Ray Peat Believes That Libertarian Ideology Is Responsible For The Hatred Of Fructose

[jaa]

You're right though, at a certain point these conversations can't go anywhere anymore, which is why it's kind of pointless.

So if the mob sets up shop in your neighborhood and tells everyone they need to pay protection money, they are legitimate and you can move if you don't like it? That essay is really useful for getting past the social contract mythology.

Okay thanks for the link I'll have a look at it. Right now I'm getting pretty exhausted because I've reached the end of my intellectual ability on this topic and am just repeating myself and find I'm getting snippy instead of giving things a fair shake.

 

[Kyle M]

America was that experiment, it had a tenth of the government that England had, which itself had a third of the government of The Continent, which themselves had a tenth of the government of, say, Eastern Asia at the time.

 

[AJC]

Well after reading 45 out of the 62 pages of the "Anatomy of the State" document Kyle M posted, I must say that I am very impressed with the argument put forth, and as far as individual sovereignty, free-will, self-direction, self-responsibility, and anti-authoritianism goes...I cannot imagine a much more aligned philosophy.

 

[DaveFoster]

You're back with your binary arguments. You're saying that the medical industry is 100% flawed, and to even attempt to have a medical industry is wrong. Further, your point about there being no example of a non-cartelized society is not valid, since it's not binary, you DO (even within the current very flawed system) get many examples of people doing legitimate science over the last 100 years, and it still being published, so there are plenty of examples to support Ray's viewpoint. There are 0 examples to describe your viewpoint of zero government. How do you square it with your ideologies that Ray openly says the Russian medical literature during the time of their ultimate command economy actually came up with some of the best, most unadulterated science?

Of course I think the medical industry is flawed, just like every person on earth is flawed.

I'm not arguing in favour of big government. I'm in favour of some government simply because whatever you call it, humans will always pool resources together with the aim of doing something for the greater good, and will never be perfect, and yet your think that somehow a perfect market with perfect information will come to effectively represent and behave like a government is living in dream land, and there will never be. Of course government is not perfect, it needs to be both big and small - big where needed, as lean as possible where needed. Unfortunately humans are not perfect and never will be, and yet the whole crux of your argument seems to rest on the fact that they will be within Kyle's Fantasy land which has been "dealt in the literature", another binary answer like there could ever be a finite, absolute answer to the most complex problem known to man, one that involves billions of forever moving variables and a value equation that varies according to the person.

I've been lucky to make a huge amount of money through business and I'm exceedingly happy to pay a large chunk of taxes, knowing that the government will necessarily waste some of it, but knowing that society, law, education has allowed me to do it. Running a business of 50 employees is hard enough. Running a business with 300 million people in it is the impossible task, it's simply a task that needs to be done in some form. Again you seem to think once government passes 0 on a scale of 1-100, that it necessitates it being at 100, and therefore it can't go beyond zero.

Your link about Iceland just describes a government by another name, one on a local, small scale with not very large populations to deal with. He talks about groups of decision makers who had to answer to the people. Which is a local government in a village setting. Iceland was clearly such a success in terms of the impact it had on medieval Europe and beyond

Wouldn't you rather move a score of 25 to a score of 75? What if every tax dollar you paid could have two, three, or four times as much impact in the lives of every person, including yourself?

 

[jaguar43]

Well after reading 45 out of the 62 pages of the "Anatomy of the State" document Kyle M posted, I must say that I am very impressed with the argument put forth, and as far as individual sovereignty, free-will, self-direction, self-responsibility, and anti-authoritianism goes...I cannot imagine a much more aligned philosophy.

Do you have any comments on Ray Peat's email regarding libertarian ideology as being the culprit of the hatred of fructose ?

 

[aquaman]

Wouldn't you rather move a score of 25 to a score of 75? What if every tax dollar you paid could have two, three, or four times as much impact in the lives of every person, including yourself?

Yes, but that's a different question. Of course I'd like to see government get BETTER.

