Political Theory

Re: The Last and the First

Mlee — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:23:52 GMT

Instead of attacking philosophical tenents of libertarianism, you make baseless generalizations?

Re: The Last and the First

Pskapompos — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 07:53:27 GMT

Im talking about the one who said we"can starve for all (they) care."

Re: The Last and the First

Pskapompos — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 07:52:25 GMT

My point exactly. Your comment gets to the heart of what libertarianism is all about. Thank you

Re: The Last and the First

ProudCapitalist — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 19:43:51 GMT

GilesStratton:
Raico and Hoppe.

Great links! What a scoop.

And it has been audio revorder too (I kinda like that format):

http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/marxism/Hoppe.mp3

This kind of ammunition should seriously make any well read marxist out there bend over backwards and dive his head into his own, well, oricifice back there. I think that commies are mostly people motivated by a feeling of being maltreated. Marxism is the trick to make them blame "rich people" (or jews or whatnot). Those feelings urgently need to be redirected towards "forceful people" (i.e. statists).

Re: The Last and the First

hayekianxyz — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:16:48 GMT

MatthewWilliam:

krazy kaju:

Don't forget that in Biblical times the rich usually were tax collectors and other government parasites who fed off of the productive masses. This essentially proves the classical theory of class struggle (rulers vs. ruled), disproving the Marxist one (class vs. class).

Kaju, can you point me towards any more 'classical theory' class struggle articles?

Raico and Hoppe.

Re: The Last and the First

tacoface — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 10:30:05 GMT

Amen.

Re: The Last and the First

scineram — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 08:52:53 GMT

You and others can starve for all I care.

Re: The Last and the First

Pskapompos — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 06:57:54 GMT

I cant believe what Im seeing here. Dont you think the rich can very well defend themselves people? Oh waitt, theyre absolutely moral, hard working, productive people. Most dont make their money buying and selling the debt of the classes beneath them. No, most weren't handed an oppurtunity and shown the way to achieve it. No, no. They did it all on their own. I get it. And they help the poor by not spending ALL their money.

Because some brave soul in our past was willing to stand up and "steal" from the rich, I was able to eat as a child on food stamps. And before you say anything, my father worked 12 hrs a day 6 days a week before losing his job. Because some brave soul was willing to forcibly remove the property of some greedy money-grubbing heiress, I was able to use public assistance to put me through college and hopefully create a better situation for future generations.

You people go to great lengths to justify greed is good and were on our own. It makes me sick sometimes. My problem is that you libertarians are almost spot-on, until it comes to economics. Then the "I dont want no lazy sap taking any of my hard-earned money to maybe FEED HIS DAMN CHILDREN!!!"

Re: The Last and the First

Mlee — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 07:18:00 GMT

Although I find it VERY dangerous to turn Jesus into a classical liberal/Market Anarchist spiritual paragon (He WAS a religous "entreprenur", he does say many things which not only are anti-state (Along with some suspicious statements involving obedience and submission ((Whether these were metaphorical or literal is another discussion entirely)) ) But also seem to provide a powerful moral fabric for a society without coercion.

Re: The Last and the First

MatthewWilliam — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 04:56:57 GMT

krazy kaju:

Don't forget that in Biblical times the rich usually were tax collectors and other government parasites who fed off of the productive masses. This essentially proves the classical theory of class struggle (rulers vs. ruled), disproving the Marxist one (class vs. class).

Kaju, can you point me towards any more 'classical theory' class struggle articles?

Re: The Last and the First

dchernik — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 01:58:15 GMT

See Mises vs. Jesus for an extended and more polished apologetics.

Re: The Last and the First

mattch — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 16:55:49 GMT

nhaag:

This seems to be the issue. How to know the intended meaning of the author? In case of the new testament even, how to know who the author or the authors where? The whole struggle between all christian denominations are based exactly on the question what the intention or the meaning of the author is,no?

True. But it also depends what your goals are. You might truly believe in the special authority of the author, and be sincerely searching for guidance. Or you might be seeking to justify your own interests or prior beliefs by misusing the authority that the author holds with others.

In JC's case this is complicated by the fact that we are dealing with a literary figure, rather than a verifiable historical individual. And the people who created this literary figure probably had their own agenda, that wasn't necessarily JC's.

For me he was a fallible and misguided earthly human-being, who did happen to say some impractical but also beautiful and thought-provoking things.

Re: The Last and the First

nhaag — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 13:11:34 GMT

mattch:

I hope we could agree that meaningful interpretation should start with the intended meaning of the author, not the prior beliefs of the interpreter. I was trying to warn dchernik of this.

This seems to be the issue. How to know the intended meaning of the author? In case of the new testament even, how to know who the author or the authors where? The whole struggle between all christian denominations are based exactly on the question what the intention or the meaning of the author is,no?

Re: The Last and the First

mattch — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:06:25 GMT

I hope we could agree that meaningful interpretation should start with the intended meaning of the author, not the prior beliefs of the interpreter. I was trying to warn dchernik of this.

Re: The Last and the First

Jon Irenicus — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 09:57:36 GMT

True, but the Bible is vague and subject to many interpretations, like the one dchernik just gave it. I'll have to say my opinion is closer to Mises's, but I'm no Bible expert so I can't really say much more.

-Jon