tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post4702290342519998492..comments2024-03-27T05:23:48.855-04:00Comments on Krugman-in-Wonderland: Stereotypes and Interpersonal Utility Comparisons: This is economics?William L. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802990642236807359noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-35511052815602399962012-02-22T15:07:02.978-05:002012-02-22T15:07:02.978-05:00macroman:
You are right, my bad, Spooner just ign...macroman:<br /><br /><i>You are right, my bad, Spooner just ignores completely the probable behaviour of the robber during the robbery.</i><br /><br />Probable? Is that probability of violence higher or lower than what the state would do if I refused to pay taxes and peacefully resisted their demands?<br /><br /><i>He did mention that the robber gives nothing back, unlike the government, and cleverly/speciously finds a way to suggest that this makes the robber better than the government.</i><br /><br />He didn't say it makes the highway robber "better". He said it makes him more honest.<br /><br />Can I ask you something? Did you even READ what you're criticizing?<br /><br />Or do you have it all figured out because Spooner was an anarchist?<br /><br /><i>However, I stand by my original post.</i><br /><br />So you're an ideologue in the pejorative sense then. You keep believing the same thing despite contradictory evidence.<br /><br /><i>How about all the times a question is evaded by saying define 'x', define 'y'.</i><br /><br />LOL, those aren't evasions, they are invitations. Define the words you use, because statists like you almost always engage in Orwellian doublespeak, butchering the English language as a means to spread your inherently immoral propaganda.<br /><br />I never have to ask Bala to define his words, because I know exactly what he means by them, because he doesn't engage in Orwellian doublespeak.Major_Freedomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-63480493022908769072012-02-21T20:34:20.263-05:002012-02-21T20:34:20.263-05:00verbiage and scholasticism.
Which verbiage and sc...<i>verbiage and scholasticism.<br /><br />Which verbiage and scholasticism?</i><br /><br />How about all the times a question is evaded by saying define 'x', define 'y'.macromanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04142304372187307154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-58942447863855148842012-02-21T20:29:51.130-05:002012-02-21T20:29:51.130-05:00MF: Spooner didn't say he [the highwayman] was...MF: <i>Spooner didn't say he [the highwayman] was non-threatening.</i><br /><br />You are right, my bad, Spooner just ignores completely the probable behaviour of the robber during the robbery. He did mention that the robber gives nothing back, unlike the government, and cleverly/speciously finds a way to suggest that this makes the robber better than the government. However, I stand by my original post.macromanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04142304372187307154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-83332031026757689262012-02-21T16:02:27.147-05:002012-02-21T16:02:27.147-05:00macroman completely missed the point of the Spoone...macroman completely missed the point of the Spooner quote.micknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-50885581330338395962012-02-21T13:54:39.163-05:002012-02-21T13:54:39.163-05:00macroman:
"I think this polite, non-threaten...macroman:<br /><br />"I think this polite, non-threatening "due process" highway man is a figment of Spooner's imagination."<br /><br />Spooner didn't say he was non-threatening.Major_Freedomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-69235293650186782622012-02-21T12:43:41.095-05:002012-02-21T12:43:41.095-05:00macroman:
I think you will find that I said from ...macroman:<br /><br /><i>I think you will find that I said from the outset that Popper's views have been criticised.</i><br /><br />I was talking about reading them.<br /><br /><i>My point was that Popper made a remarkably accurate characterisation of what happens when people argue from Aristotelian, essentialist, definitions;</i><br /><br />I think you mean Plato.<br /><br /><i>Popper almost exactly described Bala's verbiage and scholasticism.</i><br /><br />Which verbiage and scholasticism?<br /><br /><i>Maybe Popper derived this observation wrongly and it was just a lucky guess, or maybe there was a least a grain of truth in what he wrote.</i><br /><br />If you're not sure, how can you be sure that Popper shows Bala to be wrong?Major_Freedomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-55682382620918396672012-02-20T21:42:25.305-05:002012-02-20T21:42:25.305-05:00I think this polite, non-threatening "due pro...I think this polite, non-threatening "due process" highway man is a figment of Spooner's imagination.macromanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04142304372187307154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-36470346445885209342012-02-20T15:35:59.089-05:002012-02-20T15:35:59.089-05:00Macro
