# Think Tank > Austrian Economics / Economic Theory >  Was Mises a racist?

## Vanguard101

I've been reading some quotes and I'm starting to wonder if he actually was one. 

"It is perfectly legitimate to assume that the races are different in their cognitive abilities and in their willpower and accordingly are unequally suited for the task of setting up societies, and that the better races are characterized in particular by their special ability to strengthen social bonds."

Source: Ludwig von Mises, The Market Economy, trans. Danny Lewis, (Jena: Gustav Fischer, 1932), p. 297



Seems like he's a racist just like Rockwell and Rothbard

----------


## fr33

Probably.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

I wouldn't call any of the three of the men racists.

----------


## amy31416

Everybody is a racist, including black/brown/red/yellow people. It's called discrimination, and while that now sounds like a terrible thing, it's really not. We all discriminate--and we should.

I really don't care at all if they were "racists."

----------


## tod evans

> Everybody is a racist, including black/brown/red/yellow people. It's called discrimination, and while that now sounds like a terrible thing, it's really not. We all discriminate--and we should.
> 
> I really don't care at all if they were "racists."


But, but........

The governments indoctrination centers are pushing for the homogenization of humanity and every one of us has been tasked with pointing out instances of disparity whether just perceived or not...

----------


## FloralScent

> I've been reading some quotes and I'm starting to wonder if he actually was one. 
> 
> "It is perfectly legitimate to assume that the races are different in their cognitive abilities and in their willpower and accordingly are unequally suited for the task of setting up societies, and that the better races are characterized in particular by their special ability to strengthen social bonds."
> 
> Source: Ludwig von Mises, The Market Economy, trans. Danny Lewis, (Jena: Gustav Fischer, 1932), p. 297
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like he's a racist just like Rockwell and Rothbard


He sounds like a realist.

----------


## FloralScent

> But, but........
> 
> The governments indoctrination centers are pushing for the  homogenization of humanity and every one of us has been tasked with  pointing out instances of disparity whether just perceived or not...



boom...

----------


## Christian Liberty

It sounds like a racist quote, but why is racism the sin of all sins?

I find the idea that Mises supported the draft more concerning, honestly.

And how does this make Rothbard or Rockwell racists?  Is there any evidence at all that those guys were/are racists?

----------


## Ronin Truth

And I should give a flying crap one way or the other because ____________________________________?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

I'll bet he used the term "negro" too. Racist! 

Cultural Marxism at work. Demonize the messenger.

----------


## Vanguard101

> Everybody is a racist, including black/brown/red/yellow people. It's called discrimination, and while that now sounds like a terrible thing, it's really not. We all discriminate--and we should.
> 
> I really don't care at all if they were "racists."


Uh.......


It's safe to say Rockwell wrote the newsletters and Rothbard has some stupid stuff to say about the bell curve.

----------


## William Tell

> Uh.......
> 
> 
> It's safe to say Rockwell wrote the newsletters


Is it?

----------


## TonySutton

If he was thinking whites were the ones poorly suited, would he still be a racist?

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I've been reading some quotes and I'm starting to wonder if he actually was one.


Oh, you "read some quotes," did you? Provided by whom? In what context? For what purpose?

Did you read the actual book - or at least the section from which the quote (not quotes) you cited came from?

And where are these other quotes you claim to have read? What are their contexts?

Or are you just breathlessly regurgitating what someone else is spoon-feeding you?




> Seems like he's a racist just like Rockwell and Rothbard


Really? So where are the out-of-context "quotes" to back up your new accusations against these other people?

Seems like you're a character assassin who can't be bothered to do more than drive-by smear jobs ...




> Uh.......
> 
> It's safe to say Rockwell wrote the newsletters and Rothbard has some stupid stuff to say about the bell curve.


Uh.......

It's safe to say you've got nothing but baseless accusations and mealy-mouthed innuendos to offer.

And speaking of "stupid stuff to say" - you really don't seem to have much business throwing brickbats in that direction.

----------


## Vanguard101

> Oh, you "read some quotes," did you? Provided by whom? In what context? For what purpose?
> 
> Did you read the actual book - or at least the section from which the quote (not quotes) you cited came from?
> 
> And where are these other quotes you claim to have read? What are their contexts?
> 
> Or are you just breathlessly regurgitating what someone else is spoon-feeding you?
> 
> 
> ...


I'm sorry you are offended. No need to snap. 

That quote clearly is racially charged. There is no context that justifies being able to make an assumption that races are different in cognitive abilities. There are multiple discussions about it on the web. I asked. I wasn't sure. Unless you have a warrant to justify your anger, back off.

Rothbard has already made ridiculous comments on the bell curve. Rockwell wrote half or ron's newsletters. 

Again, you can continue to be angry but unless you have a warrant, just back off.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I'm sorry you are offended. No need to snap. 
> 
> That quote clearly is racially charged. *There is no context that justifies being able to make an assumption that races are different in cognitive abilities.* There are multiple discussions about it on the web. I asked. I wasn't sure. Unless you have a warrant to justify your anger, back off.
> 
> Rothbard has already made ridiculous comments on the bell curve. Rockwell wrote half or ron's newsletters. 
> 
> Again, you can continue to be angry but unless you have a warrant, just back off.


Sure there is.  Anthropologists, sociologists, philosophers, and the like talk about such things routinely.  Lookie here-skeletal structures of caucasians are different than those of negroes.  OH NOEZ!  I'M RACIST!!!

----------


## James Madison

> Sure there is.  Anthropologists, sociologists, philosophers, and the like talk about such things routinely.  Lookie here-skeletal structures of caucasians are different than those of negroes.  OH NOEZ!  I'M RACIST!!!


Why next you're going to tell me having fair skin provides Caucasians a competitive advantage at high latitudes.

----------


## Vanguard101

> Sure there is.  Anthropologists, sociologists, philosophers, and the like talk about such things routinely.  Lookie here-skeletal structures of caucasians are different than those of negroes.  OH NOEZ!  I'M RACIST!!!



Yes tell me more.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I'm sorry you are offended. No need to snap. 
> 
> That quote clearly is racially charged. There is no context that justifies being able to make an assumption that races are different in cognitive abilities. There are multiple discussions about it on the web. I asked. I wasn't sure. Unless you have a warrant to justify your anger, back off.
> 
> Rothbard has already made ridiculous comments on the bell curve. Rockwell wrote half or ron's newsletters. 
> 
> Again, you can continue to be angry but unless you have a warrant, just back off.


