Is Democracy Worth the Risk of Electing Terrorists?

[Burnsys]

Just want to expose my case...

You all know i am from argentina, one of the countrys with higer corruption levels, i can guaranty you that it's true, our government is one of the most corrupts. Everybody knows it.. BUT, we have 5 big private corporations who control 90% of media, tv, radio, newspapers and magazines..
We never hear of one single case of corruption in the goverment.. And that is what allows the government to keep stealing the people...

 

[SOS2008]

Enforcing truth in advertising means taking the false advertiser to court not just knocking on their door and telling them to cut it out. Fox will fight it and can afford to do so. The FTC will have to meet them at the same level in the court room, which will require probably more than Fox will be spending, in order to win the case. It will be a long drawn out process. How much do you think it will cost?

http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/litmain.html

The Litigation Division represents the Commission in Federal courts of appeals when parties challenge Commission actions, and, in conjunction with the United States Department of Justice and United States Attorneys offices, represents the Commission in litigation in Federal district courts. In addition, Litigation Division attorneys work with the Solicitor General of the United States in representing the Commission in actions in the United States Supreme Court.

About as much as any other investigation going on at any given time, and well worth justice for wrong doing.

And what are the negative effects of this tag line? Do more Americans watch and believe Fox news simply because of this tag line? Do you think more people think Miller tastes great because their commercials say so?

If exceptions are made to a law, it is meaningless. I suspect that is what you would like, but I don't agree it would be a good idea. And once again, comparing the news to a beer commercial is like apples and oranges.

I'm sorry if you don't get the comparison that the content of these tag lines have little meaning when it comes down to it. Fox can change their tag line to something else and people will still watch and still believe and they will still be doing what ever damage they are doing, just with a different tag line. And this would be the case after you have spent tax payers money to make them change it and tied up the courts with this case when they could have been spending that time and money helping people who have claims of financial loss and physical injury and real direct tangible damages due to false advertising. There are people out there suffering because of false advertising. I want my money to go to them and help them not a bunch of morons who can't figure out that their news isn't "fair and balanced".

That damage is not relevant has already been addressed. You are blurring truth-in-advertising with product safety, and certainly the FCC news distortion policy and product safety are two different things.

The point is that the FCC are responsible for these things and because of our government and the people in power are predominantly right leaning this is what we are getting out of them.

The type of complaints you referenced have not been acted upon (as discussed above). I'm curious to know of relations between the FCC and current conservatives in power (I assume you mean Republican controlled Executive and Legislative branches).

The information we have access to is one of our greatest freedoms. It means that even if our government is lying to us we can find the truth. Giving the government the power to regulate that information to me would have to be one of the biggest mistakes we could ever make. The lack of regulation may make things like FNC allowable but it also means that telling the truth and telling it how it is will also be allowable and the government won't be able to take that away from us easily.

As stated above, I agree there must be a balance. If the media is controlled too much by government, it can't be a good watchdog. The problem is, the White House has controlled the media with paid pundits, pressuring retractions of true stories, and FOX's close ties with Republicans. I see the FCC as more independent, and as such may help prevent these things. But as you say, the FCC isn't doing their job--but this is because they have been usurped (because people like you want complete deregulation?)

In the meantime, according to stats provided above, morons do need to be protected from distortions touted as factual news. Remember, even the newspapers have to be written at the fifth-grade level. IMHO, if FOX reported truthfully about the invasion of Iraq, for example, there wouldn't be so many people who still believe there were WMD and links between 9-11 and Saddam.

Media monopoly is worst in entertainment. And I'm not ok with it in either sphere (entertainment or information) but we need to go after the big boys if you're going to strike fear into the insofar lesser demons. Nobody wants to think ill of these industries though because the faces that represent them are the ones that they love the most.

Well if you want to eliminate agencies (such as the FCC) that enforce things like the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, there will be no control over monopolies in the media or any industry.

 

[loseyourname]

Well if you want to eliminate agencies (such as the FCC) that enforce things like the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, there will be no control over monopolies in the media or any industry.

I think it's the FTC that enforces anti-trust laws (actually, the Senate does, but I believe the FTC is the watchdog agency). The FCC only regulates content and grants broadcasting licenses.

 

[loseyourname]

Media monopoly is worst in entertainment. And I'm not ok with it in either sphere (entertainment or information) but we need to go after the big boys if you're going to strike fear into the insofar lesser demons. Nobody wants to think ill of these industries though because the faces that represent them are the ones that they love the most.

