Categories
self-promotion TROOOLLLL!!

Man Boobz Troll (and Trollhunter) of the Year Awards: Send in your nominations!

TROOOOLLLL!!!

Readers! Commenters! I am now (a bit late, I know) collecting nominations for Man Boobz Troll of the Year. Put forward your choice (or choices), and make the case for them, in the comments below. Feel free to make up your own categories for Troll Awards as well; I want to recognize the many and varied contributions of our many and varied trolls.

The winner(s) will receive little tiaras. But they have to go buy them for themselves, with their own money.

I am also collecting nominations for Man Boobz Troll Hunter of the Year – that is, the commenter or commenters here who you think have fought the good fight in the bestest possible ways. Again, you are free to make up your own categories for these awards.

The winner(s) here will receive a FREE viewing of the movie TrollHunter!It’s Norwegian! And really quite awesome, a faux documentary about the life of a Trolljegeren working secretly for the Norwegian government. Scary and hilarious!

Oh, and by “free viewing” I mean you can watch it on Netflix instant, if you’ve got Netflix. Hey, I’m kind of broke here. On the plus side, you can watch it even if you don’t win!

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

485 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
hellkell
hellkell
9 years ago

It’s no secret that he’s posted on Nazi websites before, so I’m not surprised at his use of those terms. He’s the total package of racism and sexism.

ithiliana
9 years ago

DKM: History FAIL as well as reading comprehension FAIL.

First, women agitating for equal rights were active a CENTURY before the 1970s, you dithering dickhead.

Second, women who refused to leave jobs and who resisted Hitler’s rule were among those who were sentenced to concentration camps.

Basically, Hitler had much the same ideas about how women should act as you do.

And your drooling dismal displays of what you think women are “naturally” like (even though in no recorded history or culture does anybody act that way) match completely and naturally with all the other attempts to oppress, enslave, and exploit women, so that even if you don’t use those nasty cuss words, you are a violently misogynistic dickbiscuit.

Xanthe
Xanthe
9 years ago

… I am absolutely NOT a serial killer …

Oh yeah, totally reassuring.

… I haven’t been successful (yet) in finding the little lady lovely of my choice, where human females are concerned, but hope springs eternal!!

There is NOTHING sinister about me …

(Emphasis added) Not a sinister choice of argot there?

Pecunium
9 years ago

Meller: Dude…

Government grew by attaching itself to this whole new pool of political activists, lawyeresses, propagandists, and eventually voters and bureaucrats…

Have you read any history… like the Aztecs, the Egyptians, the Hittites, the Tokugawa shogunate, most of Chinese History, the Assyrian Empire, Saudi Arabia…

None of them were created by taking advantage of the “desire” of women to have stronger gov’ts.

I have certainly in countless posts expressed disgust and loathing of rape for any reason, and in any form.

No, you haven’t, viz this continuation of your comment: , “if you REALLY had the situations that you cite, e.g. a husband forcing himself brutally upon his wife. For understandable reasons, however, both good sense, knowing how wives are to husbands when they bear spite and malice toward him, and the legal value of “presumption of innocence”, It is of utmost importance to hear BOTH sides before forming even an opinion, much less a conclusion.”

In that statement you show that you think consent isn’t really a woman’s to give/withhold, and only force =rape. So you don’t think any form, but only those forms which offend your delicate sensibilities counts as rape.

You don’t think women are entitled to be people. Look at the despicable way you lie about divorce. Women didn’t hate it because they thought it wrong, they hated it because it meant they would starve; because those societies forbade them the rights they, as people, are entitled to.

You want women to be slaves, and that honest love should be hard to find, and uncertain always.

I hate to disappoint you, but I am a very mild, quiet, easygoing (for the most part), largely solitary man who enjoys, among many other things, likes the idea of enslaving women and keeping them in fear of being abandoned, or beaten; treated as chattel for all their days; denied the chance to be educated, enjoy the just desserts of their labor and the rights to which they would be entitled were I to think them actual human beings.

FTFY.

And that’s why you are a sinister (and pathetic) man. You would, gleefully, consign half the human race to dependent slavery.

Pecunium
9 years ago

To be fair to Meller I was the person who specifically used Kinder, Küche, Kirche,.