My warrant is the fact that you are carelessly flinging around accusations of racism, stupidity, etc. - against multiple people, and without offering so much as a single shred of evidence apart from one brief quote and a string of unsupported assertions and personal opinions. And just to add to the irony, you complain about what Mises said about the "cognitive abilities" of others while you yourself hypocritically impugn the cognitive abilities of Rothbard. So YOU back off and stop getting pissy when someone calls you on retreading all this tiresome bull$#@!.

The Mises quote is "clearly ... racially charged" only through the lens of modern sensibilities. It would not have been at all "charged" or controversial when he originally made it in 1932. That does not make it right, and Mises may well have been wrong (and I believe that he was wrong) - but being wrong about such things does NOT make one a "racist." It just makes one wrong. [retraction: see post #45 below] To call Mises a "racist" on that basis alone is a ridiculous and entirely unwarranted smear - especially today, when attitudes about such matters are so profoundly different than they were then. Today, the label "racist" has become so meaningless as to be worthless - and it is systematically and all but exclusively used to categorically defame and condemn any person someone dislikes or disapproves of (for whatever reason), usually on the basis of some "juicy" quote or other that has been dug up and trotted out for people like you to self-righteously "tsk-tsk" and "tut-tut" over. (And I have no doubt that the web is indeed full of multiple such "discussions" - the web is full of a lot of crap.)

So unless you have some actual evidence (from the context of the material from which the quote was lifted) that actually demonstrates that Mises was an actual "racist" - that is, that he disliked or hated people of other races and/or that he approved of depriving them of their life, liberty or property  - then let's not hear any more about how it "seems like he's a racist just like Rockwell and Rothbard." (For whom, by the way, you have offered even less "evidence" of "racism" than you have for Mises - which is to say, none at all.)

----------


## Nirvikalpa

> Sure there is.  Anthropologists, sociologists, philosophers, and the like talk about such things routinely.  Lookie here-skeletal structures of caucasians are different than those of negroes.  OH NOEZ!  I'M RACIST!!!


To be fair, anthropologists have noted many more differences within members of the same race than between different races.

The scientist in me shuddered at using that word... ugh.

----------


## Vanguard101

> My warrant is the fact that you are carelessly flinging around accusations of racism, stupidity, etc. - against multiple people, and without offering so much as a single shred of evidence apart from one brief quote and a string of unsupported assertions and personal opinions. And just to add to the irony, you complain about what Mises said about the "cognitive abilities" of others while you yourself hypocritically impugn the cognitive abilities of Rothbard. So YOU back off and stop getting pissy when someone calls you on retreading all this tiresome bull$#@!.
> 
> The Mises quote is "clearly ... racially charged" only through the lens of modern sensibilities. It would not have been at all "charged" or controversial when he originally made it in 1932. That does not make it right, and Mises may well have been wrong (and I believe that he was wrong) - but being wrong about such things does NOT make one a "racist." It just makes one wrong. To call Mises a "racist" on that basis alone is a ridiculous and entirely unwarranted smear - especially today, when attitudes about such matters are so profoundly different than they were then. Today, the label "racist" has become so meaningless as to be worthless - and it is systematically and all but exclusively used to categorically defame and condemn any person someone dislikes or disapproves of (for whatever reason), usually on the basis of some "juicy" quote or other that has been dug up and trotted out for people like you to self-righteously "tsk-tsk" and "tut-tut" over. (And I have no doubt that the web is indeed full of multiple such "discussions" - the web is full of a lot of crap.)
> 
> So unless you have some actual evidence (from the context of the material from which the quote was lifted) that actually demonstrates that Mises was an actual "racist" - that is, that he disliked or hated people of other races and/or that he approved of depriving them of their life, liberty or property  - then let's not hear any more about how it "seems like he's a racist just like Rockwell and Rothbard." (For whom, by the way, you have offered even less "evidence" of "racism" than you have for Mises - which is to say, none at all.)


I asked if he was a racist. It was warranted through the quote. It wasn't careless. Unless you are referring to the Rothbard/Rockwell comment which I could have easily defended. I really could care less about that part. The OP was about Mises. You just seem more mad than able to have a legitimate discussion. Ok buddy.

Yes go ahead and talk about modern sensibilities. At one point, it wasn't possibly racist to own slaves too. Guess it doesn't make it any more controversial then. No matter how you look at it, the statement is racially charged. I asked if he was a racist. That's all. Attitudes today compared to back then do not matter. Even if Mises hypothetically would act different than back then, that doesn't change the fact that he made those statements. You are really digging at straws here to defend him. I'm not trying to condemn him. I'm holding him to the same standards I hold every1 else libertarians criticize when they violate our principles. 

If you don't think this comment is enough to question it, you are as blind as the people you criticize.

----------


## tod evans

Attempting to hold folks of another era to standards taught this century is pretty deceitful...

Try holding some of the behaviors and verbiage used today to the standards of yesteryear...

By the standards of conduct exhibited during Mises's life he was extremely tolerant of others.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Attempting to hold folks of another era to standards taught this century is pretty deceitful...
> 
> Try holding some of the behaviors and verbiage used today to the standards of yesteryear...
> 
> By the standards of conduct exhibited during Mises's life he was extremely tolerant of others.


Mises is not known as "The Last Knight of Liberalism" for nothing. ("Liberalism," of course, meaning "classical liberalism.")

----------


## Origanalist

> I'm sorry you are offended. No need to snap. 
> 
> That quote clearly is racially charged. There is no context that justifies being able to make an assumption that races are different in cognitive abilities. There are multiple discussions about it on the web. I asked. I wasn't sure. Unless you have a warrant to justify your anger, back off.
> 
> Rothbard has already made ridiculous comments on the bell curve. Rockwell wrote half or ron's newsletters. 
> 
> Again, you can continue to be angry but unless you have a warrant, just back off.


A warrant?

----------


## Vanguard101

> Attempting to hold folks of another era to standards taught this century is pretty deceitful...
> 
> Try holding some of the behaviors and verbiage used today to the standards of yesteryear...
> 
> By the standards of conduct exhibited during Mises's life he was extremely tolerant of others.


