Thursday, June 16, 2011

Gotta love war and more war!

From Paul Krugman's declaration that a new war would strengthen the U.S. economy to the latest salvo from the NY Times that we need to have the U.S. Armed Forces run the country, or at least the business sector, it seems that fascism is now the Official Doctrine of the "Newspaper of Record."

One really needs to read this column by Nicholas Kristof to believe it. Big Brother loves you.

45 comments:

Lord Keynes said...

Note his ending:

"So as the United States armed forces try to pull Iraqi and Afghan societies into the 21st century, maybe they could do the same for America’s.

Hoo-ah! "


Sounds like he's joking - and your post is much ado about nothing.

Anonymous said...

Man this a moronic post Anderson, even for you.

Bob Roddis said...

The Kristof article is particularly moronic even for the NYT.

All that these blog skirmishes demonstrate day in and day out is that the statists have nothing. Ever.

William L. Anderson said...

I think Kristof is serious.

Bob Roddis said...

Kristof is serious, does not understand the market economy (aka "economics") and is seriously suggesting that we try a form of a command economy (aka "fascism").

How about that "road to serfdom" (to coin a phrase)?

ekeyra said...

"So as the United States armed forces try to pull Iraqi and Afghan societies into the 21st century, maybe they could do the same for America’s. "

Does this guy even know what the fuck the military does? It provides wonderful low-cost daycare so mommy and daddy can focus all their attention on murdering someone elses parents. I think I have to go throw up after reading that article.

Anonymous said...

'I think Kristof is serious.'

I think you're an idiot

William L. Anderson said...

Well, at least you wrote "you're" instead of "your," which is what I usually see.

Jones said...

Since when does the opinion of one op-ed writer signify that an entire newpaper endorses his article?

His main point that the VA system is cheaper and more effective than our private system is correct, as is his assertion that the military has been an major engine of social mobility for the past 50 years.

Instead of spouting off like the extremist you are, why don't you take the trouble to refute his points with some actual data?

Anonymous said...

Geez Bob such big words "statist" "fascist", "market economy." You persistently accuse anyone who disagrees with you of not understanding "Austrian Principles." I deeply wonder whether you understand the meaning of any of these words. Life on the extreme is intellectually comforting, but realistically disastrous.

Anonymous said...

Ekeyra,

Well you just lost any credibility you might have had. Did you really just imply that the entire US armed forces consists of nothing less than people who murder other people's parents?

Anderson, I know you claim to be a pacifist but where is your reaction?

Besides, the function of the US armed services says nothing about the efficacy of its delivery of pension, health, and daycare benefits, the relative equality of its organization, or its function as a tool of integration and social mobility for American minorities.

American Patriot said...

Progressives are nothing but fascists. Is there anyone that does not comprehend that yet?

Their proper role for military (in their mind that is) is to be social workers.

Anonymous, "statist" "fascist" are words that apply to your kind because you promote collectivism, therefore robbing of individual liberty and initiative. You cannot have progressivism without robbing individualism. Therefore you are a fascist and a statist.

I challenge you to explain how progressivism is consistent with liberty in a free society without restricting people's natural rights.

LOL, this should be fun reading (if he responds)

Bala said...

"I challenge you to explain how progressivism is consistent with liberty in a free society without restricting people's natural rights."

Oh! That's simple. Natural rights are a fantasy. Doubt me? Ask LK. He will give you a solid assertion.... oops..... explanation.

Just don't ask them what the terms 'natural' and 'rights' mean. That's all. Once you ignore those omissions, they will make oodles of sense.

American Patriot said...

lol Bala.

Lord Keynes said...

"Progressives are nothing but fascists. Is there anyone that does not comprehend that yet?"

Yeah, right. For example, they make statements like this:

(1) "It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history."
Mises, 1978 [1927]. Liberalism: A Socio-Economic Exposition (2nd edn; trans. R. Raico), Sheed Andrews and McMeel, Mission, Kansas. p. 51.

