20
Apr
2012
Potpourri
* If you’re the type of person who thinks it’s obvious that the Titanic should have had more lifeboats, then you’re obviously not an economist. (I’m not being snarky; I’ve often thought along the same lines as Steve Landsburg on this topic.)
* When people criticize my theories on private police and judicial services, they seem to be unaware of just how awful government “justice” is in practice.
* Rothbardians will be pleased that I starved Callahan’s upcoming presentation.
* David R. Henderson gets kinky in his discussion of Warren Buffett.
My comment on Callahan’s post (which I doubt will be approved):
Murphy PWNS Callahan again. /thread
It wasn’t approved because it is extremely stupid. Bob and I had a thoughtful discussion about the photo, including several private e-mails. In the end, I decided he was correct. And you call refer to this as him POWNing me?! Hatred has gotten the better of you.
Hatred has gotten the better of you.
Pot meet kettle, kettle meet pot.
You’re the poster child of haters.
Don’t worry about me PWNing you Gene. You don’t believe in absolute property rights.
Argh! I’m still working on my answer to that post, Bob. Obviously, the universality of property is a part of my position. I’ve just been busy as hell. I know that you didn’t mean to, but thanks for reminding me of the fact that I’m falling behind.
I see you had no problem replying on your blog, leaving everybody in the dark as to what the heck you were talking about.
That’s probably the only way you can win a debate.
That Washington Post article is so disturbing. I only made it to the first example of a guy serving a life sentence based on forensic evidence the prosecution knew was flawed….
This libertarianism thing of mine isn’t just about my hatred for the State. And believe me, I hate the State something fierce. It’s always been at least just as much about my desire to reduce injustice, or put another way, my desire for justice and my concern/compassion for my fellow man. It’s just so gross.
Regarding an an-cap society, isn’t it likely that each private/voluntary jurisdiction/neighborhood/community could and would have its own voluntary and contractual arrangements for dealing with criminals/torture etc…? No community would be bound in the sightest to follow Rothbard’s views on this or any other issue other than the prohibition on the initiation of force against people not in contractual privity.
“No community would be bound in the sightest to follow Rothbard’s views on this or any other issue other than the prohibition on the initiation of force against people not in contractual privity.”
So this means… what? Rothbard’s view cannot be criticized?