"The highwayman takes solely upon hims...Macro<br /><br />"The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave."<br /><br />- Lysander Spooner<br /><br />Individual sovereignty FTWekeyrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17413110869433997820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-4135974091451193942012-02-19T21:39:46.844-05:002012-02-19T21:39:46.844-05:00MF and Popper. I think you will find that I said f...MF and Popper. I think you will find that I said from the outset that Popper's views have been criticised. My point was that Popper made a remarkably accurate characterisation of what happens when people argue from Aristotelian, essentialist, definitions; Popper almost exactly described Bala's verbiage and scholasticism. Maybe Popper derived this observation wrongly and it was just a lucky guess, or maybe there was a least a grain of truth in what he wrote.macromanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04142304372187307154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-4946486195611328672012-02-19T21:31:48.495-05:002012-02-19T21:31:48.495-05:00Anderson, what I said was I haven't seen your ...Anderson, what I said was I haven't seen your evidence and the matter was evenly balanced in my mind at the moment, since your post is all I know about it. And I said you may be right (I have seen bad legal outcomes usually due to incompetence or laziness rather than evil intent). <br /><br />Let's grant that you are absolutely right. I also said that a few cases of malfunctions does not mean review panels have no value, which was the whole point. I support evolutionary change - trying to improve things.macromanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04142304372187307154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-85139364506348034032012-02-19T21:15:49.907-05:002012-02-19T21:15:49.907-05:00Tell you what, Macroman, read my posts on the Craf...Tell you what, Macroman, read my posts on the Craft trial in April and May 2010. Read the transcripts of the interviews I posted that summer with the children.<br /><br />If you wish to stand up for scum like Chris Arnt, Len Gregor, Buzz Franklin, and Tim Deal, be my guest. That you would defend these people speaks more to your character than mine.<br /><br />Furthermore, I suspect that during the Duke case, you supported Nifong and Crystal Mangum, along with Newsweek and the NY Times. From the beginning, I pointed out the lies Nifong was telling and during the case I was contacted by writers from the NYT who hated what their paper was doing.<br /><br />But, believe the scum if you so choose.William L. Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802990642236807359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-33331579548187282852012-02-19T20:19:54.561-05:002012-02-19T20:19:54.561-05:00I can see I do have to list some of the reasons wh...I can see I do have to list some of the reasons why armed robbery is worse than taxation. Remember please, I am not here defending any specific taxation. I am merely showing how the comparison of taxation with armed robbery is a very dodgy emotional appeal, not an appeal to reason.<br />Here are some differences. With armed robbery or burglary, even if your resistance is minimal,<br />1. you may be killed<br />2. you may be beaten or subject to cruel and unusual punishment<br />3. what is taken from you may have no relation to what you can afford to pay<br />4. the armed robber is not required to follow due process, or treat you with respect, or explain his actions to you<br />5. You have no power of appeal over the armed robbers decisions<br />6. you have no avenue of appeal about the manner in which the armed robber treated you<br />7. you cannot arrange to meet the robbers demands in an orderly timely way that minimizes the loss to you<br />8. you have no way of voting the armed robber out of from his position of control over you <br />9. The robber gives you nothing in return. The robber does not give you a police force and a court system by which you can seek justice and compensation from the robber. <br />10. The robber does not use the money taken from you to give you roads, bridges, tunnels, water supply, sewerage, weather service, army, air force and navy and coast guard, lighthouses, beach protection, national parks, diplomatic relations with foreign countries making it easier for you to travel, and other things. <br /><br />I know you say you don't want these things from the government and would rather not pay for all "government" services privately, but that is not the point. The point is these things the government gives you are worth something even if they are not the best use of your money. The armed robber gives you nothing and so is worse than taxation. <br /><br />I repeat I am not here arguing that you should stop calling for the abolition of taxes. I am saying that you guys should ditch that appeal to emotion over reason. Forget rape, robbery, truncheons, jack boots, bloodthirstiness and so on when referring to taxation.macromanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04142304372187307154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-2231149574998590052012-02-19T20:19:15.702-05:002012-02-19T20:19:15.702-05:00Anderson, I see on re-reading your post on Tonya C...Anderson, I see on re-reading your post on Tonya Craft and "review means nothing" that you didn't present any evidence, not even hearsay evidence, that prosecutors suborned perjury. You merely asserted it. <br /><br />However, you did give some evidence that those who investigated the matter disagree with your assertions; you quoted a review panel lawyer saying the prosecutors were doing their jobs. In other words, this is hearsay evidence that the prosecutors were not suborning perjury, unless you can show me the rules of the relevant bar association where it says suborning perjury is part of the lawyer's job.