[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you understand what I mean by "crippling the world economically"? I mean coercively reducing world productivity drasticaly, increasing world poverty by a commensurate amount.

Freedom never lowers productivity.

Luckily the strength of capitalism is not just in morality. It also produces by far the best results economically.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then argue in terms of freedom. What's good for the economy is just incidental. "Because it would hurt the economy" should never be the means that a libertarian or ACer should advocate policy. F--k the economy, I'd rather have no obtrusive government and grow a garden, ride a bike, and live a simple, free life.

[/ QUOTE ]

A) Chill out.

B) I didn't say "because it would hurt the economy". I said because it would cripple the world economically, which if I didn't make already clear, would kill hundreds of millions of people. More capitalism, i.e. more freedom, raises people out of poverty, whereas less capitalism, i.e. less freedom, does the opposite. That might not be important to you, but it is to me. And quite frankly, pie-in-the-sky morality arguments are unconvincing to those who don't understand economics. How can you convince someone by talking about freedom when they believe freedom leads to "exploitation"? What's good for the economy is not incidental. Freedom is good for the economy, and I personally think that's the best thing it has going for it.