There is one primary reason I can think of that the consolidation in entertainment media isn't so troubling, and that is that the parent companies are only distributors. For the most part, Disney doesn't develop any programming. They don't make films or television shows. Touchstone does, ESPN does, and then Disney distributes these things. With things such as films and music especially, you have individual artists responsible for a good deal of the content, and anything that has a chance to make money will get through. It's not like we've seen a dwindling in the options available to the consumer because of consolidation, and I don't see how we ever would in this particular case. We'll still have at least as many directors and rock bands out there making a huge, eclectic offering for us. The only thing that results from the consolidation that can be seen as negative is that only the most consumeristic (read - artistically bad) work gets promoted heavily, and this is what ends up being popular, but then again, this has always been the case, even before media consolidation.

 

[SOS2008]

I think it's the FTC that enforces anti-trust laws (actually, the Senate does, but I believe the FTC is the watchdog agency). The FCC only regulates content and grants broadcasting licenses.

I was trying to stay germane to the topic, placing "such as FCC" in parenthesis, and stating "things like" but it is a confusing sentence.

About media monopoly, keep in mind that anti-trust laws are the reason it isn't worse. If we eliminated all regulation and had a truly free capitalist market, you would not like living in that world.

In the meantime, we need a more educated and enlightened society. What little meaningful information people bother to obtain (the few times they read or watch the news as opposed to listening to second-hand opinions around the water cooler) it is very important the information is truthful.

 

[Brad_1234]

Freedom of speech

Its so amazing, anyone to say Foxnews is partisan?

Geraldo Rivera, Greta VanSustrend, Shepard Smith, Alan Colmes, Page Hopkins, Gregg Jarett, Chris Wallace, Juan Williams, and the president of Foxnews are all (Im mostly sure) registered democrats.

Rupert Murdoch is the boss, he is conservative and supports Bush. In the middle are Bill OReilly and some other folks, and on the right Sean Hannity, Brit Hume, Tony Snow, Linda Vester and just a few others.

The news commentary part is fair, they put BOTH sides to give their opinion.

This outrages the left, because for decades democrats controlled the news media. Now they dont. The typical form of reporting is to announce some news issue, then interview a democrat. Then the reporter QUOTES and PARAPHRASES what the republican said. Incorrectly of course. The flap over former Secy of Education Bill Bennett and abortions? The left didnt show the context there, but then again, they NEVER DO!

Dan Rather, CBS and the infamous Rathergate scandal in 2004 had the left conspiring to publish fake documents from the 1970s saying Lt George Bush was a failure, crook, liar, etc. Hey it was great for sales of used ibm selectric typewriters. For those who don't know, CBS, et al, used Microsoft Word to "make" a document from 1972, but didnt realize the Selectric typewriter in 1972 couldn't do superscript nor proportional spacing. They were exposed as frauds, Rather defended it for what, 2 weeks before having to eat crow in public?

News commentary should, by law, allow both sides to discuss the issue but how would the law be enforced? We had the infamous Times-Sullivan case that was ruled YES, you can lie about public officials in your newspaper. We want to encourage public discussion, not hold people accountable for libel.

 

[Manchot]

Its so amazing, anyone to say Foxnews is partisan?

Geraldo Rivera, Greta VanSustrend, Shepard Smith, Alan Colmes, Page Hopkins, Gregg Jarett, Chris Wallace, Juan Williams, and the president of Foxnews are all (Im mostly sure) registered democrats.

You do know that the president of FNC worked as a strategist for the Nixon and Reagan administrations, right?

Rupert Murdoch is the boss, he is conservative and supports Bush. In the middle are Bill OReilly and some other folks, and on the right Sean Hannity, Brit Hume, Tony Snow, Linda Vester and just a few others.

Bill O'Reilly's in the middle? When did that happen?

The news commentary part is fair, they put BOTH sides to give their opinion.

So, when certain commentators have both sides on their show, but tell one side to shut up because it's his show and he decides who gets to speak, is that being fair?

This outrages the left, because for decades democrats controlled the news media. Now they dont. The typical form of reporting is to announce some news issue, then interview a democrat. Then the reporter QUOTES and PARAPHRASES what the republican said. Incorrectly of course. The flap over former Secy of Education Bill Bennett and abortions? The left didnt show the context there, but then again, they NEVER DO!

I did not once not hear the second part of Bill Bennett's statement not mentioned by the media. In fact, I defy you to find one instance otherwise.

