<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Revolutia sexuala rusa</title>
		<description>Comentarii legate de Revolutia sexuala rusa</description>
		<link>https://www.karamazov.ro/index.php/polemici/47-revolutia-sexuala-rusa.html</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2026 17:30:55 +0200</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="https://www.karamazov.ro/index.php/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/47/10.html" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Cristi C. a scris:</title>
			<link>https://www.karamazov.ro/index.php/polemici/47-revolutia-sexuala-rusa.html#comment-78</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Solidaritatea inductiv-antropologica a subversiunii moralei traditionale cu subminarea ordinii proprietatii private e poate lectia cea mai actuala a ciumei rosii. Creditand din nou producatorii, cu Sutton (cf. WALL STREET & THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION), de retinut si implicatia pentru criteriile liberalismului autentic, cu Rothbard: In strict logic, libertarian political doctrine can be severed from all other considerations; logically one can be - and indeed most libertarians in fact are: hedonists, libertines, immoralists, militant enemies of religion in general and Christianity in particular - and still be consistent adherents of libertarian politics. In fact, in strict logic, one can be a consistent devotee of property rights politically and be a moocher, a seamster, and a petty crook and racketeer in practice, as all too many libertarians turn out to be. Strictly logically, one can do these things, but psychologically , sociologically, and in practice, it simply doesn' t work that way.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Cristi C.</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:24:16 +0200</pubDate>
			<guid>https://www.karamazov.ro/index.php/polemici/47-revolutia-sexuala-rusa.html#comment-78</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