<br /><br />So, as it stands, I have to believe the review panel or you. I have a slight bias towards believing an academic staff member of a university, but I also have a slight bias towards believing those closest to the action, like review panels. So who knows?macromanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04142304372187307154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-86750774858944483032012-02-19T20:03:06.016-05:002012-02-19T20:03:06.016-05:00Anderson, I wish you would supply some evidence of...Anderson, I wish you would supply some evidence of your hearsay allegations. "someone told me prosecutors did x, y or z". And please, if if ask you how you would provide security on planes that does NOT mean I think the TSA is the only way to do so. Can you not understand a question is actually seeking your opinion? Can you understand Churchill's line "Democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the others". I am not claiming that no government agent ever did anything wrong or never broke the law. <br /><br />I don't think we should throw out any review process because we have an example of where it didn't work. I would say, improve the process, and maybe you would too. But then "review" does not "mean nothing".macromanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04142304372187307154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-16981283233112789492012-02-19T16:14:06.234-05:002012-02-19T16:14:06.234-05:00Being subject to review, macroman, means nothing. ...Being subject to review, macroman, means nothing. After the Tonya Craft trial two years ago, I spoke to a member of the Georgia State Bar committee that disciplines attorneys, and she told me that the prosecutors were just "doing their jobs."<br /><br />Now, "doing their jobs" included suborning perjury, hiding evidence, manufacturing a false document, having secret meetings with the judge, and disrupting the trial by their "animal house" antics. According to that official, this was fine with her.<br /><br />So, yes, these people are subject to review, but in most cases, the reviewers do nothing. TSA agents are subject to review, but even after their worst conduct, nothing ever happens except that John Pistole declares that they did "exactly as they were trained to do."William L. Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802990642236807359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-21508425149449461782012-02-19T14:47:27.668-05:002012-02-19T14:47:27.668-05:00Macro,
" Can you provide any evidence that t...Macro,<br /><br />" Can you provide any evidence that the police officer or FBI officer is not subject to review, by such things as bureaus of internal affairs, and to external review by Courts?"<br /><br />You do know prof anderson writes an entirely separate blog about the misconduct at every level of our "justice" system? <br /><br />Id read that one more often but it usually just makes me sad and angry.ekeyrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17413110869433997820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-35931883751112911452012-02-19T11:01:56.375-05:002012-02-19T11:01:56.375-05:00Does anybody actually believe you can stop a mania...Does anybody actually believe you can stop a maniac, or group of maniacs, from wreaking mayhem? Security is a myth, undoubtedly one of the most convenient myths wielded by those with power, but a myth nonetheless. The TSA is nothing but security theater for the weak minded, an inconvenience for those with a modicum of sense, and an outrage for anybody retaining even the slightest shred of dignity. The best possible outcome from the TSA is that the maniacs will take their manias elsewhere, which doesn't do a thing to statistically reduce anybody's chances of getting caught up in any resultant mayhem. <br /><br />There's a notable dearth of lone nuts and conspiring maniacs (other than those in charge), but if they ever get their acts together, the security fetish can only lead to a totalitarian nightmare for the masses, which is ultimately the point of all this hysteria to begin with.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-89719334689036116712012-02-19T08:10:45.314-05:002012-02-19T08:10:45.314-05:00Notice what macroman is saying: If I criticize the...Notice what macroman is saying: If I criticize the TSA for police state tactics, then I actually am against ALL airline security. That is not a logical construction, but that is what he is saying.