Thomas Sowell Thread

>uuhhhh u cant critsize freemun without bein a god dam keynesian

While a lot of what he said was theoretically correct, it never led to any actionable policy directives

>le all changes in price are due to inflation in muh long run

its like he actually believed that market parameters remain static long enough for markets to actually reach equilibrium in the real world. theoretically correct, practically useless

You're free to go find another country and get out. Your legal property rights only exist because of a nation's sovereignty.

t. state worshipper

I'm actually an IA. I just don't believe property in the sense you think of it exists without the coercive nature of the state to enforce its legal definitions of it. It's only yours because the state says it's yours.

Is it really that hard to imagine that a government strong enough to enforce property rights and contractual agreements is a basic necessity for a competitive and free market?

no. but it's also not hard to imagine the opposite.

which is what, in your eyes?

youtube.com/watch?v=2YfgKOnYx5A

No one is saying wealth is created... Like energy is just transformed and the basis is the enviroment

T. Stupid person

who said you are entitled to freedom? We already had this philosophical debate centuries ago but fucking ANCAP´s are to lazy to actually read a book about law or philosofy.

You are an subject of the state in the democratic system, but still you are the state.

You pay taxes because you don´t rely only on you and the other person on protecting goods for example, but you rely on every single citizen of the same state, therefore they deserve a minor compensation, so the money goes to the institution that in theory should represent the wishes of the majority.

Do you wishes to not pay? well you can leave no one is forcing you to stay, if you want to stay and not pay them you are breaking our laws and in a way you are at war against the state.

It is not about being voluntary, if you don´t want to pay taxes you can, but you are not allowed to earn money nor buy anything that is secured by the state, no one comes to charge you if you are not using the system

No, you're fucking retarded Sowell and stop shilling your idiocy.

> of the country
I wasn't aware the country was a rational actor and moral agent capable of having ownership, control and authority, I always thought only individuals could make the normative claims to ownership required for property based arguments.

One is voluntary the other is clearly the act of theft on the part of those people involved in the extortion.

> you rely on every single citizen of the same state, therefore they deserve a minor compensation
Logic does not follow. Voluntarily engaging in cooperative group defense of person, liberty and property is not the same as mob tyranny by the ballot box, the little nigger down the road with no job has no input into the things I need, like protection of my family and property, the division of labour takes care of that pretty easily with things like food and shelter, it could very easily take care of the protection aspect too in a voluntary way.

> Do you wishes to not pay? well you can leave no one is forcing you to stay,
He is questioning their authority to make that demand, they're the cunts acting immoral why should he leave? That's the whole point...

>Uses the infrastructure of said country
>Said country inspects all goods to prevent cancerous shit to be sold to you
>The said country makes sure the goods belong to who they should belong
>not expecting to pay for that privilege

It is not mob tyranny, it is tyranny of the majority no one is saying is not that, but there is not a single system that can grant more representation then that, ANCAP is stupid and would not work for several reasons you are on Veeky Forums for fuck sake you should be smarter then that.

>the little nigger down the road with no job has no input into the things I need, like protection of my family and property

And he should not to be honest, but still he is a representation of the state as you are, he has a power to be heard like yourself.

The state(which is the junction of all people) ideally is the one who should have your best interest in mind not him.

Because he lives in a society, and to make use of said society you have to make little compensations to have the full rights of a citizen.

Don´t like it, leave said society, the land only belongs to you if the majority says so, if you don´t agree get a gun and fight them(or don´t because you will lose)

As I told you are not even obliged to pay taxes, a homeless person who grow his own food won´t pay taxes ever, you actually have a citizenship and will never contribute, but won´t buy anything nor own anything.

> I always thought only individuals could make the normative claims to ownership required for property based arguments.
Wow what an idiotic assumption.

What is some other guy's authority over his "property" other than force either personally enforced or enforced by the state? Because he says it is his, or it's the product of some other guy's labor that he traded for?

>> I always thought only individuals could make the normative claims to ownership required for property based arguments.

What a fool, a thing only belongs to you if people accept that, just because you say something is your it does not mean it is...

> said country
Said country isn't a person, on people are persons, why can't you graps that point? Cooperation need not require a ficticious entity that allows a small number of people to justify their immorality in the direction of ruling millions of people.

