Democratic Marxism

[Sid Belzberg]

WHACK-A-MOLE!

WHAT_AN_ASSHOLE!

It's revealing that you accept the theory that masks around the nose and mouth hold in CO2

That is a physically proven fact. Pity you are too demented to know the difference.




https://drtrozzi.org/2021/04/03/masks-cause-harm/

but you cannot accept that greenhouse gases hold in heat close to the surface of the Earth as Bob A. explained.

He is so demented that he does not know the difference between 400PPM and 25000PPM. It's a pity. He has lost his ability to count!

It is your science-is-everything thinking that has led to digitalization, let the genie out of the bottle never to be put back in,

And Pythagoras's "Science is everything thinking" led to the Nuclear bomb!

More nonsense vomited from our resident demented troll

[Pargat Perrer]

And so says the one who sheepishly buys into the fascist WEF policies all the way down the line. What a pathetic, brainless troll you are. Perhaps breathing in 25000PPM of CO2 for extended periods has finally reduced you to a complete imbecile.

WHACK-A-MOLE!

It's revealing that you accept the theory that masks around the nose and mouth hold in CO2, but you cannot accept that greenhouse gases hold in heat close to the surface of the Earth as Bob A. explained.

You can swear and spit saliva til you are blue in the face, it makes no difference. It is your science-is-everything thinking that has led to digitalization, let the genie out of the bottle never to be put back in, allowed the sheeple to worship the devices that will eventually control them completely.

It cannot be stopped now. Who among the zombies is willing to cast away their devices?

[Bob Armstrong]

[Sid Belzberg]

Ok, so it turns out you are not Libertarian at all, at least according to Dilip. I have been using HIS definition as expressed in many of his posts here on CT, in which he claims the state gives capital freely to anyone with a business idea, with no restrictions, and in which there is really no legal system, all the lawyers are gone and legal cases are pretty much non-existent because there is the Natural Law concept that says all harm to others is illegal EXCEPT HARM DONE IN FAIR COMPETITION, and the definition of fair competition is left to the state to decide. No lawyers, no judges, unlike Singapore and unlike Hong Kong.

It is not you and I who disagree on what is Libertarianism, it is you and Dilip. His definition is way more specific than yours. You are calling all laissez-faire capitalism Libertarianism, and so we just need to get it straight what is the REAL definition of this term.




Yes they have .... MOST PREDOMINANTLY IN CAPITALIST ECONOMIES!

And the more laissez-faire the Capitalism ... the more quickly the bust happens and the more severe it is.




LOL, blaming tulips for the tulip crash is nowhere near where I am coming from. You freely accuse others of putting words in your mouth, but you continually do that to others.

I didn't blame the markets for the dot-com crash. I blamed the banking and investment sector which freely gave away money like candy to babies, to anyone with a website idea. That isn't normal capitalism, I think even you with your blinders on can agree to that. And come to think of it, even the 2008 mortgage securities crash is an example of Libertarianism causing economic disaster. Because again, you had banks giving mortgages away to people who couldn't afford them, who should never have been allowed to have them, and they were given them with only 5% down payments! Totally unsound economics, based on Libertarian principles, just give capital away and everyone will make good use of it. Then the banks sold these unqualified mortgages as investments, so no one know who actually OWNED the mortgages! And when the defaults began, as was inevitable, no one knew who owned the properties!

So thanks, you made me realize a 3rd example of Libertarianism in real practice and resulting in disaster. I think we can now say for sure that Libertarianism as defined by Dilip is a dead horse.




You presume so much! For someone who hates to be mischaracterized, you do it so much to others! What a total ass you are. I can see why you have never really moved into the economic elite despite your inflated ego-driven claims of superior intelligence. I imagine a whack-a-mole game where every time you raise your head out one of the holes to present yourself to the economic elite, you start spewing your profanity and jackass attitude and the elite has to whack you with a club to knock you back down the hole you came from.

What I blame for potential misuse is digitalization (if there is such a word, if not, I just coined it). We used to have everything done on paper, phones were in our homes and offices not on our person. Now anything you want to do has to be done "online". No one can any longer survive in the civilized world without a "DEVICE" which is mostly a smartphone or tablet. You have to have it, and you have to have it on your person constantly. It is your personal BALL AND CHAIN. And it will soon be used to control everyone, yes, even children. And soon it will be digital chips implanted in our bodies.

And you can't do anything online without OPENING AN ACCOUNT. And opening an account almost always REQUIRES ALL OF YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION.

