Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Why can't liberals think for themselves Watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Falcatas)
    We wouldn't need much protection if we stopped dropping bombs on other countries.

    Isn't it fascinating the that the most internally free states like America are more aggressive in foreign policy than unfree states like the former USSR.
    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
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I see nobody he replied to my posts on this thread. I wonder why.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord A)
    I don't even support the free market... bloody hell your insistence on denying facts is unbelievable. I am a moderate social democrat.
    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.

    worse yet you ignore more evidence to the contrary of your views.
    Which evidence and which views? Answer that question or you are a bounder

    I am not emotional, my language is emotional because I have no respect for people who deny facts
    You are becoming irrational, you need to calm down. We are not out to get you
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    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
    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.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    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.
    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.

    I suppose we can use the same logic to say that if in 20 years the US broke up into it's individual 50 states, all independent, or at least independent in smaller collections than as the whole, and they start a nuclear war that acts as proof that the current administration, all past administrations, and any administrations between now and such a time are all wanting nuclear war?

    Or if we pull out of the EU that's proof we never wanted to be in it.

    Could even take it the other way, and suppose that Putin loses the next election and Russia unilaterally disarms, that's proof they never wanted war.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    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
    Ok... clarification (ignore everything else)

    I am a moderate social democrat. I support the NHS. I have read both sides (Hayek, Mises and Marx) that was precisely my original point, you need to look for evidence to the contrary. You made a claim, that Hayek did not support social insurance, I provided evidence to the contrary, the quote from The Road to Serfdom which apparently is worded differently in your edition; so I asked you what edition you had; the other one was from his 1973 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law,_Le...on_and_Liberty you did not respond to this and have avoided the question.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    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.
    I'm sorry but you're confused. We're not talking about the USSR, we're talking about the former USSR (i.e. Russia post 91)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    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
    I have no idea what you're talking about. You have literally manufactured that entire position in your head.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord A)
    You made a claim, that Hayek did not support social insurance
    Perhaps, then, you can refer me to my exact words making that assertion. Or accept that you are confused and paranoid.

    so I asked you what edition you had
    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 "[I] claimed Hayek did not support social insurance". Point me to that quote or stand exposed as a clueless crab
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    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 "[I] claimed Hayek did not support social insurance". Point me to that quote or stand exposed as a clueless crab
    (Original post by young_guns)
    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.

    Here's my copy:
    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Road-Serfdom...keywords=hayek
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord A)
    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.
    Are you avoiding your own proposition? Show me the quote where I say "Hayek did not support social insurance"
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord A)
    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...keywords=hayek
    Where is your evidence it's an unreliable copy? How do you know it's not your copy that's unreliable?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    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
    Well I did mean the actual USSR, Soviet Russia.
    Modern Russia certainly is aggressive.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    Are you avoiding your own proposition? Show me the quote where I say "Hayek did not support social insurance"
    I just did

    (Original post by young_guns)
    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
    Are you actually denying that the logical conclusion of this is that Hayek does not support social insurance?

    You are either very dishonest or confused.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    Where is your evidence it's an unreliable copy? How do you know it's not your copy that's unreliable?
    That's the most circulated copy and the one scholars study, not the Mises Institute bs.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord A)
    I just did
    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"
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord A)
    Are you actually denying that the logical conclusion of this is that Hayek does not support social insurance?
    So you admit you actually can't show that quote?

    Feel free to engage in all the ad hominems you want, if they make you feel better
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    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"
    It's the logical conclusion of what you just said. Do you want me to post this with a poll? You have serious communication issues if that is not what you meant.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    So you admit you actually can't show that quote?
    I already did? How am I supposed to copy a book onto a computer? 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?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord A)
    That's the most circulated copy and the one scholars study
    And what's your evidence for that proposition?
 
 
 
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.