(2) Mises the Austrian become an economic adviser to the Austrian fascist Engelbert Dollfuss, even a close adviser (Hans-Hermann Hoppe, “The Meaning of the Mises Papers,” Mises.org, April 1997).

(3) Mises supported Dolfuss' Austro-fascism as "a quick fix to safeguard Austria’s independence—unsuitable in the long run, especially if the general political mentality did not change" (Hülsmann, 2007. Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Ala. pp. 683–684).

http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2011/06/keyness-remarks-in-german-edition-of.html

Anonymous said...

Lol @ LK's obvious ad hominem fallacy.

Lord Keynes said...

"I challenge you to explain how progressivism is consistent with liberty in a free society without restricting people's natural rights."

Because natural rights theory is fit only for idiots. E.g., Rothbard's argument for natural rights is a joke:

"Even if it were true that “each individual must think, learn, value, and choose his or her ends and means in order to survive and flourish” and that “the right to self-ownership gives man the right to perform these vital activities without being hampered and restricted by coercive molestation,” it just doesn’t follow that anyone has a right to self-ownership. For all Rothbard has shown, we might also be able to think, learn, value, etc. even if we didn’t have any rights at all. (That X could get us Z doesn’t show that Y wouldn’t get it for us too.) Or we might need some rights in order to do these things, but not all the rights entailed by the principle of self-ownership. Or we might really need all the rights entailed by self-ownership, but nevertheless just not have them. After all, the fact that you need something doesn’t entail that you have it, and (as libertarians themselves never tire of pointing out), it certainly doesn’t entail that you have a right to it. For example, wild animals need food to survive, but it doesn’t follow that they have a right to it (indeed, Rothbard himself explicitly denies that animals can have any rights).."



Both you and Bala have been directed to the refutation of Rothbard's arguments before by a professional philosopher, but you're intellectual cowards and won't respond.

Pretty much sums why no one needs to take you seriously. :)

Lord Keynes said...

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/08/rothbard-as-philosopher.html

Gavin Allen said...

"the VA system is cheaper and more effective than our private system"

Any cheapness in the the VA system comes from rationing, or flat out denying services. I seriously can't believe someone would use that as an example of an ideal model for healthcare.

"Besides, the function of the US armed services says nothing about the efficacy of its delivery of pension, health, and daycare benefits, the relative equality of its organization, or its function as a tool of integration and social mobility for American minorities."

Well, I guess as long as people can be equal in killing and being killed for the Glorious American State, all is well with the world.

Anonymous said...

LK,

If LVM is guilty by association with Dollfus, then what about the thousands of Keynesians, neo-K's, MMT'ers and such ilk who work (if you can call what they do 'work), for the American Empire? You know, at least 5 undeclared open wars, global dirty ops, over 900 military bases, secret armies and Presidential hit squads, as well as domestic US tyranny, such as Waco and the war on non-med/pharm/DC complex drugs?

Why do you name yourself after a serial pederast? JMK and his evil mob sexually preyed upon countless children sold into bondage in northern Africa and Turkey. It's not as if JMK suffered merely from bad manners. Come off the ad hom defense - if LVM had opened the egg from the wrong end at dinner you would have called for his head.
Stop with trying to link LVM with fascism. If you want to see dyed in the wool National Socialism, look in a mirror.

Bastiat a hit, Keynes a drip.

American Patriot said...

I am not Mises' or Rothbard's keeper. Though I do not reject them, I am not a pure libertarian either. So, I'll defend it more like Burke would.

You say: "Because natural rights theory is fit only for idiots." and stop there.

Burkean clasical liberalism and Rothbard's view are not the same. Someone like Rothbard does not subscribe to the vital importance of civil society. I do as Burke did.