The debate was that absolutely zero government is best somehow. I'm a believer in societies working together, and that people who attempt to make long term decisions for the society (politicians) are not necessarily all evil like Kyle M says. Unfortunately it just gets extremely complex dealing with billions of people, and you face the issue you will always face when dealing with humans: there are ones who are happy to burn society to a cinder to increase their little counting house with no regard for others or the future. Hence the need for a government, even if a relatively small one which prevents for example medical cartelization.

So yes, I want government to get better, less corrupt, and for there to be the necessary legislation where it is clearly needed, a focus on the greater good, the long-term final cause, which is clearly more than just a profit motive to meet short term human desires.

 

[AJC]

Do you have any comments on Ray Peat's email regarding libertarian ideology as being the culprit of the hatred of fructose ?

Honestly I didn't think that exact statement was really relevant to my life. I have no idea what Peat meant there and I don't care to speculate because it just doesn't matter to me. I found the other discussions in this thread far more interesting.

The pdf doesn't really apply to the OP in my opinion, but it does apply very well to the other discussions brought up here. And yeah, after reading the pdf and tracking down the website it's pretty clear that these ideas that Kyle M is sharing are not really new, immature, or incomplete in any way. The literature is fairly extensive.

I would recommend giving the pdf a read--at least the first couple chapters. It brings up actual facts and points of discussion, and I think you will see pretty quickly that there's more to the argument than just "well, no...that can't possibly work...because....because..." There's valid points to be discussed.

 

[DaveFoster]

Yes, but that's a different question. Of course I'd like to see government get BETTER.

The debate was that absolutely zero government is best somehow. I'm a believer in societies working together, and that people who attempt to make long term decisions for the society (politicians) are not necessarily all evil like Kyle M says. Unfortunately it just gets extremely complex dealing with billions of people, and you face the issue you will always face when dealing with humans: there are ones who are happy to burn society to a cinder to increase their little counting house with no regard for others or the future. Hence the need for a government, even if a relatively small one which prevents for example medical cartelization.

So yes, I want government to get better, less corrupt, and for there to be the necessary legislation where it is clearly needed, a focus on the greater good, the long-term final cause, which is clearly more than just a profit motive to meet short term human desires.

Is estrogen evil? If we analogize society to the body (something modern academics deeply resent, as it dissolves their relativism,) then we can think of these systems of forced order (religion, government, emotional manipulation and authoritarianism within the family) as a response to resource scarcity.

It's odd in my mind to think of government as a causative factor in societal destruction. It's like thinking of estrogen as a causative factor in cancer; it's the mechanism, but it's not the cause. The cause would be the failure of the supporting structure (whether cultural or based on cellular energy in this case.)

You're right, aquaman; you can't have a society without government unless you improve the caliber of each individual; the current world, and Dr. Peat has also glossed over this, is in a degenerating state, and the response to that lies in the attempt to preserve structure and stability (through centralized power structures.)

Peat doesn't talk about how to "balance our estrogen levels." There's a threshold where estrogen disrupts normal cellular activity; (I wish a was a biochemical genius like Peat and could tell you the witherto's.) Similarly, it's foolish to talk about "balancing our authoritarianism." Where there's authoritarianism, there's no freedom. Where there's darkness, there's no light. Where there's disease, there cannot be health.

Disease and suffering will always be present so long as there is conflict between an organism and its environment; similarly, there will always be some form of authoritarian power when the desires of the collective conflict with nature.

Rather than trying to eliminate government, it would be worthwhile to look at why people support it. There's value here in looking at self-esteem across political ideologies, childhood abuse (and I think Stefan Molyneux is correct in looking here,) genetic and cultural factors for collectivism.

Predisposition to some diseases are "genetic;" they are ingrained and a part of the organism's evolutionary history. This doesn't mean these diseases are good, or rather desirable. Sickle-cell anemia will help you survive malaria in Africa, but if you have this disease in another country without malaria, you're at a severe disadvantage. Collectivism will help you survive in a cutthroat, serotonergic (aggressive), atomized, or resource scarce environment, but it's a disadvantage if you're not in that type of environment.

