Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Tom Woods FB Awesomeness

  1. #1

    Tom Woods FB Awesomeness

    The Analytical Conservative posted this on FB and Tom Woods tore him a new one.
    This comment summed it up nicely.

    Jess Dawson
    Tom Woods just ate your lunch, son.
    Like Reply 100 15 hours ago


    H/T to muh borders FB page


    The Analytical Conservative
    SPOONER AND ROTHBARD WORSHIP - The worst hindrance to the liberty movement.

    If there is just one crutch for liberty in America it is the worshiping of false idols. The most iconic such idols are Lysander Spooner and Murray Rothbard. Anarcho-capitalists, the most radical fundamentalists amongst libertarians, get their understanding of law from Spooner and economics from Rothbard. However, both Spooner and Rothbard were and are on the fringe of their disciplines.

    Spooner, in reality, was not a real lawyer. He was a fraud. He never went to college, and only did three years of legal internship. At the time, people without a college education were required to do five years of internship. Spooner, in defiance, set up practice of the law, ironically, against the law. Anarchists love to say anarchy means "no rulers" and not "no rules," yet they praise Spooner's illegal practice. If this is the precedent set by anarchy, would it also be okay for one to practice as a doctor without a medical license?

    Spooner's words have become an-cap talking points, despite how ridiculous they may be. He wrote, “A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.” Comparing citizenry to slavery is absurdity. (This is similar to comparing an employee to a slave, which is an anarcho-communist talking point). Analogies like this are misleading, offensive to true slaves, and push away the more reasonable people from the liberty movement.

    Rothbard's credentials and track record aren't much better. Rothbard barely received his PhD. It took him eleven years post bachelor's to complete, about twice as long as it should have. Why? Here is how Lee Rockwell tells it, "He was held back for many years from actually being granted the PhD because the evil Arthur Burns, who later became chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under Eisenhower and then head of the Fed under Nixon, blocked him from getting the PhD, blocked him from being considered, even though he wasn’t even on Murray’s committee." The "evil" Arthur Burns? Hardly! Burns was a family friend of the Rothbards and knew Murray since he was a lad. Burns, as far as I can tell, generally looked out for Rothbard. Milton Friedman, another libertarian economist, said Burns was his greatest influence. Burns was also a member of the Mont Pelerin Society. He was not some evil villain. That sort of language reflects the fervent "religiosity" of an externally insecure cult. Perhaps it took Rothbard so long to finish his thesis because it wasn't any good.

    Rothbard's difficulties didn't end with his thesis. He was basically shunned from the academic community, avoided working at universities, never joined the American Economic Association, and never published a peer-reviewed article. Rothbard, forced out of academia, wrote commercial books instead. Great minds are not afraid of being reviewed; propagandists circumvent critiques. Rothbard was the latter.

    Much like Spooner, Rothbard wrote some disturbing things. For instance, Rothbard believed children should be able to run away from home, "Regardless of his age, we must grant to every child the absolute right to run away and to find new foster parents who will voluntarily adopt him, or to try to exist on his own. Parents may try to persuade the runaway child to return, but it is totally impermissible enslavement and an aggression upon his right of self-ownership for them to use force to compel him to return. The absolute right to run away is the child's ultimate expression of his right of self-ownership, regardless of age." This is morally indefensible. Small children don't have the capacity to understand what running away from home really means. And small children, for that matter, cannot understand many of the decisions "Rothbardians" think they should make (such as buying anti-freeze, or having sex with their parents). These positions also turn away many from the liberty movement.

    These men are the two main pillars for anarcho-capitalism, yet were both outcasts in their disciplines. An-caps today filter out any law that doesn't comes from Spooner, and any economics that doesn't come from Rothbard. That way of thinking is dangerous. The liberty movement would be more attractive if it consulted cooler heads.

    (JZ)
    Tom Woods

    False on every front. Rothbard's doctoral dissertation was later published by Columbia University Press! I defy you to find me one negative review in any professional journal. They were all laudatory. So your ridiculous speculation that his thesis must not have been any good is definitively disproved. Do not attempt to advance this again. You will just make yourself look like a liar as well as an idiot.

