Charles Murray is a hack, who sold bad science to people desperate to justify their privilege, but that's neither here nor there.
Well yes, that is the issue, that's he's not actually in any way relevent to the causes and problems of domestic violence, and yet had a section of the book set aside so the author could rant about him.
An associate's degree in anything is going to be incredibly superficial. In particular, the idealized microeconomics that is taught in low level economics courses doesn't especially work when applying it to macroeconomic systems.
Even in my associates degree, we discussed the difference between mirco and marcoencomics and how little the two systems have to do with one another, and had courses dedicated to both fields. Maybe you should lay off the critique of fields you don't actually have any experience with, because it doesn't your arguments any good to go around demonstarting just how little you understand the things you're talking about.
The right wing Austrian school of economics survives by explicitly rejecting the idea of real world modeling and attempts to form economics as a system of "pure logic". It fails, and has always failed, but it provides a justification for laissez-faire economics so it gets plenty of funding anyway.
Speaking of not knowing what you're talking about, the austrian school is not "right wing", though given the fact that several of the concepts they invented disprove Marx's theories, I can see why you would think otherwise. Nor did they "fail", the school has actually originated and popularized a number of fundemental concepts that were incoporated into mainstream economics. In it's orginal forumulation, they largely rejected mathematical modeling, however contemporary economists that subscribe to that school of thought do not. Nor does the Austrian school explictly endorse laissez-faire policies.
Criminal justice has rigorous elements. Specifically those corresponding to the laws, which are spelled out with a high level of specificity because they actually have to be used by judges and lawyers. It also has theories of "criminal causation" which are mostly based on nothing and forensicsa, which turns out to be a bunch of pseudoscience used to sell convictions to credulous juries. Blood spatter analysis, bite mark analysis, arson detection techniques and so on have repeatedly proven to be hokum when studied by people not invested in the field.
Once again, that's wrong. Blood spatter and the like are not "hokum." They are not very reliably and people in the field are prone to making conclusions beyond what the evidence does support, and all three fields are relatively young and immature. That is not the same as them being pseudoscience.
The reason "criminologists" oppose communism is that the field is largely made up of people who want to be cops, and unsurprisingly, that is an authoritarian population.
Yes, because if there's one group of people that have never done well in communist systems, it's authoritarians.
That's not what you think it is. Abbot wasn't arrested for feeding the homeless as the outrage headline suggests. He was arrested for violating health and safety ordinances; specifically that if you have an outdoor feeding area, there also has to be a bathroom nearby (which only makes sense), and you must have the property owner's permission before you set up a feeding area on their property.
Eh, it's probably true that the laws in question were being used as a tool to deter the sort of thing he was doing. However, there are a number of points that meso skips over in his effort to lambast the capitalist system.
1. The city wasn't banning anyone from feeding the homeless. They just don't want this guy or people like him from turning the cities parks into gathering areas for homeless people. The city already has and supports other systems to help the homeless, but they don't think that handing out meals on public property every little while is all that effective.
2. Communist states are generally no better, and sometimes worse. At least in the one story he's waving around and claiming (without evidence) that it's some sort of systemic issue, the police only arrested the guy giving out food. In the USSR, they would have also grabbed the homeless people too, because being homeless was illegal.
3. No one likes the homeless, they're a net negative to any country or municipality and there has always been a strong motive to just drive them away rather than fixing the underlying issue. This applies in every political and economic system on earth.
The better question is how will the billionaires deal with the inevitable uprising? I imagine the way they have always dealt with the working class.
The idea that some grand populist uprising is inevitable is and always has been a retarded leftist fantasy.
But nobody denies capitalism is murderous.
Uh...yes, most people probably would do that.