sageoftruth wrote:Hey, Blumkin? Who said, "In a free society, things improve on their own."? It sounds interesting and I'd like the chance to follow the arguments behind the person who said it. As of now, I've only ever heard libertarian arguments from you and my one friend from the NRA, who's too wrapped up in conspiracy theories for me to take him seriously, so I'd feel much better-equipped for this discussion if you could recommend some online/offline reading materials.
Well, I was thinking I heard it in a John Stossel piece (I'm an admitted John Stossel fanboy
), and after Googling it, lo and behold, it turns out he was the originator of that line -- that is, unless he heard it from someone else prior and simply paraphrased it, but that's the only thing I could find in the little time I spent Googling that exact line. Also, I stumbled on this short, simple article that I think sums up a lot of positions I have rather nicely. Trust me, it's a short read, and nothing complicated, even if you find some things disagreeable or controversial:
http://www.atlassociety.org/ele/self-he ... ee-societyAnyway, I really enjoy Stossel's pieces. He goes into a lot of things I don't think other journalists -- at least on TV that is -- bother with, such as laws that prevented a woman from using an old mansion she bought for a bed and breakfast place, and how the New York cab medallions prevent small cab companies from being able to compete with the big ones. I'm watching one right now on how Obamacare will affect our health care system, and alternatives to it that would improve our health care system (e.g. they feature a hospital that posts their prices for surgeries online).
As for conspiracy theories, you know, I'm really not too good with those. I don't know much about any particular conspiracy theory. The problem with my ignorance on them is:
a. I don't usually have a great deal of interest in them in the first place. Usually I find more "relateable" issues, such as with health care and foreign policy, more interesting. The "conspiracy theory" stuff may very well be important to understand, but I just usually find myself prioritizing the other stuff.
b. It's so damn hard to sort out the truth from the bullshit! Usually with other controversial issues, such as the War on Drugs, it's much easier to have or find representatives on each side of the issue directly debating one another, or at least countering each others' points indirectly, i.e. articles that aren't written in a "back-and-forth" debate. I can then sort out what I feel is more true or effective. With conspiracy theories, I'll hear one thing for maybe why the conspiracy is bull, but then another person will give a totally new reason I've never heard before why it's true. For example, there's a lot of talk of how the Twin Towers crumbled like they were destroyed by a controlled demolition, but I've heard reasons for why they fell that way, but then I'll hear a completely new explanation for how they were deliberately demolished. I hope I'm explaining this clearly, but with conspiracy theories, I feel as if someone could give almost any reason for why the conspiracy theory is true, and that the onus is on the person who disbelieve the conspiracy theory, as in, "Well, if the conspiracy theory's not true, then how do you explain such and such?" To me it is often a big hassle to sort out, especially since so often the non-conspiracy theory side is (allegedly) always "hiding the truth".
I will say, however, I'm more inclined to believe a conspiracy theory if the CIA is involved. The stuff that's on record that the CIA HAS done is quite shocking, so there's really no telling of what other horrors and atrocities they've been involved in. CIA = large criminal organization, funded in part by our tax dollars. (Note the "in part" part, meaning they get some outside of Congress....)