Bill Maher Criticizes Libertarians, Ignores Costs

April 7, 2013

Facebook: the ceaseless source of late-night blogfodder. I caught this post from Progressive Libertarianism and I had to investigate:

Screenshot from 2013-04-06 23:56:23

Those who follow the Progressive Libertarian page long enough discover that the people behind it are very thoughtful, apparently Austrian-inspired libertarians who regularly post progressive-inspired criticisms and interrogatories of libertarianism. It is a great page to follow for libertarians who are interested in isolating their core beliefs and discovering where they stand on various issues of contention among the libertarian community. Very well done, and kudos to them.

Regarding the above comment, I was immediately skeptical of Edgardo’s claim that intellectual superiority “does not matter when it comes to life itself”. Forget about whether libertarians are actually intellectually superior to anyone. I’m not vain enough to comment on that issue, but does intelligence generally carry no substance? If a guy happens to be intellectually superior to other people, and he uses his smarts to, say, invent something that millions of people find useful—perhaps something that makes acquiring food easier for millions of people—I would say that that “matters when it comes to life itself”, wouldn’t you? Read the rest of this entry »


Links for November 16, 2010: Some Psychological Stuff, Some Fallacious Stuff, others….

November 14, 2010
  1. Another fascinating diatribe from Stefan Molyneux. My question is: does this not apply equally well to libertarians and anarchists? Is libertarianism not just another ideology?

  2. Large organizations, including government, which is of course the largest organization of all, have actually become completely disconnected with what actually matters to people. … What behavioral economics shows, time after time, is in human behavior and behavioral change there is a very strong disproportionality at work: that actually what changes our behavior and what changes our attitudes toward things is not actually proportional to the degree of expense entailed or to the degree of force that is applied.

  3. After invalidating more than 30,000 Nader-Camejo signatures on dubious and highly technical grounds – for example, because signers used informal names such as “Bill” instead of “William,” or because their current and registered addresses did not match – Commonwealth Court removed the candidates from the ballot. Then it ordered them to pay their challengers more than $80,000 in litigation costs.

  4. Read the rest of this entry »


Links for July 19, 2010: To Stimulate or Not To Stimulate; What Police Can Do; much, much more….

July 18, 2010

    Paul Krugman: Boost aggregate demand! Muahahaha!!!

  1. It’s good to hear Krugman speak and respond to questions. The thrust of this discussion is that the opposition to the stimulus is a visceral reaction, not an intelligent one. Although some guests early on questioned the empirical efficacy of the stimulus, we did really not hear from any Thomas E. Woodses or any Peter Schiffs who maintained, in quite an intellectual fashion, that the stimulus is simply bad economic policy. Krugman remarks toward the end that he doesn’t see stimulus jobs as “makework” jobs. I do not understand how this position can be honestly defended alongside the position that we now need government to “boost aggregate demand”, i.e. create demand where none existed before. What is the purpose of the stimulus if it is not to “make work”? If these were not “makework” jobs, we would do them anyway. We would not need an economic crisis as a pretense for passing $700 billion spending bills. For a response to the assertion that Roosevelt’s slashing of the deficits caused a recession in 1937, see this. For a response to the assertion that World War II spending lifted the U.S. economy out of the depression, listen here, starting at 32:17.  Read the rest of this entry »