Below is linked a Youtube excerpt (about 15 minutes) read from : Economic Thought Before Adam Smith: An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, Volume I" By Murray N. Rothbard Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The first Libertarian, one who felt conviction strong enough to challenge the State and record his ideas for all posterity was none other than 老子. Interestingly Lao Tzu and his later students - come to the exact same conclusions as other modern philosophers (MUCH later) - including that racist kook Dr Ron Paul. When I say 'exact' I mean identical conclusions. isn't that interesting? Across time and space, language and culture - we come to the same place. Most Scientists, at least those open-minded enough to challenge their own beliefs, will stop to give such coincidences pause for thought. Particularly when the Philosopher in question founded one of the world's first and oldest schools of Philosophy. [video=youtube;XKWOUu1BA3U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKWOUu1BA3U[/video]
Sounds about right given the rampant corruption in the ancient chinese bureaucracy. libertarianism breeds corruption and given the level of bribery that is considered normal to them I'd say its the perfect expression of libertarianism.
non sequitur much? The free non-coercion of voluntary trade breeds corruption does it? Oh, and you're an expert on 6th century BCE Chinese bureaucracy to boot. Oh, and not only that but volentarism leads to "bribery' of State Officials who, in said Libertarian society, would be impotent. Nice one, no confirmation bias around here.
you mean like an ideolouge who pretends a modern ideology, and a rather bad one at that, is evidenced in chinese bureaucracy around 2 and half millenia before said ideology was founded? while chinese government has long been noted for it corruption much of it is cultural and what ever courption there was in medieval china I'm willing to give a pass to do to communication delays. however your precious ideology doesn't get a pass because it goes out of its way to incentivize corruption. and libertarianism would have government officials being bribed it would have private citizens being bribed. it was those very impotent government officials that would allow it. also my comment was more of a mocking attempt at your fantacism at trying so desperately to grasp at any straw that could possibly show your ideology might actual work( it doesn't) than any sort of real rebuttal. I have long since realized you have no intention of having an intellectual fact based debate where your pet ideology is concerned because as you have shown in your view anyone who doesn't agree with you is to fucking stupid to think. also while you grasp at straws to claim Lao Tzu and libertarian views are the same. once you look at the motivations behind the beliefs you see the huge gulf. Lao Tzu wasn't against state power persay just the despots that were the norm during the warring states period. he believed in a functional government and in chinese society. Libertarianism however is almost exactly opposite to the great Lao Tzu. while Lao Tzu believed the in reducing state power for the good of all Libertarians reject the state and society and think of selves. the easiest way to see this assertation is foolish is Lao Tzu believed in rejecting materialism and living simply while Libertarianism embraces materialism and consumerism. the two belief systems are diametricly opposed.
not really since its bullshit not based on anything factual. mises is a hack orginization giving people like you and micheal who are incapable of dealing with the responsibilities of living in the modern age want to destroy the system so you can feel powerful. it isn't too much for me its beneath me. so instead of attacking my why don't you go back into your sociopath and terrorist loving hole
