Tag: Immorality

1296: Walter Williams – False Charity

W1296: Walter Williams - False Charity
The act of reaching into one’s own pockets to help a fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else’s pocket is despicable. —Walter Williams
The act of reaching into one’s own pockets to help a fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else’s pocket is despicable. —Walter WilliamsDownload Print Quality (3840×2010) 4.03MB  |  Normal Quality (1920×1005) 272KB
The act of reaching into one’s own pockets to help a fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else’s pocket is despicable. —Walter WilliamsDownload Print Quality (3840×2744) 5.24MB  |  Normal Quality (1920×1372) 367KB

The act of reaching into one’s own pockets to help a fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else’s pocket is despicable. —Walter Williams

1261: Eric July – If You Advocate for Mandates…

W1261: Eric July - If You Advocate for Mandates...
In my show I make it abundantly clear that if you advocate for a government vaccine mandate you are a piece of shit. —Eric July (For Canon Sake with Eric July - 04 Sept 2021)
In my show I make it abundantly clear that if you advocate for a government vaccine mandate you are a piece of shit. —Eric July (For Canon Sake with Eric July - 04 Sept 2021)Download Print Quality (3840×2010) 4.07MB  |  Normal Quality (1920×1005) 231KB
In my show I make it abundantly clear that if you advocate for a government vaccine mandate you are a piece of shit. —Eric July (For Canon Sake with Eric July - 04 Sept 2021)Download Print Quality (3840×2744) 4.79MB  |  Normal Quality (1920×1372) 301KB

In my show I make it abundantly clear that if you advocate for a government vaccine mandate you are a piece of shit. —Eric July (For Canon Sake with Eric July – 04 Sept 2021)

1247: Murray Rothbard – Taking Wealth by Force is Not Charity

W1247: Murray Rothbard - Taking Wealth by Force is Not Charity
It is hardly “charity” to take wealth by force and hand it over to someone else. Indeed, this is the direct opposite of charity… Compulsory confiscation can only deaden charitable desires completely, as the wealthier grumble that there is no point in giving to charity when the State has already taken on the task. —Murray Rothbard
It is hardly “charity” to take wealth by force and hand it over to someone else. Indeed, this is the direct opposite of charity… Compulsory confiscation can only deaden charitable desires completely, as the wealthier grumble that there is no point in giving to charity when the State has already taken on the task. —Murray RothbardDownload Print Quality (3840×2010) 1.64MB  |  Normal Quality (1920×1005) 177KB
It is hardly “charity” to take wealth by force and hand it over to someone else. Indeed, this is the direct opposite of charity… Compulsory confiscation can only deaden charitable desires completely, as the wealthier grumble that there is no point in giving to charity when the State has already taken on the task. —Murray RothbardDownload Print Quality (3840×2744) 2.94MB  |  Normal Quality (1920×1372) 225KB

It is hardly “charity” to take wealth by force and hand it over to someone else. Indeed, this is the direct opposite of charity… Compulsory confiscation can only deaden charitable desires completely, as the wealthier grumble that there is no point in giving to charity when the State has already taken on the task. —Murray Rothbard

1237: Walter Williams – Legality Does Not Justify Crimes

W1237: Walter Williams - Legality Does Not Justify Crimes
How does something immoral, when done privately, become moral when it is done collectively? Furthermore, does legality establish morality? Slavery was legal; apartheid is legal; Stalinist, Nazi, and Maoist purges were legal. Clearly, the fact of legality does not justify these crimes. Legality, alone, cannot be the talisman of moral people. —Walter Williams
How does something immoral, when done privately, become moral when it is done collectively? Furthermore, does legality establish morality? Slavery was legal; apartheid is legal; Stalinist, Nazi, and Maoist purges were legal. Clearly, the fact of legality does not justify these crimes. Legality, alone, cannot be the talisman of moral people. —Walter WilliamsDownload Print Quality (3840×2010) 2.41MB  |  Normal Quality (1920×1005) 238KB
How does something immoral, when done privately, become moral when it is done collectively? Furthermore, does legality establish morality? Slavery was legal; apartheid is legal; Stalinist, Nazi, and Maoist purges were legal. Clearly, the fact of legality does not justify these crimes. Legality, alone, cannot be the talisman of moral people. —Walter WilliamsDownload Print Quality (3840×2744) 3.18MB  |  Normal Quality (1920×1372) 298KB

How does something immoral, when done privately, become moral when it is done collectively? Furthermore, does legality establish morality? Slavery was legal; apartheid is legal; Stalinist, Nazi, and Maoist purges were legal. Clearly, the fact of legality does not justify these crimes. Legality, alone, cannot be the talisman of moral people. —Walter Williams

1087: Murray Rothbard – How Do We Define Rights?

F1087: Murray Rothbard - Define Rights?
"Right" has cogently and trenchantly been defined by Professor Sadowsky:“When we say that one has the right to do certain things we mean this and only this, that it would be immoral for another, alone or in combination, to stop him from doing this by the use of physical force or the threat thereof. We do not mean that any use a man makes of his property within the limits set forth is necessarily a moral use.”Sadowsky's definition highlights the crucial distinction between a man's right and the morality or immorality of his exercise of that right. —Murray Rothbard (The Ethics of Liberty)
“Right” has cogently and trenchantly been defined by Professor Sadowsky: “When we say that one has the right to do certain things we mean this and only this, that it would be immoral for another, alone or in combination, to stop him from doing this by the use of physical force or the threat thereof. We do not mean that any use a man makes of his property within the limits set forth is necessarily a moral use.” Sadowsky’s definition highlights the crucial distinction between a man’s right and the morality or immorality of his exercise of that right. —Murray Rothbard (The Ethics of Liberty)

1021: Murray Rothbard – Voting Does Not Imply Voluntary Consent

F1021: Murray Rothbard - Voting and Consent
In an environment of State coercion, voting does not imply voluntary consent. Indeed, if the State allows us a periodic choice of rulers, limited though that choice may be, it surely cannot be considered immoral to make use of that limited choice to try to reduce or get rid of State power. —Murray Rothbard
In an environment of State coercion, voting does not imply voluntary consent. Indeed, if the State allows us a periodic choice of rulers, limited though that choice may be, it surely cannot be considered immoral to make use of that limited choice to try to reduce or get rid of State power. —Murray Rothbard