What Is Most Important About the Sacred Parent-Child Relationship... Rothbard Edition

By -
Here: "In the first place, the overriding fact of parent–child relations is that the child lives on the property of his parents."

There you have it folks: the "overriding fact" of the parent-child bond is that the child is sort of a free-loading tenant of the parent.

Comments

  1. Samson Corwell3:15 PM

    Was there anything Rothbard did consider sacred enough not to taint with his views?

    ReplyDelete
  2. djf4:23 PM

    Libertarians are nuts. QED.

    That said, on issues that can legitimately be reduced to economics, they often make sense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ken B8:20 PM

      Indeed, anyone who likes markets is right when markets can be applied. They're our best social technology. The nuts part starts with "all rights are property rights". This implies all rights are fungible, which they aren't. It continues with the "markets can never fail" mantra, which is wrong too. This is what irks me about Libertarians of the LVMI stripe. They discredit reasonable advocates of market solutions.

      Delete

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