Benjamin,

It is not my intention to insult you. You know that I regard you as very smart and learned. Yet when I notice you are leaving the baby out with the bathwater, then that is upsetting and I will declare that, standing my ground.

What you are failing to see is that the source for the ‘libertarian culture’ you mention was already a diktat.

As we see in history, the modern financial world originated in the Low Countries (Belgium and the Netherlands) where the first stock markets occurred (and the first booms and busts also appeared).

That region is ground zero for the libertarian culture.

Then, the British took over the economic model, but they did not take over the libertarian culture of the Low Countries, but rather kept everything else intact and then proclaimed to have a ‘libertarian culture.’

The UK did real well, economically and in light of global power. But they did not have a free market that was free; it was controlled.

There was no such straight-jacket in the Low Countries like in the UK. And from the UK, we have the 'libertarian culture' you are talking about on this side of the ocean. It is not the actual libertarian culture but a twisted version.

When not having all colors available, just Red&Blue, then Red&Blue can have a green revolution, but it is not a real green revolution when both parties embrace green in all manifestations possible but keeping the power based on Red & Blue.

As long as the power base is not libertarian, then there is no libertarian culture but rather a culture dictated by the economic elite, benefiting from the 'libertarian culture.'

As mentioned, Benjamin. I am standing my grounds here. I like how you are agreeing with my reply to your article, and I appreciate that quite well. But the additional remark you made is out of bounds. It is a half-lie that was first told by Britain and you are repeating it.