side. The extreme opposite of the Evil isn't necessary the Good.

The former is yes. The latter is the natural state of mankind, for chaos is normal. It is 'order' that is the bizarre oddity that we have injected into our society. The fact is, the state is a major threat to individual sovereignty, which must ALWAYS come above anything else. 600 people sitting in a hall in London should not be able to make decisions that affect EVERYONE.

Anarchy is barbarity : individuals harm each other and exacerbation of individual interests makes the ruine of the entire society.

No, individuals compete. This is creative destruction. The best rise to the top, and the worst work for them. That is society and that is the way things are in a real society.

Maybe in your dreamworld, but certainly not in the reality.

No it isnt. It is the way of the natural world. I support egalitarianism with regards to race, gender, sexuality etc. but not wealth. Those with merit must be at the top. The welfare state directly contravenes that, and should be abolished.

[k-onmmunist]

An intellectual fallacy used to justify economic anarchy.

And what's wrong with economic anarchy?

Anarchy is the right for anyone to do whatever he wants. People pursue nothing but their self-interest, thus ruining the collective interest.

Good. I hate collectivism, I hate community and I hate the tyranny that stems from both.

The collective good serves the individual good of everybody, when it's not highjacked by ideologues/theocrats.

I'm sorry, but it doesn't. Authoritarianism and totalitarianism have stemmed from collectivism, whether it be religion, nationalism, conservatism or big government. The way to stop any further dictatorship is to dismantle the state and live as an individual.

Extreme authoritarism and extreme anarchy are both excessively dangerous. Your problem is that you see things on only one side. The extreme opposite of the Evil isn't necessary the Good.

The former is yes. The latter is the natural state of mankind, for chaos is normal. It is 'order' that is the bizarre oddity that we have injected into our society. The fact is, the state is a major threat to individual sovereignty, which must ALWAYS come above anything else. 600 people sitting in a hall in London should not be able to make decisions that affect EVERYONE.

Anarchy is barbarity : individuals harm each other and exacerbation of individual interests makes the ruine of the entire society.

No, individuals compete. This is creative destruction. The best rise to the top, and the worst work for them. That is society and that is the way things are in a real society.

Maybe in your dreamworld, but certainly not in the reality.

No it isnt. It is the way of the natural world. I support egalitarianism with regards to race, gender, sexuality etc. but not wealth. Those with merit must be at the top. The welfare state directly contravenes that, and should be abolished.

Money=merit ? LOL

That's an extremely naive way to view things. You should know by now that in the absence of any sort of meaningful central authority it tends to boil down to who has the most guns and gold. True Meritocracy has never existed anywhere regardless.

I'm quite reassured that for once even libertarians can have some sense of reality when Disraely throws all his hackery.

I never said that. Usually, it is that way, but not always, which is why aristocracy must be done away with.

Also, as for hackery, it's you who are the expert in that field. I didn't know you would find such an accord with pro-life conservatives like Mint.

[k-onmmunist]

I don't find any accord with Mint. I just notice that he's a bit more realistic than you.

I think you mean pessimitic. He believes that we're heading towards the end of civilisation for God's sake.