Make a polite suggestion that he might see, and then go about my business.
On the upswing of remaining totally irrelevant. Market liberalism was vastly more popular in the 19th century than it is today. Herbert Spencer was the most popular sociologist in the world. What did we get? World War 1. You don’t matter.
Your book uses a non-standard definition of libertarian.
I wait your evidence. You have quite a bit of collecting to do.
Well put.
I don’t think “television people” should be lumped into the same category. John Stewart does not resemble at all what you are describing. And even if Bill Maher’s show is a little rougher, people are still given a chance to air their views.
It’s not the hosts, it’s the viewers that Lew could go after. Suppose he collects one out of every ten thousand…
Well stated.
I don’t feel the need to provide ‘evidence’ of the obvious to religious prosthyletizers. Once again, I have better ways to waste my time. This is why I can’t stand most libertarians. You’re just another religious creed, like the liberals and the Muslims. By some accident of history you got your hands on some good economics.
The question to ask is whether Lew Rockwell would have a significant impact on society… and the answer is yes. I also think it stands a good chance of being greater if he makes appearances like these.
I have a difficult time believing that this statement is an accurate representation of how you feel. Trying to convert people to libertarians is a way to deny my own problems? Which problems are these? And why are conversion attempts an attempt at denial?
Well, obvious problems aside, this does not prevent me from trying to convert others.
Well, obvious problems aside, this does not prevent me from trying to convert others.
Opportunity costs. Everything you do prevents you from doing something else. I would rather talk about Austrian economics than try to convince anyone of its accuracy. I believe lots of things, but I don’t believe in anything.
When asked for evidence, he simply claims it’s obvious. All those assertions, a complete lack of evidence… and I’M the religious one?
Excellent!
De nada, amigo.
And you’ve come on the forums to tell us that? Apparently you don’t consider that a waste of time.. go figure.
You could read all the endless stuff that’s been written on volk economics, the way the human brain is inclined to leap to wrong conclusions, the fact that political views are based on social association and not truth. Bryan Caplan would be one place to start; you could also look into social signaling ala Robin Hanson. The blos Less Wrong and Overcoming Bias have plenty of data on how people are more prone to error than accuracy; and that sometimes what they ‘believe’ is not the doctrine but the expression of the doctrine they feel appeals to other member of their peer group. Most Marxists have never read Marx. Most Christians never read the Bible. What is important is what they think other people expect them to say, not what makes sense. Rationalization is a far stronger force in the human mind than rationality.
And you’ve come on the forums to tell us that? Apparently you don’t consider that a waste of time.. go figure.
It is a waste of time, but it’s interesting to me. Besides, most of the people here I talk to probably already agree with me on this. I can’t speak for him but I think William has a similar slant on it.
Uh, what I wrote was in response to this: “You want to be free, then try to be free! Ignore red stop lights, try to avoid paying as much as possible. Smoke a joint if you want to and think you won’t be caught. Hack your toilet lol”
So you are saying that preaching libertarianism is on the bottom of my list, such that adding running red lights prevents me from preaching libertarianism? And you, who apparently think you know something about economics, are now telling me what my own value scale is? Everything I do prevents me from doing SOMETHING else… and now you are telling me that this something must be preaching libertarianism? So you’re saying that if I run a red light, I won’t be able to preach any more libertarianism? Do you need reminding that my statement was: “this does not prevent me from trying to convert others” ? And now you’re saying that it does indeed prevent me from doing that?
I’ll tell you what: I’ll run a red light tomorrow, then I’ll try to convert someone to libertarianism. If I am unable to make the attempt, due to the oppurtunity cost, I will take you seriously in the future. If not, I’ll ignore you from now on.
I wonder what the result will be.
I’ll put money that you make the red light but not the libertarian.
If you just like arguing with people, go ahead. But it’s delusional to think it will have any measurable impact on the degree of State control over your life. Debating is a hobby. Politics is a religion.
But that’s irrelevant. I claimed that running a red light does not prevent me from TRYING to convert people. You claimed that it does. So we’ll see, although I have a pretty good idea of how it is going to turn out.
It generally does at the same time, unless you can somehow link both of them together. I don’t have any problem with arguing with people, I have a problem with the claim that it makes a difference. I used to argue with Christians. I generally don’t care anymore, because there are more entertaining ways to bash my head into a wall.
These are your parameters quite absent from the original contention. Wouldn’t it just be easier to admit you were wrong?
What is this in response to?