It is truly remarkable and distressing how quickly and pervasively this virus has been allowed to spread all over the world. Last night I saw footage of rebels in Haiti ... one of the poorest nations in the world ... rebels walking around with guns AND with smartphones!.

We are fucked like never before. If you're so deadset against the WEF and WHO and Bill Gates, you should realize that your progress-driven philosophy can ONLY LEAD TO SUCH PEOPLE AND ORGANIZATIONS and can only lead TO THE SUCCESS OF THEIR AGENDA! Via digitalization!

If you can't see the forest for the trees, it's not my problem. I saw it when smartphones first came on the scene and parents were buying them for themselves AND for their children!!!

I've seen episodes of The Walking Dead, and I laugh because the zombies are walking around trying to find non-zombies to eat... while we already live in a world where brain-dead zombies are walking around searching their precious devices to see what's new on Instagram or Tik Tok.

Personally I think Sid Belzberg as presented here on CT is a total fraud. He pretends to care about population, about people losing their rights, about hunger and famine. He really doesn't care at all, he has a personal agenda for the rise of ultra-right states. But at least, unlike Dilip, he does seem to want those states to have robust legal systems to include lawyers and judges, not just police, so I think Sid is far less dangerous than Dilip.

Personally I think Sid Belzberg as presented here on CT is a total fraud. He pretends to care about population, about people losing their rights, about hunger and famine. He really doesn't care at all, he has a personal agenda for the rise of ultra-right states.

And so says the one who sheepishly buys into the fascist WEF policies all the way down the line. What a pathetic, brainless troll you are. Perhaps breathing in 25000PPM of CO2 for extended periods has finally reduced you to a complete imbecile.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Libertarianism & Police



I do like Sid's Definition: Little Regulation of Capital; Robust Enforcement of the Natural Law by the Courts (And the Justice System, including justice first-responders, the Police).

Problem: I am very nervous about giving the police such little guidance re crime as "Enforce the Natural Law".

Courts might end up with what is going to constitute a "crime", but there is not the same training re police. This is endowing police with much more responsibility/discretion than normal at the moment. And it can be said that the operation of police forces is far from perfect; we regularly hear of abuse, internal discipline, and even criminal charges against police. Also, like the military, a misogyny culture of long-standing has been very hard to root out.

Comments?

Bob A (Police/Military Supporter - there ARE individual criminals/gangs and criminal states)

Hi Bob,
Police would also be subject to following the 'Natural Law', which would be enforced upon them also. To use your own terminology, 'it may not be perfect, given the human shortcomings, but the best system we can have' is Libertarianism... agree?

[Bob Armstrong]

Libertarianism & Police



I do like Sid's Definition: Little Regulation of Capital; Robust Enforcement of the Natural Law by the Courts (And the Justice System, including justice first-responders, the Police).

Problem: I am very nervous about giving the police such little guidance re crime as "Enforce the Natural Law".

Courts might end up with what is going to constitute a "crime", but there is not the same training re police. This is endowing police with much more responsibility/discretion than normal at the moment. And it can be said that the operation of police forces is far from perfect; we regularly hear of abuse, internal discipline, and even criminal charges against police. Also, like the military, a misogyny culture of long-standing has been very hard to root out.

Comments?

Bob A (Police/Military Supporter - there ARE individual criminals/gangs and criminal states)

[Pargat Perrer]

True 'freedom' for citizens would come when the governments govern the least and the the Judiciary strictly enforces the Natural Law, which says 'thou shalt not harm anyone, except in fair competition' (an excellent example of fair competition is what we chesstalkers love... a game of chess!).

So under Libertarianism, chess players can legally harm one another during a chess game????

[Pargat Perrer]

......
No, you and I disagree on what libertarianism is. I consider an economy with minimal government intervention and a robust legal system libertarian. Hong Kong, pre-1997,is a good example of what I consider libertarianism. Estonia post-1991 and Singapore are also examples of this, albeit Singapore is too authoritarian for my taste. Economically speaking, it has served Singapore well for the government to take a minimal interventionist approach to the economy.

Ok, so it turns out you are not Libertarian at all, at least according to Dilip. I have been using HIS definition as expressed in many of his posts here on CT, in which he claims the state gives capital freely to anyone with a business idea, with no restrictions, and in which there is really no legal system, all the lawyers are gone and legal cases are pretty much non-existent because there is the Natural Law concept that says all harm to others is illegal EXCEPT HARM DONE IN FAIR COMPETITION, and the definition of fair competition is left to the state to decide. No lawyers, no judges, unlike Singapore and unlike Hong Kong.