    Also, Rothbard wrote plenty of peer-reviewed articles, so that claim, too, is absurd. Mises spoke extremely highly of Rothbard's work, so in claiming Rothbard made no contributions or was a fringe idiot, you are also smearing Mises.

    Can you please tell me which specific parts of Rothbard's major treatise you disagree with? Do you even know which work I'm talking about? You don't exactly strike me as someone particularly versed in the history of economic thought.
    Like Reply 229 18 hours ago

    The Analytical Conservative

    Mises does not get much love on this page. I know you may be baffled by that, but Mises isn't as infallible as you and other Austrians think that he is. So smearing Mises isn't really that big of a deal for us.

    But the thing that I love about your response is the immediate invective of implicitly claiming the admins of this page to be "liars" and/or "idiots." I expect more from you given your reputation and education. Unfortunately you sound like every other ancap drone that trolls our page when we push back a little bit. Maybe you should spend some time teaching the graduates from the elite Mises Academy (or whatever it is called) how to advocate on behalf of Rothbard's views without being a massive tool. These individuals are what motivate these kinds of posts, to get under their skin a little bit. To push back against the vitriol.

    For your information, we have offered charitable critiques of Mises and Rothbard and guess what kind of reaction follows....hysteria. It doesn't matter what is said about the deified Rothbard, madness ensues and it is quite telling of this little cult of personality.

    LW
    Like 2 18 hours ago
    Tom Woods

    So I just demonstrated that what you said was obviously false, and instead of admitting your error, you attack me for not writing to you like Dr. Johnson. That's about what I expect from conservatives who adopt your position. I have known these people for 20 years. They have never read anything, and they concede nothing.

    And incidentally, you would be a liar for continuing to make a statement you know to be false. Don't you conservatives believe in definitions, and in the natures of things? Do I have to explain to you what conservatism is, too? And yes, at least in this area, you are an idiot if you are making statements on subjects you know nothing about, and the statements are demonstrably false.

    It is not a surprise to me that you picked out those words from my statement, so you could divert the subject away from my substance of questions. Because of course you have no answers to those questions, and I have just shown that you are obviously speaking out of ignorance.
    Like 124
    This is just the beginning, there's much more and it only get's better.


    https://www.facebook.com/MontPelerin...447807/?type=1
    Last edited by Suzanimal; 03-17-2015 at 01:52 PM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by green73 View Post
    No link?
    Sorry. I was trying to read and post and forgot the link.

    https://www.facebook.com/MontPelerin...447807/?type=1

  5. #4
    I unliked after that and let them know too.

  6. #5
    How Tom has the patience to put up with such dullards, IDK.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    How Tom has the patience to put up with such dullards, IDK.
    IDK, but he sure is good at it. I'm not sure if I've posted his other smackdowns but he ain't shy about putting people in their place - especially on FB.

  8. #7
    Woods is a turbo-charged buzz saw for liberty!

  9. #8
    Today I decided to get banned and spam activism on this forum...

    SUPPORT RANDPAULDIGITAL GRASSROOTS PROJECTS TODAY!

    http://i.imgur.com/SORJlQ5.png

    For more info. or to help spread the word, go to the promotion thread here.



    Quote Originally Posted by orenbus View Post
    If I had to answer this question truthfully I'd probably piss a lot of people off lol, Barrex would be a better person to ask he doesn't seem to care lol.




  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    More fun with Tom...


    Tom Woods

    Now that I embarrassed you by pointing out that Rothbard's thesis was published by CUP and is considered definitive, you're now pretending that you only meant to refer to the thesis in its 1956 form. If there is anyone in this thread who believes this ridiculous attempt to cover yourself, I'd like to meet him. So don't try to pretend I misread anything.

