On the WaPo Hit Piece on DiLo
In this article I become the anti-zombie, and defend Tom DiLorenzo from the shocked finger pointing of the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank (who is a guy, I have verified). An excerpt:
If someone (like DiLorenzo) wants to praise the good things in the writings of the Founders, and also of the arguments in favor of Southern secession, that’s consistent. If someone else (say a Black Panther) wants to denounce the Confederacy, but also all the hypocritical Dead White Males who signed the Constitution and endorsed its offensive 3/5 clause, that too is consistent; fair enough.
But what doesn’t make any sense is for Milbank (and related critics like Paul Krugman and Matt Yglesias) to go along with the standard American civics lesson, which teaches that slave-owners George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were heroes of liberty, but then to recoil in horror at the idea that the Southern states should have been allowed to secede, because they had slaves and therefore forfeit any possibility of our (qualified) endorsement in that terrible episode in American history.
I suppose Washington himself was inconsistent, then, for putting down secessionary rebellions in his administration?
I think you have drunk too much of the Tom Woods cool-aid on the early republic, Bob. Jefferson wrote in the Declaration (and I’m paraphrasing here): “you better have a damn good reason for seceding before you do something like that, much less instigate a war over it”.
That’s why the Declaration was for the most part a list of reasons for seceding.
All Krugman, Yglesias, me, and others are saying is “not being represented in your own government and having your local governments stymied in doing anything is a good reason to secede” and “fear of a suspected abolitionist and the prospect of an end to slavery consistent with republican government, and concerns about a tariff passed by a republican government are not good reasons to secede”.
That seems like decent logic to me. It certainly doesn’t merit the accusation of being “inconsistent” or the accusation that Milbank authored a “hit-piece”.
I think you have drunk too much of the Tom Woods cool-aid on the early republic, Bob. Jefferson wrote in the Declaration (and I’m paraphrasing here): “you better have a damn good reason for seceding before you do something like that, much less instigate a war over it”.
“If there be any among us who wish to dissolve the Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed, as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1801.
Jefferson and James Madison were also the authors of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 which held that “where powers were assumed by the national government which had not been granted by the states, nullification is the rightful remedy,” and that every state has a right to “nullify of its own authority all assumptions of power by others.”
The statement you cited from Jefferson is a reflection of his pragmatic, strategic thinking towards secession, but he did not oppose secession on principle. He strongly believed states had the right to secede.
The “bad reason” you hold for secession has no bearing on the undeniable fact that states have the right to secede.
It’s amusing how you claim that Krugman and Yglesias are in principle supportive of secession, as long as the reasons are “good”. After DiLorenzo’s appearance at Ron Paul’s hearing, Krugman did not even hint that he is in principle supportive of secession. In his trademark passive aggressive style, he equated secession with “Johnny Reb”, and his reference is pejorative, not neutral or positive.
The “logic” of the right to secession is not based on the particular reasons for why states would want to secede. The logic is based on universal principles of liberty. In principle, if states want to secede, they have the right to do so, regardless of the particular reasons.
I know who is drinking the Kool-Aid, and it is not Woods or Murphy.
Captain Freedom – I agree, states have the right to secede. They even have the right to secede for bad reasons. But having the right to secede for bad reasons and having the right to be free of censure by people who are going to point out that the Confederacy had no good reason to secede are two different things. And just as states have the right to secede, the federal government has the right to maintain order and put down rebellions. What you have is a case made for this being a legitimate secession and a case made for this being an unreasonable secession and a rebellion. Such differences of opinion are rarely arbitrated peacefully, which is precisely why Jefferson insisted on the exercise of caution.
The Virginia and Kentucky resolutions have more to do with the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution. History has offered a solution that is an alternative to Madison and Jefferson precisely because the Madisonian and Jeffersonian solutions are essentially secessionary solutions. There’s nothing fundamentally problematic about nullification except that it is unsustainable. The Constitution itself leaves the question of its own arbitration relatively vague.
The view that nullification is not the ideal method for arbitrating the Constitution is not the same as arguing “states have to follow everything the federal Congress says” (they don’t have to follow Congress – they just aren’t the final arbiters of such a dispute – the courts are), nor is it the same as saying that secession is illegitimate. It’s simply to say that since nullification is essentially secessionary, it’s not a feasible way of arbitrating the Constitution on specific questions. Secession is always on the table – but as Jefferson suggested, as long as we have treason laws on the book you’re going to have to substantially justify it.
I agree, states have the right to secede. They even have the right to secede for bad reasons. But having the right to secede for bad reasons and having the right to be free of censure by people who are going to point out that the Confederacy had no good reason to secede are two different things.
There you go again, injecting your own subjective conception of what constitutes “good” and “bad” reasons for seceding. If states have the right to secede, then that’s that. The specific subjective reasons held by secessionists is their own business. You cannot claim that their reasons are “bad” or “good”, because it is the right itself that the concepts “bad” and “good” apply. The specific reasons for exercising a right are subjective and cannot be labeled by you as “good” or “bad” on behalf of them.
At best, all you could say is “I don’t personally support the specific reasons given for exercising their right”.
And just as states have the right to secede, the federal government has the right to maintain order and put down rebellions.
The federal government does not have the right to quash rebellions that exist on the basis of defending the right to secede after being threatened and coerced into not seceding.
What you have is a case made for this being a legitimate secession and a case made for this being an unreasonable secession and a rebellion.
No Daniel. You are again injecting your own subjective opinion on what constitutes “good reasons” and “bad reasons” for seceding, when they are subjective and determined by those who want to secede. The right to secede is what is “good”, and the violent suppression of this right is “bad”.
The specific reasons given by people who want to exercise their right to secede cannot be labeled by you as “good” or “bad”. That is just you seeking to impose your subjective values on others.
Such differences of opinion are rarely arbitrated peacefully, which is precisely why Jefferson insisted on the exercise of caution.
Secession is rarely peaceful precisely because federalists so often use violence to quash it! Lincoln’s violent suppression of secession resulted in over 600,000 dead.
Jefferson always held that states have the right to secede, and so he would have been vehemently against Lincoln’s violent suppression.
The Virginia and Kentucky resolutions have more to do with the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution.
“More to do”? That’s a weasel phrase. If you accept the fact that the resolutions contained explicit arguments on the right of states to nullify what the feds are not explicitly allowed to do Constitutionally, such as squash secession, then you are admitting that they emphasized states’ right to secede. That’s the main point regarding secession.
Glossing over this fact by claiming that there are more important things in those resolutions, is evading the substantive aspects of the right to secession.
History has offered a solution that is an alternative to Madison and Jefferson precisely because the Madisonian and Jeffersonian solutions are essentially secessionary solutions.
That makes no sense. Are you personifying history? Paging Dr. Hegel. And why would a “secession solution” necessarily, “precisely”, generate “alternatives”? You basically just assumed your own conclusion as one of your premises.
There’s nothing fundamentally problematic about nullification except that it is unsustainable.
What does that even mean? Nullification is a one time event. States nullify and refuse to enforce federal laws. This is “sustainable” because people still go on living their lives without being subjected to (what states hold to be) unconstitutional federal law.
The Constitution itself leaves the question of its own arbitration relatively vague.
The right of states to nullify and the right to secede are not so vague as to be suppressed “just to be safe”.
The view that nullification is not the ideal method for arbitrating the Constitution is not the same as arguing “states have to follow everything the federal Congress says” (they don’t have to follow Congress – they just aren’t the final arbiters of such a dispute – the courts are), nor is it the same as saying that secession is illegitimate.
There you go AGAIN injecting your own subjective opinion as if it were relevant to the right to secede and the reasons given for it. What is “ideal” to the libertarian for example is the right of states to secede, for whatever reason. Decentralization of powers is always “ideal” if your ideal is individual liberty.
But you seem to not like secession in principle. You reluctantly admit that states have the right, which is far more profound and consequential than you seem to appreciate, but then you go off on all sorts of subjective arguments against secession. Rights seem to go flying out the window, and everyone is supposed to trust your advice and not exercise their right to secede. If the right is there, then your advice to not secede, is quite frankly irrelevant.
It’s simply to say that since nullification is essentially secessionary, it’s not a feasible way of arbitrating the Constitution on specific questions.
Nullification is not secessionary. Nullification is specific to particular federal laws. It can be related to secession, but is not necessarily so.
Secession is always on the table – but as Jefferson suggested, as long as we have treason laws on the book you’re going to have to substantially justify it.
You know, you may think that you have Jefferson on your side. As far as his strategic thinking, and his personal opinions regarding good and bad reasons for secession are concerned, you and him may share a “reluctant” attitude toward it. But the fundamental and primary foundation of secession, the thing that gives it its whole meaning and strength, is the fact that states have the RIGHT to secede.
Because of that seemingly benign fact, it is really nonsensical to claim that strategy, or pragmatism, or reluctance, are more important, and primary, to the right to secede. The right is what protects people against the arbitrary whims of people, who could subjectively want the feds to control people and prevent them from secession. In all honesty, all your statements regarding “good” and “bad” reasons for secession are pretty much irrelevant to the issue of the right to secede.
Since this nation was built on a foundation of eternal rights, and not what people felt was pragmatic at the moment, it follows that to quote the founders as if they placed rights below that of strategy and pragmatism, which is what you seem to be doing, is bordering on intellectual dishonesty.
Captain Freedom: “There you go again, injecting your own subjective conception of what constitutes “good” and “bad” reasons for seceding.”
WTF dude? How about your “subjective conception” that secession is always allowed. Cause you can’t have it both ways — dismiss Daniel’s moral views as merely subjective and elevate your own into objective principles. I call BS!
WTF dude?
Now now, there is no need to lose your cool Gene.
How about your “subjective conception” that secession is always allowed.
That isn’t subjective. States have the right to secede. This is independent of my personal opinions on whether or not states should secede, or whether or not the reasons they give are good.
Cause you can’t have it both ways — dismiss Daniel’s moral views as merely subjective and elevate your own into objective principles. I call BS!
LOL, I wasn’t dismissing Daniel’s moral views. I was dismissing his claim to be the authority on what constitutes “good” reasons and what constitutes “bad” reasons for secession, such that the right to secede, and the reasons of those wanting to secede, become secondary to his opinions.
The right to secede is not subjective, Gene. It seems that you and Daniel believe that subjective opinions regarding the reasons for secession usurp and are more important than the right. Daniel tried to justify his position by claiming that the founders, particular Jefferson, were antagonistic towards secession, when they were crucial in forming and enshrining the right to secede because they believed so strongly in it. You, I really don’t know what justification you are bringing to the table, well, other than swearing at me and claiming I am being a BS hypocritical artist. Having a bad day?
Captain, that ain’t losin’ my cool — that’s the way we talk in Brooklyn.
As far as the rest of your note goes, I get it: Your opinions are THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH, while the opinions of those who disagree with your are mere subjective whims.
“other than swearing at me ”
Oh, and Captain, I am sorry, I did not realize I was dealing with a hothouse flower. I will only use the gentlest of words and phrases henceforth with you, and save any colorful language for when I talk with normal adults.
Captain, that ain’t losin’ my cool — that’s the way we talk in Brooklyn.
Is this academic blog on economics, where anyone from the country, indeed the world, can come to contribute, a place to swear, even if that is how they talk in Brooklyn? Maybe if you and I were having a beer in Brooklyn, I would not think twice about it. But not all of us are from there.
As far as the rest of your note goes, I get it: Your opinions are THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH, while the opinions of those who disagree with your are mere subjective whims.
What kind of response is that? I could just as well use that same argument against everything you say.
“I get it: Your opinions are THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH, while the opinions of those who disagree with you, namely mine, are mere subjective whims.”
Come on, keep it professional and worthwhile.
The argument is obviously lost on you.
I have already said that any personal opinions regarding when states ought to secede, and any personal opinions on what constitutes “good” and “bad” reasons for secession, have no bearing on the fact that states have the right to secede, period.
That obviously means that my opinions on when states ought to secede and what are good and bad reasons, would also be irrelevant.
What matters is the right to secede, and the people who want to secede. Their reasons are their own, and it is the height of arrogance and pretension to criticize their reasons according to your own belief system, as if it even matters.
Oh, and Captain, I am sorry, I did not realize I was dealing with a hothouse flower. I will only use the gentlest of words and phrases henceforth with you, and save any colorful language for when I talk with normal adults.
You know Gene, the more you attack me as a person, and the less you focus on the ideas and arguments, the more a fool you make yourself out to be, as if that is even possible at this point.
I don’t mind getting sworn at, as long as I think the person swearing at me is a friend and is not malicious. You are no friend, and your posts are dripping with malicious ad hominem and sarcasm.
Having a bad day?
“That kind of response is that? I could just as well use that same argument against everything you say.”
No, you couldn’t, because I do not take that idiotic stance.
“Having a bad day?”
Captain, I’m having a great day! I got me a hold of one of them nitwits at Bob’s blog, and am having a great time winding him up.
No, you couldn’t, because I do not take that idiotic stance.
Any time you try to refute my arguments, in any way, every time you say I am wrong, implies that you are right, which implies that you are in fact depending on an objective standard, my potty mouthed, oblivious interlocutor.
The concepts “truth” and “falsehood” only have meaning in an objective framework. Without an objective framework, they become nothing but personal opinions, in which case there is no reason for you to say I am wrong about anything, nor is there any justification for you to say I am wrong.
You’re not only a character assassin, but you’re also a philosophical con artist. You claim I am wrong and that you are right, but then you have the hypocritical gall to attack me for my convictions, for no other reason than that I hold them, and then, to top it off, your “rebuttal” to me:
“I get it: Your opinions are THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH, while the opinions of those who disagree with your are mere subjective whims.”
Which I could just as easily throw right back at you, because that is precisely what you are doing every time you say anyone else is wrong about anything, you now claim you wouldn’t make that argument, right after making it?
Captain, I’m having a great day! I got me a hold of one of them nitwits at Bob’s blog, and am having a great time winding him up.
And more ad hominem. How nice.
I think you’re lying about having a good day. I think you’re having such an awful day that the only way you believe you can kill the pain is by attacking me as a person. The fact that you derive enjoyment out of “winding nitwits up”, which by the way you are not, I am actually just patiently correcting your numerous errors and exposing you having no argument that can stand up to mine, can only mean that you are a bully who is so emotionally distraught, that he is blind to his own ignorance.
Your feeling good by insulting me does not mean you are correct. It’s unfortunate that you find it necessary to engage in constant character attacks and ad hominem.
You have not shown that anything I said is wrong, and in fact you have only spewed fallacy after fallacy, so if I’m a “nitwit”, then I’ll leave it to you to decide what pejorative name you would like to label yourself as.
“If there be any among us who wish to dissolve the Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed, as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1801.
Translation: Let secessionists have first ammendment protection as long as we can combat their arguments in reasonable discourse! Entirely in line with what Daniel quoted from him!
Translation: Let secessionists have first ammendment protection as long as we can combat their arguments in reasonable discourse! Entirely in line with what Daniel quoted from him!
Not a very good translation there scineram.
“If there be any among us who wish to dissolve the Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed, as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1801.
Does that help?
I can assure you the British Crown did not think we had “good” reasons to secede……………………….
You write this: “If King George had – halfway through the War for American Independence – declared a new objective of freeing all U.S.-based slaves, would Milbank now say that the wrong side won that war?”
You may be interested in knowing that this did happen. George III did not make it an election (errr… parliamentary) issue the way Lincoln did. But Lord Dunmore was infamous in Virginia for declaring, in November 1775, that any slaves who joined with the British would win their freedom.
Lord Dunmore’s offer of emancipation proclamation in 1775 was not due to any moral or religious objection to slavery. It was strategic. To him, the slaves represented a source for military power.
As governor of Virginia, Dunmore withheld his signature from a bill against the slave trade.