It is not you and I who disagree on what is Libertarianism, it is you and Dilip. His definition is way more specific than yours. You are calling all laissez-faire capitalism Libertarianism, and so we just need to get it straight what is the REAL definition of this term.

You have sat here for months calling the dot com crash the end of the world, resulting in lost livelihoods and lives. Market booms and busts have been happening in all kinds of sectors for centuries.

Yes they have .... MOST PREDOMINANTLY IN CAPITALIST ECONOMIES!

And the more laissez-faire the Capitalism ... the more quickly the bust happens and the more severe it is.

By your logic, tulips should be permanently banned because of tulip mania and the crash in the 1600s.

LOL, blaming tulips for the tulip crash is nowhere near where I am coming from. You freely accuse others of putting words in your mouth, but you continually do that to others.

I didn't blame the markets for the dot-com crash. I blamed the banking and investment sector which freely gave away money like candy to babies, to anyone with a website idea. That isn't normal capitalism, I think even you with your blinders on can agree to that. And come to think of it, even the 2008 mortgage securities crash is an example of Libertarianism causing economic disaster. Because again, you had banks giving mortgages away to people who couldn't afford them, who should never have been allowed to have them, and they were given them with only 5% down payments! Totally unsound economics, based on Libertarian principles, just give capital away and everyone will make good use of it. Then the banks sold these unqualified mortgages as investments, so no one know who actually OWNED the mortgages! And when the defaults began, as was inevitable, no one knew who owned the properties!

So thanks, you made me realize a 3rd example of Libertarianism in real practice and resulting in disaster. I think we can now say for sure that Libertarianism as defined by Dilip is a dead horse.

Certainly, central bank digital currencies will be the end of freedom and, indeed, the endgame of the World Economic Forum and their puppet Marxist governments.You have enthusiastically submitted to their agenda of bioterror attacks as a way of forcing mass "vaccinating," aka bioweapons, and like a good slave wearing useless and harmful marks because the WEF puppet governments tell you so. You are the one blind to climate fraud they promote as a methodology of demonizing the farmers and causing a mass famine.
And now you have finally woken up to their endgame that may very well be too late???? You blame this on the internet and technological progress???

Blaming technological progress, such as the internet, for the potential misuse by governments is misguided. By that logic, we should ban fundamental tools like geometry because it led to the Pythagorean theorem, which in turn led to the Michelson-Morley experiment. This experiment, using the Pythagorean theorem, unexpectedly supported the idea that the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference. Einstein then used this concept to rewrite the laws of momentum, ultimately leading to the famous equation E=MC², which paved the way for the development of the nuclear bomb. Banning or restricting knowledge and technology due to potential misuse is not the solution, as it hinders human progress and understanding. Something you sorely lack!

You presume so much! For someone who hates to be mischaracterized, you do it so much to others! What a total ass you are. I can see why you have never really moved into the economic elite despite your inflated ego-driven claims of superior intelligence. I imagine a whack-a-mole game where every time you raise your head out one of the holes to present yourself to the economic elite, you start spewing your profanity and jackass attitude and the elite has to whack you with a club to knock you back down the hole you came from.

What I blame for potential misuse is digitalization (if there is such a word, if not, I just coined it). We used to have everything done on paper, phones were in our homes and offices not on our person. Now anything you want to do has to be done "online". No one can any longer survive in the civilized world without a "DEVICE" which is mostly a smartphone or tablet. You have to have it, and you have to have it on your person constantly. It is your personal BALL AND CHAIN. And it will soon be used to control everyone, yes, even children. And soon it will be digital chips implanted in our bodies.

And you can't do anything online without OPENING AN ACCOUNT. And opening an account almost always REQUIRES ALL OF YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION.

It is truly remarkable and distressing how quickly and pervasively this virus has been allowed to spread all over the world. Last night I saw footage of rebels in Haiti ... one of the poorest nations in the world ... rebels walking around with guns AND with smartphones!.

We are fucked like never before. If you're so deadset against the WEF and WHO and Bill Gates, you should realize that your progress-driven philosophy can ONLY LEAD TO SUCH PEOPLE AND ORGANIZATIONS and can only lead TO THE SUCCESS OF THEIR AGENDA! Via digitalization!

If you can't see the forest for the trees, it's not my problem. I saw it when smartphones first came on the scene and parents were buying them for themselves AND for their children!!!

