Comments on: Pining for Murderous Dictators is not the Path to Liberty Free Markets and Social Justice Fri, 19 Jan 2018 19:02:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Ryan P. Long Mon, 04 Dec 2017 14:16:00 +0000 Right. Not Buchanan, but Lawrence Reed! Now I get it…

By: Peter from Oz Mon, 04 Dec 2017 04:47:00 +0000 SO you’d rather have socialists killing lots of people and slowly taking away all their freedoms and running the economy into the ground?

By: Peter from Oz Mon, 04 Dec 2017 04:32:00 +0000 Well said.
Exceptions do prove rules.
But I do think size is important. It is easier to make socialism work in a small economy, if you use capitalism to do it.
Up until now, Sweden did not produce an underclass. But now that it has diluted its populace win a few years with a huge influx of muslim migrants, we can expect that new underclass will form and Sweden’s socialism will start to crumble.

By: Peter from Oz Mon, 04 Dec 2017 04:23:00 +0000 What a load of bollocks.
It suited both the commies and the fascists to pretend that their movements were diametrically opposed to one another, when in fact they were after the same adherents.

By: Happy_wanderer Sat, 02 Dec 2017 10:14:00 +0000 Surely a rigged election is like a government rigged market? The whole point of left wing governments is to enact exactly those policies. If they don’t work out, democracy takes their power away.

What you’re proposing is pretty un-libertarian.

By: Happy_wanderer Sat, 02 Dec 2017 10:08:00 +0000 Thanks for this. It’s exactly the kind of thing that seems to be sorely missing at the moment.

By: Krinein_ev Sat, 02 Dec 2017 08:01:00 +0000 Scratch a libertarian and you reveal a fascist… hardly shocking.

By: Sean II Fri, 01 Dec 2017 14:53:00 +0000 You’re right about that. Sweden’s failure to be poor is a valid and very important counter-example to libertarian theory.

According to everything people like me believe about economics, no country should have been able to get away with the policy mix Sweden followed for several decades. And yet they did.

Responses to this challenge are often comically bad. The record for all time worst must go to Yaron Brook, who tried to explain away Sweden’s prosperity as a fluke produced by a handful of high achieving companies and people. The examples he cited? IKEA, and Bjorn Borg.

I guess the Ayn Rand Institute’s official position is that socialism is the worst thing in the world, but its negative consequences can be avoided if one of your citizens knows how to beat McEnroe on grass.

It’s incredibly feeble considering that “what about Sweden?” is THE question every free marketeer can expect with certainty to be asked.

Other popular evasions include: “But Sweden really small”, “Something something schools!”, “They have iron ore”, “Lutherans”, “that’s not really socialism, it’s just a welfare state”, “Well ackshually, here’s this one policy that’s more economically liberal than its counterpart in the US”.

Mainstream libertarians cannot solve this problem. They cannot supply a convincing answer to the case of Sweden.

This should start them looking for other variables, but it rarely does.

By: Watson444 Thu, 30 Nov 2017 14:09:00 +0000 “They reclassify it as a capitalist utopia.”

Sorry. I am not going to give a serious response to a dishonest, subhuman dimwit.

By: Sean II Thu, 30 Nov 2017 02:18:00 +0000 You might be interested to know: I tried several times during the various MacLean threads to get Buchanan’s defenders here to state a definition of racist that would actually exclude him.

They never did, of course.