[snip]
>Sorry, George, I just don't buy your rant, if that's what it is. The
>present flavour (British spelling, interesting) is toward the LEFT??? What
>century are you coming from? The last election saw two Replublicans running
>against each other, with Clinton making speeches that could have come from
>Ronald Reagan.
>
Do you or do you not have a Democrat as president? Is it or is it not
extremely likely that the Labour party will be elected to office in the
UK at the next general election? Of course these left wing parties have
been influenced by libertarian economic ideas: as has the right, for the
past 15 years or so! (However, this is not an ideological commitment
>from either side, as Soros would have it, but a practical economic
necessity, grudgingly and shamefacedly admitted to, except by some
enthusiastic Republicans and Tories.) However, the Democrats do not
subscribe to the nationalistic/moralistic (fascist) fervour of the
Republicans, nor does Labour do the equivalent in the UK.
These are still left-wing parties. I would also really urge you to try
that book shop experiment. Really, there are very few books in bookshops
and libraries that support laissez faire; laissez faire is considered a
crankish ideology by most intellectuals, and has been since the 19th
century. So I ask you again: why would somebody lie about that?
>And, in fact, Soros has redistributed a lot of his own money, mostly in sort
>of a one man Marshall plan for Eastern Europe. For a capitalist, he's not
>such a bad guy.
OK, but judging by his statements, I would look very carefully at his
'redistribution'. I would be willing to bet that most of it is likely to
have been to his own advantage; probably a lot of it has gone to support
*government* schemes in Eastern Europe. If I am wrong, then I retract
what I say about his being consciously evil: he would be just a
well-meaning but misguided fool.
Guru George