4 ms·
"there is 0 new interesting factual information in that article." I didn't submit it because it had new interesting factual information, but because of the new
by dwwoelfel 17y ago
"there is 0 new interesting factual information in that article."
I didn't submit it because it had new interesting factual information, but because of the new interesting analysis of the factual information.
"it's just usual pro-market anti-government"
It is anti-government in the same sense as exposing police corruption is anti-government. This article would be more accurately described as anti-government-stepping-outside-of-its-proper-bounds. You'll notice that the article states that the judgment of Toyota should be "left to the objective assessment of the police and courts." The police and courts are government entities.
Yaron Brook and Don Watkins, the authors of the article, are not a Libertarians. They work for the Ayn Rand Institute, which advocates Ayn Rand's ideas. She had this to say about Libertarians:
"Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They’d like to have an amoral political program."
You can read more here: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_ca...
- borism 17y agoI totally agree with article's idea that politicians are not supposed to be lynching private companies - there's government regulator for this purpose. But it can be said in single sentence without needless hyperbole. It doesn't matter whether autor is objectivist, libertarian, socialist, communist or whatever. Doesn't make article any more valuable.