Emissions trading broken?

[Razgovory]

What does anything you say here have to do with Friedman?  He doesn't argue that people should not eat, clothe themselves, and live somewhere, even if doing so means that they must have economic interactions with others.  He is arguing that, to maximize freedom, economic power should be dispersed as much possible, so that your scenario of having people wield economic power over others is minimized. 

You are forgetting that Friedman's value here is not conformity, but freedom.  Once they read what he actually says here, I think even textbook conformitarians will be able to grasp that.

Yes, he does say that in general, but his list of examples all includes government.  If he was also concerned about abuse of economic power, then he might have snuck that in instead of one of the four government-related entities he mentioned.

Ok Raz. Jesus it's a fucking quote from somewhere and you attack it because it does not come with a complete disclaimer.

Also, two general things:
-it is very lazy to turn to the most idiotic Ryand lunacy when "debating" libertarianism. I am not throwing hippies and soviets at you in turn, do notice that.

-I am not convinced that "least government intervention possible" is a libertarian agenda. Or rather, it should not be. It is liberalism, but in this age, a "liberal" is a socialist with no balls.

Yeah, here's the thing.  Friedman is a bit notorious because of his relationship with Chile.  I get the impression that he and other libertarians value economic freedom over political freedom, and really don't care that much about civil rights.  They are concerned about government abuses, but really aren't interested in private abuses.  In fact, if you reduce government who is going defend individuals against other individuals?  Especially when those individuals are wealthy?  Things like the Truck system, peonage, debt bondage, and even slavery are oppressive coercion that happen on the private scale.  Libertarians don't show much concern about such things and are hell bent on the only things that can really combat them.

[Tamas]

Pinochet was no doubt a brutal rightwing asshole. Who happened to replace a brutal leftwing asshole.

I am not aware of Friedman's students making him enact any of the political tyranny. They did build a functional economy there though, you gotta' give them that.

The only relevant thing I recall hearing from Friedman was refusing an accusation that he puts equality between economical freedom and political freedom. He said that the former was a requirement for the latter, and on that he is spot on.

[Razgovory]

Pinochet was no doubt a brutal rightwing asshole. Who happened to replace a brutal leftwing asshole.

I am not aware of Friedman's students making him enact any of the political tyranny. They did build a functional economy there though, you gotta' give them that.

The only relevant thing I recall hearing from Friedman was refusing an accusation that he puts equality between economical freedom and political freedom. He said that the former was a requirement for the latter, and on that he is spot on.

What brutal left wing asshole did he replace?

And no it's not spot on.  Many European countries have less economic freedom then places like Singapore or Hong Kong, yet they seem fairly stable.

[Martinus]

Pinochet was no doubt a brutal rightwing asshole. Who happened to replace a brutal leftwing asshole.

I am not aware of Friedman's students making him enact any of the political tyranny. They did build a functional economy there though, you gotta' give them that.

The only relevant thing I recall hearing from Friedman was refusing an accusation that he puts equality between economical freedom and political freedom. He said that the former was a requirement for the latter, and on that he is spot on.

I will let others deal with the idiocy of the statement that Pinochet replaced a "brutal leftwing asshole".

As for the second idiotic statement, China has a much greater "economic freedom" than the EU. You are an idiot. No wonder your country of fucking gypsy peasants who call themselves Hungarians elected someone like Orban.

[derspiess]

Marty, are you able to disagree with someone without resorting to insulting them personally and then their whole country?  I mean, I know it's Languish & all, but you let yourself get way too worked up sometimes. 

[Razgovory]

Actually, I understand Tamas's libertarian stance.  He comes from a country that had despotic regime that governed nearly every facet of human life.  I'm a bit surprised that everyone isn't a libertarian in that place.

[Admiral Yi]

Marty, are you able to disagree with someone without resorting to insulting them personally and then their whole country?  I mean, I know it's Languish & all, but you let yourself get way too worked up sometimes.

I mentioned before that the one trait Marty shares with grumbler is anything they disagree with is monumentally stupid, but on further reflection I think Marty can disagree civilly about things like TV shows and food.

[Tamas]

I will let others deal with the idiocy of the statement that Pinochet replaced a "brutal leftwing asshole".

I will not get into fighting ancient leftist pantheons, so they can save their breath.

[dps]

I get the impression that he and other libertarians value economic freedom over political freedom, and really don't care that much about civil rights.  They are concerned about government abuses, but really aren't interested in private abuses.  In fact, if you reduce government who is going defend individuals against other individuals?  Especially when those individuals are wealthy?  Things like the Truck system, peonage, debt bondage, and even slavery are oppressive coercion that happen on the private scale.  Libertarians don't show much concern about such things and are hell bent on the only things that can really combat them.

Those things may "happen" on a private scale, but they couldn't flourish without laws that bolster them.  While I certainly don't want to be associated with his policies in anyone's mind, I have to say that Stephen Douglas was right when he said in the Lincold-Douglas debates that the southern slave system couldn't exist without the slave codes, so even though the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case threw open previously free territories to slavery, in practice slavery couldn't spread there without laws on the books to maintain it.

[Barrister]

Yeah, here's the thing.  Friedman is a bit notorious because of his relationship with Chile.

Uh, no.

He's "notorious" for being a Nobel-award winning economist, and one who has influenced several decades of economic thought.

[The Minsky Moment]

Friedman AFAIK met Pincohet once and wrote him a 3 page letter.  The letter said nothing that one couldn't figure out from reading MF's papers and op eds.  He said Chile should deal with inflation by decreasing money creation and cutting government spending.  What's the big deal?

[fhdz]

I will not get into fighting ancient leftist pantheons, so they can save their breath.

The problem with Allende was how much the Soviets were willing to pump up a Marxist Chile, not Allende's "brutality". I've looked at a lot of Latin/South American history from a number of politically different sources and don't ever recall anyone mentioning that Allende was a brutal dictator. He busted up some strikes in '72, until that was declared illegal...which ended his strikebreaking.

If you want to talk about brutal left-wing dictators in Latin/South America, you can come up with considerably better examples than Allende.

[Tamas]

I don't know much about Allende except him being a leftist holy cow. Lunatic is a better word maybe then? I remember reading a couple of personal accounts of the country during his rule. Didn't come up exactly positive but of course it could have been biased.

[fhdz]

I don't know much about Allende except him being a leftist holy cow. Lunatic is a better word maybe then? I remember reading a couple of personal accounts of the country during his rule. Didn't come up exactly positive but of course it could have been biased.

I mean - I guess if you define "lunatic" as "someone who doesn't agree with me" then maybe?

He was a Marxist. I think people were right to assume that his policies would have caused problems down the line for Chile. Trying to make him into a tyrant in order to justify or mitigate Pinochet is probably taking it too far.

EDIT: And yes, I am fully aware I used to be a Pinochet supporter.

[Admiral Yi]

Allende was not a lunatic.  He was a radical trying to further a radical agenda without broad-based political support.