How is that deceitful?

----------


## milgram

For the sake of reference, the term "racist" barely existed in 1932.




> Word Origin & History
> 
> racist
> 1932 as a noun, 1938 as an adjective, from race (n.2); racism is first attested 1936 (from Fr. racisme, 1935), originally in the context of Nazi theories. But they replaced earlier words, racialism (1907) and racialist (1917), both often used at first in a British or South African context.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> How is that deceitful?


It's an apples/oranges comparison.

----------


## idiom

> It sounds like a racist quote, but why is racism the sin of all sins?


Because it greenlights genocide. If humans are of separate breeds or races then logically rules apply differently to different races.

If you are communist, then only a particular race may be worthy of survival.

If you are rothbardian then certain races may not be able to homestead. Self owner-ship and the ability to homestead property is inexplicably restricted to humans, even a humanoid fully competitive AI is apparently unable to own itself. If that definition is restricted to exclude human sub-species then hilarity ensues. If someone *can't* own themselves by definition then they won't mind if you kill them. 


It matters in academics because it tends to show a lack of critical thinking.

This is separate from from a cultural class-ism which believes sections of society may have been raised to act a certain way. If one believes in population-wide genetic inferiority then it behooves one to cleanse the gene-pool either by genocide or restrictions on breeding. Its the logical end. It applies to non-evolutionary thinking also. Plenty of bible-thumpers defend the Hebrew genocides during the conquest of Palestine as removing peoples who had interbred with demons, citing giants as examples. 

Rothbardian definitions of the NAP are highly susceptible to it due to their tight restriction of all rights to a tight definition of human. Other moral codes such as jainism are impervious, as rights are not limited to humans.

----------


## idiom

> If he was thinking whites were the ones poorly suited, would he still be a racist?


Of course.

----------


## osan

> I've been reading some quotes and I'm starting to wonder if he actually was one.


And?  What's your point?




> "It is perfectly legitimate to assume that the races are different in their cognitive abilities and in their willpower and accordingly are unequally suited for the task of setting up societies, and that the better races are characterized in particular by their special ability to strengthen social bonds."


This assertion predicates entirely on the definitions of the various nouns and modifiers contained therein.  Mises is dead so we are probably $#@! out of luck there.

Define "better", for example.  It could have been used in a very general way or it may have been used as jargon with a very specific meaning.  Mises was a smart guy but I doubt he was immune from $#@!-ups. 




> Seems like he's a racist just like Rockwell and Rothbard


I reiterate: what's your point?  You post this quote, then go all weepy because... ???  Try making a point with something other than wholly incomprehensible and poorly applied innuendo.

----------


## osan

> But, but........


Global warming...

Corporations...

Gay dolphin marriage...




> The governments indoctrination centers are pushing for the _homogenization of humanity_ and every one of us has been tasked with pointing out instances of disparity whether just perceived or not...


100% on the money.  Give the man a cigar.  No, not _THAT_ cigar, Monica.

Perfect (i.e. sufficient) homogenization to a specification is the tyrant's ultimate goal because that renders people predictable and fungible.

----------


## osan

> It sounds like a racist quote, but why is racism the sin of all sins?
> 
> I find the idea that Mises supported the draft more concerning, honestly.


Well, you need to think about that a little better, methinks.  Mises was correct.

If we are going to have a "state" and the state is going to have a standing army, it should be compelled (no to the point of imprisonment for those not serving, but of loss of some or all contractual rights such as that of voting).

A volunteer standing army is the worst possible idea on the planet.  When you volunteer, you sign away nearly ALL your rights precisely because not only have you explicitly agreed to the terms of service, you actually solicited them.  The army did not knock at your door asking you to join.  You knocked on theirs.  BIG difference.

Having explicitly agreed to said terms, you have ZERO standing to later reject them, whereas if you were compelled under threat and other duress to serve, you have long and stout legs upon which to stand your ground when things go $#@!ty-sideways.

A volunteer army may be well presumed as being populated to 99.9% with people who actually want to be there.  Such people are far more likely to obey commands without question than those who are not so thrilled to be there in the first place.  Those orders to murder civilians are less onerous to the volunteer with eyes on a long career than it is to the inductee who is barely tolerating his circumstance.

I will add that an all volunteer armed force can be confidently deemed as vastly more homogeneous in terms of general attitudes towards things such as blind obedience precisely because they want to be there and are therefore far less wanting to rock a boat they have no interest in capsizing.

I agree with compulsory service 100% IN THE CONTEXT of such a social construction.  In broader terms, I despise the whole state-run military bull$#@! precisely because the only thing it has ever been used for is political insanity and the destruction of life and property and happiness.  But this is the world in which we live and so long as it remains this way I say compel everyone to military service for 2 years.  Anyone refusing simply loses out on state sanctioned privileges such as voting, government jobs, and so forth.  If you are OK with that, I am OK with you not joining.  If not, do your time and be glad that you are there to help keep vigilant eye on the ones for whom the circumstance is cause for great engorgement of the parts.  Those are the ones who really don't need to be there.

That's one of the sad paradoxes of these sorts of situations: those who are least suited to be involved are often the ones most deeply so.  Just look at politics.

----------


## FloralScent

> Perfect (i.e. sufficient) homogenization to a specification is the tyrant's ultimate goal because that renders people predictable and fungible.




It also destroys any ethnic nationalism which is a must for the NWO to succeed. 

Those great champions of diversity Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan did this, by force rather than propaganda but their goals were the same.  

I'd rather live on a planet comprised of hundreds of warring nations than under a 'peaceful', all powerful, New World Order.

----------


## osan

> That quote clearly is racially charged.


That is an unsupported assertion, but let us be charitable in not making you work too hard and grant that it is so.  

SO WHAT?  You keep using poorly constructed innuendo to press readers to infer that something is wrong here, but you provide no clue as to what it is beyond "it's bad". 

In other words, you're talking a lot and saying pretty much nothing.

FAIL.




> There is no context that justifies being able to make an assumption that races are different in cognitive abilities.


