|
I love that the cities should always sell off their assets and turn them over to the private sector because maintaining said assets is a "tax payer expense". Go on take it one step further, rob the commons of any ownership at all and see how that goes you hypocritical fools.
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 11:51 |
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:When libertarians argue against workplace protection laws, they do so on the grounds that e.g., a 12-hour day without a break does not constitute coercion, because 'well, you could always quit!' So it looks like the operative principle is that asking something of someone does not constitute coercion just so long as they have any choice (however unpleasant) but to comply. But this is inconsistent with the position that taxation is coercive; citizens in most democratic states may well choose to serve a sentence instead of paying. Essentially, they draw a very stark distinction between active coercion (do X or I'll do Y) and merely using circumstances as leverage (you need Z and I won't give it to you unless you do X). It would be morally wrong for a theoretical capitalist to round people up and force them to work in a factory*, but it would be completely moral for him to intercept and buy food shipments during a famine and only feed people who worked in his factory. All of ethics and philosophy is built around not (directly!) violating other people's property rights, and literally all other concerns aren't even secondary, they're nonexistent. And yes, this does mean that people with more property explicitly have more rights, but this is not considered a flaw in the minds of Libertarians. *This only counts as immoral if the capitalist is personally the one doing it. If he hires muscle to do it for him, then he's not the one choosing to violate other people's rights, his muscle is. After all, they could always quit! And before you ask, no, this logic does not apply to The State doing this via law enforcement agents, because The State isn't a person or something? I don't know, it gets hazy when you push that far. edit: Juffo-Wup posted:Well, sure. But while not all libertarians are DRO weirdos, even the less ridiculous varieties have to somehow give an account of coercion that encompasses most state action but almost no corporate action, even where the available courses of action are practically qualitatively identical in each case. I just don't see how it can be done. Has anyone tried? Nozick maybe? Usually you'll get a vague response about how they're totally against corporations as a thing, and would rather have everything explicitly owned by individuals. But their rhetoric pretty much never mentions it unless someone else brings it up. As for Nozick, he had nothing but disdain for the NAP worshipers we normally see in this thread, to the point of endorsing the existence of a minimal state. Goon Danton fucked around with this message at 19:34 on May 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Just look back through this thread where Libertarians discuss DROs. The penalty applied to someone who "chooses" to not pay a DRO is infinitely harsher than anything the US government will do to you should you choose not to pay your taxes (hint: anything from hostage family members to outright execution). Well, sure. But while not all libertarians are DRO weirdos, even the less ridiculous varieties have to somehow give an account of coercion that encompasses most state action but almost no corporate action, even where the available courses of action are practically qualitatively identical in each case. I just don't see how it can be done. Has anyone tried? Nozick maybe? Edit: Nolanar posted:Essentially, they draw a very stark distinction between active coercion (do X or I'll do Y) and merely using circumstances as leverage (you need Z and I won't give it to you unless you do X). It would be morally wrong for a theoretical capitalist to round people up and force them to work in a factory*, but it would be completely moral for him to intercept and buy food shipments during a famine and only feed people who worked in his factory. All of ethics and philosophy is built around not (directly!) violating other people's property rights, and literally all other concerns aren't even secondary, they're nonexistent. And yes, this does mean that people with more property explicitly have more rights, but this is not considered a flaw in the minds of Libertarians. So it's like a killing vs. letting die distinction? I don't think that'll do the work they need it to, though. Example: a company might have a social media policy for its employees, where for example if they post anything negative about the company on Facebook, they'll get fired. This is a very clear case of 'do X or I'll do Y' but I think a libertarian'll want to defend the company's right to have such a policy. Juffo-Wup fucked around with this message at 19:30 on May 