Re: "Are you saying that any analysis or opinion that is not grounded on some Rothbardian piece is not educational and therefore inadequate?
One cannot hold non-libertarian points of view here? And is Rothbard the sole acceptable source on libertarian views?"
Do you know what this is Toxic?
It’s a graphical representation of your whole line of discussion.
Re: “…but you are the first one who is close to say it out loud.”
Done no such thing. Nor would I.
Re: “Of course, one could also add widely known quotes from Hayek and Friedman where they express a view that is more receptive to the expedients of political violence in Chile at the time of Pinochet.”
Perhaps. The point I was making, and you glaringly missed was that any of that would be a step above the calibre of comments that has become the norm.
- Pinochet and Capitalism?
- Shock Therapy
- Hayek, M. Friedman and Pinochet
- Friedman and Chile: What Really Happened?
- 1973 Chilean coup d’état
- The Chilean Experiment…did it work?
Re: "I’m sure both understood the abstract principles abided by Rothbard, but they also understood that inflexible abstract principles are not always useful in real world scenarios.
But who knows, maybe they are both closet-socialists, right?**"
Embarrassing. Not closet, no - statists for sure - and by definition; “socialism being an institutionalized policy of aggression against property” with “capitalism being an institutionalized policy of the recognition of property and contractualism.” Then yes, I could wax lyrical about how both Friedman and Hayek weren’t consistent… or libertarian on an extensive amount of issues; let alone Austrian.. but why bother; go do your own research - perhaps begin with searching this forum like you should have done above.