My dearest,
I owe you an apology. I always apologize when I am in the wrong. However, I shouldn’t expect others to leave it at that, as it is always easy to ask others to “move on” after the gain. You shouldn’t’ ever sacrifice justice to mercy, as probably the “cost-benefit analysis” arguments against justice often leaves much to be desired. I once asked a person to ‘move on” with a “Please”, and he went on blindly, to his own detriment, which would have come in any case. Many libertarian economists reject the concept of public goods, but I have always considered it as throwing the baby out with the bathwater. To me, delivering justice is definitely a public good as both lose, leaving the incalculable benefits to the “society”. An abstraction nevertheless, but that is not my point, which might be well taken.
I wanted to come over there to give you what I had mentioned on phone, which was something I myself brought up definitely not after setting the ground for weeks with a twisted, calculating, purpose in my convoluted mind. I know that after a while, it all looks too much to be a coincidence, but it is. However, it hurts my ego to come, which has become as fragile as it can get lately. I would certainly prefer you collecting it from me, as I never enjoy things which do not belong to me, as of a sick revulsion. I’ll lose self respect when I do, but the loss is no less despicable as I once had it. I can’t make up for your mental anguish or prolonged discomfort, but we all can only do so much.
Once you asked me of my rant against a prostitute on my wall, which I found as despicable as parasitism then. I appreciate it more now, though I didn’t come all the way from home to being conned into dealing with such contemptible women, who, as I told X, should be kicked out of my life. He listened silently, not out of fear, but because he knew it was another general, categorical statement intended at no one in particular- and because only truth hurts. Yet, I should appreciate dignity of labor-honest labor. I should grant her as much. A Facebook friend says when it comes to adult behavior; it is all in the genes, which is another fact to be considered. So, we know where to place the blame! But perhaps not, as we’re in for an infinite regress! However, it hurts as it points fingers to where it hurts-family, though some could as well be born in a gutter and never really get out of it. If someone half his age kicks ones spouse like a rat, even if the insults hurled are in a dignified, philosophical manner, one usually recognizes the person as her husband. It is only understandable when one wants such a person dead, irrespective of the utterly despicable acts of one’s spouse-as somewhere deep down, it hurts that one has also scurried for a crumb tongue out in eager anticipation, thirsting for more. Our intuitive moral sense might even tell us that our spouse should be dragged down in front of us and slapped hard across his face. Mild punishment, but still….
I am a bit prolix, when I could have said it all in a sentence, but then we are all different, aren’t we-with our own personal quirks and weaknesses?
Affectionately,
Shanu Athiparambath
My dearest,
How are you?
How is my good old friend, the “vastly talented” X, the iconoclastic genius who “always disagrees”? Yes, always!
Is he still worried that I will never get anywhere with my “attitude problem”? I am amused, but it looks like it is stupidity. Then, I am like the mean, fanatic ant that repeatedly comes to bite the elephant which is hardly aware of what is happening to him. Ant feels sorry for himself, but it will pass.
Being a born contrarian, I disagree when I don’t even have to! It took me a long time to fully understand David Friedman’s point that contra Rand, “Money obtained by fraud will pay for just as much food or medical service as money obtained honestly.” True, isn’t it? Obviously, something is better than nothing-even two cents. It won’t hurt me even if it is from someone who actually loved me-idiot, that is. I was really naïve and dogmatic when it comes to such things, but such dogmatism is completely misplaced, even unnecessary. “See how impractical I was!”
We all have gone through such a phase. It will also pass, and I will be soon out of this hormonal imbalance state, in which I play online hero games where I smash everyone, when in real life it is the other way round. See, someone is blocking the revenge of nerds! With age, comes wisdom-and humility! Hopefully, I won’t be an exception. Certainly one reason I prefer a dowdy old hag who understands my insults to a pretty young girl who can’t distinguish between Satire and Sartre, to make a general categorical statement not intended at anyone in particular. More than common honesty and common decency, I prefer common sense. One should at least cringe in shame.
