Originally Posted by tomdemaine
I care. It bothers me that people who's opinions and intelligence I respect (dvaut and elliot) or even random trolling douches (you and daxx) may think that I or my friends (lol internet friends get a life) could be racist. I know, lol it's the internet grow a thick skin or whatever but I genuinely deep down believe in voluntarism and real equality for all and I'm pretty sure the others on this board do too.
I don't think you in particular are racist, nor do I think that about most posters ITT. I do think you, meaning many of the people here and not you specifically, have a really bad tendency to take whatever comes out of Mises, LR, etc. at face value when all of their scholarship is tainted at best. Before anyone else says that this is unwarranted, there are shades of gray; I ignore Peter Singer's views on animal rights because his views on human rights are appalling and the two come out of the same place, but I do not ignore Chomsky's work in linguistics, a completely different field, just because he happens to be a walking strawman generator on foreign affairs.
In this particular case, however, everyone in the Mises branch, as opposed to Cato or Buckley, have almost made it a point to dogwhistle in every piece of writing they've ever put out. When I know part of their motivation is to create white only suburbs complete with statues of Forrest before "the animals take over the DC zoo", and when I further know that the leading light of that branch (Rothbard) presupposes child slave markets as a necessary evil of a libertarian utopia, I can't take their views on economics seriously. Since I don't believe that child slave markets and statues to KKK leaders should be part of a utopian vision
, I can't help but feel that these guys' "in a perfect world" economic theories may not be quite as good as advertised.