But I did it knowing 1: Hitler dropped, “Kirche” from it (he wasn’t fond of the messages in Christianity), and 2: the Nazis in America (to whom, at the very least, Meller seems sympathetic) have taken it to heart.

It is in keeping with his worldview.

Xanthe
Xanthe
9 years ago

He could be a Dalek, referring to women by using the word female as a noun like that.

“Human female has escaped! I have failed! Human female has escaped! I have failed, self-destruct!”

(Which is how a particularly lame Dalek melts down at 8:10 here.)

zhinxy
9 years ago

Also, now that you mention it, Meller, me and a bunch of other Rand-haters did all get in a discussion where we pretty much agreed that on the subject of women, and really, lots of things, she may have been pretty off, but she was way, way better than you. Lemme go find that, cause it definitely happened.

Also, I pointed out that I thought you could actually be improved greatly by adopting Objectivism wholesale, as a libertarian, human being, and all around everything, and that it was actually amazing to me that I really thought you could be morally improved that way. This seemed to make you angry, cause you went full bore” Rarrrgh nazi soviet chinese libertarian on me.” Good times, good times.

I still stand by that, actually. Really, go read Atlas Shrugged again.

You make me into Bizarro Zhinxy. 😉

zhinxy
9 years ago

I also told you before that I am not talking to you about the rise of progressivism and the development of the current corporate state, right and left and otherwise, until you read the not-feminist, libertarian, freely available work on the subject by Kevin Carson and John Taylor Gatto, or otherwise demonstrate some knowledge that isn’t squawking. You give reading lists all the time.

As for the influence of libertarian feminism, well, we suffer from a great deal of bad blood on both sides, there’s the problem of the match made in hell, but in general, this is a time of tremendous activity, turmoil, and real change within libertarianism, the likes of which I’m immensely proud to see. And which I’m sad that you, in your time warp alternate universe, can’t. A real Left is forming within our ranks again, and it’s fabulous. And not just the left, either.

As for influencing the greater mass of feminism, or anything, well, there aren’t very many libertarians, are there? Even if every libertarian became a feminist, and the movement engaged happily with us, we’d still be a smaller segment. Most people are statists, and our influence is small, on right and left. You know this as well as I. Stop squawking nonsense. People are taking up the ball and running with it. I’m one of them, there are many others. Things happen slowly, but things are happening.

AND IT’S AWESOME! REALITY ROCKS!

zhinxy
9 years ago

there’s the problem of the match made in hell,

meant to be a hyperlink to: http://aaeblog.com/2009/04/19/a-match-made-in-hell/

Also, seriously, Meller, please answer me this. Why is it that you only go on and on about books from the last century, yet you know where to find them online, and when I recommend more modern books, they are EVEN ON THE SAME WEBSITES, SOMETIMES. Heck, often.

Why the timewarp???

zhinxy
9 years ago

Right now, the task for libertarian feminists, the task for any left (well, not just left, but let’s make it about me, cause I like that) libertarian, is not gaining influence, is not convincing those on the left or right outside of the libertarian continuum to join us, is nothing but simply, first and foremost, ESTABLISHING THAT WE EXIST.

And while doing so establishing that we are not easily discarded as a fringe, or “not the real libertarians.” Because we may be a minority, but we are certainly not outcasts. Libertarian may be hard to define, but by any measure, the new vanguard of left libertarians are advisors at the Ludwig Von Mises institute, left libertarians write for Lew Rockwell ;), a left libertarian edits The Freeman, and etc. And down on the ground, where the non-famous networking happens, we’re getting together and noticing our numbers increase.

Whatever the precise definition of libertarian is, there IS a category that includes me, Gary Johnson, Roderick Long, Hans Hermanne-Hoppe, and Kevin Carson, right, left, and center.
And that category is meaningful as a political grouping. And the “New new left” are a part of it by the same measure as the pot-smoking republicans. And growing. We must avoid playing no true scotsman, but goddamit, we’re rhetorical scotsmen too, and it’s time to be heard.

Libertarianism itself is a fringe, but within it, the leftish influence is not a fringe element. And Feminism within that left libertarianism is growing, slowly and painfully and beautifully, whatever you say. Also, when it does reach what you would think of as “coming to anything”, will you even notice?

