Can ANYONE name a SUCCESSFUL country with a LIBERTARIAN ECONOMY??

[Rshermr]

No, it's not good. It's a disgusting, and morally bankrupt system. There right about the abolishment of private property and the force of common ownership. There was nothing good that Marx inspired, but at least I understand it. And to be fair, Karl Marx tried to understand economic theories regarding Supply and Demand.

You, on the other hand, choose not to understand a thing while passing yourself off as knowledgeable.

Good for you, Amazon. An economics expert in your own mind. Next???
Socialism does not require, and generally does not entail, gov ownership other than of the means of production and distribution of goods and services. Which is why you are continually wrong. I linked you to proof of that. You seem to have no link proving your contention that socialism entails loss of private ownership. That would be, me girl, because you can not find a reasonable source that would back you up. Because, of course, you are simply lying.
Because you keep conflating socialism and communism. Really. A little honesty would be good.

then the delusional clown says:

Who else knows better than the developers of the social science and the economic system You? That's a riot!

What did engles and marx develop??? Not socialism. Socialism existed. They developed a particular very advanced form of socialism they named COMMUNISM. What they added, me dear, among other things, was the elimination of private property. As has been proven to you before. Here. Again: Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels: The Communist Manifesto

That would be from Washington State University. Still waiting for a link by you proving your completely ridiculous statement that socialism, in the non communist form, requires the elimination of private property. Which you will not provide. Because you can not find such a link. Except among the bat shit crazy con sites, which you do not want to admit is your source of the drivel you post.

Why you want to push this stupid idea that socialism is communism, and requires the elimination of private property, is odd. It is way to well known to be untrue. Or are you simply trying to convince stupid people??

Myth #1: Socialists want to take away your property

This myth confuses private property with personal property. When socialists talk about the abolition of private property, they are referring to the socialization of the means of production—the resources and equipment that create

http://www.pslweb.org/party/marxism-101/eight-myths-about-socialism.html
The above is from a socialist web site. You would think they would know.

Instead of wanting to take away people’s private property, socialists want more people to have more private property than ever before.
Socialism and communism are alike in that both are systems of production for use based on public ownership of the means of production
This from one of the few major marxist sites. You would think they would know.
But, amazon being amazon will keep on saying that socialism means the elimination of private property. Though it is completely obvious that she is wrong, and posting incorrect economic information while posing as an expert on the subject.

the, the economic expert says:

What the hell is your purpose here? Seriously? Did anyone say that personal property should be abolished under the Communist Manifesto? Karl Marx only advocates for private property (which is essentially bourgeois property) to be abolish.

OK. Private property it is. Not just of the wealthy Bourgeois) but private property in general. Now, that to most people is personal property, but if you would rather, call it private property. Because, you see, the property will largely still exist, but be owned by the state.

In communism, the end of relations based on force, on violence and the universal antagonism of each against all … will presuppose the end of ownership rights over people and things. The abolition of private property means putting an end to their foundations: the domination of the “other” (man or nature); appropriation, which only perceives the other in relation to utility; and the generalized degradation of the relations between men and also between the latter and nature.

The Communists' theory simply describes a historical movement underway at this very moment. This includes the abolition of private property.

Got it yet??? didn't think so.

There is not a single thing you can feasibly teach me, or anyone else for that matter.

I have the sources. You have none. Because you are wrong. Just trying to help, me dear. Why you get so insultive toward me when I am just giving you the facts is beyond me. I actually appreciate truth. But I require links to impartial sources, which you are incapable of. How is it going, setting up that theory of economics called the Amazon school of economics???

So, still can not name a nation that is primarily libertarian. got it.

 

[AmazonTania]

Good for you, Amazon. An economics expert in your own mind. Next???
Socialism does not require, and generally does not entail, gov ownership other than of the means of production and distribution of goods and services. Which is why you are continually wrong. I linked you to proof of that.

Ignoring facts, I see.

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.[1] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.

Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You seem to have no link proving your contention that socialism entails loss of private ownership. That would be, me girl, because you can not find a reasonable source that would back you up. Because, of course, you are simply lying.
Because you keep conflating socialism and communism. Really. A little honesty would be good.

I've long provided a source already. You obviously didn't read it, because you obviously cannot read.

Communist Manifesto (Chapter 2)

What did engles and marx develop??? Not socialism. Socialism existed. They developed a particular very advanced form of socialism they named COMMUNISM. What they added, me dear, among other things, was the elimination of private property. As has been proven to you before. Here. Again: Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels: The Communist Manifesto

Another Rhremer response of forgetting to read his own sources. Your source is just a blanket summary verbatim of the Communist Manifesto, word for word. It doesn't explain much. In fact, you've yet again provided another source which actually proves my point.