Predisposition to collectivism can be argued to be genetic or cultural; regardless, here's a fact: the greater the presence of the free market, the more novelty, breakthrough, and growth. This is a linear relationship and well-established in economics. Then you get to the rub; "We can't have no government! People will abuse their resources and exploit!" Yes; they will.

We need to 1) Identify the factors that affect human behavior, whether genetic, environmental, or a combination; and 2) Improve those factors with emotional support, healthful nutrition, economic safety (things associated with abundance). With the improvement of each individual, and the rejection of the narrative that "collectivism is good," I think we can realize a greater degree of individualism: maybe not 100%, but a higher amount than present.

Government (a form of collectivism) is not good; it's necessary. Selfishness does not need to be indulged in; it won't bring you happiness anyway. When people realize the truth: giving and community is the key to human happiness, then all of this corruption, dissastisfaction with people (misanthropic environmentalism,) forced collectivization (large governments/socialist democracies/Communism) will wane.

 

[jaguar43]

Honestly I didn't think that exact statement was really relevant to my life. I have no idea what Peat meant there and I don't care to speculate because it just doesn't matter to me. I found the other discussions in this thread far more interesting.

The pdf doesn't really apply to the OP in my opinion, but it does apply very well to the other discussions brought up here. And yeah, after reading the pdf and tracking down the website it's pretty clear that these ideas that Kyle M is sharing are not really new, immature, or incomplete in any way. The literature is fairly extensive.

I would recommend giving the pdf a read--at least the first couple chapters. It brings up actual facts and points of discussion, and I think you will see pretty quickly that there's more to the argument than just "well, no...that can't possibly work...because....because..." There's valid points to be discussed.

Usually a way a form works is that people create threads about certain topics, and other members of the forum can participate in the conversation of the topic at hand. If the original post contains an argument about a subject, what usually happens is that members can either support or argue their ideas based upon what the original post was about.

Ray Peat wasn't arguing against libertarianism on the basis of economics. Rather on the bases of nutrition, anthropology and biology. I glad that you found certain members argument "positive". But he doesn't argue within the context of the original post. Therefore missing the truth claims and negating Peat's perspective completely.

So, to keep to the topic at hand, I will provide a critique of the author of the anatomy of the state. In which corresponds to his views on anthropology and biology, in relation to the OP.

Murray Rotbard supports:

1) racial theories of intelligence

2) promotes certain aspects of holocaust denial theories

Konrad Lorenz (who was mention by Peat himself in the OP) supports

1) racial theory of intelligence via eugenics and nazi science.

2) was the architect of the racial hygiene policy in Nazi Germany.

Therefore, on the basis of biology, health and anthropology Peat proves his point that the "typical internet libertarian ideology" is committed to certain authoritarian ideas of biology and science. Murray Rothbard's is by no means a person who is in any way related or complementary to Peat's work.

Certain members however, have said that Peat has spoken favorably of libertarianism in email exchanges. I have ask whether they would be interested in providing the email exchanges. They decided not to post them.

Unless someone can prove otherwise it should be address that Peat did in fact not endorse libertarianism and in fact, believes that it is antithetical to his ideas on nutrition and health.

 

[jaguar43]

Since, most of thread has referred to other topics unrelated to the OP. I think it's fair to say that I am ok with that and I think it's an interesting thread.

 

[Kyle M]

Do you have references for those claims against Rothbard? He doesn't support anything anymore btw, since he's dead about 20 years now. I know he has mentioned this or that scientific topic, and given credence to the ideas of writers and speakers that have objectionable opinions in other areas (which is the opposite of ad hominem), but I have read and listened to a lot of Rothbard and he has never made either of those ideas you pin on him center pieces of his.

 

[Kyle M]

My first point was completely to the OP, and I think it's the correct answer. I've been around the internet communities of libertarians, paleo diet, and the alt right, and think I understand where some of them overlap. The "internet libertarians" that harp on racial intelligence and the other things you disagree with, that Ray mentioned in that email, are the ones that lean towards paleo dieting and the newer alt right movement. They are not the followers of Murray Rothbard, I can tell you that. So the answer to your OP, if you wanted one, is that Ray is speaking to one part of the internet that calls itself libertarian and has those other ideas I just explained, and they put them together as a cohesive ideology (for good or ill).

