Latin America Needs Free Trade & Drug Legalization: Q&A with WSJ's Mary Anastasia O'Grady

[CenturionTolteca]

es solamente el punto de vista de algunos gringos, no todos.

[poindexterwitkowsky]

`NAFTA has been used to whipsaw American workers' wages&benefits under the THREAT of job loss. NAFTA hurt the Mexican people because it was written with specific provisions to exclude workers' right to organize& to benefit from wages levels above those of SLAVE labor. NAFTA destroyed family farm subsistence in Mexico& caused a SURGE in ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION to the U.S. OBAMA SHOULD WITHDRAW OUR country from NAFTA& ALL FREE TRADE PURSUITS BECAUSE WITHOUT A MIDDLE CLASS THERE CAN BE NO DEMOCRACY.

[nickfl1980]

free trade is bogus. It's not free for the people, they want it to keep it free for the corporations. Look at Brazil, a rising economy only has trade agreements with who it can compete equally. What this lady is talking about is nothing more than propaganda of the BANKSTERS who messed us up here in the US. Free trade what she is talking about is nothing more than corporatism.

[derryman87]

shut the f up you dumb slut, when you said Chile is doing well. ask your self who is doing well, the rich class or the poor people? so who is the "good economy" benefiting? privatizations and capitalism is the reason why we are on a deep recession, lets remember who wrote the constitution for chile o yes it was pinochet the same fat fuck who over threw and killed Salvador Allende which was a nationalist democratically elected president of Chile... and who was behind it the CIA get right dumb ho

[MrReco12]

@derryman87

Pinochet's murderous collaborators

A tale of two armies:

watch?v=00kQorWVIsw: Chile

watch?v=cVXXNYGQFho: Venezuela

Which institution would you put your trust in? The Venezuelan military by a country mile!

[Chapulinazuladomx]

Narco-communist cuba is a disease and a threat to democracy in Mexico and USA

[MANCOINKA1]

vieja de mierda moriras como una momia vieja que no hizo nada en bien de la humanidad sino todo lo contrario perra rastrera de tus amos los imperialistass

[MANCOINKA1]

esa perra norteamericana que se lave la boca antes de hablar de nuestros paisessss quien chucha se ha creido igualada si veo aun gringo por aca le lanzo cacana basuras blancas raza inferior destructora de la humanidad y del planeta tieerraa

[Registrert]

free trade comes back 1februar :)

[stadler72]

I'm open to the idea that drugs should be legalized, but I have two questions: 1) How do we do this without preventing people from using whatever kind of drug they want (e.g. cocaine, meth, etc)? 2) Is there a way to prevent the rest of our population from feeling the effects of rampant drug use?

I can imagine answers to these questions, but I want to hear it from the Libertarians. You guys have some great thinking.

[YoungIvyScholar]

John Stossel for U.S.A. President 2012!

[SoldadoAzteca89]

No ENGLISH Speak SPANISH

[blogegog]

"Latin America Needs Free Trade & Drug Legalization"

Maybe, but they REALLY need is to have English become their first language. Countries where English is the language of choice are almost always awesome.

[NLSJ]

@blogegog Yes, like India, or Nigeria, or Zimbabwe... no, whait...

[Nexus974]

These strong men were all voted into office democratically.

They get what they deserve.

[betpagal]

Instead of getting rid of "taxpayer healthcare, job assistance, rehab, etc", how about we get rid of taxpayers? No taxpayers, no government. Perfect cause/effect.

[endospores]

you kidding me? cocaine is too big a business to legalize. Imagine the losses it would generate to all the pockets of corrupt politicians worldwide!

[TheBookbound]

what preposterous title...what about North America? the end consumer market of drugs?! dont they need to legalize drugs in the first place?

[thomaserossi]

What Latin America needs is to end Socialism and purge the left. The left has done a fine job of destroying Latin America. Just look at the difference between Chile (which has relatively few natural resources) and Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, or Venezuela. Chase out the far Left and your country will prosper.

[successfulbuild]

@thomaserossi Actually Brazil has been doing better AFTER social democracy begin coming to power, not before. The US installed Branco which led to a handful of property owners controlling over 60% of the land. This created massive inequality and poverty. Now they are reversing those effects.

_

Furthermore, what Latin America does with their own countries is none of your business. You may prefer fascists such as Ronald Reagan, Hitler, etc., but they are smart enough to know fascism !=progress

[eclecticshaman]

Prohibition obviously DOES NOT WORK.