Good show!

That would be from Washington State University. Still waiting for a link by you proving your completely ridiculous statement that socialism, in the non communist form, requires the elimination of private property. Which you will not provide. Because you can not find such a link. Except among the bat shit crazy con sites, which you do not want to admit is your source of the drivel you post.

Marxist.org. The Valhalla of Conservatism. For sure.

Communist Manifesto (Chapter 2)

Why you want to push this stupid idea that socialism is communism, and requires the elimination of private property, is odd. It is way to well known to be untrue. Or are you simply trying to convince stupid people??

The goal of socialism is communism. - Vladimir Lenin

In Marxist theory, socialism, lower-stage communism or the socialist mode of production refers to a specific historical phase of economic development and its corresponding set of social relations that eventually supersede capitalism in the schema of historical materialism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_(Marxism)

You were saying?

Eight myths about socialism?and their answers
The above is from a socialist web site. You would think they would know.

Haha, contradictions himself on the first sentence.

Socialism and communism are alike in that both are systems of production for use based on public ownership of the means of production and centralized planning. Socialism grows directly out of capitalism; it is the first form of the new society. Communism is a further development or "higher stage" of socialism.

Instead of wanting to take away people’s private property, socialists want more people to have more private property than ever before.
Socialism and communism are alike in that both are systems of production for use based on public ownership of the means of production
This from one of the few major marxist sites. You would think they would know.
But, amazon being amazon will keep on saying that socialism means the elimination of private property. Though it is completely obvious that she is wrong, and posting incorrect economic information while posing as an expert on the subject.

Marxmail.org is not a major website. It's not even within the Top 10. Try again.

http://www.topsite.com/best/marxism

And on top of that, your source is just flat out wrong.

From the socialist perspective, private property refers to capital or means of production that is owned by a business or few individuals and operated for their profit. As mentioned above, personal property refers to tangible items and possessions individuals own. Socialism does not advocate the abolition of personal property, believing that it is an acceptable form of ownership of an item, unlike private property.

Private property - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OK. Private property it is. Not just of the wealthy Bourgeois) but private property in general. Now, that to most people is personal property, but if you would rather, call it private property. Because, you see, the property will largely still exist, but be owned by the state.

In communism, the end of relations based on force, on violence and the universal antagonism of each against all … will presuppose the end of ownership rights over people and things. The abolition of private property means putting an end to their foundations: the domination of the “other” (man or nature); appropriation, which only perceives the other in relation to utility; and the generalized degradation of the relations between men and also between the latter and nature.

The Communists' theory simply describes a historical movement underway at this very moment. This includes the abolition of private property.

This is the private property system. We wish to replace it by Socialism.

Unsigned front page article by Sylvia Pankhurst, Workers’ Dreadnought, 28 July 1923; Socialism by Sylvia Pankhurst

Got it yet??? didn't think so.

I DO get it. You're still hellbent on using Google as a textbook and neglecting to read your own sources. It's hilarious!

I have the sources. You have none. Because you are wrong. Just trying to help, me dear. Why you get so insultive toward me when I am just giving you the facts is beyond me. I actually appreciate truth. But I require links to impartial sources, which you are incapable of.

You have one source, which proves my point and another which is contradictory and flat out wrong. It's funny how you don't even vet your own sources, much less read them, but feel the need to always refer to them as 'impartial.'

You're just a never ending class-case of failure.

How is it going, setting up that theory of economics called the Amazon school of economics???

I already have over 3,000 followers.

So, still can not name a nation that is primarily libertarian. got it.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econom...ml#post7777502

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econom...ml#post7777541

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Again, you need to argue that with them. And a whole lot of economists, who believe what they say. I was not refering to marxist socialism, or communism. That is a different subject. Socialism, we can nearly agree, is the gov ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods and services. Such as insurance. And, welfare is generally considered a socialist attribute. You know, the whole safety net thing. But again, should you be able to concentrate for a moment, I did not say they were socialist. The source I provided did. But if you read it, and apply just a bit of logic, you would see that they have MORE SOCIALIST CHARACTERISTICS than the US. If you do not agree, then great. That would be your opinion. Most would prefer a much more experienced source. You know, one with economic credentials. Which leaves us both out.

Note the backtracking. First he says the U.S. has a capitalist economy, then he says he never said they didn't have a mixed economy despite the fact that capitalist economies and mixed economies are not the same thing. Now after having put forth these countries as examples of having socialist economies he says he meant a different kind of socialist than what anybody else would have meant. Seemingly par for the course given the illogical premise of the thread to begin with.