 

[AJC]

Usually a way a form works is that people create threads about certain topics, and other members of the forum can participate in the conversation of the topic at hand. If the original post contains an argument about a subject, what usually happens is that members can either support or argue their ideas based upon what the original post was about.

Ray Peat wasn't arguing against libertarianism on the basis of economics. Rather on the bases of nutrition, anthropology and biology. I glad that you found certain members argument "positive". But he doesn't argue within the context of the original post. Therefore missing the truth claims and negating Peat's perspective completely.

So, to keep to the topic at hand, I will provide a critique of the author of the anatomy of the state. In which corresponds to his views on anthropology and biology, in relation to the OP.

Murray Rotbard supports:

1) racial theories of intelligence

2) promotes certain aspects of holocaust denial theories

Konrad Lorenz (who was mention by Peat himself in the OP) supports

1) racial theory of intelligence via eugenics and nazi science.

2) was the architect of the racial hygiene policy in Nazi Germany.

Therefore, on the basis of biology, health and anthropology Peat proves his point that the "typical internet libertarian ideology" is committed to certain authoritarian ideas of biology and science. Murray Rothbard's is by no means a person who is in any way related or complementary to Peat's work.

Certain members however, have said that Peat has spoken favorably of libertarianism in email exchanges. I have ask whether they would be interested in providing the email exchanges. They decided not to post them.

Unless someone can prove otherwise it should be address that Peat did in fact not endorse libertarianism and in fact, believes that it is antithetical to his ideas on nutrition and health.

Thanks Jag.

Perhaps "the typical internet libertarian ideology is committed to certain authoritarian ideas of biology and science", but my point was that after reading some of that literature first-hand I see no reason why the ideology has to be. The ideas put forth by Rothbard in that book do not depend in the least bit on any of the claims you made about him or that Ray Peat may have been referring to regarding genetic determinism or holocaust denial or anything of the sort. To me, those arguments just distract from the main point. The ideas and arguments put forth by Rothbard in that book (and many others, from whom he draws his sources) stand on their own in my opinion, and I have just separated those ideas from any other (supposed) claims of the author. Just as, for example, I don't necessarily agree with some of Peat's ideas on government or communism, it does not mean his ideas on health, life, nutrition, and authoritarianism are not extremely valuable to me.

The main reason this topic does in fact interest me is mainly the points Dave Foster brought up above regarding the origins of these forms of government in the first place. I believe very much that the various forms (call them "collectivism" vs "individualism" to be simple) are simply manifestations of individual humans' own health (metabolic, psychological, emotional, etc.) My point in calling some of the arguments of Individualists positive was that to me they reflect a more fundamentally "healthy" state of being human, where traits such as adventureness, openness, opportunity, and learning are valued and honed...and necessary.

I'm not arguing for the case of "libertarianism" or "individualism" on the base of economics either...to me that argument pales in comparison to the simple question of which philosophy places a greater value on individual life and the individual's choice to direct their life in an autonomous manner. To me the choice is pretty clear.

 

[jaguar43]

Do you have references for those claims against Rothbard? He doesn't support anything anymore btw, since he's dead about 20 years now. I know he has mentioned this or that scientific topic, and given credence to the ideas of writers and speakers that have objectionable opinions in other areas (which is the opposite of ad hominem), but I have read and listened to a lot of Rothbard and he has never made either of those ideas you pin on him center pieces of his.

Until literally mid-October 1994, it was shameful and taboo for anyone to talk publicly or write about, home truths which everyone, and I mean everyone, knew in their hearts and in private: that is, almost self-evident truths about race, intelligence, and heritability. What used to be widespread shared public knowledge about race and ethnicity among writers, publicists, and scholars, was suddenly driven out of the public square by Communist anthropologist Franz Boas and his associates in the 1930s, and it has been taboo ever since. Essentially, I mean the almost self-evident fact that individuals, ethnic groups, and races differ among themselves in intelligence and in many other traits, and that intelligence, as well as less controversial traits of temperament, are in large part hereditary.- Murray Rothbard

RACE! THAT MURRAY BOOK

"Race! That Murray Book" by Murray N. Rothbard, The Rothbard-Rockwell Report, December 1994 - UNZ.org

Rothbard wrote favorably of Harry Barnes a holocaust denier and a historical revisionist. Here is a quote from an article he wrote.

for he had learned from General Albert C. Wedemeyer’s book that the murder of Germans and Japanese was the overriding aim of World War II – virtually an Anglo-American scalping party.

