So first month of school I meet with my independent study professor to ask her where to start reading Aquinas & Grotius for my paper
she tells me to read certain parts of Aquinas and to send her an email with any questions i have about the text, I do so and she has us meet to go over it.
Then she tells me to read certain parts of Grotius, and meet her to discuss any questions i have
I missed the meeting because there was no parking on campus
then, I got sick for a few weeks.
I never contacted her again. That was two months ago.
I emailed her last night saying that since the semesters ending soon I wanted to know if she wanted to review my paper or anything
and she basically tells me “this isn’t just a paper, we’ve been supposed to be meeting regularly so I can evaluate your progress with the readings” and basically what I’m getting from her is that since she hadn’t heard from me she just assumed I had dropped out or something
I never can grasp why progressives wanted the government to take over the welfare system when it seemed to be doing just fine in the church’s hands. I understand taking that away from the political machines because of the corruption and use of welfare to gain votes, but the churches and private citizens seemed to do be taking care of others rather well for the time period. The Hull House in Chicago (founded by a progressive) is a good example of this. They took care of immigrants and trained them to be skilled workers and even taught them English and schooled the immigrants’ children. What was so wrong with this system that progressives wanted to give it into the hands of a government that many Americans at the time didn’t have much faith in, and an institution they believed didn’t represent the people?
The ‘Progressive’ Movement was in many ways an American Fabian Movement. There was an underlying etatism to many of those people which led them to simply looked to government as the rightful institution to be in charge of everything.
But also, as Gabriel Kolko and others have show, much of the ‘Progressive’ Movement was also an ideological tool for big business, labor unions, and other wealthy interests. Things like the income tax, the federal reserve, ‘planning’, and government take-overs and subsidization of industries and functions previously handled by the voluntary sector all worked in different ways to privilege and reward different special interests behind the scenes.
I would bet that some combination of those factors was at work,
I’ve been trying to make good and well thought out posts to put in the libertarian tag to get back in the swing of things but what’s the point if all libertarians ever reblog is the same cycled news stories and memes.
we mustn’t give up the libertarian tag to those morons
Very soon heterosexuality will be outlawed, when this happens every gay man in the world will march in single unison dressed as roman legates with Boy George sitting atop a large throne being lifted by Heterosexual slaves, the first act of the new homo empire will be the mass slaughter of all SJW they shall be known as the useful idiots
i hope so because idk what I’m supposed to do with this philosophy major when I graduate.
Parks and Recreation has an explicitly “Libertarian” character and that aspect of him is always a punchline. But I haven’t detected any underlying possible libertarian influence on the actual writing.
Whereas on New Girl, there have been lots of things different characters have said in different instances which seem to imply to me that at least one person on the staff is somewhat libertarian influenced or at least familiar
my last section of my paper is on rothbards account of the state, this part only needs to be like 3 pages
background: my paper starts with the natural law foundation of Aquinas, moves on towards grotius’ position on natural rights, then to locke’s social contract theory and right of revolution, then to Lysander Spooner’s critique of the Social contract
the final section to be on Rothbardian analysis of the state as irreconcilable with natural law
the purpose of the paper being that natural law leaves no place for the state
so (especially from Ethics of Liberty)
does anybody have any specific quotes or passages or points they can think of?
I’m tonight skimming through that section of the book but off the top of my head I can’t remember what to focus on