Please. Get your head out of your ass. The echo is bothersome.

This is a simple concept. For most.
What I said was that the US is considered a capitalist economy.
That does NOT mean to those with actual brain activity that it is totally capitalist in nature. We do have socialist components in out economy.
So, we have it. You can not name a successful primarily libertarian economy. Seems to be making you irrational, me boy. It is ok. No need to get all pissy.
And I hardly said that what some would call marxist socialism does not exist. But I do not consider them for one primary reason, dipshit. It is because they really do not matter. They are hardly successful economies. Though, as you must admit, the fact that they DO EXIST, even though they are considered successful by almost no one, that is more than you can say for a predominantly libertarian economy. There is no predominantly libertarian economy that even makes it to the level of an unsuccessful existing economy

If the U.S. is "considered" a capitalist economy then it is considered a "libertarian economy," because libertarians support capitalism. You don't get to have it both ways.

I never said that you said that "marxist socialism does not exist."

 

[Rshermr]

So, got it.
Tania believes that
1. socialism is communism. Not that communism is a extreme form of socialism, but that it is the only socialism.
Though any economic text and any economics professor will tell you they are two different things.
2. That socialism does not allow for the ownership of private property by the citizenry.
Though any economic text and any economics professor will tell you socialism does not suggest the elimination of private property.
3. Though she can find no source saying differently, she believes that we should all believe her. Because she has 3000 followers.
Though they are not following her relative to her self believed economic knowledge.
4. She believes she has provided a link to a libertarian economy.
Though the link she provides simply gives you a "Page Not Found" page.

Your problem, me dear, is you are trying to prove things that are not true.
Which is why you can not provide actual sources. And why you will not believe the preponderance of evidence, ever.

Frankly, I could care less if you believe that all socialism is communism. Or if you believe that all socialism requires the elimination of private property. Because, you see, you can provide no proof of your statements. And, me dear, you are free to entertain your own version of delusion. Totally up to you. The socialist web sites have told you what socialism is and is not. The marxist sites have told you what communism is and is not. And the impartial sites have told you what both of those economic systems are.
And I am really impressed with your ability to provide a link proving.....Well who knows.

 

[AmazonTania]

So, got it.
Tania believes that
1. socialism is communism. Not a form of communism, but the only communism.
Though any economic text and any economics professor will tell you they are two different things.

I have already provided two examples of revolutionist which have already concurred that the two systems are one in the same. These revolutions have already implemented what would be the closest thing to Socialism the world has every seen.

Unless your economic textbooks were written by a Socialist, and unless your economics professors were socialist, they're not in any position to tell me any better.

Until then, I'll consider the teachings of innovators such as Marx and Engles over your ignorant ramblings. That is, if you don't mind.

2. That socialism does not allow for the ownership of private property by the citizenry.
Though any economic text and any economics professor will tell you they are two different things.

List one economic textbook written by a Marxist which was ever taught in any school.

I'll wait.

3. Though she can find no source saying differently, she believes that we should all believe her. Because she has 3000 followers.

Last time I checked, you had no problem with any consensus of your own.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/281130-how-is-austerity-doing-in-europe-97.html#post7779507

The fact that I have over 3,000 followers means that I have a proven track record.

Though they are not following her relative to her self believed economic knowledge.
4. She believes she has provided a link to a libertarian economy.
Though the link she provides simply gives you a "Page Not Found" page.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...with-a-libertarian-economy-2.html#post7777502

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...with-a-libertarian-economy-2.html#post7777541

Your problem, me dear, is you are trying to prove things that are not true.
Which is why you can not provide actual sources. And why you will not believe the pre ponderence of evidence, ever.

I did provide the sources. You simply ignored them because they've refuted your ignorance or you ignored them because you cannot read.

Frankly, I could care less if you believe that all socialism is communism. Or if you believe that all socialism requires the elimination of private property. Because, you see, you can provide no proof of your statements. And, me dear, you are free to entertain your own version of delusion. Totally up to you. The socialist web sites have told you what socialism is and is not. The marxist sites have told you what communism is and is not. And the impartial sites have told you what both of those economic systems are.

LMAO, I love it. Ignores all of the sources I have provided from the leading Marxist website in the world, and still believes no sources were provided. What a riot!