> he is a representation of the state as you are, he has a power to be heard like yourself.
Stating an observation like "being heard" doesn't make the current power structure right or efficient.
> representation of the state
> the state is the people
You are on Veeky Forums how naive can you be to not see that the state is merely the tool of the elites to rule the masses and centralize power?
> Because he lives in a society, and to make use of said society you have to make little compensations to have the full rights of a citizen.
Again you are making little observations of the current system as if its some kind of argument.
> Don´t like it, leave said society,
Again he was questioning the basis for them to have the authority to make that demand, I would agree with him that they don't have a legitimate basis above persons, property and voluntary systems which is an important subject for society to debate.

> Wow what an idiotic assumption.
Prove that something that isn't a rational actor, nor moral agent can make a normative claim.

>Mommy it is mine
>MOMMYYYY

> just because you say something is your it does not mean it is...
The basis for property CLAIMS are the claims themselves, of course they require resolution after the claim is made jesus christ.

Because he argues his objective link to that which is being claimed to be of a higher degree and stronger link than anyone else making a similar claim, how they choose to resolve any potential disputes that arise from these kinds of claims and interactions are the systems we build in a society.

Our current system is contradictory to its own premise, by having its basis in protecting property it has been perverted to violate property at its very core and so I would argue needs to have its "authority" reevaluated and questioned in society.

Not an argument. At least Veeky Forums are capable of forming a basic argument, PEE
> point
> explanation
> evidence
With at least some semblance of logical argumentative structure to it.

Still does not make sense, are you playing with words user? this being what is your point? it is yours because of your definition of what a claim is?

What do you mean by claims? I can Claim whatever I want, still does not make it true even remotely mine if I don´t have the power to hold that thing, I can have all the basis in the world still it does not make it mine, are you on drugs? why should I even respect your moral code? because we are friends or something?

Pluto is mine, print that and send to all governments, would you like to buy Pluto from me?

>Because he argues his objective link to that which is being claimed to be of a higher degree and stronger link
Yes, it's called use of force. What's your point? By the way the state can use force to collect your taxes.

>Our current system is contradictory to its own premise, by having its basis in protecting property it has been perverted to violate property at its very core
You treat property like it is an objective preexisting thing. Your property rights are defined by the legal institutions of the state, and those institutions say your rights are limited and the state is entitled to some of it.

>I would argue needs to have its "authority" reevaluated and questioned in society.
You can do that by joining a militia group and having armed standoffs with law enforcement.

Spooks

lol, I work in local government and have seen retards argue they don't need to pay taxes on Daddy's house because "muh rights."

Seized in tax title and sold at auction. Scofflaws beware

> are you playing with words user?
No I am being specific with words, because too often people are too vague to have solid meaning behind what they are saying like this notion of " a nation decides" as if that has any substance behind it.

> What do you mean by claims? I can Claim whatever I want, still does not make it true even remotely mine
Think of the history behind property ownership. It starts out with possession and force, then we form societies because we can communicate and with collective force a society needs to know when, where and who to apply that force to, so people make claims, if there are disputes people can either use force or argue, if they argue they are arguing their claims which is their objective link to that which is being claimed "I made this, I paid for it, here is my receipt, that's my name on the docket" etc, if force is used then argumentation and ethics are irrelevant they are in the realm of discussion.

If someone disagrees with someones opinion what matters is action; disagree and do nothing = nothing, disagree and use force = fighting, no argumentation, disagree through argumentation, perhaps wanting the collective force of society to back your normative claim of ownership = argumentation, how is property argued? Objective link.

This is just simple observable reality of how humans interact, what I am saying is that the state violates this clear line of social norms which form the basis for property in a society.

A state cannot participate in this social interaction because it is not a moral agent or rational actor, only the representatives of the state (other individuals) can, however they don't claim to personal own the land of a nation like a king would. So in our current democratic republican whatever systems, we have an illegitimate authority with a shady basis, acting violently towards people and are being defended on a false basis of it being legitimate and voluntary. This is not the case.

So might makes right and when the state comes to repo all your stuff with civil forfeiture and there's nothing you can do about it, I guess that's all your property claims really ever amounted to in the end. Okay.

Hmm still lookin for an argument but if you insist that the mafia is a legitimate authority just because they can forcibly occupy shop-owners property then I really question your ethical basis and moral compass and I bet the rest of your views don't rest on the biggest most violent gang for their basis but okay.

This place is devoid, I thought you guys would actually think for a moment and try to understand what is being said even if you disagree.

Can a business have multiple owners/shareholders?

A share can only have one owner, it is explicit, specific and tied in the same way to individuals. Sort of like someone selling off puzzle pieces, can a puzzle have multiple owners if I sell pieces to different people?

