Letters to the Editor
bucky1
Published Letters: 1714
-
re: Don't play with Wikipedia at home
[Read the article: The Republican Party is the party of Bush]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]u can quote all the crap you like from Wiki, (a wonderful resource if you know how to use it), but you're not going to sell anti-statist anarchism here, not even to Mona. That is popular among teen-age boys still reading Ayn Rand, (and some girls who dig the rape scene). Most of us toyed with anarchy in our youth and have long since outgrown it. Locke, Kant, and Rousseau believed that the role of government is to secure liberty, not take it away. You can get any crackpot economist to say anything. Some of them actually don't get found out to be the crackpots they are until after they are dead.
I see you did not read the link you made fun of; hmmm; this is looking like a trend with you.
If also looks like a trend that you have to be vulgar to try to make some point. The fellow I responded to seemed to think that socialists like you calling themselves "liberal" was a new thing. I showed him it has been going on a long time; as has the fear to be labelled "liberal" in modern politics for at least 2 decades.
However:
Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1] and laissez-faire liberalism[2]) is a doctrine stressing the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill,[3] and others. As such, it is seen as the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism.[4] The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society,[5] though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of a few basic public goods that the market is seen as being incapable of providing.[6] The qualification classical was applied in retrospect to distinguish early nineteenth-century liberalism from the "new liberalism" associated with Thomas Hill Green, Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse,[7] and Franklin D. Roosevelt,[8] which grants a more interventionist role for the state.
Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Milton Friedman are credited with a revival of classical liberalism in the 20th century after it fell out of favor beginning in the late nineteenth century and much of the twentieth century.[9]
Libertarians of a minarchist persuasion use the term "classical liberalism" almost interchangeably with the term "libertarianism",[10] while the correctness of this usage is disputed (see "Classical liberalism" and libertarianism, below). Nevertheless, if both philosophies are not the same, classical liberalism does resemble modern libertarianism in many ways.[11]
So you throw Hayek, von Mises, Friedman, and all other classic liberals in the same category with rape! Damn!
How many men that history records as great intellectuals are you going to write off as rapists?
A fellow who could not explain Praxeology is going to call the guy who coined the phase a rapist?
Wow, is all I have to say on the matter.
-
neo-Nazi racist ?!? Hoppe?
[Read the article: The Republican Party is the party of Bush]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Boy you are hot tonight. First all your enemies are rapists; now a respected profesor is a Nazi? I wonder if that comment could be actionable on his part? I have no idea, as I do not understand modern law.
However:
Following in the tradition of Murray Rothbard, one of Hoppe's most important contributions has been analyzing the behavior of government using the tools of economic theory. Defining a government as "a territorial monopolist of jurisdiction and taxation" and assuming no more than self-interest on the part of government officials, he predicts that these government officials will use their monopoly privileges to maximize their own wealth and power. Hoppe argues that there is a high degree of correlation between these theoretical predictions and historical data.
This does not seem to be "neo-Nazism" as I understand it. Hmmm. Perhaps you just do not know his work and are so mad at me that you will say anything. Or, perhaps you just can not read with understanding.
In fact:
In June 2005, Hoppe granted an interview in the German newspaper Junge Freiheit, in which he characterized monarchy as a lesser evil than democracy, calling the latter mob rule and saying, "Liberty instead of democracy!" In the interview Hoppe also condemned the French revolution as belonging in "the same category of vile revolutions as well as the Bolshevik revolution and the Nazi revolution," because the French revolution led to "Regicide, Egalitarianism, democracy, socialism, hatred of all religion, terror measures, mass plundering, rape and murder, military draft and the total, ideologically motivated War."
I tell you, that just does not look like the words of a fellow who is a neo-Nazi. Even if I did not know that he came to this country to study under the Jewish intellectual Murray Rothbard (himself a student of Jewish von Mises), I would see that he is no Nazi.
You do not know his work, do you?