Communist Manifesto (Chapter 2)

True Socialism by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels

Communist Manifesto (Chapter 3)

And I am really impressed with your ability to provide a link proving.....Well who knows.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

 

[Rshermr]

Note the backtracking. First he says the U.S. has a capitalist economy, then he says he never said they didn't have a mixed economy despite the fact that capitalist economies and mixed economies are not the same thing. Now after having put forth these countries as examples of having socialist economies he says he meant a different kind of socialist than what anybody else would have meant. Seemingly par for the course given the illogical premise of the thread to begin with.

Please. Get your head out of your ass. The echo is bothersome.

This is a simple concept. For most.
What I said was that the US is considered a capitalist economy.
That does NOT mean to those with actual brain activity that it is totally capitalist in nature. We do have socialist components in out economy.
So, we have it. You can not name a successful primarily libertarian economy. Seems to be making you irrational, me boy. It is ok. No need to get all pissy.
And I hardly said that what some would call marxist socialism does not exist. But I do not consider them for one primary reason, dipshit. It is because they really do not matter. They are hardly successful economies. Though, as you must admit, the fact that they DO EXIST, even though they are considered successful by almost no one, that is more than you can say for a predominantly libertarian economy. There is no predominantly libertarian economy that even makes it to the level of an unsuccessful existing economy

If the U.S. is "considered" a capitalist economy then it is considered a "libertarian economy," because libertarians support capitalism. You don't get to have it both ways.

I never said that you said that "marxist socialism does not exist."

So, social security is ok under Libertarianism??
Medicare???
Medicaid??
Road systems paid for by the gov
And on, and on, and on.

Lets see what a libertarian site says about your idea:

Many of the countries that Americans and others are inclined to describe as “social democracies” or “socialist” actually are more libertarian than the United States.
Is the US the Most Economically Libertarian Country? | Bleeding Heart Libertarians

Sorry, you fail. The us is far from libertarian.

Lets see what else we can find:
Now, Peter Theil has been trying to find a libertarian nation. He gave up. So, he is creating his own. And he has the money to both find the great libertarian nation you say exists, and when he failed, he started the project of BUILDING HIS OWN!!! After all, he has the bucks, being the founder of pay pal.

PayPal founder Peter Thiel has put $1.25 million toward building floating, autonomous countries at sea. Is he serious?
Libertarian Island: A billionaire's utopia - The Week

He is serious. And he has become a joke. But, what the hell. He is a good libertarian.

 

[Rshermr]

Originally Posted by Rshermr View Post
So, got it.
Tania believes that
1. socialism is communism. Not a form of communism, but the only communism.
Though any economic text and any economics professor will tell you they are two different things.
I have already provided two examples of revolutionist which have already concurred that the two systems are one in the same. These revolutions have already implemented what would be the closest thing to Socialism the world has every seen.

Unless your economic textbooks were written buy a Socialist, and unless your economics professors were socialist, they're not in any position to tell me any better.

So, you only believe textbooks written by (not buy) socialists? And only economists that are socialists actually could understand what socialism is? You are delusional. You do not want to try to find out about mars. You will have to find a martian.

Until then, I'll consider the teachings of innovators such as Marx and Engles over your ignorant ramblings. That is, if you don't mind.

Good. I did not know you had such a high opinion of the two, but whatever.

Quote:
2. That socialism does not allow for the ownership of private property by the citizenry.
Though any economic text and any economics professor will tell you they are two different things.
List one economic textbook written by a Marxist which was ever taught in any school.
Why. You have your delusion, which is fine by everyone.

I'll wait.

Quote:
3. Though she can find no source saying differently, she believes that we should all believe her. Because she has 3000 followers.
Last time I checked, you had no problem with any consensus of your own.
Everyone understands that delusion is a personal thing.
How is austerity doing in Europe
Well, that is an interesting statement. You are talking about a thread I started on this board. Just a thread, me dear. Nothing that I take great pride in. So, did you have a thread with more posts in it than my thread did?? Why, no. Has any thread had more posts to it than that thread?? Why, as a matter of fact, no. So, perhaps you had a point. But it certainly has nothing to do with this thread.

The fact that I have over 3,000 followers means that I have a proven track record.

Quote:
Though they are not following her relative to her self believed economic knowledge.
4. She believes she has provided a link to a libertarian economy.
Though the link she provides simply gives you a "Page Not Found" page.
Can ANYONE name a SUCCESSFUL country with a LIBERTARIAN ECONOMY??

Can ANYONE name a SUCCESSFUL country with a LIBERTARIAN ECONOMY??

Quote:
Your problem, me dear, is you are trying to prove things that are not true.
Which is why you can not provide actual sources. And why you will not believe the pre ponderence of evidence, ever.
I did provide the sources. You simply ignored them because they've refuted your ignorance or you ignored them because you cannot read.
Yup. You provided links, but they failed. Next.