Given my kindness and compassion, the last thing I want is to hurt another person’s sentiments. Sometimes I feel, I should have laughed at their faces or at least slapped, but it all goes unrewarded. Does truth hurt as much? I do not know. I often feel hurt when harshly criticized and humiliated by my betters-sarcasm, that is. Especially when one feels all tied up and unable to respond as of unmentionable pressures! X once said it should hurt only when it is true, and he is sensible enough to not rely on it-to the point that he wants them dead. Perhaps, he knows better. I am a poor novice, and a poor learner-mean and petty-and as he said, way too young to threaten him especially when I don’t intend it! I got a lot to learn.
I said something here which I have never told you and will never tell publicly. I can say a great many such things, but occasionally it will be picked out as the exoteric account is the exact opposite, and appearance belies the larger truth. It goes against me, but in the long run, it helps the truth reach me faster. Ellsworth Toohey could have said: “You’re the only person with whom I can be myself. I suppose it’s because you have such contempt for me that nothing I say can make any difference. You see, I know that, but I don’t care.” Only that I will say it in the reverse!
Happy Holi!
Well, the pleasure is all mine!
Warm Regards,
Shanu Athiparambath
My dearest,
You have shown this kid the way out of your list as of his heartlessness and innate depravity?
I do not have to tell you that I was as happy as a child when you asked me to add you on Facebook. It must have shown on my face.
“Shame Shame Puppy Shame!”
Honestly, the expression is on me. Occasionally, I ought to tell the truth. So, definitely not a threatening expression. Believe me, you’re safe!
So long!
Warm Regards,
Shanu Athiparambath
My dearest,
How are you? As things are clear to all ,no longer should any of you feel compelled to maintain the “respectable” front of silence-though no one will state such noble, praise worthy acts in so explicit a manner-at least not in a way that it goes straight into the center. We’re not fooling each other. Am I pressed to justify myself saying: Saying things which one thinks to be true is by no means a “crime” worse than doing things which one knows to be wrong? I think I should.
I, who know the depths of corruption to which people fall, even I have to ask: How low can they stoop? How much can they underestimate others integrity and intelligence? Do I deserve to be underestimated to the point that I will fall for such trickery? I think not. What all tortures will they put others through for a few bucks? Prolonged silence won’t make them any more honorable than atheism made Stalin honorable. X was never tired telling me that I should throw away all the books and have a hard look at the real world. I agree, for once. The real world now provides me more amusement than all the Mencken collection put together will ever do. I am not tied down by the Randian vice of laughing at one self. If they are, I will be more than happy to do it for them!”
BTW, I won’t be surprised if it went straight to someone’s dining table. God, how mean can this boy get?
Warm Regards,
Shanu Athiparambath
My dearest,
Life is full of fresh surprises!
Never mind my flair for the dramatic!
Why am I even writing to you? Why is this devil amusing himself this way and frittering away his much valuable time? Well, who said geniuses shouldn’t have means of amusement? Not fair! Not fair at all to condemn us to decades of hard labor in the name of things as indefinable as that of the larger good of “humanity”!
If there is anything worse than to take delight in others sad fate, it is to take delight in one’s own sad fate-If selfishness is any virtue. “I really ought to feel sorry for myself”-not because of my fate as such, but because of the fact that I take delight in it. Yes, emotions can take precedence over reality, all the talk of the supremacy of reason notwithstanding. Maybe I am a mystic of the spirit who believes in the primacy of consciousness. I am not ashamed to admit as much as the perversion in such counter pleasures is never to be evaded.
Time has come for me to feel so. Weeping! Sob! Sob!
It has been long enough, right?
I’m glad. There is no way to communicate how pleased I am to hear those words! A ray of light darted across my mind. Why didn’t I ever say that, when I had more of a right to do so? I won’t say it makes less sense to be penny wise and pound foolish even when penny is ones and pound others! Are you feeling shy? You can relax. I do not enjoy this diabolic torture. I am not doing it for you. I am torturing myself. I’m being purely selfish here. If there is anything for you, it is more of a reward than a sacrificial offering.
I have always wondered. I never found an explanation. A rationalization, perhaps? Moral counterfeiting? I do not understand. I never understood! There are things which are inexplicable.
Those were words I never thought and someone never ever acknowledged. When one refuses to see, another refuses to state! The corruption of one’s mind or the corruption of one’s speech-I do not know what is worse. It is bad enough to gain from moral corruption; it is far worse to lose from it. Far worse than being a two-bit whore! Far, far worse than moral embezzlement!