I've seen episodes of The Walking Dead, and I laugh because the zombies are walking around trying to find non-zombies to eat... while we already live in a world where brain-dead zombies are walking around searching their precious devices to see what's new on Instagram or Tik Tok.

Personally I think Sid Belzberg as presented here on CT is a total fraud. He pretends to care about population, about people losing their rights, about hunger and famine. He really doesn't care at all, he has a personal agenda for the rise of ultra-right states. But at least, unlike Dilip, he does seem to want those states to have robust legal systems to include lawyers and judges, not just police, so I think Sid is far less dangerous than Dilip.

[Dilip Panjwani]

To be precise, capitalism is little regulated by the government but strictly regulated by the judiciary.

True 'freedom' for citizens would come when the governments govern the least and the the Judiciary strictly enforces the Natural Law, which says 'thou shalt not harm anyone, except in fair competition' (an excellent example of fair competition is what we chesstalkers love... a game of chess!).

[Sid Belzberg]

Libertarianism

To my knowledge, the first time a formal party became a national government is the recent election of Javier Gerardo Milei - He is an Argentine politician and economist who is serving as the President of Argentina since December 2023. Milei has taught university courses and written on various aspects of economics and politics, and also hosted radio programs on the subject. Party - Libertarian Party - Wikipedia

I agree that it should be categorized as "Capitalism (Little Regulated)".

Bob A (Dem. Marxist)

Capitalism (Little Regulated

To be precise, capitalism is little regulated by the government but strictly regulated by the judiciary.

[Bob Armstrong]

Libertarianism

To my knowledge, the first time a formal party became a national government is the recent election of Javier Gerardo Milei - He is an Argentine politician and economist who is serving as the President of Argentina since December 2023. Milei has taught university courses and written on various aspects of economics and politics, and also hosted radio programs on the subject. Party - Libertarian Party - Wikipedia

I agree that it should be categorized as "Capitalism (Little Regulated)".

Bob A (Dem. Marxist)

[Sid Belzberg]

I will start by saying I appreciate this response. First of all, because in trying to have any kind of reasonable discussion with Dilip, everytime I asked a question he couldn't answer (good questions, like what is his definition of "fair competition") he would hiss like a cat: "Nasty troll!". Because he just doesn't have the answers. He's a zealous fanatic on Libertarianism who has no answers on how it can ever be implemented. Fair competition? He has no clue.

And secondly, I appreciate this response because it seems to indicate your willingness to take the conversation in a new direction, which it needs to go. Because there can be no doubt that Libertianism is a failed idea. It just cannot ever work. To just give capital to each and every blue-collar worker who claims to have a business idea is lunacy, as the dot-com bubble burst of March 2000 proved once and for all.

So I appreciate Sid that you didn't fight the notion that there is no successful Libertarian example in modern history. You take the conversation in a new direction, which is to say that even if the Libertarian systems of the old west and the dot-com explosion were failures, they "made the world a better place".

So there are 2 questions that arise: first, did they REALLY make the world a better place? And second, are we going to implement Libertarianism any time the world needs to go to a better place, given that Libertarianism has a costly price tag in lost lives and livelihoods.

Is the digital world REALLY a better world for humans? The survivors of the analog era of the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s seem to feel very different about that. I know many of them, and they all rant constantly about how much better things were when people weren't staring at a smartphone screen all day long. But who is right in this debate? We can't really say for sure yet, I think, because digital currency isn't here yet. When it comes -- and it is coming -- it will turn the world upside down. Many many people will not survive the changeover. The ones who do will find themselves much more limited in their life options. We are all about to be controlled as never before in history. We are too busy staring at Tik Tok videos to realize what is coming down the pipeline (and I saw the same thing in Europe by the way).

Aside: there is a great music video by a Shirley Serban, called "Hotel California Parody Song - Phone Zombies"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1Osmv0AxDM
which introduces new lyrics to the tune of Hotel California, then it goes into the song Zombie by the Cranberries ... and it even uses a brilliant lyrical line stolen from the Eagles, "They are just prisoners of their own device" -- absolute genius!
The message is clear: we are becoming zombiefied ... haha a new word!

Sid you talk a lot on here against depopulation, and digital currency is one of the major techniques that will be used to depopulate. Yet you are now saying the dot-com bubble , which precipitated the push into digital and online economics, makes the world a better place. So I will give you some room to comment more about this, perhaps your viewpoint isn't fully expressed yet.

As for the old west, it would have opened up anyway. It didn't need Libertarian land giveaways to open up. And it mostly settled into left-wing economics anyway (California, Oregon, New Mexico, Washington State), which makes it seem that the Libertarian era was just wasted time. Even the red states of Arizona, Utah, Nevada are nothing like their more radical right southeastern counterparts Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana.

