by the way, natural law hasn't been debunked or refuted by anyone. In fact, Hans-Hermann Hoppe has provided a defense of it which is un-assailable: you cannot argue against the non-aggression axiom without contradicting yourself. This is known as the a priori of argumentation, or argumentation ethics.
I'm saying he tried to do such. Anyone who takes out bonds from the government is conspiring with the government to steal from taxpayers (who are systematically victimized by taxes and inflation).
The Lew Rockwell Column (LewRockwell.com) is widely read, an enormous site. And it is libertarian, not conservative (although Rockwell has conservative personal values, that hardly means he thinks the State should prevent non-coercive transactions, like Republicans do [e.g., drugs]).
The solution to terrorism is not to invade nations. Terrorists are not national armies. We've killed many many more innocent civilians in our attack on Afghanistan than terrorists. Our entire foreign policy has made us a target for terrorism -- militarily intervening in matters world-wide. On the topic, I suggest these articles:
Since a State bond must be paid off by taxpayers, it is stealing from taxpayers. They didn't consent to this State-bond (nor to taxes, inflation, or the State itself).
That specific policy is fascist. Nothing prevents a country from implementing both fascist and communist policies, both of which are different implementations of socialism. Of course, Socialism in the original definition is simply impossible (to understand this, you have to understand what Marx meant by Socialism -- which was both a means, the socialization of all factors of production, and an ends, enormous prosperity; and to understand that in-so-far as an industry is socialized, economic calculation is impossible, thus prosperity is impossible).
1. All States engage in thievery and robbery. This is known as inflation and taxation, respectively.
2. Purchasing a State-bond is, in itself, an act of robbery -- you are conspiring with the State to steal from the taxpayers.
3. Thus, certainly, asking the State to bail you out $2 billion is attempted robbery.
4. The article merely analyzes what he's done. Actions are more important than words.
5. The fact that he does lots of charity work does not in any way justify trying to steal from others.
6. This whole comparison with our cabinet members thing is irrelevant. I don't deny that they're all crooks, along with everyone else in the State (except for Ron Paul, and a few others), by definition, because their salary comes from robbery and thievery. You don't seem to understand the enormously destructive nature of taxes, State-loans, and (worst of all) inflation.
7. Attempting to get States to loot their tax-payers to the tune of $2 billion to bail out a poor decision on your part certainly is lining your pockets at other people's expenses.
Stealing is stealing, no matter what purpose it's for. I really don't care why he's stealing money. The fact is, that makes him a crook, and it is wrong. The reasons why someone steals or attempts to steal from another person are irrelevant. Stealing is stealing. If someone robs me at gunpoint, I don't care whether they're doing it to pay for drugs or give to a poor person: it's still wrong, and they should be punished. Pointing out examples of individuals who are worse than him doesn't in any way exonerate him.
I tell ya what, by your logic -- if we can call it that -- how about the next time I'm accused of murder, I point to GW Bush and use the excuse "well, he murdered thousands of people in Iraq and Afghanistan, and no-one's put him on trial or executed him, so why should I be executed?"
I'm also curious as to how taking a $2 billion dollar position in bonds from Russia (which the Russian government promised to repay at a high return) constitutes an "act of charity".
you don't see anything wrong with trying to steal $2 billion dollars from taxpayers? If GW Bush asked the taxpayers to bail him out on a $2-billion dollar flop investment he made, there'd be a feeding frenzy (and rightfully so). This guy advocates massive interventions in the free market. I suggest you read further into the article I linked to for more discussion on that. The fact that he has done good within the framework of capitalism -- both as an entrepreneur and a philanthropist -- does not give him a free pass to engage in criminal behaviour (forcing any coercive interaction is criminal, by natural law).
If you had bothered to read what I wrote, you'd see that I said he is wrong to support the invasion of Afghanistan. I was criticizing Soros precisely because he "does support the operations in afghanistan". Perhaps you should spend more time reading what others write before you insult them.