Quote:
Frankly, I could care less if you believe that all socialism is communism. Or if you believe that all socialism requires the elimination of private property. Because, you see, you can provide no proof of your statements. And, me dear, you are free to entertain your own version of delusion. Totally up to you. The socialist web sites have told you what socialism is and is not. The marxist sites have told you what communism is and is not. And the impartial sites have told you what both of those economic systems are.

LMAO, I love it. Ignores all of the sources I have provided from the leading Marxist website in the world, and still believes no sources were provided. What a riot!

Communist Manifesto (Chapter 2)

True Socialism by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels

Communist Manifesto (Chapter 3)
So, lets examine what you just said. first, we can agree that marx and engels authored the communist manifesto. So, me dear, it is obvious that communism is marx and engel's baby. And so you say that we should not believe other authors, or all of the economists, or all of the economic texts, because they are saying that their baby, communism, is the only real socialism. You certainly are proving that you are delusional.

Quote:
And I am really impressed with your ability to provide a link proving.....Well who knows.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
Your most welcome. I will try your new links and see if you have fixed them.

 

[AmazonTania]

Please. Get your head out of your ass. The echo is bothersome.

This is a simple concept. For most.
What I said was that the US is considered a capitalist economy.
That does NOT mean to those with actual brain activity that it is totally capitalist in nature. We do have socialist components in out economy.
So, we have it. You can not name a successful primarily libertarian economy. Seems to be making you irrational, me boy. It is ok. No need to get all pissy.
And I hardly said that what some would call marxist socialism does not exist. But I do not consider them for one primary reason, dipshit. It is because they really do not matter. They are hardly successful economies. Though, as you must admit, the fact that they DO EXIST, even though they are considered successful by almost no one, that is more than you can say for a predominantly libertarian economy. There is no predominantly libertarian economy that even makes it to the level of an unsuccessful existing economy

If the U.S. is "considered" a capitalist economy then it is considered a "libertarian economy," because libertarians support capitalism. You don't get to have it both ways.

I never said that you said that "marxist socialism does not exist."

So, social security is ok under Libertarianism??
Medicare???
Medicaid??
Road systems paid for by the gov
And on, and on, and on.

Lets see what a libertarian site says about your idea:

Sorry, you fail. The us is far from libertarian.

So far, we have NO libertarian economies. Cmon, there must be one somewhere. We have plenty of successful socialist countries, the us is a capitalist country. And yes, of course, most are a mix of socialist to capitalist. The US is about as far to the right as you can find. But there are lots well to the left. But nothing out there to the right of the us that looks at all like the great libertarian dream.

Name one successful socialist country. No, the U.S. is a mixed economy.

 

[AmazonTania]

So, you only believe textbooks written by (not buy) socialists? And only economists that are socialists actually could understand what socialism is? You are delusional. You do not want to try to find out about mars. You will have to find a martian.

Socialist are the best equipped to inform anyone about the subject. They are the ones who devote themselves to the science, ideology and philosophy. Why exactly would I consult any other source? That would be like consulting a Cardiologist for matters dealing with Neurology. It's beyond dumb.

Good. I did not know you had such a high opinion of the two, but whatever.

Several of their works outline what the standards are. Very few models have actually been close to what this standard entailed.

Why. You have your delusion, which is fine by everyone.

You said that any economic textbook would teach me differently. Name one.

Everyone understands that delusion is a personal thing.

The problem with delusional people is that they've somehow convinced themselves that someone else is delusional.

Well, that is an interesting statement. You are talking about a thread I started on this board. Just a thread, me dear. Nothing that I take great pride in. So, did you have a thread with more posts in it than my thread did?? Why, no. Has any thread had more posts to it than that thread?? Why, as a matter of fact, no. So, perhaps you had a point. But it certainly has nothing to do with this thread.

And? You really think your special because people post on your thread? The Economics section isn't even a popular section to begin with. Also, look at the amount of people who actually post on that thread. One-Fourth of the post actually originate from you. That's pretty pathetic.

Who Posted? - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And I'm sorry we can't all be like you and creating threads on this forum. Some of us have careers and lives to lead. We can't all spend our time here all day. And I didn't show you the post to remind you of your own thread. I showed it to you to remind everyone how big of a hypocrite you are. Comes with the territory of intellectual dishonesty.

Yup. You provided links, but they failed. Next.

