The whole back third of that video seemed to go into weird conspiracy theory land.
How? It's just an explanation of the psychology behind it all. Where is the actual conspiracy being theorised here?
That the old traditional media needs to demonize video games because kids like video games and don't like cable news, that way kids will stop playing video games and buy newspapers instead.
That's not a conspiracy theory. He's not saying that they have some radical plan where they've all come together like a cartel to mastermind such a conspiracy. I happen to disagree very much with that particular point of his, but he's just highlighting the conflict of interest with these so-called gamers (who are apparently all kids according to them) and traditional news media, and where their own vested interest would generally lie as a result.
The problem is because of the innate American (and by extension human) propensity for such a system as Socialism to encourage laziness and thereby abuse of its supposedly intended purpose.
I have no problem with the social programs we have in the province in which I live, but then again, we can afford them, we're rich. I have no problem with the idea of assisting those, who through no fault of their own are handicapped, sick, injured, etc. And enabling them to either recover, and/or find ways of becoming productive, contributing members of society. Then again, we have a proportionately small population, and our financial resources are proportionately much greater. The problem with such a system in the U.S is the inherent proclivity for corruption and abuse, as well as the fact that the sheer population to economic productivity ratio is an ABSOLUTE F****** NIGHTMARE.
You're mostly right, except liberal is the complete opposite of socialism. Ron Paul is a liberal, the same as Hayek, Mises, Carl Menger, William Gladstone, John Locke, Adam Smith - these people are all liberals in the philosophical sense (to live and let live, tolerance, free-markets, civil rights - these are all liberal values).
I think you are referring to Classical Liberalism, which in the present is most akin to Libertarianism.
I don't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism Liberalism still means the same thing, but there are fringe groups who define it differently. It's the same with the term 'libertarian' which is about the non-aggression principle (they are against elections, at least as far as anarcho-capitalist libertarians) but there are also fringe groups within libertarianism who carry the name but are actually socialist libertarians.
"Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally liberals support ideas such as capitalism (either regulated OR NOT), constitutionalism, liberal democracy, human rights"
When you're talking about economic liberalism specifically, it means laissez-faire/free-market capitalism.
Log in to comment