>Hmm still lookin for an argument but if you insist that the mafia is a legitimate authority just because they can forcibly occupy shop-owners property then I really question
If they're in such a position that they can enforce their own set of laws and rules as a sovereign organization, of course they'd be legitimate. That's the definition of legitimacy. Don't you guys call the state a bunch of mobsters anyways, so why are you drawing a line in the sand now?

> I really question your ethical basis and moral compass and I bet the rest of your views don't rest on the biggest most violent gang for their basis but okay.
What does legitimacy have to do with morality, unless you base your morality system around legitimacy. But you reject legitimacy when you don't like it, so clearly your morality system has nothing to do with legitimacy. So why imply a relation at all?

> What does legitimacy have to do with morality
Right/wrong.
> you reject legitimacy when you don't like it
I reject a claim of legitimacy hat can't be backed up and is not consistent.

>however they don't claim to personal own the land of a nation like a king would.

Who said that? why are you starting with this presumption?
The state is an entity with a fixed structure, there is not a single person who represents the state, but a set of individuals, Rousseau definitively explained that in his book the social contract, in democracy we are subjects of the state as in any state, everything belongs to the state, but the difference is that we all are the state as well, we all are rule the state, we all are kings in a diluted way.

The land is only yours if we agree, if we reach a consensus that it is not yours then we will take it back, you are not free to do anything you want with the land, the land belongs still to everyone even if you "buy" it.

Ultimately is the society who decides not only you, you are part of society, but you are not society

Personal property itself is a social construct only maintained solely by the state, the state is just a tool used to grant the desire of the majority of people.

Concluding you are not entitled to shit, even if you pay for it, you don´t own anything unless people agree with you, owning something is an abstract term with no real value, if we agree it is not yours then we will take it, because we reached this consensus.

If tomorrow people choose to eliminate the rights of personal property you can´t do nothing because people around you decided that

>Right/wrong.
That's not what legitimacy is though, that's what morality is.

>I reject a claim of legitimacy hat can't be backed up and is not consistent.
It's only not consistent with your claims that you pulled out of thin air. Your own claims are inconstant because it's only legitimate/moral when you say it is.

Your claims based property rights is a hypothetical framework that has little basis in reality. Might makes right, and private property as a legal construct and enforced by government monopoly of force is what prevails in reality, not some arbitrary definition of property based on individual claims.

You're on the same level as communists thinking you have some sort of inherent rights to things.

So basically this problem would be solved if we had a voluntary absolute monarchy?

Well you would have an accentuation of the problem, instead of the state being the representation of the majority or at least an entity it would be the representation of an individual

An individual claimant making claims of absolute sovereignty. As long as he ruled fairly and justly and provided for his people I see no reason this claim would not be voluntarily respected by his subjects.

> why are you starting with this presumption?
Because the president and the workers at the DMV don't claim to own the road near my house nor my house.
> your claims that you pulled out of thin air
They may seem like thin air to you but property has been observed and extensively studied for hundreds of years, the concept I mean.
> Your claims based property rights is a hypothetical framework that has little basis in reality.
It is reality, every single time someone says "that's mine" they are proving a very easily observable social norm. Society has worked out the possession vs claim problem a long time ago because possession is a single point in time, a claim is normative statement that either accepts or rejects that snapshot of time and the objective link people argue is what humans as a social animal do.

You can try and side step and reframe all you like and I've heard it many times before but I'm stilling looking for an argument.

If your only response to anyone questioning the current structure of society is to regurgitate how the current system works without examining any other part of the picture to see if there are cracks or not then you're no better a stubborn conservative, losing to socialists, to Libertarians, to the new right and so on.

Well as Rousseau explained in the social contract, the problem is that a generation is allowed to decide to have a king but it would be arbitrary as soon as the next generation comes, as they did not choose the guy and he may or may not represent them...

The best way it would need to have elections, but then the guy could win and not have any support at all after 2 years, because you can´t actually know someone only by what he says he is going to do.

I mean he can be respected, a lot of kings were, but most likely he won´t, and then the civilians are entitled to have revolutions.

>Because the president and the workers at the DMV don't claim to own the road near my house nor my house.

It is because they don´t, are you retarded or what? I explained that four times by now, they belong to the state an entity which you are part of but it is not you.

If you bought a piece of land, it still belongs to the state, you still have to abide by the laws of the state on it, because it is still on the territory of the state

It is the last time I will write that, because you totally are blocking and not reading.

>They may seem like thin air to you but property has been observed and extensively studied for hundreds of years, the concept I mean.

