Does anyone know why Mises.org is full of Catholics?

[sjw]

Pete,

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Rand's arguments against anarchism are mostly if not completely BS. (For the record: I am not an anarchist). And she had no theory of rights to speak of, which is a rather serious flaw given how much pomp and circumstance she gives to the idea of them. I mean what is she getting all worked up over? She never defines it properly. That's a massive problem for someone who thinks of themselves as a philosopher.

Why don't you read this: http://folk.uio.no/thomas/po/rational-anarchism.html . Then get back to us with any rational arguments you have against it.

Shayne

Edited September 28, 2010 by sjw

[Martin Radwin]

What do real life Anarchists do? Let’s see. Phony forged documents. Scams. Prostitution rings (Ross Lavvatter. Was he even a real doctor or was that a scam too?) Phony communes. Gold scams. Extortion . . . no wonder they gravitate to the mystical meanderings of Murray Rothbard as a cover for their Mafia style activities. Narcisstic Rock Star complex. Altered state aficionados. Nietzchean superman complex. The psychologizing could go on for ever, yet the actual facts speak for themselves.

You are an idiot. People who engage in gold scams and extortion are criminals, not anarchists. As for prostitution, it is a perfectly legitimate business, as long as it involves only consenting adults. You probably don't know more than a handful of actual real world anarchists, and none who meet your above description. But that doesn't stop you from smearing them as a group based on supposed attributes that they don't have.

Regarding Ross Levatter, you really ought to learn to spell his name before making allegations about his moral character. Despite your insinuations to the contrary, he is a real doctor, a specialist in nuclear medicine, something that you would have known if you had bothered to spend five minutes researching him. He is also a distinguished libertarian writer and thinker, something you are not and can never hope to be. He was sent to jail for his involvement in a victimless crime that should not be a crime at all. While he sits in jail, you get to piss on him in your exalted ignorance.

Take your moronic moral righteousness and shove it up your ass.

Martin

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

He was sent to jail for his involvement in a victimless crime that should not be a crime at all. While he sits in jail, you get to piss on him in your exalted ignorance.

Take your moronic moral righteousness and shove it up your ass.

Martin,

Did that make you feel better?

It didn't work too well as a defense (i.e. for readers), but I can see it as an emotional release (i.e. for you).

For the record, I, too, have engaged in victimless crime. I no longer do that and I was lucky to not be caught. But I knew the risks when I did what I did. I am pretty sure that your friend is a big boy and knew the risks he was taking.

If you truly want to defend him, I suggest facts, links, articles, you know, things like that...

Michael

[Peter]

Martin Radwin wrote:

“Take your moronic moral righteousness and shove it up your ass.”

end quote

Michael Stuart Kelley, our wise moderator responded:

“Did that make you feel better?”

end quote

Martin, oh Martin, you cut me. As Cicero so eloquently wrote, “How do you conquer Rome with no weapon other than your voice?”

I was careful to not “over offend” our own Objectivist Living Cicero, and I admit to some sly duplicity to draw him in with humor and rancor.

“Sometimes, if you find yourself stuck in politics, the thing to do is start a fight – start a fight, even if you do not know how you are going to win it, because it is only when a fight is on, and everything is in motion, that you can hope to see your way through.”

Though this last quote was also by Cicero, it mirrors the depth of erudition, and eloquence of our modern day Cicero, George H. Smith, friend of Doctor Ross Levatter.

Why am I not more transparent?

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Martin Radwin]

He was sent to jail for his involvement in a victimless crime that should not be a crime at all. While he sits in jail, you get to piss on him in your exalted ignorance.

Take your moronic moral righteousness and shove it up your ass.

Martin,

Did that make you feel better?

Yes, as a matter of fact, it did.

Peter has been posting this crap for years now, starting on the old Atlantis forum, then moving to the Atlantis II forum, then moving here to OL. In case you didn't notice, Peter said that all anarchists are criminals and scum, who engage in extortion, gold scams, and other unsavory activities. Never mind such distinguished, brilliant thinkers as our very own George H. Smith, who, as far as anyone knows, has never engaged in any of these activities. I could name many other anarchists, some famous, some not so famous, none of whom happen to be criminals. Peter doesn't let such a reality check get in the way of his idiotic smears.

Normally, I ignore Peter's insipid posts, because they're not worth responding to. With this particular post, he decided to attack Ross Levatter, a man whose name he can't even be bothered to spell correctly. He suggested that Ross may not even be a real physician, even though Ross has been a practicing radiologist for many years, something that Peter could easily have learned if he bothered to spend just a few minutes doing research. About what one would expect from Peter, given that he thinks that all anarchists are criminals, despite the huge number of counterexamples. Peter doesn't let reality intrude on his delusional existence.

