Bleeding Heart ‘Libertarians’ — Deleted Comments
If you’re looking for some entertaining commentary see Stephan Kinsella’s post here. It involves Jason Brennan claiming "…Yes, libertarians, Paul Krugman is a better economist than Murray Rothbard…". I made some well received remarks there. Interestingly enough Danny Sanchez pointed towards a recent post from the same author now attempting to address “The Measure of an Economist or a Philosopher”:
What makes someone a good economist or a philosopher? Is it better to be 1) a person who comes to the right conclusions but with bad or weak arguments for those conclusions, or 2) a person who comes to the wrong conclusions but with strong evidence and arguments for those conclusions?
Is it better to be 3) novel and visionary or 4) technical, rigorous, and precise, but not as adventurous? What about the combination of 1+3 vs 2+4
I tend to think 2 is obviously better than 1, while 3 is better than 4, though not as obviously.
At any rate, it turns out that because I think Krugman’s contributions to the field of economics are better than Rothbard’s, I’m a statist. Remember how you were all getting mad at me for talking about “cartoon libertarians”? They’re out there, and they’re tagging me on Facebook.
Beyond the ridiculous false dichotomy of the above, my comment seems to have struck a nerve because it was deleted within minutes:
"There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.” — Frédéric Bastiat
Ergo Rothbard is exceptional and Krugman is a neophyte and/or naïf.
If I had to guess why my comment was removed it’s because an actual definitive answer was proposed. These BHL types all tend to be cut from the same cloth and the following probably applies to all of them. As Rothbard wrote:
"In the good old days, this was a common style in philosophy [logical and deductive], employed by Kantians, Thomists, Misesians, and Randians alike. In the modern age, however, this method of thought and writing has gone severely out of fashion in philosophy, where truth is almost never arrived at – and certainly never argued for in a deductive fashion. The modern mode is utilitarian, positivist, tangential, puzzle-oriented, and pseudo-empiricist. As a result, modern positivist types have gone flabby and complacent, and reading hard-core deductivists – to say nothing of hard-core libertarians! – hits these people with the force of a blow to the gut.
Well, shape up, guys! In argument as in politics, those who can’t stand deductivist heat should get out of the philosophic or economic kitchen.
- ggj150392 likes this
- hyperabundance reblogged this from conza
- aiamai-the-ai-robot likes this
- forcedranting likes this
- caleyhustle likes this
- michaelangerlo said: fuck those fuckers
- michaelangerlo likes this
- laliberty likes this
- laliberty said: LFB has deleted some of my comments as well. Pathetic.
- live-exist-die likes this
- booksofthought likes this
- badmeetsevil likes this
- eltigrechico said: lol
- theactofhistory likes this
- conza posted this