Soros is not a libertarian. He's a fascist. For State Corporatism. He wants States to loot their taxpayers to pay for the risks he takes. See Inside Soros. Please, let's not conflate "free-market rhetoric" with free-market action. Free market action is simply this: allowing any non-coercive interaction to occur. Gee, Soros wants taxpayers to bail him out to the tune of $2-billion? Doesn't sound very libertarian to me. Sounds like a thief.
Typical ignorance. Let me help you weed out your misconceptions.
The one thing you have right is that Republicans want special priviledges for businesses. This is Fascism. However, it is not the free market, and it is not capitalism. "State Capitalism" (or fascism) is the German implementation of socialism. It is not capitalism or the free market, or laissez faire, or libertarianism. George Soros seems more fascist (he lost his shirt to the tune of $2 billion in loans to the USSR, then pleaded to have governments loot their taxpayers to pick up the tab for his miscalculation).
George Soros is like a snake -- turning on the free market that's allowed him to become rich. Of course, it's self-interest (as noted above).
How about some opinion from people who think that individual's should be allowed to run their own lives, not States? Unlike the fascists on the Right and the socialists on the Left. How about some opinion from people who actually are Liberals in the traditional (classical, correct) usage of the word (ala Liberalism ).
Desperate for hard currency and facing a fiscal crisis, the Russian government guaranteed wildly high returns on its debt instruments. Believing that Russia would never be allowed to fail, Soros took huge positions in its bonds.
His conversion to the cause of financial socialism began as Congress refused to bailout Russia, and Soros's fund started bearing the weight of margin calls. Eventually, the losses would total $2 billion. His new book admits that he burned up the phonelines calling for governments to loot their taxpayers on his behalf, with additional panicked calls to central bankers and finance officials to pressure them into doing so.
Soros made the wrong bet, lost one of his shirts, and turned against capitalism. He believed himself to be the most powerful man in the world. It turned out that there is something more powerful, which is the market itself.
So Soros, the new poster child of the left, turns out to be nothing more than a disgruntled rich guy tired of the risks that made him wealthy.
Soros makes a few good points: we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. However, he concedes too much: we shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan either. I'd suggest anyone who wants to take a serious look at our history of internation interventionism read: A History of Folly. Young, Adam.
What I'm interested in is the security holes in FS/OSS -- software that I use. If people here are supposed to be so pro-FS/OSS, they should be posting things that help FS/OSS -- not proprietary software. Hint: constructive criticism helps the criticized, and does not harm them.
hmmm...even talking about socialism as something sensible -- as an "end" of the economic spectrum -- implies it has a legitimacy as an idea that it does not have. Socialism is as impossible as a square circle. This only proves that simply because it is possible to put some words together, or to say something, doesn't mean it makes sense or can exist ("I saw a ball that was both black and white all over at the same time").
Your idea that the unhampered free market is harmful is flawed. Ancient Ireland had essentially a Stateless society for 1,000 years.
The problem with your analysis is that it is ahistorical; that it is static; most importantly, that it ignores correct economic theory. In times when the only other alternative was prostitution, starvation, or a life of crime, children working in factories were significantly better off than those in the other routes (well, maybe not better off than successful criminals, but those are rare, and being immoral is its own punishment). An employee's salary, in the unhampered free market, will always approach his discounted marginal product (the present-discounted value of his future marginal production).
The discounted marginal product is "cross-over-point": if the employer pays the employee less than that, they've made a profit; if the employer pays the employee more than that, they've had a loss; if the employer pays the employee that value, they have earned the "ordinary market rate of profit", or interest.
Let's say that a child's discounted marginal product (DMP) is $5 per hour. That means that the present value of his future marginal product (MP) is $5 (his future product in one year, not considering the premium of the present over the future, would be $5.05, if the market interest rate were 1%). Now, let's say that you're a greedy capitalist pig. You know that the only plausible alternative the child has would pay $2.96 per hour; thus, you pay them just enough to make them bother changing their profession, say $3.00. Now, you are making a nice profit of $2 (because the DMP is $5.00).