I felt deep respect for X when I came here. It is hard to explain why-whether it is his abysmally read nature-or shoddy reasoning-or incapability to grasp simple arguments-or willingness to sing loud hosannas in praise of imbeciles in power-or articles replete with factual errors, inconsistencies and incorrect expressions which he will get wrong even after being pointed out-or utmost contempt for truth and ideas-or tendency to mistreat others whenever he thinks he can get away with it-everything about him was respectable. Honestly, all these are virtues I have always respected. I have always wanted to see all this in one man, and I knew that it would be a man who had laid the foundation of profound self respect long back and has achieved it-a man who can hold his head high with pride. I can imagine the excruciating struggle involved in that achievement-and that he deserves to get it hard.
Maybe I am basking in my victim-hood imagining hounds of barbarians running roughshod over me. I would like to believe so. Then, I was the last person to imagine things after denying it for months when even fools were able to see the truth. With all the drivel on virtue, they had more faith in human corruption. With all my moralizing tone, I never really believed in human corruption. How much more patience is expected out of me? How much more tolerance is expected out of me? How long can I give people benefit of doubt?
X tells me that I am taking advantage of him as I can get away with it. [Well, it is a statement which acts as red herring which might prevent me from seeing why he stands for such humiliation] If someone listens to me silently when I rants and raves against his wife he must either be a saint or a-but I must hold my tongue! “
As adolescents, we all had read of a man who paid with his honor for the privilege of holding a position where he can amuse himself by observing how honor operates in other men. What about one who paid with his honor to hold a worthless “position” to let others see how honor operates in him? One is not supposed to kill his self-respect-not even his pretense at it, as even that is lacking.
One colleague who used to chide me for not respecting this man old enough to be my father asked me last day reversing the roles: “Why do you show this much respect to him now?” I said not a word to her.
Because, with all my elitism, I have much more respect than her for soul selling dilettantes-and they are always dilettantes-to be put to cringing shame in every aspect by any high school anarchist with half a brain, despite their decades of experience and all the empty talk on applying one’s “mind”. A quest for comprehending honor, virtue or self-respect is itself a proof of its lack. So is a quest for comprehending liberty! A lifetime of shameless groveling in front of the state won’t be enough-even if it is like its most obedient slave.
Real elitism which comes out of a genuine lack of respect is sickening. I have always taken delight in being an elitist. I have always enjoyed elitist literature. I now understand that real elitism is never pleasant. It makes one feel terrible. It is sickening. One can’t take delight when one feels that way!
Then, I have never been enough of an elitist. It was more a matter of appearance than of substance.
And he has never been enough of a crook. It is far worse to be a big fool! Poor X!
Thank You!
Warm Regards,
Shanu A
code>
X,
As I confessed, I rely on my mental list more. One Indian author I systematically pursue, as a matter of statistical discrimination is a remote acquaintance, a libertarian who patronizingly chided me for not stepping out of my Ivory Tower and asking parents and children whether they need to legislate a common schedule for School Admissions, a scheme which emerged from the supposedly “realistic” and “sophisticated”, if rather grubby world of “establishment libertarianism”. It reminds me of the “bleeding-heart liberal” cry for the Welfare State: “Ask the poor! They all need welfare!”. I find total agreement. I’d also love reading Anarcho-Capitalist literature being on welfare. The principle is the same. See how closer many of us are to reality, when it comes to application.
Shanu A
X,
Mixing labor with land is an undefined concept and would run into several obvious difficulties, as of its arbitrary nature, and of the fact that one might even want to keep it in the natural state for valid reasons. Marking boundaries is a far better option.
Homesteading in the US had lead to a lot of confusion, fraud and favoritism. The land mostly went to farmers other than the ones who had cleared the land. Over use of land led to destruction of much of the grass cover and timberland. Such problems can only be solved by title insurance companies and private arbitration, but that would take us too far and I do not wish to rouse you from your slumbers which can be pretty annoying when it feels so good!
Out of my self-interest, I withhold comments on loud hosannas sung in praise of Manmohan Singh. I might get fired! I could have said it is great to grant moral credence to the powers-that-be and establish oneself as a “political bargainer”, a “court libertarian”-But, out of courtesy, I must hold my tongue! Perhaps, all the actively pushed dole schemes and clean nature notwithstanding, he has a solid “grasp” of the importance of private property rights! Perhaps! One can have his cake and eat it too!