You are wrong.  Dead wrong.  I recall studies done on precisely this that we studied in my formal cognitive psychology training.  For example, Australian aboriginals were incapable of comprehending the notion of "corner" as in that of a room because they had no such experience.  Depending on one's specific contextual definition of "superior" it may be said that the white Euros were in fact superior to the aboriginals in this respect.  Change the definition and different conclusions may be reached.

But your blanket-broad statement of universal complaint fails miserably.

Hell, even my black studies professor at CCNY, one Kamuti Kiteme (feel free to look him up, he's still kicking AFAIK), stated to the horror of the black students in the class that black Africans do not possess many of the abilities that white Euros have.  His explanation was perfectly rational: black Africans lived for a few millions of years in a paradise where you could barely take a step without tripping over food.  There was no environmental press placed upon them to develop the inventive skills and the work ethic of Euros who, living a a place that was a frozen wasteland for half of every year, would have died had they not toed Mother Nature's line.

Why would anyone, white or otherwise, strain themselves in an environment where the biggest demand placed upon you is to decide on how many times a day you are going to screw?  Going from such a general environment to one where your nuts were frozen for six months and the mazzah was cracking his whip at you to work mo' must have been a pretty shocking thing for those poor bastards whose own relatives sold them into bondage.  Given the ways in which evolution appears to work, especially in terms of time frames, what would lead anyone to think that the average black man has "caught up" in a mere 350 years?  Obviously many have, but that so many more have not is not terribly surprising, especially in this social environment where the incentives press them to remain lazy and live off the fat that someone else is producing.




> There are multiple discussions about it on the web. *I asked*.


You did substantially more than that.  You implied several things, however foggily, and you made at least one assertion.  To wit:




> Seems like he's a racist just like Rockwell and Rothbard


That's not asking.




> I wasn't sure.


Then may I suggest you work at making yourself more plainly clear?




> Rothbard has already made ridiculous comments on the bell curve.


Such as?




> Again, you can continue to be angry but unless you have a warrant,* just back off*.


Stop being so bossy.

BWAAAAAA HAA HAA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA...

----------


## osan

> Sure there is.  Anthropologists, sociologists, philosophers, and the like talk about such things routinely.  Lookie here-skeletal structures of caucasians are different than those of negroes.  OH NOEZ!  I'M RACIST!!!


Ca. 1981-82 a research team discovered a FUNDAMENTAL difference in the structure of black African blood vis-a-vis all other races. It lit off a _major_ $#@! storm and was very rapidly silenced.  I don't think the story survived more than 2-3 days and mysteriously disappeared.

Perhaps not so mysterious.

----------


## osan

> To be fair, anthropologists have noted many more differences within members of the same race than between different races.
> 
> The scientist in me shuddered at using that word... ugh.


The scientist in _me_ says that this makes no sense whatsoever in the sense that "many more" speaks to quantity and not to character and degree, which are the two salient factors in questions of difference in this context.

I would also point out that what you wrote could be very legitimately interpreted to mean that black people are not nearly as genetically diverse as non-blacks.  In fact, the inference is almost impossible to escape.  What says your inner scientist to that?

----------


## osan

> Attempting to hold folks of another era to standards taught this century is pretty deceitful...


Or just plain shamefully ignorant.




> Try holding some of the behaviors and verbiage used today to the standards of yesteryear...


They'd have you swinging from a rope.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Ca. 1981-82 a research team discovered a FUNDAMENTAL difference in the structure of black African blood vis-a-vis all other races. It lit off a _major_ $#@! storm and was very rapidly silenced.  I don't think the story survived more than 2-3 days and mysteriously disappeared.
> 
> Perhaps not so mysterious.


Inconvenient and politically incorrect discoveries in science have a way of being silenced. (and the politically useful discoveries have a way of being funded and promoted by States)  It's a common theme throughout all history of the Western sciences.  IDK about the East, so I won't comment on that.

----------


## osan

> Because it green lights genocide.


Oh BULL$#@!.  It can be used that way, but your tacit implication is that it must and that is simply nonsense.

Come on d00d, you're smarter than that.  Sentence construction is important.  This is, after all, an age of nuclear weapons and global delivery systems.  Misunderstandings can be very costly.




> If humans are of separate breeds or races then logically rules apply differently to different races.


Same error.  This is a grand non-sequitur.  Difference does NOT imply different rules, but only allows for the possibility.  So does homogeneity, in which case we call it "hypocrisy".





> It matters in academics because it tends to show a lack of critical thinking.


It matters in your post for what seem to be very much the same reasons.

You really need to rethink what you have written here because your reasoning did a major face-plant.

----------


## amy31416

Here's a test for ya'll to see if you're racist or not: send your young daughter walking alone through a ghetto or a messed up trailer park. Am I racist or a realist when I tell you "oh hell no?" Do I want to commit or support genocide because I'm not a giant dumbass who pretends that it's okay to put someone at risk in such a way? 

Use your damn brains. Sometimes using them makes you recognize patterns--and that has more to do with being capable of observation and weighing risk than being some redneck hillbilly, that is not wrong. It might get you called some names, but WTF do I care about political correctness over not being enormously stupid and careless?

How far does this devotion to political correctness go? Do you sacrifice people you love to it? 

And the irony is that our gov't kills mostly brown people, yet we're going to trust them about "hate crimes?" They use our young as cannon fodder, they use all of us. F them, I don't acknowledge any morality devised by murderers and thieves.

Mises never killed anyone that I know of. If he was war-happy, then that is definitely a huge point against him, ethically.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Mises never killed anyone that I know of. If he was war-happy, then that is definitely a huge point against him, ethically.


You will be delighted to learn that Mises was absolutely and categorically NOT "war-happy." Exactly the opposite was the case.

In fact, the quote in the OP was part of Mises's case AGAINST the use of "race theory" to justify wars, economic regimentation and illiberal social orders.

Stay tuned. I've got the straight poop from Mises himself coming up ... [EDIT: See post #43 below ...]

----------


## amy31416

> You will be delighted to learn that Mises was absolutely and categorically NOT "war-happy." Exactly the opposite was the case.
> 
> In fact, the quote in the OP was part of Mises's case AGAINST the use of "race theory" to justify wars, economic regimentation and illiberal social orders.
> 
> Stay tuned. I've got the straight poop from Mises himself coming up ...


Will do, Banana. I'm sorry that I can't do videos though.