We are here gathered together to honor Harry Elmer Barnes, a worthy embodiment of the better, and let us hope, the truer America.

Cold War Myths - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

Here is defends Pat Buchanan another holocaust denier and is anti-semitic

Then, on what basis might we call someone a "political" anti-Semite? The only persuasive definition is someone who advocates placing some form of legal or political disability upon Jews: depriving Jews of the vote; kicking Jews out of various professions, such as law, journalism or medicine, where they exceed their numerical "quota" in the population; forcing Jews to wear special armbands; or, in the extreme case, rounding them up in concentration camps or killing them outright. Does Buchanan advocate any such measures? To ask is to see the absurdity of attempting to pin the "anti-Semite" label on Buchanan. So, who today would be an anti-Semite on such criteria? - Murray Rothbard

COLUMN RIGHT/ MURRAY N. ROTHBARD : Buchanan an Anti-Semite? It's a Smear : His enemies labored hard, and brought forth a pitiful mouse.

 

[jaguar43]

Disease and suffering will always be present so long as there is conflict between an organism and its environment; similarly, there will always be some form of authoritarian power when the desires of the collective conflict with nature.

Rather than trying to eliminate government, it would be worthwhile to look at why people support it. There's value here in looking at self-esteem across political ideologies, childhood abuse (and I think Stefan Molyneux is correct in looking here,) genetic and cultural factors for collectivism.

Why use the word collectivism ? Is that suppose to be a derogatory insult for left-wingers ? It's a strange way argue because that isn't what most left-wingers are proposing anyway. Like the many stratifications of the right-wing exist. So is their on the left political spectrum. Bernie Sanders is a more standard example of a left-wing politics. Of course he isn't proposing collectivization.

Predisposition to some diseases are "genetic;" they are ingrained and a part of the organism's evolutionary history. This doesn't mean these diseases are good, or rather desirable. Sickle-cell anemia will help you survive malaria in Africa, but if you have this disease in another country without malaria, you're at a severe disadvantage. Collectivism will help you survive in a cutthroat, serotonergic (aggressive), atomized, or resource scarce environment, but it's a disadvantage if you're not in that type of environment.

By using the example of sickle cell anemia for your argument. You must first question whether your ideas on sickle-cell are accurate. Unfortunately, they aren't. Ray Peat said this.,,

For about 100 years it has been popular to explain the degenerative diseases as the result of mutations in the genes, a slow accumulation of “somatic mutations,” as opposed to the “germ cell mutations” that are involved in Huntington’s chorea and sickle cell anemia. Some people explained all the changes of aging on the same basis, but 50 years ago, the somatic mutation theory of aging was clearly shown to be false. - Ray Peat

Regeneration and degeneration - Types of inflammation change with aging

Ray Peat explicitly said that the somatic mutation theory was shown to be false. Leading your argument astray.

You argue that collectivism is cause by the serotonergic, cutthroat and scarce environment. Are you saying that certain "environments" are causing certain economic systems to appear ? This makes no sense because that would mean that countries like the Soviet Union and the eastern bloc would always remain communist because that was the type of environment in which they lived. Not to mention different political leaders getting elected every few years. Not to mention different civil wars starting to dictate what type of social system they want to have.

Predisposition to collectivism can be argued to be genetic or cultural; regardless, here's a fact: the greater the presence of the free market, the more novelty, breakthrough, and growth. This is a linear relationship and well-established in economics. Then you get to the rub; "We can't have no government! People will abuse their resources and exploit!" Yes; they will.

