|
|
Post by teri on Sept 9, 2013 15:54:20 GMT -5
bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=126721.0a phony ideology to support a corporate agenda back in 1950, the house of representatives held hearings on illegal lobbying activities and exposed both friedman and the earliest libertarian think-tank outfit as a front for business lobbyists
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 9, 2013 17:05:17 GMT -5
bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=126721.0a phony ideology to support a corporate agenda back in 1950, the house of representatives held hearings on illegal lobbying activities and exposed both friedman and the earliest libertarian think-tank outfit as a front for business lobbyists Nothing more than an ad hominem. Does that author have any refutation of Friedman's views to offer? Of course not. Bob Marks |
|
|
|
Post by teri on Sept 10, 2013 14:02:28 GMT -5
libertarianism began as a big business public relations campaign. that is the point of the article....refuting friedman's views irrelevant.
libertarianism paints itself as populist groundswell.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 10, 2013 18:18:25 GMT -5
libertarianism began as a big business public relations campaign. that is the point of the article....refuting friedman's views irrelevant. libertarianism paints itself as populist groundswell. Totally false. Milton Friedman was not the first Libertarian. This is a simple fact. The Austrian School economists Mises and Hayek started it in the 1920's. Your author does not know what he is talking about. And his arguments are still an ad hominem. What if you could prove that Einstein was a pedophile? Would that mean the Theory of Relativity is false? Give me a break. Bob Marks |
|
|
|
Post by teri on Sept 12, 2013 16:49:21 GMT -5
motivation of the movers and shakers of a movement cannot be dismeissed as ad hominem. even today, the resurgence of libertarianism can be traced to big money. the koch brothers are principal funders of the Reason Foundation and Reason magazine. Exxon Mobil and other corporate and billionaire interests are behind the Cato Institute...
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 12, 2013 18:56:47 GMT -5
motivation of the movers and shakers of a movement cannot be dismeissed as ad hominem. even today, the resurgence of libertarianism can be traced to big money. the koch brothers are principal funders of the Reason Foundation and Reason magazine. Exxon Mobil and other corporate and billionaire interests are behind the Cato Institute... You have to be joking. If you first proved that Libertarian ideas wrong, then you can look into the motives of the proponents to see why they are making a mistake.Without doing that though, all you have here is an argument from slander. A Smear Campaign. As for that slanderous article itself, there is a question: Did that Senate committee find that Dr. Friedman or those corporations did anything illegal? If not, then what is your beef? Bob Marks |
|
|
|
Post by teri on Sept 13, 2013 0:42:38 GMT -5
the buchanan hearings committee exposed corporate support of libertarian lobbying of politicians and pr blitz to the public... that is what the article says. that is true, no?. what is your beef. libertarian dogma irrelevaNt i say again. you the one that brought that into discussion. not me or the article.
slanderous article, you say?
|
|
|
|
Post by mikkel on Sept 13, 2013 0:58:10 GMT -5
the buchanan hearings committee exposed corporate support of libertarian lobbying of politicians and pr blitz to the public... that is what the article says. that is true, no?. what is your beef. libertarian dogma irrelevaNt i say again. you the one that brought that into discussion. not me or the article. slanderous article, you say? You properly shouldn't have written phony ideology, because that requires that you can show that.  As for libertarianism being a special interest claim of (groups of) individuals it is maybe the way to go - remember Bob doesn't accept special interest groups and all you have to do is show that libertarianism is a special interest ideology and thus invalid according to Bob's own rule of "objectivism". |
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Sept 13, 2013 9:03:18 GMT -5
Did that Senate committee find that Dr. Friedman or those corporations did anything illegal? If not, then what is your beef? Without specific reference to anything in particular --- It is possible for something to be both legal and despicable. |
|
joan
Member
Posts: 1,407
|
Post by joan on Sept 13, 2013 9:30:43 GMT -5
Did that Senate committee find that Dr. Friedman or those corporations did anything illegal? If not, then what is your beef? Without specific reference to anything in particular --- It is possible for something to be both legal and despicable. Despicable according to who? Eye of the beholder. |
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Sept 13, 2013 10:32:58 GMT -5
Despicable according to who? Eye of the beholder. Agreed. But we are all entitled to our views. Despicable such as highly profitable companies not paying their employees a living wage, while paying their executives hundreds of times (thousands in a few cases) what they pay their average worker. Despicable such as "we don't own slaves any more, we just rent them." (Heard that in an interview of someone years ago - don't remember who it was.) |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 13, 2013 12:20:28 GMT -5