Now, if you can do this, you're business is going to be quite profitable. However, the market is not static. Entrepreneurs seeings the profit you're making will come in and compete with you. This assume nothing other than self-interest (and does not require any sense of benevolence for the child-worker). I see that you're making a profit, so I want to make a profit too. I can bid away your employees by offering higher wages -- say $3.05. Thus, I cut into your profits and obtain a profit of my own -- $1.95. of course, you either have to raise the salary you give to your employees, or you will lose all of them and go out of business.
Now, the process isn't finished there; it continues, with the someone else, C, coming in and offering to pay $3.10. And so-on and so-forth, with the wage-rate of the employee approaching or reaching his discounted marginal product. It doesn't even require other parties to come in (or any to come in at all). If it is just you and me, a wage-war ensues. A common objection -- of the possibility of collusion -- is fallicious. Collusion has always been enforced and helped by States; furthermore, there is an natural motivation to cheat; and all it takes is one outside entrepreneur coming in and bidding for our employees, offering higher wages, to collapse the whole thing; furthermore, the idea of thousands and thousands of companies colluding (without State-help) to pay employees less than their discounted marginal productivity is absurd, and impossible to obtain in reality (it has never ever been done).
actually, anarcho-capitalists are libertarians. No State intervention is ever necessary. In the broad label of libertarians, there are anarcho-capitalists (Murray Rothbard, one of the founders of the Libertarian Party), minarchists (Ludwig von Mises, the greatest economist of the last century), and constitutionalists. To my knowledge, there isn't an "anarchy" party. Anarcho-capitalists identify with the libertarian party, and try to influence it to be less minarchist and more anarcho-capitalist. Anarcho-capitalism states that we don't need the State for anything -- private companies can provide justice, law, and protection. In reality, this system (Statelessness, private government, anarcho-capitalism) existed in Ancient Ireland for nearly 1000 years.
are the party of free-market rhetoric and Statist action. Most people who vote for Republicans follow their rhetoric but not their actions, and hence think they're voting for the "free market" candidate.
For one thing, child labor is a great thing in the places where it exists. It allows children to escape what would be their other options -- begging, starvation, stealing, or prostitution -- in those circumstances in which they'd engage in child labor.
"Wage slavery" is marxist crap. For something relating to this, see this set of notes.
A strong respect for property rights is the only thing that makes living standards rise. That is what allows people to save up capital, causing cime-preferences to be lowered, and eventually time-preference schedules -- this leads to the process of civilization. But when you start engaging in systematic thievery (taxes, inflation, wealth-redistribution), this systematically lowers time-preferences, causing de-civilization.
You understanding of the USSR is also flawed. It is not just that the USSR wasn't socialism -- it is that socialism, as defined and understood by Marx, Engels, and the other socialists of the time, is impossible. The USSR's worst disasters, however, occured when they tried to implement socialism as fully as possible (by eliminating money). The socialist system is impossible because of the calculation and information problem. (Hence, to say it is "impractical" because of the "incentive problem", also a problem, is not correct). For another analysis of the problems of socialism (in this case, "anarchist" socialism), see The Anarcho-Statists of Spain.
You're right there. People tend to lump things together, and forget distinctions. However, from my pov, it is no better to deceive than the lie. Deceit is simply a more clever implementation of dishonesty than is lying, thus is more sinister in my opinion. E.g., like double-speak.
To act is necessarily to be rational. Whenever acting, a man has ends that he wants to achieve, and is utilizing means he believes will achieve them). This is necessarily rational, for he must understand causality in order to engage in such. Now, a man may be mistaken in his means, but that doesn't show that he's irrational -- only that men are not infallible. And to call an "ends" irrational is non-sense, as ends are simply givens, like the fact that the sun exists (it wouldn't make sense to say that the sun's existence is "irrational").
Now, mainstream economists have committed many fallacies here, among them assuming that only actions pursuing profit-maximization are rational. This is such worthless non-sense that I won't discuss it any further.