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:So it's like a killing vs. letting die distinction? I don't think that'll do the work they need it to, though. Example: a company might have a social media policy for its employees, where for example if they post anything negative about the company on Facebook, they'll get fired. This is a very clear case of 'do X or I'll do Y' but I think a libertarian'll want to defend the company's right to have such a policy. That gets into the fun that is the Libertarian worship of Contracts. Basically, if I sign a contract with someone and then don't live up to it, that's functionally the same as a con artist signing a contract, getting paid up front, and then disappearing. That is to say that it's fraud, which is a violation of property rights. So if they enforce a clause in a contract you signed, it's not coercion, because you consented to it.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:So it's like a killing vs. letting die distinction? I don't think that'll do the work they need it to, though. Example: a company might have a social media policy for its employees, where for example if they post anything negative about the company on Facebook, they'll get fired. This is a very clear case of 'do X or I'll do Y' but I think a libertarian'll want to defend the company's right to have such a policy. It's like killing vs letting die if you're also ok with engineering a system where a person you don't like it shot in the face by a machine if they don't do what you want. "Give me your money or I'll shoot you in the face" is violence and aggression. "Deposit money into this machine I built or, as a result of your inaction to choose to put money into the machine, you will be shot in the face by said machine." is just doing business and represents no coercion. Also trapping people on your property and watching them starve to death ala the sims is fine too.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Pretending to be a Libertarian to make their arguments for them makes me feel weird, and I don't like it. I'd rather copy-paste some real Libertarian bullshit instead! Undue Aggregation Isn’t Just for Economists The economics profession today continues to face mounting criticism for its failure to predict and explain economic crises. According to Austrian school critics of Keynesian and neoclassical methods, this failure is in large part due to a foolish determination to bring into economics the mathematical precision of the physical sciences. To achieve this precision, neo-classical economists disproportionately focus their inquiry on global measures of economic activity: gross national product, aggregate demand, global supplies of money, goods, or labor, and other variables that lend themselves to quantification and numerical modeling. Lost in mainstream economic analysis is the attention due to the individual economic actor who, by virtue of his or her power of self-determination, is ill-suited for the equation or the graph. A similar love affair with quantitative methods has rapidly taken over the medical field over the last several decades. As in mainstream economics, equations and predictions can only come about when one turns one’s attention away from the individual patient to focus instead on the aggregated group, or population, as the prime target of analysis and intervention. Thus, population medicine is an apt term to describe the discipline that seeks to mathematize medical practice by caring not for the patient in particular, but for the patient on average, globally, or in the abstract. For the promoters of population medicine, the individual clinical interaction is of no interest. It is dismissed as quaint, anecdotal, and inconsequential to a proper understanding of health issues. Instead, the data of interest are those garnered from large epidemiological studies and clinical trials. From such research, one can derive “risk factors” for disease, elucidate the “determinants of health,” and promote prescriptive measures in wide swaths. A Key to Centrally Planning Health Care Advancing the convenient fiction that whatever is good for the group must be good for the individual, population medicine has become an indispensable framework of analysis for the central planning of health care. Accordingly, government agencies can now avail themselves of the findings of this discipline to decide which services, drugs, and interventions should be paid for and promoted, and which must be deemed unnecessary or even fraudulent. The decisions can thus be rendered under cover of “scientific proof.” An example of activities promoted by population medicine is the “risk calculation,” which doctors are expected to embrace, or else face penalties for practicing outside of the desired norm. Risk calculation involves inputting a handful of patient factors — age, weight, cholesterol, blood pressure, and the like — into a formula to obtain the patient’s “personal