How Lesbian Jewish Yankee Women Brought Us the Welfare State

[mjkidd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think ACists are nuts, but I also recognize this as a really terrible argument, and the type of attack I expect to see from partisan hacks in Pub v. Dem debates. Essentially the argument is that the idea can't be valid, because someone who shared that idea was a bit wacko.

ACism can be debated on its merits quite nicely, just what is this supposed to by arguing?

[/ QUOTE ]


valenzuela notes above, "Even if Rothbard is misogynistic and homophobic that doesnt mean his ideas are wrong." That is certainly true. Just because a person may have odious beliefs on some issues doesn't equate to all that person's beliefs being wrong.


However it still is relevant to discuss the philosphers/heroes of any group of thought. The question is, assuming of course that the ACists here disavow some seemingly odious beliefs that Rothbard might be imputed to have had due to his choice of words and themes, is why they use him. Surely their philosophy is not so bereft of good minds that they have to rely on persons who might have questionable beliefs in some areas and would be sure to cause embarrassment if those beliefs became generally known. Plus the fact is that if Rothbard had certain biases, which he seems to have had, then that very much calls into question his overall analysis, as it may have been too constrained by such biases to result in valid conclusions.

While I don't doubt that the groups he discusses had a large part in the development of socialistic welfare state policies in the U.S., it seems to me that his overall argument too casually dismisses some causes, like the trade union movements, which he concludes were not in fact a cause, but a symptom/result. It would seem to me that such could only be true as to the hyper-unionist socialism that we have today, with its legal provisions against right to work laws, and others that overly favour the unions versus the employers. But the impetus of the labor union movements was to have the right to organize and negotiate collectively, which surely AC supports, *as long as* employers are equally free to fire those employees and hire replacements, and which have involved a much greater number of persons who were leaders and thinkers for those diverse union movements, than Rothbard discusses. Also when discussing the various religious imepetus to the welfare state, Rothbard doesn't really even adequately begin to note Catholic support for trade unions, especially in the wake of Rerum Novarum.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would seem that your objections to Rothbard's arguments have nothing to do with his alleged antisemitism, homophobia, or misogyny. So why do you bring it up, anyway?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
It would seem that your objections to Rothbard's arguments have nothing to do with his alleged antisemitism, homophobia, or misogyny. So why do you bring it up, anyway?

[/ QUOTE ]


Note that I said that having certain biases can lead to invalid conclusions. Of course that doesn't inevitably lead to invalid overall conclusions, but it might. And it's not like I strained to find one instance of the words "lesbian", "jew" or "yankee". They're strewn throughout that essay. So the real question is why did Rothbard bring them up?

[mjkidd]

[ QUOTE ]

Note that I said that having certain biases can lead to invalid conclusions. Of course that doesn't inevitably lead to invalid overall conclusions, but it might. And it's not like I strained to find one instance of the words "lesbian", "jew" or "yankee". They're strewn throughout that essay. So the real question is why did Rothbard bring them up?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps he was a misogynistic, jew-hating, slave-owning Austrian economist. Who cares, as long as his points are valid? You can't use the fact that Rothbard was a misogynistic self-loathing jew to invalidate his arguments regarding the origins of the welfare state. Is Woody Allen not funny because he is a self-loathing Jew? Why not attack Rothbard's ideas, rather than he prejudices?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Why not attack Rothbard's ideas, rather than he prejudices?

[/ QUOTE ]
Ad hominems are easier to come up with.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It would seem that your objections to Rothbard's arguments have nothing to do with his alleged antisemitism, homophobia, or misogyny. So why do you bring it up, anyway?

[/ QUOTE ]


Note that I said that having certain biases can lead to invalid conclusions. Of course that doesn't inevitably lead to invalid overall conclusions, but it might. And it's not like I strained to find one instance of the words "lesbian", "jew" or "yankee". They're strewn throughout that essay. So the real question is why did Rothbard bring them up?

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, it might. So now show how it does. And once you've done that, you don't need the other crap anymore. What you are talking about is perhaps useful as a BS detector, but completely useless as an argument. And I'm guessing you didn't need extra fuel for your BS detector re: AC anyhow, right?

So totally useless.

[Borodog]

So your argument is that Rothbard was a "self-loathing Jew"?

You have come up with some terrible arguments in the past, but this thread has to take the cake.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
So your argument is that Rothbard was a "self-loathing Jew"?

