|
somor98 (September 8, 2008 at 9:16 am)
Capitalism is not the same as a free marked. There is capitalism even under monopoly. Capitalism exist in Cuba, where it is merely the state that has the right to the productive machinery.
If people didn't 'vote' for a free marked, then it would be worse for themselves, because this would leave everyone poorer.
Actually, labour movements use coercion; normally under strikes, they make blockades etc.
Furthermore, the welfare state coerces the most productive to pay taxes.
Rufusdos (September 7, 2008 at 10:36 pm)
Anyone who has read him knows that Friedman is against state interference in the 'natural law' of market forces. FREE market capitalism, that is capitalism untempered by state interference, has never existed without coercion because no population would knowingly vote for it.
And on the contrary, workers' cooperatives and labour movements are ubiquitous and spring up from the grass roots. Parties offering a welfare state do not need to use coercion.
Are you an Ayn Rand-clutching dreamer?
somor98 (September 7, 2008 at 7:26 pm)
Nope. Of course I don't mean that she is not trying to verify her ideas. Anyone can verify their ideas. And indeed this is what she does. She draws on the writings of Friedman, but anyone who has read him knows that she is either deliberately distorting or too stupid to understand him.
Well, there is free market capitalism in ALL countries. Even in Cuba and Soviet Union. So your question does not make sense.
Your point SHOULD be that no state or cooperation has arisen without coercion.
Rufusdos (September 7, 2008 at 5:36 pm)
Obviously The Shock Doctrine is the book in question here. And I guess you mean she doesn't try to verify her ideas? She does, in fact: The Shock Doctrine is rigorously referenced. No indeed, we can't judge a theory by its proponents, but can you name a state in which free market capitalism arose without bloody coercion?
You might have a tough time in MY critical thinking class, somor98. Ms Klein does good work.
somor98 (September 7, 2008 at 3:34 pm)
Actually, I've read her awfull 'No Logo'. And I've seen those awfull interviews she gives.
She doesn't try to falsify her claims, but merely conjures up half-assed ideas. If she was a student of social science of mine, I'd flunk her in a second.
Friedmans career doesn't mean shit. That would be like evaluating natural selection from a study of Darwin's biography. It's the evidence and the thingking that matters. Not the person.
Rufusdos (September 7, 2008 at 2:31 pm)
hmm. have you read any of her books, I wonder? I suspect not. Her exploration of Friedman's career is very interesting. "Secular religion", like "married bachelor", is deliberate and thought-provoking, if you are indeed capable of thought?
hectorflamebo (September 7, 2008 at 6:15 am)
Wait, seeing other videos of her make me puke, she isn't really good looking, well, she has lovely eyes, but thats it.
tooltalk (September 6, 2008 at 11:53 pm)
maybe a nose job would help her look a bit.
somor98 (September 6, 2008 at 4:48 pm)
You are right that Fukuyama bases his theory on Hegelian dialectics. However, such dialectical movements are hardly religious, although there is no scientific evidence for dialectics. Hegelian dialectics is instead a method for interpreting historical movements; i.e. to study the necessary in the contingent.
Milton Friedman is in no way either a Hegelian or a believer in dialectics.
FaizRLZ17 (September 6, 2008 at 11:52 am)
If you believe in something so bad, you don't need God for it to be a religion.
Ideas like those of Friedman or Francis Fukuyama are established on the =religious= base of dialectics and teleology presented to us by Hegel. |
