tReason.com would never post anything that goes against the idea that the free market is perfect and always corrects itself, in spite of an avalanche of evidence to the contrary.
That's not really fair, since we don't have actual free markets with which to run the experiment.
They're sort of like Ann Coulter, but replace the name calling with a smug sense of self-superiority.
Enh, probably, but that's endemic to political commentators of all stripes.
It was no less silly than the rest of the comment.
Sure it is, for the elite, just like the corporatism we have here.
Sorry, but if you don't like it, move out of their basement.
They can't even keep heroin out of prisons, how hard can it be to sneak a mobile phone in there?
The Americans have a much better approach to dissent than the Chinese do. Instead of all that expensive suppression of speech, just let people say whatever they want... and then ignore the shit out of them.
will they have the stink that other online schools get??
UOFP get's a lot of that and they have real in person class rooms as well.
They have so many classrooms that it's silly to call Phoenix an online school, unless you also want to include on that list other schools that offer both online and campus based programs, like Berkeley, Georgetown, Brandeis, UNC-Chapel Hill, George Washington University, University of Virginia, etc.
If this is the crux of their value proposition, they are fucked.
They seem to talk the most about all the cool swipey stuff, so it seems their value proposition is ease of use, or something like that. They also mention docking your phone into something with a charger that's connected to keyboard, mouse, and display, thereby having the same device be your computer, which sounds potentially cool.
No, actually he didn't say it that way at all. (And I'm libertarian, so it's not like I wouldn't join you in saying so if you were right.)
It measn "crown" in those various Klingon dialects.
Hmm. Okay, you're right.
What got me, though, is that in most political conversations, when people talk negatively about "capitalism", they're rightfully pointing out the externalities of corporatism but wrongfully blaming laissez faire capitalism. I believe that most people (especially progressives), don't understand that there's a significant difference, and it makes them erroneously conclude that free market advocates are pleased with corporatism, which gets in the way of what otherwise might be useful discussion.
I find it curious that you gave the correct definition of socialism in your other post, but then get capitalism wrong like that.
It's not so curious when you remember that different people from different schools of thought become accustomed to different definitions. But I can see how that lends itself to confusion when people try to communicate across ideological divides. I was referring to capitalism in a sort of Ayn Rand sense. But you're right that I should have made that clear, and I do recognize that your definition is at least as valid.
In fairness, though, I can actually understand why people bringing out the example of the Soviet Union would annoy a true socialist, because as a libertarian it annoys me when people describe the system in countries like the U.S. as capitalist. It's not even close -- when the policy makers of a powerful central state cooperate with executives who run large businesses for mutual advantage, that's corporatism, not capitalism.
(Because it's Christmas I thought I'd give you a real answer in addition to the sarcastic one.)
So, the workers own the means of production in Canada and Germany? I wasn't aware of that.
That must be why the USSR was an environmentalist's paradise!~
New York... when civilization falls apart, remember, we were way ahead of you. - David Letterman
