DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
WebWar
HTML https://webwar.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Ιστορία κ&#...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 20557--------------------------------------------------
Καμία
Δουλεια δεν
είναι
Ντροπή!
DIR By: Pinochet88
Date: February 5, 2016, 4:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ο
Φιλελεύθερος
Θεσμός της
Εργασίας
βάλλεται
πανταχόθεν
και
δαιμονοποιείται
από τους
κρατικιστές,
οι οποίοι
υποστηρίζουν
την απαίσια
και ελεεινή
μη
εθελοντική
σκλαβιά. Η
υποκρισία
ξεχειλίζει,
όταν
υπάνθρωποι
κρατικιστές,
οι οποίοι
υποστηρίζουν
τον
συλλογικό
(κρατικό)
έλεγχο της
οικονομίας
και έναν
κόσμο
απάνθρωπων
διαταγών
και
δυστοπικής
υποτέλειας,
μέμφονται
τις
ελευθεριακές
μας απόψεις
περί
εθελοντικής
σκλαβιάς. Η
εθελοντική
σκλαβιά
είναι
πλήρως
ελευθεριακή
και
φιλελεύθερη,
όπως
ακριβώς το
να φιλάς ένα
μικρό
κορίτσι στο
μάγουλο
περιμένοντας
ανταπόκριση,
ενώ κάθε
είδους
υποχρέωση
που το
Κράτος των
απανταχού
σοσιαλιστών
και
παρασίτων
επιβάλλει,
με το
μονοπώλιο
της βίας,
στους
ανθρώπους,
αποτελεί
μια
ντροπιαστική
κηλίδα
υπάνθρωπης
ανηθικότητας
που κρατάει
την
ανθρωπότητα
και την
παραγωγή
κολλημένες
στον
πρωτογονισμό.
Ο
καταξιωμένος
Φιλελεύθερος
Οικονομολόγος
και
ΑναρχοΚαπιταλιστής
Φιλόσοφος Walter
Block εξηγεί τις
θέσεις και
τις απόψεις
του
ΠαλαιοΕλευθεριακού
ΑναρχοΚαπιταλιστικού
Κινήματος
για έναν
καλύτερο
και
παραγωγικά
απελευθερωμένο
κόσμο που θα
αξιοποιήσει
τις
δυνατότητες
του γνήσιου
καπιταλιστικού
εθελοντισμού
και θα
πραγματώσει
το μέγιστο
δυναμικό
ευμάρειας
το οποίο
μπορεί ο
άνθρωπος να
αποκτήσει,
και το οποίο
του
αποστερούν
οι
σκοταδιστές
κρατικιστές.
Η
εθελοντική
σκλαβιά θα
βοηθήσει
τους
ανθρώπους
να
επωφεληθούν
της
ελευθερίας
τους και να
ικανοποιήσουν
τις πιο
βαθιές τους
ανάγκες, ενώ
η μη
εθελοντική
σκλαβιά της
φορολογίας
των
κρατικιστών,
αποστερεί
την ευτυχία
από τα πιο
παραγωγικά
και
ελπιδοφόρα
μέλη της
κοινωνίας
μας για να
σιτίσει,
παράλληλα,
τις
υπάνθρωπες
ορδές των
παρασιτικών
καταναλωτών
φόρων.
Χρειαζόμαστε
τον
Καπιταλισμό,
για
περισσότερο
πλούτο,
περισσότερη
ελευθερία
και γνήσια
ευτυχία.
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Letter to a Left-Wing Jesuit
By Walter E. Block[/center]
Below, see the letter I wrote to the President of my university,
Loyola New Orleans, on 1/23/16. He has not answered this, nor do
I expect him to do so. Let me offer a bit of background on this
matter, so that the letter can appear in context. I was
interviewed by the NYTimes for the (hit) story they did on Rand
Paul. I was trying to explain libertarianism to the person
interviewing me. I tried and tried, but did not succeed in
getting across to him the basics of this philosophy. Finally,
out of desperation, I tried to illustrate the non-aggression
principle (NAP) to him in the most dramatic way possible. I used
the example of slavery, an abomination if ever there was one. I
tried to get to the essence of why this institution is
despicable. Is it because they picked cotton? No. Is it because
they ate gruel? No. Is it because they sang songs in the field?
Again no. Then, why oh why was slavery such an atrocious evil?
It was because they were forced into this situation, and could
not quit. To underscore this, I said something to the effect
that if we were to keep intact all of these peripheral elements
of slavery (cotton, gruel, songs, living in a shack) but delete
the one true evil, that it violated the libertarian law of free
association, then “slavery would not be so bad.” As a result,
the NY Times accused me of saying that actual slavery, not this
hypothetical I had concocted in order to make a point, was “not
so bad.”
Whereupon Fr. Wildes, S.J., the president of Loyola University
New Orleans, wrote a letter to the editor of the student
newspaper, the Maroon, condemning me for supporting slavery.
(In a separate letter, 17 of my faculty colleagues wrote along
similar lines.) This man, Fr. Wildes, did not have the decency
to even ask me about this matter before rushing into print. I
tell you, were I the president of a university, and one of my
professors was quoted in the NY Times as having supported actual
slavery, I wouldn’t have flown off the handle and immediately
published an attack. Instead, I would have asked this faculty
member of mine to come to my office for a little chat. I would
have started off with “Please, please, tell me you were
misquoted.” If so, I would have supported him against the
“newspaper of record.” On the other hand, if this professor was
accurately quoted, and really favored slavery and its
reintroduction, I would have fired him on the spot, tenure or no
tenure. Fr. Wildes, SJ, did neither. With this introduction,
here is that letter.
Dear Fr. Wildes, SJ:
In the last few minutes of your speech on Friday, 1/22/16 at our
annual convocation, you said something to the effect that (in my
paraphrase) you would “strive mightily to always interpret other
people’s statements in the most positive way possible and
reasonable; you would give a sympathetic interpretation of what
others say or write.” I applaud you for this statement. I always
try to do this in my own writings and speeches, and, often, I
even succeed. I also greatly regret it when I do not. I think
this principle you have today articulated is one all scholars
should follow. Again, in my paraphrase, “Do not attack straw
men.” When you criticize others, do so for their views in their
most compelling versions, not their weakest. I think you have
been “channeling” some of the words of a hero of mine, John
Stuart Mill (from his “On Liberty), who said: “He who knows only
his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may
be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he
is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if
he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for
preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear
the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as
they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as
refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who
actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible
and persuasive form.”
As you can see, this statement of yours moved me.
In view of this perspective of yours that you recently
articulated, would you please consider making a public apology
to me for publishing in the Maroon a statement to the effect
that I favored slavery (based on hearsay “evidence” from the
NYTimes); you did so without even first asking me about this.
I intend to share this letter, and any response you might give
me, or none, with others.
Best regards, Walter Block
sauce
HTML http://bc.vc/XV70Zt
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1