In 1787, Dunmore was appointed governor of the Bahamas, where thousands of blacks had been transported after the war, most of them enslaved. Despite his effort to pose as the “Great Liberator,” Dunmore’s attempts to reconcile conflicts over property claims for runaway slaves resulted in the reenslavement of 29 of the 30 who brought their claim of freedom before his Negro Court.
Correct.
Um, yes I know. It really didn’t need your confirmation, as if it is “up in the air” without it.
You provide unsolicited details in a way that I was concerned would lead some people to think I was trying to obscure those details. My short response confirmed that wasn’t the case. It’s not always about you, Captain_Freedom.
You provide unsolicited details in a way that I was concerned would lead some people to think I was trying to obscure those details.
Hahahaha….”unsolicited”? Like I have to acquire your permission first before posting details? That’s rich. Such attitude is testament to your position towards secession. “You can justly secede unless I give you the go ahead first”.
Your mind seems very dictatorial Daniel. No wonder you’re hostile to liberty.
My short response confirmed that wasn’t the case. It’s not always about you, Captain_Freedom.
Hahahaha
IT’S NOT ALWAYS ABOUT YOU, DANIEL! Your opinion on what constitutes “good” and “bad” reasons for secession, and your implicit demand that arguments must be “solicited” by you first, show very clearly that you want yourself to be the focus of others.
What is your obsession with permission? No, you do not require my permission “unsolicited” just means “initiated by you”. Jesus – calm down man. Here you’re going off on a one word response of mine and farther down you’re saying I’m on the road to genocide. What’s with you today?
Hostile to liberty? In what sense am I hostile to liberty?
What is your obsession with permission?
Your posts are rapidly deteriorating into ad hominem.
I have no obsession with permission. YOU invoked the term “unsolicited”, as if I must acquire solicitation first, ostensibly from you, before I can make arguments. I am pointing out your apparent penchant for wanting to grant permission to others.
If you call that “obsession”, then yeah, I am “obsessed” with pointing out to others that in an open debate, it is rude to do that.
No, you do not require my permission “unsolicited” just means “initiated by you”.
Nice backtrack. By that definition, every comment made by me, you and everyone else here, are “unsolicited”. But then why point that out? Obviously there was something about my post that you thought needed some kind of prompting before I am justified in saying it.
Jesus – calm down man. Here you’re going off on a one word response of mine and farther down you’re saying I’m on the road to genocide. What’s with you today?
Are you serious? YOU’RE the one being hostile here. I am very calm, thanks.
Hostile to liberty? In what sense am I hostile to liberty?
You are hostile to secession. Everything you have said in this thread is devoted entirely to minimizing and attacking the right to secede. You did admit that states have the right to secede, but everything else is the work of someone who doesn’t want states to secede. You clearly mask this by trying to claim that there exists “good” and “bad” reasons for secession, as if your opinions on when it is “good” to secede overrule every reason given by secessionists.
You are hostile to secession.
Secession involves trading one government for another. Whether this means more or less liberty will depend on the facts of the case. In some cases (e.g. Latvia) secession will mean more liberty, in other cases (e.g. Turkmenistan) it will mean less.
Secession involves trading one government for another.
State secession involves trading a more powerful, more oppressive government, for another, less powerful, less oppressive government. It is not merely trading one government for another equally oppressive government.
State secession is a libertarian movement, the same way succeeding in getting beaten up less often by people is a libertarian oriented direction.
Whether this means more or less liberty will depend on the facts of the case. In some cases (e.g. Latvia) secession will mean more liberty, in other cases (e.g. Turkmenistan) it will mean less.
People have more liberty in Turkmenistan after secession compared to when they lived under Soviet rule. It is much easier for the population there to limit the power of government compared to when the USSR still existed. The people there had virtually no power, which is why they could only secede once the USSR was already in its final stages of secular collapse.
People have more liberty in Turkmenistan after secession compared to when they lived under Soviet rule. It is much easier for the population there to limit the power of government compared to when the USSR still existed.
You really don’t know anything about Turkmenistan, do you?
You really don’t know anything about Turkmenistan, do you?
You really don’t know anything about the USSR and Turkmen SSR, compared to Turkmenistan, do you?
The extent of the oppression under soviet rule seems to be completely lost on you.
You really don’t know anything about the USSR and Turkmen SSR, compared to Turkmenistan, do you?
I know they were both ruled by the same person.
I know they were both ruled by the same person.
Gorbechev?
Gorbechev?
Lol. Yes, it’s a little known fact about Gorbachev that he was Turkmenbasy.
Lol. Yes, it’s a little known fact about Gorbachev that he was Turkmenbasy.
LOL, you said the same person ruled. However, prior to secession, Gorbachev ruled over all SSRs. If the same person ruled, then it must have been Gorbachev.
Or were you referring to a Soviet puppet?
LOL, you said the same person ruled. However, prior to secession, Gorbachev ruled over all SSRs.
Prior to the fall of the USSR Turkmen SSR was ruled over by Saparmurat Niyazov. After the fall, the newly independent Turkmenistan was ruled by… Saparmurat Niyazov! He just gave himself a new title and started building giant ice palaces to himself.
“Your posts are rapidly deteriorating into ad hominem.”
Daniel, you have fallen into the Captain’s trap. His technique:
1) Act like a jerk until someone points this out and then:
2) Shout “oooh, ad hominem, ad hominem!”
Prior to the fall of the USSR Turkmen SSR was ruled over by Saparmurat Niyazov.
Oh please. Prior the SSR collapse, Niyazov was a puppet of the Communist Party of Moscow.
Niyazov has correctly stated that during the time of Soviet rule, the parliament of the Turkmenia SSR had 364 members, but they did not have any rights. They could not discuss any questions related to the economy or internal or external policy.
They were essentially peons of Moscow. They didn’t rule.
Niyazov stated: “It was a puppet parliament. After independence, we abandoned that dysfunctional institution and created a body of 50 educated experts in the area of jurisprudence.”
After the fall, the newly independent Turkmenistan was ruled by… Saparmurat Niyazov! He just gave himself a new title and started building giant ice palaces to himself.
No BA, Niyazov was not RULER prior to the SSR collapse. He was a local puppet dictator under the ultimate rule of the Communist Party.
You are incorrectly assuming that being ruler in name only prior to collapse, and being ruler in reality after the collapse, are the same thing. They are not.
Niyazov stated: “It was a puppet parliament. After independence, we abandoned that dysfunctional institution and created a body of 50 educated experts in the area of jurisprudence.”
Well, if the Great Turkmenbasy himself said it, then it must be true!
Daniel, you have fallen into the Captain’s trap. His technique:
1) Act like a jerk until someone points this out and then:
2) Shout “oooh, ad hominem, ad hominem!”
Hahahaha, MORE ad hominem! Oh this is absolutely delightful!
Now I’m a jerk!
Correcting you and repeatedly pointing out your fallacious claims makes me a jerk? I have not once attacked you as a person.
You have so far called me a hothouse flower, a nitwit, daft, you swore at me, and you have the gumption to call me a jerk? Please.
I don’t have a “trap”. People like you who seem to reject reason (as is evidenced by your posts here), always find reason and logic as “traps”.
It’s clear you can’t debate on ideas and ideas alone. You have to resort to character attacks because you lack the ability to debate using ideas only.
Maybe you should have read a book today instead of gracing us with your hostile and malicious presence?
Yeah, you’re having a bad day. That’s fine, I just hope you take it out on someone else next time.
Well, if the Great Turkmenbasy himself said it, then it must be true!
It’s a matter of historical fact, BA.
“If King George had – halfway through the War for American Independence – declared a new objective of freeing all U.S.-based slaves, would Milbank now say that the wrong side won that war?”
I sure would! (Although I must admit I half suspect the wrong side won anyway.)
Yeah, me too.
I’m happy with my first-class citizenship and civil liberties, thanks!
Me too, if only out of respect for beings who can tell the future (“_halfway_ through the War”) with such accuracy.
What about historical circumstances, Bob? Let’s set aside slavery and took female sufferage. Now, I’ve done some searching in the documents of the time, and I can’t find *anybody* in the founding debates suggesting women should have the vote, or that there was the least problem with them not having it. This as just not on the radar screen. Wouldn’t blaming the founders be quite different from blaming someone for opposing women’s suffrage in 1915, or blaming someone for wanting to take away the vote today?
And, by the way, my research into the founding debates settled the question for me of whether or not the Constitution was meant to allow secession: No, it was not. The decisive piece of evidence? The anti-federalists argued that the new constitution would take away states’ right to leave the confederation. Their fears could have been eased tremendously if federalists had assured them, “No, no, states would still have that right.”
NO federalist made that argument. They admitted the right to secede would be gone, but argued it was worth the trade off. In other words, everyone in the debate over ratification understood that the new constitution would eliminate the right to withdraw by an individual state.
If someone wants to defend secession, the honest route is to admit this, but argue that the constitutional convention itself did not have the right to take away that right.
Gene’s research into the ratification debates has not been thorough enough, I’m afraid. Kevin Gutzman, almost certainly the world’s foremost expert on the Richmond Ratification Convention, argues in his book Virginia’s American Revolution (an extended version of his Ph.D. dissertation at the University of Virginia) that the nature of the Union described there certainly allowed for secession of member states. The five-man committee that was to draft Virginia’s ratification instrument included two future attorneys general, and explained that (1) the new federal government had only the powers “expressly delegated” to it; (2) the states were entering a mere league of states; (3) Virginia would be exonerated should the new government attempt to exercise any supplementary power over them; and (4) Virginia retains the right to withdraw the powers she has delegated to the federal government “whensoever the same shall be perverted to her injury or oppression.”
Regardless of what any particular may have said or neglected to say, the very structure of the Union and the nature of sovereignty demand the existence of such a right.
First, the states preceded the Union. The Declaration of Independence speaks of “free and independent states” that “have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.” The British acknowledged the independence not of a single blob, but of a group of states, which they proceeded to list one by one. Article II of the Articles of Confederation says the states “retain their sovereignty, freedom, and independence”; they must have enjoyed that sovereignty in the past in order for them to “retain” it in 1781 when the Articles were officially adopted. The ratification of the Constitution was accomplished not by a single, national vote, but by the individual ratifications of the various states, each assembled in convention.
Second, in the American system no government is sovereign, not the federal government and not the states. The peoples of the states are the sovereigns. It is they who apportion powers between themselves, their state governments, and the federal government. In doing so they are not impairing their sovereignty in any way. To the contrary, they are exercising it. That means that regardless of what anyone says or doesn’t say, the reality of the situation is that with sovereignty in the hands of the peoples of the states, secession necessarily remains an option within the system.
Or perhaps Gutzman’s has not been thorough enough! In any case, Tom, I am interested in looking at this evidence, and will try to evaluate it as soon as I can. But even if things are just as Gutzman says (and I have no reason to doubt him at present!), that would hardly outweigh the much more massive evidence I cite from the ratification debates.
As far as the rest of your note goes, that’s exactly the tack I say proponents of secession OUGHT to take: argue that it doesn’t matter what the founder’s did or didn’t intend, that the right is (or should) be there anyway.
But a right to secede conditional on the case where “the same shall be perverted to her injury or oppression”
The whole argument is that this was not the case. Nobody is claiming that states do not have a right to secede following a perversion of the Constitution or an oppression. The disagreement is simply over whether this has occured. The election of Abraham Lincoln does not strike the majority of us being a situation where such conditions apply.
The question becomes more complicated when you have Lincoln raising armies and Lincoln abusing rights later in his administration. This is why I am less critical of the border states’ decision than the Deep South’s decision (the latter in my mind being wholly unjustified and illegal). Does Lincoln’s actions later in his presidency rise to the bar that Jefferson set in the Declaration? That’s a tougher question. Life and history are full of these tougher questions, of course.
But a right to secede conditional on the case where “the same shall be perverted to her injury or oppression”
That implies ANY reason for secession is justified, because “oppression” is subjectively determined by the individuals being oppressed.
It is not conditional on the “okay” from you, me, the President, a tribunal, or anyone other than those wanting to secede. Secession is fundamentally a desire to escape federal government oppression.
Oppression is subjectively determined by those being oppressed?
So the Unabomber or various separtist militant groups are entirely appropriate in your mind? They’re just retaliating against an initiation of force by the government?
Clearly subjective assessments come into play, but their has to be something broader to legitimate oppression than subjective assessments. Otherwise its open season.
It really doesn’t matter what you think, Captain_Freedom. You’ve amply demonstrated your willingness to put words in people’s mouth and your unwillingness to have a real discussion about these issues. By the sources that Tom himself sights, for something to be considered a “secession” rather than simply a rebellion, certain conditions have to be met (just like conditions have to be met for a killing to be self-defense vs. manslaughter vs. murder).
Gene, Blackadder, and myself are simply pointing out that the disagreement is over whether these conditions are met (whether this is self-defense, manslaughter, or murder – if you will).
Daniel, see my response to your post below. I mistakenly sent it to BA.
The five-man committee that was to draft Virginia’s ratification instrument included two future attorneys general, and explained that . . . Virginia retains the right to withdraw the powers she has delegated to the federal government “whensoever the same shall be perverted to her injury or oppression.”
Even if this is right, it still requires that the Southern states be subject to oppression before they could legitimately engage in secession. So it matters whether the reasons the South tried to leave the Union were any good.
Oppression is subjectively determined by those being oppressed?
Of course, just like two people appearing to have sex will be rape or consensual depending on the subjective preferences of the individuals involved.
So the Unabomber or various separtist militant groups are entirely appropriate in your mind?
I think you misunderstand the meaning of the concept subjective. It doesn’t mean that any opinion is as good as any other. It means that if we are going to say whether or not oppression is taking place, we must seek out and learn the thoughts and intentions of the individuals involved. Subjective preferences means the preferences of the individual. That oppression is subjectively determined means the intentions and actions of the victims of oppression are the source material for determining whether or not oppression is taking place.
They’re just retaliating against an initiation of force by the government? Clearly subjective assessments come into play, but their has to be something broader to legitimate oppression than subjective assessments.
Of course. That broader concept is initiations of force. We can infer whether this took place by understanding the relationship between one individual’s intentions and their actions towards other individual who has their own intentions and actions. The standard for oppression is initiations of force. Whether it took place is determined by the individuals involved, i.e. subjectively.
It really doesn’t matter what you think, Captain_Freedom.
Well, you certainly do think it matters enough to debate with me.
You’ve amply demonstrated your willingness to put words in people’s mouth and your unwillingness to have a real discussion about these issues.
Funny, since you haven’t shown where I did put words into your mouth, and it’s funny because I have quite clearly demonstrated a willingness to have a “real discussion” about these issues.
Please understand that merely agreeing with you does not constitute a “real discussion”.
By the sources that Tom himself sights, for something to be considered a “secession” rather than simply a rebellion, certain conditions have to be met (just like conditions have to be met for a killing to be self-defense vs. manslaughter vs. murder).
Gene, Blackadder, and myself are simply pointing out that the disagreement is over whether these conditions are met (whether this is self-defense, manslaughter, or murder – if you will).
On the contrary, you are not merely pointing that out at all. You are quite clearly attempting to minimize the implications of the right to secession, by denouncing the reasons for it merely because you don’t agree with them, as if that even mattered. You are trying to impose what you perceive to be “good” and “bad” reasons for secession, onto the secessionists themselves, as if their choices and reasons are less important than yours. Nobody’s choices or reasons are more important than the other. No, what is true is that their choices and opinions are their own business, and your opinions on their reasons is completely irrelevant.
You are now trying to coattail on BA’s introduction of possible state initiations of violence against the federal government as important to consider, as if that is even possible considering how the feds initiate violence against states by virtue of the federal government being the federal government. You have not said anything about that. You have tried to minimize the right to secede by claiming your opinions are even relevant to the opinions of the secessionists.
This fake compassion is really just a manifestation of your desire to have your subjective opinions imposed on those who want to secede.
