wut?
one thing has nothing to do with the other.
No. Social Darwinism allows for fraud, etc.
This is why you need to do more research. I’m not sure how you have been informed on libertarianism. What it is, and more importantly, what it is not.
Yeah, now we’ve heard 'em all. Can’t believe people take these clowns seriously.
two questions to OP:
A. Do you really eat “Democracy for Breakfast” to rid it, you know empty bowl, or is democracy what you like and find it tasty so you eat it?
B. Have you carried your axe to grind due to you can’t get the music your friends have and thus your hint of yearning for socialism into this thread? If this has nothing to do with current thread, then let it be known. But it seems your on a tangent of some sorts, seeking questions (which isn’t necessarily bad), and are trying to find something out. The something, by you, isn’t yet known so you simply have a bunch of questions and want others of like mind to help you sort through the mud.
if you can state your intention it doesn’t necessarily derail the thread. i’m asking and then i’ll move on. wanted to know what’s going on with you that might not be readily surfacing.
I have begun wondering if we have a troll.
A. I suppose its because I see Democracy appealing, but I just thought the name had a good catch, its nothing more then that.
I don’t understand the first sentence. " Have you carried your axe to grind due to you can’t get the music your friends have and thus your hint of yearning for socialism into this thread?"
I don’t yearn for socialism. I don’t understand why you think I’m a Troll, I seek to understand and acknowledge all the ways to defend a free society against any argument that may come up, I’m asking questions to erase any doubts in my mind of flaws in a free society that arise.
Also, I googled Murray Rothbard, and came up with “Murray Rothbard racist” and it drew my curiosity, which is why I made this topic.
I’ve been a Conservative Libertarian ever since discovering Ron Paul in 2007. Now, I’m a bit iffy on American Nationalism as a whole, I mean The U.S Constitution was written for individuals and self-ownership rights. However, the means to obtain this end was Colonization of a native land, taken from Indians, from then on America became a “Monopoly on Force” where borders were erected and the new rulers would control people in a free society under its dominion. This is the thing I am pretty iffy on, America as the 1776 of a free and prosperous society, but used aggression to obtain those ends. Even now most of those “freedoms” and values are no longer relevant to our society, as people often buy the Mass Media’s viewpoints and the things iconic figures say to make Socialism, such as the “Scandinavian Socialism” seem like a dream worth living up to. It almost feels like hardly any Neo-Liberals know anything, or even acknowledge U.S History.
I mean I think everyone is a Libertarian without knowing it, and not looking past their beliefs bought up from the media. Libertarianism is hardly in mainstream culture, so everyone compares to the conservative. GOP Conservatives are frowned on now, and people all seem to believe a deregulated financial market led to this economic turmoil. It seems to be, to be a Neo-Liberal is just to buy things as they are and not look into the future or the past, just like Frederic Bastiat said.
After discovering True Libertarianism, I realized most of the big movements such as Ghandi’s Self-Obedience, The Hippies, French Revolution were groups of individuals wanting to live their own lives.
After spending some time at Mises, I’ve realized that the truth is not in the Media or the “normal” world, so I’ve stopped watching the News, and I listen to NPR very little, but just to keep up on issues.
“I don’t yearn for socialism. I don’t understand why you think I’m a Troll, I seek to understand and acknowledge all the ways to defend a free society against any argument that may come up, I’m asking questions to erase any doubts in my mind of flaws in a free society that arise.”
My apologies.
-
I didn’t say nor think you a troll.
-
This statement of intent: “I’m asking questions to erase any doubts…” is the kind of statement of intent I was asking about.
good day
Any person who doesn’t willingly give his money to people of other “races” on the street corner is labeled as racist these days.
Looking over some of his supposedly racist quotes, I can see that most have clearly been taken out of context, or are only racist by the measurement of contemporary pc politics (e.g. opposition to affirmative action or redistributve wealth). I have read quite a bit by Murray Rothbard, and I have never seen anything regarding one race as inherently inferior to another, which seems to me to be the only legitimate definition of racism. He opposed any use of government coersion by any group to enforce their values on another group, be they black, white, asian, women, etc. This is the “racism” that these articles are referring to. Though, if you consider racism to be the unwillingness to grant special rules to people based on the color of their skin or their sex, then yes, I suppose he was a racist.
As for the natural elite bit, it is obvious in reality that natural elites exist and that all men are not equal. It isn’t very pc to say that, but it is true nonetheless. Some people are smarter than others, some are more athletic, some are better musicians, or more attractive. Even between certain races there are inherent inequalities: most American Indians are naturally lactose intolerant, black people have higher rates of heart disease. The real question is whether Murray proposed to apply equally to all people the natural rights which are inherent to the being of man. He did in fact. None of these things seem racist to me.