PS: I’m not altogether happy with the insensitivity you have shown towards the “depressing”, inconvenient truth that ancient Greece was far removed from democracy, by any normal definition of that term. An insensitivity near complete in its perfection, matched only by the immorality of your own claim. But, “Blindness can’t be cured?”, right?
Shanu A
X,
A Very Happy New Year to You and Mrs X!
The report is good. Being the wicked, score-settling person I am, I believe pap like Ancient Greece was democratic (pronouncing no value judgments) as much as I would believe claims of Soviet Union to be a paradise. Athens was the most democratic, where such privileges were only to 7%, the rest being slaves and aliens. Entrepreneurship, innovation and any kind of decent labor were looked down upon, much more than it is here. So, I shouldn’t be surprised if you were impressed by a “strong recognition of the social, economic and political significance of property ownership” in slaves.
Honestly, I thank you for the holiday tomorrow, for reasons more personal. It makes no difference to me, but strategically, one should have granted a holiday, not as an open possibility, but as a kind offer, as we will make use of it in any case.
Shanu A
X,
Well, the adjectives might be a bit harsh, but I don’t see anything wrong in putting it that way, if true, as long as it is not to inflict pain. It becomes some sort of an obligation. I didn’t feel like justifying it as it looked absurd to me on surface, so much so that one is not supposed to trifle with it even for a single second. If consolidation of holdings on voluntary basis is a viable idea, farmers shouldn’t wait for the Government to “feel” and tell them that it is “For Your Own Good”. Maybe the omniscient, compassionate Government should “feel” for them too, as they are so incapable of a function so natural as that of a “feeling”. If it is true that fragmentation of land holdings have made farming unviable, it stands to reason that they will move out of it when free to do so, most likely by handing it over to ones willing to do it on a large scale, in exchange for money. Why is “granting” such freedom unviable and expecting them to pool resources voluntarily for share ownership viable? Upon logic, I do not understand, other than that the Government “feels” that it is so. It doesn’t prove anything to me, nor do I think that it should be enough proof to anyone else. It is more like top down planning, with the single exception that it “claims’ to be voluntary, and it is the only silver-line of hope. Why would such planning work simply by the virtue of being voluntary? I don’t see any reason to believe it. People rarely choose such “planning” on a large scale for a considerable time period when they are absolutely free to do so. Otherwise I see no reason why voluntary socialism can’t work. I see nothing morally repulsive about it, though, which, needless to mention, is a different matter. There is, of course, a significant difference in the incentive structure in this plan, specifically that share ownership and voting rights will be proportionate to the land one has pooled. It would make it more plausible and more likely to work ,but it will be far from proving that it will “work” in any normal sense of that term. If one looks objectively at the claim that it is “voluntary”, he will inevitably founder upon this simple, but devastating question: “Voluntary, for whom?”. It is not at all clear to me where the State Government would get funds to provide seed capital equivalent to the land value contributed, and to guarantee income to farmers, take over existing liabilities and extent technical help and loans. I can only take a wild guess, and your guess should be as good as mine. Even anarcho-communists claim that their scheme is voluntary, but was it really? Their take over of sections of Spain during the Civil War of 1930?s was hardly voluntary. I have no reason to think that the same won’t happen in schemes which make similar claims. Even if it is voluntary, it is just an Utopian scheme of no practical relevance as it won’t go too far without Government orchestration. It is certainly rational and appropriate to seek allies, and win over people to our side, even when there is no complete agreement, which certainly is an unrealistic wish. As a Talmud saying goes: “A hero is one who knows how to make a friend out of an enemy”. Still, honestly, do all these sound like a replacement of adjectives with arguments for you even now?
Shanu A
X,
I talked to the accountant. He will certainly let me know what should be done, he said.
At last the ambitious state has decided to place its ugly hands on this innocent boy too, to mulct a fair share of whatever little he has got. Not fair. Not fair at all! I can only console myself saying that the state has raised its status to that of a flesh and blood enemy from a meaningless abstraction in an intellectual parlor game!