Dan Rather, CBS and the infamous Rathergate scandal in 2004 had the left conspiring to publish fake documents from the 1970s saying Lt George Bush was a failure, crook, liar, etc. Hey it was great for sales of used ibm selectric typewriters. For those who don't know, CBS, et al, used Microsoft Word to "make" a document from 1972, but didnt realize the Selectric typewriter in 1972 couldn't do superscript nor proportional spacing. They were exposed as frauds, Rather defended it for what, 2 weeks before having to eat crow in public?

CBS didn't make the document. They obtained it from an outside source, who lied to them as well. Obviously, they didn't do as much fact-checking as they should have. However, as you have just shown, anyone can be guilty of that.

 

[loseyourname]

About media monopoly, keep in mind that anti-trust laws are the reason it isn't worse. If we eliminated all regulation and had a truly free capitalist market, you would not like living in that world.

Actually, if there is any market in which that doesn't apply, it's broadcast media. If it was not necessary to obtain an FCC license, anyone could broadcast anything. There would be problems with people broadcasting on the same wavelengths, in which case whoever had the stronger signal over a given area would win out in the battle for listeners/viewers, but other than that, we'd end up with an internet-like situation, the exact opposite of a monopoly.

Just out of curiosity, do you have any idea how many times a media merger has been ruled illegal and broken up? I think I can recall one off the top of my head, but I cannot remember which companies were involved.

 

[edward]

Outfoxed

I highly recommend the documentary "Outfoxed". It is available at Blockbuster.
The documentary uses clips from Fox news itself to accurately define how FNC promotes a singular point of view in a propagandist manner.

People tend to see and hear what they want to see and hear in any given media production. The documentary gives explicit examples of this and how it led to 68% of Fox news watchers to believe that Iraq was connected to AlQueda. Fox news commentators did this without ever saying the actual words: "Iraq is connected to AlQueda".

 

[Smurf]

Its so amazing, anyone to say Foxnews is partisan?

Geraldo Rivera, Greta VanSustrend, Shepard Smith, Alan Colmes, Page Hopkins, Gregg Jarett, Chris Wallace, Juan Williams, and the president of Foxnews are all (Im mostly sure) registered democrats.
snip
This outrages the left, because for decades democrats controlled the news media. Now they dont. The typical form of reporting is to announce some news issue, then interview a democrat. Then the reporter QUOTES and PARAPHRASES what the republican said. Incorrectly of course. The flap over former Secy of Education Bill Bennett and abortions? The left didnt show the context there, but then again, they NEVER DO!

You know, you can say what you want about the Democrats - But "the left" is a very broad term and the group that is represented by it is almost non-existant in the states.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

That damage is not relevant has already been addressed. You are blurring truth-in-advertising with product safety, and certainly the FCC news distortion policy and product safety are two different things.

News Distortion and False Advertising aren't the same thing either.
If a product isn't safe and is marketed as being safe is this not false advertising? It's certainly fraud and it would seem to me that it should fall under false advertising among other things. Mainly I was thinking of products that claim to do things that they do not do. The only reason you could potentially get FNC for false advertising is because of their slogan. It would be a long hard battle that will have no effect other than to make them change their slogan and that is only so long as the case is won. I seriously doubt that the courts will take well to a case that is based around such subjective terms such as "fair and balanced"...

If exceptions are made to a law, it is meaningless. I suspect that is what you would like, but I don't agree it would be a good idea. And once again, comparing the news to a beer commercial is like apples and oranges.

I'm not talking about exceptions and I do agree that information is more important than beer. The point remains that such subjective content in a commercial is more or less meaningless and if you choose to make a case it would be incredibly difficult to win. It's not about exceptions but being pragmatic. I don't know how many times I probably could have sued someone but due to circumstances it would have just been an aweful waste of time and money and so I didn't.

The type of complaints you referenced have not been acted upon (as discussed above). I'm curious to know of relations between the FCC and current conservatives in power (I assume you mean Republican controlled Executive and Legislative branches).

I'm not sure what you are referring to but if you mean things like Janet Jackson's breast then the articles I sited show that the FCC do indeed act on such things. Did you read them? After an investigation by the FCC that was how long(?) and now CBS is being fined. 36 complaints of indecency that actually went to review before the FCC just so they could dismiss them. Millions of such comlaints coming in yearly that need to be sifted through. 309 television stations that are operating unlicensed because of a backlog of complaints. Apparently the FCC must go over to some extent all such complaints and licensing is suspended for any station who have complaints against them that have not yet been gone over. It seems that not only does the FCC act on these things but they have to and have so many complaints they are going over that they are completely bogged down and not even capable of efficiently proceeding with their most basic purpose of licensing.

