If Racism is Bad…

[HoreTore]

However, HT is prone to limiting himself with what he believes to be the whole truth and ignoring (refusing to examine) all else.

What an extreme, unfounded and ridiculous claim.


Though an extremely common one among conspiracy theorists, zealots and fanatics.

EDIT: Anyway, I have read through Rothbard's essay found here (learn to use text sources instead of videos, ye heretic). It is predictable in its content entirely in line with Austrian economics, and just as unfounded. In essence, it's page after page of "the state is a thief, wa wa wa"-whining. Of course written in Austrian school lingo, with terms like "predator", "taxation is a crime", "parasitic caste" and so.

While most of it is deeply obscurantist he does make some claims one can verify. Like this one:

If the seventeenth through the nineteenth centuries were, in many countries of the West, times of accelerating social power, and a corollary increase in freedom, peace, and material welfare, the twentieth century has been primarily an age in which State power has been catching up?with a consequent reversion to slavery, war, and destruction.[43]

So, to take two points, he asserts that the start of the industrial revolution increased the general material welfare and that the 20th century has seen an increase in war.

Unfortunately for him, neither is true.

The start of the industrial revolution saw a marked decline in living standards and life expectancy, as people were bused from relatively good lives in the countryside, to overcrowded cities with enormous problems. It took quite a while for life expectancy to catch up to pre-17th century standards.

Wars, on the other hand, have decreased in the 20th century and are rarer now than they were in the 18th(or whatever) century. See for example Steven Pinker for this(though he deals with crime as well as war). Added to this is the fact that most of the wars of the 20th century have been caused by cleaning up the mess left by Rothbard's 'golden age of increasing freedom', colonization.



But don't let those silly fact-thingies get in the way of ideological blindness.

[Fisherking]

What an extreme, unfounded and ridiculous claim.


Though an extremely common one among conspiracy theorists, zealots and fanatics.

Yes it is best to only listen to mainstream, always.

About a hundred years ago there were these two brothers who said they could fly!
After their Kitty Hawk success, The Wrights flew their machine in open fields next to a busy rail line in Dayton Ohio for almost an entire year. American authorities refused to come to the demos, and Scientific American Magazine published stories about "The Lying Brothers." Even the local Dayton newspapers never sent a reporter (but they did complain about all the letters they were receiving from local "crazies" who reported the many flights.) Finally the Wrights packed up and moved to Europe, where they caused an overnight sensation and sold aircraft contracts to France, Germany, Britain, etc.

[HoreTore]

Yes it is best to only listen to mainstream, always.

About a hundred years ago there were these two brothers who said they could fly!
After their Kitty Hawk success, The Wrights flew their machine in open fields next to a busy rail line in Dayton Ohio for almost an entire year. American authorities refused to come to the demos, and Scientific American Magazine published stories about "The Lying Brothers." Even the local Dayton newspapers never sent a reporter (but they did complain about all the letters they were receiving from local "crazies" who reported the many flights.) Finally the Wrights packed up and moved to Europe, where they caused an overnight sensation and sold aircraft contracts to France, Germany, Britain, etc.

Anecdotal evidence, the hallmark of people with no legs to stand on.

[Fisherking]

No, I just find, form what I can see, that you are very rigged in your outlook. You reject much without examining more than ideology or a named individual.

It is like you fear some polluting influence. Your use of ridicule strikes me the same.

You don’t see the humor in bicycle mechanics proving the mainstream wrong. It is excepted now so it is a safe topic… Is there nothing that sparks your imagination?

[HoreTore]

No, I just find, form what I can see, that you are very rigged in your outlook. You reject much without examining more than ideology or a named individual.

Most of what you bring to the table is stuff I'm already very familiar with; the loonies on the libertarian fringe rarely come up with something new.

Further, there is a huge gap between statements that science has not yet explained, and statements which science has proven to be false.

[Fisherking]

Most of what you bring to the table is stuff I'm already very familiar with; the loonies on the libertarian fringe rarely come up with something new.

Further, there is a huge gap between statements that science has not yet explained, and statements which science has proven to be false.

I beg your pardon?

I post a link you won’t access because it was written by an Austrian economist but discussing the state, because you are afraid of the dangerous ideas, and I am the loony?

Shall we submit ideas to you for your approval before posting?

[HoreTore]

I post a link you won’t access because it was written by an Austrian economist but discussing the state

What?

I've read the piece, and several like it. Many times.

Further, I have no need to actually read a linky from Marx someone posts, just seeing that the author is Karl Marx is more than enough to dismiss it as loony. The same goes for libertarian loonies.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Anecdotal evidence, the hallmark of people with no legs to stand on.

Scientific inquiry and anecdotal evidence are not incompatible. Qualitative research must be carefully framed, conducted, and recorded -- since it cannot rely on statistics without an "n of 30" with which to work. Nevertheless, good work can be done from this perspective.

[HoreTore]

Scientific inquiry and anecdotal evidence are not incompatible. Qualitative research must be carefully framed, conducted, and recorded -- since it cannot rely on statistics without an "n of 30" with which to work. Nevertheless, good work can be done from this perspective.

How is qualitative research anecdotal?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

How is qualitative research anecdotal?

Take, for example, anthropology....one researcher studying one tribe to learn of its culture....a single "story" or anecdote is the result. Popper would not approve.