First, I 'provided no sources.' Now, I did actually provided sources, but 'they fail.' If my sources are so bad, then you should be able to refute it no problem. Maybe with a source of your own, provided that you can actually read your own sources thoroughly.

So, lets examine what you just said. first, we can agree that marx and engels authored the communist manifesto. So, me dear, it is obvious that communism is their baby. And so you say that we should not believe other authors, of all of the economists, or all of the economic texts, because they are saying that their baby, communism, is the only real socialism. You certainly are proving that you are delusional.

You cannot make up your own version of a social science, especially if you didn't develop it. There is a distinct foundation of the term, and there are real world factors to consider. They're the fathers of the social science and the economic theory. It's really beyond dumb to try and define the work of someone else. You might as well try and redefine what Einstein Relativity Theory really entails, or Newton's Law's of Motion, or Hubble's Laws of Cosmic Science.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Please. Get your head out of your ass. The echo is bothersome.

This is a simple concept. For most.
What I said was that the US is considered a capitalist economy.
That does NOT mean to those with actual brain activity that it is totally capitalist in nature. We do have socialist components in out economy.
So, we have it. You can not name a successful primarily libertarian economy. Seems to be making you irrational, me boy. It is ok. No need to get all pissy.
And I hardly said that what some would call marxist socialism does not exist. But I do not consider them for one primary reason, dipshit. It is because they really do not matter. They are hardly successful economies. Though, as you must admit, the fact that they DO EXIST, even though they are considered successful by almost no one, that is more than you can say for a predominantly libertarian economy. There is no predominantly libertarian economy that even makes it to the level of an unsuccessful existing economy

If the U.S. is "considered" a capitalist economy then it is considered a "libertarian economy," because libertarians support capitalism. You don't get to have it both ways.

I never said that you said that "marxist socialism does not exist."

So, social security is ok under Libertarianism??
Medicare???
Medicaid??
Road systems paid for by the gov
And on, and on, and on.

Lets see what a libertarian site says about your idea:

Many of the countries that Americans and others are inclined to describe as “social democracies” or “socialist” actually are more libertarian than the United States.
Is the US the Most Economically Libertarian Country? | Bleeding Heart Libertarians

Sorry, you fail. The us is far from libertarian.

Lets see what else we can find:
Now, Peter Theil has been trying to find a libertarian nation. He gave up. So, he is creating his own. And he has the money to both find the great libertarian nation you say exists, and when he failed, he started the project of BUILDING HIS OWN!!! After all, he has the bucks, being the founder of pay pal.

PayPal founder Peter Thiel has put $1.25 million toward building floating, autonomous countries at sea. Is he serious?
Libertarian Island: A billionaire's utopia - The Week

He is serious. And he has become a joke. But, what the hell. He is a good libertarian.

Try to keep up. I'm not saying the U.S. has a capitalist economy. I'm on record as saying the U.S. has a mixed economy, which is not something a libertarian would support. You, however, have stated that the U.S. is a capitalist country and that it leans capitalist. If that's the case, then by your own definition the U.S. is a libertarian country because libertarians support capitalism. As I said before, you don't get to have it both ways. You can't say on the one hand that the U.S. is capitalist, and on the other that it's not libertarian. If the U.S. is capitalist, as you claim, then it is also libertarian, and you've solved the question of this thread yourself. If it's not capitalist then it is not libertarian. But you don't get to say it's capitalist when it suits your argument and that it's not when it doesn't.

 

[Rshermr]

So, Amazon states:

Socialist are the best equipped to inform anyone about the subject. They are the ones who devote themselves to the science, ideology and philosophy. Why exactly would I consult any other source? That would be like consulting a Cardiologist for matters dealing with Neurology. It's beyond dumb.

Dumb is in your mirror, me dear. Suggesting one listen to only one (collective) source who happen to be the architects of a type of socialism that has never worked, that being communism, as the only source that knows about socialism in general, is the height of ignorance. congrats. And you would not consult any other source, because you have ONE that you like, as irrational a source as that one is.

And? You really think your special because people post on your thread? The Economics section isn't even a popular section to begin with. Also, look at the amount of people who actually post on that thread. One-Fourth of the post actually originate from you. That's pretty pathetic.

Who Posted? - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And I'm sorry we can't all be like you and creating threads on this forum. Some of us have careers and lives to lead. We can't all spend our time here all day. And I didn't show you the post to remind you of your own thread. I showed it to you to remind everyone how big of a hypocrite you are. Comes with the territory of intellectual dishonesty.