I was particularly disgusted by his smarmy attack on Ross Levatter, because Ross is now in jail, due to his involvement in a victimless crime. His medical license has been temporarily suspended. His life has been wrecked because of an evil law that locks people in cages who have violated noone's rights. One would think that a self-professed believer in objectivism, a philosophy one of whose central tenets is that it is wrong to initiate force in violation of the rights of any person, would be outraged about the injustice that Mr. Levatter has suffered at the hands of the state. Instead, Peter Taylor decided to launch cheap smears against Mr. Levatter, just as he decided to launch cheap smears against all anarchists. A particularly loathsome thing to do against a person who has suffered through everything that Ross has had to endure.

So, yes, Peter deserved precisely the response I gave him.

It didn't work too well as a defense (i.e. for readers), but I can see it as an emotional release (i.e. for you).

For the record, I, too, have engaged in victimless crime. I no longer do that and I was lucky to not be caught. But I knew the risks when I did what I did. I am pretty sure that your friend is a big boy and knew the risks he was taking.

If you truly want to defend him, I suggest facts, links, articles, you know, things like that...

Michael

I don't know whether or not Ross gave much thought to the possible risks of what he was doing. I just don't know a lot of the details about his case. But whether he was fully aware of these risks or not, the fact remains that he is the victim of a terrible injustice. He has been imprisoned for engaging in an activity that violated noone's rights, an activity for which noone should have their freedom taken away. It would be nice if you would at least acknowledge this fact. Unless you believe it's okay to imprison people involved in any way in victimless crimes such as prostitution.

For the record, Ross is not my personal friend. I have never met him. He used to be an occasional poster on Atlantis II, and he has written many articles for Liberty magazine. I first learned about what happened to Ross from a post on Wendy McElroy's blog.

My purpose in responding to Peter was not to defend Ross. Rather, it was to expose Peter Taylor as the stupid, smarmy bastard that he is for attacking Ross the way he did.

I have no specific links to provide regarding Ross Levatter. Anyone interested in learning more about his case can google his name. This will bring up some links.

Martin

[Brant Gaede]

Ross Levatter is not the victim of a victimless crime; he tried to profit from it. Like most going to Vegas he came up short. He left his area of expertise and paid the price. In this sense he is only somewhat innocent. Less innocent than someone thrown into the slammer for illegal drug use. This doesn't change those facts that he should not be in prison or that the judge was too harsh on him or that the law he violated should not exist.

--Brant

Edited September 30, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

My purpose in responding to Peter was not to defend Ross. Rather, it was to expose Peter Taylor as the stupid, smarmy bastard that he is for attacking Ross the way he did.

Martin,

Well, did you expose him?

To whom?

And what makes you think, "Take your moronic moral righteousness and shove it up your ass" will convince anyone of your views?

I can't think of a single poster on OL (or reader, for that matter) who would be convinced to change his/her views by reading that.

And I, for one, did not learn a single new fact from your post.

I already knew Peter is anti-ancap. I already knew you didn't like him and that you are generally emotional in your dislikes. I already knew about Ross Levatter's problems and I don't think the government should be outlawing prostitution.

Also, I do not consider Peter as a "stupid, smarmy bastard." I disagree with some of his views and reasoning, and sometimes I disagree with his interpretations, but I don't consider him stupid. On the contrary, he is very well-read and sometimes gives me pause to think about an angle on something I had not thought about--often a very intelligent angle. So I may disagree at times, but I can't call a man like that stupid. In fact, there is much he writes that I do agree with. I make an effort to separate the ideas I agree with from the ones I don't and I consider myself richer for doing so.

As to smarmy, Peter gets plenty of smarm thrown at him and I have yet to see him lower his discourse to the "Fuck you, asshole" level. I have seen you do that, though. Do I really need to address the bastard part on a philosophy forum?

So I maintain that your post was for you. It was not for the reader.

You did not convince anyone of anything. You did let off some steam for your own personal state. And I believe you know all this.

If you want to disagree with someone and convince the reader of your own views, you have a long way to go if you want to maintain the street-gang level of discourse you displayed in your post. Frankly, I don't see anyone taking you seriously. Maybe people who do not like Peter--but I don't see even them taking you seriously on any kind of intellectual level.

Just a suggestion: try a different form of rhetoric.

Who convinces you? A person who presents facts, examples, and a well constructed case? Or a person who sticks his tongue out at another person? If it is the former, do you think OL readers are different?

Michael

[sjw]

Ross Levatter is not the victim of a victimless crime; he tried to profit from it. Like most going to Vegas he came up short. He left his area of expertise and paid the price. In this sense he is only somewhat innocent. Less innocent than someone thrown into the slammer for illegal drug use. This doesn't change those facts that he should not be in prison or that the judge was too harsh on him or that the law he violated should not exist.

--Brant

How did he try to profit? I did a quick google search, all I found is that he had said he liked this or that girl better than some other girl, and that was construed as helping to run the business.

Shayne