----------


## Occam's Banana

*"The problem with Internet quotes is that you can't always depend on their accuracy."
Source: Abraham Lincoln, Using the Internet (Land of Oz: Dewey Cheatham & Howe, 1808), p. 666*

From the OP:



> "It is perfectly legitimate to assume that  the races are different in their cognitive abilities and in their  willpower and accordingly are unequally suited for the task of setting  up societies, and that the better races are characterized in particular  by their special ability to strengthen social bonds."
> 
> Source: Ludwig von Mises, The Market Economy, trans. Danny Lewis, (Jena: Gustav Fischer, 1932), p. 297


_Die Gemeinwirtschaft: Untersuchungen über den Sozialismus_ by Ludwig von Mises was originally published in German in 1922 (Jena: Gustav Fischer Verlag, 1922). _Die Gemeinwirtschaft_  was translated into English by J. Kahane and published in 1936 under  the title "Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis" (London:  Cape, 1936). This translation was based on the second reworked German  edition of 1932 (Jena: Gustav Fischer Verlag, 1932). The English translation was  reworked *with the participation and approval of Mises himself* and published in 1951  (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1951). [Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_%28book%29]

* I have not been able to establish the provenance of the translation  offered in the OP's citation*. Perhaps it is some sort of "personal" or "private" translation rendered by someone named "Danny  Lewis" who used the second reworked German edition of 1932 - and who  translated the title as "The Market Economy" rather than "Socialism" (a  literal translation of "_Die Gemeinwirtschaft_" would be "the social economy").

*IOW:* The quote in the OP is NOT what Mises actually said - _it is what this "Danny Lewis" person says he said_. *RED FLAG!*

In the 1951 translation (which is considered standard, as it was published under the _imprimatur_ of Mises himself), the statement attributed to Mises in the OP is actually rendered as follows:



> It may be assumed that races do differ in  intelligence and will  power, and that, this being so, they are very  unequal in their ability  to form society, and further that the better  races distinguish  themselves precisely by their special aptitude for  strengthening social  co-operation.


Before we proceed further, let us refresh our memory of the arrogant and presumptuous certainty with which the OP declared that "there is no context" which could possibly have "justified" Mises's remark:



> That quote clearly is racially charged. There is no context that justifies being able to make an assumption that races are different in cognitive abilities. There are multiple discussions about it on the web.


First of all, note that Mises does not anywhere in his quote (the real one, I mean) actually do what he is being accused of doing. He did NOT "make an assumption that races are different in cognitive abilities" - and he did NOT say that such an assumption is "perfectly legitimate." He said ONLY that the assumption may be made - but he did NOT say that *he* was making it (let alone that he *agreed* with it).

Furthermore, Mises is using the word "may" here in the sense of "might" - as in "it may be assumed that Mises is a 'racist' (on the basis of dubious and out-of-context quotes found on the Internet), and that, this being so, some people will go around ignorantly and impudently smearing him in 'multiple discussions ... on the web' without first bothering to better inform themselves." IOW: To say that a thing "may be assumed" does NOT mean that it actually is being assumed, or that it should or must be assumed - only that it "might" be (by some people).

Finally, the fact that Mises was NOT agreeing with the assumption specified in the quote (let alone actually and actively promoting or defending it) can be firmly established beyond any doubt if we do nothing more than just read what he actually said almost immediately following the remark - and here it is (the original quote has been italicized, and Mises's refusal to adopt or defend the "hypothesis" is underlined in bold):



> _It may be assumed that races do differ in intelligence and will power, and that, this being so, they are very unequal in their ability to form society, and further that the better races distinguish themselves precisely by their special aptitude for strengthening social co-operation._ [...] *We leave it open whether the hypothesis itself and the hypothesis erected on it are tenable.* At the moment this does not concern us. We are solely concerned to show that the race theory is easily compatible with our theory of social co-operation.


So: Mises is explicitly saying that he "leave[s] it open whether the hypothesis itself [i.e., _'that races do differ in intelligence and will power'_] and the hypothesis erected on it [i.e., _'that they are very unequal in their ability to form society, ...'_] are tenable." IOW: Mises is not saying anything about whether the assumption is justifiable or "legitimate." He is saying that either way, it does not make any difference to his point. That is all.

This is why context is all-important - and why sneering, pre-emptive assertions that "there is no context" that could possibly "justify" Mises's remark are ill-considered and foolish. When we see a single quote of dubious provenance yanked out of context and presented on its own as alleged "evidence" of some sin such as "racism," red flags ought to start popping up all over the place.

So what is the larger context of Mises's remark? What was his purpose? What was he trying to do - and what role did his remark play in doing it? The answers to these questions can be easily found by simply looking at what Mises actually said - ALL of it, NOT just a one-line misrepresentation being exploited to ignorantly pop-off about how it "seems like he's a racist just like so-and-so and what's-his-face."

Here is the larger context: When Mises wrote _Socialism_, nationalists, socialists, fascists and assorted other species of rabid statists were trying to use "race theory" and "scientific" notions of racial differences (among other things) to justify their various schemes for war, economic repression & control, racial conflict & subjugation, etc. They tried to use "race theory" in order to "prove" the invalidity of classical liberalism (i.e., libertarianism - or what Mises referred to in the previous quote as "our theory of social co-operation") - because allowing allegedly "inferior" races all the same liberties and priveleges of allegedly "superior" races supposedly couldn't work (according to them). 

 Mises was endeavoring to deny and reject this nonsense. He was NOT saying (or even suggesting) that the "race theorists" were "right" or that they were "on to something" - he was arguing that *even if they were right, their racist dogmas would STILL not be an excuse for establishing an illiberal or "racist" social order*. When he said "it may [as in 'might'] be assumed ..." he was referring to the assumptions of the "race theorists" he was arguing against - he was NOT stating his own beliefs or assumptions. IOW: Mises was doing the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the OP's out-of-context and infelicitously translated quote is trying to suggest. He was NOT embracing "race theory" or saying that it was a "perfectly legitimate" assumption - he was saying that "race theory DOES NOT MATTER" (not even if it is correct - something which Mises did NOT accept as being the case).

