jasrid04 (December 31, 1969 at 11:59 pm)

Wrong. Libertarians want freedom for the INDIVIDUAL. NOT "Tyranies."True, corporations as they exist today are perverted and act tyrannically. However, that is because they are CREATURES OF THE STATE. They enjoy "Corporate Personhood", limmited liability, (usully) taxation bennefits, and other bennefits 'granted' to them by THE STATE.

stevemcgee99 (December 31, 1969 at 11:59 pm)

Agreed. And since the world only has central banking / fiat currency, it's hard to be valid in saying 'free markets don't work'.

OldCottage2 (December 31, 1969 at 11:59 pm)

steve: That's why it is so important for us to talk about the monetary system, a thing which is hardly ever talked about, but which is absolutely CRUCIAL. Friedman, for example, was very free market in terms of fiscal and regulatory matters, but he accepted central banking. This was his big mistake; you can't have a true free market with managed money. It's the least free market thing there is, since money touches everything. Sound, honest money is the keystone to any free market economy.

OldCottage2 (December 31, 1969 at 11:59 pm)

The question is FORCE vs. FREEDOM. The details of the systems that arise in forced economies vs. free economies are a seperate issue, but all the things you've been complaining about are aspects of forced, managed, centrally planned economies. As for the excessive concentration of wealth, this is more a trait of managed economies. A free economy would tend to be more decentralized. Admittedly, it wouldn't be totally equalized, but no society is or can be.

OldCottage2 (December 31, 1969 at 11:59 pm)

If so, then what you describe as "capitalism" is not truly free. A "free" market is whatever economic systems develop WITHOUT central planning, from the IMF or any other. You can have free market communism, so long as every in the commune is acting of their own free wills--this is how it works in monasteries. There would be private charities, non-profits, unions, guilds, advocacy groups, community organizations, and perhaps many other kinds of organizations we have not concieved of.

OldCottage2 (December 31, 1969 at 11:59 pm)

First of all, can you try to keep your replies down to 2 or 3 posts at most? I don't have time to read a novel. Secondly, I didn't call Krugman an idiot, but don't tempt. I have no interest in kowtowing to Establishment selected "experts" and court economists. I dismiss his ideas in the same way you dismiss those of Rothbard. Thirdly, you still have no idea what I'm saying. You say that capitalism or what you describe as "capitalism" is created by the State.

stevemcgee99 (December 31, 1969 at 11:59 pm)

Seems like there are elements of agreement (elites shouldn't have power over others) between people like Chomsky and Rothbard - but big differences in how to manage freedom. I also think there are fundamental parts of the current economic system, in all countries, that make the general 'libertarian' or 'chomskyist' arguments on Youtube unsound. Changing money, banking and commercial law could make such an impact that both political extremes, what they really are after, would be possible.

IggyReed (December 31, 1969 at 11:59 pm)

"Corporations shouldn't pay ANY taxes,". Do you have a passing knowledge of corporate law? Corporations are legal "persons", with more rights than actual people. Look at the statistics on corporations using the 14th Amendment. You and I don't have, for instance, "limited liability". We are legal persons responsible directly for our actions, corporations are legal persons with less legal responsibility for their actions. It's weird that you say big business and big business go together...

IggyReed (December 31, 1969 at 11:59 pm)

all things Keynes talked about (read about Keynes' ideas like the International Trade Organization and the International Clearing Union, as well as his calls for long term control of capital movements) and opposed is Keynesian. It is a hodgepodge of ideas, if you look at the policy proposals they are more in line with yours than the dreaded "statist" policies you whine about. Is it more the fault logically that your polices cause it to fail more than the other elements? I know what you think.

IggyReed (December 31, 1969 at 11:59 pm)

The IMF Keynesian? Interesting. This is just another case of you knobs seeing a few signs of Keynesianism and claiming the whole program is Keynesian. Keynes want demand induced inflation, he wanted deficit spending, countercyclical measures in downturns to keep aggregate demand high. Explain how the IMF's program of reduced social spending, removal of things like the minimum wage, a cut back on (demand induced inflation) with the elimination of capital controls and financial liberalization