What's that supposed to mean? Are you gonna delegitimize a person's opinion just because they died years before you were even born? Everyone dies regardless of what political or economic stances they have, are you really gonna make the argument that Hayek died because he saw reason for an economy that produces vast amounts of wealth to provide at least some minimum with only a minimal amount of intervention from the state and you will achieve some sortof immortality if you preach nothing but unfettered libertarian anarcho-capitalism? Hayek was certainly not a socialist, he was the one of the most prominent figures of libertarian capitalism and never lived in some communist dictatorship like Venezuela or Russia. Also he he died at age 92 therefore he lived a lot longer than anyone who lived in a mass starvation communist dictatorship like Venezuela or Ayn Rand who lived on government subsidies at the end of her life.
Just because I address some issues under capitalism doesn't mean that I want even worse tyranny under communist dictatorships like Mao's China, believe me I do not like his red army and how they publicly humiliated people just for not agreeing with the party. One can still address issues under capitalism and oppose communist tyranny. Learn to have a nuanced view for a change and not have bad faith strawman arguments for a change. I do like capitalism generating wealth but I do not like that wealth being used to only fatten up the salary of one billionaire rather than being used to lift the poor out of poverty or at least give the poor better conditions like so many claim it's supposed to. In that scenario, billionaires under capitalism are not being any better than communist dictators hoarding wealth and power to control and impoverish the people. In an economy that generates billions of wealth, there is no excuse to impoverish everyone who works so hard. Friedrich Von Hayek, "There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth which ours has attained [i.e., England in 1944], the first kind of security [i.e., limited, not absolute] should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom...there can be no doubt that some bare minimum of shelter and clothing can be assured to everybody... The case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong...there is no incompatibility between the state’s providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom" That's proof you can have a nuanced view of being for basic security provided by a decent welfare state and not be for something as extreme as communist tyranny. I'm not even for people always sponging off the welfare state, I'm for people having jobs but modern day capitalists outsource jobs to foreigners and give jobs to illegal immigrants just to exploit them for cheap labor.
Whatever strawman you make against me is not gonna win you any sort of argument. I never supported Biden and I was never ok with the sleepy senial old fool he is. I always called him out for his f**k ups and called out leftists for blaming Trump for the high gas prices and inflation during the Biden administration for Trump wasn't even in office at the time therefore there's no grounds to blame him for what happened under Biden.
