Who's to blame -- Generation-Xers or Boomers?

[Matt1989]

The problem with that logic is it can be extended to anyone. In Hitler's mind, he was acting in Germany's interest. So was Stalin, etc.

Hitler seems pretty pro-German to me.

I disagree. There are plenty of people who believe in "limited" government. I suppose you could argue that those people are simply confused and that their views contradict one another. But, "you are either a fascist/communist or an anarcho-capitalist/anarcho-communist," oversimplifies matters I think. I agree with the assessment in this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6732659166933078950

Sure there are. But libertarians who call for a minarchist republic have some sort of confused idea IMO. Rejecting the idea of human beings being their own rulers seems like a rather "un-libertarian" view of the state of things (not that I'm denying moderates the status of libertarian). Why would liberty be an ideal when it leads to incessant conflict? I can only conclude that these so-called moderates see an antipode between liberty and order.

Which is fine of course, but I do sense a sort of contradiction in the line of thinking.

[Matt1989]

Well, thanks for the pop psychology, but that ship sailed long ago.
I've been working on this web site since 2002, and each year I've
gotten more and more furious, as I realize what happened. I'm
perfectly happy focusing on survival strategies, but I have
absolutely no compunction about spewing venom at people who
manufactured phony worthless securities and then sold them to people,
destroying their savings and their lives. It's one of the most
engaging features of my personality.

I'm tempted to call you a Boomer after reading this...
`

[StilesBC]

Sure there are. But libertarians who call for a minarchist republic have some sort of confused idea IMO. Rejecting the idea of human beings being their own rulers seems like a rather "un-libertarian" view of the state of things (not that I'm denying moderates the status of libertarian). Why would liberty be an ideal when it leads to incessant conflict? I can only conclude that these so-called moderates see an antipode between liberty and order.

Which is fine of course, but I do sense a sort of contradiction in the line of thinking.

I consider myself a minarchist. But I'm aware of it's contradictions. Nobody who is raised in a socialist state can really say they started off as an anarcho-capitalist. It is a process of discovery. First I was an immigrant hating conservative (voted Reform), then I was a socialist utopian (voted NDP), then I was a 'moderate,' meaning I didn't really know what I was (voted Liberal), and now I find myself becoming more and more inclined to anarcho-capitalism (vote Libertarian or spoil my ballot). I'm probably one Rothbard book away from sealing the deal.

I suppose you could apply the same logic to the other side of the spectrum. ie. Liberals and Conservatives are just confused authoritarians and that they don't really want control over any part of their lives. They'd rather just be told what to do.

Ah hell, Kel Weaver is probably right.

[mark]

In my opinion, the most disruptive organization is one which has a "silent" as a CEO.

Many of you may be able to identify companies or other organizations which laid off workers, re-organized into the ground, and focused on useless "Process" to the benefit of "silent's" golden parachutes and leaving boomers and xers to pick up the pieces.

This Madoff guy is the latest example.

Thanl God they are getting too old to do any further damage.