And mentions Lew Rockwell and Jeff Tucker specifically.
[Mod Edit] http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2001/spring/blood-on-the-border/anti-immigration-
I know that libertarians are divided on the immigration issue, but I thought or perhaps assumed that the gentle and mild mannered Rockwell and Tucker were not anti-immigration.
Is SPLC just guessing badly, or was I mistaken?
EDIT: Ok, they don't exactly call LvMI anti-immigration, but they do count Rockwell and Tucker as people who are in the anti-immigration "scene."
Read my Nolan Chart column "Me & My Big Mouth"
Guilt By Association
If free market professors and liberals are guilty by association with xenophobes, they are also guilty by association with communists, 1960s New Left radicals, theocrats, neo-monarchists, and other groups that are anything but liberal.
Consider that Alex Coburn of CounterPunch has said some moderately pleasing things about some Mises Institute people, even though he regularly rails against capitalism.
"Both Brimelow and Fallon have defended Jared Taylor, who edits the racist American Renaissance magazine. Taylor's deputy, James Lubinskas, has returned the favor by writing for V-DARE.
Brimelow has close ties to several other leaders on the anti-immigration scene, among them John Vinson of the American Immigration Control Foundation, Llewellyn Rockwell and Jeffrey Tucker of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, "
This is worth a thread? I mean seriously... come on now. What a joke.
I wouldn't be surprised if Morris Dees hires kids to spraypaint swastikas on synagogues. He is that much of a scumbag.
Conza88: "Both Brimelow and Fallon have defended Jared Taylor, who edits the racist American Renaissance magazine. Taylor's deputy, James Lubinskas, has returned the favor by writing for V-DARE. Brimelow has close ties to several other leaders on the anti-immigration scene, among them John Vinson of the American Immigration Control Foundation, Llewellyn Rockwell and Jeffrey Tucker of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, " This is worth a thread? I mean seriously... come on now. What a joke.
Isn't it a good idea to know who is out to slander us, oh resident one-star slinger?
The SPLC has a reputation for slander, and its lists consist of every organization under the sun. That itself softens their blows to the point of turning their daggers into feathers.
Remember that even activist progressive leaning writers and journalists have praised some of the people deemed bigots by this organization. Why else would Diane Johnstone, a bona fide leftist*, still write for publications such as Chronicles whose staff are deemed hatemongers by SPLC?
What does it mean that intelligent people don't CARE what SPLC thinks?
*I hate using the word, but I had to
It is doing 3 things which make me scratch my head.
1) Reducing Mises Institute to some imaginary 'anti-immigration scene'. Or a part of some imaginary scene that none of us knows about.
2) Providing no evidence. Not even a measily out of context quote.
3) Embedding Mises Institute into someone else's 'section' of an article as if anyone reading it even knows what the MI even is. As if they are clarifying some other obscure group by inserting MI into it. Which, again, they take as so obvious that they need not even provide a footnote to explain what they are even talking about.
It would be valuable if they made correct claims, or listed the beliefs of the mises institute. As an education to the public. Especially if we were some right-wing group at all. But it is not even that. It makes Krugman's rebuttal on ABCT seem like a work of incredible honesty, objectivity and integrity. Maybe we have been too hard on some Austrian critics. If this is the standard thus far of critiques.
It just proves what their real agenda is: statism. All social activist groups have statism as the true agenda, with varying facades of plausible issues to mask it.
This stuff is totally bizarre. I have no idea who this John Vinson is, and I'm unaware of any "ties" to this group. THe problem of immigration is an intellectual one for all libertarians, and opinions are all over the place, to be sure. But the notion that somehow the Mises Institute is anti-immigrant is really bonkers. I type this in a room filled with people from like 50 different countries. The government anti-immigration controls have seriously hurt our work with Austro-libertarians from all over the world. I just last week I gave a speech praising the glories of Korean immigration to Alabama.
The problem is that the the SPLC doesn't understand the world of ideas. People must be free to think, write, and speak, even in a speculative and even reckless way, and God forbid that we would ever abandon that.
Publisher, Laissez-Faire Books
It's lucky for the SPLC that most libertarians do not believe libel is unlawful.
"Isn't it a good idea to know who is out to slander us, oh resident one-star slinger?"
And who is "us"? Yes, LvMI - and how hard is it to send an email? Is it a good idea to re-publish and re-produce the ill founded slander, oh past false accuser?
Sadly this isn't the first time some retarded association was made. We support legalizing drugs and prostitution, which would make many conservatives cringe, why are we associated with conservatives?
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
Hahah! Nice GIF. Where's the original video that prompted our friend Dr. Block to do this?
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/23166.aspx?PageIndex=1
^Video and I think Sieben created it.
@Libertyandlife
Walter Block reacted in an over the top way, though I am sure it was justified.
@Prateek Sanjay
Walter Block acting over the top?? No, he never does that :P
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
Given his opponent's arguments, he acted very politely.
Can you describe briefly what this is about? I can't see the gif nor any video until 3 weeks from now when I can get to a normal computer/internet connection. What happened with Block?
McDuffie, I checked, and it seems to be a debate between Block and a religion professor.
The mistake was a religious studies professor engaging an economist in his own field: labour and productivity.
Both men deserved to debate different opponents and the religion professor should have engage some other topic.
A good facepalm is always justified. Especially in the face of such inane arguments.
Speaking of inane arguments, the SPLC has something of a reputation for this garbage. They see racists under their bed, in their closets, in the shower with their wives... you get the picture. This is far from the first time they've smeared the Ludwig von Mises Institute either - their usual complaint is one of being "neo-Confederate." One writer for them, Chip Berlet (a sad excuse for a pundit who fancies himself some kind of ace reporter), even made the downright hilarious accusation of implying that Rothbard was an anti-semite - Rothbard, an ethnically (though not religiously - but the implication was in regards to the ethnic group, not the faith) Jewish man himself.
I think I remember that Block debate. I think that is the point in the debate where the guy says that making zero dollars is better than making something a tiny bit below minimum wage.
Or maybe it is a different debate. It looks like the one I described, though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-5_pv8csMY One comment:
Thomas DiLorenzo is a neo-confederate racist from the Von Mises Insitute. He is angry because government makes him share the public restrooms with blacks.
I lolled
One writer for them, Chip Berlet (a sad excuse for a pundit who fancies himself some kind of ace reporter), even made the downright hilarious accusation of implying that Rothbard was an anti-semite - Rothbard, an ethnically (though not religiously - but the implication was in regards to the ethnic group, not the faith) Jewish man himself.
This is really hilarious. Ludwig von Mises was jewish too, so saying that LvMI is anti-semitic is like saying that some Adolf Hitler Institute would be pro-jewish.