https://www.quora.com/Have-you-met-anyone-truly-evil-What-makes-them-evil-according-to-you/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=3892a4b3&srid=u4QvUpdated Mar 17, 2018, 6:50 PM
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-17 18:50:00 UTC
Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response
-
4 – Every thinker is only partly right. My beef with rothbard is that he conflat
4 – Every thinker is only partly right. My beef with rothbard is that he conflated low trust ethics with high trust ethics, and conducted an pseudoscientific war on the commons as marx did on private property. The only one who was right was Hayek: it’s all just reducible to law.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-17 14:50:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975021495566159873
Reply addressees: @Lord_Keynes2
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975018569451778049
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975018569451778049
-
3 – My reading (because I learned it from him) is that Hoppe completed that prog
3 – My reading (because I learned it from him) is that Hoppe completed that program, unfortunately, using Kantian > Marxist rationalism, rather than anglo empiricism (law). I just converted it to scientific rather than justificationary prose.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-17 14:48:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975021080980197376
Reply addressees: @Lord_Keynes2
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975018569451778049
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975018569451778049
-
2 – My reading of rothbard, particularly “for a new liberty” was that he was (a)
2 – My reading of rothbard, particularly “for a new liberty” was that he was (a) trying to restated jewish borderland (ukrainian) low trust ethics, in anglo-jeffersonian high trust terms, and (b) trying to reduce social science to an informal logic. Did he or did Hoppe?
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-17 14:46:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975020558680281090
Reply addressees: @Lord_Keynes2
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975018569451778049
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975018569451778049
-
(Respectfully) I always think that’s a rather ridiculous question since of empir
(Respectfully) I always think that’s a rather ridiculous question since of empiricism (Aristotle), Self Improvement(Zeno), Moral Literature (Plato), and Rational Mythology (Augustine), it’s easy to state that all of philosophy is merely footnotes stated in current vocabulary.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-17 14:44:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975020055401586689
Reply addressees: @Lord_Keynes2
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975018569451778049
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975018569451778049
-
Yet those who had a direct connection to rothbard or rand are still grasping at
Yet those who had a direct connection to rothbard or rand are still grasping at straws of rationalist falsehood. Science is complete. Philosophy is relegated to preference and good. And justification went the way of scripture. Just how it is. They only got it half right.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-17 14:38:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975018658945748993
Reply addressees: @BobMurphyEcon @FriedrichHayek
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974794304769200134
IN REPLY TO:
@BobMurphyEcon
@curtdoolittle @FriedrichHayek What are you talking about? Mises talks e.g. about building a railroad connecting two points, and how the planner can’t know which route is most economical.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974794304769200134
-
You know, I have been working on this problem only since about 2001, and I know
You know, I have been working on this problem only since about 2001, and I know that Russo-Ukrainian Libertarianism was abandoned by intellectuals relatively quickly, but it’s still surprising that these nonsense arguments still persist. Mises was irrelevant. Rothbard was wrong.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-17 14:34:23 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975017506992742400
Reply addressees: @BobMurphyEcon @FriedrichHayek
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974794304769200134
IN REPLY TO:
@BobMurphyEcon
@curtdoolittle @FriedrichHayek What are you talking about? Mises talks e.g. about building a railroad connecting two points, and how the planner can’t know which route is most economical.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974794304769200134
-
“BUT WHAT DID ROTHBARD INNOVATE?”— 1 – (Respectfully) I always think that’s a
—“BUT WHAT DID ROTHBARD INNOVATE?”—
1 – (Respectfully) I always think that’s a rather ridiculous question since of empiricism (Aristotle), Self Improvement(Zeno), Moral Literature (Plato), and Rational Mythology (Augustine), it’s easy to state that all of philosophy is merely footnotes stated in current vocabulary.
2 – My reading of rothbard, particularly “for a new liberty” was that he was (a) trying to restated jewish borderland (ukrainian) low trust ethics, in anglo-jeffersonian high trust terms, and (b) trying to reduce social science to an informal logic. Did he or did Hoppe?
3 – My reading (because I learned it from him) is that Hoppe completed that program, unfortunately, using Kantian > Marxist rationalism, rather than anglo empiricism (law). I just converted it to scientific rather than justificationary prose.
4 – Every thinker is only partly right. My beef with rothbard is that he conflated low trust ethics with high trust ethics, and conducted an pseudoscientific war on the commons as marx did on private property. The only one who was right was Hayek: it’s all just reducible to law.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-17 10:52:00 UTC
-
—“But What Did Rothbard Innovate?”—
—“BUT WHAT DID ROTHBARD INNOVATE?”— 1 – (Respectfully) I always think that’s a rather ridiculous question since of empiricism (Aristotle), Self Improvement(Zeno), Moral Literature (Plato), and Rational Mythology (Augustine), it’s easy to state that all of philosophy is merely footnotes stated in current vocabulary. 2 – My reading of rothbard, particularly “for a new liberty” was that he was (a) trying to restated jewish borderland (ukrainian) low trust ethics, in anglo-jeffersonian high trust terms, and (b) trying to reduce social science to an informal logic. Did he or did Hoppe? 3 – My reading (because I learned it from him) is that Hoppe completed that program, unfortunately, using Kantian > Marxist rationalism, rather than anglo empiricism (law). I just converted it to scientific rather than justificationary prose. 4 – Every thinker is only partly right. My beef with rothbard is that he conflated low trust ethics with high trust ethics, and conducted an pseudoscientific war on the commons as marx did on private property. The only one who was right was Hayek: it’s all just reducible to law. -
—“But What Did Rothbard Innovate?”—
—“BUT WHAT DID ROTHBARD INNOVATE?”— 1 – (Respectfully) I always think that’s a rather ridiculous question since of empiricism (Aristotle), Self Improvement(Zeno), Moral Literature (Plato), and Rational Mythology (Augustine), it’s easy to state that all of philosophy is merely footnotes stated in current vocabulary. 2 – My reading of rothbard, particularly “for a new liberty” was that he was (a) trying to restated jewish borderland (ukrainian) low trust ethics, in anglo-jeffersonian high trust terms, and (b) trying to reduce social science to an informal logic. Did he or did Hoppe? 3 – My reading (because I learned it from him) is that Hoppe completed that program, unfortunately, using Kantian > Marxist rationalism, rather than anglo empiricism (law). I just converted it to scientific rather than justificationary prose. 4 – Every thinker is only partly right. My beef with rothbard is that he conflated low trust ethics with high trust ethics, and conducted an pseudoscientific war on the commons as marx did on private property. The only one who was right was Hayek: it’s all just reducible to law.