For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
International Court of Justice, The Hague, NetherlandsArising_uk wrote:Which legal entity would you be able to appeal to?bobevenson wrote:Your honor, we were not trying to illegally overthrow the government, it was a democratic coup d'état, not your run-of-the-mill coup d'état.
lmfao! You're a card bob, a real card.bobevenson wrote:International Court of Justice, The Hague, Netherlands
lmao! So now the tyranny of the majority is a democratic plus in your books. What a confusion you are.bobevenson wrote:I believe my position has been vindicated: ...
Yeah, that was just a joke; obviously, Europe is the last place you'd go to for justice.Arising_uk wrote:lmfao! You're a card bob, a real card.bobevenson wrote:International Court of Justice, The Hague, Netherlands
Actually the last place I'd go for justice is a suburb of Rio de Janiero's ghettos caled the favellas where my life expectancy would probably be about 5 minutes tops especially since I don't speak a word of Portuguese and I look very English, I would certainly consider Europe as a place to get justice though. Your sense of humour is intriguing though bob. Oh and or a Chinese prison would probably be right up there too. And certain suburbs of Kingstown Jamaica and or Port aux Prince as well capital of Haiti, I also wouldn't take a wander around Washington's slums either or LAs for that matter, so would probably avoid Compton, as my pale skin and lack of gang colours would probably prove terminal, oh and I would probably be seen dead in Crenshaw...bobevenson wrote:Yeah, that was just a joke; obviously, Europe is the last place you'd go to for justice.Arising_uk wrote:lmfao! You're a card bob, a real card.bobevenson wrote:International Court of Justice, The Hague, Netherlands
Well go start a party then and stop cluttering up this forum with your anti socialist rants.bobevenson wrote:Actually, there's no justice anywhere, but it is a theoretical possibility based on the concepts of the American Energy Party (AEP).
You just hit on the key concept, my friend:Blaggard wrote:Well go start a party then and stop cluttering up this forum with your anti socialist rants.bobevenson wrote:Actually, there's no justice anywhere, but it is a theoretical possibility based on the concepts of the American Energy Party (AEP).
Yeah I am not fond of socialism particularly Marxism and all that anarchist left wing guff believe it or not, nor am I that partial to Libertarianism or far right schools such as those that preach capitalism like it is some God and banks are the temples where we go to pray to the mighty mana from heaven: currency. Which happens more than you think in Europe and actually has its own school...bobevenson wrote:You just hit on the key concept, my friend:Blaggard wrote:Well go start a party then and stop cluttering up this forum with your anti socialist rants.bobevenson wrote:Actually, there's no justice anywhere, but it is a theoretical possibility based on the concepts of the American Energy Party (AEP).
Anti-socialism!!!
...[]Many economists are critical of the current-day Austrian School and consider its rejection of econometrics, and aggregate macroeconomic analysis to be outside of mainstream economic theory, or "heterodox."[7][8][9][10] Austrians are likewise critical of mainstream economics.[11] Although the Austrian School has been considered heterodox since the late 1930s, it began to attract renewed academic and public interest starting in the 1970s.[12]...[]
...[]Fundamental tenets
Fritz Machlup listed the typical views of Austrian economic thinking.[25]
(1) Methodological Individualism: In the explanation of economic phenomena we have to go back to the actions (or inaction) of individuals; groups or "collectives" cannot act except through the actions of individual members.
(2) Methodological Subjectivism: In the explanation of economic phenomena we have to go back to judgments and choices made by individuals on the basis of whatever knowledge they have or believe to have and whatever expectations they entertain regarding external developments and especially the consequences of their own intended actions.
(3) Tastes and Preferences: Subjective valuations of goods and services determine the demand for them so that their prices are influenced by (actual and potential) consumers.
(4) Opportunity Costs: The costs with which producers and other economic actors calculate reflect the alternative opportunities that must be foregone; as productive services are employed for one purpose, all alternative uses have to be sacrificed.
(5) Marginalism: In all economic designs, the values, costs, revenues, productivity, etc., are determined by the significance of the last unit added to or subtracted from the total.
(6) Time Structure of Production and Consumption: Decisions to save reflect "time preferences" regarding consumption in the immediate, distant, or indefinite future, and investments are made in view of larger outputs expected to be obtained if more time-taking production processes are undertaken.
