Quote:
Originally Posted by MVW
How would you ensure greater access to capital without curtailing the freedom of others?
|
I'd simply limit absentee ownership in some way, depending on the area. Now I'm pretty sure your definition of freedom equals lockean property rights so you'll find that a scandalous attack on freedom no matter the context, but if you have a more profound idea of freedom, humanity and society you certainly would not automatically jump to such conclusions.
Quote:
|
"economic decentralism" sounds like code words for socialism to me
|
Depends how you define the word socialism. It has several definition depending on your opinion or knowledge of it. I'm certainly not scared of the word socialist however. And I don't support centralised state ownership nor in most circumstances any other kind of enforced collective ownership and wish to see great independence for the individual.
Quote:
|
Having read and watched alot of Friedman I can only disagree with that assessment. Just because he prefers freedom for all does not mean he is for big business, tho that is how some ,intentionally, describe him.
|
I have read alot of his work too. I find him both not radical enough and too simplistic. Although that is an accusation I can level at much of American style libertarianism. Not that I don't admire it and I'm influenced by it, it is just one of my least favourite libertarian and decentralist movements.
Quote:
|
The way I see it if you are not for freedom for all, you are not for freedom at all.
|
The way I see it is that if you simply define freedom in terms of a lockean idea of property rights then you are being simplistic and certainly do not have all the answers for human political and social organisation.