Oops. I think you meant me.
Being fairly sure, but not certain, that you are, or at least lean towards being Libertarian I realize that nothing I say will sway you, but want you to know that I've done my research, and I'm not spouting leftist propaganda.
Well, now that you’ve assured me you didn’t just spout smears without research... that changes everything.
First, I'm going to list the titles of all the articles I found in the Muses Daily Articles, which is part of their online website. Just type Mises Institute, and the title, and you can read them yourself.
Ok good. Good. But, did you read them just to make sure they actually said what you think?
Civil Rights for Gays
Again, did you read the article? Let me help you out. The article is NOT suggesting gays don’t have rights. Remember, the are Libertarians. They don’t care if you are gay. Gay marriage? Sure! Polygamy? Sure! Just keep it among consenting adults. Given that, how do you think you may have gone wrong here? (Given that the article directly contradicts your smears)
Human Rights as Property Rights
Again, did you read the article? Let me help you out. This article comes free fee.org, not mises.org. However, it was written by Rothbard. Here is the article’s title statement: “The rights of the individual are still eternal and absolute; but they are property rights.”
This is a correct, and I would hope, non-controversial statement. Unless... unless... just maybe you read that and assumed it means that humans ARE property, as in slavery is good. Is that what you did there? I can’t know for sure, but why else would you have a problem with this article?
Rothbard is saying that you own yourself, and your labor, and these are the fundamental building blocks of real rights. It’s the true argument against slavery.
I couldn’t find this article. I found one titled “Children and Rights” here: https://mises.org/library/children-and-rights.
In any case, did you read the article? Are you sure you aren’t assuming something about it? From your previous post, where you accused Walter Block of believing it is OK to neglect your children, I assume you think this article bolsters that view. All you needed to do was read just a few paragraphs in to find just the opposite. Libertarians believe in positive obligations for the parent, and the entire article is an argument for exactly the opposite of your accusation.
Civil Rights and the Supreme Court
This is an excerpt from “The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History”. It’s an audio recording. This is a Tom Woods book. Well, I have to wonder - did you listen to it? You honestly think the Supreme Court has a sterling record on preserving rights? But more importantly, how in the world does this back any of your smears? It simply does not - it does the opposite.
Wow, an article by Walter Block and on mises.org. You are spoiling us with actually citing a source relevant to the topic. But...Did you read the article? Did you think the title was advocating for racial discrimination, and so listed it here? The position taken in the article is a typical Libertarian stand, which you don’t understand in the first place, and causes you all sorts of problems. Discrimination, even on race, is a crappy thing to do - but the last thing you want is to get the government involved in that. Why? Because if you consider the NET effects and precedents it sets, there is a NET loss. Just reference any gay wedding cake debate for this viewpoint. Or, since you love YouTube, go on and search up another Walter: Walter Williams. He’s a black economist, not associated with Mises Institute at all. I assume that checks off enough minority checkboxes so that you will at least listen to the arguments made. However, on this count, you cite something that shows the exact opposite of your smear.
Rothbard Explains the Proper Response to Climate Change
*face palm* Did you read the article? It was not about climate change, but rather, private property rights as a framework for dealing with climate change.
The Civil War: Both Sides Were Wrong
Again, Did you read the article? Did you see “Civil War” and think that it was going to advocate for slavery? Just a little bit of knowledge about Libertarians and this wouldn’t have to happen. Are you so naive to think there were no other issues raised by the Civil War, issues that have nothing to do with race, slavery, etc?
Freedom of Want is Slavery for All
I assume you mean the article titled “‘Freedom FROM Want’ is Slavery for all”? (Caps mine).
Again, did you read it? Did it trigger you because it had the word “slavery” in the title? This actually has a lot to do with this thread. It talks about the differences between rights and entitlements and the economic consequences of that sort of socialist mindset. There is nothing wrong with this article. I can only assume you listed it as evidence of your accusations because you inferred something from the title. It does not prove any of your smears and goes a long way to show the exact opposite....
There seems to be a pattern forming.
The Confederate Constitution
*sigh* - Did you read any of the article? What did you think this article was advocating? Slavery? Ohhh, you saw the word “Confederate” and assumed? The pattern continues....
The Despot named Lincoln
*sigh*- Did you read the article? Did you think this was a pro-Confederate/pro-slavery article again? Remember, this is from a Libertarian site. Slavery is fundamentally an evil. Also, the Mises Institute, as mentioned, is very anti-war. This article discusses ways Lincoln could have ended slavery without war.
Social Security: The Most Successful Ponzi Scheme in History
Ha ha. Well, that’s true.
How FDR Made the Depression Worse
That’s true, he really did. To see why, you have to engage with the economic arguments and see past the first level of cause and effect, you have to actually grapple with arguments instead of emotional smears.
