Author Topic: Rothbards idiotic defense of libertarianism (Read 4752 times)

Traditional Guy 20 · « **Reply #15 on:** July 30, 2013, 07:05:58 PM »

Quote from: claudel

His neoconnish taste for aggression is also gravely troubling (it's very Jєωιѕн, too, of course).

Who here is for aggression? I opposed the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. I just realize that pacifism is for those who believe in the death for a nation.

Quote

I'd bet fifty (virtual) bucks that, like most "national greatness" types, he's never been in uniform yet expects others to do the fighting and dying for him.

And I'd bet like most liberaltarian types you've never worked a day of hard manual labor in your life or lived in an apartment complex.

Traditional Guy 20 · « **Reply #16 on:** July 30, 2013, 07:08:14 PM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

Trad Guy,

The individual belongs to the state? Is that your view?

The individual defintely does not belong to himself. When the indivudual does thing that puts the nation in jeopardy that is what I call national ѕυιcιdє. Let us remember that this whole freedom premise and egalitarianism came out of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. All of these people like Rothbard, Bastiat, Cobden, Smith, Kant, etc. were liberals.

Traditional Guy 20 · « **Reply #17 on:** July 30, 2013, 07:10:20 PM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

Trad Guy,

Your statement about economics being about the national body politic and national greatness, where do you get this idea?

Is it simply a love of power?

No it is simple common sense. When the individual operates outside what is good for the common good he harms the majority of the group. Yoiur ideas on economics comes out of individualism, liberalism, and capitalism.

PereJoseph · « **Reply #18 on:** July 30, 2013, 07:43:08 PM »

Traditional Guy, you and I often disagree, but these last two posts of yours were excellent. If you were closer by, I would buy you a beer. Good work.

Traditional Guy 20 · « **Reply #19 on:** July 30, 2013, 08:37:44 PM »

Quote from: PereJoseph

Traditional Guy, you and I often disagree, but these last two posts of yours were excellent. If you were closer by, I would buy you a beer. Good work.

To borrow from Maistre, "The Constitution of 1795 and its predecessors was made for man. But there is no such thing as man in this world. In my lifetime I have known Frenchmen, Russians, Italians; and thanks to Montiesqiuie Persians. But as for man I have never in my life met him." This is the problem with this liberal ideology. This free trade and unbridled markets mentality leads to open borders so that all of mankind can taste the liberal 'fruit' so to speak. Also being anti-religious makes this liberal mentality want to make a paradise here on earth. Needless to say this paradise is only for the rich.

Speaking of which when it comes to war I would like to choke this pacifism by again borrowing from Maistre: "Now the real fruits of human nature- the arts, sciences, great enteprises, manly virtues- are due especially to a state of war...In a word we can say that blood is the manure of that plant we call genius."

Of course this is not to say I don't appreciate Captain McQuigg's anti-FDR posts and I agree with him and claudel that America is a sick nation but I have an issue with the logic they use to attack the "symptoms" so to speak. Also being right-wing I cannot accept egalitarianism or the Marxist class conflict. I just recognize the worker has the right to a liveable wage.

PereJoseph · « **Reply #20 on:** July 30, 2013, 09:06:14 PM »

Quote from: Traditional Guy 20

Quote from: PereJoseph
Traditional Guy, you and I often disagree, but these last two posts of yours were excellent. If you were closer by, I would buy you a beer. Good work.

To borrow from Maistre, "The Constitution of 1795 and its predecessors was made for man. But there is no such thing as man in this world. In my lifetime I have known Frenchmen, Russians, Italians; and thanks to Montiesqiuie Persians. But as for man I have never in my life met him." This is the problem with this liberal ideology. This free trade and unbridled markets mentality leads to open borders so that all of mankind can taste the liberal 'fruit' so to speak. Also being anti-religious makes this liberal mentality want to make a paradise here on earth. Needless to say this paradise is only for the rich.

Speaking of which when it comes to war I would like to choke this pacifism by again borrowing from Maistre: "Now the real fruits of human nature- the arts, sciences, great enteprises, manly virtues- are due especially to a state of war...In a word we can say that blood is the manure of that plant we call genius."

Of course this is not to say I don't appreciate Captain McQuigg's anti-FDR posts and I agree with him and claudel that America is a sick nation but I have an issue with the logic they use to attack the "symptoms" so to speak. Also being right-wing I cannot accept egalitarianism or the Marxist class conflict. I just recognize the worker has the right to a liveable wage.

I might tweak this word here and that one there, but otherwise your post is like music to my ears. Joseph de Maistre is one of the biggest influences on me and one of my favourite philosophers. I am glad that you seem to be absorbing his thought. It's very encouraging.

claudel · « **Reply #21 on:** July 30, 2013, 10:22:25 PM »

Quote from: Traditional Guy 20

Quote from: claudel
His neoconnish taste for aggression is also gravely troubling (it's very Jєωιѕн, too, of course).

Who here is for aggression? I opposed the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. I just realize that pacifism is for those who believe in the death for a nation.

