Saturday, December 22, 2012

Tyler Cowen on the Day FT's Fact Checker's Got Fired

FT's Lunch with FT, features Tyler Cowen this week. A quick glance at the piece suggests that FT's fact-checkers must have been fired just before Christmas.

FT tells us that:
Marginal Revolution, the blog he writes with colleague Alex Tabarrok, receives about 200,000 views per post. 
Not a chance.  According to Quantcast, MR probably averages around 20,000 visitors daily, each visitor would have to go to each post 10 times to get to the FT number.

FT goes on to tell us that:
Born in Burden County, New Jersey (“a great place to grow up, there’s a lot of human capital”)
There is no Burden County in NJ. It's probably Bergen County.

Let's move beyond, the off the wall facts.  Cowen is quoted directly with a terrible view of what a "libertarian" in politics should be :
What does he look for in a candidate? “What I would like to vote for is a candidate that is socially liberal, a fiscal conservative, broadly libertarian with a small ‘l’ but sensible and pragmatic and with a chance of winning. That’s more or less the empty set.”
This is a completely beltarian view. The code words "sensible" and "pragmatic" in D.C. really mean anything goes, no government intervention in ones life is off limits.  And as far as linking socially liberal and fiscal conservative, with libertarian, that's another sneak attack by beltarians on true liberty. "Socially liberal" could be viewed by many as being in favor of government sanction of gay marriage. "Fiscal conservative" could be viewed by many as being in favor of raising taxes to balance the budget. Neither of these are libertarian positions. It is simply muddying a clear perspective of what a libertarian is, i.e. one who is against all interventions by government. Beltarians love the muddied definition because it allows them to slither in and out of any D.C. convention or wine tasting and be viewed as reasonable and pragmatic interventionists.

10 comments:

  1. Obligatory ignoramus comment:

    I just hate to see all this infighting amongst libertarians. When will we stop eating our own?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obligatory, no doubt, Sam.

      They are Not "our own"... they are what some might call, sheep in wolf's clothing.

      Sell-outs and such might me ok with a fly floating in their glass of lemonade, but many are not.

      Could you imagine being those People? Ick, it's as if they are ok drinking that fly. And they've been doing it every single day for who knows how long.

      Delete
  2. Your definition of libertarianism is really anarchy, to which I think a lot of libertarians would not adhere to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The definition of libertarian comes down to either anarchism or minarchism.

      A lot of people who see a role for government don't even fall under minarchism. Hence they simply aren't libertarians. They are just moderate statists.

      If you want the government to do more than police, army and courts, then you have no more logical argument for why you're right and socialists are wrong, because the only difference would be a matter of subjective preference, not principle.

      Delete
  3. Joe, I'm curious as to what version of libertarianism does not lead to less and less government to the point of its extinction... What are the good parts that you want to keep? Why would government perform those parts better than the market?

    ReplyDelete
  4. That's part of bigger issue with libertarian, taken to a logical conclusion it would be anarchy in a good sense. I don't advocate govt in virtually anything but I think in terms of basic laws and courts they are necessary. The problem is nothing seems to be able to bind govt they always circumvent the laws intended to bind them. So in a way I advocate anarcho capitalism, but I think law wise it would have some pitfalls, who would enforce laws if there is no govt? I understand you could adjudicate disputes, but who would be a judge? Hire impartial mediators I suppose, but this seems like it would have short comings, never mind murder, rape and the like, who would prosecute these people without govt. if Rothbard or the like has written about this or another libertarian by all means send me a link and I'll happily read how it could be done. But on its face a strictly limited govt does seem like a necessary evil.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I don't advocate govt in virtually anything but I think in terms of basic laws and courts they are necessary."

      Because government's laws are just and the courts work so well?
      Then where is the constitution?


      "who would enforce laws if there is no govt?"

      You think only a monopoly of violence can enforce laws? Then why wouldn't a monopoly of violence make laws good for itself but not for the people?
      Besides, the argument is like "who would build the roads if there is no govt?" Free people find a way.


      "Hire impartial mediators I suppose, but this seems like it would have short comings,"

      You mean, unlike government courts?


      "never mind murder, rape and the like, who would prosecute these people without govt."

      The greatest murderer, thief and rapist is government. Who prosecutes them? It's like you asking the mafia to protect you from the petty thief.


      "But on its face a strictly limited govt does seem like a necessary evil."

      Okay, here are two questions for you:
      WHO is going to "strictly limit" it? The same people that should have done it the last 200 years?
      And if there is this "necessary evil" of a small government, who is going to fund it? You? Or do you want this government to continue robbing me through taxes as well while pretending you support the non-aggression principle?
      Because while YOU may think it is a necessary evil, i may think it is just evil, and pay a fee to a private protection agency instead. The kind that is dependent on voluntary transactions and not extortion and therefor needs to provide good services.

      Delete
    2. Dave, you might be interested in checking out "Anarchy and the Law", which is a collection of various author's writings concerning how legal issues could be handled in a stateless society.

      Delete
    3. Dave, the answer is already discussed, to the point where it has its own Wikipedia page:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_resolution_organization

      Delete
  5. I have to take slight issue with one point in the article.

    "There is no Burden County in NJ. It's probably Bergen County."

    ALL of the counties in New Jersey are Burden County, especially the tax burden.

    ReplyDelete