Neither Gene, nor yourself, have even hinted at the crazy notion of states initiating violence against the feds. That may be because you know better. But it looks like you don’t have any solid foundation for your antagonism against secession, which is why you are hop skipping and jumping from one arbitrary justification to another, and then, to top it off, you actually believe that you, Gene, and BA are all saying the exact same thing, as if teaming with them against me is going to increase the validity of your points, when none of you are even saying the same things. You are all bringing different justifications, none of them correct.
Oops, sorry BA, this response is not directed at you.
I understand the meaning of “subjective” and my question still stands. The reason why nobody considers lone gunmen legitimate, most people don’t consider the Confederacy legitimate, and almost everyone considers the Revolution legitimate is that as you say “the intentions and actions of the victims of oppression are the source material for determining whether or not oppression is taking place” but also that those subjective understandings are scrutinized on the basis of objective – or at the very least, social – standards of evaluation.
I understand the meaning of “subjective”
That can’t be the case, since you interpreted it incorrectly!
and my question still stands.
Questions don’t really stand. Arguments do.
The reason why nobody considers lone gunmen legitimate, most people don’t consider the Confederacy legitimate, and almost everyone considers the Revolution legitimate
Ad populum, ad populum, ad populum.
“Nobody”, “most people”, “almost everyone”, these are argumentative fallacies Daniel. The truth value of arguments are not founded on the number of people who agree or disagree with them.
is that as you say “the intentions and actions of the victims of oppression are the source material for determining whether or not oppression is taking place” but also that those subjective understandings are scrutinized on the basis of objective – or at the very least, social – standards of evaluation.
OK, let’s make this as simple as it can possibly get:
Peaceful cooperation, liberty, is the proximate standard, which itself is founded upon more fundamental standard(s), which I won’t get into here.
The objectivity related in secession, and whether or not states want to secede, is whether or not initiations of force is present. That is an objective-based fact, contingent on the objective, actual consent and actions of the individuals involved, the specific content of which is subjectively determined.
The individual’s consent is what establishes whether or not force/oppression is present. Whether consent is given or not, is subjectively determined by the individual. The proof is revealed by their actions.
When a state wants to secede, that action by itself proves that they do not give their consent to fed rule.
States are however ALWAYS subjected to initiations of force by the feds. When that force becomes intolerable, in the state’s subjective opinions, then their choice to secede is protected by the right to secede. The right is what justifies it, not their specific reasons.
Even if this is right, it still requires that the Southern states be subject to oppression before they could legitimately engage in secession.
No, it does not require any proof to the feds that they are oppressing the states. Notwithstanding the fact that the feds are by definition oppressing the states, since the only way the feds can exist is by oppressing the states, but the right to secede does not mean that the reason for state secession has to be justified to the feds first before the right can be exercised.
That secession is a right means that the reasons for secessions are up to the secessionists, and ONLY the secessionists, just like your right to free speech on your private property can be exercised by you at any time, and your reasons for saying what you are saying do not have to be justified to anyone before your exercising of your right becomes “legitimate”.
Wow, and having read the Milbank article, I agree with Daniel: How the heck was that a “hit piece”? What Milbank does is to *accuse DiLorenzo of having views that DiLorenzo actually has*. Does he say a single thing about DiLorenzo that isn’t perfectly true? He even defends D’s right to hold these views — no calls for having him dismissed from his post or anything. How is this a “hit piece”?
This, I should add, is why people don’t like the secessionary movement that Palin’s husband was involved with. Not because there is something inherent about secession that people don’t like. If that were true, you wouldn’t have so many people supporting (1.) the American Revolution, (2.) East Timor, (3.) Southern Sudan, etc. etc. It’s blatantly obvious people don’t have a problem with breaking political ties.
But don’t you see a difference between those three examples, and (1.) the Whiskey Rebellion, (2.) the Confederacy, and (3.) Sarah Palin’s Alaska?
In the first three examples representation was a sham and the existing institutions were not partaken in by the seceding parties. In the last three examples the seceding parties did have representatives in a republican form of government, they just didn’t like how certain votes turned out.
That’s a massive difference, Bob. If you read the Declaration, the complaints are that Britain either didn’t allow representation (more like the former examples than the latter), or that they actually overturned and prevented colony-level self-government (more like the former examples than the latter). It’s a little perverse to tie Jefferson and the Declaration to the Confederacy when people offer perfectly intelligible and consistent reasons for looking favorably on the first three examples and unfavorably on the second three.
This, I should add, is why people don’t like the secessionary movement that Palin’s husband was involved with. Not because there is something inherent about secession that people don’t like.
Which “people” are you talking about?
If that were true, you wouldn’t have so many people supporting (1.) the American Revolution, (2.) East Timor, (3.) Southern Sudan, etc. etc. It’s blatantly obvious people don’t have a problem with breaking political ties.
Statists and federalists are not in principle against the American Revolution because it represented the establishment of a secular federal government in US territory.
You’re right, Gene, Milbank didn’t lie–he merely repeated lies that Clay had said, as if they were true. And yes, his treatment of Richard Vedder was completely fair and focused on the issue under discussion. After reading Milbank’s article, I am convinced that the Fed has nothing to do with unemployment.
Gene and DK: You don’t get to decide what are good or bad reasons for why people don’t want to submit to a distant government. There are plenty of people in the US, back then and today, who hate the federal government with a passion. Just because you don’t think they have good reasons, doesn’t mean it’s OK to murder them. Particularly hundreds of thousands of them, and burning cities to the ground.
There are plenty of people in the US, back then and today, who hate the federal government with a passion. Just because you don’t think they have good reasons, doesn’t mean it’s OK to murder them.
Clearly not. But if they take up arms against their government, the natural question is to ask whether they have a good reason for doing so. That, at any rate, is the position expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
But if they take up arms against their government, the natural question is to ask whether they have a good reason for doing so.
The federal government takes up arms against the people everyday. It’s how they are able to collect taxes and compel obedience out of the people.
Since the secessionists knew, as do people today, that to secede they have to stand ready to use violence to defend themselves against federal retaliation, it makes secession and initiating violence against the federal government seem the same thing, when in fact the violence was already initiated by the federal government beforehand.
You make it seem like secession is equivalent to states initiating violence against the federal government, when it’s the exact opposite.
The federal government takes up arms against the people everyday. It’s how they are able to collect taxes and compel obedience out of the people.
Don’t state governments also collect taxes and compel obedience out of the people?
Don’t state governments also collect taxes and compel obedience out of the people?
Of course, which is why counties also have the right to secede from the state, why cities have the right to secede from the counties, and why, ultimately, individuals have the right to secede from the city, county, state, and country.
As Woods noted above, it is individuals who ultimately give power to any government, and so it is individuals who have the right to revoke that granting of authority.
Supporting states’ right to secede does not imply that one supports the states doing to individuals what the feds do to states. State secession is not necessarily an anarchist movement. It is a reduction in centralized power. Reduction in central state power does not mean one supports decentralized power. Supporting secession means, at best, that one holds state power to be better, and less oppressive, than federal power.
Of course the logical conclusion of the principle here is zero government.
State secession is not necessarily an anarchist movement. It is a reduction in centralized power.
Secession need not involve a reduction in centralized power. In fact, it might well lead to an increase in centralized power.
For example, suppose that the state of California decided to abolish private property and institute a Maoist workers paradise in the state. The federal government would say “hey, you can’t do that, you have to follow the Bill of Rights.” On your view, California could then opt for secession, on the grounds that it was being oppressed by the federal government preventing it from seizing all the private property in the state.
Secession need not involve a reduction in centralized power.
Secession is by definition an exit from a more centralized power to a less centralized power.
In fact, it might well lead to an increase in centralized power.
For example, suppose that the state of California decided to abolish private property and institute a Maoist workers paradise in the state. The federal government would say “hey, you can’t do that, you have to follow the Bill of Rights.” On your view, California could then opt for secession, on the grounds that it was being oppressed by the federal government preventing it from seizing all the private property in the state.
If the people of California wanted to abolish private property, and institute a Meoist worker’s paradise, then that is not an increase in centralized power. It is actually a reduction, since the feds *preventing* Californians from doing what they want is hostile to what they want.
It’s interesting to observe anti-secessionists imagining gulags and slavery, and now from you communism(!), when the topic of secession arises. It’s a true reflection of the hostility against decentralized power and a clear psychological inability to imagine a peaceful world without the big, strong, benevolent federal government whose existence is somehow predicated on preventing the US turning into a land of slavery and oppression.
You do know that the nullification clause, and the secessionist movement, were never used by the states to enable them to continue to enforce slavery, right?
If the people of California wanted to abolish private property, and institute a Meoist worker’s paradise, then that is not an increase in centralized power. It is actually a reduction, since the feds *preventing* Californians from doing what they want is hostile to what they want.
So not imposing Maoist communism is oppression because it is preventing the government from doing what it wants. Brilliant.
You do know that the nullification clause, and the secessionist movement, were never used by the states to enable them to continue to enforce slavery, right?
First, there is no such thing as the nullification clause. Second, while nullification wasn’t used to preserve slavery, secession was used to preserve slavery *in the very instance we are discussing.*
So not imposing Maoist communism is oppression because it is preventing the government from doing what it wants.
That is dishonestly recharacterizing your original statement. Now you are using the term “imposing”, which implies Californians do not consent, whereas before you said the people of California WANT Maoism, which of course implies consent.
If you asked me, it would be impossible for people to WANT Maoism, because Maoism is by definition an oppressive system.
First, there is no such thing as the nullification clause.
Not explicit, but implicit.
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”
Second, while nullification wasn’t used to preserve slavery, secession was used to preserve slavery *in the very instance we are discussing.*
No, that is not the reason the South wanted to secede. That implies that Lincoln and the North wanted to abolish it. Nothing could be further from the truth. The south wanted to secede to escape the tyrannical economic controls from the North. It was the federal government that established and enforced slavery.
If the Northern regime really wanted only to abolish slavery, then they could have followed the road to emancipation taken by all other nations on earth in the 19th century and ended it peacefully through compensated emancipation and by declaring slavery to be unconstitutional.
But they never did that. Why? Because ending slavery was not even on their radar. The South was not fighting against or wanting to secede from an anti-slavery North. They wanted to secede from an economically tyrannical federalist North that continually exploited the South.
But this is all IRRELEVANT to the fact that states have a right to secede, period. Any reasons are, again, irrelevant to the right to exercise secession.
That is dishonestly recharacterizing your original statement. Now you are using the term “imposing”, which implies Californians do not consent, whereas before you said the people of California WANT Maoism, which of course implies consent.
What I said was ” suppose that the state of California decided to abolish private property.” You understand the difference between the state and the people, do you not?
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”
The typical name for this provision is the Supremacy Clause. How it is supposed to justify nullification is not clear.
No, that is not the reason the South wanted to secede.
If you read the state articles of secession, they are quite clear that they are seceding in order to preserve slavery (here, for example, are the articles for South Carolina).
What I said was ” suppose that the state of California decided to abolish private property.” You understand the difference between the state and the people, do you not?
That was not the meaning of “state” in the original context. In the original context, the term “state” referred to the people of a particular state, not just the state government.
If by state you mean “state government”, then that is different. A state government that imposed secession and imposed Maoism on the people of that state would be a rogue state that has magical powers no US state has ever had.
The typical name for this provision is the Supremacy Clause. How it is supposed to justify nullification is not clear.
It’s only not clear to those who don’t understand it, or those who do understand it but want to oppress it anyway. There have been many debates, and the Constitution and history is very clear. Nullification is explicit in the Constitution. The only way the validity of nullification can be “questionable” is in an environment of deceit and corruption.
If you read the state articles of secession, they are quite clear that they are seceding in order to preserve slavery (here, for example, are the articles for South Carolina).
South Carolina did not want to secede because they wanted to keep slavery. Slavery was used as a guise by Lincoln to impose control on the South. The South wanted slavery, yes, but their reason for secession was not to preserve slavery, but to resist the federal government’s unconstitutional encroachment on state sovereignty.
At the time of South Carolina’s articles of secession, the federal government was not anti-slavery. They were anti-secessionist.
http://tinyurl.com/4ujh46o
Milbank didn’t lie–he merely repeated lies that Clay had said, as if they were true.
Here is the relevant paragraph from the Milbank article:
DiLorenzo, the congressman told the committee, had called Lincoln “the first dictator” and a “mass murderer” and decreed that “Hitler was a Lincolnite.” Worse, Clay charged, “you worked for a Southern nationalist organization.” “The League of the South is a neo-Confederate group that advocates for a second southern secession and a society dominated by European Americans.”
Which of these statements are lies?
Well Tom told me that Clay actually said “you work for” (not “worked”). Either way, it makes it sound as if Tom was a paid employee of the League of the South, when that is not at all the situation.
If you want to say “extremely misleading, in order to make listeners think DiLorenzo is a racist” instead of “lie,” I won’t object.
It would have been misleading if Milbank had just quoted Clay. But he gave DiLorenzo a chance to respond and then printed his explanation.
Incidentally, I noticed that when you excerpt Milbank’s article you have Clay saying “you work for” when the article says “you worked for.” Is this just a typo or was that intentional?
Both tenses are wrong. The problem is the word “work”, and thus all its derivatives. DiLorenzo does not work now (work), did not work in the past (worked), nor, I am guessing, will he work for them in the future.
But yeah, Bob MUST have lied and mislead his readers by changing the tense from “worked” to “work”, because if DiLorenzo “worked” for them, then that would have been accurate and embarrassing to Murphy, so he purposefully changed it to “work” in order to dishonestly turn a truth into a falsehood.
Why the trolling, BA?
OK, DiLorenzo says: “About thirteen years ago three fellow academics from Emory University, the University of South Carolina, and the University of Alabama asked me if I would deliver a few lectures on the economics of the “Civil War” to a group of about twenty students at a week-long summer seminar. Two of them were historians and one was a philosopher, and they wanted to add some economics to the curriculum. They had just started something called “The League of the South Institute.” ”
Now, as academics, giving talks is part of the work we do. DiLorenzo gave a talk at the League’s behest. This IS “working for them.” The correct response is, “Yes, I worked for them, but it was only a couple of talks.” Clay was NOT lying saying DiLorenzo worked for the League.
Now, as academics, giving talks is part of the work we do. DiLorenzo gave a talk at the League’s behest. This IS “working for them.”
No, that doesn’t mean DiLorenzo is “working” for them. Working for them would be if he was a member.
By your “logic”, Stephen Colbert’s White House Press Dinner speech implies that he “works for” the White House, and your posting here on this blog implies that you “work for” Bob Murphy and his blog.
You’re trying to smear DiLorenzo. Why?
By your “logic”, Stephen Colbert’s White House Press Dinner speech implies that he “works for” the White House, and your posting here on this blog implies that you “work for” Bob Murphy and his blog.
Wait, Bob *pays* Gene to comment on his blog? And here I’ve been writing comments for free like a sucker.
Wait, Bob *pays* Gene to comment on his blog? And here I’ve been writing comments for free like a sucker.
Yeah, that second comment was unjustified. It was a rhetorical flourish. But I think you get my point.
“No, that doesn’t mean DiLorenzo is “working” for them. Working for them would be if he was a member.”
You are absolutely daft, aren’t you? One does not have to be a member of the Republican party to work for the Republican party! I worked for the Republican party once — I built a web site for Gary Franks. If someone asked me, “have you worked for the Republican Party?” my only honest answer would be ‘yes.’ But I have never been a member.
DiLorenzo worked for the League: they paid him, and he did some work.
You are absolutely daft, aren’t you?
You cannot argue without engaging ad hominem, can’t you?
One does not have to be a member of the Republican party to work for the Republican party!
One would not be working for the Republican Party if one attended a Republic Party gathering to give a talk on history!
If one is said to be “working” for the Republican Party, then any moron would understand that to be more than just giving a talk in exchange for cash at one of their gatherings.
