I wish I understood and knew Droopy better. It would be nice to see a more sympathetic side of the seething mass of rage, condescension, and vitriol that we encounter here. Surely he is not as irascible and insulting to others in real life as he is here. Who could stand to be in he same room with him for more than a minute, if he were?

Peace, Droops.

By the way, Snape was not a nihilist.

Which says all we need to know about your senses of justice, honor, and honesty.

And psychology isn't a science. Remember?

I made no claim of any such kind. I did develop a problem because of a pinched (crushed, really) nerve in my leg, but it never kept me from working.



I've said I did it for about a decade. I've done it off and on for longer than that, but that's irrelevant. I've done a lot of things since I was 16.



For approximately 6 -7 years, this was the case.



You don't know anything about it or whether it was "ill advised" or not. The moral vacuum sucks all into its swirling maw...



I have been employed for much of my life, since my mid-teenage years, correct.

I see no change is story here, nothing odd, and nothing incongruent. The problem here is a facile demagogue with a taste for lying in wait to deceive.

You signed, sealed, and delivered yourself for what you are long ago, Scratch. Only your anonymity maintains your evil bravado.

This sounds so much like Kishkumen that for a second there, I thought he might be projecting.

Then of course, there's all the reams of serious, critical, philosophical, doctrinal, and political discussion I've engaged in - and attempted to engage in - over the years, that all ends in a train wreck because of the very few people interested in or temperamentally oriented to such discourse.

That's all forgotten, however.

Droopy, look at your remarks here:



Living for "6-7 years" off an inheritance doesn't exactly count as "productive work," now does it? Further, you noted that:



But, none of this matters. I certainly don't hold it against you that you were once collecting unemployment checks (and other kinds of government aid), or loafing around due to walking off the job. I just think it is bizarre that you rail against these kinds of institutions (and the political ideologies that tend to support them) when you were happy to use them at various times.

It's true, Droopy. I haven't the temperament to tolerate you pontificating on your ideology. I may be able to read several languages, some of them dead, read thousands of pages of scholarship, and write and publish scores of pages in peer-reviewed journals, but I have no patience for your ideological lectures and alternate histories. I don't believe that proves me to be incapable of serious thought, however. I just loathe your politics. Big difference.

I do not recall Droopy even stating anything like what Scratch is saying.

Scratch I have come to understand you better over the years but I still don't abide much of your approach. I think unless you can prove what you say about Droopy is indeed based in facts you should withdraw it.

Why do we need to get personal?

I think this is one of those "informant" things.

NO way! You're lying.

$60,000 on a paintball business? The Austrian School weeps.

Mr. Droopy,

Have you ever used unemployment benefits?

Yes.

or

No.

- VRDRC

I think revealing personal information about any poster here is wrong, especially if done for the purposes of character assassination. The free exchange of thoughts and ideas should not be used to hurt anyone. Dr. Peterson has been condemned on this very forum for leaking information much less hurtful than what was said about Droopy. Does our ethical compass point out guilt to everyone other than ourselves?

He has several. I predict nothing but bad blood to come from this thread.

You know, Moksha, usually I would agree with this. But given the filth Droopy has been flinging around in the last few days it's hard for me to have much sympathy. On the whole though, I do think it's best to leave the nutters alone despite the freak show entertainment they provide. Because nothing they post here impinges on my life in any direct way: I have the pleasure and work of teaching and writing, and my work has the friendship and support of serious scholars both within emergent Mormon Studies and beyond (and Mormon history is really only a small part of my interests, anyway).

On the other hand, I'll never forget the horror of reading Anders Behring Breivik's manifesto and noticing all the same references and talking points of some of the nutlogs here.

Scratch, none of this tabloid character smearing and lawyerly semantic head gaming fools anybody except other Morlocks who are here for the red meat.

There is, of course, no contradiction between a few years sabbatical taking care of my crippled wife and going to school, with Austrian economics.



Move along, get a life...nothing to see here.

Droopy, you have a brilliant way with words. You should have been a writer surely?

Hope all is well with you and yours now.

Mary

Interesting also, the way both Scratch, Graham, and other leftists here see all electoral politics as little more than a matter of naked self interest masqurading as principle.

Yup, when I was, indeed, on welfare (AFDC, food stamps, WIC, and Medicaid) for a while in the early 80s, I voted for Reagan, and I have voted, and would vote for the sunseting of the entire federal welfare state, including unemployment insurance, even when using it myself.

The reason is that I am not a person primarily given to naked self interest at the expense of my fellow citizens, but a man of principle. I would gladly have traded, in the massive Carter recession of the early 80s and in Minnesota, which was bankrupt at the time, and where jobs were as scarce as hen's teeth) welfare for work. Once trapped on welfare, however, my wife and I couldn't get off the train. The cash was just enough to get by, and every time I found a job I thought I might like to try, my wife became anguished that we would lose our medical benefits, the food stamp allotment would decrease, and our rent would go up.

I learned about both the economic, social, and moral quicksand of the welfare state from dark, personal experience.

My political beliefs are a matter of principle, not of knavish, servile genuflecting to my own belly.

But I expect few people in this forum to "get it" as to what I'm saying here.

Thank you all the way around, Mary. I'm still working on polishing up and finishing two books that have been underway for years, one on addiction, and another on the gospel and culture, and hopefully at some point I'll see them published (with minimal editorial changes. I'm anticipating problems with any publisher I may choose to go with (because once I say something just the way I want it said, that's it) but that's probably just my normal catastrophizing)

Droop,
Would a truly principaled man have out right refused the government welfare, despite its availability, because of his principals. By partaking despite moral object and repugnance to such welfare, does one betray their beliefs and become a hypocrite? Does such as person have the true moral position from which to condemn such entitlement programs?

No, no, and no. At the time (I was about 21), it appeared to be the only alternative given where we lived and under the conditions that prevailed. The principles remain the same, however (and my political philosophy was only in its infancy, at that time). The Great Society, like the New Deal was a very, very, very bad idea (and wholly extraconstitutional). It should be sunseted, in a reasonable, even handed, and timely manner, and another way of negotiating the problems of unemployment and intermittent poverty among the general population found and implemented (and we already know what that is, to a substantial general degree).

The point is, I would have been far, far better off in a nation who's economics were founded in Austrian/Chicago School principles, than those of the Great Society.

Who is John Gault?

Whoever he may be....... He is not Droopy.