Comments on: Anti-intellectual Intellectualism

By: adam

adam — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:26:39 +0000

@maja
read more hoppe and others on the privatization of security… the argument is there. you already agree that the state is immoral, so if you take the logical steps, you may see that they are not necessary for those tasks.

By: maja

maja — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:23:45 +0000

Hello

Although i agree that the state is immoral and doesnt work does that mean that we do not need laws and police as law enforcement force neither?

thank you

By: Toban Wiebe

Toban Wiebe — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 00:53:50 +0000

@Curt, regarding 2), I just added an about/contact page, just click on the author name.

By: Curt Doolittle

Curt Doolittle — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:30:05 +0000

Michael,

1) Added your site to my blogroll

2) Be good if there was a 'contact me' link somewhere (if there is I can't find it), and something about you as an individual.

3) I agree with Hans/Rothbard in principle, but first, once the state gives succor to so many at the expense of others, it is no longer a moral argument for them. b) most people prefer a practical benefit rather than moral argument, since moral arguments are made possible by relative prosperity. c) we need more work on a process of conversion and d) only religions, not rational networks, have succeeded in converting sufficient numbers of a population. e) even if the people wthin a group can be converted to some philosophical mythos, then those external to it become the problem, because, at least, from analysis so far, such a group would be weaker.

So what we need is something far more radical.

It's not that we're radical. It's that we're not yet radical enough.

Curt