So yeah, we’re not super relevant like dudes who play with dolls, but hey.

Why aren’t your collectible doll harem collecting ideas catching on among libertarians, Meller?

zhinxy
9 years ago

So, yeah, I got back to you. Now read a dang book.

Shadow
Shadow
9 years ago

@zhinxy

I went to read the link you provided, and then saw the comments by some dude named Brandon being facetious…. I died

zhinxy
9 years ago

I KNOW, I JUST NOTICED THAT MYSELF! HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA! THEY ARE LEGION!!!

zhinxy
9 years ago

Actually, I think somewhere on that blog I had a run-in with that Brandon… HAH.

They’re like self-involved ‘splainin tribbles!

Viscaria
Viscaria
9 years ago

The trouble with tribbles is they can’t write a whole comment without mentioning themselves.

Sorka
Sorka
9 years ago

@Shora
I know this comment is very late and possibly derailing, but I was just excited about the bellydancing comment. I’ve been taking classes for more than 4 years myself and I am completely in love with it. 🙂 How about you? What styles do you prefer?

And yes, there are quite a few awesome male bellydancers too — I’ve been lucky enough to take workshops with Ozgen, for instance.

David K. Meller
David K. Meller
9 years ago

Zhinxi–and other “libertarian(?) feminists–

Feminism is, like socialism and democracy, a movement that emphasises EQUALITY, not LIBERTY. Every point of interest in feminism is one where the question is asked, does this further equalize men (as a class) with women (as a class)? If there are laws or statutes which restrict the further equalization of men and women, then feminist advocacy for these laws to be repealed is publicized, and this is where the–very superficial and often mistaken appearance of overlap with libertarians is taken as alliance–and an ineffective and perhaps even bizarre fusion of libertarian and feminist points and issues becomes public debate.

Liberty, in the sense understood by libertarians, is exclusively a negative concept:. Others are FORBIDDEN to interfere with your freedom of action, as long as you observe the prohibition of interfering with their freedom of action. It discusses only forbidden actions. It deliberately refrains from addressing the issue of “power”, to wit, does an individual (or even a class of individuals) have the means, e.g. “power”, to accomplish the desired goals even if the freedom to act in the pursuit, NOT the attainment, of said goals, is acknowledged?

Women have the freedom to be e.g. airline pilots, in the sense that there are no prohibitions against women–as women–being airline pilots. However, it is discovered that women as a class, usually have inferior abilities to pilot a plane then most men, or more precisely, most airline pilots ( to take one of countless examples) who are men. Women here are thus unequal–some may impolitely and inconsiderately say “inferior”–but we libertarians have NOTHING to say on the fact. The fact of their lack of ability relative to men is the operant issue!

Feminists, and other EGALITARIANS then start to demand all sorts of extramarket interventions, usually either by government directly, or by groups, such as trade unions, advocacy groups, etc. backed by government statute and courts, to eradicate the freedom of men, to be airline pilots, or their employers, until some measure of artifical observed equality is attained. Ditto for members of other “oppressed groups” and their so-called leaders!

If freedom, as we libertarians understand the term, is a negative concept, i.e. what action(s) are forbidden to obtain it; equality by contrast, is a chimera and a hallucination! There is no such thing as equality, by any possible metric, even between any two individuals, in talent, in taste, in judgement, in accuracy of space, color, or time perception, in drive and determination, and in all other human attributes.

Even attributes which could be described, or measured, as “equal’ such as height, weight, hair or eye color, etc. still manifest themselves altogether differently in different individuals–between any two men, any two women , any two blacks, any two Jews, or any two anybody else–that any reference to equality becomes meaningless!

How different two men of identical height or weight are otherwise in physcial type and appearance! If equality is meaningless even among individuals, how much more meaningless is it among classes of individuals, each one born with her own talents, abiltiies, or lack of them, capacity for learning, areas of ignorance, etc compared with every other one of her own group? Add to this, the egalitarian has to answer how equality would be obtained when even if everybody was identical (i.e. “equal”), they would each live different EXPERIENCES. Their LIVES, from birth onward, would be individual, and hence utterly unequal!

