Gene, We Got Ta Give Em What They Want

By -
Gene: "Hell yeah."

On Marginal Revolution, they put out a call for readers to give ideas for future blog posts. I was at first hesitant to do the same here, since it could be really embarrassing if only one person posted. ("Yeah, my request is that you and Callahan stop talking about things outside of your areas of expertise! And stop thinking you're 'clever,' you're not!")

OK now that I've got that off my chest....Anyone? Anyone?

Comments

  1. Anonymous10:26 PM

    I'd like to read more posts about Lew Rockwell.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bob Murphy11:40 PM

    Cody,

    I'm not sure he exists. I think he may have been invented by people at Cato in order to gather home addresses for Rothbardians. I mean, had you ever heard the name "Lew" before? Try rearranging the letters in "Roswell, New Mexico."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous10:02 AM

    This is what I wish I'd see more of on every libertarian website: Really simple, clear, step-by-step examples of how government interference caused a problem (or worsened one it was trying to solve), and how the new government fix for that problem made it even worse, etc., etc.

    It's not that blog posts and articles about this are hard to find; it's just that examples are so common in the world that libertarians should rant about them until they're blue in the face. I think they are the best way to convince non-libertarians that government is not great and does more harm than good.

    Since Bob and Gene are economists, they are well qualified to understand the inner workings of market processes and governmental interruptions of those processes, compared with the average blogger. I think such clear, step-by-step explanations get our point across better than sweeping (though true) statements about government being evil and murderous, etc.

    Maybe this is better suited to LRC/Mises columns than blog posts, but, whichever.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bob Murphy1:50 PM

    John,

    Thanks for the reply. Yeah, at least for me, the reason I don't blog about things that people might have expected, is that (as you say) if I'm going to write up something really carefully, then I go ahead and do it for Mises.org or LRC, and then link to it from here.

    But I think you're right, there's not much "current events" commentary going on here, and I can try to do more of that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Micha Ghertner2:43 PM

    More philosophy related stuff from Gene please. (Bob too!)

    And intra-libertarian squabbles/gossip are always appreciated, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wabulon3:54 PM

    B-b-but Gene *is* clever, and I am much better entertained by his posts outside of his area of expertise, about which, despite his best efforts, I still know next to nothing. Oh, and more porn.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous6:16 PM

    Yeah, more gossip is good.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous6:38 PM

    I would also like to see one deep philosophic question a week that we can all debate, such as:

    "If a man spends his rebate check on two mediocre [using an Eliot Spitzer rating scale] illegally operating hookers, is he stimulating the economy or just himself?"

    ReplyDelete
  9. gcallah10:21 AM

    I would like to see more of the commentators praising Gene's brilliance and fewer of them complaining about his passive-aggressive snarkiness.

    Oh, wait Bob, you didn't ask what the bloggers wanted, did you?

    Never mind.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous9:05 PM

    I would like to see commenters paid somewhere between $100 and $500, per comment.

    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