12 Dec 2018

Potpourri

Potpourri 8 Comments

==> On episode 8 of the Bob Murphy Show I interview David R. Henderson. Among other topics, we discuss his time on the Council of Economic Advisors where he rubbed shoulders with Krugman.

==> On episode 167 of Contra Krugman we call an audible and cover “hard topics” in libertarianism, such as terrorism and medical quarantines.

==> In the recently released Lara-Murphy Report, we interview Steve Landsburg. Note that we ask Steve to discuss some topics that didn’t come up in my podcast interview with him.

8 Responses to “Potpourri”

  1. Tel says:

    With regard to taking money from the Department of Defense and also writing for Anti-War dot com … I found that a really strange conversation, and honestly don’t understand why you guys could even see an hypocrisy there.

    What part of DEFENSE is difficult for so many people to understand?

    The Department of Defense has the purpose of preferably acting as a deterrent to discourage war, but if that doesn’t work then act in a defensive capacity in order to bring the war to an end. There is no other purpose, it should be starting zero wars. Everyone at the Department of Defense should all the time be taking an “anti-war” position and only ever take military action as a last resort … when all other options have been tried.

  2. David R. Henderson says:

    Tel,
    You wrote:
    I found that a really strange conversation, and honestly don’t understand why you guys could even see an hypocrisy there.

    I’m not sure why you think Bob and I saw some hypocrisy. If I had, I would have quit my job. I was simply reporting what a student said and what the liaison officer answered. I doubt that the liaison officer saw hypocrisy.
    But your answer is a good one. When I told the story to, I think, Canadian libertarian Karen Selick, that was her immediate response: I’m taking a paycheck from the Department of Defense and I believe in defense, not offense. Of course, I wasn’t in the conversation. It was between the student and the liaison officer.

    • Tel says:

      I’m guessing, but making the assumption that the original student was insinuating hypocrisy.

      I don’t know what the liaison officer was thinking, so I’m still guessing but although the First Amendment would apply to any protected political opinion … it’s a weak defense against accusations of hypocrisy, especially in cases where there’s much better explanations. To cite First Amendment in that kind of situation is almost admitting there’s a problem, then falling back to a “defending scoundrels” position.

      Of course, I wasn’t in the conversation. It was between the student and the liaison officer.

      Fair point … not much can be done about it now.

      Thanks for getting up and telling your story.

      • David R. Henderson says:

        He may well have been insinuating hypocrisy. I don’t know. I was responding to your original point, though.

        Recall that you said, “I found that a really strange conversation, and honestly don’t understand why you guys could even see an hypocrisy there.” Your use of “you guys” caused me to think you mean Bob and me. But maybe you just expressed yourself incorrectly.

        • Tel says:

          I admit I did not have a clear idea exactly which person had which position … nor did I spend a lot of time and effort drafting my comment for best clarity. The podcast format is great for keeping one’s mind occupied while hands are doing menial work, but I don’t take detailed notes … instead tend to walk away with a general impression of the key points. It’s not a format that lends itself easily to fine dissection.

          We have reached a point in public discourse where anyone who does not strongly denounce a concept can be presumed to tacitly support said concept. That thinking is strictly logically incorrect, but I’m guilty of jumping to the same conclusion; I suspect I’m not the only one. This convention pushes people into a binary split (you are with us or agin us) creating an easy mental model … but removing nuance.

          From my own point of view, I’m a bit “triggered” to hear the First Amendment used in a situation where more sincere push-back seems warranted … and I’m disturbed at how often people seem to shrug and accept that the purpose of the Defense Force is to start as many wars as possible (not saying you do believe that … nor did you make great effort to dispel that belief, or at least that was my general impression). So if it were me in a similar situation I might have felt the need to react more strongly and pushed back a bit harder.

          Apologies if what I said came off a bit blunt or imprecise because I just had one particular thought I was putting out there. I get it that what stuck in my head after listening could just as easily have seemed irrelevant to most of the other listeners. Says something about what bugs me.

          • David R Henderson says:

            Dear Tel,
            Thanks. Now I get it. I actually am torn between the First Amendment defense, which, given that NPS is a federal government base, is a good defense, and the Department of Defense defense.
            I think both are excellent defenses.
            Thanks for your comment.

  3. Michael says:

    The Bob Murphy show continues to impress! It’s becoming one of my favourite podcasts each week. Really like that you’re focusing on long-form conversations with interesting people, and I like the lack of a focused topic. Basically, just be Joe Rogan but for more liberty-focused audience – really great to listen to. kudos.

Leave a Reply