~
So protesting the eight largest mass murdererers, imprisoners, rapists, etc. in the world is a “leftist hissy-fit”?
Jesus… How long do you allow others to beat you until you begin to fight back?
Anti-globalization - actually most “anti-globalizationists” don’t use this term as they see it as being too vague, many call themselves members of the Anti-Corporate-Globalization Movement - is A-OK with me. I guess you support the EU, NATO, UN, IMF, WTO, etc. though.
Same thing in Italia - and France - yet, somehow half or nearly half of both economies are underground.
Hmm… Could it be that Europeans are just less inclined to care about what the politicans think or do?
Yes, the students are the thugs; not the government that has put them in the slums for the benefit of the people in the high-rises.
[8-)]
You’re the type that would fight on the side of the government when those of a lower class begin to riot against it - for any reason - aren’t you?
I hope the tides of change sweep away your kind from the soil of Earth once and for all some day, but unfortunatley they probably won’t.
I can’t blame anyone else for attacking him. He’s goofy. He doesn’t really present anything outside of his own vulgar, Randroid mindset.
You’re essentially asking me to argue content with an empty package. How can I do that?
Obviously, the leftists in government who tax and regulate are thugs, too; I never implied otherwise.
Remember, I’m saying that the arrogant students who destroy and burn private property in defense of maintaining that government (remember, they riot whenever anyone tries to shrink it) are thugs, too. [:)]
Did you even read the article?
The students were not rioting in defense of anything other than to put food on the table. It’s the government’s fault for making that so difficult. Why did they target the “deregulation” (not really deregulation, just different regulation) of labour first and not the “deregulation” of businesses so as to facilitate more competition? Gee… I wonder.
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Yes, I’ve read that article and dozens of others.
Here’s one from the BBC: link.
The government was trying to grant employers the natural liberty to fire young employees (under 25 years old) within two years of hiring without being forced into a long and costly court process.
Lefists labor activists and students vocally opposed these reforms and rioted against them.
Now, I would support them if they had been rioting against statist oppression! However, they were rioting in favor of maintaining it.
You have to remember that we’re dealing with leftists, not libertarians. These are the same people who on calmer daysl march and strike for more welfare and more regulations, chanting socialist slogans and carrying Socialist Worker signs.
On a side note, if Europeans really are more libertarian than the Americans, why do they consistently elect socialists with high voter turnout? Something doesn’t add up here…
Oh dear, expect a septuple-post on my part…
No, they were rioting against the situation, which is much more complicated then your simple Randroid mind can give it credit for.
The situation is that the youth of France have been subjected to a situation where the jobs are both few and far between and the cost of living is higher than those with a job can stomach.
The factors of the former are simpler, but the latter are much more complicated. The situation is one where the French are damned in either scenario. If the regulations on labour continue, then unemployment will rise further. If these specific regulations are taken away, however, not only will the students be stuck in a situation where job growth is unlikely to occur, but those that are lucky enough to have a job will be in a situation where the cost of living is still artificially high and their futures are even less insured.
The solution to the problem is simple. Get rid of government. However, by just getting rid of one regulation, Mises’ Planned Chaos theory comes into play. One dead regulation will simply lead to economic turmoil that must either be fixed by another regulation or sent away with all of its friends behind it.
People like you don’t advocate the latter though. You want reform, conservativism. This is what you get for it.
Libertarians are leftists.
Because several countries in Europe have compulsory voting laws.
But…but… leftists, unlike rightists, are the devil’s spawn!!!
Sadly, it’s true. Leftists are libertarian devil spawn.
Now could you be bothered to visit the link in my sig and post on my blog, or do you really like these “fun with labels” threads?
I need your opinion on my latest post.
Statist-leftist or the current modern leftist’s yes; I was referring the to the sometimes ignored “original” leftism that libertarianism descended from, but some don’t like to bother with histories of terms or words. That’s a semantic hole that’s been thoughly grudged through before though :.
As for your blog, I’m sorry I don’t remember you asking me to visit it lol. I think “Liberty Observer” is probably the best choice out of the 3 names your considering, although I would probably try and think of something a bit more different though, as plenty of sites have the word “Liberty” in it.
No, Nicky, these statists were clearly rioting in favor of keeping the regulations; they weren’t chanting anti-state slogans, they were chanting pro-state and anti-market slogans.
It’s funny that you want to pretend that these leftist thugs are really pro-market; would you give the same benefit to Hitler and his thugs? When they were chanting their pro-state slogans and destroying others’ property, were they just “rioting against the situation”, or were they anti-Jew and pro-state?
Let’s be consistent, my leftist friend. [:)]
Again, no, see my signature.
You keep trying to push the wild-eyed theory that “left” means liberty and “right” means tyranny. You can use whatever definition you want, but FDR, Ted Kennedy, Cesar Chavez, Noam Chomsky, Barrack Obama, Hugo Chavez, and other leftists are not pro-liberty; they’re as pro-state as you can be. I’ll leave it to others to guess what reasons you have for insisting otherwise.