Why can't liberals think for themselves

Scroll to see replies

Most 'liberals' are unaware of the ideology they really support.

When they say the want to increase taxes on the rich, they don't realise they are actually supporting people to hand over money at the point of a gun. Their ideology lacks basic ethical foundations such as universaility.

They don;t see it like that. (Well I do, but I see it as justified :biggrin:

). This is the same gun that enforces your private property rights and protects your wealth. Keeps the power of unions in check. Upholds the rule of law. This gun does lots of stuff.

You're the one with the simplistic world view. If you can't understand that people think differently or may come to different conclusion then it is you who are intellectually immature.

Reply 101

Lord A

Original post by young_guns

Are you slow? The quote you were supposed to be showing was my claim that Hayek did not support social insurance

What is wrong with you?

Reply 102

young_guns

Original post by Lord A

How about you admit you haven't read it and just downloaded bs from the Mises Institute and are pretending to know something about it?

If you think Hayek was in favour of socialised provision of medicine and other services, it is you who is pretending to know something you clearly do not.

You are clearly utterly clueless about the period Hayek spent as consultant to the Conservative Party in the immediate postwar period, the advice he gave to Churchill re the 1945 election, Churchill's "Gestapo" speech.

You are a ****ing ignoramus when it comes to British history and economics

Reply 103

Lord A

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

They don;t see it like that. (Well I do, but I see it as justified :biggrin:

Good sir would you please do me the honour of going to page 5 and confirming that what I said is consistent, and that it is not me that is insane.

Reply 104

Lord A

Original post by young_guns

Where is your evidence for this? I have given you evidence from two of his works to the contrary, you have ignored it and pretended to have an understanding of it.

Reply 105

Falcatas

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

They don;t see it like that. (Well I do, but I see it as justified :biggrin:

They agree with definitions but then do not follow them to the logical conclusions.

It is ridiculous to suggest the state is a protector of property rights, they tell you have much you may keep of your own stuff and enforce things like 'intelligentual property' which is a gross aberation of property.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 106

young_guns

Original post by Lord A

Where is your evidence for this?

So you're claiming Hayek wasn't consulting for the Conservative Party in '45 and after?

You're just making a fool of yourself now.

Reply 107

ChaoticButterfly

Original post by Lord A

Good sir would you please do me the honour of going to page 5 and confirming that what I said is consistent, and that it is not me that is insane.

To lazy and I've rea dit all before.

Bscially I do my best to think for myself and I have come to conclusion progressive taxation in some variant of state capitalist society is preferable for moral, economic and social reasons. I'm willing to change my mind should evidence or convincing moral philosophy persuade me.

Reply 108

Lord A

Original post by young_guns

So you're claiming Hayek wasn't consulting for the Conservative Party in '45 and after?

You're just making a fool of yourself now.

I never made that claim. On the contrary I have reduced my venom towards you and have been trying to resolve this civil. You have no intention however; I have pointed out evidence from two of his writings to which you have simply ignored or danced around; and now you make claims that you cannot support.

Reply 109

young_guns

Original post by Lord A

What is wrong with you?

Is that the best you have? No wonder you missed out on Oxford

Reply 110

Lord A

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

Fair enough. My position is actually similiar... I'm just defending Hayek from false allegations lol.

Reply 111

young_guns

Original post by Lord A

I never made that claim

So what claim were you questioning when you asked where the evidence for this is?

Reply 112

Lord A

Original post by young_guns

Is that the best you have? No wonder you missed out on Oxford

With logic like that it doesn't matter, your going to come out with a third. I'm not even from the UK. You have no argument I can't be bothered anymore. I've tried but I can't debate with a pigeon.

Reply 113

young_guns

Original post by Lord A

With logic like that it doesn't matter, your going to come out with a third.

I already graduated with a 1st.

What a tiresome little cock you are. No wonder you were so worked up about Messiah

Reply 114

Lord A

Original post by young_guns

I already graduated with a 1st.

What a tiresome little cock you are. No wonder you were so worked up about Messiah

It's sad really. You have nothing to show for it except a piece of paper.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pigeon_chess

Reply 115

young_guns

Original post by Lord A

I've tried but I can't debate with a pigeon.

A pigeon!?

I've never been so insulted :rolleyes:

Reply 116

Lord A

Original post by young_guns

A pigeon!?

I've never been so insulted :rolleyes:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pigeon_chess

More things you are ignorant of. That's quite a list.

Reply 117

young_guns

Original post by Lord A

It's sad really. You have nothing to show for it except a piece of paper.

Says the guy who is so clueless he believes Hayek favoured economic planning

Reply 118

Lord A

Original post by young_guns

Says the guy who is so clueless he believes Hayek favoured economic planning

Never said that either. Although Hayek himself said, twice (in the works you haven't read that I politely showed you) that there are some circumstances where it is useful.

I know the truth does not suit your superiority complex and that worthless piece of paper you have. Better luck next time child.

Reply 119

Lord A

Oh look he writes in 1948 as well!

In a modern community there are a considerable number of services which are needed, such as sanitary and health measure, and which could not possibly be provided by the market for the obvious reason that no price can be charged to the beneficiaries or, rather, that it is not possible to confine the benefits to those who are willing or able to pay for them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism_and_Economic_Order