Being a Troll. As in "stir the shit". Provoke debate.
regarding the DDR, perhaps had the country been more productive, it might still exist. there were huge demos for liberalization - starting in Leipzig, as i recall. not many Germans (Wessies) wanted their state to become part of der DDR! how many DDR people lost their lives trying to escape to the West? how many western Germans lost their lives trying to escape to the East?
Again, I repeat communism sucks. I would have tried to escape. Still, few things in life are 100% positive or 100% negative. The DDR citizens had much more freedoms in their
jobs than we do. They could openly critizise their boss. If we do that, we get fired - that´s not exactly very liberal.
i stand by my statement. freedom is freedom - be it economic or political freedom. they go together. [two sides of the same coin] economic activity is a form of expression - among the most important, first freedoms. without it, how is one truly free? ( the Phoenicians had the right idea in this respect)
What about the right to strike then? Who´s freedom do you favor in a strike? The striker´s freedom to ask for better wages or the employer´s freedom to fire such a person?
I´ll ask a heretical question: how can I be truly free if I have to work to make a living? Not only do I have to work, I have to obey to the rules of the boss, who may be a total asshole.
Of course economic freedom is nice if you´re a successful entrepreneur, but it includes the freedom to take away economic freedoms from other people! There is no "economic freedom" for American single moms without health insurance, for example. That "freedom" is purely theoretical for them - they´ll laugh at it and would rather have some state interventionism.
What about the Phoenician´s
slaves, by the way?
the simple answer: you are WRONG. true tyrants want to control the economy as well as the people. tyrants sometimes permit "crony capitalism," about as far from liberalism as a Kibbutz is from German National Socialism of the 40's.
when tyrants allow economic liberalism, it eventually leads to political liberalism.
You ignore that capitalists brought Hitler to power in the first place. It´s not that he permitted crony capitalism - these cronies were already quite powerful before 1933 -
they wanted Hitler to run the country.
I am not wrong. Many tyrants want to control the economy. Others dont. Pinochet never wanted to control the economy - his whole point was to make te economy "laissez faire" again after the interventionism of Salvador Allende. Pinochet´s economic policy was right out of Milton Friedman´s textbooks.
almost all of the Swedes i know are entrepreneurs. they despise the heavy handed interventionism.
Where do all the votes for the Social Democrats come from, then?
btw, you use the term socio-political, referring to liberalism, as if they go together. social liberalism is a form of social anarchism, quite the opposite of the rule of law system required for political liberalism to exist. laissez faire is required for a well functioning economy. a laissez faire social system, anarchy, will lead to disaster. rule by the strongest is tyranny.
I´m not sure what to make of this. Are you trying to make a parody of yourself?
First of all, I did not try to bring new utopias or models into that game. I was just trying to distinguish between the two sets of liberalism - the one being purely economic and the other all the rest. I call the latter socio-political liberalism. Give me a better term and I´m happy to use it.
Now, you say a very interesting thing. You say a laissez-faire political system leads to "anarchy" leads to desaster.
Apart from the fact that this may be plain wrong, may I ask why - in contrast -
economic laissez-faire brings about a well-functioning economy?
IMHO, laissez-faire economic policy brings about "rule by the strongest".
Imagine no state interventions to economy whatsoever. How long would it take until we have slavery back? Are you in favor of a government to intervene in that case, or is anyone free to sell himself to continue his life as a slave? Would a government have to enforce such a treaty, if the slave wants to be free again all of a sudden? Where do you draw the line of "laissez-faire"? Are you in favor of anti-trust laws? Trade unions? Consumer rights?
this is a non sequitur. there are plenty of people who favor gun control who are also pro-choice. how is this relevant?
It is not relevant.
I just said it´s an odd coincidence that most people who are anti-abortion are also pro-gun and pro-death-penalty.
My point is that these are three issues which have nothing to do with each other. You should expect that there is absolutely no correlation between them.
But there is. If somebody is anti-abortion chances are way over 50% he is also pro-death-penalty and pro-gun.
My conclusion is that there are a few very wide-spread world views, political belief systems. Most meople don´t make up their opinions about every single issue. They rather opt for one belief system.
My point is that socio-political liberalism and economic liberalism as two sides of one coin is also part of a belief system. If you think about it, you may conclude that they are not two sides of the same coin, but two very different things, only losely connected with each other in some aspects and inconsistent with one another in other aspects.
