http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/10763.aspx
I must have missed the rule against posting my own writing where I please. Was there a legitimate reason for the lock or did the admin involved simply not have an answer to regurgitate from his most recently downloaded Hazlitt PDF? ;)
Answer to what?
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
A legitimate lock reason. It's even more difficult for me to figure out than the question of why Walter Block doesn't know about dynamic monopsony.
Agnapostate:I must have missed the rule against posting my own writing where I please.
But you can't post where you please. Get your own website, you can re-publish yourself to your heart's content.
@Jon, check his post history.
As I said, I didn't happen to spot that rule posted anywhere. Was it something you chose to make up on a whim because you recognized the abuse of political economy that referring to a liberal democratic capitalist as a "socialist" entailed?
The Death Wish of the Anarcho-Communists - Murray N. Rothbard
The fact that the abandonment of rationality and economics in behalf of "freedom" and whim will lead to the scrapping of modern production and civilization and return us to barbarism does not faze our anarcho-communists and other exponents of the new "counter-culture." But what they do not seem to realize is that the result of this return to primitivism would be starvation and death for nearly all of mankind and a grinding subsistence for the ones remaining.
If they have their way, they will find that it is difficult indeed to be jolly and "unrepressed" while starving to death. All this brings us back to the wisdom of the great Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset:
In the disturbances caused by scarcity of food, the mob goes in search of bread, and the means it employs is generally to wreck the bakeries. This may serve as a symbol of the attitude adopted, on a greater and more complicated scale, by the masses of today towards the civilization by which they are supported … Civilization is not "just here," it is not self-supporting. It is artificial … if you want to make use of the advantages of civilization, but are not prepared to concern yourself with the upholding of civilization — you are done. In a trice you find yourself left without civilization. Just a slip, and when you look, everything has vanished into air. The primitive forest appears in its native state, just as if curtains covering pure Nature had been drawn back. The jungle is always primitive and vice versa, everything primitive is mere jungle. (José Ortega y Gasset, The Revolt of the Masses, New York: W.W. Norton, 1932, p. 97.)
In the disturbances caused by scarcity of food, the mob goes in search of bread, and the means it employs is generally to wreck the bakeries. This may serve as a symbol of the attitude adopted, on a greater and more complicated scale, by the masses of today towards the civilization by which they are supported … Civilization is not "just here," it is not self-supporting.
It is artificial … if you want to make use of the advantages of civilization, but are not prepared to concern yourself with the upholding of civilization — you are done. In a trice you find yourself left without civilization. Just a slip, and when you look, everything has vanished into air. The primitive forest appears in its native state, just as if curtains covering pure Nature had been drawn back. The jungle is always primitive and vice versa, everything primitive is mere jungle. (José Ortega y Gasset, The Revolt of the Masses, New York: W.W. Norton, 1932, p. 97.)
That essay is growing almost as tiresome as Bryan Caplan's pap. I can't pretend to be particularly enthralled by the opinions of a fool who writes "it is hard to forget the fact that when the Spanish Anarchists (anarcho-communists of the Bakunin-Kropotkin type [note: this is a standard inaccuracy of his; Bakunin was not a communist, but a collectivist]) took over large sections of Spain during the Civil War of the 193Os, they confiscated and destroyed all the money in their areas and promptly decreed the death penalty for the use of money" without providing support or historical evidence for such a claim. While I'm well aware of the marginal Austrian school's disdain for empirical evidence, this one's a whopper. ;)
It's even more difficult for me to figure out than the question of why Walter Block doesn't know about dynamic monopsony.
It's even more difficult to me to figure out who cares. Bye. ;)
Ooo Ooo an actual Socialist!
Are we a voluntarily or a coercive socialist?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Laughing Man: Ooo Ooo an actual Socialist! Are we a voluntarily or a coercive socialist?
It wouldn't matter what ideology he is, imo. His actions have been a bit hasty (not outright wrong, however; most of this is a matter of miscommunication, methinks), & it would be laughable for someone on the internet to play dumb about joining a community & being surprised certain communities, forums etc, have rules about posting (as they have had since the first BBS emerged on the Internet when it was called ARPAnet). If I did a similar thing of cross posting threads from other forums, promoting my own work on this site without explicit consent from the owners (I believe that would be valid, considering this private property), my stuff would've been deleted as well. I hope he sticks around to contribute to discussion, however.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Nitroadict: I hope he sticks around to contribute to discussion, however.
I hope he sticks around to contribute to discussion, however.
Emphasis on the word "contribute", as opposed to name calling. Tiresome pap, hey? There's a nice logical refutation.
And someone who makes a statement that he doesn't prove is a fool.
And Austraian economists disdain empirical evidence, which from the context clearly means "will believe anything". Hmmm, let's see some proof of that one. Or are you a fool too by your definition?
Let's see how much of this guys contribution to showing us the glories of socialism is insults and how much is logic and references to facts.
BTW when the socialist revolution comes, do you plan to be one of the people who hands out the money from a big office as befits your dignity and intelligence, or one of the masses of simple folk who does the manual labor?
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Smiling Dave: Nitroadict: I hope he sticks around to contribute to discussion, however. Emphasis on the word "contribute", as opposed to name calling. Tiresome pap, hey? There's a nice logical refutation. And someone who makes a statement that he doesn't prove is a fool. And Austraian economists disdain empirical evidence, which from the context clearly means "will believe anything". Hmmm, let's see some proof of that one. Or are you a fool too by your definition? Let's see how much of this guys contribution to showing us the glories of socialism is insults and how much is logic and references to facts. BTW when the socialist revolution comes, do you plan to be one of the people who hands out the money from a big office as befits your dignity and intelligence, or one of the masses of simple folk who does the manual labor?
So you revived a thread calling out this person for "name calling", yet more or less do the same thing in response to this person? :\
Nitroadict: So you revived a thread calling out this person for "name calling", yet more or less do the same thing in response to this person? :\
You are right and wrong. I did revive the thread, unintentionally. I didn't notice its age, and would not have commented if I did. It showed up somehow while I was looking at a current thread about this honored gentleman. I think it was about him cokmplaining about being muzzled, and readers were referred to his other posts to find out why that happened. So you are right that I revived a thread.
But you are wrong in saying I name called. A careful reading will show that I was merely pointing out that he is guilty of the very things he accuses others of [being "fools" for stating things without evidence convincing to him], and that he is indeed name calling.
That is my last word in this thread, you can continue it or drop it as you wish.
New Question: Why was I unilaterally banned by Irenicus without reason? For criticizing Walter Block?
Seriously. I was just banned from the Ron Paul Forums too, not for incivility like Conza here was, but apparently because their regulars can't handle epic pwnage: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=213234