Quote
I'd bet fifty (virtual) bucks that, like most "national greatness" types, he's never been in uniform yet expects others to do the fighting and dying for him.

And I'd bet like most liberaltarian types you've never worked a day of hard manual labor in your life or lived in an apartment complex.

"Liberaltarian"? Must you resort to gibberish glommed from smug, self-important bloggers and chat-show yappers? Have you never acquired the knack of constructing a standard English sentence with wholesome English words? (The prose of Dr. Johnson and T. S. Eliot are good models to learn from.) Yet here you are, telling me and others what to think and how to respond to ideas you've shown yourself barely able to comprehend! I grant that the cutting and pasting you do so much of are skills of a sort, but they are no substitute for close reading and careful reflection.

Apropos the actual matter of your comment, you have backhandedly confirmed what I suspected: that you're all for saber rattling so long as others—like me, in my long-gone youth—bear the material unpleasantness, do the heavy lifting, and clean up the mess afterwards.

In addition—and not surprisingly, given your track record here and elsewhere—you're dead wrong in your "analysis" of me. I did menial labor until I was almost fifty, and I've lived nowhere but small apartments for the past forty-nine years.

None of this autobiography is any of your business, of course, but I have revealed this much because your words in turn reveal a small-minded reverse snobbishness that is part and parcel of how you evidently look at people and ideas both: not straight on, but mediated by a bushel of bluster and a peck of preconceptions. If splashing about in this sort of muddy pool is what gets you a steady diet of attaboys from your chums, who am I to say you nay? But if "tradition" is more to you than a species of know-nothingism without the party hat and the kazoo, you had better begin clearing your mind of cant. The sooner the better.

Traditional Guy 20 · « **Reply #22 on:** July 31, 2013, 09:33:15 PM »

Quote from: claudel

"Liberaltarian"? Must you resort to gibberish glommed from smug, self-important bloggers and chat-show yappers? Have you never acquired the knack of constructing a standard English sentence with wholesome English words? (The prose of Dr. Johnson and T. S. Eliot are good models to learn from.) Yet here you are, telling me and others what to think and how to respond to ideas you've shown yourself barely able to comprehend! I grant that the cutting and pasting you do so much of are skills of a sort, but they are no substitute for close reading and careful reflection.

I use the term you describe to show that indeed libertarianism comes from the leftist mindset. Would you rather me call you a liberal? I admit that I am not a very good typer and can create sentences much better with a pencil and some paper. And I never cut and paste sir. My ideas come out of my own mindset and political philosophy. I don't need a bunch of economic professors like Rothbard or Mises to show how the world works. I admit my philosophy is probably too radical, authoritarian and right-wing for libertarians. I can agree with some aspects of libertarianism like ending the Federal Reserve for instance.

Quote

Apropos the actual matter of your comment, you have backhandedly confirmed what I suspected: that you're all for saber rattling so long as others—like me, in my long-gone youth—bear the material unpleasantness, do the heavy lifting, and clean up the mess afterwards.

I find it funny how you whine about your feelings being hurt about me and my analysis of you, but you do the same to me. Also can we please speak like normal people here. This isn't a classroom discussion. We're not here to try and show what fancy words we know.

Quote

In addition—and not surprisingly, given your track record here and elsewhere—you're dead wrong in your "analysis" of me. I did menial labor until I was almost fifty, and I've lived nowhere but small apartments for the past forty-nine years.

Good for you, but nevertheless whether you did so or not you still have a very rich mentality.

Quote

None of this autobiography is any of your business, of course, but I have revealed this much because your words in turn reveal a small-minded reverse snobbishness that is part and parcel of how you evidently look at people and ideas both: not straight on, but mediated by a bushel of bluster and a peck of preconceptions. If splashing about in this sort of muddy pool is what gets you a steady diet of attaboys from your chums, who am I to say you nay? But if "tradition" is more to you than a species of know-nothingism without the party hat and the kazoo, you had better begin clearing your mind of cant. The sooner the better.

Again can we talk like a normal person please? I thought this was going to be a calm discussion about what is wrong with Rothbard's prognosis on "society's ills." I didn't realize we would have some on here try to defend this man, considering the Church has a definite set of economic views which is anti-thetical to libertarianism.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #23 on:** August 01, 2013, 10:48:25 AM »

I'm not so sure that libertarianism comes from a leftist mindset since leftists are statists who view the state as their salvation, and if not salvation, they view it as their guide to the exclusion of all other sources.

Libertarianism is the idea of the freedom of man from the state and from state coersion.

Libertarian is a classical liberal philosophy, but it predates the enlightenment (by a lot).

Telesphorus · « **Reply #24 on:** August 01, 2013, 11:58:08 AM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

since leftists are statists who view the state as their salvation, and if not salvation, they view it as their guide to the exclusion of all other sources.

The use of the word "statist" suggests you've been reading to much of their literature.

