Now, now, there were references Misoids and Hoppeans, don’t lie.
Of course that thread was too much for to post on, right?
No, private property and egalitarianism are antithetical, sorry.
There were references to Hoppeans. Correct me if I’m wrong, but not everyone on this forum is a Hoppean. Also, the one time the word “Misoid” was used (a word that I personally don’t use), it was in this context:
(emphasis added).
The criticisms given were rather specific, not a blanket attack on the Mises Community, as you are implying in the OP.
Whether or not you were merely referring to this particular Misoid is besides the point, the point is that the term Misoids has fairly clear implications and that the posters here can generally be subsumed under the label Misoid.
In which case it was a blatant lie when you said that you only meant me.
I’m curious why am I troll exactly?
Please read my previous reply.
There was a qualifying “pretty much” in there.
You started a post called “The Real Vulgar Libertarians: The “Libertarian” Left”, with the intention of being disruptive and provoking replies. That’s trolling.
Wait so someone can’t criticize Left Libertarians without being considered a troll now?
That sounds an awfully lot like my experience on another forum where I am called a troll because I criticize and point out the immoralities of the state very frequently.
This is my answer.
I’m curious as to who else qualifies as a vulgar Hoppean, that you so do despise (what is it that makes Hoppeans so disgusting, by the way?)
Perhaps, if you don’t like being labelled as vulgar you shouldn’t throw the term around so easily. Actually you may have missed it but I spent the post addressing what I believed to be the fallacious arguments of Mr Long and Mr Carson, it was not intended to be provoking or disruptive.
There is a rather large difference between honest criticism and trolling. Giles throws around strawmen and creates deliberately inflammatory posts. If I were to start a thread called “Why All Right-Libertarians Are Intellectually Dishonest Xenophobes”, I would be considered a troll, and rightly so.
Not if you honestly felt that way and actually backed it up with some sort of reasoning.
Then it doesn’t make any sense. It wasn’t me using the word Misoid, and the user who did use it clarified what he meant right after he used it, directly contradicting your claim that it applies to all Mises posters.
Relevance?
Can you please tell me where I “throw around the term so easily”? I believe I’ve seriously used the term twice in the past few months, and that post was one of them. Your post was full of strawmen and misrepresentations, and that, combined with the title, leads me to the conclusion that you were trolling.
Then correct me and point out my errors. I believe that would be a far more constructive way to go about things than your chosen course of action. By the way, I’d appreciate it if you’d illustrate claims such as these with quotations.
You’re taking things out of context, I did not, one day, decide to label the left as vulgar and create topic to incite conflict. My point was that the left claims vulgar libertarianism to be the act of using free market rhetoric to defend state capitalism, thus conflating two very different meanings of the word capitalism. My point was that the left libertarians were conflating corporations with what’s now known as “big business” attacking the latter and then proclaiming victory as to having “defeated” the former. Which is essentially “vulgar” according to left as it confuses the corporate facism and free market capitalism.
Moreover, this was in reaction to a specific dispute in which the right had the better of, I merely wished to address a few points that I felt had yet to be answered. If you see this as trolling, please, support your claims.
You just ignored what I said. My point is that, perhaps, he was referring to this particular Misoid this time, however the fact that he’s using the word does have certain implications. Unless, he’s gone out of his way to create a word for me, in which case I can only be honoured. Of course I doubt that, since the word was not the singular, Misoid but the plural Misoids.
I just said the relevance, I’m curious.
Show me the strawmen and misrepresentations, I can assure you that they weren’t on purpose. And so what if you only used the term twice? You’ve still used it .
Your signature violates the forum rules. Please remove the link to your own site.
As for the rest, I have no interest in rehashing the last 6 months of debate. You guys insist that you have the correct values and causes to fight for, and those who do not overtly agree, or insist upon conflating (along with you) such values with libertarianism are vulgar.
The straw manning is tiresome.
The arguments against big business and the arguments against corporations as such are distinct, although related.
The whole point is that there never has been a free market, and that defending the products of today’s non-free market as being free market is wrong.
It’s ok when Rod Long or BP do it. The compassionate, egalitarian, social justice crowd is better than you. When they spit on you, it’s with love.
Back up posts with reason? Pushaw!
Note that it is Giles who initially brings these things up, and the LLF post he references is more of a reaction to HIM than anyone else (it references to HIS thead that HE started, which attacks left-libertarians and is trollish). Note that Giles misrepresents people in order to get a reaction from them so that he can claim LL’s are irrational. Just look at his signature: “conservatism = libertarianism”, which previously was “conservatism, feudalism, anti-egalitarianism - otherwise known as libertarianism”. He’s purposefully trying to anger people. Also note that me and other LL’s do not going around starting threads here attacking right-libertarians.
And that is a fallacious idiotic strawman, that is repeated over and over. Who here at Mises.org, staff, alumni, community members actually proposes that what we have today is a free market? Who here actually proposes that everything in the commercial sphere would be identical without a state?
You already know the answer. No one. There is no one (maybe Giles if he is being deliberately disingenuous) who believes this.
And yet it is the moronic rallying cry of the LLs. You and all of your other childish, misguided, divisive crybabies. LLs are the uber trolls of libertarianism, because you guys fabricate and perpetuate strawmen, and when called on it, evade or duck defending your statements.
The reason why Rod Long lost the “conflation argument” is that his positions, the definining positions of the left one could say, are bankrupt. An uneducated layman like myself can pick them apart. Even you still can’t defend the attack on the corporate form or size of firms.
When you lack resources, and rational ideas, and integrity, you are going nowhere. That is the LLs. Unfortunately, you guys will continue to flirt with the left, and continue to make the job of genuine libertarians, who are only concerned with an uncoercive post-state world, that much harder.
And part of my point was that the arguments are being conflated. They’re only related in this sense big business is usually in the form of corporations. Of course, small business can too.
No it’s not wrong to defend the products of today’s market, what’s wrong is the fallacious argument of guilt by association.
Yes, and it was the wrong reaction. That’s the whole point of this topic.
Substantiate this, please.
I believe that libertarianism will lead to a society that is far more conservative than today’s. What’s more, I can support that claim with an argument. Rather than attempt to address this argument you prefer to play the victim.
I didn’t attack anybody, I address a fallacious argument. There’s a saying that particularly dislike that is, nonetheless, applicable here that mentions kitchens, heat and staying out.