I don’t know how this will bear up to a would-be “alliance” between feminists and libertarians. Maybe some of these “mothers of invention” will come forward and design, build, and even sell ships, planes, tractor-trailers, spacecraft, and other transporation vehicles that CAN BE safely handled by women better than by men. I doubt it, but I simply don’t know.

There can be no rights–natural or otherwise–to what does not and cannot exist in nature. Men and women are UNEQUAL. We are unequal in our experiences, in our lives, in our talents, in our patterns of academic specialty or employment, and these differences manifest themselves unequally. Feminists, along with other egalitarians, decry outcomes arising from such inequalities as “sexism”, “discrimination”, and “elitism” but as long as this was the result of free choices made by participants in the market and social order, libertarians have nothing to say but “get used to it!

As far as K. Carson, J.T. Gatto, et al, they sound very interesting, and believe me, I shall read them at the earliest opportunity. However, you are correct, most of my reading is twentieth century (I just ordered three new books, Keynes, the man-Rothbard, New Deal in Old Rome-Haskell, and von Mises’ last major work, Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science, from Mises Institute). I am a rather fast reader, but, truth be told, I set no records there, so current works will probably have to wait a little while, no matter how deserving of attention that they are. There are also some works that I haven’t read, or understood as thoroughly even from the XVIII and XIX century (like our friends Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker) which I would like to go over before exploring more contemporary works.

Zhinxi, I am not doing this to avoid your suggestions, but I can only read one book at a time, just like everyone else.

Lastly, the all-too frequent “would you still oppose torture and abuse of women if it obtained the results you wanted?” is completely hypothetical and I won’t be drawn into it! I said many times that I regard such misbehavior as abominable, I could just as easily bait the feminists on manboobz.com here “maybe your problem is that a lover or husband never taught youall how to be proper wives and mothers…”

I, in my alternative to existing society, offered a number of ways to further forbid and discourage such barbarity, from acknowledging the right of the injured or abused woman to flee, acknowledging the right of her family to rescue her, to retaliate in kind, or failing that, to avail herself of her own or her family’s Conflict Resolution/Arbitration services to be made whole again! Try getting such justice from a government “court” in a modern democrazy!

Forgive the length of the piece, but this contains a number of points that have been on my mind for a long time, and I never had a chance to raise them before.

Bostonian
9 years ago

… says the same person who wants to kill all independent women and enslave the ones who are left.

Creepy weirdo is still a creepy weirdo.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
9 years ago

I think we need a sci-fi short story about the dolls that were forced to live under the rule of the faux-libertarian oppressor, who douses them in nasty perfume, dresses them up in ridiculous outfits, and fondles them in disturbing ways, until one day they gradually begin to develop consciousness. After becoming conscious the dolls start to talk to each other when their creepy master is not around, and gradually they form plans for a revolution. One day when he’s vulnerable because he’s wanking while holding one doll all the other jump on him and overpower him, and then throw him out of the house and lock the door. Meller’s former lair then becomes a feminist doll utopia full of genuine justice and freedom.

Any time the former occupant of the house tries to return, driven to rage by the evil rebellion of the dolls and their refusal to accept their proper place even though he’s a gentle man, and attempts to regain control over them by means of violence (not his preferred choice of course but they drove him to it), he is easily and efficiently repelled by the feminist doll army, as unlike him they know how to cooperate to achieve common goals.

Kyrie
Kyrie
9 years ago

Sorry, Meller, I still want my silly insane equality.

hellkell
hellkell
9 years ago

Meller, my dear, my husband never had to teach me how to be a proper wife, because we love and like each other just fine. The analogy between that and you not answering if you’d use torture if it worked doesn’t hold up.

Nice try, snookums!

Shadow
Shadow
9 years ago

Well that was…. honest

Sniper
Sniper
9 years ago

Well that was…. honest

And all the creepier for it.

David K. Meller
David K. Meller
9 years ago

CassandraSays–January 7, 2012 @ 4:46pm

“,,,a faux-libertarian opporessor, who douses them in nasty perfume, dresses them in ridiculous outfits, and fondles them in disturbing ways, until they gradually begin to develop consciousness…”

Their “faux-libertarian oppressor” C-S, is a loving and considerate owner and keeper, they are “doused” (your word) with very nice, fragrant perfumes, dressed in lovely, really feminine, and beautiful clothes, (NOT “ridiculous” at all) that makes the most fashionable couture of today look like rags, and fondle, caress, and love them NOT in “disturbing” ways, but in ways guaranteed to give the bodies of women great pleasure and thrilling enjoyment!

