Nutcasenightmare 2009-06-02 00:01:55

Okay fine jeeez.

Nutcasenightmare 2009-06-02 01:09:36 (Updated 2009-06-02 02:02:32)

Lol really? Thanks dude - I'm planning to go into Econ! I'm glad someone likes ma economics commentary. =)

P.S: Your flashes are awesome

Nutcasenightmare 2009-06-02 05:53:56

-The Birth of Libertarian Socialism-

You got socialism in my libertarianism!
And you got libertarianism in my socialism!

Om Noam Noam Noam Noam Noam Noam Noam.

Nutcasenightmare 2009-06-02 05:55:09 (Updated 2009-06-02 08:34:07)

But it's so booorrrrriiiingggg heeeerrrreeeee.

Maybe it's just Canadian jealousy that we poke fun at teh Americans. I mean, America has its first black president. And for Vancouver, Canada? Stephen Harper got re-elected last year, and Gordon Campbell got re-elected this year. Why is Canadian politics just so boooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrriiii iiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnggggggggg.

Canadian patriotism: making fun of the other guy. =D

-------------

Edit: Oh wait. Paramedic strike. Yay, not so boring anymore!

Nutcasenightmare 2009-06-02 10:22:07

nay.

Nutcasenightmare 2009-06-02 22:07:36

Lol, thanks! As for the following question: "are you conservative or liberal?" Please take the following test.

The World's Smallest Political Quiz
http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp /index.html

I refer to this quiz because
1) I really cannot place myself anywhere on the liberal-conservative line
2) This quiz totally kicks the ass of the Political Compass.

I score 100/100 libertarian on there. I personally believe in free trade because I think a decentralized economy provides a lot more than a centralized one, and support personal freedom because free speech, free thought, and free love are great for a thriving, intelligent, and sexy, sexy society.

Please do take the test! I think we'd both like to know where you stand on the chart. =)

Nutcasenightmare 2009-06-02 22:42:34

It seems to me that libertarian socialism (om noam noam noam) considers 'positive liberty' and 'vertical equality' to be as good as if not better than 'negative liberty' and 'horizontal equality'.

I have my suspicions that the similarity in terms lead to this confusion, but I'll let that cunning linguist Noam Chomsky decide that. I mean, as long as 'positive liberty' and 'negative liberty' have the same syntax, semantics is irrelevant, right? (Okay that was such a assholic representation of Chomskyan linguistic theory. Back to political rantings.)

We have seen many instances where the pursuit of equality over liberty has led to either inefficiency or abuse: productivity-punishing bailouts, grade inflation in the public school system, and the slow-as-a-snail-made-out-of-molas ses Canadian medicare.

Regardless of whether or not greed is good, greed DOES exist, and it's a very powerful force - why not use it? Without allowing for some form of vertical inequality to reward those who produce things others want, no one except the absolutely altruistic would produce stuff. But in a voluntary exchange, (without fraud or coercion) both parties would be better off, even if one gains more than the other. (Economics isn't a zero-sum game.)

Just personally here, if I were to choose between a world where life is equally hellish for everyone, and a world where everyone's well-being increases but at different rates, I would most certainly pick the latter.

(Of course, that is not to say that libertarian socialist communities can't exist. Some, such as Freetown Christiania, exist quite successfully. In fact, in those cases, I would defend them against the oppression they face from the Danish government.)

----

This pretty much sums up any socialist ideology:

"It is true that liberty is precious - so precious that it must be rationed."
~Vladmir. Freakin'. Lenin.

Nutcasenightmare 2009-06-03 02:21:49

boom and *busty*

Nutcasenightmare 2009-06-11 10:31:16 (Updated 2009-06-11 14:35:22)

Wow, I didn't even know that.

THE MORE YOU KNOW
-----------------------------^
================< >
-----------------------------v