Decent puff piece for the masses but I would have left out the word libertarian as I think that instantly dooms any chance at publication. Besides I've seen no evidence he's a libertarian at all, just a free marketeer and while sure no true Scotsman, when he fails, as he will, libertarianism will get the blame for generations to come wit…
Decent puff piece for the masses but I would have left out the word libertarian as I think that instantly dooms any chance at publication. Besides I've seen no evidence he's a libertarian at all, just a free marketeer and while sure no true Scotsman, when he fails, as he will, libertarianism will get the blame for generations to come with worldwide detractors using it as an example hence why associate him with something he's not to it's detriment.
I'm not going to get into a stupid argument about "not a real libertarian!" but even on your terms if you were 100% correct your criticism still doesn't make sense. Why would labeling him a "free marketeer" instead of "libertarian" be any better if you think it's just going to result in "blame for generations" by "worldwide detectors"? Why would the free market taking the blame be better than libertarianism. Makes no sense.
Because support of free markets are lip service supported by many other mainstream ideologies as well hence it doesn't hurt libertarianism by being besmirched when he fails as a free marketeer. Free markets have nothing to do with libertarianism, it's just a positive secondary affect of it so why undermine your marketing by tying yourself to a known upcoming failure. Even if he succeeds though, it will have nothing to do with libertarian policies hence once again, why champion him.
Decent puff piece for the masses but I would have left out the word libertarian as I think that instantly dooms any chance at publication. Besides I've seen no evidence he's a libertarian at all, just a free marketeer and while sure no true Scotsman, when he fails, as he will, libertarianism will get the blame for generations to come with worldwide detractors using it as an example hence why associate him with something he's not to it's detriment.
I'm not going to get into a stupid argument about "not a real libertarian!" but even on your terms if you were 100% correct your criticism still doesn't make sense. Why would labeling him a "free marketeer" instead of "libertarian" be any better if you think it's just going to result in "blame for generations" by "worldwide detectors"? Why would the free market taking the blame be better than libertarianism. Makes no sense.
Because support of free markets are lip service supported by many other mainstream ideologies as well hence it doesn't hurt libertarianism by being besmirched when he fails as a free marketeer. Free markets have nothing to do with libertarianism, it's just a positive secondary affect of it so why undermine your marketing by tying yourself to a known upcoming failure. Even if he succeeds though, it will have nothing to do with libertarian policies hence once again, why champion him.