Did you even read the article? Because it doesn’t seem like it.
That costs money. But if you’re just looking for asian girls in Nazi outfits, Google is your friend.
Did you even read the article? Because it doesn’t seem like it.
Dude, I’ve read that a couple of times, the first probably five or six years ago. There’s a decent chance I’ve read more Rothbard than you ever will. Just because Rothbard thinks Burke was really an anarchist doesn’t mean it’s true; nor does Burke at one point being something of an anarchist (and even then, his work is only against ‘artificial government’ not government per se) does not mean that Burke was correct in being so, and it certainly does not imply that he remained an anarchist. The majority of Burke’s work (which I have read, have you?) is a valid indictment against civil wars (and most ‘foreign’ wars are actually civil wars) and tyrannical government, which is to say misgovernment. Most people who read an understand Burke (including the ‘conservative’ Burke) would agree with those parts totally, what they disagree with is the overly simplistic conclusion it draws. It is like saying swords ought to be forbidden because so many people have been stabbed without cause.
The aim was more of you proving who is doing the typing.
Mollifying the random suspicions of dorks on Mises is hardly within the range of things I care about.
Haha…!! [:D]
Obviously. But just because you say he isn’t, doesn’t make it true either. Sorry, but I don’t find your “rebuttal” at all convincing.
Yeah, self government… (i.e anarchism) [;)]
I fail to see how you addressed the “satirist” contention, and the numerous other points supporting the case, in the article.
Obviously. But just because you say he isn’t, doesn’t make it true either. Sorry, but I don’t find your “rebuttal” at all convincing.
He also clearly wasn’t an anarchist in his later life and, moreover, why the Hell should it matter? I’m not Edmund Burke.
Yeah, self government
Just because that’s the only alternative you can imagine does not mean that the Right Honourable Edmund Burke was so limited in his faculties.
Liberte, are you a materialist? You are almost identical to an old poster named Vichy, although the writing styles are quite different.
QFT
Yes indeed, they have so much in common: same IP address even!
Lol.
Yes, I am, at least depending on what you mean by it.
I wonder how many Asian girls with a knowledge of Rothbard post on Mises.org from the same computer.
edit: At least “liberte” is a far fancier username than “htut.”
I am going to find that computer if its the last thing I do.
"It is well known that Burke spent the rest of his career battling for views diametrically opposite to those of his Vindication. His own belated explanation was that the Vindication was a satire on the views of rationalist Deists like Lord Bolingbroke, demonstrating that a devotion to reason and an attack on revealed religion can logically eventuate in a subversive attack on the principle of government itself. Burke’s host of biographers and followers have tended to adopt his explanation uncritically. Yet they hurry on and rarely mention his Vindication in their discussions of Burke, and with good reason. For the work is a most embarrassing one. Careful reading reveals hardly a trace of irony or satire. In fact, it is a very sober and earnest treatise, written in his characteristic style. Indeed, Burke’s biographers have commented on the failure of the work as irony, without raising the fundamental question whether it was really meant to be irony at all.
Burke’s own explanation, in fact, is not a very plausible one. He was not given to satire, and rarely attempted such writing in later years. The Vindication was published anonymously when Burke was 27 years old. Nine years later, after his authorship had been discovered, Burke found himself about to embark on his famous Parliamentary career. To admit that he had seriously held such views in earlier years would have been politically disastrous. His only way out was to brush it off as a satire, thereby vindicating himself as an eternal enemy of rationalism and subversion.
Burke begins the Vindication by establishing the aim of his inquiry: to investigate with the light of truth the general nature of political institutions or “political society.” He rejects at the outset the typically conservative reluctance to tamper with prevalent beliefs and ancient traditions. He upholds that noble tenet of eighteenth-century rationalism: that happiness, in the long run, rests on truth and truth alone. And that truth is the natural law of human activity and human relations. Positive law imposed by the State injures man whenever it strays from the path that we know to be the law of man’s nature. How is the natural law to be discovered? Not by Revelation, but by the use of man’s reason."
Why does it matter? Eh, like I said - I thought it funny, considering what you outlined in the OP and other places.
All you have is wishful thinking. What other form of “government” did he leave untouched then, that isn’t a form of “despotism”, “aristocracy”, “democracy”, or “mixed” ? And that you believe he supposedly supported?
He Was an Anarchist
“Anarchism” is an extreme term, but no other can adequately describe Burke’s thesis. Again and again, he emphatically denounces any and all government, and not just specific, forms of government. Summing up his views on government, he declares:
The several species of government vie with each other in the absurdity of their constitutions, and the oppression which they make their subjects endure. Take them under what form you please, they are in effect but a despotism …
Parties in religion and politics make sufficient discoveries concerning each other, to give a sober man proper caution against them all. The monarchist, and aristocratical, and popular partisans have been jointly laying their axes to the root of all government, and have in their turns proved each other absurd and inconvenient. In vain you tell me that artificial government is good, but that I fall out only with the abuse. The thing! The thing itself is the abuse!3
All government, Burke adds, is founded on one “grand error.” It was observed that men sometimes commit violence against one another, and that it is therefore necessary to guard against such violence. As a result, men appoint governors among them. But who is to defend the people against the governors?
It must be the wellspring for Asian girls interested in the Austrian school. There needs to be more of those.
I guess Hoppe was right about asians.
What does Hoppe have to say about asians?
Also, is our friend banned or just quiet now that it has been found out? Both incarnations were somewhat interesting through all the weirdness.
How is it relevant how extortion and slavery are carried out? So you think if I commit extortion against you and enslave you, as long as I do it “orderly” it is fine?
As to it being carried out primarily against “thugs” and “savages”, first of all, a “thug” or “savage” is completely subjective and therefore irrelevant. Second of all, it is carried out equally to all, so unless you mean everyone is a thug or savage, then government is still undesirable, even using your definitions. You just seem to want to play word games.
Better an amoral egoist than a moral altruist, even though both of those are oxymorons.
I would love to see the personals that you’ve browsed through. You should link it up!
Lol, all that you’ve ‘found out’ is that I attend college and do work there as an ESL instructor. I’m also on an all-asian volleyball team, though I don’t know more than one of them interested in Rothbard.
I saw some of your posts on the ALL forum Vichy. I don’t really post there but I like reading through the topics since I am curious about their view on things. But I thought you made a lot of good points. I am still sorta confused about your political views though.