And it has never worked in all of written history.

All it does is drive up the price of the commodity, which in turn presents an opportunity for the criminals to make all their money to create even more crime.

LEGALIZE ALL DRUGS TO WIPE OUT THE BLACK MARKET AND THE CARTELS MONEY SUPPLY COMPLETELY!

This is the only way to win this "War on Drugs".

[Underground906]

....'

All they have is one horrible dictator to shove in our faces. Just one, which they use over and over and over again, as if that somehow proves that fascism and capitalism are joined at the hip.

Wikipedia has an article on what is called "reducio ad Hitlerem". It is classified as a logical fallacy, for good reason. I see no reason why reductio ad Pinochet should be given a free pass.'

this applies to Successfulbuild and those indoctrinated idots just like him.

[Underground906]

''When agoraphobic people bring up Pinochet, they are using guilt-by-association to condemn capitalism. But why? Hasn't every nation, every religion, every ideology had its fair share of villains? If anything, capitalism has had far fewer fascists than other causes.

It would be one thing if Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Castro, and Saddam Hussein had all come to power through free-market policies and rhetoric. But they didn't'. Cont...

[successfulbuild]

The reason political scientists don't find it "dangerous" to allow Latin Americans to elect their own governments is because the ones that have -- even state communist governments that were established through "revolution" -- are far more humane in terms of human rights, especially to the poor, than the capitalist and fascist dictatorships that the US established in Chile, Argentina, Guatemala, Brazil, and on and on.

[IVoteNone]

@successfulbuild Communist states humane? All states are inhumane to an extent, but communist states are notoriously the most brutal. There is more than simple testimonial evidence to attest to this. There is audio video documentation and official transcripts from the states themselves proving the existence of such things as slave labor camps, mass human exterminations, and brutal subjegation of dissenting opinions on state policy. I don't know how you could be unaware of this.

[successfulbuild]

Maybe if the US wasn't overthrowing democratically elected regimes and installing capitalist/fascist governments that were nightmares for political dissidents and the poor, Latin Americans wouldn't be looking to "strong arm dictators" in the first place to protect them against US supported death squads, coups, and so on. Chavez has already been the victim of a failed US coup.

[IVoteNone]

@successfulbuild "Maybe if the US wasn't overthrowing democratically elected regimes..."

Nazi Germany was a democratically elected regime. Democracy doesn't automatically equal good.

[thomaserossi]

@IVoteNone - I'll take your assessment one step further. The more democratic a society becomes, the more likely it will fall to tyranny.

[successfulbuild]

@thomaserossi LOL. You are a fucking moron. There has never been a case where democracy led to fascism - and Hitler was NOT democratically elected but achieved power through a coup. You obviously know nothing of history or politics. The more advanced a country becomes democratically, the less likely it is to become fascist. Fascism comes from conservative governments whose policies failed the population, thus they turned to militarism, racism, and other false "cures" for failing capitalism.

[ryanpmurphy]

@successfulbuild Nice try. Hitler may not have been elected but he was appointed as chancellor. A coup would have to include the use of force. Mussolini was elected. Both were socialists at one time or another.

The only difference between fascism and socialism is pride in nation vs. pride in class. They are both come from the central idea that Government Elites know what is best for the individual. Because Fascists worked with big business does not make it capitalist.

[successfulbuild]

Furthermore, Chavez hasn't much done of anything that is characteristic of a massive dictatorship. He just makes a bunch of speeches, and in some of those has even promised to break Venezuela up into a bunch of socialist City states, hardly something a dictator would do.

[mendelbot]

@successfulbuild Chavez is a model of freedom. What with his suppression of political opposition. Oh yes, quite a guy. I have a friend from Venezuela and he remembers the attempted coup, with soliders on the streets. He is LOVED, I tell you, for his communistic revolutionary ways. And all the benefits to trade from his nationalization? A real success story. ;-|

[AshillaBeige]

@mendelbot Exactly; furthermore, Chile is one of the more prosperous countries in South America BECAUSE of economic liberalization thanks to Milton Friedman. He opposed Pinochet and only met him briefly like ONCE. He did it to have SOME degree of freedom there through the economy. He succeeded to some degree.