Two important tenets held by the Misesian branch of Austrian economics may also be added to the list:
(7) Consumer Sovereignty: The influence consumers have on the effective demand for goods and services and, through the prices which result in free competitive markets, on the production plans of producers and investors, is not merely a hard fact but also an important objective, attainable only by complete avoidance of governmental interference with the markets and of restrictions on the freedom of sellers and buyers to follow their own judgment regarding quantities, qualities, and prices of products and services.
(8) Political Individualism: Only when individuals are given full economic freedom will it be possible to secure political and moral freedom. Restrictions on economic freedom lead, sooner or later, to an extension of the coercive activities of the state into the political domain, undermining and eventually destroying the essential individual liberties which the capitalistic societies were able to attain in the nineteenth century.
Austrian school you are then.bobevenson wrote:The only proper economic system is free-market capitalism.
No, Milton Friedman, Walter Williams and myself, Bob the Baptist Evenson.Blaggard wrote:Austrian school you are then.bobevenson wrote:The only proper economic system is free-market capitalism.
You are aware of course those people are responsible for the current downturn and failure of the world economy. Particularly Friedman who encouraged Raegans laissez faire economics and was a libertarian nightmare that has pretty much lead the world to the point of financial collapse?bobevenson wrote:No, Milton Friedman, Walter Williams and myself, Bob the Baptist Evenson.Blaggard wrote:Austrian school you are then.bobevenson wrote:The only proper economic system is free-market capitalism.
As I said in previous posts the endless battle between the whigs and the liberals seems undimmed by the winter of either.Hayek and conservatism
Hayek received new attention in the 1980s and 1990s with the rise of conservative governments in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada. After winning the United Kingdom general election, 1979, Margaret Thatcher appointed Keith Joseph, the director of the Hayekian Centre for Policy Studies, as her secretary of state for industry in an effort to redirect parliament's economic strategies. Likewise, David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's most influential financial official in 1981 was an acknowledged follower of Hayek.[103]
Hayek wrote an essay, "Why I Am Not a Conservative"[104] (included as an appendix to The Constitution of Liberty), in which he disparaged conservatism for its inability to adapt to changing human realities or to offer a positive political program, remarking, "Conservatism is only as good as what it conserves". Although he noted that modern day conservatism shares many opinions on economics with classical liberals, particularly a belief in the free market, he believed it's because conservatism wants to "stand still", whereas liberalism embraces the free market because it "wants to go somewhere". Hayek identified himself as a classical liberal but noted that in the United States it had become almost impossible to use "liberal" in its original definition, and the term "libertarian" has been used instead.
However, for his part, Hayek found this term "singularly unattractive" and offered the term "Old Whig" (a phrase borrowed from Edmund Burke) instead. In his later life, he said, "I am becoming a Burkean Whig." However, Whiggery as a political doctrine had little affinity for classical political economy, the tabernacle of the Manchester School and William Gladstone.[105] His essay has served as an inspiration to other liberal-minded economists wishing to distinguish themselves from conservative thinkers, for example James M. Buchanan's essay "Why I, Too, Am Not a Conservative: The Normative Vision of Classical Liberalism".
A common term in much of the world for what Hayek espoused is "neoliberalism". A British scholar, Samuel Brittan, concluded in 2010, "Hayek's book [The Constitution of Liberty] is still probably the most comprehensive statement of the underlying ideas of the moderate free market philosophy espoused by neoliberals."[106] Brittan adds that although Raymond Plant (2009) comes out in the end against Hayek's doctrines, Plant gives The Constitution of Liberty a "more thorough and fair-minded analysis than it has received even from its professed adherents".[106]
In Why F A Hayek is a Conservative,[107] British policy analyst Madsen Pirie believes Hayek mistakes the nature of the conservative outlook. Conservatives, he says, are not averse to change – but like Hayek, they are highly averse to change being imposed on the social order by people in authority who think they know how to run things better. They wish to allow the market to function smoothly and give it the freedom to change and develop. It is an outlook, says Pirie, that Hayek and conservatives both share.
That, of course, is psychotic talk about the most important Nobel Prize winner in Economics in the 20th Century.Blaggard wrote:You are aware of course those people are responsible for the current downturn and failure of the world economy. Particularly Friedman who encouraged Raegans laissez faire economics and was a libertarian nightmare that has pretty much lead the world to the point of financial collapse?bobevenson wrote:I am the school pf Milton Friedman, Walter Williams and myself, Bob the Baptist Evenson.