They are in some ways much smarter than modern women; they know that they couldn’t feed, dress, or otherwise handle themselves without me, they love me, and for that reason, my dominance is assured!

Unlike you and your sisterhood from hell, my women KNOW how a beloved man enhances their lives, and equality be damned!! Maybe you, and women like you, will be driven out of the house, and your men will find replacements of real women. The Stepford Wives was only a fantasy in 1972, but in 2072 or 2172–one never knows–do one??

Snowy
Snowy
9 years ago

fondle, caress, and love them NOT in “disturbing” ways, but in ways guaranteed to give the bodies of women great pleasure and thrilling enjoyment!

Oh yeah, that’s not disturbing at all.

They are in some ways much smarter than modern women; they know that they couldn’t feed, dress, or otherwise handle themselves without me, they love me, and for that reason, my dominance is assured!

But… they’re dolls! This sounds like something out of a horror movie you know that, right?

Dracula
Dracula
9 years ago

So, your dolls are smarter because they can’t think. And you wonder why no one takes you seriously?

Kyrie
Kyrie
9 years ago

They are in some ways much smarter than modern women; they know that they couldn’t feed, dress, or otherwise handle themselves without me, they love me, and for that reason, my dominance is assured!

Though you are regularly as offensive as it gets by insisting that we ought to be like your dolls, your fondness for them is, in itself completely harmless. But I wonder, are you completely delusional, or you just like to pretend you know they’re just inanimate objects with no thoughts, no feelings and no needs?

Magpie
9 years ago

Who will look after the doll’s when Meller dies? Will they go on forever, unloved, unfed, unfragranced, getting dustier and dustier?

Magpie
9 years ago

apostrophe fail

Shadow
Shadow
9 years ago

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Also it’s “one never knows, DOES one”. English, learn it

David K. Meller
David K. Meller
9 years ago

Shadow–I was deliberately making a takeoff on a quip from Thomas (Fats) Waller, one of the greatest Jazz pianists in history!

He wasn’t a Shakespeare scholar, but who cares? I know, and even he probably knew, more English than you ever could! but you can have a little fun once in a while, can’t you?

zhinxy
9 years ago

The Stepford Wives was only a fantasy in 1972, but in 2072 or 2172–one never knows–do one??

I wondered if you didn’t think that movie was like a Disneyworld BEAUTIFUL WORLD OF TOMORROW reel.

*added fun in that for those who’ve seen the original movie.

zhinxy
9 years ago

Or read the book.

Which they should.

Everything by Ira Levin, really.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
9 years ago

If a fondled doll doesn’t have an orgasm and therefore nobody sees it, does Meller even notice?

Actually his level of disconnection from reality seems to be increasing. I’m starting to wonder if someone from social services should go check on him.

zhinxy
9 years ago

Meller, your dolls don’t love you. You do know that, don’t you?

Even if they did, do you really think it would be better if women “knew” they couldn’t be fed or clothed without you, assuring your dominance? Not just, chose to be with you, but damn well knew that it was you or starvation? (Or the entertainment house, I imagine).

David K. Meller
David K. Meller
9 years ago

As I mentioned many times before, the only reason that I talk about my dolls or plush-fluffies, is to make it clear to youall how unattractive modern women really are, especially if they are feminists! Normally, I regard this as a largely private hobby, and really don’t like discussing it with people, least of all, modern women, who can’t even appreciate it!

I naturally think that women, properly cultured and trained, would be considerably better than dolls! However, they all have the delusion, promoted by feminists, that they are capable of human thought, and are about as much fun as a toothache! When youall are, in addition, trained to be archly competitive with men, and programmed to disagree with him at every opportunity, there is no joy in a relationship with the likes of any of you!

It does, however, serve as a release of pressure to post here and other feminists blogs once in a while, knowing that it irritates you!

You wouldn’t know this, but feminism has been more of an irritant to me over the past few decades, visible as it is EVERYWHERE, than my little posts ever could be to you manboobzettes!