As stated above, I agree there must be a balance. If the media is controlled too much by government, it can't be a good watchdog. The problem is, the White House has controlled the media with paid pundits, pressuring retractions of true stories, and FOX's close ties with Republicans. I see the FCC as more independent, and as such may help prevent these things. But as you say, the FCC isn't doing their job--but this is because they have been usurped (because people like you want complete deregulation?)

In the meantime, according to stats provided above, morons do need to be protected from distortions touted as factual news. Remember, even the newspapers have to be written at the fifth-grade level. IMHO, if FOX reported truthfully about the invasion of Iraq, for example, there wouldn't be so many people who still believe there were WMD and links between 9-11 and Saddam.
----------------------------------------
Well if you want to eliminate agencies (such as the FCC) that enforce things like the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, there will be no control over monopolies in the media or any industry.

I'm not sure why you think I want complete deregulation. I just don't want the government deciding what is and isn't a proper way to distribute information. If a news agency runs material that can be proven to be untrue and it can be proven that they knew it was untrue, or they refuse to run a retraction, then I don't have a problem with them being penalized. If you simply think that there is a slant in one direction or the other I do not think this is enough to warrent penalizing them. If an opinion is stated, regardless of how true it is, and it is stated as an opinion or it can be reasonably assumed that what was stated was an opinion then I do not think anyone should be penalized for this.
As far as what people believe or do not believe I have to agree with LYN on this one. Correlation is not causation. They could read or hear about that sort of stuff just about anywhere. How many people who watch FNC listen to Rush do you think? Considering that he says he's "always right", "infallible", and promotes "the truth" I'd say that his infractions are probably much more egregious and presuasive to simple minds.

 

[moose]

I for one, find nothing wrong with Fox News. The New York Times should be banned if you absolutely desire to ban something. Idealy, news networks should simply give the news, and not care about ratings, etc. Unbiased news, in the sense that all major stories are covered, not just ones of interest, blah blah.

 

[ron damon]

Wow, you guys are still debating this?

Does having a conservative voice in the news really frighten you guys that much?

 

[Pengwuino]

I'm also amazed that this is around. I guess liberals are having a tough time convincing people that the first amendment doesn't apply to United States citizens who don't follow their doctrines.

 

[Informal Logic]

Its so amazing, anyone to say Foxnews is partisan?

Geraldo Rivera, Greta VanSustrend, Shepard Smith, Alan Colmes, Page Hopkins, Gregg Jarett, Chris Wallace, Juan Williams, and the president of Foxnews are all (Im mostly sure) registered democrats.

Rupert Murdoch is the boss, he is conservative and supports Bush. In the middle are Bill OReilly and some other folks, and on the right Sean Hannity, Brit Hume, Tony Snow, Linda Vester and just a few others.

The news commentary part is fair, they put BOTH sides to give their opinion.

Geraldo Rivera and Greta VanSustrend are not even real jounalists. They should be working for the Enquirer.

Wow, you guys are still debating this?

Does having a conservative voice in the news really frighten you guys that much?

I'm also amazed that this is around. I guess liberals are having a tough time convincing people that the first amendment doesn't apply to United States citizens who don't follow their doctrines.

There are several conservative members who contribute intelligent and informed posts. It is obvious which PF members obtain their information from Fox News (or maybe the Free Republic). If we can see this in a forum consisting of more educated people, we can imagine the negative effects of Fox News on the ignorant masses.

It also seems earlier posts have not been read. It has been emphasized more than once that no one supports the banning of Fox or any news agency, and that no one is concerned about news that is conservative. Members are saying news should be truthful. It does not matter if it is Dan Rather or Fox News. Furthermore, the suggestion of obtaining information from more than once news source seems a good suggestion to me.

 

[motai]

Unfortunately it seems quite difficult to have completely unbiased news reports. The reporters themselves are looking at the world through cultural and political rose glasses, and the story itself is often reported through their eyes.

However, unbiased news sources should at least try to be as neutral as possible. Having a more-or-less sense of neutrality and unbiased objectivity toward a certain issue should be their primary goal.