Shanu A
My Dear X,
Even a reverse back-handed compliment like today must be considered a dark day for liberty in India should be much too complementary to you! A complement is a complement nevertheless, even more so, coming from one who is honing his skills to be the harshest critic on earth! Hopefully, God will not be mocked and there would be some severe punishment for you in hell for mixing so incompatible two elements such as democracy and private property rights. But, this boy doesn’t merely hope that there must be justice somewhere in the world, somehow to be delivered.
Shanu A
X,
I haven’t yet recovered from the shock of reading a horrifying post on the Ayn Rand group. It seems Chak Kakani was expected to show dedication to the highest values of Objectivism by justifying Government spending. Instead he has displayed the worst form of incompetence and half baked conceptual knowledge by claiming that individuals are under no obligation to share their produce. It is not at all surprising to me that this post was published. Anything goes as long as it sounds stupid enough. On September 20th, my darling post which didn’t fall in line with the tenets of the Church of Randroidism was blocked, and was consigned to its rightful place: thrash bin. I am really appalled by your insensitivity and contempt towards truth!
Shanu A
X,
I know that you do not remember. But, I do. As I can remember, not even a single word in my post was aggressive. There was of course a slight difference. Despite the irreverence and casual tone, each and every word was true, while in this post, each and every word reeks of “do-gooder” ethics and philosophical illiteracy and arrogance was sustained throughout.
In any case:
Truth+Aggressiveness>>>Idiocy+Decency
If anyone thinks otherwise, he probably has better things to do than pursuit of truth.
As for your insensitivity, I do not even care, except for the fact that it amuses me more than anything and I feel like stating it. Similarly, It is my privilege to be true to my nature till it is proven that I am wrong. One should live with it as long I am dealt with.
I hate to say this, but if it was my only intention, I wouldn’t have even bothered given the sensitivity I see around.
Shanu A
X,
How is it that 400 million subscribers with 1.2 billion population mean a teledensity of 25%? I see no application of mind! Do the math properly! 1981 is far behind, but probably going back to Regional Engineering College, Surathkal will do?
Shanu A
X,
Interesting article! I do get it. “I am this iconoclastic intellectual who analyzes the world through Objectivist tools and fights irrationality when others are corrupt mediocrities at most capable of adding two and two!” I have no idea of the reading habits of an average Indian, but I have always wondered how one who feels language constraints will be willing to read a thousand plus page book in regional language!
Shanu A
X,
Well, it is a conservative publication and this guy is purposefully misrepresenting.
Reagan didn’t cut taxes in any meaningful way. At that point he was the biggest taxer and spender. There was no reduction in Government growth. The bureaucracy has grown since then and that could be said of regulations, though there was some deregulation here and there. He was the most protectionist since Hoover.
Shanu A
X,
I know well that you don’t really believe in rejecting labels when it doesn’t serve you. You sent me that Stephen Hicks’ book announcement with a note that the author is Objectivist. You called Robert Tracinski an Objectivist author. Ever remember asking me to update the page on the Objectivist Movement in India? I could go on. Why bother if labels don’t matter? “Besides the point”, must be! “Objectivist”, “Austrian Economist”, “Conservative” or “Liberal” are not even sensible labels as those are a mix of positions which might even cancel out each other.
Labels don’t accurately describe a person except when the label is internally consistent and consistently followed. True enough. However, labels are far from useless. It helps us in practicing much useful statistical discrimination. A libertarian economist is far more likely to be useful and hence worth ones time than a Keynesian or Marxist economist. One can be sure that one who brands himself a conservative or liberal in politics most certainly has no understanding of what he stands for, if he stands for anything in particular at all. What on earth is wrong in saying that one is a libertarian, anyway? Nothing at all! It means that one believes in individual liberty, right? Liberty, the purest of all ideals! Ha!
The word “Austro-Libertarian” has the effect of a red flag on a bull on Steve Horwitz. It is easy to see why, though he stammers that one should clearly draw the line between Economics and Ethics-Or, there are no definite conclusions to be drawn from Economics, except some points of view. As usual, this touchiness is a cover for such rationalizations. Rationalizations to NOT get marginalized! I can only hope that a person who wondered why we can’t indulge in intellectual depravity when “everything is a point of view” is now hoping against hope that reality is flexible after all, and what happened to him is just another “POV” which could be bent according to his whims and fancies. Gosh, what a wicked child I must be to take delight and amusement when my fellow human beings fall by the wayside? Where does discretion fit into all this-or tactfulness-or norms of civilized discourse-or common decency? I am really appalled by my own immorality. Hopefully, before it is too late, reality will be my most punitive teacher and teach the much-needed lesson that all this helps a long way when it comes to things one shouldn’t speak, or even think!
