LogFAQs > #885442250

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, Database 1 ( 03.09.2017-09.16.2017 ), DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	"No barriers, no walls, we all need to coexist." - Katy Perry
Balrog0 08/25/17 5:11:46 PM #62:	tennisdude818 posted... "Packaged for the extreme right". It's not that he says things that are wrong, it's just packaged for nazis. Ok. No, it's quite often wrong, but that's not the problem I have with it. You can be wrong without odious, and you can be right while being awful. Is the level of discourse on this board really so low that people are incapable of understanding that? Just look at it in terms of human action -- you've read that, right? It's very near the beginning when he talks about this, too. Remember, every action has two aspects. An action is both a whole project aimed at a particular purpose, but also only a partial action in the broader framework of what Mises calls "further-stretching action," but which really just means the rest of our lives. You asking me and wanting me to analyze his ideas in the first frame, but I'm more interested in the second. Why are you trying to act as though that frame is invalid for some reason? I'm not saying the first is. I like Woods on some stuff, but that doesn't change his whole project, which has clearly been to court ethnonationalist populists -- like the League of the South tennisdude818 posted... @Balrog0 I have a question out of curiosity. You seemed to scoff at Rothbard and Mises but called yourself an "actual libertarian". Is there any particular economist that you find to be more libertarian than those two? I don't think I ever scoffed at them as economists, I'm saying the organization espousing their views is awful, and on top of that I'm saying Tom Woods is a bad person. Even Mises scholars at the LvMI regularly talk about how Mises isn't very libertarian. He and Hayek both purposefully called themselves liberals. The LvMI is much more Rothbardian in character, and Rothbard was a poor scholar. Rothbard is probably the most anarcho-capitalist scholar I can think of -- maybe Hoppe or Walter Block would be "more libertarian" --- He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor. <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:885442250] in "No b... [t:75707668]...</cite> <quote><cite>tennisdude818 posted...</cite> <quote>"Packaged for the extreme right". It's not that he says things that are wrong, it's just packaged for nazis. Ok.</quote> No, it's quite often wrong, but that's not the problem I have with it. You can be wrong without odious, and you can be right while being awful. Is the level of discourse on this board really so low that people are incapable of understanding that? Just look at it in terms of human action -- you've read that, right? It's very near the beginning when he talks about this, too. Remember, every action has two aspects. An action is both a whole project aimed at a particular purpose, but also only a partial action in the broader framework of what Mises calls "further-stretching action," but which really just means the rest of our lives. You asking me and wanting me to analyze his ideas in the first frame, but I'm more interested in the second. Why are you trying to act as though that frame is invalid for some reason? I'm not saying the first is. I like Woods on some stuff, but that doesn't change his whole project, which has clearly been to court ethnonationalist populists -- like the League of the South <cite>tennisdude818 posted...</cite> <quote>@Balrog0 I have a question out of curiosity. You seemed to scoff at Rothbard and Mises but called yourself an "actual libertarian". Is there any particular economist that you find to be more libertarian than those two?</quote> I don't think I ever scoffed at them as economists, I'm saying the organization espousing their views is awful, and on top of that I'm saying Tom Woods is a bad person. Even Mises scholars at the LvMI regularly talk about how Mises isn't very libertarian. He and Hayek both purposefully called themselves liberals. The LvMI is much more Rothbardian in character, and Rothbard was a poor scholar. Rothbard is probably the most anarcho-capitalist scholar I can think of -- maybe Hoppe or Walter Block would be "more libertarian" --- He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1