That being said, if you do not believe that life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are not your natural rights, why don't I come over and enslave you for my pleasure? Well, it is illegal, right? What is the law based on? English common law forms the basis of our legal system as well as our founding. And that, itself, is based on natural rights.
But why am I wasting time here? You guys are incapable to comprehend the relationship between natural rights and our legal system. (which according to you is for idiots only - wow, you must be the only intellectual left on this earth if everyone else is full of crap)

Bob Roddis said...

1. I addressed that Mises quote here:

http://tinyurl.com/3gnajh6

There's another hive of MMTers out there with their usual intellectual constipation affliction.

2. LK's right. He's convinced me. There are no natural rights. It's just plain silly. Finally, I understand that the holocaust was just fine and wiping out the Native Americans was cool too because they didn't have a majority of the votes available to determine those things. Morality must always be determined by majorities because there is no inherent good or evil. Subjective value and all that.

Thanks to LK for setting us straight. Now we can stop worrying about silly stuff like mass murder and genocide.

Bob Roddis said...

Rothbard does not subscribe to the vital importance of civil society

Of course he does. He subscribes to a prohibition on the initiation of force which leaves everyone quite civil.

Lord Keynes said...

"Finally, I understand that the holocaust was just fine and wiping out the Native Americans was cool"

Typical B.S.. You think natural rights theory is the ONLY ethical theory that can show why these things are wrong? Anyone holding:

(1) Kantian ethics;
(2) the Pluralistic deontology, the non-absolutist ethics of W.D. Ross
(3) Rawls's Human rights objectivism, or
(4) rule consequentialism

can also show on objective moral grounds why the holocaust and mass murder etc is immoral.

" Morality must always be determined by majorities because there is no inherent good or evil."

= Pure idiocy. All the theories above are objective ethical theories. Utilitarianism does NOT determine morality by majority vote, and that has been explained to you before, but you’re too stupid to address it, but repeat the same straw man argument and appeal to emotion fallacy.

Again, no need to take you seriously any time soon.

Try addressing Feser's arguments:

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/08/rothbard-as-philosopher.html

You're not up to the challenge because you're a half-wit.

American Patriot said...

The idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its usefulness in maximizing utility is a shallow, intellectually lazy concept.

I am glad you weren't one of the founding fathers. Come to think of it, they would have branded you a moron.

To Anonymous:
I don't know if that is you but stop trolling my blog and leaving your childishly stupid comments. If you do not find it worthy of your high intel level, go visit a progressive blog. Then you can all comment back and forth happily in your ignorance.

Bob Roddis said...

Feser's "argument" is pathetic. I guess that makes LK the "half-wit" not to be taken seriously. Gee, maybe we do own everyone else except ourselves! I never thought of that!

LK doesn't even understand economic calculation.

I'm always amazed at the thin gruel these statists rely upon to justify assaultive behavior.

Lord Keynes said...

"Feser's "argument" is pathetic."

In other words, you have no response, no arguments. You're basically admitting defeat. You can't answer him.

LK doesn't even understand LK doesn't economic calculation.

Economic calculation has nothing to do with the Feser's refuation do Rothbard. We're talking about philosophy of ethics.

I'm always amazed at the thin gruel these statists rely upon to justify assaultive behavior.

Again, Feser is himself a libertarian:

"I should also make it clear that my low opinion of Rothbard’s philosophical abilities has nothing to do with the particular conclusions he wants to defend. I certainly share his hostility to slavery, socialism, communism, and egalitarian liberalism. I also agree that much of what modern governments do is morally indefensible and that many of the taxes levied by modern governments (maybe even most of them) are unjust."

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/08/rothbard-as-philosopher.html

Looks like you didn't even read it properly.

Lord Keynes said...

correction:

"Economic calculation has nothing to do with the Feser's refuation of Rothbard."

ekeyra said...

"Well you just lost any credibility you might have had. Did you really just imply that the entire US armed forces consists of nothing less than people who murder other people's parents?"

I had credibility?