risk” of dying or suffering a specific outcome in the future. Based on this mathematical insight, an intervention is prescribed. A patient can thus enjoy the privilege of being treated like a number not just figuratively, but quite literally. Needless to say, the architects of population medicine overlook that the concept of “personal risk” is rather devoid of meaning, as statistician Richard von Mises explained many decades ago. Willful or naïve, this oversight is turning medicine into an enormous risk management enterprise aimed at solving an impossible game of health optimization. According to the wisdom of population medicine, for example, to be healthy is to confine our weight, our blood cholesterol, or our blood sugar to an ever-more narrow range of “normal values” defined — and repeatedly revised — not on the basis of any physiological reality, but by the will of committees of medical technocrats. With each new revision in the definitions of what constitutes a “normal” blood pressure, blood cholesterol, or blood sugar, millions of hapless citizens whose numbers happen to fall outside the desired range are instantly turned into patients, to the great delight of the pharmaceutical industry. And it’s not just anthropomorphic variables which are so narrowly defined. What we eat, how much we drink, how long we sit, and how fast we move are all of interest to population scientists eager to show us the narrow path to healthy living measured in precise servings per meal, ounces per day, hours per week, or miles per minute. The scientific advice, unfortunately, does not always lead to a healthy outcome. A population-wide push to discourage consumption of saturated fats, for example, led to a population-wide increase in the consumption of carbohydrates, and thus may have unwittingly played a role in the obesity epidemic of the last twenty years. At the very least, lifestyle fads advocated through the bullhorns of population medicine are undoubtedly causing epidemics of food and exercise neuroses. Population medicine ambitiously aims to improve the health of entire nations. To do so, it proceeds to sketch an ever-more quantified but all-the-more unrealistic portrait of the human being, to be analyzed by those who enjoy directing medical care from the remote comfort of their academic or governmental chairs. Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 12:36
|
|
|
 says that was written by someone very angry that someone said cigarettes are bad for your health.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 12:48
|
|
|
By "undue aggregation", did they actually mean undeserved links and citations, or just misspell "aggrandizement"? I choose to believe it is the former. There is a WAR on freedom, son, being waged by the forces of  unearned collectivism!!E: I normally skim/skip the mises reposts, but upon actually reading the post I guess my sick burn may have missed the mark, if "undue aggregation" is intended as "unfitting quantitative analysis". 
Grace Baiting fucked around with this message at 16:12 on May 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 13:49
|
|
|
Libertarians are essentially usually a flipside of Hobbes. They believe in a very simple definition of freedom, but they don't want the Leviathan to help out.
|
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 14:16
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:
My guess is that he's some variant of homeopath/naturopath/whatever. Looks like he has an MD, but that means precisely gently caress all to either of our theories.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 14:22
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Libertarians are essentially usually a flipside of Hobbes. They believe in a very simple definition of freedom, but they don't want the Leviathan to help out. Hobbes is a really interesting foil for the libertarian, because he accepts many of the same basic axioms but follows them more determinedly to their conclusions, and is less willing to let wishful thinking guide him. For example, on the subject of contracts and coercion, a libertarian will say that a contract obtained through threat of bodily harm is invalid, whereas Hobbes sees no issue: fear of harm and desire for benefit, he thinks, are the only two motivating factors in human psychology; why should all the actions originating from the former be less free than the others? After all, the will is exercised in either case - the only impediment to freedom in this sense is physical restraint: Leviathan 14.23 posted:Covenants entred into by fear, in the condition of meer Nature, are obligatory. For example, if I Covenant to pay a ransome, or service for my life, to an enemy; I am bound by it. For it is a Contract, wherein one receiveth the benefit of life; the other is to receive mony, or service for it; and consequently, where no other Law (as in the condition, of meer Nature) forbiddeth the performance, the Covenant is