"...one of the few non-Commie professors of business ethics..."

At least he makes it clear where he stands early on. He's on the side of big money/business...anyone else is a commie.

Wow, you aren't to the meat yet and your already done...sad really. Plus, I think the jury is on that communism was badish. Perhaps if he said Stallinish you would of been less offended?

Perhaps if he just said he disagreed with them...instead of making the claim they're communists. But that's probably too subtle for most wing-nuts to understand. Like the one a few days ago that implied that everyone who supported health care reform were thieves, but got offended when I called him a loon. Like Christians who band together to fight gay marriage, and when people object, cry that Christianity is being attacked.

Hypocrisy offends me. The "I got mine, fuck you" mindset offends me even more.

Everyone, once they are neck deep in something usually can't help being inflammatory....just as you called him a wing nut. Live in the world you want my friend, not that which the laws of the worst part of human nature take you.

I haven't watched it all the way through yet, but it got my vote because I think the subject is fascinating. I've got my own theories on this, as I've described elsewhere, but I won't go into them until I've had time to see it all.

You misunderstand. I didn't call -him- a wing nut. I was referring to his target audience.

He's worse...since he's presumably capable of actual thinking (assuming that a doctorate still means -anything- at all), and yet chooses instead to pander to big money. Even if he is honest in his thesis, his presentation is too propagandistic and biased to be trusted.

Yes,the parts towards the end are great where is starts to really dive into some moral theology. It is worth watching for sure. Storm, you seem to be the thing that you detest, perhaps this isn't the video or thread for you.

I hate Mises to pieces.

Let me guess, he's going to say: property rights are the only natural rights, and should be supreme, therefore taxation is coercive, violent, slavery.

edit: I was right with my guess. The history was interesting for the first 20 minutes, but after that it was just off the shelf libertarian drivel.

It was an appeal to rationality as the basis for establishing what one could say about body, mind and self. How would you counter suppose you establish a morality about telling other bodies, minds, how to live? I find the most lacking part of any control based morality. For instance, someone regulating what goes into you, drug laws, are allowable in the control based morality model because one doesn't have complete say over his body. The drug laws in the US can't be considered immoral because they don't violate this basic moral understanding; that a person is not in complete ownership of body, mind and soul. You would have to make some exception or rationalization within the context of this morality for it; and that doesn't really sit well with trying to create a morality that isn't full of arbitrary standards.

I would like to hear your foundational argument for as to why a control based morality is indeed rational, or at the very least why a libertarian view point is not.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'tom, woods, libritarian, natural, rights, politics, history, philosophy' to 'tom woods, libertarian, natural, rights, politics, history, philosophy' - edited by volumptuous

"Japanese Americans 1942, and you'll find out all about your precious fucking rights." -Carlin

>> ^Stormsinger:
The "I got mine, fuck you" mindset offends me even more.
You mean the "I get what I earned" mindset?


The mindset that says "I will decide what to do with what I earned"?

Moving this video to GeeSussFreeK's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

I broken the link, it is now fixed.

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued - promote requested by bleedmegood.

>> ^ReverendTed:

>> ^Stormsinger:
The "I got mine, fuck you" mindset offends me even more.
You mean the "I get what I earned" mindset?

The mindset that says "I will decide what to do with what I earned"?


No, the "Every single thing in my life I got by hard work. No preset circumstances whatsoever helped me. No government ever contributed to the stability of my environment. No socialist roads, communication system, schools, or fire or police departments ever made a difference. I got mine because I =deserved= it. Get your grubby IRS hands off my income." mindset.

>> ^Zyrxil:

>> ^ReverendTed:
>> ^Stormsinger:
The "I got mine, fuck you" mindset offends me even more.
You mean the "I get what I earned" mindset?

The mindset that says "I will decide what to do with what I earned"?

No, the "Every single thing in my life I got by hard work. No preset circumstances whatsoever helped me. No government ever contributed to the stability of my environment. No socialist roads, communication system, schools, or fire or police departments ever made a difference. I got mine because I =deserved= it. Get your grubby IRS hands off my income." mindset.

Well now it becomes a matter of degree where we're arguing how MUCH is enough. A quarter of your income? A third? Two thirds?


How much should the government be responsible for? Basic protection of basic rights? Limited protection from catastrophic circumstances? General welfare? (This is to say nothing of the government's ability to manage those responsibilities we choose to designate to it.)

Your argument (and Stormsinger's) also misses a critical point:
Just because we don't want to give up our income to the government to subsidize one welfare program or another doesn't mean we aren't charitable people. I would rather designate my charitable giving to institutions and organizations that I trust will manage it well and make effective use of it.
The government is not known for its efficiency or efficacy.
What Stormsigner might interpret as "I got mine, fuck you", in some cases might be "I got mine, and I'll give some to those in need. I'd just rather give it of my own free will in meaningful ways than have it legislated by and into the Washington bureaucracy. "

>> ^ReverendTed:
Your argument (and Stormsinger's) also misses a critical point:
Just because we don't want to give up our income to the government to subsidize one welfare program or another doesn't mean we aren't charitable people. I would rather designate my charitable giving to institutions and organizations that I trust will manage it well and make effective use of it.
The government is not known for its efficiency or efficacy.
What Stormsigner might interpret as "I got mine, fuck you", in some cases might be "I got mine, and I'll give some to those in need. I'd just rather give it of my own free will in meaningful ways than have it legislated by and into the Washington bureaucracy. "


And what -you're- missing is that that is no replacement. What Americans give to charity (worldwide, not just to incountry causes) every year does not even cover just the Federal budget for social services, much less State and Local. And that's for tear-jerking causes like starving children and natural disaster victims.

In your selective payment setting, what would get paid for? Roads? Plenty of people don't drive. Education? A ton of people don't have kids. Medicare/Welfare/Unemployment? "I'll never need those! Only those (non-existent) welfare queens use 'em!" That just doesn't work. Like vaccinations, some things absolutely need to be done by nearly everyone for it to work at all.

Now I'm not saying there's nothing in Government that could be cut- 50% of our military budget for sure, and ending the Drug War's popular on the Internet. But that's not what these people are saying. They take offense with the whole concept of taxation to fund the Government. That's completely broken fantasythink, that a tiny tiny government would lead to a better world.


Edit: Forgot about "I would rather designate my charitable giving to institutions and organizations that I trust will manage it well and make effective use of it. The government is not known for its efficiency or efficacy."
That's also a fallacy. There's plenty of inefficiency and overhead in charities as well, and it's an easy argument to say there's a a lot of goal overlap and effort wasted with charities with similar goals and no cooperation.