Ill come clean, you got me. Not everyone the us military murders is a parent, some of them are only children.

Brian J. Gladish said...

Maybe the discussion has drifted too far for this to seem relevant, but I grew up as the son of an NCO in the Air Force, and my mother constantly sought healthcare for me outside the incompetents that "practiced" medicine in the military. Of course I was not wounded in combat and was not the focus of that expertise that is, unfortunately, so much in demand at the moment.

Anonymous said...

"the VA system is cheaper and more effective than our private system"

You could ask former Congressman John Murtha his opinion of this reality-free remark, but you will have to use a necromancer to contact him, thanks to the superior VA system.

Bala said...

"Both you and Bala have been directed to the refutation of Rothbard's arguments before by a professional philosopher, but you're intellectual cowards and won't respond."

And you (and everyone else who attacked natural rights) demonstrated that you are the very epitome of vacuity on the issue of the definition of 'natural rights' and the meaning of the word 'natural' in natural rights. One point that I should add to the list of demands is the definition of the concept 'rights'. You haven't done that either.

Basically, you just wax eloquent without defining the terms you are talking of. You claim to have disputed concepts, your understanding of which is ass-backward.

"Pretty much sums why no one needs to take you seriously. :)"

My point above pretty much sums up why no one needs to take YOU seriously.

p.s.: Feser's criticism of Rothbard does not constitute a case against the concept 'natural rights'. So, stop waving that banner in my face unless you want to demonstrate how empty you are.

Bob Roddis said...

THE MAJOR PROBLEM of human existence is assaultive behavior. The brilliance of Rothbard's formula is that it cures and precludes that problem for all time. Further, it is coextensive with what most people of western cultures already believe and easy for average people to understand. In their normal lives, most people already understand that you don't assault your neighbors or rob them. It is both moral and highly utilitarian in curing mankind's biggest problem.

The reason a statist like LK throws a hissy fit about it is because his grandiose schemes to destroy civilization with funny money and debt in a preposterous attempt at curing the non-existent problem of unemployment would be precluded and there would be nothing for him to do.

Bob Roddis said...

@Brian J. Gladish

Your point is right on point.

As a general rule, a government cannot conduct informed economic calculation and therefore cannot employ resources in an intelligent manner.

American Patriot said...

Bob:
you guys are making too much sense for these statists. Stop it already.
Don't you know that government is all knowing, all loving benevolent entity that is the only salvation?
You are all gonna have to be sent to reeducation camps.

Bob Roddis said...

AP:

My bag is already packed. I hear them knocking now.

Bob Roddis said...

Because Rothbard’s non-aggression principle would effectively abolish war, it’s no wonder that statists are appalled by it. Leftist Murray Polner gives us a reminder of the slaughterhouse that was WWI:

http://lewrockwell.com/polner/polner28.1.html

And let’s not forget that it was central banking that facilitated the surreptitious funding of the war. Real-time taxation of the rabble to fund the war would have most likely resulted in a revolution. This extra-judicial surreptitious theft perpetuated by the funny money regime is the raison d'etre for both central banking and Keynesianism but which is explained to the dim witted as “scientific”.

Brian J. Gladish said...

@Bob

I am now quite sensitive to the economic calculation argument, but the comment reflected actual experience from my childhood, long before I knew of von Mises.

Major_Freedom said...

Lord Keynes:

(1) "It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history."

That is not Mises "praising" fascism. That is Mises stating in the 1920s (before the rise of Nazism) that fascism cannot do anything more than create a short term boost, the same kind of short term boost that Keynesians claim is had by their anti-market policies of government spending and inflation.