 

[Smurf]

I'm also amazed that this is around. I guess liberals are having a tough time convincing people that the first amendment doesn't apply to United States citizens who don't follow their doctrines.

I actually agree with Pengwuino on this one.

 

[Townsend]

I actually agree with Pengwuino on this one.

That's what I like about you Smurf...we can disagree about almost everything and then, out of the blue we totally agree.

 

[Smurf]

That's what I like about you Smurf...we can disagree about almost everything and then, out of the blue we totally agree.

Yeah. You have my sociology professor to thank for this one, I think it's his influence that helped me think this way. FOX news is a symptom of an already corrupt/ill society and/or culture. Getting rid of it won't solve the problem, and will probably make it worse.

Besides, far too often have we seen corrupt government ban something or other because it was "harming society", and been a legitimate claim... and then, somewhere they lose control and BOOM they start burning books.

 

[Pengwuino]

I actually agree with Pengwuino on this one.

*has a heart attack*

 

[Skyhunter]

Interesting thread.
I had not read it since I thought the idea of banning any form of expression to be wrong. Haven't read the whole thread but now I think I will.

 

[Smurf]

Interesting thread.
I had not read it since I thought the idea of banning any form of expression to be wrong. Haven't read the whole thread but now I think I will.

Pfft, why? I read the first page when it first started, and I read this page... that's about it.

 

[loseyourname]

Yeah. You have my sociology professor to thank for this one, I think it's his influence that helped me think this way. FOX news is a symptom of an already corrupt/ill society and/or culture. Getting rid of it won't solve the problem, and will probably make it worse.

Besides, far too often have we seen corrupt government ban something or other because it was "harming society", and been a legitimate claim... and then, somewhere they lose control and BOOM they start burning books.

Wow, I said exactly that same thing about Fox News from your first paragraph earlier in this thread. I've also mentioned what you just did in your second paragraph in tons of different threads - the danger of expanding the powers and responsibilities of government, even with the best of intentions.

I think I might have a heart attack now too.

 

[Smurf]

Wow, I said exactly that same thing about Fox News from your first paragraph earlier in this thread. I've also mentioned what you just did in your second paragraph in tons of different threads - the danger of expanding the powers and responsibilities of government, even with the best of intentions.
I think I might have a heart attack now too.

You know LYN I am a libertarian, libertarian social anarchist really. I know I come off as being big-government command state marxist, but that's only because I feel compelled to defend them since I see them getting attacked so often, and their philosophy is just as reasonable as any others. Just like you come off as conservative for the same reason.

 

[loseyourname]

Actually, I think it's worth reposting that again here, because it seems to apply. So here goes.

From an essay about Frank Herbert:

That is, he observed that people seem to have an inbuilt hunger for a powerful, charismatic leader to whom we can surrender our responsibility for making difficult decisions. Hebert observed that even the best leaders are humans, those humans have flaws, and elevating any man to a position of god-like power tends to magnify those human flaws to dangerous proportions. Worse, even if the original leader resists the temptation to abuse power, the bureaucracy which springs up around him will outlive him, and over time a bureaucracy becomes more and more incented to prioritize its own needs over the needs of people.

Bold emphasis is mine.

I think this is one of the reasons that the American system of limited government, chock full of checks and balances, has been as successful as it has been, and why centrally planned economies just don't work.* It is inevitable that if you vest too much power in the hands of anyone person or idealogical group that the power structure built up will attract people who have no interest in the common good and simply want power. The advantage with a democracy predicated on the separation of powers is that it contains the amount of damage such a person can do. When you have a central planning committee with absolute power over an economy, you don't get that. When you have one idealogical group in power, which is absolutely necessary to a pure socialist system, you end up with nothing to check their power.

I also don't advocate the imperial presidency that we've moved toward since Nixon. All of Schumer's talk about the need to give the federal government, and especially his Senate, more and more power, is frankly scaring me. I imagine he's a great guy with the best of intentions, but it's a dangerous path. I guess that's one of the reasons I actually like Roberts as a judicial nominee - he is staunchly advocating limited government and separation of powers. (Sorry about the digression - I have no doubt that you don't have the slightest clue who Senator Schumer is, any more than I know the names of French legislators.)

You bring up a good point, though. Even a democracy is not immune to the messiah impulse. Look at what happened here. All the way back in the early 60's, the civil rights movement and social equality programs moved people to advocate consolidation of power in the federal government, enabling the creation of the imperial presidency. This was something done with the best of intentions and resulted in legitimate progress in civil rights legislation. It also resulted in a much stronger federal government that was bound to fall into the hands of someone like Bush eventually.

