What does he mean by "cloning humanity is an impossible aim"?
Also he says "...all government, therefore all society". This might be true in some sense today, but I just want to add something that Rothbard said, that is not to jump from the necessity of society to the necessity of the state, which is very important to remember.
Then Hulsmann implies that there's no place for equality or love in family, what's that all about?
I also disagree with some of his views on genders and the differences of the sexes, but that's another topic. Clearly enforcing any kind of government regulation is to be opposed, such as the bs to enfoce equality in that concern.
He and possibly the Mises Institute in general are just much too conservative in some ways.
But I have to say, I really enjoyed the second part of this lecture. Some important insights to be had. peace.
What's socially conservative is the premise that there are gigantic *innate* differences between genders and races, in terms of general levels of intelligence, ideology, overall merit, and so on.
There are differences in terms of Natural abilities from individuals to individuals; thus trying to establish a so called egalitarian society is unrealistic. There are no difference between groups but rather at the individual level.
Develop your point please! Egalitarianism, as far as my understanding of the subject is concerned, main goal is to shortcut the natural inequality within society through the redistribution of wealth by a welfare state, thus a justification for big government. Equality is not even the issue here but rather the "justification for a powerful government whose main role is to spread the wealth around"> I think Rothbard had it nailed and I don't really know what you are talking about!
Egalitarianism refers to a multitude of different groups that tend to oppose aristocratic or plutocratic modes of organization (which are hardly "the natural order). There are egalitarians ranging from statists to anarchists. In either case, the premise that whoever is sucessful is intrinsically superior and there is a "natural elite" that is 500% better than everyone else is just as absurd as proclaiming everyone to be naturally equal in ability.
Dude, please learn how to read! My point of contention stem upon the entity from which to draw the definition of natural elite. In one of your analysis you pointed that there are difference in ability and capability at the racial or gender level; which I am totally opposed to! I doubt you know anything about Austrian economics because the foundation of praxeology is indeed the individual. Only individuals differ in their abilities, not group or aggregates! That's my point!
@AFRIKTODAY Which is to say that proclaiming generalized anti-egalitarian statements about these groups in the first place violates methodological individualism. That's my point.
Methodical individualism and group is an oxymoron, an antithesis! They don't go together! Egalitarianism is a fallacy, it is misguided and plain wrong regardless of the targeted groups!
Methodological individualism doesn't make the atomistic claim that groups don't exist, only that they cannot be described as anything other than an aggregation of individuals.
But can you please stop copying and paraphrasing Rothbard and the Austrian methodology? Please, think about what you read and substract your own understanding of whatever is said by these people.
My original point is completely in conjunction with methodological individualism. Mises's critique of polylogism applies just as well to racialist views as it does to traditional marxism. The treatment of social groups as if they have their own logical structure of the mind, and the overgeneralization of these groups based on correlative statistics, goes against the spirit of Mises's epistemology. There are no *innate* group traits of the kind that race-realists claim.
"... all government, therefore all society... the operation of society, is based on ideas"
So he corrects himself. And, well, even in an anarchist world there would still be "government" although not a State, at least in Nocks distincion. I guess it depends on how you define government. Government and State is not necessarily the same thing.
economics is a virtue in life because it speaks of not to look only at immediate concerns, but to have a larger view on man and society as a whole.
great thinking good frasing. This is what LVM loved
ogello 2 years ago
you can get this lecture and many others as well as lew rockwell podcasts and free libertarian radio programs on
i-tunes as audio versions.
freelancer657 2 years ago 3
How many people watched the entire thing to the end? If you did, give this comment a thumbs up!
fluff125 2 years ago 32
What does he mean by "cloning humanity is an impossible aim"?
Also he says "...all government, therefore all society". This might be true in some sense today, but I just want to add something that Rothbard said, that is not to jump from the necessity of society to the necessity of the state, which is very important to remember.
Then Hulsmann implies that there's no place for equality or love in family, what's that all about?
tpsisokayiguess 2 years ago
I also disagree with some of his views on genders and the differences of the sexes, but that's another topic. Clearly enforcing any kind of government regulation is to be opposed, such as the bs to enfoce equality in that concern.