[successfulbuild]

@AshillaBeige Actually you are a fucking moron. Milton Friedman's monetarist policies led to Great Depression levels of unemployment and an INCREASE in the amount of people in poverty. From 1975 to 1983 there was little economic growth. Real economic growth came only after the early 80s, when Chile abandoned its pure monetarist policies only after social reforms, although they still remain quite poor due to the extreme inequality that was caused by failed free-market reforms.

[successfulbuild]

@AshillaBeige Working people in Chile actually made LESS money after the Friedmanite reforms than in 1979, furthermore, the income inequality led to one of the most unstable economies in the region. Their austierity programs did not work and unemployment rose from 9.1% to 18.7% from 1974 to 1975, while output fell by 12.9% - the worst recession in Chile since the 1930s.

_

Mexico went into the worst recession in its history AFTER free-market "reforms" were put into place. You are an idiot.

[successfulbuild]

@successfulbuild This pure capitalism leads to fascism since it does not work, and private industry ends up with a majority of the resources. Thus, when the inevitable political opposition forms to the inequalities and failures of the capitalist system to properly distribute resources, the government resorts to crackdown on political oppression. This is the point where democracy ends and fascism begins. The right-wing always leads to fascism. Always.

[IVoteNone]

@successfulbuild "Thus, when the inevitable political opposition forms to the inequalities and failures of the capitalist system to properly distribute resources, the government resorts to crackdown on political oppression."

What about the welfare state? If that's not a reaction to the alleged failures of the capitalist system to properly distribute resources then what the hell is it? Unions, social security, and other welfare state measures trace their roots back to the great depression.

[ryanpmurphy]

@successfulbuild Fascism falls on the left side of the spectrum politically. Fascists believe in government control. The only reason why people think Fascism is a product of capitalism is because many Fascist leaders have understood that complete control of an economy leads to paper tigers like the Soviet Union. Where they have tanks but no oil.

Fascist policies include social security insurance, unemployment insurance, military draft, and universal healthcare.

[MrReco12]

@ryanpmurphy

Lies

Fascism has always been Rightwing

[ryanpmurphy]

@MrReco12 Mussolini was a member of socialist political parties before he took control and installed his own brand of totalitarian government. NAZI = Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. It is a form of Socialism which puts the nation first. It was also originally the German Workers Party. The only major political difference is that Mussolini and Hitler did not seize all industry and all wealth, just that of their enemies.

[MrReco12]

@ryanpmurphy

Mussolini was a member of the socialist party, however he was expelled for his right wing beliefs. Indeed, Mussolini himself said "The Socialists ask what is our program? Our program is to smash the heads of the Socialists."

What did the conservatives have to say about Mussolini and Hitler?

[ryanpmurphy]

@MrReco12 So if you did what you were told you were able to keep your business. It is also interesting to note while Hitler was speaking of a superior race in Germany, it was Southern Democrats who were the most vocal about protecting segregation and other Jim Crow Laws. Many liberal intellectuals praised Mussolini in his early years for his progressive governance. Later many of those same liberal intellectuals found there way into FDR's inner circle.

[MrReco12]

@ryanpmurphy

"What a man! I have lost my heart!... Fascism has rendered a service to the entire world... If I were Italian, I am sure I would have been with you entirely from the beginning of your victorious struggle against the bestial appetites and passion of Leninism.:

-Sir Winston Churchill

"Thank Heaven for a man like Adolf Hitler, who built a front line of defense against the anti-Christ of Communism"

-Franklin Nathaniel Daniel Buchman

[MrReco12]

@ryanpmurphy

"Was it social security? Or maybe unemployment insurance? Maybe it was the draft?"

Germany had social security before Hitler, indeed Hitler actually threw the "work shy" into concentration camps, the Nazis actually took away social security from millions of people(Jews, leftwingers etc).

What else makes Hitler a capitalist?

-abolished the minimum wage, destroyed trade unions to benefit big business, gave slave labor to big capital, the first nation in the world to privit..

[ryanpmurphy]

@MrReco12 Hitler, like liberals today and in his time believe in group politics. It was his group verses the Jews and communists (who Hitler identified as his biggest rivals and that is why he brought about their destruction). Liberals today speak of the fight between rich and poor, men and women, black and white etc, meanwhile ignoring the fundamental issue underlining all of the issues between these groups: individual rights. Capitalism is a system which defends individual rights.

[MrReco12]

@ryanpmurphy

Democracy is group politics. The link should have worked: it was about the coup in Chile. Google it :D

I consider O'Grady to a vile women. Chavez is not a dictator, he was democratically elected.