valid. Therefore Prisoners of warre, if trusted with the payment of their Ransome, are obliged to pay it; And if a weaker Prince, make a disadvantageous peace with a stronger, for feare; he is bound to keep it; unlesse (as hath been sayd before) there ariseth some new, and just cause of feare, to renew the war. And even in Common-wealths, if I be forced to redeem my selfe from a Theefe by promising him mony, I am bound to pay it, till the Civill Law discharge me. For whatsoever I may lawfully do without Obligation, the same I may lawfully Covenant to do through feare: and what I lawfully Covenant, I cannot lawfully break. In addition, the libertarian will tie themselves in knots trying to figure out who owns what, or what happens when two people contribute equally to the development of some property or the manufacture of some good, and they will fine-tune the nature of the exceptions to whatever axiom of property they choose until they get the results they want. Hobbes starts with the facts on the ground (viz., people will take what they can get), and concludes that Nature provides no further property rights than this: Leviathan 13.5 posted:To this warre of every man against every man, this also is consequent; that nothing can be Unjust. The notions of Right and Wrong, Justice and Injustice have there no place. Where there is no common Power, there is no Law: where no Law, no Injustice. Force, and Fraud, are in warre the two Cardinall vertues. Justice, and Injustice are none of the Faculties neither of the Body, nor Mind. If they were, they might be in a man that were alone in the world, as well as his Senses, and Passions. They are Qualities, that relate to men in Society, not in Solitude. It is consequent also to the same condition, that there be no Propriety, no Dominion, no Mine and Thine distinct; but onely that to be every mans that he can get; and for so long, as he can keep it. And thus much for the ill condition, which man by meer Nature is actually placed in; though with a possibility to come out of it, consisting partly in the Passions, partly in his Reason. The libertarian says that for them, consent is the foundational moral principle of their philosophy. But that's false, because they will come up with all manner of exceptions to how and when consent can be given. By contrast, Hobbes actually takes consent seriously: Leviathan 15.7 posted:Whatsoever is done to a man, conformable to his own Will signified to the doer, is no Injury to him. For if he that doeth it, hath not passed away his originall right to do what he please, by some Antecedent Covenant, there is no breach of Covenant; and therefore no Injury done him. And if he have; then his Will to have it done being signified, is a release of that Covenant; and so again there is no Injury done him. Of course, Hobbes and the libertarian might disagree as to whether there is any such things as an implicit contract: Leviathan 14.14 posted:Signes by Inference, are sometimes the consequence of Words; sometimes the consequence of Silence; sometimes the consequence of Actions; sometimes the consequence of Forbearing an Action: and generally a signe by Inference, of any Contract, is whatsoever sufficiently argues the will of the Contractor. But even if the libertarian rejects that, Hobbes can still get the state-by-consent that both he and the libertarian want, it just involves a lot more explicit statements like 'I hereby coventant that...' Critically, the libertarian must accept this: if a state is generated through contract by the consent of the subjects, however obtained, then its authority is legitimate. If the libertarian then says 'no, I do not consent to the authority of this state' then they remove themselves from the mutual covenant that constitutes the state. Fair enough, this voids all their obligations to the state, but at the same time it voids the state's obligation to them. How can the libertarian maintain, in the absence of civil laws to the contrary, that it would then be unjust to relieve them of all their possessions? This is what an obsessive focus on contract and consent gets you!
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
What's the difference between a drunken libertarian and a sober libertarian? I have no idea
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Happy_Misanthrope posted:What's the difference between a drunken libertarian and a sober libertarian? What's this poo poo about a new harassment rule on reddit? I'm not listening to this poo poo to find out.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
Happy_Misanthrope posted:What's the difference between a drunken libertarian and a sober libertarian? Haha, I was literally just watching this before I entered this thread.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:What's this poo poo about a new harassment rule on reddit? I'm not listening to this poo poo to find out. First they came for the pedophiles, then they came for the MRAs...