Why are you so desperately trying to smear DiLorenzo?
I worked for the Republican party once — I built a web site for Gary Franks.
And I am sure it was as cluttered and obtuse as your claims are on this blog.
You did not work for the Republican Party. You worked for Gary Franks. If you attended a party of Gary Franks, and he paid you money to give a talk on how to fail in debating and in basic logic, then you would not be working for Gary Franks, nor the Republican Party.
If someone asked me, “have you worked for the Republican Party?” my only honest answer would be ‘yes.’ But I have never been a member.
Honesty from you clearly does not equate to correctness from you.
DiLorenzo worked for the League: they paid him, and he did some work.
No, he did not work for the league. He gave a talk at a league gathering.
Your ignorant desperation is almost too fun to watch.
OK, maaaaybe… but if someone says I once “worked for” the Mises Institute, I would say, “that’s right.” Because I did some work at their behest, and they paid me, even though I was never their employee. DiLorenzo admits he gave a talk for them, right? And they probably paid him for that talk. So, perhaps it could be put a bit more clearly, but it’s not like Clay said DiLorenzo started the damned League or something.
C’mon guys, this is Clintonian parsing. Someone hearing that, would think DiLorenzo was hip-dip involved with a racist organization.
Also, DiLorenzo says Clay actually said “work for,” and that Milbank misquoted him. I will have to review the tapes to see what it sounds like.
Bob, how could anyone think someone with a full time academic position was also a full time employee of the league of the south?
If someone asked YOU, “Bob, do you work for the Mises Institute?” wouldn’t the honest answer be, “Yes, sometimes I do.”
No, Bob, we are using the straightforward meaning of “worked for.” Milford Plumbing has “worked for” the me. My babysitter has “worked for” me. Various tree services have “worked for” me. Etc. etc. Straight-forward, everyday English usage.
DiLorenzo’s honest response was, “Yes, but only doing a couple of speeches.” That certainly is different than, “Yes, full time for 17 years.” But both ARE “working for.”
Gene, your desperation is getting downright embarrassing to have to read.
If Clay were honest, he would have said that DiLorenzo gave a lecture at a League of the South gathering. If he were honest, he would have confirmed with DiLorenzo his position regarding the message of that group.
But no, he said he “worked” for them, which to the unlearned viewer, would imply that he shares their racist views.
Any honest person would be able to see what Clay tried to do, but I guess honesty is just not in your list of concerns is it?
Your absurd claims that DiLorenzo failed to be honest is a classic case of blaming the victim.
Gene and DK: You don’t get to decide what are good or bad reasons for why people don’t want to submit to a distant government.
Bingo. It appears that they have no conception of the meaning of concept of rights. They appear to think they are merely bendable guidelines, subject to their own opinions on when they should be exercised and for what reasons.
It is precisely that whimsical attitude towards rights that leads to genocide.
Anyone who doesn’t have exactly “Captain Freedom”‘s concept of rights clearly has *no* concept of rights!
Oh, and Daniel, I was thinkin’ of some genocide maybe this weekend. You game? Say, half the population of Wales? Shoot me a note if you’re in.
Can’t do genocide this weekend – I’m busy deflowering New Orleans belles a la Bob’s post below.
Congrats, Gene. Your self-satire reminds me of this. “What, just because I am saying I agree with the guy who engaged in genocide, you guys are trying to pin genocide-support on me? Huh?”
Anyone who doesn’t have exactly “Captain Freedom”‘s concept of rights clearly has *no* concept of rights!
The right of states to secede is not a mere perception, or illusion, or subjective opinion, Gene. It is real.
What is subjective are reasons given for exercising the right to secede. Those who want to secede, their subjective reasons, are really none of anyone’s business.
I find your posts hilariously self-contradictory, since any argument you make can easily be responded to in the same childish way. “Look everyone! Gene thinks he is right and those who disagree with him are wrong!”
You can argue I am wrong, but please don’t presume that I have to question my convictions and adopt yours just because we disagree. You have to provide a convincing argument, which so far you have utterly failed to do.
“Gene and DK: You don’t get to decide what are good or bad reasons for why people don’t want to submit to a distant government.”
Was I doing this? I would generally argue for a right to secede. I don’t think I said a peep here counter to that.
In any case, even if I don’t, the government in question sure does get to decide that!
Was I doing this? I would generally argue for a right to secede.
I guess we can chalk up rights as yet another concept that is completely lost on you.
The concept of a “right” does not mean that there is any wiggle room from the likes of people like you who claim to be an authority or judge in when people can exercise their right or not. It is ridiculously ignorant to claim that one can “generally” argue for exercising a right. There is no “generally”. The right to secede means that secession is always justified if a state wants to secede, period.
As for your feigning ignorance of whether or not you get to decide what are good or bad reasons for why people don’t want to submit to federal government, then look no further in your obsessive defense of Daniel’s claim to get to decide what are good and bad reasons, your obsessive character attack on those who insist that the right to secede usurps anyone’s subjective opinion on whether the reasons are justified, and your attack against my argument that secession is always allowed, as if you get to decide when it is and when it is not, as if rights mean whatever suits your subjective opinion.
The dishonesty, hypocrisy, and desperate smear attempts from you today is absolutely stunning to behold.
Hey guys, is this cool in your book? Did those good-for-nothing New Orleans people have it coming?
Excuse me?
I’m going to assume “hey guys” does not refer to Gene or me, because I’m going to assume you wouldn’t have to frame this as a question for us.
Wow. That’s insulting, Bob. You should apologize.
Your commenters say that the south’s reasons for secession were not legitimate. In response you suggest that they must therefore condone rape.
What are you guys talking about? DiLorenzo called Lincoln a tyrant; that is one of the most “shocking” things Clay brought up.
So I’m explaining why Tom might have thought that.
Umm… I thanks for clearing that up. It wasn’t clear what you meant from the context of the thread.
What’s unfortunate about this debate is the focus is on DiLorenzo’s irrelevant to monetary policy views on Lincoln, and nobody is asking the question why he (and Ron Paul) feel a democratic nation should surrender its monetary sovereignty by pegging it’s currency to a commodity.
What do you mean, AP? I think it’s much more important to focus on a group that DiLorenzo gave some talks to, 15 years ago. Is that the best Ron Paul can do??
(In case it’s not clear, I agree with your general disposition here, while disagreeing with your conclusion.)
APLerner is a CHARTALIST. I’ve been jousting with him since July in the comments to Bill Anderson’ Krugman blog.
APLerner writes stuff like:
Ron Paul does not understand the monetary [system] of the US. Someone should explain to him that we left the gold standard decades ago, government debt issuance is a monetary operation, not a fiscal one, and public deficits are necessary for private savings when the external balance is negative. Someone should explain to Ron Paul basic accounting, and force him to reprint a retraction to End the Fed. And if Ron Paul had any chutzpah, he would have invited Randall Wray or Warren Mosler to his little pow wow to destroy the economy instead of a bunch people that will agree with him and kiss up.
Ron Paul does not deserve to be smeared, but he deserves to be criticized for his lack of understanding of the monetary system of the US.
http://tinyurl.com/4eqpaho
The Chartalists apparently were influenced by Knapp [Georg Friedrich Knapp (March 7, 1842 – February 20, 1926) was a German economist and founder of the chartalist school of monetary theory, which takes the statist stance on money, claiming that it must have no intrinsic value and strictly be used as governmentally-issued token i.e. fiat money.]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Friedrich_Knapp
Mises eviscerated Knapp back in 1917 noting that his views were acatallactic.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Mises/msTApp.html#Appendix%20A
APLerner claims that catallactics does not matter in a fiat money system but refuses to explain why. He also has no familiarity whatsoever with basic Austrian concepts such as acting man, subjective value or the pricing process.
He claims Austrian “ideology” is wrong because of the current prediction of inflation, unlike Boyapati’s paper.
I could go on and on, but I’ll stop now.
Mises didn’t like ’em?
Huh – AP Lerner’s comments always sounded a little funny to me, but if Mises didn’t like his inspiration maybe I should give him a second shot.
I’m actually marginally familiar with the Chartalists… I just couldn’t resist.
“APLerner claims that catallactics does not matter in a fiat money system but refuses to explain why.”
This is simply false, and I, nor anyone who recognizes the operational facts and reality of the monetary system, or anyone who has the slightest familiarity with MMT, would make that statement, or believe in that statement. That is the extent I’ll reply to Bob, since, as you can see, he kind of creepily stalks me on the internet.
APL,
You do realize that Murphy and Anderson are Austrian economists, right? How is Roddis stalking you when you go to sites he follows?
Dan – going around and providing multi-paragraph posts putting people on notice about what he thinks of AP seems like it could be fairly described as “stalking”. Commenting in the same forums is one thing… Bob does seem to take a weird interest in AP, though (and for all I know its mutual).
Your implicit assumption seems a little odd, anyway… you do realize that lots of people read blogs that they agree with and that they don’t agree with, right?
Stalking implies following. I was just pointing out that it weird to say someone is stalking you when you go to the sites he follows. If you find Roddis going around to MMT sites to thwart APL then he would have a case.
And to repeat – you do realize that most people read a range of blogs and not just blogs by people who adhere to the same position, right?
Yes I do, in fact I read a wide range of blogs.
I’m saying it is hard to say that Bob Roddis is stalking someone who goes to blogs that Bob Roddis happens to go to as well. He could have said that Bob always posts about me when I come to these Austrian blogs but stalking implies Bob is following him around the internet. How is Bob following him when APL goes to a blog Bob has been commenting on for a long time?
[i]nobody is asking the question why he (and Ron Paul) feel a democratic nation should surrender its monetary sovereignty by pegging it’s currency to a commodity.[/i]
To think of it as “the nation” surrendering its monetary sovereignt obscures the problem. Under a fiat system, the government/central bank has sovereignty over the monetary system while the people are at its mercy. To return to a commodity standard would represent the government ceding monetary sovereignty back to the people.
Sorry, but to say”
“Under a fiat system, the government/central bank has sovereignty over the monetary system while the people are at its mercy”
is simply not true when, last time I checked, the people in a democracy still elect the government. If you want to argue the people have done a horrific job electing its representatives, or if you want to argue the people no longer elect the government in the US, that’s fine, but under no circumstances does returning to the gold standard or some other form of pegged currency return sovereignty to the people in a democratic nation. This notion of liberty and freedom via restriction is nonsensical. The Euro debacle is case in point.
And why is a peg to gold superior anyhow? Why not some other commodity that has more relevance and use? Why not a peg to labor?
“Why not some other commodity that has more relevance and use? Why not a peg to labor?”
That’s too easy.
Labor is not homogenous. How do I know that your labor is equal to my labor? There’s just no objective way to compare the two.
I think those on here arguing for a “peg to gold” would not fight extremely hard against a peg to some other commodity that can be objectively measured. It just so happens that gold has been used historically.
However, gold does have some other properties that are hard to find in other commodities. As a chemist, it is significant that gold is not easily oxidized (unlike silver and copper) and is generally not especially reactive. It doesn’t degrade (like oil or corn) because it is an element, not a compound. It’s fairly soft, so it can be easily divided (as compared to Platinum, diamonds or steel which are harder). It also currently, and historically, has a fairly high value per weight (unlike lead or water).
And, unlike labor, I can tell if your chunk of gold is equal to my chunk of gold by weighing it (and, if necessary, having an appraiser check its quality).
But, if you can come up with a commodity that’s better, or even close to gold’s properties, I’m all in!
If I may as a virtual newcomer to these parts,
There are interesting side side discussions going on here, but they seem to distract from the basic issue of whether or not Milbank’s article was slanderous or otherwise unjustly misrepresentative of DiLorenzo.
On this topic, I think that Mr. Callahan and Mr. Keuhn are being, for lack of a better term, “dictionary pharisees.” Gentlemen (awkward third- to second-person shift!), it might be sufficient to defend Milbank in a court of law by pointing to only the literal denotation of the words he uses, but in everyday life we misrepresent things all the time.
“Honey, today was a great day at work. My boss came in sober!”
Now, the man’s wife will clearly get the impression that this was an unusual occurrence. She will think that her husband’s boss is NORMALLY hammered when he arrives at the office. But did the man actually SAY that, analyzing the semantics of his statement? Well, no…..but so what? He clearly mislead.
This is all “Interview with a Zombie” stuff, isn’t it? What I mean is, it is one instance of the kind of behavior that makes that video funny. You throw around certain labels (and “neo-Confederate” is an utterly useless term for any purpose other than making a negative insinuation against the person being described) that are chosen to give a certain impression. The entire logical structure of the article, unspoken but clearly communicated to any reasonable reader of English, is that the MONETARY position of Ron Paul is illegitimate because of the associations of one of his hearing’s witnesses with a controversial set of positions that have nothing explicit to do with monetary theory.
Of course, Milbank could deny this is his “intended” argument, just as the man can “plead the dictionary” and deny that he was slandering his boss about coming to work drunk. “What ever gave you the impression I was arguing THAT way? I just collected some facts that I find interesting,and offered them without further comment.” Uh huh.
Also, I do find most Americans who espouse the more-or-less conventional history of the Civil War to be confused and inconsistent. The fact that they support the American Revolution and the secession of southern Sudan doesn’t show that they agree with secession “in principle” so much as it shows that they are deeply confused about what principles they believe in. This is not true of everyone, certainly, but I have to laugh a bit at the highly-nuanced interpretation of the standard rhetoric that Callahan and Kuehn give. “People are ok with secession in principle, but they just think that the Confederacy had terrible reasons for it.” OK, if you say so…but that still doesn’t go one inch towards explaining the “association” argument that Milbank and others are making against DiLorenzo here. So, b/c DiLorenzo happens to take what you think is the wrong analysis of the moral and legal acceptability of one particular secession movement from 150 years ago, based on a principle you don’t disagree with let’s remember, you think this is something relevant to bring up regarding Ron Paul’s hearing on monetary policy?
This cycle of stories and commentaries did not begin because DiLorenzo addressed a Congressional subcommittee considering the justification of the Civil War, the general cases that can be made for secession, or other such topics. It is the result of him talking about the dangers of central banking. He was then dismissed most disrespectfully (“I do know that I have nothing to ask you, sir”) by congressman Clay because he has said some things about Lincoln (and a few other topics) that Clay finds outrageous. Are we all agreed, at least, that at this point in the actual story that has unfolded over the last week, that Clay was arguing dishonorably and irrationally for even bringing these things up? Do we approve of this form of argumentation? I assume we do not.
But then Milbank’s piece isn’t much different in character from what Clay did.
This is all true, it seems to me, no matter we think of the particulars of the justification that might be offered for the secession of the Confederate states.
??
Mr. Xon, the difficulty with your argument is that it would work if DiLorenzo were someone who had made his name as a monetary economist, and happened to have said an unpopular thing or two about Lincoln in some asides. But the exact opposite is the case: DiLorenzo, as far as I know, has never published on monetary economics, and has made the huge majority of his reputation defending secession and knocking Lincoln. So it’s perfectly fair to ask, “What the heck is this guy even doing here?” Why was the witness not Roger Garrison, or Larry White, or George Selgin, or Steve Horwitz?
Sorry, Paul opened the door for Clay’s attack, set off an alarm near it, and highlighted the door in flashing lights. Your political opponent is going to walk through that door.
I could not agree more Gene. You said it perfectly. Ron Paul chose the wrong messenger and opened himself up for this type of attack. Roger Garrison would have been a great choice. Not to knock DiLorenzo – because I like him – but your take is dead on.
Ron Paul chose the wrong messenger and opened himself up for this type of attack.
Which exposes the attackers as dishonest and corrupt!
Do you see?
Yeah, because arguments are only true if they are made by certain people.
If others make the same argument, then they become false or questionable.