<br /><br />Frederic Bastiat in 1849 said that socialists were like that. If one criticized the government's role in education or other activities, then the socialists claimed that one was against education and roads, etc.<br /><br />Macroman is claiming that ONLY government can provide ANY security at all (which essentially is what Krugman also claimed in his blog post). As I said before, 9-11 was not a failure of airline security; it was a failure of government agencies to put together what was right in front of them. Yet, after a MASSIVE government failure, the government claimed that the problem was that its agents DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH POWER.<br /><br />So, there it is. We have a poster who apparently agrees with that assessment and believes that if we give the State enough power, then some day we will be safe. Of course, who will protect us from the State?<br /><br />Well, according to the Krugmans of the world, as long as Democrats are in charge, we don't have to worry because they put people into power who "believe in government" and act only in the interests of the "public welfare."William L. Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802990642236807359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-41980311674080409122012-02-19T08:02:32.678-05:002012-02-19T08:02:32.678-05:00I find it interesting to see that those on the lef...I find it interesting to see that those on the left now support things like the TSA and its police-state tactics. Four years ago I attended a conference on civil liberties with a number of prominent Democrats being the speakers.<br /><br />Today, almost all of those voices (with the exception of Glenn Greenwald, who also takes on the TSA) are silent now that Obama has control of the administrative mechanism.<br /><br />As for terrorist attacks, let us not forget that every one of the so-called plots since 9-11 has been concocted by the FBI, including the "underwear bomber" who was escorted onto the plane in clearly was another "false flag" incident. One of the passengers on the flight started a blog and I have his statement to the court:<br /><br />http://haskellfamily.blogspot.com/2012/02/victim-impact-statement.html<br /><br />When elderly women are forced to strip and show colostomy bags and when agents refuse to show any respect at all to handicapped flyers, and when the TSA maintains a secret "no fly" list which is riddled with errors, but also is used as a political weapon, then, yes, I would say that the TSA is part of a police state.<br /><br />This is a country in which nearly every jurisdiction has a SWAT team with military equipment, where no-knock raids for the tiniest of things (not paying student loans) are common. Furthermore, police are free to kill innocents (while people on the right and left find ways to justify the killings) and engage in all sorts of lawbreaking.<br /><br />Yes, this is a police state. However, it is impossible to get many on the left to complain because their man is in the White House. But, then, generations before us, the left justified Stalin's murders by claiming that "to make an omelet, you have to break some eggs." And so it goes.William L. Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802990642236807359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-67690374572684406452012-02-19T04:08:34.417-05:002012-02-19T04:08:34.417-05:00Anderson, have you asked your airline if they will...Anderson, have you asked your airline if they will allow you to travel without going through the "police state" security checking procedure? There may be nothing specific in the ticket contract but there is usually a requirement to check in a certain time before departure, that time being based on the time required to go thru the TSA procedures. I haven't heard of any demand by Airlines that they take over the security procedures for themselves. <br /><br />I can imagine that over time, everyone will become complacent about security on airlines and start demanding less checking, until the next catastrophe happens. Come to think of it, sounds very much like the Minsky or perhaps animals spirits theory of boom and bust (see Glass-Steagall Act, partial repeal, Gramm-Leach Bliley Act).macromanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04142304372187307154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-30126186568012407092012-02-19T03:48:42.380-05:002012-02-19T03:48:42.380-05:00Anderson concerning your arguments about the TSA:
...Anderson concerning your arguments about the TSA:<br />“As for the TSA being part of a police state, with the agency invading bus stations and with its Operation VIPR, I would say that we are seeing police state tactics.”<br />Perhaps the TSA is over-reacting, but they and you and I can imagine the uproar from the public if a bus or a big-rig truck were to be involved in a terrorist attack. I do think the DEA is probably a silly idea, and if they are getting involved in operation VIPR I agree the situation requires close watching.<br /><br />“Furthermore, as federal agents, you have to obey them completely, since the maximum penalty for "interfering with the duties of a federal officer" is 20 years in prison. The feds themselves get to interpret what "interfering" and "duties" mean.”