It is well documented that Reagan did all that, and much, much more. Perhaps Reagan changed the discourse by fooling dupes who were swayed by his poorly memorized ‘Readers Digest’ anecdotes and right-wing platitudes. As far as I know, Reagan didn’t understand or appreciate, much less originate the concept of limited Government. It takes an extraordinary man to originate new ideas or even to repeat them sensibly, and all his mass appeal and “charisma” notwithstanding, Reagan obviously wasn’t such a person. One hears that Reagan was a doer and not an abstract theorist. By now it is clear that Reagan was a doer only in the sense(though not in degree) in which Hitler was a doer. One way to argue out of this is to say that “he changed the language of discourse” and such like absurdities. I can understand a doer in favor of liberty held in high regard, but someone who snatched power with half-baked free market rhetoric and soon punched humanity in the throat? A prostitute’s speech on the glories of virginity is far more commendable! If actions matter more than words, by what code of logic does a person whose action belies his words have more influence? Didn’t Rand teach us that noble goals can’t be achieved through ignoble means? Why isn’t such a person more worthy of condemnation than one who engages in mere intellectual play? Why do you think people won’t see through such chicanery when you are so much against underestimation of the common man who is never to be blamed, however corrupt? Won’t people ever wake up to the truth? Or was it all a sweet lie and you think anything goes in the name of “marketing strategy”? Libertarian movement was growing at a tremendous pace in the 70?s as of Murray Rothbard’s efforts, which Reagan and his ilk corrupted by all means and nipped in the bud. All Reagan did was to sell the idea of the Government doles and totalitarianism in a free market garb.
Shanu A
X,
Logical fallacy again. The fact that it was growing fast doesn’t mean that it had grown into a size significant enough to topple the State. The state is kind to every “libertarian” willing to be its greatest asset, and it is a fact that there are way too many who wish to share the booty of the state. It won’t work if libertarians are the majority and uncompromising, but it has never been so. As it was throughout the history, they flocked to the state drooling.
As someone put it:
“In the history of ideological movements, there have always been people willing to sell their souls and their principles. But never in history have so many sold out for so pitifully little. Hordes of libertarian and free-market intellectuals and activists rushed to Washington to whore after lousy little jobs, crummy little grants, and sporadic little conferences. It is bad enough to sell out; it is far worse to be a two-bit whore.”
Some could be just useful idiots who wanted to believe in something. Believe in what? Something, whatever that is supposed to mean!
Shanu A
X,
Wide exclamations of disapproval! I take serious offense! To me, it is basically the anti-intellectual mentality that we just have to apply the ideas we already know, blanking out the question how these ideas reached here. Almost all important theoretical contributions to libertarian theory were made by “armchair revolutionaries”. In the 20th century, almost all were academics. I can think of non-academics who were even more brilliant, like Rand, Hazlitt and Mencken, who were largely popularizers with brilliant insights. With statistically insignificant exceptions like Ron Paul, a politician can’t even be a popularizer. Given their intelligence and personality, they can’t even handle the pressure of ideas. In the absence of “armchair revolutionaries”, they will all be groping in the darkness, pushing this button and that on whim, sending us all to a worse hell than Soviet Russia. Sigh!
Shanu A
X,
Though true, it is not a good idea to argue that a higher population would support the elders in their old age. It hardly pays off to have children for that reason. It might work alright in many cases, but there are much, much better investments-like retirement funds, annuity. All other options considered, they might get buyer’s remorse, if that is the reason to have kids as the probability usually assigned to such a possibility is unjustified. However, it is true that rising population will ensure that old people are taken care of better as of prosperity, but it’s irrelevant as welfare/charity for the elderly is more unjustified than that for welfare mothers, as in the latter case, mistakes were made throughout one’s life. Four decades is much, much longer than two minutes.