Ron Paul is a man of ideas, Gene. So is DiLorenzo. He wanted there to be an intellectual discussion between opposing viewpoints when it comes to the Federal Reserve. DiLorenzo is well suited to this purpose, because he has enough knowledge on the subject to contribute to the discussion.
Not that this even matters, but he in fact has written books on money and central banking in the United States. He has proven himself knowledgeable on this subject.
The following is not a knock to DiLorenzo, but it honestly doesn’t take much knowledge to refute pro-Fed inflationists. I mean, they are people who believe that legalized counterfeiting has economic benefits. An honest fool can understand the absurdity in that belief.
Maybe Paul invited DiLorenzo because the discussion was focused on the Fed’s past performance, which is a history of the Fed related concept, which DiLorenzo is an expert in?
Clay purposefully ignored all the money and central banking works DiLorenzo has done, again, not that this even matters.
The fact that you are apologizing for the character and ad hominem attack on DiLorenzo only re-emphasizes your own penchant for ad hominem and character attacks, which is clearly the case here on this blog.
I found the selection odd as well. Maybe some of the other Mises guys here could shed a little light.
My best guess is that RP set him up as bait. But to what end?
Look how many comments this post is getting and you might begin to see why. Most of these critics are not offering an alternative view to DiLorenzo or Ron Paul, they are just in attack mode. People see that. My parents used to be ultra liberals as well as I. When Ron Paul made his run one of the things that really helped me break through to them was to the way Ron Paul was treated in the media. I was able to get them to watch Ron Paul’s speeches and even though they didn’t support many of his views they knew he was a good and intelligent guy. At first they would defend the media but the more and more I showed them they began to get appalled by the way he was being treated. I think that was the single best tool I had in waking them up. Now neither believe in the government at all. My dad was a huge Bill Maher fan and now he can’t even watch the guy. They aren’t cracking the books and learning Austrian economics but they don’t support the government in any fashion anymore.
Ron Paul has been the single best thing to happen for the cause of liberty in at least my lifetime. The guy knows what he is doing. We would have a much bigger problem if they just ignored him. But now that he has captured the youth and the youth are capturing their parents they can’t ignore whats happening any longer. They must defeat his ideas but for most people are not intellectually equipped to do so. They must resort to this type of verbal assault because its their only tool. Very few writers are going to be able to handle themselves in the arena with Dr. Paul in the realm of ideas.
You never know how many Ron Paul kids have parents or friends that read these newspapers or vote for Lacy Clay. This is a chance to break through and show people these guys are not on the side of truth and reason. If Dana and Lacy want to give us rope to hang them with then we need to seize the opportunity.
Plus DiLorenzo’s book sales shot up a ton after he started getting attacked so give Dr. Paul some credit. Dr. Murphy is probably liking his chops waiting for his Ron Paul bump when he gets his chance to testify.
You guys are fooling yourselves. Look at what Milbank did to Vedder. You’re saying Vedder and Galloway’s work on unemployment is tainted and unscholarly? Milbank was not trying to analyze the actual arguments.
Let me put it to you this way: Would a newcomer even have any idea of what DiLorenzo’s argument was? Is there any hint in Milbank of, “But if it were the fault of the Fed, how come there were business cycles before 1913?”
No, there was none of that. We learned that Ron Paul can’t divide, Tom Dilorenzo is a racist, and Richard Vedder has short-term memory loss.
If RP had put up Garrison, they could have just said, “Garrison speaks annually at the Mises Institute, founded by Lew Rockwell, who has written blah blah blah. Speaking by his side every year is also Hans Hoppe, who once said blah blah blah.”
There is nothing Ron Paul could have done, to get a fair shake for his message. Let’s stop acting like Milbank came in with an open mind on this; no he didn’t.
More than our disagreements over Lincoln etc., I am truly stunned that you guys are disputing that this was in fact a hit piece. That would be like me denying that Tom attacks Cato on the LRC blog. Of course he does. Let’s stop feigning ignorance here; of course Milbank wrote a hit piece. That’s exactly what a hit piece is.
“There is nothing Ron Paul could have done, to get a fair shake for his message.”
Oh please – Ron Paul has been a member of the House of Representatives since before I was born. The man is not some delicate flower – he’s one of the elite. We do come at him with an open mind and we are unimpressed for the most part, although we think he seems like a nice guy. And people who are impressed will try to talk us out of it, and that’s good. But the man gets a fair hearing. How well he does in that hearing is another question entirely, of course.
Let me know when people question whether he’s a secret Muslim, a secret socialist, a sympathizer with terrorism, or somehow not even legitimately holding office. Let me know when people start to question his devotion to the Constitution. Then I’ll start showing a little more sympathy!
🙂
Letting you know DK.
YAF director Jordan Marks,
“Rep. Pauls refusal to support our nation’s military and national security interests border on treason, aside from his failure to uphold his oath to the United States Constitution…”
If you want I could keep going because there are numerous attacks on Ron Paul about him being a racist for example.
Dan – I had a sentence on the military and CPAC but then decided I was droning on.
Of course – the idea that opposition to a war means opposition to the military is absurd. I’d happily defend Ron Paul against those charges, and gladly admit that within a select group of militarists in the Republican party he’s treated unfairly.
I’m always willing to concede points and defend people I disagree with when unfair charges like this are made.
But the idea that Ron Paul “can’t get a fair hearing” on the Fed because most people think he’s grossly mislead on the question is absurd. He can get a fair hearing, the hearing is generally negative, and that’s because we legitimately disagree with him not because he didn’t get a fair shake.
Oh please – Ron Paul has been a member of the House of Representatives since before I was born.
And that has stopped his enemies from being honest about his statements?
Oh please.
The man is not some delicate flower – he’s one of the elite.
He most certainly is not an elite. He may be an elite with the people, but he is not an elite with the entrenched establishment in Washington.
We do come at him with an open mind
You might, but Murphy wasn’t talking about you.
and we are unimpressed for the most part
Yeah, liberty is unimpressive, isn’t it?
But the man gets a fair hearing.
Hahahaha, not even close.
Let me know when people question whether he’s a secret Muslim, a secret socialist, a sympathizer with terrorism, or somehow not even legitimately holding office. Let me know when people start to question his devotion to the Constitution. Then I’ll start showing a little more sympathy!
Why does Paul have to be subjected to the same accusations as Obama before you’ll feel sympathetic?
Is racist, homophobic, extremist evangelical, anti-women’s rights, not enough for you?
re: “Why does Paul have to be subjected to the same accusations as Obama before you’ll feel sympathetic?”
Because there’s not all that much to sympathize with.
There’s not that much to “sympathize” with Obama on. He’s the president of the United States after all. They tend to get crap like this. “Sympathy” isn’t the right word – perhaps I shouldn’t have used that – but I can understand why someone might say “Obama doesn’t even get a fair hearing”. Paul gets some undeserved smearing, but he gets a lot less of it than a lot of other politicians out there.
And for God’s sake stop insinuating I find the very idea of liberty terrifying or objectionable or strange or whatever else.
Because there’s not all that much to sympathize with.
Because he’s not Obama, and he’s not getting accused of what Obama is getting accused of?
There’s not that much to “sympathize” with Obama on.
So it’s a coincidence that you just happened to list of accusations levied against Obama that would “justify” sympathy?
He’s the president of the United States after all. They tend to get crap like this. “Sympathy” isn’t the right word – perhaps I shouldn’t have used that – but I can understand why someone might say “Obama doesn’t even get a fair hearing”.
So you can understand why Obama would garner sympathy, but not Paul. That’s fine, but Paul gets a ton of accusations against him, and if he were President, he would probably get even more accusations than Obama does now, because at least Obama has the support of the elite, and they control the media.
Paul gets some undeserved smearing, but he gets a lot less of it than a lot of other politicians out there.
Absolutely, you may be right, but in terms of unjustified accusations, he’s definitely up there.
And for God’s sake stop insinuating I find the very idea of liberty terrifying or objectionable or strange or whatever else.
Then for God’s sake stop insinuating that secession, a liberty inspired movement, is terrifying or objectionable!
DK said,
“Let me know when people question whether he’s a secret Muslim, a secret socialist, a sympathizer with terrorism, or somehow not even legitimately holding office. Let me know when people start to question his devotion to the Constitution. Then I’ll start showing a little more sympathy!”
Hold on a second, I posted a comment from just a few days ago that said Ron Paul views represent TREASON, which would suggest he is a sympathizer with terrorism. That he is not upholding his oath to the Constitution, which you specifically asked for as well. You didn’t bring up monetary policy at all in your list of things you wanted to see before you would give him sympathy.
How about this clip from CNN, was this a fair hearing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV_Q8WFB9Bw
or did he get a fair hearing here?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhkkGWAjXu4
or was this a fair hearing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfuvndfA1jw&feature=related
Or is your position now that he doesn’t get a fair hearing except when it comes to monetary policy?
Bob,
It’s true that people were going to attack Paul and try to discredit him no matter who he had testify. All the more reason for him not to shoot himself in the foot.
You won’t get anyone to go see the show without letting off a few fireworks. I don’t think he shot himself in the foot at all. I’m betting there will be more people tuning into the next hearing than this last one.
“I am truly stunned that you guys are disputing that this was in fact a hit piece.”
I was truly stunned, once I read it, to find you thought it WAS a hit piece. (I went in thinking it would be, too!) The paranoia around LVMI is rubbing off on you, Bob.
Gene – I don’t think you were following my blog back then, but I think you’ll like this post from the fall –
“Don’t make any loud sounds around the Mises Institute”: http://factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.com/2010/10/dont-make-any-loud-sounds-around-mises.html
I was truly stunned, once I read it, to find you thought it WAS a hit piece.
I am not stunned that you are disputing it was a hit piece, since you are a dishonest character assassin.
Captain_Freedom – STOP TROLLING
This is getting really old.
I’m relatively new to this blog – is he always like this? Persistence and bluntness is one thing. Blatant attacks are another.
I’m relatively new to this blog – is he always like this?
Pretty much.
Captain_Freedom – STOP TROLLING
You have got to be joking. I mean, this hypocrisy is incredible. This is a joke right?
This is getting really old.
What is getting old?
I’m relatively new to this blog – is he always like this?
Like what? Anti-lies and anti-troll? Yes, I am.
Persistence and bluntness is one thing. Blatant attacks are another.
Hahahahahahahaha. Who’s attacking who again? Get real. You and Gene have blatantly attacked me. This is a defense. I wish I could defend only my ideas, but you both are attacking me as a person.
Pretty much.
Please provide proof, BA.
I can tell very easily when people without knowledge and without sound arguments feel the need to find help in numbers, which leads them, like apes, to team up and rage in an orgy of personal attacks.
Please provide proof, BA.
You want me to prove that the way you are acting in this thread is how you normally act?
You want me to prove that the way you are acting in this thread is how you normally act?
No, I want you to prove your agreement with Daniel that I am trolling.
No, I want you to prove your agreement with Daniel that I am trolling.
That is a masterpiece of trolling right there, offering to argue over whether you are a troll. Except that you just proved that you’re trolling.
That is a masterpiece of trolling right there, offering to argue over whether you are a troll. Except that you just proved that you’re trolling.
It’s not trolling for one to ask an accuser for evidence that one is trolling.
By that absurd logic, I could claim you are a troll, then fail to back it up, then laugh at you for asking where I could have gotten that idea.
Everyone knows that the burden of proof falls upon the troll. So let’s see your evidence, Troll.
Captain_Freedom wrote:
“Yeah, because arguments are only true if they are made by certain people. If others make the same argument, then they become false or questionable.”
I typically find myself opposed to Gene – particularly with regard to his posting on religious topics – however he is absolutely correct on DiLorenzo being an odd choice. We could have had Charles Murray testifying but The Bell Curve would have been used as a means to discount what he had to say – to cite a similar example. I think The Real Lincoln is a very well done book and I agree with DiLorenzo’s conclusions but when I got the email from LRC or Campaign for Liberty that DiLorenzo was going to testify I knew it was a mistake because his Lincoln scholarship would be used as the whip to destroy his credibility. That doesn’t mean that DiLorenzo is incapable of speaking on this topic or doesn’t have important things to say. It is to say, however, as a question of political tactics, it was disastrous because here we are now talking about – not what was said – but who was allowed to say anything at all. As we battle in the arena of ideas we need to be aware of who our champions are and where the arena is located.
Clay is a dufus and wouldn’t know economics from a hole in the ground – unfortunately, he is a politician carrying water for the state and he did a masterful job. Clay has been able to tar sound money proponents as kooks and racists. Was that Ron Paul’s objective? No. Is that what came out of these hearings as presented to the world by the mainstream media? Absolutely.
Did anyone in the mainstream media report the contents of the hearings? Did anyone in the mainstream media report on the participants backgrounds? Enough said – and I don’t like it any better than you Captain.
I typically find myself opposed to Gene – particularly with regard to his posting on religious topics – however he is absolutely correct on DiLorenzo being an odd choice.
Why does it matter who goes? It’s the ideas that are important. DiLorenzo is knowledgeable of the ideas. Why do ideas have to be spoken in a special voice before they become valid and truthful?
We could have had Charles Murray testifying but The Bell Curve would have been used as a means to discount what he had to say – to cite a similar example. I think The Real Lincoln is a very well done book and I agree with DiLorenzo’s conclusions but when I got the email from LRC or Campaign for Liberty that DiLorenzo was going to testify I knew it was a mistake because his Lincoln scholarship would be used as the whip to destroy his credibility. That doesn’t mean that DiLorenzo is incapable of speaking on this topic or doesn’t have important things to say. It is to say, however, as a question of political tactics, it was disastrous because here we are now talking about – not what was said – but who was allowed to say anything at all.
Ah, if you want to talk about tactics, then the fact that DiLorenzo’s character was attacked is PERFECT for the cause. It exposes the shills as being puppets and lapdogs who aren’t interested in ideas, only what gives them power. Do you see?
I say the more they attack the person of whoever appears on behalf of liberty, the better it makes liberty appear, because it is contrasted with the bullying and corruption from the shills!
As we battle in the arena of ideas we need to be aware of who our champions are and where the arena is located.
I don’t think you truly appreciate the power of ideas. I think you believe ideas must be handed on a silver platter.
Powerful ideas are immune from character attacks against those who communicate them.
Clay is a dufus and wouldn’t know economics from a hole in the ground – unfortunately, he is a politician carrying water for the state and he did a masterful job.
Yeah, at making himself look like a stupid moron.
Clay has been able to tar sound money proponents as kooks and racists.
You just made that up. You are GUESSING that is what he succeeded in doing.
He hasn’t succeeded in taring sound money proponents. He’s only exposed his own penchant for deceit and misinterpretation.
Was that Ron Paul’s objective? No. Is that what came out of these hearings as presented to the world by the mainstream media? Absolutely.
How in the world can you know that?
Did anyone in the mainstream media report the contents of the hearings?
Not really.
Did anyone in the mainstream media report on the participants backgrounds?
Do they ever when reporting about a hearing with many guests?
“Why does it matter who goes? It’s the ideas that are important. DiLorenzo is knowledgeable of the ideas. Why do ideas have to be spoken in a special voice before they become valid and truthful?”
Really? “Our next witness is Charlie Sheen to talk about the virtues of vegetarianism.” I guess your of the school that any publicity is good publicity. I will concede that to a point but I, personally, wish Ron Paul’s first hearing would have been more about the substance rather than the syle. That is probably wishful thinking.
Are you aware of the concept of rhetorical questions? (BTW – that was one).
I never said Clay was successful at tarring sound money proponents as kooks and racists – I said he has been able to do that – as in, he has been able to inject that caricature into the meme.
If this is a battle of ideas about Lincoln – include DiLorenzo. If this is about sound money then bring a monetary economist without the baggage. I know you disagree – that’s fine. I just think Gene is correct and you are not.
Why does it matter who goes? It’s the ideas that are important.