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:First they came for the pedophiles, then they came for the MRAs... No I mean, what is the actual new policy, not what are idiots making GBS threads themselves about edit it's the most milquetoast bullshit
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
All that needs to be said about reddit, in one post:
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
Ughhhh just because something is against the rules does not mean it's illegal. Stop using words incorrectly reddit.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:First they came for the pedophiles, then they came for the MRAs... And I did not speak out because it was pretty sweet.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:Ughhhh just because something is against the rules does not mean it's illegal. Stop using words incorrectly reddit. And of course, not being permitted to disseminate certain personal opinions across the private property of a business is not a restriction on your 'freedom of speech', albeit that confused argument extends well beyond reddit's userbase.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
Happy_Misanthrope posted:And of course, not being permitted to disseminate certain personal opinions across the private property of a business is not a restriction on your 'freedom of speech', albeit that confused argument extends well beyond reddit's userbase. Yeah that's a general internet thing, people been saying "what about the first amendment you internet hitler" since the first forum banned the n-word
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:Ughhhh just because something is against the rules does not mean it's illegal. Stop using words incorrectly reddit. Uhhhh this one is actually literally illegal
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 08:42
|
|
|
Happy_Misanthrope posted:What's the difference between a drunken libertarian and a sober libertarian? This just gets better and better. The caller insists that Walmart would build roads if it wasn't for us liberals! Libertarianism is the pursuit of putting as much thought as possible into being wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
Etalommi posted:Uhhhh this one is actually literally illegal Oh I just assumed it was reddit being morons and conflating the constitution and the law with the rules of a privately owned website You know Like they do
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
Thanks for posting this, this is really cool. A friend was talking about Hobbes and Libertarianism and I showed them this. Was it Habermas who talked about how even though most people can tell that the sciences are descriptive and don't tell us what's right or wrong, governments appointing different experts into political positions makes certain criteria, economic growth for instance, seem like an incontrovertible, absolute, objective good, or something? That's what this article reminds me of, except this is less "people are confused about the role of science in telling us what to do" and more "evil epidemiologists even talking about the health of groups of people is the first step on the road to socialism." Time to read Zinn fucked around with this message at 17:53 on May 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
So one of the arguments I've been hearing from the Right is that the jobs growth under Obama doesn't really count and that it's artificial cause the Fed has lowered interest rates. Does this mean Reagan's economic boom doesn't count either since the Feds lowered the interest rate right when the jobs boom (coincidentally) started?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:First they came for the pedophiles, then they came for the MRAs... To paraphrase the 2012 Reddit Pedocaust thread, "First they came for the pedophiles, and I said nothing because gently caress those guys. Then they came for the MRAs, and I said nothing because to hell with those clowns. Then nothing else happened and it was pretty sweet, actually."
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:So one of the arguments I've been hearing from the Right is that the jobs growth under Obama doesn't really count and that it's artificial cause the Fed has lowered interest rates. no of course not don't be ridiculous
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
So, I recently got in touch again with an old friend from Texas. She was never that political, but mostly went along with her husband's libertarianism. Life happened and we spent 3 years or so without contact. Turns out her husband dumped her (and their two kids), and she then had a bad staph infection. She had just started a new job, o she was not covered by their insurance yet. Three visits to the hospital, but without coverage they could not do exams and just sent her home and told her to take some steroids and painkillers. Steroids shot her immune system and she developed necrotizing fasciitis. Lost her leg above the knee and is now suing the hospital, but apparently tort reform in Texas severely limits what she can get. I wonder if there's a book or a comprehensive study of the toll of misery, pain, wasted potential and abbreviated lives the US healthcare system causes. Michael Moore's 'Sicko' barely scratched the surface, I think.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 01:44
|
|
Sephyr posted:So, I recently got in touch again with an old friend from Texas. She was never that political, but mostly went along with her husband's libertarianism. Life happened and we spent 3 years or so without contact. Even without this kind of physical and emotional carnage, there is the financial wreckage of massive numbers of bankruptcies and house foreclosures.
