"Freedom" thread or something

If you mean fighting class-based structural inequality, I'm right there with you. Other supposed fights against structural inequality (one in particular) is where my main divergence with the left lies.

I think the left has shifted its focus (in the long term-over the past 50 years or so) from purely economic fronts and protection of worker's rights to social engineering and the PC movement. Socially, I've always been fiercely individualistic and the focus of the left on socially engineering society into its form of "utopia" upsets me as much as the right's attempts to do the same. As an easy example, the whole anti-smoking thing has its origins on the left side of the political spectrum and you will still find many more liberals than conservatives who are vehemently opposed to smoking and would just as soon outlaw it (while at the same time of course, legalizing weed). That's just one example. No, I haven't gone to the right (because economically, I still hate greed, and I don't much care for their "moral" utopia either), but the left needs to get out of the social engineering game or to me it is just as bad as the right.

Agreed. I've become somewhat disillusioned with the left. Not so much that my opinions have changed, but just a realization that the left has reshifted its focus away from what I wish it was focused on (the plight of the working poor and middle class). And some of its focus is diametrically opposed to both my beliefs and my own self-interests. Also, I've come to understand more the distrust of the state that many here discuss. At the same time, I still distrust private power as well. I think I'm coming to believe there is no good form of society.

Holy Batman. You really have gone to the dark side, T. That almost sounds like something I would say (have said). Haha.

Yeah, broadly agree with both your above comments.  I don't think we can afford to go back to 19th century ways of doing things because we are not in the 19th century anymore.  But there is also no reason why 21st century should only be defined by recklessness.   It is effective allocation of resources that can bring about long lasting, sustainable prosperity, not growth by any means.  Growth propelled by steroids is going to fizzle out sooner or later. Maybe we are all dead in the long run but we don't need to make sure Planet Earth is dead in the long run too.

rogerthat wrote: Thanks for the videos, very informative.  I think the difference between mal investment and oversupply is nuanced.  He made a statement in the video there that "not everything is reversible".  So not all bad investment is going to somehow get utilised at a higher level of demand, which it seems is what Keynesians believe.  This is why ghost towns do exist and only get revived when they reinvent themselves by accommodating new industries instead of waiting for erstwhile ones to come back.  It is interesting that there is a sort of behavioural dynamic in the Austrian/Hayek approach (i.e bad decisions rather than just a mathematical mismatch of demand and supply levels), used to think it was pretty classical.

Uh-oh. What happened? Strangely enough, I've started leaning quite a bit more on the libertarian side lately. At the very least, I'm beginning to see that we need to tear it all down and start again.

{Runs in} Boo! Socialism! {Runs back out again}

Pretty much. 

rogerthat wrote: I want to ask those who have studied Hayek's work whether this is a valid take on his theories, that he dealt with mal-investment rather than oversupply.   http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/LuRCDedQeELdoYqM4qda9O/The-mainstream-remains-clueless-about-Hayek.html

Edited by JJLehto - June 16 2014 at 23:11