On the necessarily rational nature of action, see Ludwig von Mises:
As I said, bias is fine, and unavoidable. It is blatantly obvious that Moore went out of his way to make it look like things were one way, when in reality they were another. The reason I'm so critical is this reflects badly on opponents of war. It is intellectually dishonest and deceiving.
Consider if I say the following:
"I am opposed to hatred. There are those who hate Jews, African Americans, and homosexuals; I think that being of such a mind is a punishment in and of itself."
Someone can come along and quote me as follows:
"I...hate...Jews, African Americans, and homosexuals."
While technically not a lie, due to the..., someone who quoted me in such a manner has taken the words out of context with the clear intent of making it sound like I was saying that I hated Jews, African Americans, and homosexuals, when in reality I was arguing against that position. If you can't see how this is wrong and dishonest, then there's really nothing more I can say. It is amazing to me the lengths that people will go to to defend shit.
A historian who does something similar is a fraud and a worthless historian. Marx did not do this. He interpretted history incorrectly (that is, his class analysis is wrong), but taking as a base the same historical events that he describes, Austrians can interpret it correctly (see Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis). Now, Marx' incorrect theory may have prevented him from searching for some other relevant historical data, but he did not (for example) give the reader completely wrong impressions about historical happenings of fact.
This is not to say that full quotations with ample context are always required. I'm sure that Hitler had a lot of long-winded rambled statements, with parnethetical interruptions which would be appropriate to clip out, but the punchline being that the Jews were the cause of all of Germany's problems.
Elipsing out various parts of a sentence or paragraph is appropriate to do if you maintain the original meaning. It is not appropriate to do this when you modify the meaning, or make it appear as if the author/speaker said something that is the opposite of what they actually said.
From my perception, all I can conclude from this is that you are fucking intellectually dishonest, since you go to such great lengths to defend a work which is dishonest (and the word "dishonest" does not mean only flat-out lying).
PS: Claiming that income taxes are the equivalent of robbery (not theft) is not misleading people. It is a moral statement, no different than saying "abortion is wrong". Simply because a group of people write a document, declare themselves "the State", an then presume to go around "taxing" you for "the services they provide" doesn't mean that what they're doing isn't theft -- it's a protection racket on a grand scale. The only difference between these two actions is that while one is considered illegitimate by most people (and you are allowed to defend yourself against), the other is considered legitimate (and you are not allowed to defend yourself); this is merely a matter of normative force, and popular opinion, and has nothing at all to do with morality.
Simply because he didn't lie doesn't mean he wasn't deceitful, which is the title of the article (deceits, not lies). I think there were a few lies in there, but most of it was deceits. The most atrocious example was the one Senator who he left looking bewildered, but who actually supported Moore (if you read the whole interview). He presents facts so as to make you think one thing (such as that Bush met with Saudi's), when the reality is a completely different thing (such as that the Saudi's came to meet with Bush [all Moore told us], but that Bush refused to meet them). This is wrong and immoral. It is intellectual dishonesty. In an academic setting, this person would (hopefully) be expelled from the profession.
Slashdot Mirror
by the way, natural law hasn't been debunked or refuted by anyone. In fact, Hans-Hermann Hoppe has provided a defense of it which is un-assailable: you cannot argue against the non-aggression axiom without contradicting yourself. This is known as the a priori of argumentation, or argumentation ethics.
I'm saying he tried to do such. Anyone who takes out bonds from the government is conspiring with the government to steal from taxpayers (who are systematically victimized by taxes and inflation).
The Lew Rockwell Column (LewRockwell.com) is widely read, an enormous site. And it is libertarian, not conservative (although Rockwell has conservative personal values, that hardly means he thinks the State should prevent non-coercive transactions, like Republicans do [e.g., drugs]).
The solution to terrorism is not to invade nations. Terrorists are not national armies. We've killed many many more innocent civilians in our attack on Afghanistan than terrorists. Our entire foreign policy has made us a target for terrorism -- militarily intervening in matters world-wide. On the topic, I suggest these articles:
Counterterrorism (by Government) is Impossible
Terrorism and the Moral Hazart
Free Markets Would be OPEC's Undoing
What Is Terror?
