Can we have a civil, thoughtful discussion on this?

I don't particularly care what you call me. I care about principles. Your principles are that you want to use the institution of government force to violate the person and property of peaceful people in order to achieve your own ends. I don't.

 

Does neoliberalism consider violence against innocent people unacceptable? Then I guess I am one.

 

Neoliberalism is violent. It uses free market economics to inflame economic rents to the detriment of the worst off in our societies. You support that, you pretend otherwise.

 

An example of this violence you say I support, please?

 

Your fake libertarianism is Neoliberalism 101. I don't expect you to acknowledge that. Hey, you're a victim no less. Demand a cuddle!

 

There is nothing peaceful about forcibly removing people's liberty to feed themselves and calling it your "property."

 

What did the government do to the indigenous people who wanted to continue to exercise their liberty to use the land after that liberty was forcibly removed and made into landowners' private property?

 

I have to admit, the irony is amusing.

One one hand, you have a neo-Marxist offering up shyte from "Monopoly Capital", a so called "new" approach to a long disproven economic theory that was based upon one the historically most brutal regimes history has ever known.

On the other hand, you have another guy saying "give the land to government, let them sort it out" like government abuse of power has never in the history of mankind has ever happened.

The end result: a couple of statist that supports the most violent, brutal concept ever devised by man is accusing you of supporting violence against otherwise peaceful people's. Government has killed more people and infringed upon the rights of more people than any machinations of man.

That's called irony.

 

Can you provide any specific examples of the violence you allude to?

Oh wait. I already asked you this, and you were impotent to do so.

 

I don't advocate violating anyone's liberty. You do.

 

You want me to show your impotence and you call my argument impotent to try and dodge? Ooo, aren't you cunning? Are you really that ignorant of how neoliberalism has enforced inequalities worse than even Victorian times? If so, well done in maximising your ideological uselessness.

 

I know. It's tedious. They both advocate using the force of government to violate the person and property of peaceful people, and all they can do is claim that I am the one wanting to do so.

 

You claimed that I'm a neoliberal and that neoliberal is violent. When asked for an example of neoliberalism violating the person or property of peaceful people, you come up with....well, pretty much nothing but bloviating.

 

Talking to a fellow that can't even debate and then referring to tedium is great! You did good

 

Neoliberalism is based on free market economics. Are you denying your support for free market economics? If so, how?

 

Your dodging won't change the fact that you advocate using the force of the state to violate the person and property of peaceful people in order to achieve your ends.

 

I support property rights (including property rights in one's body) and the ability to freely engage in contractual transfers of said property.

You, OTOH, advocate using government force to violate the bodies and property of peaceful people in order to advance your own personal agenda.

 

Dodge? How can I dodge a fellow that hides from debating? Please try and make sense.

 

You believe in free markets. In reality you are fodder for neoliberalism. Its unfortunate that you have no real individualism.

 

Do you deny that you advocate using the force of the state to violate the bodies and property of peaceful people?

 

Please be honest in the comment. You replied to someone that deliberately hides from debate. Do you think that is consistent with individualism?

 

I just told you I did.

So, which do you find offensive? The support for property rights (including property rights in one's own body)? Or do you find the ability to freely engage in contractual transfers of one's property offensive? The first? The second? Both?

 

Ah, now the flailing.

You appear to be out of arguments. That didn't take long.

 

I love your perceived application of innocence. You're either innocent of the inconsistency of opinion and reality, or you are an ideologue. Either way you support outcomes which activively harm individualism. Take, for example, the minimum wage. Don't you blubber about it, despite how it reduces economic rent?

 

Chortle, chortle, the fakes don't have an economic argument. They just herd