Economics Questions

Re: Hulsmann

hayekianxyz — Fri, 29 May 2009 12:17:38 GMT

Byzantine:

Laughing Man:
Who Rothbard?

Yes. I heard he was married as well.

To a woman.

Next thing you know he'll be advocating locking the gays up.

Especially with comments such as this:

Murray Rothbard:
ML is he a he;... The ML was in his twenties twenty years ago, and is now in his fourties. That is neither as banal, or as benign as it sounds, because it means that the movement has not really grown in twenty years;... The ML is fairly bright, and fairly well steeped in libertarian theory. But he knows nothing and cares less about history, culture , the context of reality or world affairs. His only reading or cultural knowledge is science fiction,... The ML does not, unfortunately hate the state because he sees it as a unique social instrument of organized aggression against person and property. Instead, the ML is an adolescent rebel against everyone around him: first, against his parents, second against his family, third against his neighbours, and finally against society itself. He is especially opposed to institutions of social and cultural authority: in particular against the bourgeoisie from whom he stemmed, against bourgeois norms and convetnions, and against such institutions of social authority as churches. To the ML, the State is not a unique problem; it is only the most visible and odious of many hated bourgeois institions: hence the zest with which the ML sports the buttom, "Question Authority."... And hence, too, the fanatical hostility of the ML toward Christianity. I used to think that this militant atheism was merely a function of Randianism out of which most modern libertarians emerged two decades ago. But atheism is not the key, for let someone in a libertarian gathering accounce that he or she is a witch or a worshipper of crystal-power or some other New Age hokum, and that person will be treated with great tolerance and respect. It only the Christians that are subject to abuse, and clearly the reason for treating them differently has nothing to do with atheism. But it has everything to do with rejection and spurning bourgeois American culture; and any kind of kooky cultural cause will be encouraged in order to tweak the noses of the hated bourgeois. ... In point of fact, the original attraction of the ML to Randianism was part and parcel of his adolescent rebellin: what better way to rationalize and systematize rejections of one's parents, fmily, and neighbors than to join a cult which denounces religions and which trumpets the absolute superiority of yourself and your cult leaders, as contrasted to the robotic "second-handers" who supposedly people the bourgeois world? A cult, furthermore, which calls upon you to spurn your parents, family and bourgeois associates, and to cultivate the alleged " or not, [MLs] are libertarian communists: anyone with property is automatically expected to share it with other members of the extended "family".

He needs to be purged and his books burned. Don't even get me started on those fasict pigs Hoppe and Mises.

Re: Hulsmann

Andrew Cain — Fri, 29 May 2009 03:20:57 GMT

liberty student:
Fleas? lol

My non-falsifiable theory of communist hair gnomes

liberty student:

Too many people get into hero worship. Better to just deal in ideas. Obviously some people have better ideas than others, but no individualist should be placing another man (or woman) on a pedestal IMO.

I concur

Re: Hulsmann

liberty student — Fri, 29 May 2009 03:07:27 GMT

Laughing Man:
I'm scratching my head....

Fleas? lol

Too many people get into hero worship. Better to just deal in ideas. Obviously some people have better ideas than others, but no individualist should be placing another man (or woman) on a pedestal IMO.

Re: Hulsmann

liberty student — Fri, 29 May 2009 03:05:45 GMT

Byzantine:

Laughing Man:
Who Rothbard?

Yes. I heard he was married as well.

To a woman.

I've listened to at least one interview with Joey. She's a hoot. You can see that she and Murray were a dynamic match.

Re: Hulsmann

Juan — Fri, 29 May 2009 02:53:21 GMT

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Contents.html

That is, I think, just an example of Rothbard pandering to cultural/social/whatever conservatives. Those are not scholarly articles, or libertarian articles, but mostly are examples of political opportunism.

Re: Hulsmann

Andrew Cain — Fri, 29 May 2009 02:47:19 GMT

Byzantine:

Laughing Man:
Who Rothbard?

Yes. I heard he was married as well.

To a woman.

WHAT?! Do you have proof of this? If so why have you been holding out on it!? Why do you think I would feel that some great travesty that he is married to a woman? I hope to one day engage in this blasphemious act if it is to be called such

Re: Hulsmann

Andrew Cain — Fri, 29 May 2009 02:44:18 GMT

liberty student:

Laughing Man:
I'm glad you presented this because I am usually in such concurance with Rothbard that it is always beneifical not to fall into hero-worship.

This ^^.

I'm scratching my head....

Re: Hulsmann

liberty student — Fri, 29 May 2009 02:42:08 GMT

Laughing Man:
I'm glad you presented this because I am usually in such concurance with Rothbard that it is always beneifical not to fall into hero-worship.

This ^^.

Re: Hulsmann

Andrew Cain — Fri, 29 May 2009 02:39:59 GMT

Byzantine:

What a horrible man.

Who Rothbard?

Re: Hulsmann

Andrew Cain — Fri, 29 May 2009 02:13:38 GMT

I see contradiction in this argument.

1. Rothbard states that since parades are on public streets, they should be 'permitted' by the state apparatus..what of the right to to assemble?And why should we be enabling the state with a illegitimate power over us?

2. Rothbard states that corporations should be able to hire or fire individuals since it is their property, yet writes this:

'Things have gotten to the point where one of the most prominent of the libertarian think-tanks practices its own form of gay affirmative action, hiring or promoting only openly-proclaimed gays, and, at the very least, firing any staff member who is less than enthusiastic about this procedure or about gay rights in general.'

3. Rothbard believes in property rights to which I would wholeheartedly agree with him. However, no where is there a right to not be offended about gay parades.

I'm glad you presented this because I am usually in such concurance with Rothbard that it is always beneifical not to fall into hero-worship.

Re: Hulsmann

Andrew Cain — Fri, 29 May 2009 00:37:32 GMT

Stephen Forde:

Laughing Man:
I developed my basics on Rothbard though I do not like the 'conservative' nature of Hoppe.

What about the 'conservative' nature of Rothbard?

Perhaps you can specifically point to an article that is 'conservative.'

Re: Hulsmann

wilderness — Thu, 28 May 2009 18:52:09 GMT

Stephen Forde:

Laughing Man:
I developed my basics on Rothbard though I do not like the 'conservative' nature of Hoppe.

What about the 'conservative' nature of Rothbard?

The conservative or liberal nature of any libertarian are (moral) value arguments. A libertarian upholds the moral value NAP that conflates to the right of liberty. These conservative, liberal, or whatever stances are social justice positions and have nothing to do with liberty - other than liberty allows these stances.