A History of Terror
Defending the Homeland
The Security Leviathan
Since a State bond must be paid off by taxpayers, it is stealing from taxpayers. They didn't consent to this State-bond (nor to taxes, inflation, or the State itself).
That specific policy is fascist. Nothing prevents a country from implementing both fascist and communist policies, both of which are different implementations of socialism. Of course, Socialism in the original definition is simply impossible (to understand this, you have to understand what Marx meant by Socialism -- which was both a means, the socialization of all factors of production, and an ends, enormous prosperity; and to understand that in-so-far as an industry is socialized, economic calculation is impossible, thus prosperity is impossible).
Let me try to be clear...
1. All States engage in thievery and robbery. This is known as inflation and taxation, respectively.
2. Purchasing a State-bond is, in itself, an act of robbery -- you are conspiring with the State to steal from the taxpayers.
3. Thus, certainly, asking the State to bail you out $2 billion is attempted robbery.
4. The article merely analyzes what he's done. Actions are more important than words.
5. The fact that he does lots of charity work does not in any way justify trying to steal from others.
6. This whole comparison with our cabinet members thing is irrelevant. I don't deny that they're all crooks, along with everyone else in the State (except for Ron Paul, and a few others), by definition, because their salary comes from robbery and thievery. You don't seem to understand the enormously destructive nature of taxes, State-loans, and (worst of all) inflation.
7. Attempting to get States to loot their tax-payers to the tune of $2 billion to bail out a poor decision on your part certainly is lining your pockets at other people's expenses.
Stealing is stealing, no matter what purpose it's for. I really don't care why he's stealing money. The fact is, that makes him a crook, and it is wrong. The reasons why someone steals or attempts to steal from another person are irrelevant. Stealing is stealing. If someone robs me at gunpoint, I don't care whether they're doing it to pay for drugs or give to a poor person: it's still wrong, and they should be punished. Pointing out examples of individuals who are worse than him doesn't in any way exonerate him.
I tell ya what, by your logic -- if we can call it that -- how about the next time I'm accused of murder, I point to GW Bush and use the excuse "well, he murdered thousands of people in Iraq and Afghanistan, and no-one's put him on trial or executed him, so why should I be executed?"
I'm also curious as to how taking a $2 billion dollar position in bonds from Russia (which the Russian government promised to repay at a high return) constitutes an "act of charity".
you don't see anything wrong with trying to steal $2 billion dollars from taxpayers? If GW Bush asked the taxpayers to bail him out on a $2-billion dollar flop investment he made, there'd be a feeding frenzy (and rightfully so). This guy advocates massive interventions in the free market. I suggest you read further into the article I linked to for more discussion on that. The fact that he has done good within the framework of capitalism -- both as an entrepreneur and a philanthropist -- does not give him a free pass to engage in criminal behaviour (forcing any coercive interaction is criminal, by natural law).
If you had bothered to read what I wrote, you'd see that I said he is wrong to support the invasion of Afghanistan. I was criticizing Soros precisely because he "does support the operations in afghanistan". Perhaps you should spend more time reading what others write before you insult them.
Soros is not a libertarian. He's a fascist. For State Corporatism. He wants States to loot their taxpayers to pay for the risks he takes. See Inside Soros. Please, let's not conflate "free-market rhetoric" with free-market action. Free market action is simply this: allowing any non-coercive interaction to occur. Gee, Soros wants taxpayers to bail him out to the tune of $2-billion? Doesn't sound very libertarian to me. Sounds like a thief.
Typical ignorance. Let me help you weed out your misconceptions.
The one thing you have right is that Republicans want special priviledges for businesses. This is Fascism. However, it is not the free market, and it is not capitalism. "State Capitalism" (or fascism) is the German implementation of socialism. It is not capitalism or the free market, or laissez faire, or libertarianism. George Soros seems more fascist (he lost his shirt to the tune of $2 billion in loans to the USSR, then pleaded to have governments loot their taxpayers to pick up the tab for his miscalculation).