He and possibly the Mises Institute in general are just much too conservative in some ways.
But I have to say, I really enjoyed the second part of this lecture. Some important insights to be had. peace.
tpsisokayiguess 2 years ago
His point is that differences should be embraced. If you call that a conservative standpoint or something else doesn't matter.
Nielsio 2 years ago 2
What's socially conservative is the premise that there are gigantic *innate* differences between genders and races, in terms of general levels of intelligence, ideology, overall merit, and so on.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
He explained what he means by it. You're invoking another meaning of it, and you aren't explaining why. This doesn't help.
Nielsio 2 years ago
@brainpolice2
Wrong!
There are differences in terms of Natural abilities from individuals to individuals; thus trying to establish a so called egalitarian society is unrealistic. There are no difference between groups but rather at the individual level.
AFRIKTODAY 2 years ago
Egalitarianism doesn't aim to make everyone equal in their natural abilities - that is both impossible and undesirable.
That's a misunderstanding that Rothbard unfortunately propogated in his essay on the subject.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
@brainpolice2
Develop your point please! Egalitarianism, as far as my understanding of the subject is concerned, main goal is to shortcut the natural inequality within society through the redistribution of wealth by a welfare state, thus a justification for big government. Equality is not even the issue here but rather the "justification for a powerful government whose main role is to spread the wealth around"> I think Rothbard had it nailed and I don't really know what you are talking about!
AFRIKTODAY 2 years ago
Egalitarianism refers to a multitude of different groups that tend to oppose aristocratic or plutocratic modes of organization (which are hardly "the natural order). There are egalitarians ranging from statists to anarchists. In either case, the premise that whoever is sucessful is intrinsically superior and there is a "natural elite" that is 500% better than everyone else is just as absurd as proclaiming everyone to be naturally equal in ability.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
@brainpolice2
Dude, please learn how to read! My point of contention stem upon the entity from which to draw the definition of natural elite. In one of your analysis you pointed that there are difference in ability and capability at the racial or gender level; which I am totally opposed to! I doubt you know anything about Austrian economics because the foundation of praxeology is indeed the individual. Only individuals differ in their abilities, not group or aggregates! That's my point!
AFRIKTODAY 2 years ago
@AFRIKTODAY Which is to say that proclaiming generalized anti-egalitarian statements about these groups in the first place violates methodological individualism. That's my point.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
@brainpolice2
What are you talking about?
Methodical individualism and group is an oxymoron, an antithesis! They don't go together! Egalitarianism is a fallacy, it is misguided and plain wrong regardless of the targeted groups!
AFRIKTODAY 2 years ago
Methodological individualism doesn't make the atomistic claim that groups don't exist, only that they cannot be described as anything other than an aggregation of individuals.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
@brainpolice2
Of course, I agree with that!
But can you please stop copying and paraphrasing Rothbard and the Austrian methodology? Please, think about what you read and substract your own understanding of whatever is said by these people.
AFRIKTODAY 2 years ago
My original point is completely in conjunction with methodological individualism. Mises's critique of polylogism applies just as well to racialist views as it does to traditional marxism. The treatment of social groups as if they have their own logical structure of the mind, and the overgeneralization of these groups based on correlative statistics, goes against the spirit of Mises's epistemology. There are no *innate* group traits of the kind that race-realists claim.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
@brainpolice2
I totally agree with you; and you seem to have red Human action, just like me!
AFRIKTODAY 2 years ago
I don't think he meant cloning a human in the scientific sence. I think what he was refering to was making all humanbeings equal in every way.
JessicaBelle81 2 years ago 3
Actually what he is saying, is, if you listen:
"... all government, therefore all society... the operation of society, is based on ideas"
So he corrects himself. And, well, even in an anarchist world there would still be "government" although not a State, at least in Nocks distincion. I guess it depends on how you define government. Government and State is not necessarily the same thing.
SuperBockPerfeija 2 years ago
Wish I could be there...
Wahhhhhh, why don't I live in Alabama!? T^T
Phokey29 2 years ago 2
Meh. I've been there. Apart from the Mises Institute, not much of note.
nonantianarchist 2 years ago 2