 Mises was, in effect, saying that the "race theorists" were full of $#@! -  only he was far too much of a scholar and a gentleman to actually have put it  that way. Instead, he used very staid, careful and scholarly language to say it. As a  result, ignoramuses who do not know any better imagine that they can present a  poorly-translated line from him and then use it to spout off as if they had any  idea what he was actually talking about.

To summarize: Mises was NOT endorsing or promoting ANY "race theory" - and he certainly was  NOT endorsing the idea of there being such things as "better races" (or, by implication,  "worse races"). He was merely describing the assumptions being made by  the "race theorists" and then denying that such "race theories" could ever be used to refute or deny the viability of a genuinely liberal social order based on peaceful mutuality and cooperation between races. To put Mises's remark in an even fuller context, here is the entire subsection of _Socialism_ in which it appears (bolded in red). Read it and understand it - only then may you presume to judge whether the man who wrote this was a "racist" ...

FTA (emphasis added, footnotes elided): http://mises.org/books/socialism/part3_ch19.aspx



> *Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis*
> _by Ludwig von Mises_ (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1951, pp.324-327)
> http://mises.org/books/socialism/contents.aspx
> 
> PART 3 - The Alleged Inevitability of Socialism
> SECTION 1 - Social Evolution
> CHAPTER 3 - Conflict as a Factor in Social Evolution
> SUBSECTION 5 - Racial War
> 
> ...


And finally - just as a sort of "cherry on top" - consider the following:

FTA (emphasis added): http://mises.org/etexts/mises/og/chap8.asp



> *Omnipresent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War*
> _by Ludwig von Mises_ (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1944, p.170)
> http://mises.org/etexts/mises/og.asp
> 
> PART 3 - German Nazism
> CHAPTER 8 - Anti-Semitism and Racism
> SECTION 1 - The Role of Racism
> 
> For more than a hundred years anthropologists have studied the bodily   features of various races. The undisputed outcome of these scientific   investigations is that the peoples of white skin, Europeans and   non-European descendants of emigrated European ancestors, represent a   mixture of various bodily characteristics. Men have tried to explain   this fact as the result of intermarriage between the members of pure   primitive stocks. Whatever the truth of this, it is certain that there   are today no pure stocks within the class or race of white-skinned   people.
> ...


Now, go ahead - read all the above and try telling me that Mises actually thought & believed "that  the races are different in  their cognitive abilities" (let alone that he thought or believed that such notions would in any way justify depriving people of their lives, liberty or property because of their race). Try telling me again that Mises is a "racist" ...

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I asked if he was a racist. It was warranted  through the quote. It wasn't careless. Unless you are referring to the  Rothbard/Rockwell comment which I could have easily defended. I really  could care less about that part. The OP was about Mises. You just seem  more mad than able to have a legitimate discussion. Ok buddy.


So let me get this straight ...

You post a single quote by someone, and then in the very same post - and with  NO further "evidence" or "discussion" - you just smear that person as a  "racist" (all under the rubric of "just asking"). In addition to this,  you simultaneously and off-handedly lump two other people into your smear - people who have nothing to do with it, by your own admission ("the OP was about Mises").

You then excuse this boorishness by going on about how you "could have  easily defended" your smear against those two others, but you really  just don't care about it and couldn't be bothered. (So then why did you  do it?). And then you explain that you weren't really talking about  them, anyway - even though you literally were talking about them. (How  does that work?)

And finally - just to top it all off - you have the temerity to lecture someone else about having "a legitimate discussion." 

(And BTW, thank you for openly admitting to my accusation that "you are   carelessly flinging around accusations of racism [etc.] against  multiple  people.")




> Yes go ahead and talk about modern sensibilities. At one point, it  wasn't possibly racist to own slaves too. Guess it doesn't make it any  more controversial then.


Where did you get the idiotic notion that "at one point, it wasn't possibly racist to own slaves?"
That's bull$#@!! If slaves were owned on the basis of race, then, yes, it is was racist to own slaves.
And in America, slaves were owned on the basis of race. Therefore, American slavery was racist.
And it was every bit as controversial then as it is now. Only historical ignoramuses can imagine otherwise.




> No matter how you look at it, the statement is  racially charged. I asked if he was a racist. That's all. Attitudes  today compared to back then do not matter. Even if Mises hypothetically  would act different than back then, that doesn't change the fact that he  made those statements. You are really digging at straws here to defend  him. I'm not trying to condemn him. I'm holding him to the same  standards I hold every1 else libertarians criticize when they violate  our principles.


See post #43 above - Mises's remark can be considered to be "racially charged" ONLY  because people like you cannot be bothered to look past a dubiously translated, out-of-context quote and make some kind of effort to discover what Mises was actually saying and why he was saying it. Of course, people like you don't need to do that, do you? You just immediately "know" that you've discovered you some "racism" - without ANY need to think or look beyond your knee-jerk "standards."

You do NOT get to call someone a "racist" and then say, "I'm not trying  to condemn him" - and you do NOT get to condemn a man for being a "racist" on the basis of nothing more than a single, ineptly translated line of text that you clearly don't understand and just as clearly have not even tried to understand. So you can go on all you like about how you are just "holding him to your standards" for "violating your principles." The only possible reason for bandying that quote about as some kind of "evidence" of racism "no  matter how you look at it" is to smear and besmirch Mises's good name. When you and other people indulge in this sort of pernicious nonsense, you make a mockery out of fighting against the evil of real, genuine racism - and in so doing, you turn the accusation of "racsim" into a pathetic joke, thereby giving cover and camouflage to real, genuine racists. It's a disgusting and contemptible thing to do - and if that is what your "standards" and "principles" lead you to, then you really shouldn't be bragging about it ...

And the "attitudes ... back then" DO matter. They matter a LOT. It is precisely those "attitudes" -  specifically, the ones associated with and arising from "scientific race theory" and notions of "race  conflict" and racial "superiority" - that Mises was _CRITICIZING_. But you wouldn't know that would you? Because all you were going on was a single-line, out-of-context & ill-translated quote - and you couldn't be bothered to find out any more than that before popping off about how Mises must be some kind of "racist." SMGDH.




> If you don't think this comment is enough to  question it, you are as blind as the people you criticize.


You did NOT "question" anything (the presence of a  question mark at the end of your thread title to the contrary  notwithstanding). You didn't question the provenance of the citation - or whether the quote was legitimate - or what the context was - or etc. You merely tossed out a single, misstated quote under Mises's name and then  immediately used it to smear him as a "racist" (along with two other people you have admitted had nothing to do with it).

