If It Wasn't for the State...

By -
Jim Henley writes:
"Rainbough Phillips has a good essay about the decidedly non-utopian nature of libertarianism as a political philosophy. Ironically, many criticisms of libertarianism presume that utopia is its test, that if a libertarian system doesn’t produce perfect justice and harmony (as defined by the critic) then libertarianism is a failure. Can you guarantee that X won’t happen in a libertarian society? Not really. Won’t this bad thing happen sometimes? I suppose. Then libertarianism is no good!"

I wrote similarly about this phenomenon a few months back. And it further strengthens my conviction that it is high time for Jim to abandon the dark side and come into the light.

Comments

  1. Anonymous7:27 PM

    The page is so wonderful that I want to write something about myself.
    I get a lot of rohan crone and the rohan gold is very important for anyone who wants to play the net game. Most of the rohan online croneis the access to the net game. If you have the rohan online gold, you can make good use of the rohan moneyto enjoy yourself in the game.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more