Why can't liberals think for themselves

I don't even support the free market... bloody hell your insistence on denying facts is unbelievable. I am a moderate social democrat.

worse yet you ignore more evidence to the contrary of your views.

I am not emotional, my language is emotional because I have no respect for people who deny facts

I would make two points. The first is that I agree; it is a paradox that, while enjoying considerable internal freedom, we in the west inflict substantial amounts of violence on others (look at the numbers killed by the Iraq sanctions in the 1990s, in Yugoslavia, in the Libya campaign, etc)

On the other hand, it wouldn't be fair to say the former USSR is peaceable; Russia's intervention in Ukraine puts paid to such an idea. Furthermore, their lack of external interventions probably has more to do with lack of capability, lack of money, than a peaceable nature

On the other hand, it wouldn't be fair to say the former USSR is peaceable; Russia's intervention in Ukraine puts paid to such an idea.

In which case your adherence to Hayek and Mises is utterly clueless; you appear to have no idea how your beliefs are full of contradictions.



Which evidence and which views? Answer that question or you are a bounder



You are becoming irrational, you need to calm down. We are not out to get you

No the USSR intervened through proxy forces all over the place. It is like the French against the British after the Seven Years war. The USSR used proxies because they couldn't engage NATO directly.

Um what? That makes little sense.
In essence you're saying: It's irrelevant what any government thinks, they could be advocates of peace, but if a future government of the same nation, or a part of it after it's fractures, isn't no peace loving then that original government cannot possibly have wanted peace

You made a claim, that Hayek did not support social insurance

so I asked you what edition you had

Perhaps, then, you can refer me to my exact words making that assertion. Or accept that you are confused and paranoid.



And I responded! Geeze. It's the version on the Mises Institute website. But that's not the issue, is it? You are claimg that " claimed Hayek did not support social insurance". Point me to that quote or stand exposed as a clueless crab

Hayek was clueless. He predicted that creating an NHS would lead to Soviet-style gestapo. He was wrong.

Moderate social democracy, contrary to the shrieking hysteria of far-right nutcases, does not inherently lead to a Stalinist dictatorship; the lessons of history make this entirely clear

You are a very strange person... the Mises Institute website is not reliable; by all accounts its propaganda; use a book version not the pdf from that website.

You are a very strange person... the Mises Institute website is not reliable; by all accounts its propaganda; use a book version not the pdf from that website.

Here's my copy:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Road-Serfdom-Routledge-Classics/dp/0415253896/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1419873094&sr=8-1&keywords=hayek

I would make two points. The first is that I agree; it is a paradox that, while enjoying considerable internal freedom, we in the west inflict substantial amounts of violence on others (look at the numbers killed by the Iraq sanctions in the 1990s, in Yugoslavia, in the Libya campaign, etc)

On the other hand, it wouldn't be fair to say the former USSR is peaceable; Russia's intervention in Ukraine puts paid to such an idea. Furthermore, their lack of external interventions probably has more to do with lack of capability, lack of money, than a peaceable nature

Are you avoiding your own proposition? Show me the quote where I say "Hayek did not support social insurance"

Hayek was clueless. He predicted that creating an NHS would lead to Soviet-style gestapo. He was wrong.

Moderate social democracy, contrary to the shrieking hysteria of far-right nutcases, does not inherently lead to a Stalinist dictatorship; the lessons of history make this entirely clear

Where is your evidence it's an unreliable copy? How do you know it's not your copy that's unreliable?

I just did

Are you actually denying that the logical conclusion of this is that Hayek does not support social insurance?

Actually you didn't, and now you're avoiding the question because you know you can't show where I said "Hayek didn't support social insurance"

So you admit you actually can't show that quote?

That's the most circulated copy and the one scholars study

I already did? How am I supposed to copy a book onto a computer?

And what's your evidence for that proposition?