It is a social construct

>It is reality, every single time someone says "that's mine" they are proving a very easily observable social norm.

It is a social construct

>If your only response to anyone questioning the current structure of society is to regurgitate how the current system works without examining any other part of the picture to see if there are cracks or not then you're no better a stubborn conservative, losing to socialists, to Libertarians, to the new right and so on.

Projecting

Last response to you, I am fucking tired of answering the same thing over and over

I'll never understand that distinctly American mental illness which boils down to convincing yourself that your ideological/mystical delusions about how property and taxation should work actually have any impact on the way the law is enforced in reality.
Tax evasion is one thing, but those people are seemingly just retarded.

>Well as Rousseau explained in the social contract, the problem is that a generation is allowed to decide to have a king but it would be arbitrary as soon as the next generation comes, as they did not choose the guy and he may or may not represent them...
They don't have to chose him, they just have to chose to respect his claims.

>The best way it would need to have elections, but then the guy could win and not have any support at all after 2 years, because you can´t actually know someone only by what he says he is going to do.
So now we're going to have property elections to see who owns what? Sounds awfully democratic socialist to me.

>I mean he can be respected, a lot of kings were, but most likely he won´t, and then the civilians are entitled to have revolutions.
But it solves the problem of ancaps sperging out about individual claimants when they say that a democratic representational state with military might can't make property claims because their entire justification of why a state can't claim ownership is because the state isn't an individual, then they advocate for democratic elections to reaffirm the state.

> you totally are blocking and not reading.
I don't know if there are two people replying to my posts or not but the sidestep has been quite large so I'm not sure what you're on about.

> they belong to the state an entity which you are part of but it is not you.
> If you bought a piece of land, it still belongs to the state,
Yes you keep reasserting what the current system is not whether the current system is correct, right, consistent, logical or whatever other metric we've been using ITT to question it.
> It is a social construct
Bravo, society constructs systems very good.
> I am fucking tired of answering the same thing over and over
You mean you are tired of side-stepping, then asserting something everyone already knows thinking you found a little hole to crawl into to plant your little victory flag. I'm telling you mate, ignoring 3 or 4 of my posts and then making a bunch of obvious observations as assertions like they're some kind of argument is....just lazy.

But whatever, go away, we'll talk in the next thread whenever that is and see how we go hey? This has become tedious and pointless.

>correct, right, consistent, logical
It's extant, which is more than can be said of your notions.

>Bravo, society constructs systems very good.
Including the state which defies your premises.

> they just have to chose to respect his claims.

Why?

>So now we're going to have property elections to see who owns what? Sounds awfully democratic socialist to me.

So? and it was you who brought the idea of a king, I am simply trying to make this idea more fair

>But it solves the problem of ancaps sperging out about individual claimants when they say that a democratic representational state with military might can't make property claims because their entire justification of why a state can't claim ownership is because the state isn't an individual, then they advocate for democratic elections to reaffirm the state.

No one cares about what they sperg really, and they are simply wrong just because something is not an individual it does not mean they are not something...

Does Mac Donalds have a owner? no, but it still owns a fucking lot of things, with some money you can own MD as well.

The person who runs MD the head can be fired if the shareholders desire so.

so /house nigger/ general?

Concluding MD is an entity, just like a state

I think we're both assuming that the other is the OP. OP, I think said something about a king. I was just saying that a monarchy would be the synthesis of individual claimant and the state, ergo by the OP's standards a monarchy is more legitimate than a republic.

ahh lol
So let´s carry on

> Including the state which defies your premises.
It's almost as if....when enough people agree that the state shouldn't exist then it won't, just like when enough people thought the monarchy should no longer exist, it's almost as if the whole point of talking to people is because the more people you spread ideas to and the more popular they get, the closer they get to becoming a reality, bravo you've just worked out why people debate about things they want to change.

Observing that something exists is not the same as arguing that it should still exist.

But you haven't supported your premises or why individuals can not voluntarily jointly (with equal or unequal representation) make normative claims as a group.

> they are simply wrong just because something is not an individual it does not mean they are not something...
> But it solves the problem of ancaps sperging out about individual claimants when they say that a democratic representational state with military might can't make property claims because their entire justification of why a state can't claim ownership is because the state isn't an individual,
A claim is a normative statement, statements of opinion can only be made by people, this is why a monarchy has a stronger claim to property ownership than the bureaucrat at the DMV or the president, that doesn't mean that people under the banner of the state don't forcibly possess things, it's just very clear to anyone looking at it that they don't even claim to own, but they do claim as representatives of the state to have the authority to control.

