« venal, stupid, mendacious | Main | arrivistes »

November 18, 2006



What's particularly revealing about Thatcher's comments is that it is conditions which have absolutely nothing to do with the unacceptability of mass murder and torture that make mass murder and torture unacceptable for her. Of course, mass murder and torture are unacceptable because the public won't stand for it: how could I have possibly thought that it had anything to do with the fact that they're really, really terrible things to do.


Watch out, you've been DeLonged.


"if Hayek’s preference was for a liberal dictatorship."

It wasn't, as any fool knows.

What you are quoting from "Hayek" is an English translation of a Spanish text which itself was translated by someone from English into Spanish. These aren't Hayek's actual words, they've been through the "telephone game."

In the 1980s Hayek was sonstantly sick and spent most all of his time working to complete a major treatise before he would die. The evidence suggests the man simply wasn't spending much time collecting international intelligence on the happenings on the ground in countries around the world. He certainly wasn't spending much time reading piles of newspaper. So where is the evidence that Hayek actually know what Pinochet had done? There isn't any -- only repeated evidence that Hayek was in the dark about this.

You don't strike me as a honest individual so this all likely falls on deaf ears.

Barry Freed

Ive argued before that many of Chinas anti subversion laws like those against causing turmoil or disturbing social order - have a Hayekian feel to them.

Where-where-where is the linky goodness?

BTW, PrestoPundit, you've mispelled "Stalin."

The comments to this entry are closed.

friends blogs


Blog powered by Typepad

my former home