This is the same argument against single payer healthcare. In which right-wingers state that if we remove the incentive of profits from the medical field, then that will squash "innovation" and "new drugs". Of course since you participate in the Ray Peat forum, I assume you think the medical establishment isn't as "breakthrough" or "novel" as you wan't to make the free-markets appear.

We need to 1) Identify the factors that affect human behavior, whether genetic, environmental, or a combination; and 2) Improve those factors with emotional support, healthful nutrition, economic safety (things associated with abundance). With the improvement of each individual, and the rejection of the narrative that "collectivism is good," I think we can realize a greater degree of individualism: maybe not 100%, but a higher amount than present.

People choose their political ideology base on many things. To try to create a determinist idea that certain people have certain traits and that leads them to have certain ideas seems extremely close to Nazism. here is a quote by Peat.

For the Nazis, "cultural degeneracy" was a medical-biological-political category based on that style of thinking. In the United States, "genes" for epilepsy, hyperactivity, language development, IQ, eclampsia, etc., are "found" at Harvard/MIT/Stan- ford/Yale/Univ. of California, etc., by an elite whose wits have been dulled by environmental deprivation, that is, by a lack of criticism.

Epilepsy and Progesterone

They said “you can't say that a man's work has anything to do with his life and political beliefs,” but in fact the lecturer had just finished saying that everything a person does is integral to that person's deepest nature, just as Lorenz said that a goose with a pot belly and odd beak, or a person with non-nordic physical features and behavior and cultural preferences--should be eliminated for the improvement of the species. Not a single professor in the audience questioned the science that had justified Hitler's racial policies, and some of them showed great hostility toward the critic.

Academic authoritarians, language, metaphor, animals, and science

Although Konrad Lorenz (who later received the Nobel Prize) was the architect of the Nazi's policy of "racial hygiene" (extermination of those with unwanted physical, cultural, or political traits which were supposedly determined by "genes") he took his ideas from the leading U.S. geneticists, whose works were published in the main genetics journals. Following the Nazis' defeat, some of these journals were renamed, and the materials on eugenics were often removed from libraries, so that a new historical resume could be presented by the profession.

Eclampsia in the Real Organism: A Paradigm of General Distress Applicable in Infants, Adults, Etc.

Ray Peat has said that serotonin creates the authoritarian personality, with harm avoidance, and behavior inhibition. While high dopamine creates novelty seeking anti-authoritarian personality. Are you saying that Ray Peat has high serotonin because you said he borrowed a lot from bolshevism/communism, here is the quote.

I have also noticed that Peat borrows a lot of influence from Bolshevism/Communism.- @DaveFoster

Nietzsche As Biological Visionary?

On one hand you associate collectivism with people who have certain genetic and cultural traits. On the other hand you say that Peat borrows a lot from Bolshevism. If Peat has certain traits that lead him to see collectivism as "good" then why follow his nutrition and health advice ? Don't you think that's hypocritical ?

Government (a form of collectivism) is not good; it's necessary. Selfishness does not need to be indulged in; it won't bring you happiness anyway. When people realize the truth: giving and community is the key to human happiness, then all of this corruption, dissastisfaction with people (misanthropic environmentalism,) forced collectivization (large governments/socialist democracies/Communism) will wane.

Many people don't think that capitalism can bring happiness. The idea that socialist democracies is just forced collectivization is a bold face lie. There is still private property in the socialist democracies. Unless you can prove that, then your whole argument from top to down is really just rhetoric from a right-wing ideologue.

 

[kyle]

Godwin's law in action.

 

[Kyle M]

Until literally mid-October 1994, it was shameful and taboo for anyone to talk publicly or write about, home truths which everyone, and I mean everyone, knew in their hearts and in private: that is, almost self-evident truths about race, intelligence, and heritability. What used to be widespread shared public knowledge about race and ethnicity among writers, publicists, and scholars, was suddenly driven out of the public square by Communist anthropologist Franz Boas and his associates in the 1930s, and it has been taboo ever since. Essentially, I mean the almost self-evident fact that individuals, ethnic groups, and races differ among themselves in intelligence and in many other traits, and that intelligence, as well as less controversial traits of temperament, are in large part hereditary.- Murray Rothbard

RACE! THAT MURRAY BOOK

"Race! That Murray Book" by Murray N. Rothbard, The Rothbard-Rockwell Report, December 1994 - UNZ.org

Rothbard wrote favorably of Harry Barnes a holocaust denier and a historical revisionist. Here is a quote from an article he wrote.

for he had learned from General Albert C. Wedemeyer’s book that the murder of Germans and Japanese was the overriding aim of World War II – virtually an Anglo-American scalping party.

