Oh well, I guess I’m a socalist. I presume we’re going with the “Rothbard doesn’t approve of” definition of socialist?
no the standard definition of promoting socialisation.
Err, yes, it is. I suggest you do some reading on this, before you make such silly assertions.
Lighthouses, for one.
And I’ve done that, where?
in whatever product line you value that you notice is already part socialised. or didnt you understand what you wrote?
That’s all you’re really saying, apart from misrepresenting what I’ve said. But if you wish to say that I’m a socialist because I value the education the state provides. Knock yourself out calling me an education commie, I’ll admit it though, so there’s no burden of proof on me anymore.
Ok, now give me something that hasn’t been shot down.
very good. Stanley
Tell me who has shot it down and where, and I will.
Ronald Coase. “The Lighthouse in Economics”. Journal of Law and Economics 17 (2): 357–376
Now give me something that hasn’t been shot down.
Either you’ve not read the paper or you don’t understand what I’m saying.
Neither. And thanks for conceding.
Lol, OK.
really? is it really ok Giles?
I don’t see how its on him.
Socialist? Coercive or voluntary?
Also funny: Libertarian Socialists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
What do you mean?
Be specific.
Imo, I would add that socialism cannot be voluntary, & that voluntary socialism is most likely a misnomer, since it describes essentially a type of free-market activity (I would label this as mutualist since mutualism arose from one of the original “libertarian socialists”, Prodhoun) that while non-capitalist, would not be against free-market principles.
Its all semantics.