Law: If you support economic democracy, you support economic totalitarianism.
Proof:
Supporting economic democracy means supporting socialism.
Supporting socialism means supporting totalitarianism.
The law is gotten through the transitive property.
In mathematical notation, for the (nonexistent) economists in the audience:
A = B
B = !A
Therefore, A = !A
‘Course, the real-world manifestation o’ this paradox is due to the Law of Orwell: Politicians’ intent may vary from their promises, or in layman’s terms: Politicians are full o’ shit. Those who promise the sweet candy o’ democracy may truly be trapping you into totalitarianism.
It should be pointed out, however, that the Law of Orwell applies just as much to any other ideology. One should only look up Friedman’s support for dictators in Chile & China1 or Hayek’s defense o’ “liberal” dictatorships for the cousin paradox, the “Authoritarian Libertarians.”
[1] Friedman once complained ’bout the left being hypocritical for criticizing his fraternizing with genocidal dictator Pinochet, but not criticizing his fraternizing with totalitarian Marxist governments in China. I won’t make that same mistake: fuck you, Friedman, for rubbing dicks with capitalist totalitarians & fuck you for rubbing dicks with communist totalitarians. The 1 thing you proved yourself to be consistent in was schmoozing with any crony dictator who’ll let you force your petty economic rituals on people (since the mass majority wouldn’t voluntarily swallow his vapid nonsense)—as is typical o’ “libertarians.”
Also, fuck the pathetic bootlickers in that linked article. ¿You know what’s different from Friedman & those other people? They didn’t pump themselves up as “libertarians” & lovers o’ “freedom.” ¿You know what legitimate libertarians do? They don’t give advice to goverments @ all; they tell them to fuck off.
