Why do teabagger signs have far worse spelling than anti-war signs?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I don't remember conservatives ever mock anti-war protesters' signs for having horrible spelling like the constant mocking of the teabagger idiots with such signs.

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

It's pretty clear the answer your looking to be given is stupidity/lack of education?

[Frink]

Real Americans don't have the learnin' that you Northern elitist city folk have.

[tpfkaw]

Silly leftists.  Didn't you get the memo?  Your attacks on tea partiers are supposed to be anti-intellectual now.

[Frink]

Silly leftists.  Didn't you get the memo?  Your attacks on tea partiers are supposed to be anti-intellectual now.

Come on, the predictions set out and implied in the Road to Serfdom have not come true at all.

[tpfkaw]

Silly leftists.  Didn't you get the memo?  Your attacks on tea partiers are supposed to be anti-intellectual now.

Come on, the predictions set out and implied in the Road to Serfdom have not come true at all.

They're all coming true, and with increasing rapidity.

[Frink]

Silly leftists.  Didn't you get the memo?  Your attacks on tea partiers are supposed to be anti-intellectual now.

Come on, the predictions set out and implied in the Road to Serfdom have not come true at all.

They're all coming true, and with increasing rapidity.

Well if I keep saying it maybe it will come true... Seeing as the context of the book specifically applied to the Labour Party's policies in 1944 I'd say its been proven patently false.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Silly leftists.  Didn't you get the memo?  Your attacks on tea partiers are supposed to be anti-intellectual now.

Come on, the predictions set out and implied in the Road to Serfdom have not come true at all.

They're all coming true, and with increasing rapidity.

Were you one of those types like almost all libertarians who believed Obama and the Democrats were going to reinstate the AWB?

[tpfkaw]

1. Funny, I was going to use the UK as the prime example.

2. No, I think the Democrats have learned their lesson with guns for now.

[Sewer]

Funny, I was going to use the UK as the prime example.

Yes, the uk is the kingdom of serfdom.

[Frink]

1. Funny, I was going to use the UK as the prime example.

The welfare state is big, but they don't have a dictator and the Labour Party's reforms didn't lead to "totalitarianism." Or do you disagree? And if so, what exactly makes the UK a totalitarian state. I'm actually quite curious as to your thought process on this.

[tpfkaw]

Well, when I went there two years ago, I noticed the not one but two security cameras in my small hotel elevator, not to mention the dozens on every street, and the large posters informing me that knives are illegal and that "SELF DEFENSE IS NO DEFENSE."

[Frink]

I its somewhat logically consistent to believe the UK is totalitarian if you believe democracy is a useless measure of freedom and that libertarian ideals are more important much like Hayek did; "My personal preference leans toward a liberal dictatorship rather than toward a democratic government devoid of liberalism." - F.A. Hayek speaking to a Chilean Reporter.

[tpfkaw]

Well, the USSR did have (one-party) democratic elections, and its leader (after Stalin) only had about as much decision-making power as a western European prime minister.  I think few would argue that it was in any way as free a country as a nondemocracy like, say, Hong Kong.

Yes, I do think there are some rights more fundamental than the right to vote (although if the right to vote is taken away, the power of decision-making must be decentralized), and the right to defend oneself would be one of those rights I consider more fundamental.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Well, when I went there two years ago, I noticed the not one but two security cameras in my small hotel elevator, not to mention the dozens on every street, and the large posters informing me that knives are illegal and that "SELF DEFENSE IS NO DEFENSE."

     While the UK is a much worse place than the US, it really isn't what one could call totalitarian.

[tpfkaw]

Well, when I went there two years ago, I noticed the not one but two security cameras in my small hotel elevator, not to mention the dozens on every street, and the large posters informing me that knives are illegal and that "SELF DEFENSE IS NO DEFENSE."

     While the UK is a much worse place than the US, it really isn't what one could call totalitarian.

Of course not, but that's the trend.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Well, when I went there two years ago, I noticed the not one but two security cameras in my small hotel elevator, not to mention the dozens on every street, and the large posters informing me that knives are illegal and that "SELF DEFENSE IS NO DEFENSE."

     While the UK is a much worse place than the US, it really isn't what one could call totalitarian.

Of course not, but that's the trend.

     Trends aren't static forever. Let's return in 30 years & see if they are still coasting towards totalitarianism.