So not only do I consider Libertarianism a failed system, never implemented successfully, but I also consider its effects to have been (in the 2 examples given) a huge NEGATIVE for the world.

Libertarianism is not only a fraud, it's a killer.

And just to make it clear, no, I'm not extreme left-wing. What we have now is what we have to work with, and not electing Trump as POTUS is the thing that must happen in the USA this year.

So I appreciate Sid that you didn't fight the notion that there is no successful Libertarian example in modern history.

Stop putting words in my mouth via conjecture.
No, you and I disagree on what libertarianism is. I consider an economy with minimal government intervention and a robust legal system libertarian. Hong Kong, pre-1997,is a good example of what I consider libertarianism. Estonia post-1991 and Singapore are also examples of this, albeit Singapore is too authoritarian for my taste. Economically speaking, it has served Singapore well for the government to take a minimal interventionist approach to the economy.

Libertarianism has a costly price tag in lost lives and livelihoods.

You have sat here for months calling the dot com crash the end of the world, resulting in lost livelihoods and lives. Market booms and busts have been happening in all kinds of sectors for centuries. By your logic, tulips should be permanently banned because of tulip mania and the crash in the 1600s.

As for the old west, it would have opened up anyway

Oh, I see. You state that based on what exactly? Yes, that's right—pure speculation. If grandmother had balls, she would be Grandfather!

Sid you talk a lot on here against depopulation, and digital currency is one of the major techniques that will be used to depopulate.

Certainly, central bank digital currencies will be the end of freedom and, indeed, the endgame of the World Economic Forum and their puppet Marxist governments.You have enthusiastically submitted to their agenda of bioterror attacks as a way of forcing mass "vaccinating," aka bioweapons, and like a good slave wearing useless and harmful marks because the WEF puppet governments tell you so. You are the one blind to climate fraud they promote as a methodology of demonizing the farmers and causing a mass famine.
And now you have finally woken up to their endgame that may very well be too late???? You blame this on the internet and technological progress???

Blaming technological progress, such as the internet, for the potential misuse by governments is misguided. By that logic, we should ban fundamental tools like geometry because it led to the Pythagorean theorem, which in turn led to the Michelson-Morley experiment. This experiment, using the Pythagorean theorem, unexpectedly supported the idea that the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference. Einstein then used this concept to rewrite the laws of momentum, ultimately leading to the famous equation E=MC², which paved the way for the development of the nuclear bomb. Banning or restricting knowledge and technology due to potential misuse is not the solution, as it hinders human progress and understanding. Something you sorely lack!

[Pargat Perrer]

The two examples you give were pivotal moments in history that made the world a better places. One opened up an entire region and the other served to create an entire new online economy.
Lets discuss personal responsibility for a moment.
Personal Responsibility and Risk: In both the context of the Homestead Act and the Dot-com bubble, individuals made decisions to invest resources (land and labor in one case, capital in the other) based on their own assessments of potential rewards versus risks. The nature of speculative ventures inherently involves risk, and individuals choosing to participate in these ventures often do so with the hope of significant gains, fully aware of the potential for loss. This underscores a principle of personal responsibility in investment and entrepreneurial activities: while the potential for high returns can be enticing, it comes with the acceptance of high risk.

Misrepresentations and Legal Remedies: When misrepresentations or fraudulent activities are involved, both historical and contemporary legal frameworks provide remedies for aggrieved parties. During the Dot-com bubble, many companies were accused of misleading investors about their financial health, business prospects, or operational capabilities. In cases where these misrepresentations were proven, investors had legal recourse through securities laws designed to protect them from fraud. Similarly, any fraudulent activities related to the Homestead Act, such as false claims or speculations, could be challenged and addressed through legal means.

individuals are free to light a match to their money in pursuit of potential gains, the legal system provides mechanisms to address and remedy instances of deceit or misrepresentation. This balance aims to encourage innovation and investment while protecting the integrity of markets and individual rights.

I will start by saying I appreciate this response. First of all, because in trying to have any kind of reasonable discussion with Dilip, everytime I asked a question he couldn't answer (good questions, like what is his definition of "fair competition") he would hiss like a cat: "Nasty troll!". Because he just doesn't have the answers. He's a zealous fanatic on Libertarianism who has no answers on how it can ever be implemented. Fair competition? He has no clue.