|
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:So, I recently got in touch again with an old friend from Texas. She was never that political, but mostly went along with her husband's libertarianism. Life happened and we spent 3 years or so without contact. That turns my stomach. I'm so sorry for your friend. I wish we could force people to confront the fact that this is what happens when good, hard-working, honest people can't get health care.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:So, I recently got in touch again with an old friend from Texas. She was never that political, but mostly went along with her husband's libertarianism. Life happened and we spent 3 years or so without contact. Plural of Anecdote is always a good place to start if you feel like being disgusted and nauseous.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 04:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That turns my stomach. I'm so sorry for your friend. I wish we could force people to confront the fact that this is what happens when good, hard-working, honest people can't get health care. I think we like it as a country. We want that terror to motivate us, to keep us in our jobs, to make us hustle when we lose them. We crave suffering, enslavement and annihilation.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 07:54
|
|
|
Jrod. Jrod. Jrod.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 08:15
|
|
|
We need a card to summon him. Like those lovely cards the dork enlightenment made.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 08:21
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:So one of the arguments I've been hearing from the Right is that the jobs growth under Obama doesn't really count and that it's artificial cause the Fed has lowered interest rates. This reminds me of my dad, whose explanation for the recovery is that it's false because you have to subtract all government spending from GDP to get the "real" GDP.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 08:28
|
|
|
Bob James posted:Jrod. Jrod. Jrod. That's not how it works, man. You gotta do something that gets his hackles up. I'll copy over my Intro to Hoppe post from the Dark Enlightenment thread, we'll see if that does anything: You know what, gently caress it. It's Hoppe Time. quote:Private property capitalism and egalitarian multiculturalism are as unlikely a combination as socialism and cultural conservatism. And in trying to combine what cannot be combined, much of the modern libertarian movement actually contributed to the further erosion of private property rights (just as much of contemporary conservatism contributed to the erosion of families and traditional morals). What the countercultural libertarians failed to recognize, and what true libertarians cannot emphasize enough, is that the restoration of private property rights and laissez-faire economics implies a sharp and drastic increase in social “discrimination” and will swiftly eliminate most if not all of the multicultural-egalitarian life style experiments so close to the heart of left libertarians. In other words, libertarians must be radical and uncompromising conservatives. quote:In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one's own tenant-property. One may say innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They – the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order. quote:In every society, a few individuals acquire the status of an elite through talent. Due to superior achievements of wealth, wisdom, and bravery, these individuals come to possess natural authority, and their opinions and judgments enjoy wide-spread respect. Moreover, because of selective mating, marriage, and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority are likely to be passed on within a few noble families. It is to the heads of these families with long-established records of superior achievement, farsightedness, and exemplary personal conduct that men turn to with their conflicts and complaints against each other. These leaders of the natural elite act as judges and peacemakers, often free of charge out of a sense of duty expected of a person of authority or out of concern for civil justice as a privately produced "public good." quote:Thereby, in order to illustrate one's theoretical conclusions, every attempt should be made to compare societies which, apart from the theoretical distinction under consideration, are as similar as possible. It would be an error, for instance, to illustrate my theory of comparative government by contrasting European monarchies with African democracies or African monarchies with European democracies. Since Caucasians have, on the average, a significantly lower degree of time preference than Negroids, any such comparison would amount to a systematic distortion of the evidence. By contrasting European monarchies to African democracies, the theoretically predicted differences between monarchical and democratic rule would become systematically overstated, and by contrasting African monarchies with European democracies, the differences would become systematically understated. I feel the need to remind everyone that despite the fact that he writes like a 19th Century aristocrat, Hans-Hermann Hoppe is not only still alive, but is a professor emeritus at UNLV.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 12:37
|
|
|
I know it shouldn't be because I've read it before but it's still a little shocking just how blatant the fucker is with outright saying he thinks blacks are inherently inferior to whites in every way.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 12:45
|
|
Nolanar posted:emeritus Practically every institution of higher learning has embarassing and cranky emeritus professors.
|
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 12:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 11:51 |
|
|
Disinterested posted:Practically every institution of higher learning has embarassing and cranky emeritus professors. Yeah, I just put that line in there for the other thread, so that they'd know he's not just some random weirdo with a blog.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 13:41
|
|