to the point where Joseph Salerno (whose work I had respected) introduced his phony backstory when they invited him to give the Henry Hazlitt Memorial Lecture at last years Austrian Economics Research Conference.
His lectured was titled “An Examination of Key Factors in the Collapse of the Soviet Union”, the title itself is overcompensating. And yes, he plagiarized it.
I mean, seriously. I don’t get why they were so eager to take his bait but this is really pathetic. They got fooled by a sockpuppet.
“A “social contract” theory of government, as you know, can be used in two different ways, and this difference is extremely important: it can be used to set up an ideal toward which the government should be transformed (essentially the view of John Locke), or it can be used to place a stamp of approval on all, or most, of the actions of the existing government (for example, Rousseau). Thus, the theory of the divine right of kings began as a check on government, as an order to the King to stay within divinely-commanded laws; it was transformed, by the State, into a divine stamp of approval for anything the King might decide to do.”—
“It has often been maintained, and especially by conservatives, that the development of the horrendous modern weapons of mass murder (nuclear weapons, rockets, germ warfare, etc.) is only a difference of degree rather than kind from the simpler weapons of an earlier era. Of course, one answer to this is that when the degree is the number of human lives, the difference is a very big one. But another answer that the libertarian is particularly equipped to give is that while the bow and arrow and even the rifle can be pinpointed, if the will be there, against actual criminals, modern nuclear weapons cannot. Here is a crucial difference in kind. Of course, the bow and arrow could be used for aggressive purposes, but it could also be pinpointed to use only against aggressors. Nuclear weapons, even “conventional” aerial bombs, cannot be. These weapons are ipso facto engines of indiscriminate mass destruction. (The only exception would be the extremely rare case where a mass of people who were all criminals inhabited a vast geographical area.) We must, therefore, conclude that the use of nuclear or similar weapons, or the threat thereof, is a sin and a crime against humanity for which there can be no justification.”—Murray N. Rothbard, War, Peace, and the State
Saw a white girl pull the same stunt the other day. She was wearing a shirt with 4 black women (Rosa parks, angela davis. Harriet tubman, and another who I couldn’t make out). I didn’t even bother to ask girl if she knew who they were & what their beliefs was knowing damn well she didn’t know. I just gave her a stare the whole time.
>criticize white person for wearing a shirt with black women on it because you assume she didnt know who they were >dont even know the 4th woman yourself
"You’re wearing a Nirvana tshirt? Bet you can’t name three noble truths of Buddhism"
The wonderful thing about humans is that you can make all the well-researched arguments you want and then a comedian will get up on stage and go ABWUHHHH??? and say something obviously flagrantly wrong and that will make everyone believe it, because humans do not care about accuracy and will believe anything that someone of sufficiently high status tells them.
1. Just because you want something doesn’t mean “90% of people” want it.
2. You are not the center of the universe.
3. Other human beings exist.
4. Your opinion doesn’t automatically outrank theirs.
5. Even if 90% of people want to infringe on the rights of the other 10% this doesn’t make it okay, that’s not how rights work.
6. People don’t lose their personhood by simply disagreeing with you.