You have come up with some terrible arguments in the past, but this thread has to take the cake.

[/ QUOTE ]


Boro,

More misdirection to avoid discussing the issues at hand as I only noted that was one possibility. That is beneath you. Why don't you answer the question I put as to why Rothbard felt it necessary to discuss the lesbianism of the persons he mentioned? Or why (if you do), you believe his overall argument as to the causes of the welfare state was valid?


All,

Note that my comments in this thread were not limited to discussing possible bigotry on Rothbard's part, and that in fact I challenged his essay for facile conclusions and omissions. And I posed the question to Ac'ers of why they would even want to set him up as one of their "luminaries" when he might have baggage. Surely there are other AC thinkers they could use instead.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
More misdirection to avoid discussing the issues at hand as I only noted that was one possibility. That is beneath you.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would say this thread is beneath you, I don't it's possible for anything to be beneath you though, you're pretty low.
[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you answer the question I put as to why Rothbard felt it necessary to discuss the lesbianism of the persons he mentioned?

[/ QUOTE ]
What the [censored] does what he thinks about lesbians matter? Maybe some chick he wanted to bang turned out to be lesbian who wouldn't give him any, who cares?
[ QUOTE ]
Or why (if you do), you believe his overall argument as to the causes of the welfare state was valid?

[/ QUOTE ]
What does his ability to say "lesbian" have anything to do with the thrust of his argument? Are you really trying to say his argument isn't valid any more because he said lesbian a few more times then normal?

If you want to start a thread disagreeing with his actual argument, feel free to do so. This thread is ridiculously stupid even by your standards.
[ QUOTE ]
in fact I challenged his essay for facile conclusions and omissions.

[/ QUOTE ]
About lesbians? Because you certainly didn't challenge [censored] about the welfare state.

[Borodog]

Bluff, your argument is ridiculous.

If an author who was a fan of the modern welfare state pointed out the exact same facts, you would apparently conclude that the author was "pro lesbian Yankee Jew" where Rothbard, a Jew, who does not care for the modern welfare state, must apparently be "anti lesbian Yankee Jew". I personally hate the welfare state, can find nothing wrong with stating historical facts about historically influential people, dislike Yankees, am magnanimous in my ambivalence to Jews, and am quite pro-lesbian, especially the lipstick kind.

Hey, important historical figures involved in the formation of affirmative action policy, which is bad, were black! I guess that makes me racist!

The real question is, since there is no possible way that you are actually browsing around on mises.org looking for 14 year old essays by dead economists, what Austrian bashing site did you dig this up from? Have you and Adanthar been dating? Perhaps Rothbard was pro-genocide like Ron Paul!

Get a life.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey, important historical figures involved in the formation of affirmative action policy, which is bad, were black! I guess that makes me racist!

The real question is, since there is no possible way that you are actually browsing around on mises.org looking for 14 year old essays by dead economists, what Austrian bashing site did you dig this up from? Have you and Adanthar been dating? Perhaps Rothbard was pro-genocide like Ron Paul!

Get a life.

[/ QUOTE ]


There is a difference between skin color and sexual preference, especially for the time periods being discussed, and you know it. One is obvious to all and also the basis of the formation of political groups, and the other is not generally known, and (at that time), not the basis for political groups. Also, you two seem overly defensive about admitting the possibility that Rothbard was in fact a bigot in some things, when you could just take the tack of saying it is similar to Thomas Jefferson owning slaves whilst promoting liberty for all.

As to how I found that essay, I did actually find it through mises.org as I have seen it mentioned here a lot. And in fact I haven't even read any "AC bashing" sites.

I have noted earlier that odious or wrong beliefs certainly isn't proof that all other beliefs of that person are wrong. However it is sometimes is a flag. And just for the record, while I do find many AC posters here to be "nuts", there are others I respect. AC, like other political philosophies, can attract fringe elements, which harm the message of the core group. As a republican, as I noted to someone once, if I lived in Louisiana I would be for ejecting David Duke from the party for the good of the party. I def wouldn't be taking a line of "well that doesn't mean the other stuff he says is wrong and you should just listen to that". Anything positive he said would likely not only be overshadowed by the bad publicity he brought, but also attract more kooks to the party.

Also, I want to note again, that none of you AC'ers seem to want to discuss the conclusions of that Rothbard essay, apart from the "lesbian jewish yankee" stuff I brought up. Why is that?