[ryanpmurphy]

@MrReco12 Really? I don't go down to the voting booth with all the white male business owners aged 30-35 who share my income level to vote. What I mean by group politics is one group of people fighting for favors or special treatment under the law. Group politics brings us slavery, Japanese internment camps, Jim Crow Laws, racial quotas, title 9, etc. The democratic process should be about individuals and rights.

Mussolini was elected and so was Ahmadinejad, both were/are fanatical dictators.

[MrReco12]

@ryanpmurphy

Mussolini was never elected.

clvi rights act, democracy, universal education, universal human rights are also examples of group politics.

Chavez saved his nation from Right wing terrorists!

[ryanpmurphy]

@MrReco12 That does not mean there are not instances of that system failures to do so, slavery and Jim Crow laws are good examples of when men perverted capitalism by claiming their right to take away the rights of another. So basically Hitler's one action as a capitalist, abolishing a minimum wage.

[MrReco12]

@ryanpmurphy

Privatized large sectors of the economy. Not many people know this.

Hitler was the father of privitisation, long before Thathcer and Reagan thought about it. As for the Democrats and the GOP. Lincoln would be disgusted in what his PROGRESSIVE party turned too, a facist party whose supporters constantly incite hatred against Muslims and Arabs in general.

eg: The GOP was responsible for putting this man in power:

Reagan opposed the civl rights act because he was a fascist,

[ryanpmurphy]

@MrReco12 I am not and will not defend the GOP nor will I defend Reagan or the words of Winston Churchill. If you think destroying trade unions, and providing slave labor to corporations is capitalism, you need to pick up a dictionary. A true capitalist does not control anything but what belongs to him. He respects individual rights above all else, and he rejects collectivism in all forms. You mistake capitalism for conservatism, but they are not the same.

[ryanpmurphy]

@MrReco12 "Hitler was the father of privitisation." Only if you ignore of the Magna Carta Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Private ownership is the central tenant of individual freedom. If the individual cannot own the means of his own production he is a slave.

[MrReco12]

@successfulbuild

Well said!

[successfulbuild]

Furthermore, he really has't "nationalized" anything at all, for it merely consists of the state forcing the companies to sell their interests until the state has a 51% stake, and enforce an income tax and spend oil revenues, which were always, even before Chavez, state revenues in the first place.

[successfulbuild]

"Colombia has been the leading recipient of US arms and training in the western hemisphere through the 1990's. It has also had the worst human rights record by far in the western hemisphere during these years. That correlation is one of the best correlations in contemporary history... It's very important correlation which should be known and understood by the people who are paying for it. That's us. And it will get worse. "

[successfulbuild]

"If you make it impossible for peasants to survive, and when they produce the only thing they can produce to feed their children, and then you go after them with biological and chemical weapons and gunships, they're going to go deeper into the Amazon, cross the border into Ecuador and grow more drugs. The narcotraffickers and the military will gain. That's more or less the same people.

[successfulbuild]

That's more or less the same people. The same number of landowners who have taken over most of the wealth of the country are going to gain. .. That's the result of Colombia's plan."

[successfulbuild]

Colombia actually has the worst human rights violations pretty much in all of Latin America - see human rights watch. The paramilitaries are funded by the United States in order to "fight drugs" even though they have links to drug trafficking.

_

More proof Libertarians are more about fascism than they are about liberty.

[thomaserossi]

@successfulbuild - You're too stupid and indoctrinated to understand fascism or liberty.

[successfulbuild]

@thomaserossi Fascism is Ronald Reagan's policies, not Chavez. Chavez was elected with over 60% of the vote and his country is moving away from Fascism by putting resources in public control - not towards it. Fascism is when the government protects private business entities - such as the Nazis and their denationalizing the majority of industries. Hitler himself said that businessmen had "worked their way to the top" and thus "had the right to lead" - and, like Mussolini, lowered taxes on rich.

[kev3d]

@successfulbuild That is completely untrue, and you need to read Ludwig Von Mises' essay on Hitlers rise to power. Von Mises was not only an Austrian and a Jew who lived through that period, but he was also an economist, thus he had exceptionally clear insight into the motivations of the Third Reich. Repeating the myth that Fascists were somehow "capitalists on steroids" does not make it true.

[MrReco12]

@kev3d

Von mises was a fool. Albert Speer and Gregor Strasser make it perfectly clear that the Nazis were capitalists!