Improvement in the education system won’t help. School or parents can’t help there. There was a study on Australian twins which had shown that upbringing or education has no effect on knowledge of Arts, Science, or anything for that matter in college. Another one on Canadian twins reported that all that didn’t even have an effect on Junior High School scores. There are other ones which prove that schools or tutors, or anything won’t help children who find learning and conceptual thinking annoying.
I wonder why you want them to support the Government bureaucracy.
Shanu A
X,
Thanks.
My intuitions rarely go wrong in such matters. I had a rough idea of which all names would be missing and which all would be in, and why, even before going through it.
Our monetary therapists, Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke have found their rightful place in the list. So have social democrats like Hayek, Sen and Krugman.
And of course, your hero, Chacha Manmohan S Gandhi, the paragon of “virtue”, “integrity” and “economic wisdom”!
Where are my heroes? Why are they not in? A lack of “humility” and “generalist approach”, perhaps? Could be!
Shanu A
X,
Missed this much more impressive list?
Look, who all are missing?
And who is on top? Collectivist planner Hayek. Snooze!
Boudreaux is “vastly talented”, right?
BTW, I didn’t miss the intentions behind the forwarding!
Shanu A
X,
Hoppe says he is way out of the movement as of his radical libertarianism. Hopelessly out.
MPS meetings, he says, are mostly attended by all kinds of bad guys in the movement. Hayek had much to do with bringing in such communist traitors, he being one himself.
Limited Government is an illusory goal. (True. Govt. grows, and as there is no libertarian legal code consensus, laws would be far from libertarian. Efficient, proportionate punishment too can’t come in the absence of market signals.)
Think tanks look favorably at parasites of the state and other connected elite, who should actually be ignored and ostracized. (Hoppe ignores the state except when collecting their mulcted pay cheque, and is connected with Nazi publications. It could be that many think tank guys could be corrupt. Politicians are never good guys. Denying this won’t help. However to issue a blanket attack on all limited Government guys simply because he had some bitter experiences is barbaric. It doesn’t help either, but then only because it is not true.)
I don’t think he has any valid, conclusive argument for monarchy.
I am suspicious of his excessive focus on gender, race and sexuality. Affirmative action and anti-male laws are silly things and always bringing it up being blind to immigration is like complaining of ones mother-in-law’s nagging when someone is raping your wife and mugging your children. Such focus is associated with the religious right, and they are always against free immigration, like he is. His notion that individual liberty would mean cultural conservatism is just nonsense. There is no evidence for it. He doesn’t have any sensible argument either. All his major mistakes are avoidable with some common sense and basic fact checking.
On marginalization, there is one thing I am compelled to say: No one of his caliber-Not even Hoppe-deserves this!
If this doesn’t annoy you as much!
Shanu A
X,
Rather unprecedented for a short lapse. But, I completely expected this.
What happened to the account, that is.
Well, I was not talking of that lapse at all. On the lapse on our part in abusing our privilege, which rarely does not happen. After a while, I stopped underestimating Google. Accurate perceptions are rarely a priori inferences!
Shanu A
X,
I don’t think you understood me, or you understood me too well. The first is only a philosophical possibility way too low on the probability scale. So, it must be the second.
Either I am too obvious or you are too perceptive or both. I won’t say either are your achievement, as all my intellectual traits notwithstanding, I’m open like a book! Too obvious! Way too obvious! If I say anything at all, I mean what I say and say what I mean, and with full knowledge. So, I grant you the credit for one. I’ll take the rest, with all modesty-which was never one among my vices. I’ll make an exception.
To me, this is not a joking matter-even if the much valuable time I spent on such work is a joking matter. Never mind that you didn’t answer why my important mails go without a reply. I owe you an apology. There is a question I didn’t ask, and you never answered. I know it too well that you won’t miss that question even if I do-because actions are more conscious than evasions. The action as such or the consequences do not matter to me as much, as it no longer exists but the intentions do. In any case, no one can get away with leaving me with such consequences.
If I am imagining things and leaping to conclusions, I would be happy to think so-As I was the last person to imagine things and leap to conclusions, at least in this matter. It is unmistakable. Yes, It has been long enough!
I got to decide.
I just wish to be fair, and being fair and right is much more important to me than moving forward. I see no necessary clash.
My time is running out, and if I am not mistaken, yours.
It is your call!
Shanu A