You know, it’s too bad that Paul didn’t call Captain Freedom as his first witness. That would have showed em.
re: You know, it’s too bad that Paul didn’t call Captain Freedom as his first witness
Hahahahahaha
Really? “Our next witness is Charlie Sheen to talk about the virtues of vegetarianism.”
Would any correct ideas he elicit all of a sudden be wrong simply because he is Charlie Sheen?
Ideas stand alone knox. Always has, always will.
I guess your of the school that any publicity is good publicity.
If you are convinced your ideas are right, of course! Only those who hold ideas that they do not truly accept, will be afraid of publicity.
The man who is right would welcome any publicity, because he knows he will have a chance to spread what he thinks is right.
I will concede that to a point but I, personally, wish Ron Paul’s first hearing would have been more about the substance rather than the syle.
Wait, this is an entirely separate argument, the extent of which does not expand or contract the argument concerning ideas.
Now you’re talking about the way the ideas were presented, or the lack thereof. That is an entirely different area for criticism.
I found the hearing to be very substantive. Compare it to a typical Ben Bernanke hearing. A typical Bernanke hearing is almost ALL style.
Are you aware of the concept of rhetorical questions? (BTW – that was one).
Did you think I didn’t enjoy them when they are warranted? LOL
I never said Clay was successful at tarring sound money proponents as kooks and racists – I said he has been able to do that – as in, he has been able to inject that caricature into the meme.
All I saw was him speaking jibberish and deceit.
If this is a battle of ideas about Lincoln – include DiLorenzo. If this is about sound money then bring a monetary economist without the baggage. I know you disagree – that’s fine. I just think Gene is correct and you are not.
Gene is incorrect, as are you. DiLorenzo has written books on sound money and central banking.
The hilariously ironic thing about your claim to the contrary, is that you are falling hook line and sinker for the very thing you are seemingly aware of concerning Clay’s accusations, namely, that DiLorenzo is not an expert in the subject matter!
Have you even looked through DiLorenzo’s bibliography? Of course you didn’t, because if you did, you would have known that he has done extensive work on sound money and central banking in the United States.
You and Gene are totally off base.
You know, it’s too bad that Paul didn’t call Captain Freedom as his first witness. That would have showed em.
I would been a worse choice than DiLorenzo, because I would not have been able to communicate the ideas he communicated.
But thanks for the patronizing show of support.
re: You know, it’s too bad that Paul didn’t call Captain Freedom as his first witness
Hahahahahaha
ZOMG! He poked fun at someone who I don’t agree with! I must communicate my laughter to him! Please validate me after my getting demolished, because my gluteus maximus is in need of a good pat! Let’s laugh it off until the pain goes away!
“Would any correct ideas he elicit[sic] all of a sudden be wrong simply because he is Charlie Sheen?
Ideas stand alone knox. Always has[sic], always will.”
Wow – this is really frustrating. Do you honestly think that, in the hypothetical example, the Cattleman’s Association would attack Sheen for his vegetarianism? Or, would they attack him as a cocaine smoking porn-hound – and therefore shoot the messenger rather than the message? Sometimes negative attention can be a good-thing. I’m saying – in this case – I don’t find it helpful. I could be wrong but I don’t think so. After all this post by Bob has elicited over 140 comments most of which discuss the efficacy of DiLorenzo as witness – and not the testimony you find to be substantive. We are debating style – not substance – substantively you and I are in agreement. As to DiLorenzo’s bibliography the answer is yes. That is not the point. The point is, again, he is a lightning rod which detracts from effective presentation of ideas.
Wow – this is really frustrating.
What is? The refusal of my agreeing with you?
That shouldn’t be frustrating.
Do you honestly think that, in the hypothetical example, the Cattleman’s Association would attack Sheen for his vegetarianism? Or, would they attack him as a cocaine smoking porn-hound – and therefore shoot the messenger rather than the message?
If his ideas are sound, any attacks against him will simply reveal the ignorance and corruption of the attackers.
Sometimes negative attention can be a good-thing. I’m saying – in this case – I don’t find it helpful. I could be wrong but I don’t think so. After all this post by Bob has elicited over 140 comments most of which discuss the efficacy of DiLorenzo as witness – and not the testimony you find to be substantive.
Um, the reason why there are so many comments discussing DiLorenzo is precisely because he is getting character assassinated by not only Clay, but certain people on this thread as well. You are engaging in self-fulfilling prophecy. I didn’t question the choice of DiLorenzo. I have only ever insisted that it should be ideas that matter. You and Gene and Blackadder are the ones introducing the same crap here.
We are debating style – not substance – substantively you and I are in agreement. As to DiLorenzo’s bibliography the answer is yes.
I don’t think you’re being honest, because you claimed that a debate on sound money and central banking is not suited to DiLorenzo, when he has done work in those fields.
That is not the point.
Evade and hope the claim you made disappears from memory?
The point is, again, he is a lightning rod which detracts from effective presentation of ideas.
And look at how much debate it sparked!
See? It worked.
The problem here is that you overestimate the willingness of average people to dig beneath the style and get to the substance. You seem to think that people can see through the propaganda model and get to the truth. If that were true there would be no need for the propaganda in the first place. You will never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the average human being – to paraphrase Mencken. Maybe I give the propagandized American too little credit – but I doubt it. Do you give them too much credit? I mean that seriously and not to be snarky – do you really believe that the average person consuming the framed news media story will dig up DiLorenzo’s CV and find out this is crap?
The problem here is that you overestimate the willingness of average people to dig beneath the style and get to the substance.
No, the problem is that you are underestimating it.
You seem to think that people can see through the propaganda model and get to the truth.
You seem to think people can’t. You’re average, so if you can see through it, then…
If that were true there would be no need for the propaganda in the first place.
If what you are saying were true, then the average person wouldn’t even know what propaganda means. But they do.
You will never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the average human being – to paraphrase Mencken.
I know many people who went broke for underestimating the intelligence of their customers.
Maybe I give the propagandized American too little credit – but I doubt it. Do you give them too much credit? I mean that seriously and not to be snarky – do you really believe that the average person consuming the framed news media story will dig up DiLorenzo’s CV and find out this is crap?
Well, notwithstanding the selection bias (the average person probably won’t even watch the hearing), and the little that was covered in the MSM, I don’t think the situation is the entire country now full of average Joes who believe what Clay insinuated.
Knox: The problem here is that you overestimate the willingness of average people to dig beneath the style and get to the substance.
Capt.: “No, the problem is that you are underestimating it.”
Knox: Put down your cocktail and step away from the keyboard – your showing your ass right now.
____
Knox: You seem to think that people can see through the propaganda model and get to the truth.
Capt.: You seem to think people can’t. You’re average, so if you can see through it, then…
Knox: I’m from Lake Woebegon – I’m above average. Actually, your attempted insult aside, I don’t think I’m average at all – BA, MS, AbD in Political Science and a JD. I’m not bragging but I don’t think that qualifies as “average.”
_______
Knox: If that were true there would be no need for the propaganda in the first place.
Capt.: If what you are saying were true, then the average person wouldn’t even know what propaganda means. But they do.
Knox: I’m sure you know what a book is but I doubt you’ve ever read one. All kidding aside, knowledge of what a word means does not mean that you are aware of the process occurring. For example, you – as a mouth breather – are aware of respiration yet I doubt you think about it constantly. Or maybe you do – kind of like when Homer Simpson forgot to breath.
______
Knox: You will never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the average human being – to paraphrase Mencken.
Capt.: I know many people who went broke for underestimating the intelligence of their customers.
Knox: I guess I would refer you to Israel Kirzner in this regard. Apparently, the entrepreneur made a bad business judgment. Wait, maybe you’re right – I’m going broke overestimating your intelligence – you win that one.
_______
Knox: Maybe I give the propagandized American too little credit – but I doubt it. Do you give them too much credit? I mean that seriously and not to be snarky – do you really believe that the average person consuming the framed news media story will dig up DiLorenzo’s CV and find out this is crap?
Capt.: Well, notwithstanding the selection bias (the average person probably won’t even watch the hearing), and the little that was covered in the MSM, I don’t think the situation is the entire country now full of average Joes who believe what Clay insinuated.
Knox: Now your just being willfully ignorant. If I could boil this down to monosyllables for you I would. The vast majority of people who were the consumers of mainstream media reporting on these hearings will not a) watch the hearings at all, b) not investigate DiLorenzo and his CV to determine the truth of the matters being asserted, c) come to Free Advice to be enlightened on this topic, and d) have no opinion one way or the other about Clay because he was not the nexus of the attack – DiLorenzo’s – correct – views on American history which run counter to the State’s views were the point of attack – which allows the MSM to sidestep the real issues.
Feel free to respond but I’m not really sure what is to be gained by more dialogue. Clearly, we just disagree and that’s fine . This is a tempest in a teapot anyway.
Knox: The problem here is that you overestimate the willingness of average people to dig beneath the style and get to the substance.
Capt.: “No, the problem is that you are underestimating it.”
Knox: Put down your cocktail and step away from the keyboard – your showing your ass right now.
Capt: How so?
Knox: You seem to think that people can see through the propaganda model and get to the truth.
Capt: You seem to think people can’t. You’re average, so if you can see through it, then…
Knox: I’m from Lake Woebegon – I’m above average. Actually, your attempted insult aside, I don’t think I’m average at all – BA, MS, AbD in Political Science and a JD. I’m not bragging but I don’t think that qualifies as “average.”
Capt: Hahaha, hook, line and sinker. See, elitist yokels like you always look down on others, and so your arguments revolve around patronizingly “helping” the “average” person, who is doomed to destroy himself in an orgy of ignorance and credulity. But thankfully, there’s you to save them! BA, MS, AbD, JD, ZOMG, BS, FU, GTFO to the rescue! You can call others “average” to your heart’s content, but don’t anyone dare call YOU average! That would be “insulting”. Only when people from Lake Woebegon call others “average” is it not insulting.
Knox: If that were true there would be no need for the propaganda in the first place.
Capt.: If what you are saying were true, then the average person wouldn’t even know what propaganda means. But they do.
Knox: I’m sure you know what a book is but I doubt you’ve ever read one. All kidding aside, knowledge of what a word means does not mean that you are aware of the process occurring. For example, you – as a mouth breather – are aware of respiration yet I doubt you think about it constantly. Or maybe you do – kind of like when Homer Simpson forgot to breath.
Capt: I’m sure everyone else except you are mentally challenged, and need to be controlled and guided by you and your benevolent elite from Lake Woebegon.
Knox: You will never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the average human being – to paraphrase Mencken.
Capt.: I know many people who went broke for underestimating the intelligence of their customers.
Knox: I guess I would refer you to Israel Kirzner in this regard. Apparently, the entrepreneur made a bad business judgment. Wait, maybe you’re right – I’m going broke overestimating your intelligence – you win that one.
Capt: So it’s prudent to underestimate people’s intelligence, as per Mencken, but it’s not prudent to underestimate people’s intelligence, as per Kirzner. Gotcha. Hey, do they teach logic in Lake Woebegon?
Knox: Maybe I give the propagandized American too little credit – but I doubt it. Do you give them too much credit? I mean that seriously and not to be snarky – do you really believe that the average person consuming the framed news media story will dig up DiLorenzo’s CV and find out this is crap?
Capt.: Well, notwithstanding the selection bias (the average person probably won’t even watch the hearing), and the little that was covered in the MSM, I don’t think the situation is the entire country now full of average Joes who believe what Clay insinuated.
Knox: Now your just being willfully ignorant.
Capt: First of all, it’s YOU’RE. But that is an “average” mistake, so you’re above that aren’t you? Oh wait. Second, are you Marvin the Mindreader? You are claiming to know my actual intentions. Maybe you should add a “MM” to your list of letters?
If I could boil this down to monosyllables for you I would.
Capt: You’ve already boiled it, mashed it, excreted on it, burnt it, ate it, then re-excreted it. Trust me, what you are saying cannot get any more obtuse.
The vast majority of people who were the consumers of mainstream media reporting on these hearings will not a) watch the hearings at all, b) not investigate DiLorenzo and his CV to determine the truth of the matters being asserted, c) come to Free Advice to be enlightened on this topic, and d) have no opinion one way or the other about Clay because he was not the nexus of the attack – DiLorenzo’s – correct – views on American history which run counter to the State’s views were the point of attack – which allows the MSM to sidestep the real issues.
Capt: They’re all dumb and you’re a bloody genius. Hey, the fact that the libertarian movement, and Austrian economics, is growing by leaps and bounds, that is not really happening. People are stupid! It can’t be happening! Something must be wrong with the data, because everyone else are supposed to be “average”.
Feel free to respond but I’m not really sure what is to be gained by more dialogue. Clearly, we just disagree and that’s fine . This is a tempest in a teapot anyway.
Capt: I think you are deriving lots out of the dialog, or else you wouldn’t continually send me responses THAT CONTAIN QUESTIONS. If you ask me questions, but then claim that I ought not to respond, is an admission that all your questions are rhetorical, in which case you are not even even interested in a rational debate.
Methinks thou dost protest too much.
I didn’t mean to activate your inferiority complex.
Methinks thou dost protest too much.
‘Tis better to be vile than vile esteemed.
I didn’t mean to activate your inferiority complex.
I didn’t know today was psychological projection day.
Was that projecting? You just seemed really put off by the credential bomb I dropped on you – like you had some need to compensate for some self-esteem issue from your (probably recent) childhood given your use of texting acronyms.
Seriously, though, you are all over these boards being indignant when people disagree with you. You think I’m some sort of effete snob, that I’m full of it, and that’s fine. I’m a big boy and don’t need the reassurance. You seem to really take it personally when people disagree with you. If you go to the top of the thread this all started because I agreed with Gene that bringing DiLorenzo was a tactical mistake and you stroked out that anyone could possibly think that way. Don’t have a thrombo. Your opinion may very well be correct. If so, then fantastic. I just don’t happen to think you are correct. If I’m right – who cares. All of the 10s who have bothered to read these postings will surely matter very little in the long run.
You just seemed really put off by the credential bomb I dropped on you
LOL, the only credentials one has is one’s performance. Your performance from my perspective is a failure. And my bomb is bigger than yours.
– like you had some need to compensate for some self-esteem issue from your (probably recent) childhood given your use of texting acronyms.
Hahahaha, you’re the one who feels obligated to have his credentials validated by random strangers. That’s another projection.
Seriously, though, you are all over these boards being indignant when people disagree with you.
You’re all over these boards being indignant when people disagree with you. You’re all over me for disagreeing with you. That’s yet another projection.
You think I’m some sort of effete snob, that I’m full of it, and that’s fine. I’m a big boy and don’t need the reassurance.
You just Freudian slip admitted you are an effete snob and that you are full of it. You used the word reassurance.
You seem to really take it personally when people disagree with you.
Not at all. I only take personal attacks personally.
If you go to the top of the thread this all started because I agreed with Gene that bringing DiLorenzo was a tactical mistake and you stroked out that anyone could possibly think that way.
I never claimed that. I merely challenged your reasoning.
Don’t have a thrombo.
Don’t be childish.
Your opinion may very well be correct. If so, then fantastic. I just don’t happen to think you are correct. If I’m right – who cares.
I do.
All of the 10s who have bothered to read these postings will surely matter very little in the long run.
You seem to think so, or else you would not post.
The ironic thing is that even if you are right – you lost. You come-off like a complete douchebag which gives your argument, such as it is, less weight. Ultimately, you provided another example of the reasoning behind why DiLorenzo was a bad choice.
Based on the way you respond, it is clear who the “winner” is – you allow others to goad you so easily into invective and ranting that you should be embarassed. I know you think you are not – but deep down inside you know I’m right. Come on – admit it – that is the first step to self-realization. (I couldn’t help “projecting”)
PLEASE feel free to respond and prove that all of the above is a true and accurate portrayal. I know you won’t disappoint.
The ironic thing is that even if you are right – you lost.
