http://mises.org/community/forums/p/33256/517491.aspx#517491
Why?
Think about it for a while.
gotlucky: Think about it for a while.
USA PATRIOT act?
Does the following still exist?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
vive locked it, so it was locked for stupidity.
Nah, Vive locked it because he's in bed with the CIA and he hates your freedoms.
Something you cannot explain on the internet?
it because he's in bed with the CIA and he hates your freedoms.
the only conclusion that I see as feasible.
you're kidding me.
Re: "Why?"
Because of the complete bs answers that spring forth 99% of the time in this forums current epoch. Previously there'd have been no need since the delusional notion would have been legitimately addressed and 'shot down'.
This is merely an indication of the times.. and so I lament.
Conza88: Re: "Why?" Because of the complete bs answers that spring forth 99% of the time in this forums current epoch. Previously there'd have been no need since the delusional notion would have been legitimately addressed and 'shot down'. This is merely an indication of the times.. and so I lament.
What is the delusional about the notions discussed in that thread?
As a matter of fact, they are much more grounded on real events than the numerous threads dedicated to explore "how cow farts would be handled in a free-market".
Re: "What is the delusional about the notions discussed in that thread?"
Oh ffs. Previously some actual worth might have come from the inane question i.e good educational responses. There wasn't even a hint of that. That's something to bemoan. Even more so is the resulting 'locking' though: which is just a further affirmation that even the mods don't believe it could have been turned around.
Re:
"- Do you support PInochet' s restriction methods? - Would you support something like that? - In other words, do Libertarians support the saying "The end justifies the means." If no, why not?"
"...Hence, a strategy for liberty must not include any means which undercut or contradict the end itself—as gradualism-in-theory clearly does. Are we then saying that “the end justifies the means”? This is a common, but totally fallacious, charge often directed toward any group that advocates fundamental or radical social change. For what else but an end could possibly justify any means? The very concept of “means” implies that this action is merely an instrument toward arriving at an end. If someone is hungry, and eats a sandwich to alleviate his hunger, the act of eating a sandwich is merely a means to an end; its sole justification arises from its use as an end by the consumer. Why else eat the sandwich, or, further down the line, purchase it or its ingredients? Far from being a sinister doctrine, that the end justifies the means is a simple philosophic truth, implicit in the very relationship of “means” and “ends.”
What then, do the critics of the “end justifies the means” truly mean when they say that “bad means” can or will lead to “bad ends”? What they are really saying is that the means in question will violate other ends which the critics deem to be more important or more valuable than the goal of the group being criticized. Thus, suppose that Communists hold that murder is justified if it leads to a dictatorship by the vanguard party of the proletariat. The critics of such murder (or of such advocacy of murder) are really asserting, not that the “ends do not justify the means,” but rather that murder violates a more valuable end (to say the least), namely, the end of “not committing murder,” or nonaggression against persons. And, of course, from the libertarian point of view, the critics would be correct.
Hence, the libertarian goal, the victory of liberty, justifies the speediest possible means towards reaching the goal, but those means cannot be such as to contradict, and thereby undercut, the goal itself. We have already seen that gradualism-in-theory is such a contradictory means. Another contradictory means would be to commit aggression (e.g., murder or theft) against persons or just property in order to reach the libertarian goal of nonaggression. But this too would be a self-defeating and impermissible means to pursue. For the employment of such aggression would directly violate the goal of nonaggression itself.
— Murray Rothbard
Re: "As a matter of fact, they are much more grounded on real events than the numerous threads dedicated to explore "how cow farts would be handled in a free-market"."
I could contest this but I won't - you've made my point for me.
Are you saying that any analysis or opinion that is not grounded on some Rothbardian piece is not educational and therefore inadequate?
One cannot hold non-libertarian points of view here? And is Rothbard the sole acceptable source on libertarian views?
I kinda got this general vibe from other kids around here, but you are the first one who is close to say it out loud.
That being said, the quote per se would be a nice addition to the original thread, since the op could be interested in the particular point of view of Rothbard.
Of course, one could also add widely known quotes from Hayek and Friedman where they express a view that is more receptive to the expedients of political violence in Chile at the time of Pinochet.
I'm sure both understood the abstract principles abided by Rothbard, but they also understood that inflexible abstract principles are not always useful in real world scenarios.
But who knows, maybe they are both closet-socialists, right?
how cow farts would be handled in a free-market
How would they be handled?...
The CIA agent left me for another man, if you guys really really want to and are determined to talk about military coups go ahead.
Question though, are you comfortable bringing up topics like this on a board that people of the LvMI are hosting and associated with?
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
vive la insurrection: The CIA agent left me for another man, if you guys really really want to and are determined to talk about military coups go ahead.
Thanks dude. Now be a sweetheart and unlock the other thread.
I hadn't brought up the topic and I haven't read the rules. Maybe it's a violation, I don't know. That's why I've opened this thread, to understand the action.
I know the task of a forum moderator is somewhat unfortunate and I don't want to troll anybody. I just thought the thread was legit, since figures like Hayek and Friedman were at least indirectly associated with the Pinochet regime (not with the coup per se), and they were prominent libertarians.
Re: "Are you saying that any analysis or opinion that is not grounded on some Rothbardian piece is not educational and therefore inadequate?
One cannot hold non-libertarian points of view here? And is Rothbard the sole acceptable source on libertarian views?"
Do you know what this is Toxic?
It's a graphical representation of your whole line of discussion.
Re: "...but you are the first one who is close to say it out loud."
Done no such thing. Nor would I.
Re: "Of course, one could also add widely known quotes from Hayek and Friedman where they express a view that is more receptive to the expedients of political violence in Chile at the time of Pinochet."
Perhaps. The point I was making, and you glaringly missed was that any of that would be a step above the calibre of comments that has become the norm.
Re: "I'm sure both understood the abstract principles abided by Rothbard, but they also understood that inflexible abstract principles are not always useful in real world scenarios.
But who knows, maybe they are both closet-socialists, right?"
Embarrassing. Not closet, no - statists for sure - and by definition; "socialism being an institutionalized policy of aggression against property" with "capitalism being an institutionalized policy of the recognition of property and contractualism." Then yes, I could wax lyrical about how both Friedman and Hayek weren't consistent... or libertarian on an extensive amount of issues; let alone Austrian.. but why bother; go do your own research - perhaps begin with searching this forum like you should have done above.
Thank you vive la insurrection for unlocking the other thread. :)
conz88, u jelly, bro?