The passage you quoted is in the chapter called "The Argument Of Fascism." There are other passages that give the passage you quoted more context:

"Fascism can triumph today because universal indignation at the infamies committed by the socialists and communists has obtained for it the sympathies of wide circles. But when the fresh impression of the crimes of the Bolsheviks has paled, the socialist program will once again exercise its power of attraction on the masses. For Fascism does nothing to combat it except to suppress socialist ideas and to persecute the people who spread them. If it wanted really to combat socialism, it would have to oppose it with ideas. There is, however, only one idea that can be effectively opposed to socialism, viz., that of liberalism."

and

"It has often been said that nothing furthers a cause more than creating, martyrs for it. This is only approximately correct. What strengthens the cause of the persecuted faction is not the martyrdom of its adherents, but the fact that they are being attacked by force, and not by intellectual weapons. Repression by brute force is always a confession of the inability to make use of the better weapons of the intellect—better because they alone give promise of final success. This is the fundamental error from which Fascism suffers and which will ultimately cause its downfall. The victory of Fascism in a number of countries is only an episode in the long series of struggles over the problem of property."

and

"That its foreign policy, based as it is on the avowed principle of force in international relations, cannot fail to give rise to an endless series of wars that must destroy all of modern civilization requires no further discussion. To maintain and further raise our present level of economic development, peace among nations must be assured. But they cannot live together in peace if the basic tenet of the ideology by which they are governed is the belief that one's own nation can secure its place in the community of nations by force alone."

Mises was, and remains, the world's foremost defender of capitalism and attacker of fascism. It was Mises who has provided us with the most blistering attacks on fascism ever written (see "Socialism" and "Human Action").

Major_Freedom said...

Lord Keynes:

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/08/rothbard-as-philosopher.html

Who? Ed Feser? Stop the presses! I've read his post, and his claims are entirely false. When he's not engaging in ad populum fallacy, he's contradicting himself, engaging in semantics, committing the fallacy ad hominem tu quoque, being outright disingenuous, referring to illogical analogies, and committing non-sequiturs, among other things.

He was exposed as completely wrong by Gerard Casey. How can you claim Rothbard was "taken down"?

Major_Freedom said...

Lord Keynes:

(1) Kantian ethics;
(2) the Pluralistic deontology, the non-absolutist ethics of W.D. Ross
(3) Rawls's Human rights objectivism, or
(4) rule consequentialism

can also show on objective moral grounds why the holocaust and mass murder etc is immoral.


Rothbard demolishes utilitarianism via the "demonstrated preference principle."

To wit, the utilitarian cannot claim to know what other individual's value scales are until those other individuals actually act upon their values, without coercion.

The utilitarian is compelled to admit that utility is subjective to individual, and that he of course cannot read other people's minds. Praxeology enables us to understand that utility is manifested by observing individuals act uncoerced. Only after individuals act uncoerced can you know what their utility scale consists of (and you will only ever OBSERVE the top two values in their scale, namely, what they acquire (gains) and what they give up (costs)).

Bob Roddis said...

A desperate musical attempt at explaining praxeology and mankind’s inherently limited knowledge:

I don’t know much

But I know what you paid for that thing

And that may be all I can really know.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCfW2OwVwzs

Major_Freedom said...

Lord Keynes:

Try addressing Feser's arguments:

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/08/rothbard-as-philosopher.html


http://www.reddit.com/r/Major_Freedom/comments/i2ep9/response_to_ed_feser_june_1th_2011/

Major_Freedom said...

Lord Keynes, please read my responses to your posts here:

http://krugman-in-wonderland.blogspot.com/2011/06/war-war-war-yeah-that-will-make-us.html

At this address:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Major_Freedom/comments/i0ds5/response_to_lord_keynes_june_15th_2011/

Anonymous said...

"(1) Kantian ethics;
(2) the Pluralistic deontology, the non-absolutist ethics of W.D. Ross
(3) Rawls's Human rights objectivism, or
(4) rule consequentialism"

Lord Cash Bottles missed one:
(5) Modern Objectivist Moosenutistic Logical Pluralism and Rothbardian Nose Size: Keys to Free Market Failure.

All popular or obscure justifications for: State is god.