I didn't say define "it". I said tell me what these policies are that can be classed as neo-Liberal so that I may judge who supports them and who doesn't. If you can't do that, I judge that you don't really know what policies are and are not neo-Liberal.
I.e. shit or get off the pot.
What?
So Chomsky has a definition right? Or are you samrter then Chomsky?
That definition, and the policies that support that definition are what we are discussing.
Now, let me break this down for you. You want me to define this, so that you can muddy the waters. You will cling onto certain parts of the definition in dispute, while never actually defending neo-liberal policies, only arguing over the definition.
Take that arguement up with Chomsky and Reich. They use this term constantly. They have a solid definition for it. I am using in it's common use. I don't have to give you a specific definition for common use, for us to move the debate along.
This is what I am talking about with the neo-liberal click, and their tropes. You aren't interested in defending or opposing neo-liberals, you just want to muddy the waters with defining it, and arguing about that definition.
Instead, I point you to Chomsky's definition, and tell you that if you have a problem with that definition, take it up with him, because I don't want to let you bog the actual debate down, which I think is your goal.
Btw, I take what I said before back, you are homer.