<br />If you can show me that no Court or board of review has any say in what constitutes “interfering with the duties of a TSA officer”, I will concede the TSA is very like “the police state”. Courts determine sentences, and the usual thing is that the maximum sentence is applied in extreme cases, where perhaps even you would agree the citizen has gone too far.<br /><br />“With the proliferation of no-knock raids and beatings of innocent citizens by the police, I would say that we now are in a police state. If a police officer can arrest you for nothing -- and that is the case now, especially with the expansion of federal criminal law -- then I would say that is a police state.”<br />Here you seem to have switched from the TSA to ordinary police officers or possibly the FBI. Can you give an example of a new federal law allowing one to be arrested for nothing? Can you provide any evidence that the police officer or FBI officer is not subject to review, by such things as bureaus of internal affairs, and to external review by Courts?<br /><br />“Macroman, like a lot of leftists, now supports this stuff.” <br />Depends what you mean by “this stuff”. I do not support your extreme cases, i.e. I do not support police beatings of innocent citizens but until I see some evidence I think you may have imagined or exaggerated many of these extreme cases.macromanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04142304372187307154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-27520483057805460092012-02-19T03:37:35.288-05:002012-02-19T03:37:35.288-05:00macroman:
Anyone who thinks Popper's epistemo...macroman:<br /><br />Anyone who thinks Popper's epistemology is correct, ought to consider and answer Hoppe's criticisms.Major_Freedomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-86714171787398388952012-02-19T01:33:46.127-05:002012-02-19T01:33:46.127-05:00strawman,
Believe me when I say this, but I just ...strawman,<br /><br />Believe me when I say this, but I just stared reading the first of the readings you suggested - "The logic of scientific discovery" - went through just the Index and the first 2-3 pages and I am already splitting my sides laughing. You mean the guy wrote nearly 500 pages without first defining what knowledge is? Amazing that you fell for this. I'll still read it all just the know it.<br /><br />In any case, what's knowledge?Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-85181636858880256712012-02-18T22:15:47.219-05:002012-02-18T22:15:47.219-05:00When probably the most influential Philosopher of ...When probably the most influential Philosopher of the 20th century says something that challenges you, something that sounds like it can’t be right, the proper course is to wonder how could he say that, what does he mean, have I understood him? This is not an argument from authority; it is a suggestion that his fame means only that you will probably not be wasting your time if you read and understand him before rejecting his arguments. <br /><br />I was once a Rand fan-boy (and had bored myself rigid reading her stuff on epistemology and definitions, out of a misguided sense of duty). So when I saw Popper challenging what every wanna be philosopher says i.e. “we must define out terms rigourlessly” I was puzzled. But I then actually read what Popper had to say.<br /><br />Unlike Rand, Popper he didn’t make just make pronouncements; he argued and showed why the common view is wrong and impractical and is not what is in fact done in the physical science (which definitely does not get bogged down in interminable quibbles about definitions).<br /><br />You would think that Ayn Rand fans might want to read works with the following titles (the first six from Google scholar) just to see what a 20th century philosopher had to say about topics that interested Rand and Mises. <br /><br />1 The logic of scientific discovery<br />2 Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge<br />3 Objective knowledge<br />4 The Poverty of Historicism<br />5 The self and its brain<br />6 Realism and the Aim of Science<br /><br />(And Popper happens to hail from Vienna at the same time as Hayek, similar intellectual background, and Hayek brought him to London after the war). <br /><br />Be warned, though, Popper challenges not just common ideas of epistemology. Under the influence of Hayek I thought Popper’s essay “Piecemeal social engineering” must be wrong. I have changed my mind about that.macromanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04142304372187307154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-49910131877905741992012-02-18T19:55:27.130-05:002012-02-18T19:55:27.130-05:00strawman,
Here's why I think Popper was way o...strawman,<br /><br />Here's why I think Popper was way off base.<br /><br />http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/definitions.html<br /><br />In simple terms, Popper makes no sense and is just a tool in the longer process of the disintegration of knowledge. Popper's method eventually makes knowledge impossible for man. Thanks for showing me why I was right to reject Popper at a very early stage. His approach to "definitions" is very illuminating.Balanoreply@blogger.com