"I Work in a Legally Protected Guild...

By -
"in which I receive high wages, short working hours, long vacations, and lifetime protection from being fired, but workers in private industry should just shut up and face the harsh facts of life."

Who am I?

Comments

  1. Silas Barta5:14 PM

    I don't understand: how are economics professors a legally protected guild?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bob Murphy8:45 PM

    What do you mean by "legally protected guild"?

    ReplyDelete
  3. gcallah8:57 PM

    Look at the tie-ins between accreditation, federal loans, and federal research money.

    I can go out tomorrow and say I am openeing a "university," but I won't be able to get a penny of federal research money or my students a penny in federal student loan money until the "guild" of existing accredited universities allows me in, and they won't do that unless the vast majority of my faculty have gone through a guild apprenticeship (aka "PhD program").

    Maybe "legally privileged" would be a bit more accurate here, but a "privilege" is a form of "protection," isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Gabe Ruth9:00 AM

    "Once men sang together round a table in chorus. Now one man sings alone, for the absurd reason that he can sing better. If scientific civilization goes on (which is most improbable) only one man will laugh, because he can laugh better than the rest." -Chesterton

    Goes to show things can always get worse. Now only one country makes anything for the absurd reason that they can do it more cheaply.

    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