Wow. that was a lot of hypocrisy, my dear. You were touting how wonderful you were relative to 3000 posts. I was not saying anything that I did was wonderful, me dear. That would be what YOU said I suggested. Lets see my quote from that post:
"You are talking about a thread I started on this board. Just a thread, me dear. Nothing that I take great pride in".
You might have noticed, were you interested in truth.

First, I 'provided no sources.' Now, I did actually provided sources, but 'they fail.' If my sources are so bad, then you should be able to refute it no problem. Maybe with a source of your own, provided that you can actually read your own sources thoroughly.

Nothing to refute. Which is, should you be rational, the truth about pretty much everything you say.

You cannot make up your own version of a social science, especially if you didn't develop it.

Why not. You do.

There is a distinct foundation of the term, and there are real world factors to consider. They're the fathers of the social science and the economic theory. It's really beyond dumb to try and define the work of someone else.

Who is trying to define anything, me dear. So, you are suggesting that all of those economists, all of those instructors of economics, all of those investigative writers with strong economic backgrounds. And we should instead, listen to you??? Kmon. Get a grip.
Marx is not that hard to understand, me dear. The only one I have seen who has problems with it is you. Though I suspect that you are simply lying. Again. But, what we should all do is stop this education crap. Waste of time. Got it.

You might as well try and redefine what Einstein Relativity Theory really entails, or Newton's Law's of Motion, or Hubble's Laws of Cosmic Science.

Nah. You do not want anyone to believe anything they learn in college, unless the principles are there. Or you are reading their text. Why bother.

Is that why you are so ignorant, amazon. Because you really have no education?

 

[Rshermr]

If the U.S. is "considered" a capitalist economy then it is considered a "libertarian economy," because libertarians support capitalism. You don't get to have it both ways.

I never said that you said that "marxist socialism does not exist."

So, social security is ok under Libertarianism??
Medicare???
Medicaid??
Road systems paid for by the gov
And on, and on, and on.

Lets see what a libertarian site says about your idea:



Sorry, you fail. The us is far from libertarian.

Lets see what else we can find:
Now, Peter Theil has been trying to find a libertarian nation. He gave up. So, he is creating his own. And he has the money to both find the great libertarian nation you say exists, and when he failed, he started the project of BUILDING HIS OWN!!! After all, he has the bucks, being the founder of pay pal.

PayPal founder Peter Thiel has put $1.25 million toward building floating, autonomous countries at sea. Is he serious?
Libertarian Island: A billionaire's utopia - The Week

He is serious. And he has become a joke. But, what the hell. He is a good libertarian.

Try to keep up. I'm not saying the U.S. has a capitalist economy. I'm on record as saying the U.S. has a mixed economy, which is not something a libertarian would support. You, however, have stated that the U.S. is a capitalist country and that it leans capitalist. If that's the case, then by your own definition the U.S. is a libertarian country because libertarians support capitalism. As I said before, you don't get to have it both ways. You can't say on the one hand that the U.S. is capitalist, and on the other that it's not libertarian. If the U.S. is capitalist, as you claim, then it is also libertarian, and you've solved the question of this thread yourself. If it's not capitalist then it is not libertarian. But you don't get to say it's capitalist when it suits your argument and that it's not when it doesn't.

I said the us has an economy that is primarily capitalist. It has socialist components also. SO. Did you have a point??
So, you can not name a PRIMARILY libertarian economy?? By the way, here is the quote of what I posted:"

This is a simple concept. For most.
What I said was that the US is considered a capitalist economy.
That does NOT mean to those with actual brain activity that it is totally capitalist in nature. We do have socialist components in out economy.

 

[Rshermr]

So, Amazon, having provided nonworking links to her response to what who said was a libertarian country, gets them working:
Relative to your links, which now work, they are images. Actually, me girl, I am not into playing games. Most of us are fully capable of using the kings english in responding to a question. Only you would play games.

Reading heritage, I see. I was expecting you to say singapore and hong kong. You always like those right wing sights. Yup. They rank Hong Kong as high in the economic freedom ratings. But, me dear. the question is what is a successful country with a libertarian economy.

Hong Kong is a CITY. Part of China. And far from a libertarian entity anyway, as even heritage says.
Same with Singapore. Except it is a country.

Good try. Way away from being a libertarian country in either case. So, you are admitting that there are no primarily libertarian countries. Just like Heritage does. Good for you.