[ryanpmurphy]

@MrReco12 please enlighten me on what Nazi Policies make them capitalists? Was it social security? Or maybe unemployment insurance? Maybe it was the draft?

[MrReco12]

@ryanpmurphy

What would have been Lincolns reaction when he saw Reagan oppose the civl rights act?

watch?v=00kQorWVIsw: What would he have said when his party helped overthrow a democracy to install a fascist dictator?

[ryanpmurphy]

@MrReco12 Your link didn't work. And once again I am not defending the actions of the GOP, they are not capitalists, they are collectivists masquerading as capitalists.

[successfulbuild]

@thomaserossi The United States' wars against Latin America in the examples I mentioned led to 6 million deaths. Reagan's encouragement alone of civil wars led to about a million deaths. They know that free-market Friedmanomics does not work - it doesn't work in Latin America, and it didn't work in early American times when the vast majority of resources were controlled by a handful of property owners. 

[TheRichestCadaver]

Uribe did not protect people from rural areas. Uribe took the war to the rural areas turning it into hell otherwise we wouldn't have some many people from rural areas seeking refuge in other areas of Colombia and Ecuador.

As you say "The solution won't come from Washington" neither from WallStreet.

[successfulbuild]

The free-market economies in Latin America led to millions of deaths - millions of more people were in poverty AFTER the free-market reforms than before. While Haiti - a starving island - was enduring free-market reforms their GDP went up but their food consumption went down, largely because they were shipping food to the US. Kids in Brazil spent their lives on the streets sniffing glue after the free-market reforms, odd, because Brazil was awash in resources.

[successfulbuild]

What an absolutely moronic video from ReasonTV. Latin America suffered precisely because of their free-market reforms, implemented under brutal oppression by Operation Condor. The free-market economist Milton Friedman and the "Chicago boys" basically set up the free-market experiment in Chile, and it led to 25% unemployment (about Great Depression levels) and no productive output.

[Underground906]

@successfulbuild Where do your one-sided garbage infomation from you obnoxious fool? Typical left-Wing ideologues passing for scholars no doubt. You're a idiot of the highest order becuase you think you're educated. You all have the same little arguments.''Friedman''. ''Chicago boys''. ''Free Markets''. ''American backed opression'', etc. You have no understanding beyond regurgitating left-wing reaction to those things. No credible facts given. Just distortions and omissions as usual.

[saper321]

Regime change in Venezuela and Bolivia is needed ASAP. Hopefully they will be able to get those socialist dictators out of there.

[fitobcnfito]

Chile was condemned because of Pinochet (not a secret, the USA - CIA place him in power, and controlled that).

BTW Chile, the example she mentions for all, with Pinochet had extreme free market with almost no taxing (as libertarians want) and 0 social care spend (since they had little income), what has changed in much is exactly that, gaining freedom for all and stability, since money from the mining has been placed back to society making it more equal for all.

[saper321]

@fitobcnfito

"extreme free market" lol

So what a communist like yourself doing at Libertarian channel???

[fitobcnfito]

@saper321 communist nope, anarchist, and free market will be perfect, only if we have all the same opportunities.

Not place a dictatorship, distribute property of mines and land, and later on say: "OK, no is free market and you are all free" WTF? That is not freedom.

I’m in a Libertarian channel, to denounce the hypocrisy of this fake US libertarians, JFYI LIBERTARIOS are long time existing political force in Europe, but are opposite to you, and are all anarchists.

[fitobcnfito]

@saper321 watch?v=tSSyR75aYag

let me introce you to the real LIBERTARIANS, the people who fighted against fascists in europe.

[saper321]

@fitobcnfito

So first people like you stole the "Liberal" liberal from us, and now you are trying to steal "Libertarian" label too? GTFO you fucking communist scum.

[successfulbuild]

@saper321 Nobody stole the word liberal you moron. Liberals supported community rights and the rights of communities to regulate as they saw fit. They also supported regulation on capitalism and Smith said that the workers had the right to implement any regulation that would benefit them. Rousseau, Smith, von Humboldt (who said that workers owned what they created), and so on were all LEFT-WING you fucking idiot.

_

The first person to use "libertarian" was a marxist, retard.

[priapus512]

@successfulbuild Wow, how ignorant do you have to be to say Rousseau was a Classical Liberal? Tocqueville, Bastiat, Ricardo, Molinari, Mises, these are Classical Liberals, not Rousseau or "Mr. Labor Theory of Value" Adam Smith.

