I am directly quoting Rothbard in every part of that post and my characterization of this outcome as a Rothbard-perceived utopia is taken directly from his book.

There are well over "a handful" of (not just pseudo-)racist quotes in this thread, and that's without counting the newsletters, the trash DiLorenzo writes on a daily basis that hasn't really been touched on yet, the piece Reason did last year that dug up more really vile quotes from everyone involved, etc.

If you don't mind, may I ask you where you stand politically / who are most influential in forming your political philosophy? Genuine interest here.

Politically, I'm left wing, probably closest to a social democrat but nowhere near a socialist, with a few right wing positions (I'm against race-based AA, the estate tax and wavering on gun control, to name three). I strongly distrust anything that ends in -ism because as a general rule of history, governing philosophies based on -isms rather than outcomes have tended to end spectacularly poorly, so it's hard to answer the second part of your question. Instead, I'll say that my favorite Supreme Court decision was Brown v. Board of Ed - not because of the verdict but because it was the first ruling to properly use statistics and social analysis to come to the correct conclusion.

When I saw that I had written logistically I wanted to look up logistically to try and figure out if there was a way to make that sentence work. Kinda pointless reaction I seem to have every time I am proven wrong no matter how big or small the wrongness.

You're right though I used the wrong word in that sentence when logically is the only one that would actually fit. If we wanted to level with one and another we'd have to accept that and move on unless we wanted to become entrenched in a pointless battle over nittery.

When I am looking to find what is the correct political philosophy I am just trying to figure out what works and why does not and why. I look back and forth between history and modern understanding to try and figure out how the hell we can make this whole crazy throng of overlapping instinctively driven primate social network of societies just stay in motion for a short while longer. We came down from the trees a 100k years ago and now we think we can reinvent the wolf pack.

The vision of the world at Rothbard sees it is probably a very interesting place. I like reading the AC threads because some of the posters can bring some really sharp sci fi elements to their conceptual views of a society never attempted on the scale they'd imagine. I am sure they'll all doing their best to stay within the acceptable reality we've assigned to the potential of the scenarios asked of them, I don't wanna say they are just making **** up or anything like that. The problem is that I think I found libertarianism the same way others did. We looked at theory and history, we found that history is full of failed attempts at trying theories that continually fail down a consistent path. We think we know where a lot of the last attempts at governing went wrong, all we think we need to do to stop the big hurt is prevent falling for the big lie.

You say you don't like Rothbard's envisioning of a stable world where horrible events happen out of the control of people, but you should think about the comparison of what a libertarian sees as the eventual path of destruction and despair far greater that of static existence of a human atrocity. We both have the options of endless potential despair and endless possible Utopian fantasy depending on how the chemicals in our brains are leveling out that day. You know as well as I do, with people, sometimes it's all just a crapshoot and no one really knows what will happen.

See, this is exactly why people think you're a troll. You probably HAVE read more rothbard than I have, because I haven't read a whole lot. I don't worship the guy, even though you seem hellbent on implying that a certain group of people are in his cult and are drinking his koolaid. Without this assumption, you've got the pig with no lipstick.

Further, you just admitted that what "their arguments lead to" is non-utopian, yet you go out of your way to use terms like "utopian vision" whenever possible.

Thanks adanthar

Rothbard doesn't poast in this forum.

Which book?

Really? There was one from Rothbard, the few things from the newsletters that reason article talks about, a warm review of a racist(ish) book and...? Accusations that Woods/DiLorenzo associate with racists "defending the League of the South." Do you have an example of this trash DiLorenzo writes on a daily basis? I've honestly only ever read one thing he's written... and it was a short article linked earlier in this thread by DVaut1. It mostly just talks about how awesome abolitionist Lysander Spooner was:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo82.html

Anyone want to take me, Dvaut, and FlyWf vs. any 3 AC posters for $100 in a battle of "who has read more about libertarian political theory?" place your bets

Sorry, but you believe in statism.

One on three?

Written by libertarians or by anyone?

I am not sure what you're trying to prove with this. It could go either way, you three vs boro, nielso, dr. modern[?] would be a loss for that trio. But I am sure we could find three who would lose.

Now you're making this post for some type of reason, but for the life of me I can't reconcile the point. Could you assist me in letting me know what settling this on either side might mean?

Why haven't you banned yourself?

You might want to take a long hard look at the various people that support your own beliefs.

I'd honestly be surprised if Fly was well read. I generally appreciate your and dvaut posts a lot, and you both seem quite knowledgeable on politics and history (somewhat less about economics from what I've seen tbh), whereas I have the hardest time reading a complete Fly post, let alone understanding what he is trying to say.

Since DiLorenzo writes this trash on a daily basis, it should be super easy to find some stuff he's written that is racist. Since you've read so much libertarian political theory, it should be a snap!

Why should I make the effort when we've just found out that the Mises detractors around here are far more knowledgeable about the stuff coming from Mises authors than their supporters?

To be fair, we didn't "find that out", you just stated that it was true.

This doesn't make any sense. What do the ones with money/privilege have to do with it? No taxes/laws/regulations and libertarianism in general favor the poor much more than the rich. The rich fight very hard to keep the poor from learning too much about freedom.

You are making the point that DiLorenzo is a clearly a racist, no question about it. You can either assert it without evidence, or support your point.

edit: and you said that the stuff he writes is racist garbage. So no guilt by association here. Either find the racist stuff he's written or stop calling his writings racist.

Haha thats what you think? Maybe you're the one we should be worried will be brainwashed by the secret racist undercurrent in those writings you try to get everyone to not take seriously at all.

Don't ask me how you know what Fly Dvaut or anyone else reads. From an intellectual standpoint its good to read views you disagree with so if you're actually doing that its laudable but its very uncommon so I think you're probably wrong. Especially when you seem to only be interested in character assassination and disagreeing with Rothbard on one issue which is whether there should be state run social services the lack of which II think which you term a market in child slavery.

who are the mises supporters, exactly? You've already put me in this group apparently, who else are you wrong about?

This would be huge, but if he can't use the guilt by association card then how do you expect him to attack posters that are actually in this thread?

I don't read mises.org either. I did read and enjoy DiLorenzo's book "The Real Lincoln," though. And I spend about 5-10 minutes a day scanning through LewRockwell.com to see if there's anything interesting there.

Meh. I know that pretty much all liberals are racists, so it doesn't really bother me if they think I'm one. It's a clear case of "whoever screams loudest".