Property is an individualist concept for this reason because its very basis is in the individual. Collective force is not the basis for property, collective force is one of many methods to protecting property and resolving disputes around those claimed resources.

The basis for property is centered around inviduals, their actions and their opinions, one is physical, the other verbal, both are important when interacting in a social structure where the social norm is to recognize the concept of property.

>statements of opinion can only be made by people

It is almost like the state is made of people who state that

Sowell has said at least one thing that is wrong. I cannot remember what it is. But he’s batting over 900

Like I said with shareholders and puzzles, and with collective force and cooperation. People can voluntarily do a lot of things.

Part of ownership is the right to exclusive use and control over what is being claimed/owned. A shareholder has exclusive 1-1 ownership of that share, it entitles them in a further context to potentially have a say in a company decision or whatever they all explicitly agree to within that structure.

Compare that to a pizza and the state for arguments sake. If a group of friends all buy a pizza and get one slice each, they agree that the pizza is too cold, they can all choose to put their slice back in the box and (or not) to get Mike to chuck it back in the microwave. If someone chooses to keep their slice out, thats their choice as property owner of that slice, however they can all cooperate together as a group voluntarily.

Now the state, someone builds my house in exchange for money, I am now the owner of that house, I go to put a fence in, the council comes along and says "according to us, that fence is too high, you can't do that".

1. This is not the same as a group of people controling their own shares, their own slices, their own property.
2. This is not the same as each person cooperating together as a group. One is involuntary.
3. The argument put forward ITT is that it is voluntary because the state that the council worker represents "owns" my house, and the pizza, and the shares, and that because I own and control a vote that it somehow makes it okay. Even though, In each example the highest authority was the property owner, but with the state they put themselves above property owners, and even though I cannot vote out a council worker.

Differences, differences, differences.

Like I said the president never says "I own your house", nor does the worker at the DMV. They are just the biggest gang, pretending that a ficticious entity owns everything. I am saying this is wrong, illogical and shouldn't be the case that we should choose in society to reject this notion and evolve passed it.

A property claim is a pretty easy concept, you make a claim, you argue your claim "I made this, I bought this" etc. The president does not say "the state made this" nor does he say "I made this" the president says "the goons I control have authority and control over what you claim".

It's a contradictory anethema to the very concept of property and why it exists. It exists so that people can have exclusive use and control over things like finite resources necessary for their survival and by mutually guaranteeing property rights to eachother we can have a functioning society and a division of labour.

He's not right, capitalists don't earn the money they have, they exploit their workers and pay them less than the value of their labour in order to take the surplus for their own. Communism is wanting the worker to be able to keep what they earn, rather than shekelberg using it to buy himself a yacht.

Price =/= value.
Price agreed between persons A & B on Monday =/= price agreed between persons A & C on Sunday.

Now fuck off.

He was wrong in his assertation about desegregation being bad because his counterpoint was deliberately cherrypicked.

Tom, just take that final step and say you want to bring back the gold standard. I know you know it's a crazy idea, but you're so close.

I know nothing of economics, why was it bad when it was what we used for almost 2 centuries?

>because his counterpoint was deliberately cherrypicked.
Welcome to most everything he's ever said. Look at the OP quote; it's just a strawman.

This sums up the pros and cons of it pretty well
thebalance.com/what-is-the-gold-standard-3306137
The simple fact is we don't have enough gold. If we went back to it, the country would pretty much instantly run out of money.

But you haven't supported why your idea of exclusive control is right. I guess people can't get married in your world?

That's what property ownership is from what I've found its like me saying "a central part to verbal communication is language" and you saying well nah.

Ownership is basically defined as the right to possess something, to possess is defined as having, owning or controlling something.

You can own something not in your possession, it's why we don't just stop at possession because ownership goes beyond possession it goes into who has the right to possess and control something. Who has the right to possess or control something? Who has the most objective link to what is being claimed. The claim is the method, the ownership is the goal, the ownership relates to physical possession but also "rights". Humans have long found that simply physically possessing something is insufficient, so we have ownership, property rights, collective force to protect persons and property from "illegitimate" force etc.

It's all rather connected you see but I'm not sure what you mean about marriage? Two married people still have the right to self-ownership and the responsibility that comes with all ownership. Marriage is a cooperation, like shareholders perhaps. But I don't know what you're saying there.

What is the purpose of owning a farm and the produce that you are farming? The purpose is so that you can control and possess it, if someone is justified in just taking it at anytime or controlling what happens to it then you don't really own it do you?