the buchanan hearings committee exposed corporate support of libertarian lobbying of politicians and pr blitz to the public... that is what the article says. that is true, no?. what is your beef. libertarian dogma irrelevaNt i say again. you the one that brought that into discussion. not me or the article. slanderous article, you say? Yes, slanderous. The author could not refute Libertarian claims, so he used ad hominems. And he was wrong in claiming that Friedman was the founder of Libertarianism. As I pointed out earlier, Libertarian economics was founded decades earlier by Mises and Hayek. But even more important: even if there were corporate support SO WHAT! Is it illegal for people to support political and economic views that they favor? If that's true, then George Soros is wrong too for his support of left-wing causes. Once again Teri, nothing illegal was done. There were no indictments. That article is a desperate attempt to avoid dealing with Libertarian arguments. That author has no case so he is resorting to INVALID ad hominem attacks. Bob Marks |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 13, 2013 12:23:21 GMT -5
the buchanan hearings committee exposed corporate support of libertarian lobbying of politicians and pr blitz to the public... that is what the article says. that is true, no?. what is your beef. libertarian dogma irrelevaNt i say again. you the one that brought that into discussion. not me or the article. slanderous article, you say? You properly shouldn't have written phony ideology, because that requires that you can show that. As for libertarianism being a special interest claim of (groups of) individuals it is maybe the way to go - remember Bob doesn't accept special interest groups and all you have to do is show that libertarianism is a special interest ideology and thus invalid according to Bob's own rule of "objectivism". What! What are you talking about, Mikkel? Where did I ever say I don't accept special interest groups? Individuals have the right to get together to further common interests. Bob Marks |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 13, 2013 12:27:06 GMT -5
Did that Senate committee find that Dr. Friedman or those corporations did anything illegal? If not, then what is your beef? Without specific reference to anything in particular --- It is possible for something to be both legal and despicable. But that article Teri posted didn't demonstrate that Libertarian views are despicable. All it did was claim that Milton Friedman was despicable. That's a classic ad hominem and says nothing about the man's views. What Teri is claiming here is that a logical fallacy (the ad hominem) is true because it attacks a view she doesn't like. Unreal. Bob Marks |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 13, 2013 12:30:54 GMT -5
Despicable according to who? Eye of the beholder. Agreed. But we are all entitled to our views. Despicable such as highly profitable companies not paying their employees a living wage, while paying their executives hundreds of times (thousands in a few cases) what they pay their average worker. Despicable such as "we don't own slaves any more, we just rent them." (Heard that in an interview of someone years ago - don't remember who it was.) That's not the issue here, Ray. The matter under discussion is: Does an ad hominem attack refute the views of the person being attacked? The answer is obviously NO. Bob Marks |
|
|
|
Post by teri on Sept 13, 2013 13:29:26 GMT -5
mikkel, did i say phony ideology? more like cult whose dogma is underwritten by big money.
|
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Sept 13, 2013 13:45:18 GMT -5
But that article Teri posted didn't demonstrate that Libertarian views are despicable. Did you miss the part where I said, "Without specific reference to anything in particular?" |
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Sept 13, 2013 13:48:40 GMT -5
That's not the issue here, Ray. The matter under discussion is: ... In an unmoderated informal discussion such as this, the "matter under discussion" often drifts off of the original topic. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 13, 2013 15:00:34 GMT -5
mikkel, did i say phony ideology? more like cult whose dogma is underwritten by big money. Once again, and ad hominem. Do you have any evidence to support what you say? Bob Marks |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 13, 2013 15:03:05 GMT -5
That's not the issue here, Ray. The matter under discussion is: ... In an unmoderated informal discussion such as this, the "matter under discussion" often drifts off of the original topic. True. But that just makes it more difficult to follow the topic. In the interest of clarity, wouldn't it be better to start another thread for new topics? Bob |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 13, 2013 15:04:01 GMT -5
In an unmoderated informal discussion such as this, the "matter under discussion" often drifts off of the original topic. True. But that just makes it more difficult to follow the topic. In the interest of clarity, wouldn't it be better to start another thread for new topics? Bob P.S. Actually Ray, this board IS moderated and both of us are moderators.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2013 15:11:05 GMT -5
True. But that just makes it more difficult to follow the topic. In the interest of clarity, wouldn't it be better to start another thread for new topics? Bob P.S. Actually Ray, this board IS moderated and both of us are moderators. Give me a freakin' break. You changed the topic from how Libertianism got started to refutations of Friedman's views. So stop being so cute. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2013 15:47:53 GMT -5
True. But that just makes it more difficult to follow the topic. In the interest of clarity, wouldn't it be better to start another thread for new topics? Bob P.S. Actually Ray, this board IS moderated and both of us are moderators. Oh, and so, you get to control this board the way you like? Keep it up and there won't be anyone here but yourself to talk to. Just think of that why don't you. |
|