We are here gathered together to honor Harry Elmer Barnes, a worthy embodiment of the better, and let us hope, the truer America.

Cold War Myths - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

Here is defends Pat Buchanan another holocaust denier and is anti-semitic

Then, on what basis might we call someone a "political" anti-Semite? The only persuasive definition is someone who advocates placing some form of legal or political disability upon Jews: depriving Jews of the vote; kicking Jews out of various professions, such as law, journalism or medicine, where they exceed their numerical "quota" in the population; forcing Jews to wear special armbands; or, in the extreme case, rounding them up in concentration camps or killing them outright. Does Buchanan advocate any such measures? To ask is to see the absurdity of attempting to pin the "anti-Semite" label on Buchanan. So, who today would be an anti-Semite on such criteria? - Murray Rothbard

COLUMN RIGHT/ MURRAY N. ROTHBARD : Buchanan an Anti-Semite? It's a Smear : His enemies labored hard, and brought forth a pitiful mouse.

Ok, looks like what I was talking about, a small part of Rothbard's writings. He wrote a lot of controversial things, what of it? Is it wrong that intelligence, as measured during the time of his writings, was clearly distributed by on racial and heritable lines? When Rothbard was writing this stuff, I don't think Ray Peat had even penned one piece of science writing. Is someone evil for courageously writing what was being censored at the time, and seemed to be true? Whether inheritance is or is not important for intelligence, the mainstream blackout of writing about it in contradiction to available evidence is evil imo, not the writing about it.

As for Buchanan, are you suggesting that someone who questions some of the Holocaust numbers is an anti-Semite? Rothbard defended him, Rothbard is a Jew, so is he anti-Semitic too? His mentor, Ludwig von Mises, fled Nazi Austria as a Jew teaching free market economics, and Rothbard was his star student. Was he, too, anti-Semitic? Your "evidence" is purely ideological, like how leftists say Trump is literally Hitler.

Btw socialism is collectivism because it collectivizes the property of society. What does it mean to own property? If, by "owning" something, you have to pay a large fee to the state that spends it on other people's benefits, or else it gets confiscated, how is that owning something? To own something is to control the use of it, like your body, or your car. You decide how it's used. Socialism does not allow for the full use of property, and therefore for the full ownership of it. Maybe it's just a semantic issue with how you understand the word collectivism, but socialism forces citizens to collective a portion of their property (how much depends on how socialist it is, up to and including 100%). If citizens voluntarily collective property, like in a corporation or a local club that sets dues for it's members. Socialism is the creation of a "club" that you cannot choose to not be in, and that has at the the potential for control over your entire life, not just what you do on a Saturday afternoon.

And jag, tell me true, did you read the full text of any of those links you posted? They are all anti-war writings. Rothbard points to the neoconservative war hawks use of the Holocaust and the implicit American protection of Israel as a source of ideological backing for the military-industrial complex, which it is. Then if you question it, you're anti-Semitic, and people like you repeat that demagoguery without even reading the text, what Stalin referred to as "useful idiots."

 

[aquaman]

Many people don't think that capitalism can bring happiness. The idea that socialist democracies is just forced collectivization is a bold face lie. There is still private property in the socialist democracies. Unless you can prove that, then your whole argument from top to down is really just rhetoric from a right-wing ideologue.

If Kyle saw a chief of an African village asking for help building a well from people in the village, he'd be screaming about central ownership, communism and forced collectivisation :)

 

[AJC]

If Kyle saw a chief of an African village asking for help building a well from people in the village, he'd be screaming about central ownership, communism and forced collectivisation :)

Asking or demanding?