George Soros is like a snake -- turning on the free market that's allowed him to become rich. Of course, it's self-interest (as noted above).
How about some opinion from people who think that individual's should be allowed to run their own lives, not States? Unlike the fascists on the Right and the socialists on the Left. How about some opinion from people who actually are Liberals in the traditional (classical, correct) usage of the word (ala Liberalism ).
What I'm interested in is the security holes in FS/OSS -- software that I use. If people here are supposed to be so pro-FS/OSS, they should be posting things that help FS/OSS -- not proprietary software. Hint: constructive criticism helps the criticized, and does not harm them.
hmmm...even talking about socialism as something sensible -- as an "end" of the economic spectrum -- implies it has a legitimacy as an idea that it does not have. Socialism is as impossible as a square circle. This only proves that simply because it is possible to put some words together, or to say something, doesn't mean it makes sense or can exist ("I saw a ball that was both black and white all over at the same time").
Your idea that the unhampered free market is harmful is flawed. Ancient Ireland had essentially a Stateless society for 1,000 years.
The discounted marginal product is "cross-over-point": if the employer pays the employee less than that, they've made a profit; if the employer pays the employee more than that, they've had a loss; if the employer pays the employee that value, they have earned the "ordinary market rate of profit", or interest.
Let's say that a child's discounted marginal product (DMP) is $5 per hour. That means that the present value of his future marginal product (MP) is $5 (his future product in one year, not considering the premium of the present over the future, would be $5.05, if the market interest rate were 1%). Now, let's say that you're a greedy capitalist pig. You know that the only plausible alternative the child has would pay $2.96 per hour; thus, you pay them just enough to make them bother changing their profession, say $3.00. Now, you are making a nice profit of $2 (because the DMP is $5.00).
Now, if you can do this, you're business is going to be quite profitable. However, the market is not static. Entrepreneurs seeings the profit you're making will come in and compete with you. This assume nothing other than self-interest (and does not require any sense of benevolence for the child-worker). I see that you're making a profit, so I want to make a profit too. I can bid away your employees by offering higher wages -- say $3.05. Thus, I cut into your profits and obtain a profit of my own -- $1.95. of course, you either have to raise the salary you give to your employees, or you will lose all of them and go out of business.
Now, the process isn't finished there; it continues, with the someone else, C, coming in and offering to pay $3.10. And so-on and so-forth, with the wage-rate of the employee approaching or reaching his discounted marginal product. It doesn't even require other parties to come in (or any to come in at all). If it is just you and me, a wage-war ensues. A common objection -- of the possibility of collusion -- is fallicious. Collusion has always been enforced and helped by States; furthermore, there is an natural motivation to cheat; and all it takes is one outside entrepreneur coming in and bidding for our employees, offering higher wages, to collapse the whole thing; furthermore, the idea of thousands and thousands of companies colluding (without State-help) to pay employees less than their discounted marginal productivity is absurd, and impossible to obtain in reality (it has never ever been done).
actually, anarcho-capitalists are libertarians. No State intervention is ever necessary. In the broad label of libertarians, there are anarcho-capitalists (Murray Rothbard, one of the founders of the Libertarian Party), minarchists (Ludwig von Mises, the greatest economist of the last century), and constitutionalists. To my knowledge, there isn't an "anarchy" party. Anarcho-capitalists identify with the libertarian party, and try to influence it to be less minarchist and more anarcho-capitalist. Anarcho-capitalism states that we don't need the State for anything -- private companies can provide justice, law, and protection. In reality, this system (Statelessness, private government, anarcho-capitalism) existed in Ancient Ireland for nearly 1000 years.
are the party of free-market rhetoric and Statist action. Most people who vote for Republicans follow their rhetoric but not their actions, and hence think they're voting for the "free market" candidate.
"Wage slavery" is marxist crap. For something relating to this, see this set of notes.
A strong respect for property rights is the only thing that makes living standards rise. That is what allows people to save up capital, causing cime-preferences to be lowered, and eventually time-preference schedules -- this leads to the process of civilization. But when you start engaging in systematic thievery (taxes, inflation, wealth-redistribution), this systematically lowers time-preferences, causing de-civilization.