If I’m right, I won.
You come-off like a complete douchebag
Ah, more ad hominem. Wonderful. When the arguments get difficult, and you lack the knowledge, insult insult insult!
which gives your argument, such as it is, less weight.
If my argument is right, it has all the weight it needs, thank you.
Ultimately, you provided another example of the reasoning behind why DiLorenzo was a bad choice.
“Bad” is in the eye of the beholder, and you are entitled to your opinion.
But ideas stand alone, and the ideas DiLorenzo contributed in the hearing were correct, relevant, and valuable.
Based on the way you respond, it is clear who the “winner” is – you allow others to goad you so easily into invective and ranting that you should be embarassed.
Hahaha, more projection. The fact that you keep responding to me shows that you are “goaded” no less than the extent to which you think I am goaded.
I know you think you are not – but deep down inside you know I’m right.
Deep down I am not embarrassed one single iota. Deep down, I only feel sorry for you.
Come on – admit it – that is the first step to self-realization. (I couldn’t help “projecting”)
PLEASE feel free to respond and prove that all of the above is a true and accurate portrayal. I know you won’t disappoint
Do you want to be a psychiatrist when you grow up? If you do, then I suggest becoming educated in the material first, because as of now, considering what you have written, I can only surmise that you should be the patient.
It’s interesting how you completely diverted the discussion from ideas and arguments, to whatever it is you are doing now.
I knew you wouldn’t disappoint. Awesome stuff. Thanks for delivering as asked.
Does anybody else on this board wish you would change your handle from Captain Freedom to Commander Douchebag? Anyone?
I knew you wouldn’t disappoint. Awesome stuff. Thanks for delivering as asked.
You so know that posting inflammatory remarks, with the intent to provoke a user into a desired emotional response, is the very definition of trolling, right?
You are by definition trolling.
Does anybody else on this board wish you would change your handle from Captain Freedom to Commander Douchebag? Anyone?
Ah, more off topic ad hominem.
You are only digging yourself into an ever deeper hole.
I think this is, at least, the second time you accuse people of “trolling” when someone begins “name-calling” in response to your starting that process – whether it be to me, Gene, Blackadder or Argosy Jones to name just a few. Citing to the record is evidence, amply provided by you, on this thread. Who is the troll here?
I’ve already said that you are a douchebag. That is a matter of opinion but I think it is born out by how you troll these boards.
For future reference. Facts in the DiLorenzo argument would include things like DiLorenzo appeared at the hearing, the hearing was called by Ron Paul as chairman, Milbank et al. said X about DiLorenzo. Opinion about DiLorenzo appearing would be that you thought it a resounding success and I found it to be disappointing and ill-advised. There is no right or wrong to either opinion because we will never be able to determine who is correct. Now that you know the difference you can untwist your panties and join the rest of us in the reality-based community. Lest you think I’m pissed and that’s why I respond I have to confess that I really just love seeing you twist in the wind – it is too much fun to pass up (maybe that says something about my sense of humor – I do the same thing to fundamentalist when he posts). I looked up dilettante in the dictionary and it said, see Commander Douchebag (I really didn’t look it up – I already knew what it meant – that’s called a joke).
I think this is, at least, the second time you accuse people of “trolling”
I know your post was, at least, the second trolling post.
when someone begins “name-calling” in response to your starting that process – whether it be to me, Gene, Blackadder or Argosy Jones to name just a few.
And you’re all people who can’t disagree with dignity and grace. You have to engage in ad hominem because you’re all intellectual tyrants.
Citing to the record is evidence, amply provided by you, on this thread. Who is the troll here?
You have not cited any evidence. Merely attempting to put yourself in a group so as to increase the number of people who disagree with my ideas, cannot make my ideas false. That’s ad populum fallacy. The only way you can show my ideas are false is by providing superior arguments. So far, you have not done so.
I’ve already said that you are a douchebag.
Ah, more ad hominem. You must like going deeper in your hole.
That is a matter of opinion but I think it is born out by how you troll these boards.
I am not trolling. YOU are trolling. You are deliberately posting inflammatory posts with the intention of arousing a desired emotional response. You even admitted this outright in your last trolling post.
For future reference. Facts in the DiLorenzo argument would include things like DiLorenzo appeared at the hearing, the hearing was called by Ron Paul as chairman, Milbank et al. said X about DiLorenzo.
For current reference, future reference, and hopefully socially communicated reference, RELEVANT facts are the ideas relevant to the federal reserve, unemployment, and other economic phenomena that have to do with the economy.
He said she said, character attacks, ad hominem, these are how your mind operates, and so that is why you believe to be important. That’s fine, but for myself, it is ideas and ideas alone that really matter.
Opinion about DiLorenzo appearing would be that you thought it a resounding success
I never claimed the hearing was “a resounding success.” I only said that the ideas DiLorenzo presented were relevant, valuable, and correct. To me that is all that matters. I’ll leave the primitive, childish name calling and character attacks to you.
and I found it to be disappointing and ill-advised.
You are entitled to your opinion.
There is no right or wrong to either opinion because we will never be able to determine who is correct.
That is not true. There is always a standard present that can be used to determine right from wrong. Whether or not you use it is up to you.
What you probably meant to say is that you will never change your mind so long as it implies you have to adopt my ideas.
Now that you know the difference you can untwist your panties and join the rest of us in the reality-based community.
I didn’t know you spoke for “the rest of us”, but again, I am not surprised that you would think you do, considering the fact that you base your convictions on popularity contests.
You are so blind that you can’t even see the blatant contradictions in your claims. You insist that there is no right and wrong to either opinion. That is a claim to some truth about not only the nature of our opinions, but also the efficacy of our ability to come to terms with our conflicting ideas, my oblivious troll friend.
If you truly thought that there is no right and wrong, that there is no way to reconcile our opinions, then you could not ever call me wrong about anything, and you could not even make any positive claims about anything either. You’d be a mute, which would probably be an improvement for you.
Lest you think I’m pissed and that’s why I respond I have to confess that I really just love seeing you twist in the wind
You just admitted again that you are trolling me. Thanks for being fully honest yet a second time.
it is too much fun to pass up (maybe that says something about my sense of humor
Ah, the troll thinks he is funny. Guess we can chalk up delusion as yet another flawed character trait.
I do the same thing to fundamentalist when he posts). I looked up dilettante in the dictionary and it said, see Commander Douchebag (I really didn’t look it up – I already knew what it meant – that’s called a joke).
Your jokes are staler and drier than a fossilized loaf of bread.
Not only are you not on point in anything you say but you are not funny either. If you are going to be insipid at least be entertaining – you can’t even manage that.
BTW – I don’t think you realize it but when I referenced Lake Wobegon it was a cultural reference probably showing your youth and inexperience. It appears you think it is a real place. Please be predictable again and tell me how I’m wrong or whatever. Move out of your parents basement and get a job.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wobegon
Not only are you not on point in anything you say
I was on point in everything I said. I quoted and responded to your points one by one.
but you are not funny either.
I wasn’t trying to be funny, and you are entitled to your opinion on what you find funny.
If you are going to be insipid at least be entertaining – you can’t even manage that.
I am not trying to entertain you.
BTW – I don’t think you realize it but when I referenced Lake Wobegon it was a cultural reference probably showing your youth and inexperience. It appears you think it is a real place. Please be predictable again and tell me how I’m wrong or whatever.
Ah yes, I am wrong about everything I have said because I have never heard of Lake Wobegon. BTW, you didn’t even spell it correctly the first time you mentioned it.
And the truth value of someone’s argument does not depend on the person’s age or experience. Again, ideas stand alone. I am not sure how many times this needs to be said before it clicks with you.
Move out of your parents basement and get a job.
Ah, more ad hominem. How nice. I’m relatively young and retired, and my parents are dead. And you are posting the same number of posts to me as I am to you, which means you are spending the same amount of time as I am, which makes your attacking of me very hypocritical.
You are denser than a neutron star. If you can’t be intellectually stimulating at least be funny – you are neither. I knew I was right. You are sitting in a basemnet eating Funyuns, drinking Mountain Dew, heating up microwave burritos and playing Black Ops between visits to Free Advice and adult websites (this may not be an intellectually stimulating post but at least its funny – do you see the point now?)(The point is under your hat, by the way).
Look, its clear you fancy yourself a brilliant mind that has answers that most on this thread can’t see. Fine. Please keep thinking that. While its true that I am taking time away from work to poke fun at you it is a distraction I find to be very fun and rewarding for its own sake. It’s kind of like poking Jabba the Hutt with a stick – to good to pass up.
Let me resolve any doubts you may have about yourself – you are not a top flight intellect and you can’t find your ass with both hands in a real debate. That’s fine – the world needs ditch diggers – or “young retireds” living off Mom and Dad’s money. I’m happy for you. By all means particpate in the world of ideas but try to do it with more humility. There is a concept in academic debate which is called charity – assuming good faith on the part of your opponent. You come across as a True Believer in the Hofferian sense of the term who wants to round up dissent and put in an oven – the allegory is intentional.
Go get a new box of tissues – I’ll be here when your done at the other site – 3, 2, 1 (that’s your countdown from start to finish of your self-satisfaction/onanistic event).
You are denser than a neutron star.
More ad hominem.
And your insult is not even accurate. If I were denser than a neutron star, I would collapse in on myself due to gravity. A neutron star is kept from collapsing because of the degeneracy pressure inherent in neutrons. If that pressure is overcome, then the only other body that could exist would be a black hole, which, incidentally, can describe your knowledge.
If you can’t be intellectually stimulating at least be funny – you are neither.
I don’t think you would understand adult humor.
I knew I was right.
You thought, and still believe, that you are right. You are not. You are wrong.
You are sitting in a basemnet eating Funyuns, drinking Mountain Dew, heating up microwave burritos and playing Black Ops between visits to Free Advice and adult websites (this may not be an intellectually stimulating post but at least its funny – do you see the point now?)
And yet here you are in the same basement, eating the same food, playing the same operations. You’re like someone who continually finds himself in bed with members of the same sex, and then spews out homophobic rhetoric.
(The point is under your hat, by the way).
You’re not funny at all.
Look, its clear you fancy yourself a brilliant mind that has answers that most on this thread can’t see.
I don’t consider myself brilliant. But thanks for feeling the need to knock people down simply because you perceive them to perceive themselves to be intelligent.
Fine. Please keep thinking that.
Are you mind reading again?
While its true that I am taking time away from work to poke fun at you it is a distraction I find to be very fun and rewarding for its own sake.
When I was working for a wage, I focused on my job and didn’t waste my employer’s money by trolling economics boards.
It’s kind of like poking Jabba the Hutt with a stick – to good to pass up.
Yes, you are a troll. I agree.
Let me resolve any doubts you may have about yourself – you are not a top flight intellect and you can’t find your ass with both hands in a real debate.
I don’t claim to be a top flight intellect. Refuting you doesn’t take much.
That’s fine – the world needs ditch diggers – or “young retireds” living off Mom and Dad’s money.
Ah, more ad hominem. You sure you are capable of even having intelligent conversations?
I’m happy for you.
I’m not really interested in what your feelings are towards my personal life.
By all means particpate in the world of ideas but try to do it with more humility.
You mean try to be more like you. No thanks.
There is a concept in academic debate which is called charity – assuming good faith on the part of your opponent.
Which you have completely ignored.
You come across as a True Believer in the Hofferian sense of the term who wants to round up dissent and put in an oven – the allegory is intentional.
Consistency and determination always were the enemy of moral relativists and epistemological nihilists.
Go get a new box of tissues – I’ll be here when your done at the other site – 3, 2, 1 (that’s your countdown from start to finish of your self-satisfaction/onanistic event).
I thought you said you have to get back to “work”? Do you get paid to do nothing? Hmmm, that might explain your hostility and bad manners.
“And your insult is not even accurate. If I were denser than a neutron star, I would collapse in on myself due to gravity. A neutron star is kept from collapsing because of the degeneracy pressure inherent in neutrons. If that pressure is overcome, then the only other body that could exist would be a black hole, which, incidentally, can describe your knowledge.”
See, you can learn. That was funny. Even if you don’t know what the words mean it still denotes some sense of humor.
“I don’t consider myself brilliant. But thanks for feeling the need to knock people down simply because you perceive them to perceive themselves to be intelligent.”
Aside from the second sentence being poorly written “you perceive them to perceive” (get a thesaurus) your douchiness is showing through again. Anyway, anyone on this thread who disagrees with your contention is “not in touch with reality” or “not acknowledging the brilliance of your rhetoric” or “being deliberately obtuse” – please see my charity comment above. It is acceptable to agree to disagree – your statement about “[c]onsistency and determination always [being] the enemy of moral relativists and epistemological nihilists” srikes me as being straight out of Mein Kampf or Triumph of the Will – very creepy.
Put your KY aside and re-read all the posts you have submitted on this thread and you will see who lacks charity and humor. My charity stops where your stupidity and displayed lack of class begins.
Please respond at your leisure – when you get back to booking that flight and hotel on Expedia for the Star Trek convention.
Yes, I do work for a living but this is a Friday and dealing with you doesn’t take up near that much time – not to mention your predictability is awe-inspiring and breath-taking.
http://www.buzzpirates.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/douche.jpg
My apologies Dr. Murphy. I didn’t think knox would be such a relenting troll, but he simply doesn’t know when he’s lost.
“And your insult is not even accurate. If I were denser than a neutron star, I would collapse in on myself due to gravity. A neutron star is kept from collapsing because of the degeneracy pressure inherent in neutrons. If that pressure is overcome, then the only other body that could exist would be a black hole, which, incidentally, can describe your knowledge.”
See, you can learn. That was funny. Even if you don’t know what the words mean it still denotes some sense of humor.
You mean you just learned something. I know what the words mean because astrophysics is a part of my background.
“I don’t consider myself brilliant. But thanks for feeling the need to knock people down simply because you perceive them to perceive themselves to be intelligent.”
Aside from the second sentence being poorly written “you perceive them to perceive” (get a thesaurus)
That is not poorly written. One can perceive what they think another person perceives. You perceived me perceiving myself to be brilliant. That perception is false.
I know rigorous argumentation is difficult for you.
your douchiness is showing through again.
Ah, more ad hominem
Anyway, anyone on this thread who disagrees with your contention is “not in touch with reality” or “not acknowledging the brilliance of your rhetoric” or “being deliberately obtuse” – please see my charity comment above.
Why do you feel the need to speak for me, or for anyone else? I am not claiming that those who disagree are necessarily out of touch with reality, but they may be. I also do not consider myself brilliant. And you are being obtuse.
It is acceptable to agree to disagree – your statement about “[c]onsistency and determination always [being] the enemy of moral relativists and epistemological nihilists” srikes me as being straight out of Mein Kampf or Triumph of the Will – very creepy.
Ah, so you think anyone with convictions and disagrees with you must be a Nazi. Gotcha. It only took 10 posts for you to validate Godwin’s Law.
Put your KY aside and re-read all the posts you have submitted on this thread and you will see who lacks charity and humor.
That’s really rude, knox.
My charity stops where your stupidity and displayed lack of class begins.
You haven’t shown where I am stupid. And if there is anyone without class, it is clearly you.
Please respond at your leisure – when you get back to booking that flight and hotel on Expedia for the Star Trek convention.
More ad hominem.
Yes, I do work for a living but this is a Friday and dealing with you doesn’t take up near that much time – not to mention your predictability is awe-inspiring and breath-taking.
Your job must not be important, considering how you can waste your time like this and nobody cares.
Alright, Captain Freedom aka Commander Douchebag, you win. I don’t have the heart to keep jabbing at you. I think you may seize out on us. I am begging you though – please, PLEASE, for the good of the world – don’t purchase that internet bride from the Philippines and PLEASE, if you do, don’t reproduce. I’m serious – PLEASE don’t do that.
