You can only be charitable with your own property not with the property of others.
Can you elaborate on your logic? We are all simply agreeing to perform some action if a condition is met.
If X, Then Y
If Debate, Then Donate.
You are saying that since we are not just skipping X and jumping into Y that makes us fools? Sounds like you find a lot of sense in unconditional donation. That’s like me saying you should just donate your money right now to the poor or else you are a selfish callous fool. Or am I missing what you are trying to say?
What I’m saying is that libertarians are trying to blame their selfishness on Paul Krugman, as if they are incapable of donating money to charity unless he agrees to play their games. Libertarians are saying, “We refuse to be decent people unless it advances our political ideology. And this is Paul Krugman’s fault somehow.”
What I’m saying is that libertarians are trying to blame their selfishness on Paul Krugman
And selfishness with your own money is wrong…why?
Nobody is trying to blame “their selfishness” on Paul Krugman.
Well in someway I’d say we are. although in some way I don’t think Krugman wants to debate after watching this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w2xXOQY-NY
I personally think it doesn’t make Austrian economics look like a serious school.
You do realize that it’s possible to give money, or in the case of a food bank food as well, and say that you’ll give more money if certain conditions are met?
Duh. But the idea of shaming Krugman into a debate by withholding funds to charity until he agrees to do so makes libertarians look like jerks, not him.
That’s true, that video too was scary.
This is one of my favorite videos. 
Me too, it scared my friends though. I’m sure it scared Krugman too.