Maybe freedom itself was never more than a buzzword. . . .
You nailed it (http://peristaltor.livejournal.com/145413.html). Because it is both meaningless and positive, you can see it in so many political speeches, along with "safe" and "secure." However, you failed when you continued:
. . . we should all just consign ourselves to varying levels of slavery. . . .
Ah, here is where "freedom" fails as well. What "varying levels of slavery?" Specifically, what the heck are you talking about? Oh, you are channeling Friedrich, I see, the man who believed that regulation brought tyranny.
How to keep the most people making as many independent economic decisions as possible while resisting the temptation to steer or guide them into per-ordained paths.
Economies are not blobular. There must be paths to take. There may be more than one path to a particular goal, sure; but the paths must exist. Where they do not exist, where bankers hide behind "innovation" and new "products," here we find old scams dusted off to bilk new rubes.
Here's where the ardently laissez-faire confuse terms. Regulations guide transactions (based upon previous crimes against people); they are not synonymous with "planned economies." They are like the lane lines on a road. Remove them, along with any pre-agreed-upon direction of travel, and the Indy 500 becomes a demolition derby.
I'm not saying Hayek was right on everything, but he was right on some important things.
A list of such things, along with empirical support to defend your selection, would be very nice indeed.
no subject
You nailed it (http://peristaltor.livejournal.com/145413.html). Because it is both meaningless and positive, you can see it in so many political speeches, along with "safe" and "secure." However, you failed when you continued:
. . . we should all just consign ourselves to varying levels of slavery. . . .
Ah, here is where "freedom" fails as well. What "varying levels of slavery?" Specifically, what the heck are you talking about? Oh, you are channeling Friedrich, I see, the man who believed that regulation brought tyranny.
How to keep the most people making as many independent economic decisions as possible while resisting the temptation to steer or guide them into per-ordained paths.
Economies are not blobular. There must be paths to take. There may be more than one path to a particular goal, sure; but the paths must exist. Where they do not exist, where bankers hide behind "innovation" and new "products," here we find old scams dusted off to bilk new rubes.
Here's where the ardently laissez-faire confuse terms. Regulations guide transactions (based upon previous crimes against people); they are not synonymous with "planned economies." They are like the lane lines on a road. Remove them, along with any pre-agreed-upon direction of travel, and the Indy 500 becomes a demolition derby.
I'm not saying Hayek was right on everything, but he was right on some important things.
A list of such things, along with empirical support to defend your selection, would be very nice indeed.