Certainly anarchists are leftists and are not "statists."

libertarianism is just another dehumanizing ideology sprung from poisoned Jєωιѕн brains that has much more in common with socialism than it has with the Social Reign of Christ.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #25 on:** August 01, 2013, 11:59:12 AM »

Quote

And in the bedroom, too, if Ronnie has his way. Although abortion
is not yet illegal, it is not for lack of effort by the Reagan
Administration. The relentless Reaganite drive to conservatize
the judiciary will likely recriminalize abortion soon, making
criminals out of millions of American women each year. George
Bush, for less than twenty-four glorious hours, was moved to take
a consistent position: if abortion is murder, then all women who
engage in abortion are murderers. But it took only a day for his
handlers to pull George back from the abyss of logic, and to advocate
only criminalizing the doctors, the hired hands of the women who
get abortions.

Rothbard is an abortion loving Jєωιѕн rat.

When the Jews ritually murdered gentile children they didn't consider it murder either, because they considered Goyim animals.

claudel · « **Reply #26 on:** August 01, 2013, 12:50:30 PM »

Quote from: Traditional Guy 20

Again can we talk like a normal person please? I thought this was going to be a calm discussion about what is wrong with Rothbard's prognosis on "society's ills." I didn't realize we would have some on here try to defend this man, considering the Church has a definite set of economic views which is anti-thetical to libertarianism.

"Talk"? But your own words show that genuine talk holds no interest for you! You plainly state that you expect agreement with your supposed insights. As I put it above, you want your daily quotient of attaboys.

Look for them elsewhere (I see that Telesphorus is cheering you on, for instance). I for one am not here to play the stooge for you, and I see no reason to hold my tongue on a public forum when I see you make comments that manifest a shortage of accurate information and an absence of reflection.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #27 on:** August 01, 2013, 12:50:42 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Capt McQuigg
since leftists are statists who view the state as their salvation, and if not salvation, they view it as their guide to the exclusion of all other sources.

The use of the word "statist" suggests you've been reading to much of their literature.

Certainly anarchists are leftists and are not "statists."

libertarianism is just another dehumanizing ideology sprung from poisoned Jєωιѕн brains that has much more in common with socialism than it has with the Social Reign of Christ.

An anarchist leftist is just someone who wants to destroy existing opposition. Once the anarchist has served his purpose, he will cease the attack. A good example of people abandoning a cause is the Democratic party in the U.S. They were rabidly anti-war until they got a democrat elected and then they lost interest. They haven't made a squeak about Guantanamo but it was there "cause celebre" while W was president. They occasionally give lip service against the drone attacks. Other than that, they used the "bush lied, kids died" but they didn't say that their idea of a solution is "vote democrat".

As for Libertarianism, as an ism, it's the most valid secular position to embrace in the current times, although it would not be an advocate of the Social Reign of Christ it would also not be an enemy since libertarian ideas are largely non-aggressive.

Libertarianism is the antithesis of socialism, Tele. An exact opposite. You can hardly be a socialist and anti-state. How would that work?

The libertarian view on abortion is wretched. It does not forbid abortion but it also does not encourage abortion. And it, as an idea, would not require someone else to pay for an abortion.

For the record, I am not a libertarian. I remain entirely aloof. But I would adhere more to libertarian views than either of the political parties in the U.S.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #28 on:** August 01, 2013, 12:52:29 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote
And in the bedroom, too, if Ronnie has his way. Although abortion
is not yet illegal, it is not for lack of effort by the Reagan
Administration. The relentless Reaganite drive to conservatize
the judiciary will likely recriminalize abortion soon, making
criminals out of millions of American women each year. George
Bush, for less than twenty-four glorious hours, was moved to take
a consistent position: if abortion is murder, then all women who
engage in abortion are murderers. But it took only a day for his
handlers to pull George back from the abyss of logic, and to advocate
only criminalizing the doctors, the hired hands of the women who
get abortions.

Rothbard is an abortion loving Jєωιѕн rat.

When the Jews ritually murdered gentile children they didn't consider it murder either, because they considered Goyim animals.

Jєωιѕн people will always be pro-abortion. And that goes for those who are "Orthodox" or "Chabad".

Telesphorus · « **Reply #29 on:** August 01, 2013, 05:31:36 PM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

An anarchist leftist is just someone who wants to destroy existing opposition. Once the anarchist has served his purpose, he will cease the attack.

I could say a libertarian "rightist" is just someone who wants to destroy opposition until they have accuмulated enough power and wealth, at that point they will organize the state to ensure that they retain their power.

Alan Greenspan was a Rand-cultist then went to run the fed.

A person could also say, once socialists destroy the opposition they want the benefits of capitalism and being rich and so they rebrand themselves as libertarians.

Saying that all leftists are "statists" is absurd.

Quote

Libertarianism is the antithesis of socialism, Tele. An exact opposite.

That's nonsense.

Quote

You can hardly be a socialist and anti-state. How would that work?

There are huge numbers of leftists that consider themselves to be so.

The ideal of socialism doesn't work at all.

And neither does the libertarian ideal. Libertarians and anarchists both tend to support the state, just as socialist in power tend to engage in capitalistic pursuits.