The set of instances of market failure is the empty set.

SUPERMARKETS + SHOPPING MALLS = REAL CHOICE

Sol is a phony

Apparently it doesn’t include Jason & Helen… which is strange because they seem like standard libertarians. But can I assume it does include “pommy”? He actually believes in far more government intervention than Helen & Jason and is firmly on the “moderate” side.

I’m going to need more than a penny for that thought. Standard award for a dues-paid member of the International Order of The Sardonic, Insouciant and Allied Unions of my level - 10th, I have a saving throw vs GMB of 8 - is at least twenty-five cents per word; and reading this is considered agreement to a standard shrink-wrap user license. I’ll have my people talk to your people.

A penny for your thoughts, all.

CO2-bedwetters

Giving yourself away there, Herr Vogel.

∀(leftist ∈ left):(leftist ∈ humorless)
∀(rightist ∈ right):(rightist ∈ humorless)
∃(centre):[∀(centrist ∈ centre):(centrist ∉ humorless)]
(gilmae ∈ centre) ∴ (gilmae ∉ humorless)

∀(leftist ∈ left):(leftist ∈ humorless)
∀(rightist ∈ right):∀(rightist ∈ humorless)
∃(centre):[&forall(centrist &isin centre):(centrist ∉ humorless)]
(gilmae ∈ centre) ∴ (gilmae ∉ humorless)

∀(leftist ∈ left):(leftist ∈ humorless)
∀(rightist ∈ right):∀(leftist ∈ left)
∃(centre):[&forall(centrist ∈ centre):(centrist ∉ humorless)]
(gilmae ∈ centre) ∴ (gilmae ∉ humorless)

Especially for you, Jacques.

The immediate issue, in all my comments from 38 on, has been the question “was pommygranate’s post grossly sexist”? So far, no-one’s produced a convincing, cogent argument to demonstrate that it wasn’t.

… how better to resolve the concerns of individuals with egalitarian tendencies that government that is based on libertarian principles does not threaten collective action but actually enhances the legitimacy of voluntary collective action and removes the stigma of coercion from progressive thought.

Excuse me if I refrain from editing this gargantuan incoherency. All it amounts to is a statement of an obvious problem for libertarians: how do you convince people that libertarianism doesn’t threaten the creation of an oppressive society where people are actively prevented from joining together to assert their common interests? Especially when libertarian algebra holds that:

collective = coercive gang of thugs.

Of course, despite all appearances to the contrary, one shouldn’t fall into the trap of thinking that every organised group of people is a collective. That is:

libertarian organisation ≠ collective
LDP ≠ collective (but Liberal Party = collective, ALP = worse collective, Greens = even worse collective)
corporation ≠ collective (and trade union = almost the worst collective imaginable, if it weren’t for the existence of the ACTU).

Well, that’s a problem that you’re just never going to solve, for reasons that will be obvious to anyone whose thinking isn’t strait-jacketed by the notion that you can build a social philosophy by deductive reasoning from a set of simple axioms or abstract models of how people would behave in a “state of nature”. Anyone, that is, but a libertarian.

You take a cheap shot at Claire Wolf for expressing opinion, and a cheap shot at me for defending individualists. Or don’t individualist count in your great collective? Aren’t we being opressed by the system? Aren’t libertarians voices ignored? Don’t we qualify for your great and good sympathy?

The issue isn’t whether women can identify with libertarian principles of non-violence and voluntary interaction, but how better to resolve the concerns of individuals with egalitarian tendencies that government that is based on libertarian principles does not threaten collective action but actually enhances the legitimacy of voluntary collective action and removes the stigma of coercion from progressive thought.