There are other articles where they feel there is no need for minimum wage, Public Education, rent control, and Medicare.
Yes, there are. So? These are economic topics. It’s an economics site. What does that have to do with your smears?
Two of the founders were Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell. Rothbard has many kind things to say about the Confederacy, David Duke, and Joseph McCarthy.
So? You think he’s a racist? You think he aligns with David Duke? Is that the next smear? Good forking lord, he’s a Libertarian. You aren’t going to find a greater advocate for real rights than a Libertarian. But one thing that a principled stand on human rights is going to demand is that you stand up for the rights of the racists too. Do you understand what that means? And if you say “It means he agrees with David Duke or he’s a racist himself” then you have no forking clue.
Rockwell posts interesting papers on lewrockwell.com with the titles
Legalize Drunk Driving
The Vindication of Joe McCarthy
and (you should find this interesting, Simon!)
I leave it to you to actually read these articles and figure out why none of this has anything to do with your smears... I’ve gone through plenty.
Relativity and the Priesthood of Science
This is an article on Rockwell’s site, not mises.org, and not written by anyone I know... just some guy.
*sigh* Just step back a second and look at what’s going on - A famous economist, Person A, writes a treatise on why socialism will always fail. Person B gives a summary of that. Person C and person B are both economists of the same vein and know each other through an institute that has nothing to do with the article of Person A, in fact Person A is long dead. Person C has personal blog and gets anti-state, free market contributors. Person D contribute a few of those. Person D, a journalist, also writes a book about Person E’s, a physicist, thoughts on special relativity. Person D also writes similar content for Fortune, the New York Times Magazine, and The Atlantic Monthly.
Conclusion made by Spoletta - Person A’s argument should not even be entertained. Yet, I wonder if you also categorically reject the New York Times...
The guilt by association doesn’t work. It never does. It is a logical fallacy for a reason, and layering up the fallacies doesn’t make it magically logical.
Now, to the subject of Walter Block. You say he doesn't advocate the despicable things he discusses in Defending the Undefendable. That may be true. But, here's the truth of the matter. He truly believes that those ideas are correct, and that the world would be better if we followed them.
You realize you just contradicted yourself, right? When you assert “That may be true”, he doesn’t advocate these activities, you can’t simultaneously say he believes these ideas are correct. He believes the government should stay out of it, and that we can, and have, objectively measured the unintended consequences of intervention.
He is both a Libertarian and an Austrian Economist, as are Rothbard and Rockwell.
A fact. Holy forking shirt balls... a fact. We have a fact in the post.
He is also a pompous ass.
Oooops, another smear. And here I thought it was turning around.
If you care to hear his Libertarian blathering, go to YouTube and type Minority Report: Walter Block, and listen to what he has to say. I find him rude, arrogant and unable to answer simple questions. Of course, you might find him a font of wisdom.
Yeap, that’s why the videos are out there. Here let me help you out with that. A while back the SJWs came for him. He didn’t give in, and his college didn’t let the SJW bull shirt win either. He was provided a forum to address his accusations and take live questions. Here it is:
These guys live in a fantasy world, where if everyone listened to them, we'd all play nice, and everyone would respect your personal and properly rights, we'd all band together and build roads and hospitals by pooling our resources, and no one would tell us what to do, or steal our money by making us help those who are lazy and undeserving, and if they die, so what? We're only responsible for ourselves.
And this is exactly why I’m frustrated. Everything you described above is the exact opposite of what free market capitalists believe. However, you have aptly described the socialist view. In the socialist world view, everyone is part of that collective, working hard, taking only what is needed, giving all that’s possible. There are collective roads, bridges, farms, and everyone is nice. Magically the entrepreneurship continues (the exact topic of Mises’ paper). A utopia.
Libertarians don’t think capitalism is superior out of some naive view of the world. It’s a realistic view in which people are not pawns you move around on a chess board. Yet, it’s a world with resource scarcity, human motivations, crime, bad actors, greed, selfishness, horrible climate, all of which has, historically, caused tremendous pain and suffering. As Milton Friedman used to say: Utopia is not for this world.
You assume capitalism needs these things not to exist in order to function. The reality is that it works because these imperfections exist, and it is the algorithm that minimizes them.
So, if you wonder why I wouldn't believe anything I hear on YouTube from Joe Salerno of the Mises Institute, this is just a sampling. The world they envision would be a horrible one, where the worst of us would rise to the top, and we'd end up with Kings and serfs, like the good old days.
*sigh* - Hayek wrote a book titled “The Road to Serfdom.” Based on your track record here, perhaps you might want to consider that the pattern still holds: you’ve got it exactly backwards.