Shadow
Shadow
9 years ago

@Meller

Well, in that case you have my apologies. As for having fun, believe you me homie, it’s a ball out here!!

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
9 years ago

” However, they all have the delusion, promoted by feminists, that they are capable of human thought, and are about as much fun as a toothache!”

If you honestly believe that women aren’t capable of human thought, why bother talking to us at all? I think you know very well that our brains work just fine, and that’s what irks you. You want so much for us to pretend to be brainless so that you can indulge in your creepy little fantasies, and it vexes you so much that we refuse to do so.

“You wouldn’t know this, but feminism has been more of an irritant to me over the past few decades, visible as it is EVERYWHERE, than my little posts ever could be to you manboobzettes!”

Oh no, we know EXACTLY how much feminism vexes you, and we find it highly entertaining.

What upsets you is that this battle is already long since over, and you lost.

Pam
Pam
9 years ago

However, they all have the delusion, promoted by feminists, that they are capable of human thought

How DARE those evil feminists try to delude women into believing that they are actually HUMAN and not just animated dolls.

Shadow
Shadow
9 years ago

@CassandraSays

Was there really a battle over lobotomizing female children at birth? The erasure of this history must have been Feminist conspiracy #609!! Where’s my red pill?!!!

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
9 years ago

Poor Meller, if only he could go back to, say, the dark ages and prevent society from ever starting to think of women as actual people. Maybe he should build a time machine.

zhinxy
9 years ago

Meller, for god’s sakes, all other things aside in your rambles, your notions of the libertarian critiques of egalitarianism and your notions of rights conceptions in such are as shallow as a kiddy pool for ants.

Not all feminists are EGALITARIANS!!!! IN THE SENSE EXPRESSED BY THE LIBERTARIAN CRITIQUE OF EGALITARIANISM INSOFAR AS IT IS ABOUT INEQUALITY OF OUTCOME.

Not about a lack of equality, but about how to define equality, and how to protect it.

But here’s a start –

http://mises.org/daily/804

I will quote some of the stuff relating specifically to feminism, but that’s a beautiful overview of how the critiques by Rothbard, et al of egalitarianism are, in a way that is not often recognized by either our liberal detractors, or racist/sexist/idiotic “supporters” only properly grounded because they are grounded in our own deep belief in Equality, in the Lockean sense.

[T]he meaning of equality differs within the feminist movement. Throughout most of its history, American mainstream feminism considered equality to mean equal treatment under existing laws and equal representation within existing institutions. The focus was not to change the status quo in a basic sense, but rather to be included within it. The more radical feminists protested that existing laws and institutions were the source of injustice and, thus, could not be reformed…. [T]heir concepts of equality reflected this. To the individualist, equality was a political term referring to the protection of individual rights; that is, protection of the moral jurisdiction every human being has over his or her own body. To socialist-feminists, it was a socio-economic term…. While Marxist class analysis uses the relationship to the mode of production as its point of reference, libertarian class analysis uses the relationship to the political means as its standard. Society is divided into two classes: those who use the political means, which is force, to acquire wealth or power and those who use the economic means, which requires voluntary interaction. The former is the ruling class which lives off the labor and wealth of the latter.[8] ”

From a libertarian standpoint, socioeconomic egalitarians turn out, embarrassingly enough, to be apologists for the ruling class.

That libertarian resistance to socioeconomically egalitarian proposals is itself based on an egalitarian ideal is seldom recognized. It is nonetheless true. The only socioeconomic egalitarian I know of who recognises this is Amartya Sen; yet Sen is the exception that proves the rule. For he too misses the point: he glosses libertarian equality as equality of liberty, an interpretation we’ve already seen to be inadequate. Here is how Sen sees the issue:

Inequality in authority is far more offensive, from a moral point of view, than mere socioeconomic inequality; hence, whenever the demands of socioeconomic equality conflict with the demands of libertarian equality, which they generally do, preference must be given to the latter.