I will be perfectly willing to "question" whether Mises (or anyone else)  was a "racist" just as soon as you (or anyone else) can offer a single shred  of actual evidence that Mises regarded other people with animosity or  hatred because of their race - or that he believed other people could or  should be deprived of life, liberty or property on the basis of their  race. But unless and until that is done, I will continue to criticize  you and anyone else who peddles any of this politically-correct "ooh!  look! so-and-so is a 'racist' because I saw this 'quote' on the Internet" bull$#@!.

----------


## Occam's Banana

It appears that I must offer a public apology to a certain person involved with this thread.
I ignorantly, unfairly & improperly impugned that person without any good cause or reason.
I have said some things about that person which I now deeply regret and wish to "take back," if I may.

Specifically, in an earlier post I made the following statement:



> The Mises quote is "clearly ... racially   charged" only through the lens of modern sensibilities. It would not   have been at all "charged" or controversial when he originally made it   in 1932. That does not make it right, and Mises may well have been wrong   (and I believe that he was wrong) - but being wrong about such things does NOT make one a "racist."


I would like to formally retract the entire final sentence of that statement, which I have struck out in the reproduction above (from "That does not ..." to "... make one a 'racist.'").

I committed a grave and very serious error therein, especially in the parenthetical assertion (to wit, that "[Mises] was wrong"). As it turns out, _upon examining the full and actual context of Mises's remark,_ *Mises was NOT wrong* (see post #43 above). But in a perfect illustration of the insidiously corrupting nature of "political correctness," I fell into reflexive defensiveness as a reaction against the vile and baseless charge of "racism" that has been levelled against Mises. I tried to "distance" myself from Mises - NOT because he was actually in error, but merely in thoughtless recoil - and by doing so, I gave some measure of license and sanction to the OP's scurrilous, contemptible and ignorant defamation of a truly great man.

It was a cowardly and shameful thing for me to do. I was wrong to do it and I am very sorry.
So I sincerely apologize to you, Mr. Mises - and I can only hope that your shade will forgive me.
_Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito. (Do not give in to evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it.)_

I will not forget it again. I promise.

----------


## tod evans

Once again proving to all who care to look that the lens society is viewed with today is in no way similar to that which was used when this country was actually one to admire...

The "education" er indoctrination system is, and has been, failing the citizenry ever sense government got involved....

----------


## Ronin Truth

Let's just dig up that filthy racist and kill him again. That'll show him.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

Keynes praised hitler, was a supporter of the British Empire, and the leader of the British Eugenics society. 

Lets compare Keynes and Mises record on race.

----------


## jon_perez

> I've been reading some quotes and I'm starting to wonder if he actually was one. 
> 
> "It is perfectly legitimate to assume that the races are different in their cognitive abilities and in their willpower and accordingly are unequally suited for the task of setting up societies, and that the better races are characterized in particular by their special ability to strengthen social bonds."
> 
> Source: Ludwig von Mises, The Market Economy, trans. Danny Lewis, (Jena: Gustav Fischer, 1932), p. 297
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like he's a racist just like Rockwell and Rothbard


Yes, for failing to distinguish between color of skin versus cultural proclivities.

----------


## AuH20

> Why next you're going to tell me having fair skin provides Caucasians a competitive advantage at high latitudes.


I knew there was a reason why no one ever opened up a ski resort on Mount Kilimanjaro. 

Edit. I thought it said altitude not latitude. The joke is on me.

----------


## jmdrake

> He sounds like a realist.







> If he was thinking whites were the ones poorly suited, would he still be a racist?


No.  He would just be stupid either way.  People of all races have set up great (as in powerful) societies.  The ancient Zimbabweans had huge stone cities with indoor plumbing while the Europeans were living in caves.  The Mayans, Toltecs, Egyptians, Nubians and other black/brown peoples all had their times of greatness.  And ultimately their civilizations went to crap because of ridiculous levels of government corruption.  The "great" Native American cultures were simultaneously smart enough to build pyramids and develop advanced mathematics and dumb enough to think that they needed to cut the living hearts out of people in order to end a solar eclipse or a famine or to otherwise appease the gods.  People hate on Christianity, but the fact that the only human sacrifice in that religion is God Himself is probably the single most import factor for our own culture not going to total crap as well.  That said...at times it looks like we're headed there.

----------


## jmdrake

+rep!  Thank you!  So Mises didn't adopt a racist view himself but said that his theories worked even for those who do.  Regardless, if he was racist, nobody is perfect.  The biologist who discovered DNA was racist.  That doesn't mean we throw out DNA.




> *"The problem with Internet quotes is that you can't always depend on their accuracy."
> Source: Abraham Lincoln, Using the Internet (Land of Oz: Dewey Cheatham & Howe, 1808), p. 666*
> 
> From the OP:
> 
> 
> _Die Gemeinwirtschaft: Untersuchungen über den Sozialismus_ by Ludwig von Mises was originally published in German in 1922 (Jena: Gustav Fischer Verlag, 1922). _Die Gemeinwirtschaft_  was translated into English by J. Kahane and published in 1936 under  the title "Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis" (London:  Cape, 1936). This translation was based on the second reworked German  edition of 1932 (Jena: Gustav Fischer Verlag, 1932). The English translation was  reworked *with the participation and approval of Mises himself* and published in 1951  (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1951). [Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_%28book%29]
> 
> * I have not been able to establish the provenance of the translation  offered in the OP's citation*. Perhaps it is some sort of "personal" or "private" translation rendered by someone named "Danny  Lewis" who used the second reworked German edition of 1932 - and who  translated the title as "The Market Economy" rather than "Socialism" (a  literal translation of "_Die Gemeinwirtschaft_" would be "the social economy").
> ...

----------


## AuH20

> Ca. 1981-82 a research team discovered a FUNDAMENTAL difference in the structure of black African blood vis-a-vis all other races. It lit off a _major_ $#@! storm and was very rapidly silenced.  I don't think the story survived more than 2-3 days and mysteriously disappeared.
> 
> Perhaps not so mysterious.