    I've already explained that your sorry attempt to cover yourself would have Rothbard writing his 1000-page treatise, plus the Volker memos, plus America's Great Depression, plus transforming his allegedly terrible thesis into the definitive study of the Panic of 1819 all at once. If you want me to believe that about Rothbard, aren't you also saying the guy would have to be a genius, which is my point in the first place?
    Like 68 17 hours ago
    Tom Woods Moreover, you were also wrong about Rothbard and peer-reviewed articles. No acknowledgment of that.
    Like 60 17 hours ago
    Tom Woods And I didn't "simply" claim you hadn't read anything. Given that you got two major things wrong about Rothbard, and don't seem to know the first thing about his economics, I have reason for skepticism. All you need to do is explain to me what part(s) of Rothbard's primary treatise you find faulty. Should be easy!
    Like 64 17 hours ago
    Nathan Payne o.m.g. The Tom Woods smackdown is glorious.
    Like 45 17 hours ago
    The Analytical Conservative Tom, I didn't write the OP. You did make such a claim. And then you want to frame the debate in such a way that is comfortable for you.

    Let's try out your method of argumentation, but let's do it in field that I am more concerned with:

    Have you even read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason? Have you even read the work Hume did that inspired Kant to solve the problem's Hume brought to his attention? Do you even understand how Hume and Kant influenced positivism? Have you ever even read Wittgenstein's work in the Tractatus Logico Philosophicus, which is Kantian, and had major influence on the positivists? Would you even begin to understand the history of this and why this was such a huge mistake by Mises? I've got you dead to rights.

    Can you name one proposition in Kantian epistemology? Can you even offer a single proposition from his Transcendental Aesthetic? Oh, you can't? Well you clearly haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about. And any hack can google this, so if you even try to demonstrate a proposition I will just ignore it and claim you haven't read anything.

    ---------

    Now that is basically the framework of your argument towards me, and again, I am not the author of this original piece. Now, do you accept the posture of such a conversation? I highly doubt it. Is this language inviting? Not really.

    LW
    Like 17 hours ago
    Tom Woods LW, I'm not the one who posted an ignorant article, plus a graphic with the word HACK emblazoned on an image of a man of extraordinary genius and productivity. You did that. When I demanded how you could justify calling such a great economist a hack, you danced around the issue as much as possible, but never showed me the slightest indication that you've read his economic works, which was of course his field.

    To compare this with your suddenly raising Kant and Hume with me is ridiculous. Your philosophic mind can see that, surely. I am asking you to defend this ridiculous attack THAT YOU YOURSELF MADE against Rothbard. And now I'm supposed to feel sorry for you because you know more philosophy than you do economics. This is absurd.

    Like 67 17 hours ago
    Matt Clarke Tom Woods enjoys the unfair advantage of being right.
    Like 32 12 hours ago

    David Pedroza If woods could rap he would be the greatest battle rapper of all time
    Like 5 5 hour
    The Analytical Conservative No. Tom Woods just showed himself to be a juvenile pseudo intellect. He is no different than the other run of the mill ancap trolls we encounter on countless occasions.
    Like 3 17 hours ago
    Daniel Amico A troll with a sizable handful of NYT best sellers, and elite education...
    Like 44 17 hours ago
    The Analytical Conservative Which is why it is so pathetic that he trolled a facebook page. Simply stating resume, also, doesn't make his arguments cogent or even close to the truth.
    Like 1 17 hours ago
    Rob Pabich >>>"Simply stating resume, also, doesn't make his arguments cogent or even close to the truth"

    >>>bashes Rothbard and Spooner using ad hominem based on their resume.

    So much stupidity.
    Like 62 17 hours ago
    Tom Woods No trolling by me. Defending a great man against some preposterous claims. I still haven't been told what's wrong with Rothbard's production theory. Just a lot of whining that I dared to suggest Rothbard's economic works, like Mises', hadn't been read. Whine, whine, whine. How dare Woods say that. He's a troll. He's just like all the others. Blah, blah, blah.

    Meanwhile, I see no reason to amend my statement that you have not read this material. Yet you condemn Rothbard as a "hack."

    WHAT IS WRONG WITH HIS PRODUCTION THEORY? WHAT EXACTLY IS CRAZY AND 'FRINGE' ABOUT IT?
    Like 62 17 hours ago



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-07-2015, 06:12 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-28-2014, 02:55 AM
  3. Tom Woods
    By Kingfisher in forum Campaign Suggestion Box
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-17-2012, 10:40 AM
  4. Yal needs your help! Tom Woods at CSU
    By speciallyblend in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-23-2010, 07:37 AM
  5. Pure Awesomeness To Your Ears!
    By constitutional in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-27-2008, 05:57 PM

Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •