Not a fan of any religion, Voltaire found Islam to be particularly abhorrent:
But that a camel-merchant [Muhammad] should stir up insurrection in his village; that in league with some miserable followers he persuades them that he talks with the angel Gabriel; that he boasts of having been carried to heaven, where he received in part this unintelligible book, each page of which makes common sense shudder; that, to pay homage to this book, he delivers his country to iron and flame; that he cuts the throats of fathers and kidnaps daughters; that he gives to the defeated the choice of his religion or death: this is assuredly nothing any man can excuse, at least if he was not born a Turk, or if superstition has not extinguished all natural light in him. [Source]
The viciousness of Mohammed and Islam is INEXCUSABLE.
I continue to build my notes notes re: Islam in my spare moments.
Here’s what David Hume – who had studied the Quran to an extent – found:
“Let us attend to his [Mohammed’s] narration; and we shall soon find, that he bestows praise on such instances of treachery, inhumanity, cruelty, revenge, bigotry, as are utterly incompatible with civilized society. No steady rule of right seems there to be attended to; and every action is blamed or praised, so far only as it is beneficial or hurtful to the true believers.” – [Source]
The last sentence above reflects the fact that Islam is EXTREMELY VICIOUS towards non-Muslims.
I think there are just a few things that someone needs to understand in order to get rid of the socialism delusion.
1) Liberty only refers to “negative” liberty, the ability to act. It does not include “positive” liberty which is an antithesis of liberty. So liberty includes liberty of occupation, liberty of thought and expression, but NOT “right to education, food” or other such nonsense.
2) Economic value is determined by what **others** think, not by one’s efforts or talent. That’s what makes diamonds far more valuable than water, and even gives a mere piece of paper (currency) any value. There is **no** value added to anything merely by putting one’s “labour” into something. Hence there’s no automatic entitlement to a living. You must serve others’ needs well. Could be **any** need.
3) Prices (including wages, which are a price for renting the services of a human) are magical and equilibrate everyone’s (that’s right – everyone’s in the whole world) preferences at every moment of time. The more free are prices, the faster everyone becomes richer.
4) Taking other people’s stuff by force is evil, immoral, criminal.
Unfortunately, ALL these are very hard to understand. Human nature is greedy and grabbing, and everyone is instinctively born to steal from others. Therefore, socialists are merely exercising their untrained tribal instinct to steal from others. They don’t understand that stealing from others eliminates the possibility of creation of wealth for everyone.
Socialists must curb their thieving instincts and start understanding how a civilised society based on mutual exchange and respect for property rights will lead to the best outcome for everyone.
I had commented on Keynes’s ignorance of economics here. I had cited Hayek, as well.
Here’s another video I chanced upon in which Hayek makes clear that Keynes had no clue about economics.
EXTRACT FROM THE TRANSCRIPT:
A man with a great many ideas who knew very little economics.
He knew nothing but Marshallian economics.
He was completely unaware of what was going on elsewhere.
He even knew very little about nineteenth century economic history
Even within the English tradition he knew very little of the great monetary writers of the nineteenth century. He knew nothing about Henry Thornton. He knew a little about Ricardo of course, the famous things, but he could have found any number of antecedents of his inflationary ideas in the 1820’s and 1830’s, and when I told him about it it was all new to him.[Sanjeev: this was his greatest failure: that his ideas were a replica of Malthus’s and had been proven entirely false by Say, Ricardo and JS Mill. And he knew nothing about this.]
He was so convinced he had re-done the whole science that he was rather contemptuous of anything which had been done before.
I don’t want you to get the impression that I underestimated him as a brain he was one of the most intelligent and most original thinkers I have known but economics was just a sideline for him.
Economics was not really his main interest- well his own economics was. He was convinced he could recreate the subject and he rather had a contempt for most of the other economists.
He certainly could not have been described as a master of his subject. He was an intuitive thinker with a very wide knowledge in many fields who’d never felt that economics was weighty enough. He just took it for granted that Marshall’s textbook contained everything one needs to know about the subject. There was a certain arrogance of Cambridge economics about and they thought they were the centre of the world and if you have learned Cambridge economics there is nothing else worth learning.
If he had given his whole mind to economics he could have become a master of economics of the existing body but there were certain parts of economic theory which he had never been interested in. He had never thought about the theory of capital. He was very shaky even on the theory of international trade. He was well informed on contemporary monetary theory but even there he did not know such things as Henry Thornton or Wicksell. And, of course, he did not read any foreign language except French. The whole German literature was inaccessible to him.