[quote]Der_Steppenwolfe wrote:
Screw that. My apple brandy would be the best.[/quote]
Thats the spirit.
Now sell it to the masses, get filthy rich, fuck lingerie models.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Der_Steppenwolfe wrote:
Screw that. My apple brandy would be the best.[/quote]
Thats the spirit.
Now sell it to the masses, get filthy rich, fuck lingerie models. [/quote]
Just remember the little people.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Der_Steppenwolfe wrote:
Screw that. My apple brandy would be the best.[/quote]
Thats the spirit.
Now sell it to the masses, get filthy rich, fuck lingerie models. [/quote]
Just remember the little people.
[/quote]
Lingerie models are little people.
They just look nice in lingerie.
Behold my non pussy pedestalizing ways.
Hey, Lingerie models are people too.
Fuckable people.
[quote]Der_Steppenwolfe wrote:
Hey, Lingerie models are people too.
[/quote]
Little ones.
[quote]Der_Steppenwolfe wrote:
Fuckable people.[/quote]
That too.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
How do you explain the fact that those in “poverty” in the US are more wealthy than the majority of people in both 3rd world and socialist countries?
[/quote]
third world countries is easy to explain , it is third world and most people are poor . I am not sure which socialist counties you are talking about . My experience in Europe was I saw Zero poor with the exception of Romanian immigrants . I believe it was Belgium . They were said to be illegal
[/quote]
I wouldn’t call many European countries “socialist”[/quote]
Correct, Welfare capitalism is a better term.
Keynes justified Feudalism. He literally stated that the property should be the basis of wealth. That is feudalism…
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Says who?
Smith is called “The Father of Capitalism,” for a reason. I’ve never heard any different anywhere. [/quote]
A few very well known economic historians with Ph.D.'s in the topic.
[quote]Der_Steppenwolfe wrote:
I am one of it’s opponents, and my definition is not innacurate. It accurately describes a facet of capitalist practice, whether it prescriptively defines either its theory and practice or not.[/quote]
That was obvious from the start, and that was sort of my point. You have a biased interest in demonizing something that you think or have the idea of being a negative. You will do so even while continuing to ignore that your demonization would only be possible thanks to that thing you are demonizing.
That makes your analysis based on an ideology rather than a rational position or an argument of integrity.
Imagine that, in all of your bias and ideology there was still a wealth of knowledge that you simply did not know. The only Economists that consider Smith to be anything are the Keynesians and the MMT guys. They are both essentially Fabian Socialists whom believe wholeheartedly in the power of the state. So obviously they are going to promote the same sort of philosophy that Smith promoted since he was their fore father philosophically.
[quote]NidStyles wrote:
A few very well known economic historians with Ph.D.'s in the topic.
[/quote]
Who?
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
How do you explain the fact that those in “poverty” in the US are more wealthy than the majority of people in both 3rd world and socialist countries?
[/quote]
third world countries is easy to explain , it is third world and most people are poor . I am not sure which socialist counties you are talking about . My experience in Europe was I saw Zero poor with the exception of Romanian immigrants . I believe it was Belgium . They were said to be illegal
[/quote]
I wouldn’t call many European countries “socialist”[/quote]
Correct, Welfare capitalism is a better term.
[/quote]
While I may agree with both of you , the majority of the CJS disagrees with us all
Fabian Socialism is Socialism through state power and incrementalism. It may not be Utopian Socialism, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is Socialism.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[/quote]
Who?[/quote]
Murray Rothbard wrote extensively on this, as has Tom Woods. I could go on with the list, but I’m sure you will likely defer to some other piece of propaganda rather than actually studying the material presented by those two. If the past few pages are any indicator, it’s clear I have wasted my time sharing information, and am dealing with demagogues.
[quote]NidStyles wrote:
Murray Rothbard wrote extensively on this,[/quote]
Not that I discount everything the man says because of it, but your talking about an advocate of anarchy that worked for State Universities.
Sort of an inconsistency there.
Dude, relax. usmc is one of the more level headed posters here. Actually pay attention to the participants before you jump into a board throwing around a bunch of false ad homs…
NidStyles you’ve got pwi down for sure…
I asked, because I’m actually curious.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Not that I discount everything the man says because of it, but your talking about an advocate of anarchy that worked for State Universities.
Sort of an inconsistency there.
[/quote]
Really, though, what could he have done that wouldn’t be inconsistent with anarchy, other than breaking the law and risking imprisonment(which is, as has been pointed out in another thread, basically total dependence upon the state)? Start a business? Have to get a business license. Work for someone else? THEY had to get a business license. Choose not to fund the government? You don’t have that choice. He did his best to spread the idea of freedom. You can’t ask for much more than that.
I have never read The Wealth of Nations, and am not really part of this conversation, but here’s a link to Rothbard discussing Smith: The Adam Smith Myth | Mises Institute
Thanks Nickviar.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Not that I discount everything the man says because of it, but your talking about an advocate of anarchy that worked for State Universities.
Sort of an inconsistency there.
[/quote]
Really, though, what could he have done that wouldn’t be inconsistent with anarchy, other than breaking the law and risking imprisonment(which is, as has been pointed out in another thread, basically total dependence upon the state)? Start a business? Have to get a business license. Work for someone else? THEY had to get a business license. Choose not to fund the government? You don’t have that choice. He did his best to spread the idea of freedom. You can’t ask for much more than that.
I have never read The Wealth of Nations, and am not really part of this conversation, but here’s a link to Rothbard discussing Smith: The Adam Smith Myth | Mises Institute
[/quote]
Like I said, I’m not discounting everything the man said or did. It is just funny really.
Rothbard if anything espoused the virtues of free markets and argued against the government because of it’s coercive nature.
He didn’t argue for anarchy because he thought it would lead to violence, corruption, and death, he argued for it because he believed free markets would create a more free (and better) society than government.
Certainly I disagree with a lot of things just like anyone else I’ve read extensively, but at the very minimum his ideas are extremely thought provoking.
I used to hang out on a message board with some anarcho-capitalists. It shifted me towards libertarianism from a more standard Republican which is what I knew/read growing up.
Anarchism was Rothbard’s conclusion to solving the issue of state intervention and tendency to trend toward violence and oppression.
The man was far and beyond the most brilliant thinker of the 20th Century. Even Mises stated this on several occasions. It was not easy to get praise from someone like Mises, that man was brilliant as well.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
NidStyles you’ve got pwi down for sure…
I asked, because I’m actually curious. [/quote]
I have no idea what you are talking about.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]NidStyles wrote:
Murray Rothbard wrote extensively on this,[/quote]
Not that I discount everything the man says because of it, but your talking about an advocate of anarchy that worked for State Universities.
Sort of an inconsistency there.[/quote]
Sure, you could say the same about Chomsky. Not sure how that is pointing out anything other than the fact that you are incapable of refuting what Rothbard said on the topic.
You shouldn’t assume that I am not calm. In fact I find that sort of comment rather telling that you have some sort of personal investment here. Take your own advice.
[quote]NidStyles wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
NidStyles you’ve got pwi down for sure…
I asked, because I’m actually curious. [/quote]
I have no idea what you are talking about. [/quote]
You wrote this:
[quote]NidStyles wrote:
Murray Rothbard wrote extensively on this, as has Tom Woods. I could go on with the list, but I’m sure you will likely defer to some other piece of propaganda rather than actually studying the material presented by those two. If the past few pages are any indicator, it’s clear I have wasted my time sharing information, and am dealing with demagogues. [/quote]
which is typical PWI Bull Shit.