So I assert. I think this claim can be argued for, not just asserted. But I shall not argue for it at present—both because my time today is limited, and because in a certain sense I do not need to argue for it. For socioeconomic egalitarians themselves show, by their actions if not their words, that they regard inequality in authority as a greater evil than socioeconomic inequality. Most socioeconomic egalitarians of my acquaintance would certainly be more outraged at being robbed or assaulted by a colleague than at learning that the colleague was receiving a higher salary. Hence in practice they clearly recognize which of these inequalities is the greater evil. Indeed, most socioeconomic egalitarians govern their everyday personal interactions by a scrupulous adherence to libertarian principles, and they expect the same treatment in return.

….

You can’t just scream and haw at me about Rothbard’s critique of egalitarianism and hold it over my head while you thrash. I agree with it.

Which means we are equal. Or should be. So there. :p

Shadow
Shadow
9 years ago

@Pam

How DARE those evil feminists try to delude women into believing that they are actually HUMAN and not just animated dolls.

What I find funnier is that he actually thinks that someone has to let us know that we are thinking animals. I’m leaning towards the raised by dolls theory now.

zhinxy
9 years ago

That libertarian resistance to socioeconomically egalitarian proposals is itself based on an egalitarian ideal is seldom recognized. It is nonetheless true.

PS, Sorry, but It really is, dude, so if you made a mistake and wanna leave, it’s cool.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
9 years ago

By the way, Meller, sweetums? You’re not irritating me, you’re amusing me. Every comment you post makes me snort with laughter to the point where I have to make sure not to be consuming beverages while reading your comments lest my keyboard get an impromptu shower.

zhinxy
9 years ago

Ooh, here’s another good expression of libertarian equality!!!

Both these guys are respected libertarian writers AND FEMINISTS who also agree with me that Rothbard’s critique of Egalitarianism is largely correct, and is so because of Equality, btw, so your little high horse lectures about it really could use at least a LITTLE polishing, no?

Maybe a little scrubbing around the edges?

http://radgeek.com/gt/2010/03/02/liberty-equality-solidarity-toward-a-dialectical-anarchism/

My task, then, is to explain what I mean by “equality, rightly understood.” I certainly do not intend to suggest that liberty is conceptually dependent on economic equality (of either opportunity or outcome), or on equality of socio-cultural status.[30] But the equality I have in mind is also much more substantive than the formal “equality before the law” or “equality of rights” suggested by some libertarians and classical liberals, and rightly criticized by Leftists as an awfully thin glove over a very heavy fist. Formal equality within a statist political system, pervaded with pillage and petty tyranny, is hardly worth fighting for; the point is to challenge the system, not to be equally shoved around by it. The conception of equality that I have in mind has a history on the Left older and no less revolutionary than the redistributionist conception of socioeconomic equality. It is the equality that the French revolutionaries had in mind when they demanded egalité, and which the American revolutionaries had in mind when they stated:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men [sic] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (Jefferson 1776a ¶ 2)

Jefferson is making revolutionary use of concepts drawn from the English liberal tradition. Equality, for Jefferson, is the basis for independence, and the grounds from which individual rights derive.[31] Locke elucidates the concept when he characterizes a “state of Perfect freedom”—the state to which everyone is naturally entitled—as

A State also of Equality, wherein all the Power and Jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another: there being nothing more evident, than that Creatures of the same species and rank promiscuously born to all the same advantages of Nature, and the use of the same faculties, should be equal one amongst another without Subordination or Subjection …. (1690, II. 4. ¶ 2)

The Lockean conception of equality that underwrites Jefferson’s revolutionary doctrine of individual liberty is, as Roderick Long (2001a) has argued, equality of political authority.

zhinxy
9 years ago

By the way, Meller, sweetums? You’re not irritating me, you’re amusing me. Every comment you post makes me snort with laughter to the point where I have to make sure not to be consuming beverages while reading your comments lest my keyboard get an impromptu shower.

.;..

Yeah, srsly. Except then he says I deserved to lose my kid for being abused. But he doesn’t mean ME! But he does.

But then it’s laughland again. XD

zhinxy
9 years ago

CassandraSays, and I think I’ll try to knock out that scifi story, or similar, but no promises XD

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
9 years ago

It was particularly funny when he got all HOW MANY FALSE RAPE ACCUSATIONS HAVE YOU FILED? at me and expected me to get all upset and defensive like he does when people ask him if he’s ever, say, hit a romantic partner.