Caio Costa

The book Universal Aspects of Fascism is referred as a source by professor Lawrence K. Samuels in his articles in which he affirms that Mussolini praised Keynes. I'm looking for this book, does anyone here have a digital copy of it and is willing to share? Just a few pages would be valuable already. The article I'm talking about is this one, and the pages I'm talking about are in the 9th note. https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2015/Samuelsfascism.html I'm also looking for Mussolini's quotes on Keynes. If you have sources for any, I'd appreciate a lot if you could share it with us. Thanks!

Hi there! I'd like to hear what you guys think about a situation like this. I do not want answers such as "a situation like that would never occur because x, y and z". What I'm looking for is the pure moral analysis of it. Can anyone relate Hoppe's argumentation ethics or Molyneux's UPB to this in order to produce a good response? I'll post my thoughts and conclusions soon too.

I watched this whole series and even more videos about UPB, didn't understand why he says rights don't exist but says we can not oppose "property rights". edit: I think I better understand after reading the other guys comments. .I guess I'm starting to understand both of you arguments, it's just a bit confusing. So, rights don't exist in the real world, they are a concept that we made, but they need to be at least logic to be valid. Do you agree with this statement? Therefore, the difference that makes negative rights good and positive rights bad is not that the first are actually "real", it's just that the first are logic and the second are self-contradictory. I say that if you have a property right, you not only have the capacity to control matter, but you also can not be considered immoral for doing so. I think it matches the definition you previously put forward.

Hmm... But this is your opinion, right? You haven't read or heard Molyneux making this point, am I correct? But what is a "right", then? Well, I saw Molyneux questioning one person about this one time and the person didn't have the answer. I read on Ethics of Liberty the following definition: "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"- James A. Sadowsky, S.J., Private Property and Collective Ownership, em Tibor Machan, ed., The Libertarian Alternative (Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1974), págs. 120–21. I guess we could sum it up as "that which you can do without being considered immoral". By this definition, I think a right as a universalizable concept and do not really differ from culture. I mean, people could have different and paradoxal opinions about it, but its validity doesn't rely on that. It is true because it is in congruence to reality [it is in congruence to reality that you can control your body without being considered immoral] and objective morality. Agree, but this wasn't what I asked about... I know about his and Murray Rothbard arguments, but they are different from Molyneux's arguments, which are the ones I'm interested in.

Can anyone clarify? Or, can anyone point out where he has clarified this apparent contradiction (I actually prefer to hear from him)?