Really. Maybe one day you can move to Peter Thiel's new man made libertarian island:
Quote:

Why build a new island nation?
"There is no such thing as unclaimed land," says the Seasteading Institute, so starting from scratch in international waters "is the only option to create new societies on Earth." Essentially, explains Detail's Jonathan Miles, the autonomous island would be "a kind of floating petri dish for implementing policies that libertarians, stymied by indifference at the voting booths, have been unable to advance: No welfare, looser building codes, no minimum wage, and few restrictions on weapons."
Libertarian Island: A billionaire's utopia - The Week

Now there is a hint. You have to get those pesky damned voters out of the way to have a libertarian country. Same kind of a problem that communism had. People do not like it, and it FAILS. So, build your own nation with your own rules and see how it goes. Anyone want to make a bet on these clowns???

 

[bripat9643]

USA 1776-1913

Now STFU

Sorry. But thanks for playing.

Sorry yourself, asshole. If Congress proposed to take our laws back to the way they were in 1914, commies like you would call it anarchy.

 

[JWBooth]

Seriously, ya'll are still feeding the troll?

 

[editec]

EVEN a LIBERTARIAN DESIGNED ECONOMY would be superior to the KLEPTONOMISM we have right now.

Seriously folks, Western civilizations economic system is captured by criminals running our central banks.

These people aren't capitalists, they're not socialists, they're just fucking copn men running the most sophisticated criminal enterprise in human history.

I have NO IDEA how to ferret this criminal class out of our civilization, but I know if we don't do it soon, the collapse of the Western economy is inevitable.

And if any of you think this is about liberalism or conservatism, you have been tragically misinformed.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So, social security is ok under Libertarianism??
Medicare???
Medicaid??
Road systems paid for by the gov
And on, and on, and on.

Lets see what a libertarian site says about your idea:



Sorry, you fail. The us is far from libertarian.

Lets see what else we can find:
Now, Peter Theil has been trying to find a libertarian nation. He gave up. So, he is creating his own. And he has the money to both find the great libertarian nation you say exists, and when he failed, he started the project of BUILDING HIS OWN!!! After all, he has the bucks, being the founder of pay pal.


He is serious. And he has become a joke. But, what the hell. He is a good libertarian.

Try to keep up. I'm not saying the U.S. has a capitalist economy. I'm on record as saying the U.S. has a mixed economy, which is not something a libertarian would support. You, however, have stated that the U.S. is a capitalist country and that it leans capitalist. If that's the case, then by your own definition the U.S. is a libertarian country because libertarians support capitalism. As I said before, you don't get to have it both ways. You can't say on the one hand that the U.S. is capitalist, and on the other that it's not libertarian. If the U.S. is capitalist, as you claim, then it is also libertarian, and you've solved the question of this thread yourself. If it's not capitalist then it is not libertarian. But you don't get to say it's capitalist when it suits your argument and that it's not when it doesn't.

I said the us has an economy that is primarily capitalist. It has socialist components also. SO. Did you have a point??
So, you can not name a PRIMARILY libertarian economy?? By the way, here is the quote of what I posted:"

This is a simple concept. For most.
What I said was that the US is considered a capitalist economy.
That does NOT mean to those with actual brain activity that it is totally capitalist in nature. We do have socialist components in out economy.

Then you've solved the mystery. If the U.S. is primarily capitalist as you just said, then it is primarily libertarian. Good work.

 

[Sallow]

USA 1776-1913

Now STFU

Bullshit.

 

[Sallow]

Try to keep up. I'm not saying the U.S. has a capitalist economy. I'm on record as saying the U.S. has a mixed economy, which is not something a libertarian would support. You, however, have stated that the U.S. is a capitalist country and that it leans capitalist. If that's the case, then by your own definition the U.S. is a libertarian country because libertarians support capitalism. As I said before, you don't get to have it both ways. You can't say on the one hand that the U.S. is capitalist, and on the other that it's not libertarian. If the U.S. is capitalist, as you claim, then it is also libertarian, and you've solved the question of this thread yourself. If it's not capitalist then it is not libertarian. But you don't get to say it's capitalist when it suits your argument and that it's not when it doesn't.

I said the us has an economy that is primarily capitalist. It has socialist components also. SO. Did you have a point??
So, you can not name a PRIMARILY libertarian economy?? By the way, here is the quote of what I posted:"

This is a simple concept. For most.
What I said was that the US is considered a capitalist economy.
That does NOT mean to those with actual brain activity that it is totally capitalist in nature. We do have socialist components in out economy.

Then you've solved the mystery. If the U.S. is primarily capitalist as you just said, then it is primarily libertarian. Good work.

Do libertarians advocate for using taxes to prop up private corporations?

 

[RKMBrown]

Then you've solved the mystery. If the U.S. is primarily capitalist as you just said, then it is primarily libertarian. Good work.

Loosing our grips on that though as the government takes over each industry.