You still haven't supported why ownership as you put it is right are preferable to other systems of control over physical objects except muh claims.

Did they not teach you how to share in preschool?

Not so fast. A musician owns their music as per the law. However, the government does not own the country. They represent the country. If you read most constitutions, you'll see that the land belongs to the people of the nation.

So now we're saying property ownership isn't a desirable means of controlling things in a society? Christ, move the goal posts much?

Even after all this time you didn't bother putting forward an argument to what I've said, all you did was observe the current system then assert that its the way it is.

Bit disingenuous, at least play with an idea and make some semblance of an argument.

> the land belongs to the people
Lol how naive can you get. Haven't you bothered looking into whats happening with "public property" these days? There's a big boys club with all the control and profit from it and "the people" have no say. Come on people wake up

I have been reading his books lately, I like how confrontational he is in his writing but his arguments are flimsy as all fuck, when exposing his theses he purposely avoids mentioning benefits while putting all the problems under an atomic microscope when argumenting against and vivce versa with what he defends.
His comparisons are brainlet tier and his cherry picking of data are painful to see if you ever had a class on statistics.

I'm sure a lot of his ideas are lost on non burgeropitecus since most of what he wants/and completely demonizes can be seen outside the US and is nothing like what he says it is.

>So now we're saying property ownership isn't a desirable means of controlling things in a society? Christ, move the goal posts much?
I think you don't understand what moving the goalposts means.

>Even after all this time you didn't bother putting forward an argument to what I've said, all you did was observe the current system then assert that its the way it is.
Because your argument is based on a premise of some sort of inherent property ownership that exists without the state and claiming that legal property ownership regulated under the rule of law is contradictory, but legitimate private property rights without the state is not contradictory.

>Bit disingenuous, at least play with an idea and make some semblance of an argument.
No it really isn't. The terms and conditions of property are set and defined by the state. Property only exists in the use of force to define it. The state defines the notion of legal property in which it will use force under certain conditions. Conditions which are not the arbitrarily defined ones you made up about claims.

There is nothing inherently contradictory about legal property rights as defined by the state. There is something contradictory about claiming inherent property rights without the state based on anything other than actual control of an object.

check out this post for some power to combat wealth inequality.

We're talking ideally or normatively, you retard. You might as well say it's my right to avoid taxes if I'm able to do so because durr might makes right

The state is a legal person, same as a corp.

I first read Sowell early in university and it singlehandedly inoculated me from the typical brainwashing. The original ‘red pill’.

Liberalism is a form of autism. they cannot understand that the economy does not exist in a vacuum. this is why the idea that they should be taxed in order to sustain a larger society with which they are a part of seems like theft to them, but the very property they hold are legitimized by the larger society they are a part of.

But social democracy got killed by global capitalism, so the revolution will come again and abolish private property once in for all. Lets see all these smug liberals faces when their little boyclub gets turned upside down.

Nobody here is qualified to criticize Thomas Sowell.

Considering 99.9% of the self declared "revolutionaries" today are soft, limp-wristed college soyboys I don't think your dreamed revolution is ever happening. Maybe instead of wanting to leech off other people's work you should try being more productive.

They dont exist yet. 70% of american millenials already consider themselves "socialist". All they lack is organisation, these faggy middle class tankie larpers are only the beginning.

Yeah, right. I suppose no one here is qualified to criticise Mary Beard or Jordan Peterson or Keynes etc etc.

Most of the decent posters are at least degree educated, we can discuss and criticise the views of university lecturers.

>millenials

bunch of faggots

Thomaz Zowell is the G.O.A.T.

He was right about AAction, about taxes, about multiculturalism, EVERYTHING.

What do you think about his book "Black rednecks, white liberals"?

IT';s weird how he downpalys and craps on HBC's even though the ONLY reason her got into Harvard was because of one.

From what I can gather on Sowell, he was correct on social issues but incorrect on economic issues.

there's good article in a journal I found of Jstor and it explcitely showed how much Sowell constantly neglected or omitted a ton of detail in history to suit his point such as Black American agency in education and Black involvement in private/government/charity initiatives done.

jstor.org/stable/20064129

Not Keynes, no.

>IT';s weird how he downpalys and craps on HBC's even though the ONLY reason her got into Harvard was because of one.

It's weird how you did not get into Harvard yourself.

Lol the guy is an economist not a historian or sociologist like he seemingly believes he is one. It really should be the opposite since his economic knowledge and material is much more rigorous.