And secondly, I appreciate this response because it seems to indicate your willingness to take the conversation in a new direction, which it needs to go. Because there can be no doubt that Libertianism is a failed idea. It just cannot ever work. To just give capital to each and every blue-collar worker who claims to have a business idea is lunacy, as the dot-com bubble burst of March 2000 proved once and for all.

So I appreciate Sid that you didn't fight the notion that there is no successful Libertarian example in modern history. You take the conversation in a new direction, which is to say that even if the Libertarian systems of the old west and the dot-com explosion were failures, they "made the world a better place".

So there are 2 questions that arise: first, did they REALLY make the world a better place? And second, are we going to implement Libertarianism any time the world needs to go to a better place, given that Libertarianism has a costly price tag in lost lives and livelihoods.

Is the digital world REALLY a better world for humans? The survivors of the analog era of the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s seem to feel very different about that. I know many of them, and they all rant constantly about how much better things were when people weren't staring at a smartphone screen all day long. But who is right in this debate? We can't really say for sure yet, I think, because digital currency isn't here yet. When it comes -- and it is coming -- it will turn the world upside down. Many many people will not survive the changeover. The ones who do will find themselves much more limited in their life options. We are all about to be controlled as never before in history. We are too busy staring at Tik Tok videos to realize what is coming down the pipeline (and I saw the same thing in Europe by the way).

Aside: there is a great music video by a Shirley Serban, called "Hotel California Parody Song - Phone Zombies"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1Osmv0AxDM
which introduces new lyrics to the tune of Hotel California, then it goes into the song Zombie by the Cranberries ... and it even uses a brilliant lyrical line stolen from the Eagles, "They are just prisoners of their own device" -- absolute genius!
The message is clear: we are becoming zombiefied ... haha a new word!

Sid you talk a lot on here against depopulation, and digital currency is one of the major techniques that will be used to depopulate. Yet you are now saying the dot-com bubble , which precipitated the push into digital and online economics, makes the world a better place. So I will give you some room to comment more about this, perhaps your viewpoint isn't fully expressed yet.

As for the old west, it would have opened up anyway. It didn't need Libertarian land giveaways to open up. And it mostly settled into left-wing economics anyway (California, Oregon, New Mexico, Washington State), which makes it seem that the Libertarian era was just wasted time. Even the red states of Arizona, Utah, Nevada are nothing like their more radical right southeastern counterparts Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana.

So not only do I consider Libertarianism a failed system, never implemented successfully, but I also consider its effects to have been (in the 2 examples given) a huge NEGATIVE for the world.

Libertarianism is not only a fraud, it's a killer.

And just to make it clear, no, I'm not extreme left-wing. What we have now is what we have to work with, and not electing Trump as POTUS is the thing that must happen in the USA this year.

[Sid Belzberg]

Originally posted by Pargat Perrer:
I am putting forth a CHALLENGE to both to and Dilip any anyone else of Libertarian thinkng...

I have already posted that to my knowledge, in modern history there are only 2 examples of actual Libertarianism: the Wild West era in western USA, and the dot-com bubble of 1997 to 2000. The first failed economically and had to be replaced, the second failed even more spectacularly and proved a total disaster to just give capital to anyone who proposes any business idea at all.

The challenge is for you to provide any example in modern history of an actual Libertarian government that succeeded without ending in economic failure. If there is no such example, then the evidence shows Libertarianism to be a failure.




LOL you say Hong Kong grew from a small fishing village .... as if that growth happened in the last 100 years or something. LOL no, readers, do not be fooled by Sid's magic act. Hong Kong was a small fishing village like Toronto was a small farmer's market or whatever it started out as .... way way way long time ago.

Nice try but Hong Kong only qualifies as being a capitalist nation, UNLESS you can prove to me that anyone living in Hong Kong during its alleged (by you) LIbertarian era who had a business idea, no matter how far-fetched, could acquire the needed capital to start that business without any hindrances such as the need for a qualified business plan, the need for forecasts, etc.

Dilip defined this characteristic in post 32 of the thread here on CT on "Life, How Should It Be Viewed". He wrote:
"In Capitalism, Capital gives you an unfair ability to earn more, and gives you unfair power. In Libertarianism, all you can do with your Capital is 'enjoy' it; as for the 'earning' and 'power' aspects, everyone has access to the Capital they need."

Now, I chose the Wild West era and the 1997-2000 dot-com bubble as my 2 examples of Libertarian eras for good reason. Both had lenders giving out capital to citizens with almost no hindrances whatsoever.