[HoreTore]

Take, for example, anthropology....one researcher studying one tribe to learn of its culture....a single "story" or anecdote is the result. Popper would not approve.

For much of the early anthropology, I am inclined to agree.

EDIT: But then again, my knowledge of early anthropological research is rather limited, except for the many errors they made...

Still, qualitative research also includes stuff like including an open question on a question sheet as part of a larger quantitative question sheet. With a thousand individual responses, you're not very anecdotal...

[Ironside]

Yes it is best to only listen to mainstream, always.

The problem with Rothbard is that there's not much there. From the article, he talks a lot about the old states, that had a very different structure than the new ones. A blatant example is that the new nobles (multigenerational rich families) are no longer generally located within the state. They're the power players in the free market.

He doesn't discuss how to solve the problems that the state is currently solving, but rather seems to ignoring that they exist at all.

I mean complaining about the police treating assults on the police more serious than an assult on an average citizen? Well duh, any law bringing organisation would do the same, both because it's their own private interest and the interest of them to provide proper law. And letting the rest of us not needing to buy bullets because the neighbours are picking a fight, like we used to (well crossbow bolts and things like that).

For your Wright brothers anology, it's more complex than that, they had several more or less botched demonstrations for the press. Cameras were forbidden as well.
They also didn't want much attention, at least in part for fear of design theft.

[Fisherking]

The problem with Rothbard is that there's not much there. From the article, he talks a lot about the old states, that had a very different structure than the new ones. A blatant example is that the new nobles (multigenerational rich families) are no longer generally located within the state. They're the power players in the free market.

He doesn't discuss how to solve the problems that the state is currently solving, but rather seems to ignoring that they exist at all.

I mean complaining about the police treating assults on the police more serious than an assult on an average citizen? Well duh, any law bringing organisation would do the same, both because it's their own private interest and the interest of them to provide proper law. And letting the rest of us not needing to buy bullets because the neighbours are picking a fight, like we used to (well crossbow bolts and things like that).

For your Wright brothers anology, it's more complex than that, they had several more or less botched demonstrations for the press. Cameras were forbidden as well.
They also didn't want much attention, at least in part for fear of design theft.

As I said, I found the material to be a truism. There are more ways to explain it and this is the most critical of government in general.

The critical question, as I see it is not whether the friend and colleges of the officer have more of a motive to investigate and punish the crime. It is does the law differ in its protection.

I would submit that it is different. Authority protects its self to a greater degree in penalties for the same and even lesser offences. There are even special offences for citizens dealing with the police. I think that is more to the point. Resistance to authority is a crime.

Should it be?

With the Wright Brothers, really the only point was that a scientific journal said it was a lie without an examination of the evidence.

[HoreTore]

Should it be?

Yes.

What you and every other libertarian misses, is that a police officer and a civilian is not in the same position. The police officer is exposed to more crime as part of his job, and being the victim of a crime for a police officer means that his job is hindered, meaning he will be unable to stop other crimes for a while. Therefore, punishing offenders against the police harsher than others reduces overall crime, which is in our own interest.

[Fisherking]

Yes.

What you and every other libertarian misses, is that a police officer and a civilian is not in the same position. The police officer is exposed to more crime as part of his job, and being the victim of a crime for a police officer means that his job is hindered, meaning he will be unable to stop other crimes for a while. Therefore, punishing offenders against the police harsher than others reduces overall crime, which is in our own interest.

It is not only police, however. There are other crimes that can only be committed against government officials and penalties for common crimes against and official can carry harsher penalties, even if the perpetrator doesn’t know.

But in dealing with the police in particular, let us say you were stopped on the street by the police and told that you just had some violation. You find it absurd and recognize nothing of the sort. Practically anything you do or say from that point on may also be translated into some sort of crime. Harassing an office, the use of foul language, resisting the police. The list could go on. And don’t reach for your ID or phone, they may think you are a threat to their safety and shoot you, and perhaps a bystander or two in the process.

[HoreTore]

It is not only police, however. There are other crimes that can only be committed against government officials and penalties for common crimes against and official can carry harsher penalties, even if the perpetrator doesn’t know.

Interfering with other parts of the government follows the same reasoning as the cops. Interrupting government business hurts the population.

But in dealing with the police in particular, let us say you were stopped on the street by the police and told that you just had some violation. You find it absurd and recognize nothing of the sort. Practically anything you do or say from that point on may also be translated into some sort of crime. Harassing an office, the use of foul language, resisting the police. The list could go on.

This is only a problem for nutters who haven't learned to behave themselves. It does not happen to normal people.

And don’t reach for your ID or phone, they may think you are a threat to their safety and shoot you, and perhaps a bystander or two in the process.

This is US-specific, and caused by the gun laws. Outlaw all civilian guns, and you won't have this problem.

[Beskar]

It is not only police, however. There are other crimes that can only be committed against government officials and penalties for common crimes against and official can carry harsher penalties, even if the perpetrator doesn’t know.

Being honest, you would have to be pretty ignorant and foolhardly not to know. Typical behaviour is usually being cautious and hesitant around an on-duty police officer due to feel of being intimidated/caught guilty with something even though you are innocent.

If you start bad mouthing and smacking an officer, you are 'asking for it'.

In life, we typically get away with a lot of things, simply because no one usually cares to get the authorities involved. But when they are involved, incidents are treated without the same disregard a joe or jane public might do.