[Frink]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is true, but the example really wouldn't apply to multi party governments. Would Hong Kong or some other theoretical liberal dictatorship, with the lack of a right to vote but arguably more freedom in other more laissez-faire economic ways, be more free than the UK where the Multi-Party System continues to flourish? I suppose its arguable although I probably disagree with that conclusion .

It also runs into some problems when its used, like Hayek used it in that context, to defend someone like Pinochet. I know, for example, that to Friedman Pinochet is a dictator whose evil the Chicago Boys can curb by persuading him to adopt laissez-faire economic policies. I'm not completely sure that the same was true of Hayek in the context of his standing up for the Pinochet regime. Just some food-for-thought...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Interesting. So in your belief, without the right to vote, how would such decentralization work?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd say given how many industries in the UK have been de-nationalized and markets de-regulated that the trend is precisely the opposite.

[Sewer]

(one-party) democratic elections

That's an oxymoron.

[tpfkaw]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is true, but the example really wouldn't apply to multi party governments. Would Hong Kong or some other theoretical liberal dictatorship, with the lack of a right to vote but arguably more freedom in other more laissez-faire economic ways, be more free than the UK where the Multi-Party System continues to flourish? I suppose its arguable although I probably disagree with that conclusion.

It obviously depends on the other rights given to the people in these hypothetical multi-party democracies and liberal nondemocracies, but I'd be inclined to say that property rights are generally more important than voting rights.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, the primary reason why the road to serfdom is a road to serfdom is because it is so popular with people.  If I were to wear a shirt with Augusto Pinochet on it to class, I would be thrown out.  If I were to wear a shirt with a picture of Chairman Mao (who was a thousand times more murderous than Pinochet ever was) to class, I'd merely be "edgy."  Indeed, you could likely get away with Stalin.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Interesting. So in your belief, without the right to vote, how would such decentralization work?[/quote]

Well, it would require that broad executive authority not be vested in one single individual, but dispersed among many different persons of differing interests.  The US before Jackson extended the broad franchise would be the idea.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd say given how many industries in the UK have been de-nationalized and markets de-regulated that the trend is precisely the opposite.
[/quote][/quote]

There's been a small (and, I believe, temporary) uptick in economic liberty compared to a massive decrease in personal liberty (banning guns and now knives. "self defense is no defense," banning "hate speech" etc.).

[tpfkaw]

(one-party) democratic elections

That's an oxymoron.

Well, they were often multi-candidate, but every candidate was from the CPSU.

[Phony Moderate]

Well, when I went there two years ago, I noticed the not one but two security cameras in my small hotel elevator, not to mention the dozens on every street, and the large posters informing me that knives are illegal and that "SELF DEFENSE IS NO DEFENSE."

I agree, it's a pretty appalling assault on civil liberties.

But you seem to be getting knives confused with pocket knives.

[tpfkaw]

Well, when I went there two years ago, I noticed the not one but two security cameras in my small hotel elevator, not to mention the dozens on every street, and the large posters informing me that knives are illegal and that "SELF DEFENSE IS NO DEFENSE."

I agree, it's a pretty appalling assault on civil liberties.

But you seem to be getting knives confused with pocket knives.

Yes, I know it's pocket knives (or, rather, carrying a knife outside one's residence).  I received my first pocket knife at age 7, in my quiet little liberal suburb in Massachusetts.  I somehow managed to avoid injuring myself or others.

[Free Palestine]

Well, when I went there two years ago, I noticed the not one but two security cameras in my small hotel elevator, not to mention the dozens on every street, and the large posters informing me that knives are illegal and that "SELF DEFENSE IS NO DEFENSE."

Did you see any posters that said "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength"?

I should point out that the crime rate in the UK went up after the government disarmed the people.

[Frink]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Interesting, again.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe its the intellectual rigor of my university but I've experienced nothing of the sort. Sure certain hipsters like to trendily sport Mao or Che shirts, but it doesn't go into a thought other than fashion at all. It takes a fool to be simultaneously educated and truly believe Pinochet's regime was worse than Mao Tse Tung. I've yet to encounter such an individual and in fact have encountered several papers from "market disciples" arguing precisely the opposite. Not that the apologists don't exist in academia, but I've yet to encounter them in a noteworthy number.

 Anyway here's an interesting article that further discusses my point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So you believe that its a matter of time until the UK, most likely Labour at that, embarks on another campaign of Economic Nationalization?