In the Wild West era, it was the Homestead Act of 1862. Land is capital, and land was being given out to anyone willing to try and turn it into a means of sustenance and living. The vast majority of the receivers of this free land were NOT capable of turning it into a means of sustenance and living. Millions of people who received land grants left the land well before the 5-year term in which they had to live off the land had passed. And so this era of Libertarian policy, which included very generous bank lending practices as well because the West was seen as the Land of Opportunity, turned into a failure in the truth that came out which was when you give capital away free, not everyone can figure out how to turn it into sustainable growth. IN FACT, VERY FEW CAN.

And the dot-com bubble, well, I shouldn't even have to write ANYTHING about that. You should remember it well. Untold millions of dollars given away to anyone with an idea for a web site. The bubble popped in March 2000 and it was uuuuuu-gly. You know about that. The greatest evidence of the failure of Libertarian thinking right there.

So unless you can show me Hong Kong banks or lenders were giving land or capital away willy-nilly at some point, no, it was never Libertarian. I read up on its history the past few days since returning from my trip. It was laissez-faire capitalism yes, but Libertarianism no.

And in reading up on it, I found a very interesting thing about even laissez-faire capitalism in general. It comes from a book called "The Economic History of Hong Kong" by Catherine R. Schenk, University of Glasgow. Actually, there's 2 things I found out.

First of all, Hong Kong was not truly laissez-faire capitalism during the post-WWII Industrialization era in Hong Kong. She writes:

"Low taxes, lax employment laws, absence of government debt and free trade are all pillars of the Hong Kong experience of economic development.

In fact, of course,the reality was very different from the myth of complete laissez-faire. The government's programs of public housing, land reclamation, and infrastructure investment were ambitious. New industrial towns were built to house immigrants, provide employment and aid industry. The government subsized industry indirectly through this public housing, which restrained rises in the cost of living that would have threatened Hong Kong's labor-cost advantage in manufacturing."

So I guess we can assume that if this is Libertarianism, then Libertarianism will see workers housed in industrial towns and cheap public housing paid for by the government in order to maintain a labor-cost advantage for the economy of the nation. Welcome to Libertarian Free Nation, everyone! Here are your cheap homes ... sorry, no running water or electricity, but you'll make do!

The two examples you give were pivotal moments in history that made the world a better places. One opened up an entire region and the other served to create an entire new online economy.
Lets discuss personal responsibility for a moment.
Personal Responsibility and Risk: In both the context of the Homestead Act and the Dot-com bubble, individuals made decisions to invest resources (land and labor in one case, capital in the other) based on their own assessments of potential rewards versus risks. The nature of speculative ventures inherently involves risk, and individuals choosing to participate in these ventures often do so with the hope of significant gains, fully aware of the potential for loss. This underscores a principle of personal responsibility in investment and entrepreneurial activities: while the potential for high returns can be enticing, it comes with the acceptance of high risk.

Misrepresentations and Legal Remedies: When misrepresentations or fraudulent activities are involved, both historical and contemporary legal frameworks provide remedies for aggrieved parties. During the Dot-com bubble, many companies were accused of misleading investors about their financial health, business prospects, or operational capabilities. In cases where these misrepresentations were proven, investors had legal recourse through securities laws designed to protect them from fraud. Similarly, any fraudulent activities related to the Homestead Act, such as false claims or speculations, could be challenged and addressed through legal means.

individuals are free to light a match to their money in pursuit of potential gains, the legal system provides mechanisms to address and remedy instances of deceit or misrepresentation. This balance aims to encourage innovation and investment while protecting the integrity of markets and individual rights.

[Pargat Perrer]

Originally posted by Pargat Perrer:
I am putting forth a CHALLENGE to both to and Dilip any anyone else of Libertarian thinkng...

I have already posted that to my knowledge, in modern history there are only 2 examples of actual Libertarianism: the Wild West era in western USA, and the dot-com bubble of 1997 to 2000. The first failed economically and had to be replaced, the second failed even more spectacularly and proved a total disaster to just give capital to anyone who proposes any business idea at all.

The challenge is for you to provide any example in modern history of an actual Libertarian government that succeeded without ending in economic failure. If there is no such example, then the evidence shows Libertarianism to be a failure.

Hong Kong (pre-1997): Hong Kong before the handover to China in 1997 showcased what a largely laissez-faire economic policy could achieve. With low tax rates, minimal government intervention in the economy, and a robust legal system to protect property rights and contracts, Hong Kong rapidly developed from a small fishing village into one of the world's leading financial centers.

