In light of all the varied and bizarre beliefs, usually incorrect and often pernicious, that have informed human communities throughout the past, is it inconceivable that the far more sensible views of libertarianism might someday become widely accepted?
"The idealist … sees the state as a neutral tool. If it can be used for the benefit of the rulers, it can be used for the benefit of the people, as if a slaughterhouse for the benefit of the farmer could be used for the benefit of the animals."
Pictures of the Socialistic Future warns that socialism, promising equality, can deliver only equal poverty and death.
Were it not for the state's incessant need to homogenize and its inability to cope with diversity, the languages of the world would not be in the dire situation they are today.
The lines are getting drawn with increasing clarity. Statism vs. liberty. Us or them.
However, it is perhaps not too optimistic to assume that those governments and parties whose policies have led to this crisis will some day disappear from the stage and make way for men whose economic program leads, not to destruction and chaos, but to economic development and progress.
"Sandel stands among the foremost communitarians and, as his previous work makes evident, he views the free market with disdain."
The important concept is putting our money where our mouths are if we wish to see land used the way we want it to be, and letting local people sort out their own local issues on the local stage.
It seems now that almost everyone, from journalists to academics to clergy, relies unthinkingly on Marxian doctrines.
The only really good trends exist in two worlds right now. In the digital world, we see growth and expansion and progress. This sector is not as heavily hooked up to manipulations of the Keynesian elite, and its development has proceeded at a clip even in a depression.