 

[jaguar43]

Ok, looks like what I was talking about, a small part of Rothbard's writings. He wrote a lot of controversial things, what of it? Is it wrong that intelligence, as measured during the time of his writings, was clearly distributed by on racial and heritable lines? When Rothbard was writing this stuff, I don't think Ray Peat had even penned one piece of science writing. Is someone evil for courageously writing what was being censored at the time, and seemed to be true? Whether inheritance is or is not important for intelligence, the mainstream blackout of writing about it in contradiction to available evidence is evil imo, not the writing about it.

Well, the whole point of using genetics and race as a way to describe intelligence was for racist practices against certain people. You seem to argue that the genetic theory of intelligence was this taboo and that their wasn't any harm in it. Except for the millions of jews who were kill in the holocaust. Ray Peat stated that Eugenics was the main scientific ideas before WW2. After the embarrassment of the nazi racial hygiene policy their was an effort to change eugenics to genetics. It's important to note that I think that paper was written in an effort to defend Charles Murray who wrote the book the bell curve. Who by the way is also a Libertarian. Ray Peat has explicitly stated that those who support genetic determinism are authoritarians in character.

Noam Chomsky is identified with left-wing political views, but his views of genetic determinism and a “nativist” view of language learning, and his anti-empiricist identification of himself as a philosophical Rationalist, have a great correspondence to the authoritarian character.

http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/authoritarians.shtml


Ray Peat wrote mind in tissue in 1968 where he stated that theories of genetic theory of intelligence where racist.

Social support, including education, is considered to be the factor which causes great differences in creativity and intelligence, and not genetics. A genetic theory of intelligence is considered to be a mere rationalization for racist practices. - Mind and Tissue Page 52

Geneticists have been the worst offenders. Genetics is popular among bourgeois racists and elitists, and many geneticists have eagerly formulated genetic theories of intelligence on the flimsiest evidence. Mind and tissue 161

As for Buchanan, are you suggesting that someone who questions some of the Holocaust numbers is an anti-Semite? Rothbard defended him, Rothbard is a Jew, so is he anti-Semitic too? His mentor, Ludwig von Mises, fled Nazi Austria as a Jew teaching free market economics, and Rothbard was his star student. Was he, too, anti-Semitic? Your "evidence" is purely ideological, like how leftists say Trump is literally Hitler

Thats fine, that doesn't mean he isn't a bigot and racist.

Rothbard also spoke highly of Harry Barnes ( which I posted in my previous post) who believe WW2 was started to massacre germans and japanesse.

Btw socialism is collectivism because it collectivizes the property of society. What does it mean to own property? If, by "owning" something, you have to pay a large fee to the state that spends it on other people's benefits, or else it gets confiscated, how is that owning something? To own something is to control the use of it, like your body, or your car. You decide how it's used. Socialism does not allow for the full use of property, and therefore for the full ownership of it. Maybe it's just a semantic issue with how you understand the word collectivism, but socialism forces citizens to collective a portion of their property (how much depends on how socialist it is, up to and including 100%). If citizens voluntarily collective property, like in a corporation or a local club that sets dues for it's members. Socialism is the creation of a "club" that you cannot choose to not be in, and that has at the the potential for control over your entire life, not just what you do on a Saturday afternoon.

That may be true for countries like the soviet union or Vietnam, but In countries with democratic socialism, their is still private property.

Well in capitalism, the ruling class has most of all the property available. While the working class has to sell himself as wage-labor. Therefore in capitalism the working class has no property, for he does not even own his labor. What socialism does is turn the working class into the owners of their property since their only form of earning a living is selling themselves as a commodity. Collectivism is good for the mass of people, while bad for the ruling class.

And jag, tell me true, did you read the full text of any of those links you posted? They are all anti-war writings. Rothbard points to the neoconservative war hawks use of the Holocaust and the implicit American protection of Israel as a source of ideological backing for the military-industrial complex, which it is. Then if you question it, you're anti-Semitic, and people like you repeat that demagoguery without even reading the text, what Stalin referred to as "useful idiots."

I think Rothbard could have made those arguments without defending holocaust deniers and racist.