Quote:
Originally Posted by orieleye
I'm not so sure. They were Europeans after all and they did a good job showing the similarities between both totalitarian socialist models in Europe.
|
They were right in some of their criticism, however, they exaggerated on some points. I mean, Hayek was even against public health care and public building of highways. Do not forget that the mega-capitalism, advocated by Hayek and his ilk, leads to some kind of socialism. Owners of large and very powerful corporations sooner or later become intertwined with the political power, whereon they exert tremendous influence. Small firms go bankrupt and in the end you only have exponents of state power, influenced by the big business (they tend to become one) and the large masses of proletariate, people who own nothing (ownership of real estate is on the steep decline), work for the large firms or for the state beaurocracy and you have government which is bent (in agreement with the exponents of the big business) on alleviating horrible consequences of such a system. Masses of unemployed are to be cared for somehow. Ultimately mega-capitalism and socialism converge.
So I think there should be some check on the free market and on the large corporations.
On the other hand, socialism does no good. It foments gross egalitarianism and consequently cultural impoverishment and moral barbarization of a nation where its principles are being enforced.
As for "free market", it is an abstraction which does not exist anywhere (not even in the USA) in its pure form, nor ever will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orieleye
What libertarianism says today rings true more so in Europe, eg. government involvement in the economy harms the private economy, pushes up prices, and interferes with the market mechanism.
|
That is very true. Some of the libertarians, as I said, may be right in some of their criticism. I think especially Llewelyn Rockwell has a point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orieleye
Since state involvement is more evident in Europe this message is more relevant here.
|
There must be some state involvment and there will always be. The question is how and to what extent. We may both agree that it happens to a too big extent in Europe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orieleye
Paying farmers not to produce - what's that all about?
|
That is about artificially maintaining the system of prices and of speculation, as well as of the worthless piece of paper called euro.
Another disgusting thing is putting quotas to agricultural production. I am convinced that one of the aims of this hideous practice is to make people eternally dependent on the international System. No country should be allowed to produce enough food to feed itself on its own, because that means independence. Internationalist socialists/liberals form Brussels hate self-sufficient communities and small farming families, so they are trying to prevent them from coming into existence. Not only by muzzling them with quotas, but also with - as you said - paying them not to produce.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orieleye
Standardization is the mantra of the Brussels entity. That's big government and it can't be criticized by socialists because they are for it.
|
The Brussels entity is a problem in itself. It cannot function on different principles, their very philosophy of existence and handling of matters being beaurocratic. They should be dismantled and not reformed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orieleye
I find Ron Paul's message provocative as an idea. Watch this video on anti-trust and you'll see what I mean. No one questions stuff like this in Europe.
|
Ron Paul has many interesting ideas, but not everything he says is applicable to Europe. And why should it be? He was running for the US presidency and is concerned primarily with US matters. He is interesting and relevant for Europe primarily in as much he advocates an entirely different - non-interventionist - foreign policy.
Sunday, March 2nd, 2008
Re: American Republican Candidate Ron Paul
