Consulting by RPM || Free Advice Blog

Potpourri

==> Where’s the right’s Daily Show? (HT2 Danny Sanchez) But we must work within the system, rather than seeking third comedies. If we can just install good writers at the Daily Show… (Yes I’m trolling myself. I’m the only one at this point who appreciates my jokes.)

==> George Leef addresses the claim that Austrian Economics is responsible for DC gridlock.

==> Stephanie Murphy [sic, they misspelled her name] makes an analogy with email to give Bitcoin basics for beginners.

==> Steve Landsburg talks about pi. I think Steve would have gone into pure math, except it offered little opportunity for outraging feminists.

==> Speaking of economists outraging feminists, Nick Rowe points out the logical possibility that the overrepresentation of men in the hard sciences is due to anti-man discrimination in the humanities.

==> Speaking of outraging everyone, Jeff Tucker coins a new term: libertarian brutalism. For sure, I have realized (especially since joining Facebook) that there are people who ostensibly share the same ideology as me, but whose worldview is immensely different. Jeff’s brutalism/humanitarian distinction is intriguing, and that might explain some of what I have noticed, but I might put the dividing line differently: There are some people who see a news story about the U.S. military bombing a village in Pakistan and think, “Oh my gosh, they just killed a bunch of kids, that’s awful.” There are others who see the same story and think, “Oh my gosh, my taxes–either current or in the future–are paying for that, and it’s not even protecting me from Pakistani terrorists. That’s outrageous.”

==> Finally, in a perfect world with clones of Bob running around, one of them would carefully respond to Daniel Kuehn. But I don’t think I’m going to get around to doing it, so let me at least link to his post, where he says I’m nuts for claiming that Krugman “rewrote history” regarding Krugman’s view of the 2009 Obama team’s economic forecast. I definitely should have worded my claim differently. It’s not that I am claiming a contradiction between Krugman in 2009 and Krugman in 2014, rather I am claiming a Kontradiction between Krugman in 2009 and Krugman in 2009. In any event, Daniel certainly did a good job to point out the prima facie problem with my claim, as published. I mildly defended myself in the comments, if you want to get a hint of how my clone would provide a more robust response.

The Unexpected Relevance of the Missing Airliner to the Evolution Debate

As crystallized in my recent Facebook Status Update:

So a lot of the news commentary is talking about the fact that the course diversion of the Malaysian flight seems deliberate, rather than accidental. That means the investigators have called in priests, right? I mean, from the evolution debate, I heard that looking for signs of intentionality was, by its very nature, unscientific. *runs away*

In a shocking turn of events, the people who already were skeptical of the standard Darwinian view thought my post was hilarious, while the others thought it was stupid.

Tom Woods Offers a “Surprising” Fact about Lincoln the Hater of Slavery

I think it’s safe to say that Americans are taught from a young age that Abraham Lincoln despised slavery, and had no choice but to wage a war that killed hundreds of thousands of people. In that context, then, it’s rather surprising that his Administration continued to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law even after the Emancipation Proclamation had been issued. (HT2 Bob Roddis)

Two Great EconTalk Interviews

I highly recommend the following podcasts with Russ Roberts:

==> David Epstein discusses “the sports gene,” but more generally the nature/nurture controversy in Olympic sports.

==> Nassim Taleb discusses “skin in the game.”

These EconTalk podcasts are long and involved; you can’t really listen to them while you’re doing other work. They’re great for listening to in the car, though.

Judge Napolitano Takes over The Daily Show

The term “like a boss” is overused, but oh my word:

I’m sorry kids, but you need to know when to take “yes” for an answer. I had put off watching Napolitano’s appearance because I had seen nothing but b*tching and moaning in the blogosphere about how awful it was.

What are you guys talking about? First and most important, Napolitano took over that show like I have never seen anyone do–not even the actress from Hunger Games.

Second, it’s not as if Jon Stewart did his best to sabotage Napolitano; he is trying to be fair, explains that he knows Napolitano loves liberty etc., and just was flummoxed by Napolitano’s discussion of Lincoln.

Yes, there was a follow-up game show–which I didn’t watch because I can’t stand that new addition to the cast playing Abraham Lincoln–and I’m guessing the point of that bit was to discredit Napolitano’s views. But look: When they don’t give Peter Schiff time to explain, you guys complain about that. When they give Napolitano more time than Nancy Pelosi (?), you guys complain about that too.

If you are a Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist, you have extremely odd–freakish even–views in the eyes of most Americans. Judge Napolitano’s appearance on the Daily Show is an unqualified success, and Jon Stewart is a good guy for giving the Judge such a platform. Stewart even refers to him as his friend (when transitioning to the goofy game show), and makes sure his audience knows that he means it.

It’s going to be hard to make any progress in changing public opinion if “we” bite off everybody’s head who doesn’t agree 100% with our views, which I imagine for many of you, you yourself didn’t hold your entire adult life.

Apply to Mises U!

Since they always have more applications than they can accept, I am often remiss in “pushing” Mises University. But I realized maybe it would be good to get other people into the application pool, who might otherwise not even attempt it. (I checked and they still have slots, both for Mises University aimed at undergrads and the summer-long Mises fellowship program for grad students.)

There are lots of people interested in libertarianism, but in interacting with them I notice that unfortunately, many are lacking a solid foundation in economics. If that’s you, I strongly encourage you to consider Mises U this year; it’s a one-week crash course in Austrian theory and application. I realize a week in Auburn, Alabama in July sounds awful to Northerners, but it is actually a blast–and they have powerful air conditioners.

Jesus Fulfills the Law: Reconciling Faith and Works

This post will only interest believing Christians, but I wanted to share something that recently occurred to me.

In Matthew 5:17 Jesus famously says, “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.”

He also explained what the two greatest commandments were in this exchange (Mt 22: 36-40):

36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”

37 Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

Now, there is definitely a sense in which Christianity frees people from bondage under the Law. Rather than being judged by your works, instead you are judged by the single criterion–have you “believed in” Jesus? This represents the greatest joy and greatest stumbling block of Christianity. How can someone get into paradise regardless of his works?

But watch this: When we push deeper and ask, “What does it mean to ‘believe in’ Jesus?” it’s more than an intellectual acknowledgement that He’s the Son of God. (After all, the demons know that.) One way of defining “belief” (in this context) is to say it means “to be in love with.” (That certainly does not hold for the demons; they know there is a God and that His Son is Jesus, but they don’t love God.)

So, if you “believe in” Jesus in the sense required for your salvation, then you are in love with Jesus. And the core “fact of reality” for Christianity is that Jesus is Himself God incarnate while being fully man. Therefore, if you believe in Jesus and you accept that He is God, then you (a) are in love with God and (b) are in love with your fellow man.

In other words, if you obey the new “updated” rule for getting into heaven, you are actually doing exactly the works that Jesus summed up as the foundation of the Mosaic Law.

Last thing: I don’t think this is ungrounded speculation on my part. Look at John 6: 28-29:

28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”

29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”

Two New Mises Canada Posts

This one on a “useless minimum wage chart,” and this one on why I’m upset with myself for being profitable last year.