They're Finally Admitting Who's Da Best!

By -

Comments

  1. Anonymous8:22 AM

    Justice had to be done someday.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous10:03 AM

    I want to add something:

    I appreciate the work you guys do here, and even if I disagree with you; it's serious disagreement. It's not like disagreeing with typical newspaper columnists or the like. In that case, I usually dismiss them as idiots, and am confirmed right to a statistical correlation of nearly 1:1...

    Take the self-ownership discussion, for example; it pushed me (and might continue to push) to seriously think about the roots of my position, and their implications. That's not a daily thing for me.

    Keep up the good work.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous10:14 AM

    Actually, I am very disappointed in your sparse covergae of "...secret sex tips gleaned from years spent with various Himalayan masters."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bob Murphy10:35 AM

    Sidney,

    You are not the first to bring that up. Gene apparently engaged in shameless bait-and-switch in this internet age. I'm surprised he didn't name this site, "Austrians Gone Wild!!"

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wabulon8:02 PM

    Sorry. They attempted to domesticate the honoree by writing the name in ways its readers might reasonably be expected to understand. The correct spelling is "Krsh Landing" with little dots under several of the letters, and refers, of course, to the Hindu Vedas.

    ReplyDelete
  6. gcallah1:06 PM

    "I appreciate the work you guys do here, and even if I disagree with you; it's serious disagreement"

    Thanks, Brian!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
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

Against their will / we were taxing against their will / we were young and we were strong and we were taxing against their will

By -
Never one to allow a mistake to go uncompounded by a glaring error, Bob Murphy digs in deeper . He claims that "Taking money from people against their will is not akin to getting on the treadmill; it is akin to killing people against their will." Bob has introduced a largely irrelevant criterion here with his "against their will." Let us start with killing. (No, no, not killing Bob : we still love him despite his obstinacy.) The justice of a killing does not depend at all on whether the "victim" wants to be killed. If I shoot someone who is attempting to set off a nuclear weapon in Times Square, the fact that I killed him "against his will" does not make my killing immoral. And if a friend who is in despair asks me to shoot him in the head, the fact that he wants me to kill him would not make my action moral. Similarly, in taking money from people, the crucial question is whether you are taking it justly or unjustly, not whether they wan...
Read more