It wouldn't surprise me. Science is simply a more advanced form of organized religion. Whatever violates key state sanctioned memes is immediately discarded. However, another problem with these type of revelations is the white supremacist contingent that wishes to use these controversial discoveries for subjugation purposes.

----------


## The Gold Standard

I didn't see this thread back in the day, but it's good to see Mr. Banana eviscerated the mindless OP.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

I don't see anything wrong with that quote, and Rothbard's advocacy of race realism and The Bell Curve shows his devotion to understanding reality. Leftism is infecting libertarianism, but I want no part of the cultural Marxist demonization of racial consciousness (in other words, reality).

----------


## Vanguard101

It's one thing to say that there is an IQ difference between white, blacks, and every1 else, and blacks on average have lower IQs for a variety of reasons. It is another thing to say there is something inherent within blacks that cause them to have lower IQs. It's also another thing to say races have different cognitive abilities. This isn't a left-winged argument. Just because I'm not some Rothbardian does not mean I am a left-winged libertarian. 


Banana didn't eviscerate a single argument.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I don't see anything wrong with that quote, and Rothbard's advocacy of race realism and The Bell Curve shows his devotion to understanding reality. Leftism is infecting libertarianism, but I want no part of the cultural Marxist demonization of racial consciousness (in other words, reality).


Small-l libertarian is a leftist movement anyway.  The Marxians trend toward rightist statism.  Anarcho-communists are a pretty rare breed.  They're respectable, even if you disagree with their egalitarianism and naivety.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> It's one thing to say that there is an IQ difference between white, blacks, and every1 else, and blacks on average have lower IQs for a variety of reasons. It is another thing to say there is something inherent within blacks that cause them to have lower IQs. It's also another thing to say races have different cognitive abilities. This isn't a left-winged argument. Just because I'm not some Rothbardian does not mean I am a left-winged libertarian. 
> 
> 
> Banana didn't eviscerate a single argument.


I'm not a Rothbardian either, but the IQ differences between races in the Western world _does_ have a genetic basis.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> Small-l libertarian is a leftist movement anyway.  The Marxians trend toward rightist statism.  Anarcho-communists are a pretty rare breed.  They're respectable, even if you disagree with their egalitarianism and naivety.


???????

1. There's nothing inherently leftist about small-l libertarianism. There are leftists who identify with that, but it's not a prerequisite.
2. There's nothing rightist about Marxism in any sense.
3. Cultural Marxism is a dominant narrative throughout the modern social sciences, and the vast majority of leftists and even the so called "right" adhere to it without realizing it.
4. Ancoms have nothing to do with any of this.

----------


## Vanguard101

> I'm not a Rothbardian either, but the IQ differences between races in the Western world _does_ have a genetic basis.


It's ridiculously racist to suggest that IQ is something inherent within your skin color. And Rothbard didn't even believe in what he said. He merely used it as a political tactic to gain paleocon support

----------


## AuH20

> *It's ridiculously racist to suggest that IQ is something inherent within your skin color.* And Rothbard didn't even believe in what he said. He merely used it as a political tactic to gain paleocon support


It probably has something more to do with geographic isolation and not skin color. Secondly, this nonsense that people with so-called lower IQs add little value to society is total bunk in my eyes.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I'm not a Rothbardian either, but the IQ differences between races in the Western world _does_ have a genetic basis.


All the biology and sociology I've studied suggests otherwise.  What is the evidence for your claim?

----------


## Vanguard101

> It probably has something to do with geographic isolation and not skin color. Secondly, this nonsense that people with so-called lower IQs add little value to society is total bunk in my eyes.


This may be true. Just like babies born in a more developed country, will be healthier and etc.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> All the biology and sociology I've studied suggests otherwise.  What is the evidence for your claim?


Really? That's interesting, because the estimates of IQ heritability range from a low of .5 to a high of .9. The heritability of IQ isn't really disputed by biologists these days, so I find it odd that all of your biology study pointed in the opposite direction. Keep in mind that IQ tests are G loaded. Sociology as it exists in the modern university is almost entirely worthless, so I don't really care what 99% of sociologists have to say.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> *It's ridiculously racist to suggest that IQ is something inherent within your skin color*. And Rothbard didn't even believe in what he said. He merely used it as a political tactic to gain paleocon support


That is not what's being said, no hereditarian model claims this. I hear this inanity all the time, and all it proves is that the person making the claim hasn't read a single book on the topic, and probably not even an article.

What reason is there to claim Rothbard didn't actually believe what he said? Rothbard allied himself with a lot of different groups over the years, seeking to build a libertarian alliance, but I never knew him to lie to get support. Rothbard was nothing if not principled; just because he wanted to use that fact to gain paleocon support doesn't mean he didn't believe it was true.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

That there are IQ differences between the races is an extremely well documented fact. It is not disputed by anyone in the field. The only debate is over what causes these differences: genetics, environment, or some kind of error in the data collection. Unless you've personally studied the huge amount of research on this topic, you should not be dismissing the genetic explanation out of hand. On its face, it's entirely plausible. I myself don't know enough about this topic to have an intelligent opinion (though my suspicion is that genetics do play an important role). And, if genetics _are_ responsible (partially or entirely), that has no necessary political implications. "Therefore, we should [insert racist law]" does not follow, so don't worry about that. The realization that there are genetically-based differences in intelligence between the races, if that's what we find in the end, should not trouble anyone other than deranged tabula rasa egalitarians who want to build a utopian society where everyone is perfectly identical - of which I assume there are none posting here at RPF.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> That there are IQ differences between the races is an extremely well documented fact. It is not disputed by anyone in the field. The only debate is over what causes these differences: genetics, environment, or some kind of error in the data collection. Unless you've personally studied the huge amount of research on this topic, you should not be dismissing the genetic explanation out of hand. On its face, it's entirely plausible. I myself don't know enough about this topic to have an intelligent opinion (though my suspicion is that genetics do play an important role). And, if genetics _are_ responsible (partially or entirely), that has no necessary political implications. "Therefore, we should [insert racist law]" does not follow, so don't worry about that. The realization that there are genetically-based differences in intelligence between the races, if that's what we find in the end, should not trouble anyone other than deranged tabula rasa egalitarians who want to build a utopian society where everyone is perfectly identical - of which I assume there are none posting here at RPF.


+1

----------

