Forum Replies Created
Professor McClanahan has granted your wish. His next course will be about the US Presidents. It is coming within the next few weeks.January 18, 2016 at 8:49 pm in reply to: anyone seen this ebook: How Libertarians Can Stop Being Wrong About the NAP #20399
Dr Woods did a show a few days ago demolishing this anti-NAP nonsense.
The Civil War lectures have good recommendations.
I would only add “Hamilton’s Curse” and “The Real Lincoln” by Thomas Dilorenzo.
Stateless Society implies a society WITHOUT a state, so there is no entity to impose sharia law. You might as well ask what is to prevent someone from setting up the burgundian code in a stateless society. Without a State, legal commitments are voluntary, and laws become nothing more than contracts enforced by private authorities.
This nonsense about Sharia-law has been a meme in the post-9/11 USA. It’s not like their are legions of behadings going on in michigan right now.
Muslims are a minority in the US, so they would not have the numbers to enforce ANY legal system.
Judge Andrew Napolitano lays this nonsense to rest on Fox News of all places: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-RGKYdn6fk
Professor McClanahan’s presentation on Secession puts this nonsense to rest.
The Conventions were elected by the people, and then conventions decided whether to secede. The secession ordinances were signed by the Governors only AFTER the popularly elected conventions had voted.
Marxists have always been for centralization of power. When the Cold Wra ended,Marxist historian Eric Foner lamented the fact that Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were leaving the Soviet Union without asking for permission of their overlords in Moscow.
Notice that the quote has to do with concerns that the seceded states were coerced into joining the CONFEDERACY. Let’s remember that succeeded states did not immediately join the Confederacy(it was not formed until 1861). This comes from the problem of treating the Secession and the Civil War as the same thing, when in fact the Civil War is the Northern reaction. Modern Statist propaganda still tries to make it look like the South seceded and then almost immediately declared war.
Based on this: https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/126276/
I would say skip it and watch these instead:
Professor Woods on the “Robber Barrons”:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VA9VZeox3g
Thomas Dilorenzo on Anti-Trust: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNrHFZDIAl8
For the Foreign Policy angle read Wall, the Banks, and Foreign Policy by Murray Rothbard.
If you have the time , you can also listen to his presentation “The American Economy and the End of Laissez Faire:1870-WWII“
No announcement on the courses yet, but it sounds like he is doing more than one.
My bet is that “Money and Banking” would be at least one.
I would agree with Tom. In my own college experience, I read libertarian writers and watched nearly every Ron Paul and Mises U vid ever in my spare time.
I had a friend whose sister came back from college indoctrinated, so I understand the concern. However, as libertarians, we must get used to being the “away team” in political debates.
The best I can recommend is sending Derek to one or more summers at Mises U, so he can get a good economics and history background, and focus on his engineering studies during the regular school year.
A buddy of mine who teaches history was taught that Nullification was dreamed up by John C Calhoun(on a Tuesday afternoon I guess), so studying economics and history as a minor, I would consider a waste of time(since his career aspirations are in robotics).
For the robotics angle, when I worked at a hospital there were students who had come to install some robotics equipment for surgical applications, so schools with good medical connections might also be helpful since the engineering side of the healthcare field is always growing.
However, not only did he do the latter grudgingly, but he privately mused that Brown had been wrongly decided. As you’ve seen, I believe Brown wrongly decided as well, although I think the 1965 VRA was perfectly constitutional and ought to have been adopted and enforced far, far sooner.
Is it true that LBJ and Southern Democrats blocked earlier Civil Rights Bills?
Do you agree with the Revisionist view presented by Becky Akers in her new book about Benedict Arnold?
I think a clue can be seen from professor Gutzman’s comments on another thread:
Each of these questions is the subject of bookshelves of dissertations, scholarly articles, and books.
In a sense, they all require us to engage in alternative history–that is, historical fiction–to come to answers.
As I understand it, Brown v. Board of Education–result of the NAACP LDF’s legal strategy and extremely partisan behavior by numerous federal judges–spurred private activism, which itself ultimately brought segregation to Americans’ TV screens and led to adoption of the decisive VRA of 1965. That’s what ended segregation, not the 1964 CRA.
Each of the three had a role. There’s no way to know what would have happened without any of them. In general, however, it was Congress that ended segregation. Historians today tend to resist this conclusion, because they want to stress black agency–just as they want women to be responsible for women’s suffrage, even though of course it was all-male legislatures that adopted the amendment at the behest of all-male electorates in nearly all the states.
I don’t understand why Hunt Tooley would not be a good choice. I have heard his presentation and found him to be brilliant(including one about the 1957 Iran coup that put the Shah back into power).
The only thing I can think is that he is too busy to produce content for an entire course.
I think the Jim Crow laws came into effect in the generation that immediately followed “Redemption”, mainly when those from leading southern families who were children during the Civil War and Reconstruction became adults.
The biggest factor that appears to have led to the founding of the KKK is the Union occupation. Remember that many former confederates were barred from military service and politics during this period, and their property was taken by Northerners(the “Carpetbaggers”). The main targets of the KKK seem to have been the Carpetbaggers and Scallywags(collaborators).
Many Jim Crow laws were State Laws, but you also have to account for the rise Southern Democrat control of the national government that came about in the late 19th century.
So historically speaking, Marriage has been seen as under being the jurisdiction of the Church with the State simply acknowledging this jurisdiction.
Is it true that the first Civil Recognition of Marriages(marriage licenses vs marriages being recorded solely in church registers. ) in the US began due to Public Health concerns during the Progressive Era?