Wednesday, September 07, 2005

If you're reading this "Dissenter":

I hope that you read my reply to you on FPM about your conclusion that the Saudi or the Hugo Chavez model is preferable to the free-market model because "multinationals rape the land and reward only a few." I didn't see a reply, but you know about this blog. Professor George Reisman has answered the proposition, posed by socialists and neo-socialists, that capitalism is bad for the environment. His "Toxicity" essay is a must read for anyone that wants to see the response to that particular argument.

Be warned, it is comprehensively obliterated.

As I told you before: misery in a free-market economy is psychologically caused, not economic.

Take, for instance, your complaint about America's national security preference for the Shah rather than the Ayatollah or the democratically elected opponent to our interests (for one: winning the Cold War). We had alliances, we assisted people, and we didn't assist others. Yes. Its hard to help other people when you yourself are under attack, sometimes you have to make difficult decisions under those circumstances. You are right that the problems that we have today (eg. bin Laden's inspiration and encouragement by the Iranian "revolution" for his Saudi and global Wahhabi dream) are associated by choices made in the past. But notice the way that you have been taught to shrugg off the Soviet role and the Islamo-fascist role, in order to maintain the grudge against the American model.

There is a similar analysis on FPM today, by Chuck Morse, regarding leftwing terrorism and dictatorship:

No doubt there were examples of governmental over-reach in the 1919-1920 crackdown, as the FBI labored to protect our nation from suspected alien terrorists. The same could be said of the FBI’s crackdown on the Ku Klux Klan and organized crime. But no one would conclude from this that the effort to deal with the Klan should be called “The Klan Scare” or the tracking of the Mafia “The Crime Scare.” That is because the academics who keep the historical record, and the intellectuals who write about the history of Klansmen and criminals, have no sympathy for those segments of society or their causes. But apparently they do for anti-American radicals with a violent agenda.

I believe that he was referring to those same people who Yale Law School professor Alexander Bickel, was talking about when he said that "to be a revolutionary in a society like ours, is to be totalitarian, or not to know what one is doing."

Hopefully you finished reading A DiaLog on "Participatory Economics." Regarding intellectual property rights law and corporate law, it would help if you could be a bit more specific in terms of exactly what changes you would like to see made.

I'll go back to one of yesterday's FPM threads, in which we did go off topic, to see if you reply to my conclusion

Chompsky, Soros, Marx, et al; these are not economists, they are social-engineers light who ignore economic science when it contradicts them. These are all anti-capitalists, they all are opponents of the free-market, and the dominant influences in the subject of economics. Only our Constitutionally protected liberty protects us from that which the anti-capitalists support and have supported in other parts of the world. Your arguments are the pieces of show-trial "evidence" that the economic dimension of liberty has been sentenced guilty by.


Blogger Sirc_Valence said...

Special note for FOREWARD:

On FrontPageMag, Sirc_Valence = AmericanMe

1:01 PM  
Blogger Pebble said...

What group/forum are you involved with/link?

8:09 PM  
Blogger Sirc_Valence said...

I'm involved with the VRWC and the GOP.

Thatz all the links I can tell you about right now


6:33 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home