Why do teabagger signs have far worse spelling than anti-war signs?

[Frink]

Real Americans don't have the learnin' that you Northern elitist city folk have.

[Frink]

Silly leftists.  Didn't you get the memo?  Your attacks on tea partiers are supposed to be anti-intellectual now.

Come on, the predictions set out and implied in the Road to Serfdom have not come true at all.

[Frink]

Silly leftists.  Didn't you get the memo?  Your attacks on tea partiers are supposed to be anti-intellectual now.

Come on, the predictions set out and implied in the Road to Serfdom have not come true at all.

They're all coming true, and with increasing rapidity.

Well if I keep saying it maybe it will come true... Seeing as the context of the book specifically applied to the Labour Party's policies in 1944 I'd say its been proven patently false.

[Frink]

1. Funny, I was going to use the UK as the prime example.

The welfare state is big, but they don't have a dictator and the Labour Party's reforms didn't lead to "totalitarianism." Or do you disagree? And if so, what exactly makes the UK a totalitarian state. I'm actually quite curious as to your thought process on this.

[Frink]

I its somewhat logically consistent to believe the UK is totalitarian if you believe democracy is a useless measure of freedom and that libertarian ideals are more important much like Hayek did; "My personal preference leans toward a liberal dictatorship rather than toward a democratic government devoid of liberalism." - F.A. Hayek speaking to a Chilean Reporter.

[Frink]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is true, but the example really wouldn't apply to multi party governments. Would Hong Kong or some other theoretical liberal dictatorship, with the lack of a right to vote but arguably more freedom in other more laissez-faire economic ways, be more free than the UK where the Multi-Party System continues to flourish? I suppose its arguable although I probably disagree with that conclusion .

It also runs into some problems when its used, like Hayek used it in that context, to defend someone like Pinochet. I know, for example, that to Friedman Pinochet is a dictator whose evil the Chicago Boys can curb by persuading him to adopt laissez-faire economic policies. I'm not completely sure that the same was true of Hayek in the context of his standing up for the Pinochet regime. Just some food-for-thought...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Interesting. So in your belief, without the right to vote, how would such decentralization work?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd say given how many industries in the UK have been de-nationalized and markets de-regulated that the trend is precisely the opposite.

[Frink]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Interesting, again.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe its the intellectual rigor of my university but I've experienced nothing of the sort. Sure certain hipsters like to trendily sport Mao or Che shirts, but it doesn't go into a thought other than fashion at all. It takes a fool to be simultaneously educated and truly believe Pinochet's regime was worse than Mao Tse Tung. I've yet to encounter such an individual and in fact have encountered several papers from "market disciples" arguing precisely the opposite. Not that the apologists don't exist in academia, but I've yet to encounter them in a noteworthy number.

 Anyway here's an interesting article that further discusses my point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So you believe that its a matter of time until the UK, most likely Labour at that, embarks on another campaign of Economic Nationalization?