When something is unethical why would opposing it (not wanting it to succeed) be deemed as a negative?
In the bizarre world of politics where advice is being given by ethically neutral (in other words, ethically void) economists there is no test, no standard. That is exactly the symbolism also being conveyed by the lack of a gold standard, not coincidentally. Without a standard it is all an illusion, subject to misinterpretation (or economic intervention in the case of gold).
But not everyone is an ethical moron. And not everyone is an economic moron.
Those who do not want something that is unethical to succeed are fully rational. Those who just use rhetoric to oppose things but never really comprehend that there is a lack of ethics are ego-driven interpreters that will immediately become ego-driven interventionists as soon as they gain power.
With the standard of ethics (and the gold standard in the economic sense) as the criterion the demagogues can easily be separated from the ones who are truly wise and just.
Where do you stand? Are you opposed to the unethical impositions of socialism and fascism or are you just opposed on the grounds of political partisanship?
Or maybe you are so poorly educated about classical liberalism that you actually want these oppressive and totalitarian schemes to succeed. Shame on you!
For more information go to http://www.divineeconomyconsulting.com/.
To earn a Masters Degree in Divine Economy Theory go here.
No comments:
Post a Comment