I was a cocksure SOB, and Murphy warned me about it after Iowa

By -
Although only 12% of the vote is in, it is obvious Ron Paul will be well over 30% in Virginia when all the ballots are counted. And I am a man of my word. Paul is still going to lose by quite a bit, but I am truly surprised to see him doing this well.

Comments

  1. Gabe Ruth9:16 PM

    You're being a little generous. The two man race is pushing the parameters of the bet.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bob Murphy9:30 PM

    Ah, I see you are no Krugman. And actually you might have gotten away with it for a while; I very well may have forgotten. BTW the original formulation didn't include caucuses (like Maine); were you doing that intentionally? (I'm genuinely curious.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bob Murphy12:42 AM

    Gabe how so? In fact the two-man race perfectly isolates the different interpretations Gene and I gave to the Iowa outcome. (But I'm not claiming victory, since I was just saying at the time that Gene's theory was only one possible explanation; I wasn't confident that my interpretation was the right one.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Gabe Ruth9:14 AM

    I guess you're right. I am pretty confident Gene's take was right, though. When he says Paul would have done worse if Gingerich and Santorum (I caught a few lines of his speech yesterday, which would have been hilarious if it were in a movie) had already dropped out, I think he's also right, even though it's extremely hard for me to understand the mind of a person who vehemently opposes Romney but hates Paul even more. I suppose these are people who will make up the American Catholic Church when the prophecies of "Love In the Ruins" are finally fulfilled.

    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

St. Paul and I Agree...

By -
Taxation is not theft: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." -- Romans 13 The key idea implicit here, and the one that turned me on the subject of whether or not taxation is theft, is that "every soul" owes obedience to the "governing authorities." Now, if that is a debt I truly owe , then, when those authorities levy the taxes they need to do the job of governing, I owe them those taxes, and attempts to collect them certainly do not constitute acts of theft. And obviously it doesn't matter at all, from this point of view, whether or not I "signed" any sort of "social contract." (In fact, the history of political thought since the Reformation can be read as an attempt to find a secular rep...
Read more

Libertarianism and Violence, II

By -
I decided to move some discussion from this post up to the top level here. Specifically, Watoosh wrote: "Well, if violence is defined as initiation of force (which, of course, presupposes certain property rights), then I think Rockwell is correct..." Well, if we define cats as elephants, then many people keep elephants in their house. More seriously, firstly, violence is not usually defined that way. It's defined as, you know, violence, so that, say, someone may respond violently or non-violently to someone who aggresses against them. Otherwise, it would make no sense to say, for instance, "He punched me, but I did not stoop to violence in response." And, secondly, the libertarian usage of "initiation of force" is very offbeat. If I wander onto someone's meadow, most people would not say I had "initiated force" -- I mean, sure, I used "force" against the earth to push off walking, but that's not force directed against...
Read more