For my Libertarian friends

Dark lagers and sweet stouts.

Old Rasputin and Three Floyd's Robert the Bruce.

IN YA FACE

The T wrote: Neo-liberal is a broadly used term in South America. It usually describes those with ideas to the right of social democracy, with special emphasis on the freest possible market. In the sub-continent, where most utilities like electricity and telephones are in government's hands, the typical neo-liberal will be that one who proposes to privatize things like that, or the "social sector" as it is called. Neo-liberal is not a loving term: even those in the right usually try to distance themselves from the label.  Here, in the US, I've never heard the term being used. I've heard neo-con, this new specimen who loves the army and the church (am I right?), but not neo-liberal.  Funny: in South America, "liberals" are usually the ones who propose free market. In here, libertarians call liberal anyone who proposes even the most minimal government intervention in the economy. It's curious how the same word has radical different meanings.

Neo-liberal is a term used by the Left (in South America, the left are the real pro-socialists) to describe the "bad" presidents and governments of the late 90s. Those guys didn't have ideology at all, they were more just a bunch of thiefs, but these socialists guys take advantage and label the term "Liberal" to them as a discrimination term, you know, like the "new bad guys". Some examples of the so called Neo-Liberals are Salinas in Mexico, Serrano Elías in Guatemala and Menem in Argentina. They really never had a straight position in Left or Right, but the term became very used, especially for lazy people who wants to talk nice about things that they don't understand.

This probably has been addressed in another thread, but I ask my beloved Libertines () gasp, Libertarians another question. What is your position in the outlawing of drugs ( illegal in most countries), prostitution (legal in most countries) and euthanasia?  

jampa17 wrote: The T wrote: Neo-liberal is a broadly used term in South America. It usually describes those with ideas to the right of social democracy, with special emphasis on the freest possible market. In the sub-continent, where most utilities like electricity and telephones are in government's hands, the typical neo-liberal will be that one who proposes to privatize things like that, or the "social sector" as it is called. Neo-liberal is not a loving term: even those in the right usually try to distance themselves from the label.  Here, in the US, I've never heard the term being used. I've heard neo-con, this new specimen who loves the army and the church (am I right?), but not neo-liberal.  Funny: in South America, "liberals" are usually the ones who propose free market. In here, libertarians call liberal anyone who proposes even the most minimal government intervention in the economy. It's curious how the same word has radical different meanings.  Neo-liberal is a term used by the Left (in South America, the left are the real pro-socialists) to describe the "bad" presidents and governments of the late 90s. Those guys didn't have ideology at all, they were more just a bunch of thiefs, but these socialists guys take advantage and label the term "Liberal" to them as a discrimination term, you know, like the "new bad guys". Some examples of the so called Neo-Liberals are Salinas in Mexico, Serrano Elías in Guatemala and Menem in Argentina. They really never had a straight position in Left or Right, but the term became very used, especially for lazy people who wants to talk nice about things that they don't understand.   Nobody could consider themselves as Neo-liberal, because there's no philosophy nor values, just labelings...

I fear for the end of days.

^I think Ayrton Senna and Michael Schumacher were the best ever. We won't agree on that either... 

One thing I can't deny you libertarians (at least those here) is consistency. A little blind in my view, which is where we differ, but you're generally consistent. 

Yes, everyone is here true to their beliefs, opposed to a lot of ones I know who I think are just jumping on the Ron Paul bandwagon.

And Social Rights and Economic Rights being the same?
Eh, all semantics really. I see them as separate, but why divide it all into blocs? It is what it is.
Well no, economics is IMHO something that a lot of regular dont really understand, hell there are things that go on that a lot of us don't understand.
With social issues, its a lot more direct, if you get any of that?

Like with drugs, or banning trans fats, or anything like that.  I cant really explain it but yeah I do see them as separate. Hence why I can claim to a Social Democrat and still somewhat libertarian!


Edited by JJLehto - July 21 2010 at 12:07

The T wrote: jampa17 wrote: The T wrote: Neo-liberal is a broadly used term in South America. It usually describes those with ideas to the right of social democracy, with special emphasis on the freest possible market. In the sub-continent, where most utilities like electricity and telephones are in government's hands, the typical neo-liberal will be that one who proposes to privatize things like that, or the "social sector" as it is called. Neo-liberal is not a loving term: even those in the right usually try to distance themselves from the label.  Here, in the US, I've never heard the term being used. I've heard neo-con, this new specimen who loves the army and the church (am I right?), but not neo-liberal.  Funny: in South America, "liberals" are usually the ones who propose free market. In here, libertarians call liberal anyone who proposes even the most minimal government intervention in the economy. It's curious how the same word has radical different meanings.  Neo-liberal is a term used by the Left (in South America, the left are the real pro-socialists) to describe the "bad" presidents and governments of the late 90s. Those guys didn't have ideology at all, they were more just a bunch of thiefs, but these socialists guys take advantage and label the term "Liberal" to them as a discrimination term, you know, like the "new bad guys". Some examples of the so called Neo-Liberals are Salinas in Mexico, Serrano Elías in Guatemala and Menem in Argentina. They really never had a straight position in Left or Right, but the term became very used, especially for lazy people who wants to talk nice about things that they don't understand.   Nobody could consider themselves as Neo-liberal, because there's no philosophy nor values, just labelings... It's sad because in South America we really need a strong opposition, specially in some countries (like mine) where the bad name of the terrible governments of the past have tainted the name of everything that came before. We need proponents of an alternative to the new "XXI Century Socialism" which is gaining ground. With that socialism I have very strong issues. One thing is to support regulation and social policies, another one to support semi-dictatorships with an absolutely centralized economy...

Edited by jampa17 - July 21 2010 at 12:38

manofmystery wrote:   You need to learn to take personal feelings out of your politics.

Interesting, do you believe that's actually possible?