What are called liberals here in the U.S. are called Social Democrats everywhere else. Using Liberal to mean leftists was first coined by John Dewey because the word social/socialist didn't sell well in America.

[successfulbuild]

@priapus512 Rousseau inspired the French radicals of his time and was so far to the left that was forced to flee France. Bastiat was a conservative idiot whose work is filled with philosophical errors and discredited thinking.

_

Mises said that to be a liberal one didn't even need to read the classical-liberals but instead follow his mysticism. So, according to Mises in order to understand liberalism we don't need to read and understand it, as you do not (evidenced by your comments on Smith).

[successfulbuild]

@priapus512 Most people value scholars opinions, not the crackpots at the Mises Institute and the corporate funded research magazine. Dumb ass.

[successfulbuild]

@priapus512 You are fucking retarded. The classical liberals (the real ones who opposed unlimited private property and favored democracy, like de Tocqueville, although he was a racist so he did have some right-wing views) were left-wing because in 1789 they sat on the left side of the French National Assembly, a parliamentary body, which was designed to move power from the king to the citizenry. The members of the third estate were revolutionaries, the others members of the nobility (right).

[successfulbuild]

@successfulbuild The vast majority of the left-wingers blamed property for the sins of man kind and were leftist. They were liberals. Rousseau was definitely a liberal and was the first to suggest that man kind could exist without a government. "Modern anarchism sprang from the secular or religious thought of the Enlightenment, particularly Jean-Jacques Rousseau's arguments for the moral centrality of freedom.[36] " He said government should be for the people or "get out of the way" - liberal.

[priapus512]

@successfulbuild Well I guess you can define a word how ever the hell you want, however your definition of both Liberalism and Fascism differ radically from how they were traditionally defined if you call Ludwig von Mises a Fascist and Rousseau a Classical Liberal.

[successfulbuild]

@priapus512 LOL. Priapaus gets his information from "fringeelements" - a little 19 year old kid who lives in his mother's basement and has no training in political science or economics.

_

Typical retarded "right-winger."

[BIackOp]

@successfulbuild You call all your "opponents" x year old kids who lives in his mother's basement as some magic way to debunk the argument; which is nothing more than a red herring/ad hominem fallacy. The biggest joke is you have no fucking clue, also, its impossible to have basements where I live as they would be under the sea level and how do you know my mom is alive? You just assert like everything else, trying to make a baseless claim that we can't provide for ourselves, trolling.

[successfulbuild]

@priapus512 "called social democrats everywhere else."

_

That's not true. The Liberal Democrats in Britain are left-wing. Also, Russell (a real liberal unlike that fascist, racist piece of shit Ludwig Mises) was considered a liberal and a descendant of the British aristocracy. John Stuart Mill was liberal and socialist. etc.

_

Furthermore, "liberal philosophy" in all countries means left-wing.

_

[thomaserossi]

@successfulbuild - Betrand Russell is the perfect example of an arrogant, know-it-all Liberal atheist who gleefully sided with communism as the ultimate means to achieve world peace. Only an intellectual could believe something so idiotic. The fact that they chose Nero's cross as their symbol is evidence enough that the exact opposite would occur. But I can't expect an indoctrinated Libtard to understand this.

[thomaserossi]

@successfulbuild - Betrand Russell is the perfect example of an arrogant, know-it-all Liberal atheist who gleefully sided with communism as the ultimate means to achieve world peace. Only an intellectual could believe something so idiotic. The fact that they chose Nero's cross as their symbol is evidence enough that the exact opposite would occur. Intellectuals are among the dumbest people who ever lived. Chomsky is another fine example.

[successfulbuild]

@thomaserossi You are a moron who doesn't know anything about economics and actually think the privatize sector is the one who invented the internet - when in fact the private sector uses the protocols that were invented by the government. TCP/IP maps to the seven layer model, furthermore, big corporations receive enormous tax payer funds.

_

This moron actually left a comment on my page claiming Ebay helps people in the third world. A typical deluded right-wing conservative idiot.

[kev3d]

@successfulbuild It is true that the Defense department funded early internet research, however networks were already being created ever since phones and stock-tickers had been invented. The developers of TCP/IP were already engineers working in that field. But, due to the government monopoly, development was slow, clunky and small. At best it was a military curiosity. But, once made public, it exploded as a place for ideas and commerce.