I think we can apply this same line of reasoning in the case of Fox News. The people that want it banned are perfectly honest and operating with the best of intentions. However, by giving the government the power to regulate what does and does not qualify as proper news, you are creating an untenable situation in which some future regime (actually, it would likely be our current regime) will almost certainly abuse that power to limit the freedom of the press in a way that would irrevocably harm our way of life.

Note: Isn't it ironic that I go lauding Roberts for his advocation of limited government, and here he is insisting that the federal government has the right to regulate how doctors in Oregon prescribe medicine? That's the last time I go trusting a Bush appointee.

 

[Smurf]

I think this is one of the reasons that the American system of limited government, chock full of checks and balances, has been as successful as it has been, and why centrally planned economies just don't work.* It is inevitable that if you vest too much power in the hands of anyone person or idealogical group that the power structure built up will attract people who have no interest in the common good and simply want power. The advantage with a democracy predicated on the separation of powers is that it contains the amount of damage such a person can do. When you have a central planning committee with absolute power over an economy, you don't get that. When you have one idealogical group in power, which is absolutely necessary to a pure socialist system, you end up with nothing to check their power.

See this is the kind of bull**** that I end up defending those marxists against.

There is absolutely no reason (NONE AT ALL) why a command economy can't be controlled by a democratic government and vice versa. This guy's an idiot.

 

[loseyourname]

See this is the kind of bull**** that I end up defending those marxists against.
There is absolutely no reason (NONE AT ALL) why a command economy can't be controlled by a democratic government and vice versa. This guy's an idiot.

This guy is me, smurf; I'm quoting myself. Thanks, though.

Since you're so fond of throwing around words like "idiot" all the time, I may as well mention that I find you to be a naive, patronizing, pretentious teenage know-it-all wannabe. Hence the "taken-abackness" when I see that we agree on something.

 

[Smurf]

This guy is me, smurf; I'm quoting myself. Thanks, though.

Umm... I kindly propose that perhapse there are a few slight inaccuracies in your above post?

 

[Smurf]

Since you're so fond of throwing around words like "idiot" all the time, I may as well mention that I find you to be a naive, patronizing, pretentious teenage know-it-all wannabe. Hence the "taken-abackness" when I see that we agree on something.

Hey now, there's no need to get upset about it,

 

[loseyourname]

Hey now, there's no need to get upset about it,

It's all in good fun. I only actually get upset at the new guys.

 

[Smurf]

It's all in good fun. I only actually get upset at the new guys.

heh, really? The new guys? I usually end up laughing at them.

 

[Informal Logic]

In this thread members are discussing regulation as a check and balance, NOT banning any form of free speech. Those of you who are advocating limited control - It has been argued that Murdock with ties to the Republican party violate exactly that – they have too much control over vital information via Fox News (and it’s high viewer ship). So, your arguments are inconsistent.

Also, unlike other forms of free speech, the point has been made that the news is viewed as a service that informs the public, and is supposed to be in itself a check and balance as a watchdog in a democracy. You fail to address this matter at all.

 

[Smurf]

In Canada the CBC (government regulated) serves as the checks and balances for other news organizations - which are few and far between. CBC just has such a good record of being fair and balanced () that no one has reason to watch any other televised news.

 

[ron damon]

You know LYN I am a libertarian, libertarian social anarchist really... There is absolutely no reason (NONE AT ALL) why a command economy can't be controlled by a democratic government and vice versa.

You have no idea what Libertarianism is, do you? It means a state in which the individual is free (to the greatest degree) from arbitrary coercion, the most intense case of which being a government-run economy. What you describe is akin to something like being a "steak-loving vegetarian".

Only a genius like Spinoza can get away with such synthesis.

 

[Smurf]

You have no idea what Libertarianism is, do you? It means a state in which the individual is free (to the greatest degree) from arbitrary coercion, the most intense case of which being a government-run economy. What you describe is akin to something like being a "steak-loving vegetarian".
Only a genius like Spinoza can get away with such synthesis.

Yes, I know what libertarianism is. And I don't see how pointing out an incorrect assumption in someone's post makes it impossible for me to be one.

Also, I wouldn't mind challenging your assertion that a command economy is un-libertarian. It's merely a difference in philosophy. Make a thread about it if you want to discuss it.