LOL you say Hong Kong grew from a small fishing village .... as if that growth happened in the last 100 years or something. LOL no, readers, do not be fooled by Sid's magic act. Hong Kong was a small fishing village like Toronto was a small farmer's market or whatever it started out as .... way way way long time ago.

Nice try but Hong Kong only qualifies as being a capitalist nation, UNLESS you can prove to me that anyone living in Hong Kong during its alleged (by you) LIbertarian era who had a business idea, no matter how far-fetched, could acquire the needed capital to start that business without any hindrances such as the need for a qualified business plan, the need for forecasts, loan collateral etc.

Dilip defined this characteristic in post 32 of the thread here on CT on "Life, How Should It Be Viewed". He wrote:
"In Capitalism, Capital gives you an unfair ability to earn more, and gives you unfair power. In Libertarianism, all you can do with your Capital is 'enjoy' it; as for the 'earning' and 'power' aspects, everyone has access to the Capital they need."

Now, I chose the Wild West era and the 1997-2000 dot-com bubble as my 2 examples of Libertarian eras for good reason. Both had lenders giving out capital to citizens with almost no hindrances whatsoever.

In the Wild West era, it was the Homestead Act of 1862. Land is capital, and land was being given out to anyone willing to try and turn it into a means of sustenance and living. The vast majority of the receivers of this free land were NOT capable of turning it into a means of sustenance and living. Millions of people who received land grants left the land well before the 5-year term in which they had to live off the land had passed. And so this era of Libertarian policy, which included very generous bank lending practices as well because the West was seen as the Land of Opportunity, turned into a failure in the truth that came out which was when you give capital away free, not everyone can figure out how to turn it into sustainable growth. IN FACT, VERY FEW CAN.

And the dot-com bubble, well, I shouldn't even have to write ANYTHING about that. You should remember it well. Untold millions of dollars given away to anyone with an idea for a web site. The bubble popped in March 2000 and it was uuuuuu-gly. You know about that. The greatest evidence of the failure of Libertarian thinking right there.

So unless you can show me Hong Kong banks or lenders were giving land or capital away willy-nilly at some point, no, it was never Libertarian. I read up on its history the past few days since returning from my trip. It was laissez-faire capitalism yes, but Libertarianism no.

And in reading up on it, I found a very interesting thing about even laissez-faire capitalism in general. It comes from a book called "The Economic History of Hong Kong" by Catherine R. Schenk, University of Glasgow. Actually, there's 2 things I found out.

First of all, Hong Kong was not truly laissez-faire capitalism during the post-WWII Industrialization era in Hong Kong. She writes:

"Low taxes, lax employment laws, absence of government debt and free trade are all pillars of the Hong Kong experience of economic development.

In fact, of course,the reality was very different from the myth of complete laissez-faire. The government's programs of public housing, land reclamation, and infrastructure investment were ambitious. New industrial towns were built to house immigrants, provide employment and aid industry. The government subsized industry indirectly through this public housing, which restrained rises in the cost of living that would have threatened Hong Kong's labor-cost advantage in manufacturing."

So I guess we can assume that if this is Libertarianism, then Libertarianism will see workers housed in industrial towns and cheap public housing paid for by the government in order to maintain a labor-cost advantage for the economy of the nation. Welcome to Libertarian Free Nation, everyone! Here are your cheap homes ... sorry, no running water or electricity, but you'll make do!

This book then reminds us of the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997-2002. Do you remember that Sid? This is when Hong Kong laissez-faire capitalism hit the skids big time. And it wasn't because of China takeover, because the Hong Kong Basic Law ensured Hong Kong's capitalist independence from mainland China well beyond 1997. The author mentioned above has this to say:

"...the Asian Financial Crisis pushed Hong Kong into a new era of recession with a rise in unemployment ... and absolute declines in output and prices. The longer-term impact of the crisis has been to increase the intensity and importance of Hong Kong's trade and investment links with the PRC [communist China]. Since the PRC did not fare as badly from the regional crisis, the economic prospects for Hong Kong have been tied more closely to the increasingly prosperous mainland."

So there you have it ... laissez-faire capitalism in Asia had a financial crisis, and the communist Chinese mainland did much BETTER during this crisis so that Hong Kong now has closer economic ties to the mainland. Doesn't speak well of laissez-faire capitalism.

So I think Hong Kong is debunked as an example of Libertarianism that is a success story.

I think there is no such success story in modern history. Libertarianism is a failed idea. There is no example of its success whatsoever, and there are my 2 strong examples of its utter failure.