[kev3d]

@successfulbuild And yes, Ebay does help people in the third world and I will give you an example; I was in Cambodia and I happened across some pretty scarves for sale, rather than buy one for me, I bought 11, one for me and the other 10 to sell on Ebay. The scarf maker made a profit and so did I, ebay and paypal got a small slice and of course, 10 people got some interesting scarves. Everyone was benefited but the scarf maker most of all.

[successfulbuild]

@thomaserossi Bertrand Russell did not "side with communism" and in fact advocated war against any Russian aggression. Russell had ten times the intelligence of pseudo-intellectual like Ludwig Mises.

[fitobcnfito]

@saper321 Libertarian is not that I try to steal it as a name for a political position, is the word used for the CNT-FAI-PUM syndicalism in Spain for the past century, it's not news, it has always been so, the new ones stealing terms from anarchists are you.

google LIBERTARIOS (direct spanish translation of libertarians), and gt ready for news in your cse, not news for the rest.

[yourjunk420]

@kristopheraugust Not a bad idea either.

[xdeathlessxonex]

the interviewer needs to cut his hair and get some professional clothes. Also the crack about most of your viewers embracing the druggie lifestyle only makes you look silly.

[B190489]

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was the 35th President of Brazil and a founding member of the socialist Workers' Party.

"Under Lula, Brazil became the world's eighth-largest economy, more than 20 million people rose out of acute poverty and Rio de Janeiro was awarded the 2016 Summer Olympics, the first time the Games will be held in South America."

— The Washington Post, October 2010

[rubberfire101]

I am for allowing individuals the right to be free to choose whether to use and or sell drugs; however, they must bear the full cost of their decision to do so. In other words, no taxpayer healthcare, job assistance, rehab, etc... There should be no special "rights" granted to drug users for job protection or anything else. Employers should be free to hire and pay whoever whatever they want. Freedom only works if it exists; otherwise, you replace bad incentives w/ new bad incentives.

[yourjunk420]

@rubberfire101 Not a bad idea. Maybe rehab should still be available for next to nothing only because it would be good for them and society, especially if they are seeking it...

[mendelbot]

@rubberfire101 It's so easy for libertarians to be flippant about this. I seriously question of the wisdom of allowing people to give up their freedom.

It's an awfully lot like a libertarian advocating legislatively paving the way to government control. It just seems like there is a tension there which is a complex issue, but a lot of libertarians treat it like an easy issue, consequences be damned - people chose their fate themselves.

[newperve]

@rubberfire101 Fine then you don't get taxpayer healthcare either, nor job assistence etc. 

[Aryaba]

@rubberfire101 But also, no taxation in that system either. If you have taxation that supports those programs, you can't justify excluding certain segments of the population from using those services.

[throwntomato]

@rubberfire101 that's a good point. employers should still have the right to drug tests, they shouldn't be forced to hire someone they think is irresponsible. the thing is, people will avoid using, until they've passed the screening process, then start smoking, again.

[habaker91]

@throwntomato

Because you can't drug test people again once you've hired them?

[throwntomato]

@habaker91 it's been my experience, that it has rarely been done.

[TheToxicRadio]

A very insightful interview, showing real political cognitive and responsible thinking regarding currency and trade to benefit latin america, which in return can boost the economy for north america and europe, by the way, FUCK YEAH X-MEN ON RELATED VIDEOS! >:D

[megagagnon1]

Central banking is the problem. Free markets should be free in the realm of banking also. If you have central banking, you don't have a free market economy.

[ExternalServerError]

I like Chili. They should privatize it so it gets even more delicious.

[MagnusIan]

She has an interesting name. :)

[InfernalApocalypse]

@MagnusIan

Yeah, it's pretty awesome!

[TreachMarkets]

Smart cookie.

[3tcpx]

@TreachMarkets smart cookie? you need to modernize your lingo there, pops

[TreachMarkets]

@3tcpx aw, shucks...

[Fujimoto420]

I definitely agree. We need to end prohibition once and for all.

[throwntomato]

@Fujimoto420 it didn't work for alcohol, why do we think it will work for pot? alcohol does far more damage than marijuana.

[Fujimoto420]

@throwntomato True, but there's something I hold onto called hope. Hope that people will take their heads out of their ass and face the truth. Hope that supporters can be motivated to get out and fight for what is right without being afraid of the repercussions. Hope that the opposition can open their eyes to the obvious truths and stop being so narrow minded. Education and truth is key in every great debate. When you see something to be true, you can no longer deny it. That's what I hold onto.