Have a great weekend. Enjoy watching Star Trek Episode 56 “The Enemy Within” and looking for continuity errors.
http://socialmediaanswers.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/troll-web.jpg
Alright, Captain Freedom aka Commander Douchebag, you win.
Winning this battle is not very satisfying. No challenge.
I don’t have the heart to keep jabbing at you.
But you had the heart to keep jabbing at me.
I think you may seize out on us.
More projection.
Have a great weekend.
Thanks. You too.
DiLorenzo, as far as I know, has never published on monetary economics, and has made the huge majority of his reputation defending secession and knocking Lincoln. So it’s perfectly fair to ask, “What the heck is this guy even doing here?”
Not only is this a fair question, it was completely obvious and predictable that it was going to get asked. If Paul really wants to bring attention to problems with the Fed, why make his first witness someone who is guaranteed to distract all the attention away from the purpose of the hearing?
why make his first witness someone who is guaranteed to distract all the attention away from the purpose of the hearing?
You mean people are going to look into the work of the person who got all the attention, and realize that Clay made a total ass of himself?
Yes please! LOL
I believe there are more hearings scheduled, with more witnesses.
I think DiLorenzo’s writings as a general historian of the American economy (i.e., “How Capitalism Saved America”) to qualify him to speak on this topic.
But even if you have me bested on the point of who the best witness would have been, I still find it odd that anyone would defend the illogic of Mr. Clay (and Milbank). Forgive me for being in a hurry right now and using the first analogy that comes to mind, but when suppose a woman wears a short skirt and is in a bad part of town at 2 am. (i.e., she “opened the door for an attack, and set off an alarm near it, etc. Your back-alley rapist is going to walk through that door.”) Maybe wise fathers tell their daughters not to do that b/c bad things can happen, and maybe that is good advice. Maybe the woman could have taken her father’s advice and hopefully pointing it out now will at least help avoid this kind of tragedy in the future. But none of this justifies defending the rapist.
If you’re faulting Ron Paul for his prudence in selecting a politically vulnerable witness for his hearing, then that’s one thing. But that really isn’t all you have done here, is it? You have tried to exonerate Milbank and Clay as not doing anything problematic in the first place.
The fact that Paul might have opened himself to what the illogic brigade wanted to do doesn’t mean that the illogic brigade is right to behave that way. A far better world would be one in which good people like Ron Paul don’t have to spend so much energy prudently avoiding opportunistic attack dogs, but instead can rely on everyone to respect some general decorum of logical and on-point argumentation. The general public holding their feet to the fire to follow such decorum is a key feature to creating that world. But that’s why Murphy wrote this article in response to Milbank. So what’s your problem with Murphy’s article, exactly?
I am not trying to “gotcha” you. I am sincerely puzzled as to how your earlier skepticism that there was anything worth fussing about here meshes with your current claim that DiLorenzo just wasn’t the most prudent choice of witness. Not prudent because, you know, Ron Paul’s political opponents lack intellectual virtue. Which Murphy is pointing out.
sorry for not threading the above comment properly with the “reply” button. I’m responding to Mr. Callahan’s response to me above, obviously.
I definitely would call the article a hit piece as it was a typical drive-by media attack, mainly against Ron Paul, by saying he is associated with a group of nuts (not my interpretation but what I felt was the intent of Milbank).
This really shouldn’t be a surprise as I think the Von Mises organization has been been hit with the same paint brush for many years. I look forward to the Austrians and libertarians getting more practice being in the new spot light and putting forth a well defined case against the abuses of big government. Also I think the American people are going to be more receptive to the Austrian message as the economy stagnates and if we can keep the discussion on economics.
I was surprised Milbank didn’t put in any low blows about legalization of marijuana to further discredit Paul.
I believe this is what the discussion should be about (DiLorenzo’s presentation to Congress);
How the Fed Fuels Unemployment, testimony by T DiLorenzo
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo200.html
Maybe Ron Paul is just a genius. He knew exactly what he was doing and it had the desired effect. His opponents have exposed themselves as fools, liars and clowns all over the MSM and we know that none of them has the slightest familiarity with Austrian concepts.
Remember when he took down McCain?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUZwL9GPcNw
The goods guys win again!
He knew exactly what he was doing and it had the desired effect.
If you’re right about Paul’s intended effect, imagine what Paul cooperating with Julian Assange could accomplish.
Yes – because Assange has shown a strong interest in cooperating with government officials! Ha!
Are you being sarcastic, or are you conveying an uninformed sentiment concerning Assange’s attitude and perception towards cooperating with the government?
I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that it is the latter.
If you were informed, you would have known that prior to the release of the documents Assange publishes, he pro-actively approached the Pentagon and the Justice Department for their cooperation in redacting and proofreading the documents he intended to publish. The government refused his request.
Assange is in favor of cooperating with governments regarding leaks, it’s just that no government is interested in cooperating with him.
But hey, those are just “facts”. They’re not as important as spreading propaganda, right? Ha!
DK,
You said above in one of these posts that Ron Paul is one of the elites and now that Assange wouldn’t want to cooperate with him because he is what, working on the side of the government? Are you serious or just being sloppy on how you’re characterizing Dr. Paul? I think it would be news to all of us libertarians to know that we have a man on the inside. Someone should tell Dr. Paul because he should be using all this power to start getting his bills through.
Remember when he took down McCain?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUZwL9GPcNw
The goods guys win again!
McCain beat Paul 1,575 delegates to 35. If that’s what you call victory I’d hate to see your version of defeat.
We win yet again. You had to twist my point to make yours.
Paul knowingly humiliated McCain with his question whether anyone else knew it or not. Paul knew exactly what he was doing. Last week, his opponents made complete fools of themselves AND advertised their complete ignorance of the Austrian School. A non-controversial witness list would have generate no publicity and no opportunity for Austrian “critics” to show their true colors as fools.
We win yet again. You had to twist my point to make yours.
Paul knowingly humiliated McCain with his question whether anyone else knew it or not
Again, if that’s what you consider victory….
To the intellectual, victory is had in the battle of ideas.
To the violence advocating, irrational statist freakshow nutjobs, “victory” is had in the battle of human subjugation and oppression.
Some people want to win, and some people want to win arguments, even if only in their own minds.
And some others want to learn, and then defend, what is actually true, in reality.
‘And some others want to learn, and then defend, what is actually true, in reality.’
I’m not even going to argue with you. We agree on so little that it would be an impossibility.
This thread and your arguments come from a bizarro world.
I’m not even going to argue with you. We agree on so little that it would be an impossibility.
If we disagree, one of us must be wrong. Since it is clear that you think you are right, and you won’t budge, and since I think I am right, and I won’t budge, then yup, we can’t agree. But that doesn’t mean argumentation is impossible. We can still argue until you come around.
This thread and your arguments come from a bizarro world.
Which argument of mine is “bizarre”? Anyone can make vague accusations without justification. It’s lazy. Why are you lazy?
You see, Blackadder, “victory” here means “Victory in Bob Roddis’s mind,” not victory as in actually winning anything like a primary or election. Bob has undoubtedly “won” many, many Olympic events in the same way that Ron Paul “defeated” McCain.
You see, Blackadder, “victory” here means “Victory in Gene Callahan’s mind,” not victory as in actually winning anything like a battle over ideas. Gene has undoubtedly “won” many, many Special Olympic events in the same way that McCain “defeated” Ron Paul.
You see, Blackadder, “victory” here means “Victory in Gene Callahan’s mind,” not victory as in actually winning anything like a battle over ideas.
I don’t want to speak for Gene, but I’d assume for him victory involves actually accomplishing something.
I don’t want to speak for Gene, but I’d assume for him victory involves actually accomplishing something.
Ron Paul has accomplished something. You’re just to blinded by violence worship and human oppression to see it. You equate victory with succeeding in securing control over other people by force.
The intellectual sees things differently.
You’re just to blinded by violence worship and human oppression to see it.
Your comments are filled with statements like this, yet you get huffy about others making ad hominem arguments. Tres bizarre.
Your comments are filled with statements like this, yet you get huffy about others making ad hominem arguments.
That is not attacking your person. That follows from your actual comments.
If we have to assess our victory on terms of political wins then you guys will probably win that argument. I just think that is a lousy assessment of victory for our side. I know I’ve personally taken at least 6 votes away from the democrats and 3 votes away from republicans for the next election from my immediate family. I’ve got a lot of friends to come around as well. These people not only don’t support either party but they would only vote if its for Ron Paul. A few of these people have also began to study Austrian economics and libertarianism. They’ve been bringing their friends and families into the fold. These attacks have been one of my greatest tools in discrediting politicians and the media.
They attack DiLorenzo and his book sales go up. More minds are changed and we move forward with greater numbers. If’s not like you hear about some former Ron Paul supporter saying they were going back to Clinton or McCain because of one of these hit pieces changed their mind about him. No, they attack and our numbers grow. Guiliani’s attack in the past helped Ron Paul to take his campaign to another level. I’m sure a lot of people were saying that Ron Paul should have never said that but he was right they were wrong.
There’s a sign on my block that says “Slow Children”. Which reminds me of some of our commenters.
The self immolation of the Ron Paul critics going hysterical about DiLo was the VICTORY.
My point was the Ron Paul PLANNED IT THAT WAY. Like he planned the HUMILIATION of McCain in 2008 but which was not apparent to me as he was asking McCain the question. BTW, I already knew that Ron Paul didn’t win the 2008 nomination.
I will say it once again: You guys who are saying, “Look at what they did to DiLorenzo, that was foolish of Ron Paul” are kidding yourselves. No matter who RP put up, it would have been, “Oops, here come the tinfoil brigade.” The only way to avoid that, would be if RP brought in people who thought the Fed should set an inflation target at 1.32%, or should focus on M2 growth, etc. That would have been “serious” and “responsible,” not this nutjob stuff of abolishing the Fed.
DK, of course YOU are giving Ron Paul a “fair shake.” I didn’t accuse you of writing a hit piece, I accused Dana Milbank (and Paul Krugman and Matt Yglesias, less so).
It’s amazing how some blog posts take off like this and others don’t. I read the article Dr. Murphy wrote last night and would’ve expected people would agree that Dana’s piece was clearly a hit piece.
When Dana says,
“The “short bio” the witness provided with his testimony omitted salient pieces of his resume, including his 2006 book, “Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe.” But the subcommittee’s ranking Democrat, William Lacy Clay (Mo.) did some homework and learned more about the witness, Thomas DiLorenzo of Loyola University Maryland.”
What is the impression you are supposed to take from that? Dr. Murphy posted the bio DiLorenzo gave so I’m not sure how that statement wasn’t intended to mislead.
Dana says that Dilorenzo worked for the League of the South, which implies that he was tolling away working with this group. Then after putting up DiLo’s quote about giving a couple lectures 15 years ago to them, Dana shoots back that the League was “listing DiLorenzo on its Web site as recently as 2008 as an “affiliated scholar.” Are you telling me that isn’t misleading?
When Dana said that Dilorenzo was saying the Great Depression was short instead of the bank runs that happened during it, that wasn’t misleading?
When Dana says,
“At the witness table, DiLorenzo scoffed and waved his hand dismissively at Clay. But neither he nor Paul attempted to refute Clay’s allegations.”
How is that not misleading? Clay refused to even allow him to address the accusations.
Also go to the 54 or 55 minute mark of this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPhyN4Ev6ck
Clay says that DiLorenzo works for them, not worked, and then follows up saying that he is listed as teaching for their institution on their website to prove that DiLorenzo indeed does work for them. If he had gave DiLorenzo a chance to respond it would’ve been one thing but he didn’t. Dana goes and changes works to worked when it is clear that Clay was trying to pin him as currently teaching for this organization. How is that not misleading?
Finally, Dr. Murphy is spot on when he says that anybody who Ron Paul brings up there is going to get similar treatment.
Is everybody else hearing static or feedback when they play that YouTube? I can barely make out what they’re saying.
Yea there is static in the background for the whole thing. I found it annoying but I was still able to hear them clearly.
My audio goes through my surround sound though. That might be why I didn’t have trouble making out what they were saying with the static.
OK. Hey, does anybody deny that Clay said “work for”? I really can’t tell one way or the other. If I had to guess I’d say “work for” but I wouldn’t bet my life on it.
He follows it up with “Dr. DiLorenzo, you are listed on their website as teaching for their League of the South Institute.”
If he said worked for them he would have said he was listed on their website as having taught at their institute. Or was he trying to say that although you worked for the Institute in the past, they still list you as working for them? I find that hard to believe because he didn’t even give him a chance to respond to see which one it was.
Captain_Freedom, can you please point me to DiLorenzo’s books on sound money and central banking. They simply do not exist. Garrison, White, Selgin, Horwitz, Jesus Huerta De Soto, or Jeffrey Herbener should have been invited to testify before DiLorenzo even though I do like Tom’s body of work.
He talks about sound money and central banking in everyone I’ve read. I’ve read four of his books and he is the one who got me interested in studying these issues more in depth. Thomas DiLorenzo is great when it comes to discussing the fed, especially for a wider audience.
Do you have some complaints on how DiLorenzo responded to the questions he was asked during the hearing? Do you think Lacy would of had some intelligent questions for White or any of the others? That’s the problem, if we could just reach the mainstream with De Soto they would give Austrians a fair hearing.
No, I am just responding to Captain_Freedom’s assertions. I like DiLorenzo’s books for their popular appeal but he has done no seriously scholarly work on sound money and central banking and none of his books have that as their primary focus contrary to what Captain_Freedom stated.
but he has done no seriously scholarly work on sound money and central banking
“Hamilton’s Curse” and “How Capitalism Saved America.”
The former discusses such economic topics as the origins and evolution of central banking in America, how America became a corporate welfare state, the economics of public debt, the founding of the Fed, the economic consequences of adopting the income tax, and more.
How Capitalism Saved America covers such topics as the meaning of capitalism, anti-capitalism, the superiority of private versus government-operated transportation systems, the benefits to “the working class” of capitalism, the “robber barons,” the history and economics of antitrust, the role of the Fed in igniting the Great Depression, how the New Deal made the Great Depression worse, and the economics of the energy crisis of the ‘70s, among other things.
Exactly, he has done no serious scholarly work on sound money and central banking contrary to your claim.
Exactly, he has done no serious scholarly work on sound money and central banking contrary to your claim.
Those are scholarly works, consistent with my claim.
Have you even read them?
popular vs. scholarly sources
http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=scholarly+writing&btnG=Google+Search#hl=en&sugexp=nsp6&xhr=t&q=popular+vs.+scholarly+sources&cp=11&qe=cG9wdWxhciB2cy4&qesig=mutUfoZow7b_7y6mmYM2NA&pkc=AFgZ2tlTdIHUpk8MTjvweTdUepUJY6DM2vJhV_KRY5FcZ9EuT420H8IOiU_arySWaKJN8nf1ZLX_0I9JuS-8pDtxSFtc83nCjg&pf=p&sclient=psy&aq=0&aqi=&aql=f&oq=popular+vs.&pbx=1&bav=on.1,or.&fp=681127d0c6f645aa
The majority of the defences of the Milbank, Krugman, Yglesias axis have actually been pretty insulting to the three. Paraphrasing their defenders we are supposed to accept that they are not really in control of their faculties, that they have a powerful inclination toward cheap rhetoric, innuendo and triviality, and that they can only overcome this inclination when confronted with someone who exceeds a certain threshold of ‘respectability’ that Dilorenzo didnt. Apparently, Ron Paul should have known this and selected someone which would have enabled those poor souls to subdue this strange and debilitating affliction.
I’m going to be more complimentary of them and assume they could have tackled the substance of Dilorenzo’s remarks but simply chose not to. I don’t know why they chose not to, surely these great minds could have easily torn apart the ridiculous ramblings of the creepy mises instiute weirdo Dilorenzo, but it was a decision and not an uncontrollable urge. They are turds by flaw of character not nature.