You understanding of the USSR is also flawed. It is not just that the USSR wasn't socialism -- it is that socialism, as defined and understood by Marx, Engels, and the other socialists of the time, is impossible. The USSR's worst disasters, however, occured when they tried to implement socialism as fully as possible (by eliminating money). The socialist system is impossible because of the calculation and information problem. (Hence, to say it is "impractical" because of the "incentive problem", also a problem, is not correct). For another analysis of the problems of socialism (in this case, "anarchist" socialism), see The Anarcho-Statists of Spain.
You're right there. People tend to lump things together, and forget distinctions. However, from my pov, it is no better to deceive than the lie. Deceit is simply a more clever implementation of dishonesty than is lying, thus is more sinister in my opinion. E.g., like double-speak.
Now, mainstream economists have committed many fallacies here, among them assuming that only actions pursuing profit-maximization are rational. This is such worthless non-sense that I won't discuss it any further.
On the necessarily rational nature of action, see Ludwig von Mises:
BSD's and GNU/Linux's have a much lower failure rate than that.
(w - W)N
(W - f)N
(W - f)N > (W - w)N
W - f > W - w
-f > -w
Consider if I say the following:
"I am opposed to hatred. There are those who hate Jews, African Americans, and homosexuals; I think that being of such a mind is a punishment in and of itself."
Someone can come along and quote me as follows:
"I...hate...Jews, African Americans, and homosexuals."
While technically not a lie, due to the ..., someone who quoted me in such a manner has taken the words out of context with the clear intent of making it sound like I was saying that I hated Jews, African Americans, and homosexuals, when in reality I was arguing against that position. If you can't see how this is wrong and dishonest, then there's really nothing more I can say. It is amazing to me the lengths that people will go to to defend shit.
A historian who does something similar is a fraud and a worthless historian. Marx did not do this. He interpretted history incorrectly (that is, his class analysis is wrong), but taking as a base the same historical events that he describes, Austrians can interpret it correctly (see Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis). Now, Marx' incorrect theory may have prevented him from searching for some other relevant historical data, but he did not (for example) give the reader completely wrong impressions about historical happenings of fact.
This is not to say that full quotations with ample context are always required. I'm sure that Hitler had a lot of long-winded rambled statements, with parnethetical interruptions which would be appropriate to clip out, but the punchline being that the Jews were the cause of all of Germany's problems.
Elipsing out various parts of a sentence or paragraph is appropriate to do if you maintain the original meaning. It is not appropriate to do this when you modify the meaning, or make it appear as if the author/speaker said something that is the opposite of what they actually said.
From my perception, all I can conclude from this is that you are fucking intellectually dishonest, since you go to such great lengths to defend a work which is dishonest (and the word "dishonest" does not mean only flat-out lying).
PS: Claiming that income taxes are the equivalent of robbery (not theft) is not misleading people. It is a moral statement, no different than saying "abortion is wrong". Simply because a group of people write a document, declare themselves "the State", an then presume to go around "taxing" you for "the services they provide" doesn't mean that what they're doing isn't theft -- it's a protection racket on a grand scale. The only difference between these two actions is that while one is considered illegitimate by most people (and you are allowed to defend yourself against), the other is considered legitimate (and you are not allowed to defend yourself); this is merely a matter of normative force, and popular opinion, and has nothing at all to do with morality.
Simply because he didn't lie doesn't mean he wasn't deceitful, which is the title of the article (deceits, not lies). I think there were a few lies in there, but most of it was deceits. The most atrocious example was the one Senator who he left looking bewildered, but who actually supported Moore (if you read the whole interview). He presents facts so as to make you think one thing (such as that Bush met with Saudi's), when the reality is a completely different thing (such as that the Saudi's came to meet with Bush [all Moore told us], but that Bush refused to meet them). This is wrong and immoral. It is intellectual dishonesty. In an academic setting, this person would (hopefully) be expelled from the profession.