michael rozeff the dunce
first, because it’s fun and few deserve it as much as that raving dumbass, note the fucked grammar from mr. perfect spelling twat:
[…] Knowing that government is an inefficient beast that constantly lies and constantly screws up and constantly gets us into wars and constantly creates social problems and that cannot be counted on to do anything right, the more we know about what government is doing, the better off we are. […]
if you’re going to write extended sentences like that, rozeff the dunce, be sure you have the skill and haven’t written one of the world’s stupidest blog posts, berating a non-pedant for fucking away an apostrophe, and warbling the quack of all quacks: “Should I believe anything this writer says about the Fed if he does not know basic grammar?”
as i noted before, i’m more worried about those who don’t evince basic logic. to rozeff’s recent shtick:
i read most of the blog posts at LRC, and few of the articles. from that view it appears that rozeff the dunce has embraced a spankin’ new buzzword in the last few months: panarchism. using the word isn’t any big deal, but as soon as you begin to differentiate materially between rothbardian and panarchist, you’re drooling on yourself. in the service of spewing some pretentious horse shit on the LRC blog, however, no move is too trivial or degrading for the dunce:
Take 1: the Rothbardian take. Government is a criminal enterprise through and through. There is nothing wrong with anyone exposing the secret comings and goings of the criminals.
Take 2: the Panarchist take. Any territorial Government lacks the consent of many persons impressed into its rule. There is nothing wrong with any of these persons who have not signed on to that government in exposing its secret comings and goings in order to free themselves of its oppressive rule. […]
if the definition of government is “something to which you consent”, then there isn’t a lick of difference between the first example and the second. hearing me say that, a moron might counter, “but you didn’t pay attention; the first example defines government as a thoroughly criminal enterprise!”
and, of course (if you’re not an idiot), that’s the point. for example two simply distorts a non-criminal enterprise into equivocation. this is done by brainwashed farts like rozeff who can’t abide leaving behind some master/servant relationship, even if voluntary. they love the state, but do recognize its inherent evil. so they stick close to the word and the system while not recognizing the obvious: if you agree to be a servant and want to use for that relationship the same word used universally to denote an aggressive relationship, you’re a dumb fucker.
rather than acknowledge what the equivocation employed between his two examples really is — error — the dunce pretends it has deep meaning. that’s what often happens when you’re digging deep to spit out a useless list.
December 21st, 2010 at 12:56
[...] i.e., impossible, powers of rights obliteration. your problem, rozeff the pompous ignorant rat, is of definition, and thereby [...]