Two More Giants Fall

By -
It's been a bad week for libertarianism. First Gene exposed the Ron Paul campaign for the fraud that it was--just a cynical ploy to raise money from gullible lovers of freedom.

And to my horror I discovered today--I am an investigative journalist--that Cato and Reason are similarly corrupt.

Is there no one who will fight for liberty for free? After all, if free market economics teaches us anything, it is that voluntary flows of money are a sign of perfidy.

Be sure to see the Reason photo of a collapsing building with the caption, "Shaking Up Washington." You bet they've been doing that, since their founding in 1968!

P.S. For those who have stumbled onto this blog as a newcomer, I should explain that I am being completely sarcastic. I am defending Ron Paul against (what are in my opinion) silly criticisms leveled by others at this blog. I am not criticizing Cato and Reason for asking for money.

Comments

  1. Anonymous2:16 PM

    How can you possibly continue to participate on this blog with the likes of Gene Callahan?

    It is not a debate with him over the best method to advance liberty, it is him trying to cast aspersions on a good bunch of people trying to advance liberty. He is shooting at his own air force because he thinks ground troops should be used. This is completely loonie.

    Bob, it is time you start thinking of disassociating yourself from such a nut job.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bob Murphy2:39 PM

    Mr. Tyson,

    Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I am not sure I could carry a blog by myself right now.

    Also, if he doesn't mind the psychoanalysis, I think Gene's previous membership in a cult of personality has made him overly critical of certain aspects of the RP phenom.

    I am trying to get libertarians away from the purge mentality, and so it would be silly for me to break ties with Gene just because he is being a [insert appropriate word here] about RP.

    ReplyDelete
  3. JOR2:47 PM

    I have to agree that Gene has gone over the top. In fact, he's acting in a manner disturbingly befitting an LRCer.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wabulon8:45 PM

    "Cult of personality"?? Whazzit?? Which one?? Who personality?? Spill beans soonest.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Bob Murphy9:46 PM

    Wabulon,

    Hasn't Gene been comparing RP to his L. Ron Hubbard days? I'm pretty sure I've got the right name. In an earlier blog post Gene was saying something like, "People would criticize him and we just stuck our fingers in our ears and sang."

    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